Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
THERE IS NO OTHER WEST EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY AS HIGHLY SUSPECT throughout the world so far as the extent of its tolerance towards deviant marginal groups is concerned. This is one of the reasons why West Germany is a good case for testing certain propositions about the theory of pluralism in general. In political science terminology pluralism has mostly been used in the restricted way of a certain stage of public philosophy, i.e. in the sense of ‘interest group liberalism’ propagating and perpetuating the faith that a system built primarily upon group bargaining must be perfectly selfcorrective and must have confidence in the balancing impacts of ‘overlapping memberships’ and contervailing powers. The ‘bias of pluralism’ in political science2 included a restriction of the notion ‘pluralism’ to interest groups. It was the highly disputable attempt to sum up all the forms of emancipation movements and their counterforces in the concept of ‘group’, thus equalizing them, and to line up all the cleavage lines which developed at different times of modern history (movements for religious autonomy, nationalism, conflicts between cities and countryside, class struggles etc.) and which had some impact on the formation of party systems, to compete in one arena.
1 Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalism. Ideology, Policy and the Crisis of Public Authority, Norton, New York, 1969, pp. 294 f.Google Scholar
2 Cf. the volume edited by Connoly, William E., The Bias of Pluralism, Atherton, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
3 This is true even for authoritarian societies. Klaus von Beyme, Cf., ‘Authoritarian Regimes - Developing Open Societies?’ in Germino, Dante/Beyme, Klaus von (eds.), The Open Society in Theory and Practice, Nijhoff, The Hague, 1974, pp. 109–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 See for this simplifying evolutionist application Eisfeld, Rainer, Pluralismus zwischen Liberalismus und Sozialismus, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1972, p. 104.Google Scholar
5 Bauer, Otto, ‘Das Gleichgewicht der Klassenkräfte’, Der Kampf, 1924, pp. 57–67 Google Scholar, reprinted in, Hans-Jörg Sandkühler/Rafael de La Vega (eds.), Austromarxismus, EVA, Frankfurt/Vienna, 1970, pp. 79–97.
6 Dino Basili, Cf. (ed), Pluralismo, Tornabuoni, Rai Turin, Lietta, 1976; ‘Pluralismo? Vuol dire…’, Corriere della sera, 2 01 1977, p. 3.Google Scholar
7 ‘Unmenschliches Deutschland’, Der Spiegel, 1977, No 48 (132–154), p. 148.
8 Bakunins Beichte, Insel, Frankfurt, 1973, p. 182.
9 Sartori Giovanni, Party and Party Systems, Cambridge UP, London, 1976, pp. 176 ff.Google ScholarPubMed
10 Inglehart, Ronald and Klingemann, Hans D., ‘Party Identification, Ideological Preference and the Left-Right Dimension among Western Mass Publics’, in Budge, Ian et al. (eds), Party Identification and Beyond, Wiley, London, 1976 (243–273) p. 252.Google Scholar
11 Gert Börnsen, Cf., Innerparteiliche Opposition. Jungsozialisten und SPD, Runge-Verlag, Hamburg, 1969.Google Scholar
12 Mintzel, Alf, Geschichte der CSU, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, 1977, pp. 280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et seq. For the groups left of the SPD, Karl, Frank, Die K-Gruppen, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Bonn, 1976.Google Scholar
13 The most comprehensive of the growing literature on this fashionable subject is Mayer-Tasch, P. C., Die Bürgerinitiativbewegung, Rowohlt, Reinbek, 1976.Google Scholar
14 Dahl, Robert, Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition, Yale UP, New Haven, 1971.Google Scholar
15 On the changing patterns of opposition in the FGR see Hereth, Michael, Die parlamentarische Opposition in der BRD, Olzog, Munich, 1969;Google Scholar Schumann, Hans-Gerd (ed.), Die Rolle der Opposition in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 1976;Google Scholar Schneider, Hans-Peter, Die parlamentarische Opposition im Verfassungsrecht der Bundesrepublik der BRD, Klostermann, Frankfurt, 1974, vol. 1;Google Scholar Veen, Hans-Joachim, Opposition im Bundestag, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bonn, 1976;Google Scholar Vogt, Hannah, Parlamentarische und auβerparlamentarische Opposition, Leske, Opladen, 1972.Google Scholar
16 Kommers, Donald F., Judicial Politics in West Germany. A Study of the Federal Constitutional Court, Sage, Beverly Hills/London, 1976.Google Scholar Säker, Horst, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht, Beck2, Munich, 1975.Google Scholar
17 Laufer, Heinz, ‘Der Bundesrat als Instrument der Opposition?’, Zeitschrift für Parlamentes fragen, 1970, No 3, pp. 318–341.Google Scholar
18 On this see the stimulating book by Lehmbruch, Gerhard, Parteienwettbewerb im Bundesstaat, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1976, pp. 26 Google Scholar et seq.
19 Hennis, Wilhelm, Organisierter Sozialismus. Zum ‘strategischen’ Staats- und Politikverständnis der Sozialdemokratie, Klett, Stuttgart, 1977, p. 81.Google Scholar
20 Narr, Wolf-Dieter (ed.), Auf dem Weg zum Einparteienstaat, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, 1977, p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Bergmann, Joachim et al., Gewerkschaften in der Bundesrepublik, EVA, Frankfurt, 1975, pp. 150 ff.Google Scholar
22 Hardes, Heinz-Dieter, Einkommenspolitik in der BRD. Stabilität und Gruppeninteressen: Der Fall Konzertierte Aktion, Herder & Herder, Frankfurt, 1974, pp. 118 ff.Google Scholar
23 Declercq, Gilbert, Syndicaliste en liberté, Seuil, Paris, 1975, p. 20.Google Scholar
24 Klaus von Beyme, Cf., Gewerkschaften und Arbeitsbeziehungen in kapitalistischen Landern, Piper, Munich, 1977, p. 167 ff.Google Scholar
25 Kai Detlev Sievers, Cf. (ed.), Beiträge zur Frage der ethnischen Identifikation des Bundes Deutscher Nordschleswiger, Akademie Sankelmark, 1975.Google Scholar
26 Hrbek, Rudolf, ‘Das Problem der Neugliederung des Bundesgebietes’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 1971, No 46.Google Scholar
27 Renate Kunze, Cf., Kooperativer Foderalismus in der Bundesrepublik, G. Fischer, Stuttgart, 1968;Google Scholar Kisker, Günter, Kooperation im Bundesstaat, Mohr, Tübingen, 1971.Google Scholar
28 Cf. the controversies between the ministers of the FGR and a Land: Hans Apel, ‘Wie lange soll Bonn die Zeche zahlen?’ Die Länder schröpfen den Bund und machen ihn international handlungsunfähig, Die Zeit, 1977, No 29, p. 3; Kiep, Walther Leisler, ‘Die Länder - nur Querulanten und Quertreiber?’, Die Zeit, 1977, No 30, p. 4.Google Scholar
29 Scharpf, Fritz W. et al., Politikverflechtung. Theorie und Empirie des kooperativen Föderalismus in der Bundesrepublik, Scriptor, Kronberg, 1976, p. 222.Google Scholar
30 Cf., ‘Der Anwalt würde sofort vor die Tür gesetzt. Antiterroristen-Gesetze: Rechtsvergleich zwischen der Bundesrepublik, Frankreich, England und Schweden’, Der Spiegel, No 50, 1977, pp. 49–59.
31 Kozharov, Asen, Monizm i plyuralizm v ideologii i politike, Progress, Moscow, 1976, pp. 158 ff;Google Scholar Julier, Elmar, Pluralistischer Marxismus, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin (East), 1974.Google Scholar
32 Beyme, Klaus von, Politische Theorien der Gegenwart, Piper, Munich, 1976 3, p. 49 ff.Google Scholar My warning of this unholy alliance has meanwhile been taken up by some of Popper’s followers, and recent tendencies of some neopositivists such as Ernst Topitsch, have been recognised as no longer compatible with the principles of critical rationalism. Spinner, Helmut, Pluralismus als Erkenntnismodell, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1974, pp. 234, 278.Google Scholar
33 Lührs, Georg et al. (eds.), Kritischer Rationalismus und Sozialdemokratie, Dietz, Bonn, 1975, vol. II, 1976.Google Scholar
34 Wieczorek-Zeul, Heidemarie, ‘Ein ABC für Sozialdemokraten. Denunzierungen in der einschmeichelnden Sprache konservativer Ideologie’, Die Zeit, 1975, No. 47, p. 8.Google Scholar Felix von Cube, ‘Marx im neuen Gewande. Flucht in eine elte Metaphysik’, ibid.
35 Topitsch, Ernst, ‘Geist und Gleichheit’, Deutsche Zeitung, 1976, No. 18.Google Scholar
36 Brentano, Margherita von, ‘Wissenschaftspluralismus. Zur Funktion, Genese und Kritik eines Kampfbegriffs’, Das Argument, 1971, No. 66, (476–493), p. 492.Google Scholar
37 Preuss, Ulrich K., ‘Zum Problem des Wissenschaftspluralismus’, in his Legalität und Pluralismus, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1973 (117–143), p. 122.Google Scholar
38 Brentano, op. cit., p. 480.
39 Preuss, op. cit., p. 134.
40 Brentano, op. cit., p. 487.
41 Helmut Spinner, op. cit., p. 240.
42 Popper, Karl R., Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde, Francke, Bern, 1970 2, vol. 1, p. 359.Google Scholar
43 Hans Kremendahl, Cf., Pluralismustheorie in Deutschland. Entstehung, Kritik, Perspektiven, Heggen, Leverkusen, 1977, p. 394.Google Scholar
44 Eisfeld, op. cit.
45 Cf. FAZ, 12. 11. 1977, p. 8.
46 For a systematic view on these amendments, Seifert, Jürgen, Grundgesetz und Restauration, Luchterhand, Darmstadt, 1974.Google Scholar
47 Duwendag, Dieter (ed.), Macht und Ohnmacht der Bundesbank, Athenäum, Frankfurt, 1973.Google Scholar
48 Beyme, Klaus von/Ionescu, Ghita, ‘The Politics of Employment Policy in Germany and Great Britain’, Government and Opposition, No. 1, 1977, pp. 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49 Dyson, Kenneth H. F., Party, State and Bureaucracy in Western Germany, Sage, Beverly Hills/London, 1977, (Series No 01-063), p. 65.Google Scholar
50 Claus Offe, ‘Structural Problems of the Capitalist State. Class Rule and the Political System. On the Selectiveness of Political Institutions’, in Beyme, Klaus von (ed.), German Political Studies, Beverly Hills/London, 1974, vol. 1, pp. 31–58.Google Scholar
51 Zeuner, Bodo, ‘Verbandsforschung und Pluralismustheorie. Etatozentrische Fehlorientierungen politologischer Empirie und Theorie’, Leviathan, 1976 (137–177), p. 148.Google Scholar
52 Wolf-Dieter Narr, Cf., Pluralistische Gesellschaft, Niedersähsische Landeszentrale für politische Bildung, Hanover, 1969, pp. 58 ff.Google Scholar
53 Schmitter, Philippe C., ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’, Review of Politics, 1975 (85–131), p. 127.Google Scholar Idem, ‘Modes of Interest, Intermediation and Models of Societal Change in Western Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 1977, No 1 (7–38), p. 9.
54 Volker Hauff, cf./Scharpf, Fritz W., Modernisierung der Volkswirtschaft. Technologiepolitik als Strukturpolitik, EVA, Frankfurt, 1975, pp. 32 ff.Google Scholar
55 Dyson, K. H. F., ‘Left-Wing Political Extremism and the Problem of Tolerance in Western Germany’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1975 (306–331), p. 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56 Cunningham, Frank, ‘Pluralism and Class Struggle’, Science and Society, vol. XXXIX, No. 4, 1975/76 (385–416), p. 411.Google Scholar
57 Nedelmann, Birgitta/Meier, Kurt G., ‘Theories of Contemporary Corporatism. Static or Dynamic?’Comparative Political Studies, 1977, No. 1 (39–60), p. 42.Google Scholar
58 Lehmbruch, Gerhard, ‘Liberal Corporatism and Party Government’, Comparative Political Studies, 1977, No. 1, pp. 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59 Leo Panitch, Cf., ‘The Development of Corporatism in Liberal Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies, 1977, No. 1, pp. 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On a comparison of the failure of incomes policies in Western democracies see von Beyme, K.: ‘Gewerkschaften’, op. cit., pp. 243 Google Scholar ff and the quoted literature, especially by Panitch and others, for Britain.
60 Bowen, R. H., German Theories of the Corporate State, Wittlesey House, New York, 1947, p. 6.Google Scholar
61 Schleth, Uwe, Parteifinanzen, Meisenheim, Hain, 1973.Google Scholar
62 The former secretary-general of the CDU contributed to this dangerous idea; Biedenkopf, Kurt H./Voss, Rüdiger von, Staatsführung, Verbandsmacht und innere Souveränität, Bonn aktuell, Stuttgart, 1977.Google Scholar
63 Schröder, Heinrich Josef, Gesetzgebung und Verbände. Ein Beitrag zur Institutionalisierung der Verbandsbeteiligung an der Gesetzgebung, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1976, p. 269 f.Google Scholar