Theo-ideology

Michael Ivens.

The Practice of Politics and Other Essays K. W. Watkins (Nelson £3.95)

Political Culture Walter A. Rosenbaum (Nelson £3.50 and £1.60)

Modern totalitarian politics are so often a religion-substitute that I have come to use the word "Theo-ideology" for *this process of displacement. There are, of course, a number of other drives underlying political stances: sexual, social and, as Lasswell has shown in his Psychopathology of Politics, the experiences of childhood and the family. But religion-displacement is the twentieth century's most potent and dangerous creation.

"Religious politics" is the term Dr Watkins uses in his stimulating collection of essays. "The Chinese situation might also be seen as the classical example of religious politics," he comments. "In present-day China we are confronted not with a cult of the individual but With an actual process of deification . . . What we are witnessing is an attempt to control a quarter of mankind, and through them the future of humanity, from beyond the grave."

It is the ultimate conquest by a Western sub-culture of a vast continent. China has gone down to Marx's Judaic sense of the Day of the Lord, allied to communism. The result, as Dr Watkins puts it, is that: "In official Chinese literature "from the early writings of Mao Tse-Tung, Liu Shao-Chi and later, Lin Piao, through to the present day — writings that are hardly known by name to, let alone read by, the vast majority of western politicians — there is revealed in the minds of the men of Peking, an utter certainty that their system is destined to inherit the earth."

The high standard of Nelson's Political Science Library has been under the general editorship of Dr Watkins, so it is interesting to see him entering the lists on his own account. His earlier Britain Divided, which examined the effect of the Spanish Civil War on British political opinion was rightly praised. His subsequent Can Britain Survive?, which spe'culated on whether democracy would last in this country was unjustly ignored — the price of voicing dangers early — but noted in places like France and Japan.

The last theme is still present in these essays. The great disadvantage of political liberalism is that it is modest and sceptical whereas the Theo-ideologies — or religious politics to Dr Watkins — have the grand sweep of false religion.

In his last essay, Britain at the Crossroads, he notes — as others are now doing — that continuous hyperinflation may end "the British political system as recent generations have known it." And, as in Germany in the 'twenties, the man in the street is reacting with "a growing disillusionment with politics and amounting cynicism about politicians." Aptness with a phrase is a quality of Dr Watkins as well as political perception, and he muses wryly on the way the left "have captured commanding positions . . . in those spheres that both influence contemporary opinion and that are vital in forming the views of those who in their turn will be the opinion leaders in the next generation," (Influencing the Political Future). He then goes on to quote a gruesome example of overwhelming political bias in a British' university exam paper entitled, Socialism and its Critics, that might shock even Dr Rhodes Boyson. One senses a man embattled (brave ly) and isolated (sanely) in a number of the essays. He has kept his head while all about him fellow academics have leaned theirs leftwards, and one gathers that not all editors have reacted well to his honesty, as when he felt it necessary to speak from the heart, rather than academically in dealing with a book that seemed too apol6;getic about the horrors of Fascism He is: good ci.r1 the way that newspapers have portrayed Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Communist China to their democratic readers, and journalists emerge scathed but sometimes praised. But generally, the newspapers toned down the Nazis, either saw the Russians as about to swamp the West Or to crumble in a few days before Hitler, with their tanks made of cardboard, and are denied facts about China.

He is also shockable. Hear him on China: "What sort of regime is it that conducts Political arguments ... under such headlines as: "Hit hard back at the rabid provocations of the filthy Societ revisionist swine." What sort of regime is that teaches its children: "Father's dear, Mother's dear, but not as dear as Chairman Mao." Nor does Dr Watkins sound detached about those intellectuals who are against any form of British defence, yet smile admiringly at thousands of tiny Chinese children parading with wooden guns.

Conservatives apologising or backing away from the 1970 Industrial Relations Bill will be surprised to read him still hailing it as "a long-term defence of our democratic heritage." Unlike many political writers, he is interested in the politics of industry, private and State-controlled, and he rightly points out that:

. . much of recent industrial reactions theory, especially that imported from the United States, will be shown to have but little significance in periods of economic difficulty.

This is true — it is difficult for an employer to be progressive when embattled — but not entirely fair to the United States. The major lesson of American industrial relations is that 'workers will tend to be more productive if they are involved — at the job level — in change.

Apart from the Esso productivity scheme, the 'fifties work in the mines pioneered by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, and a few other experiments, British industry has faked American approaches, and now debased "participation" to the limited idea of workers on boards.

But that is a small criticism. What Dr Watkins is saying in this book is uncomfortably relevant today. Professor Rosenbaum's book is a thorough and clear exposition of ways and means of establishing the "political culture," plus some examples of the findings. And yet, despite his 'evident integrity, he occasionally seems to be Icioking through his own blinkers, as in his confident (and familiar) expose of American equalitarianism as opposed to British "deference." This lands him with howlers such as

putting down British laziness in participating at political meetings to deference for politicians (tell that to the mineworkers or the carworkers!). And he seems oblivious of David Granick's work which has shown that, contrary to the myths, there is far more mobility in British industry, than in its American-6r Soviet—counterparts. Just occasionally—and unfairly—one is minded of the true and cautionary tale of the two pre-war American researchers who investigated the cause of alcoholism in bums. One (a teetotaller) put it down to demon drink; the other (a socialist) ascribed it to the environment.

There is one interesting piece of American research showing that the population tend to be less liberal than the men they elect, and two case-studies of political fragmentation. The first, in Italy, is well documented and emphasises the tendency of Italians to refuse participation in politics, to be suspicious of most people outside of the family and immediate vicinity, and to prefer litigation to elections. The second, Zaire, is descriptive rather than documented — and no wonder. A splendid battery of questions on fragmentation while the Congo erupted would have been a hazardous business for the most resourceful political scientist. Professor Rosenbaum's book is revealing of the strengths and weaknesses of the political scientist who leaves his intuition and sense of the human depths at home. A lot escapes him. That is why writers like Jung have much to offer on National Socialism, and why an historian like Americo de Castro can reveal more about Latin American politics with his awareness of the Hispanic inheritance of the Spanish Caudillo complex than can most political writers. Dr Watkins watches hard but also keeps his subliminal doors open.