T he Evolution of Pluralism
English democracy evolved from a single principle, the right to private property. The English believed that the essential feature of state repression was the use of coercion to deprive people of their property. If this could be prevented, then the state could be brought under control. In particular, if the king could be prohibited from taking any person's property without that person's permission, then the king could not squeeze all the economic surplus out of the people to provide for his luxuries. Nor could the king afford to go to war unless he had the support of the people, for he would lack the needed funds. Thus, the English believed that the state could be tamed if taxes could be imposed or collected without the approval of those being taxed.
How could property right be protected from the state? The solution is not simply a law or a constitution, but a particular kind of social structure in which a number of powerful elites restrict one another's ability to use the state's coercive power. The state can be tamed only when political power is dispersed among groups with diverse interests. Such a situation is described as pluralism.
Pluralism developed in England partly by accident. In 1215 King John found himself unable to control the nobility. To remain on the throne, he was forced to sign the Magna Carta, a contract in which he agreed to impose no taxes on the nobility except when they freely agreed to be taxed. This led to the creation of the House of Lords, wherein the nobility gathered periodically to vote on tax requests from the king.
In time, the right to have one's property secure against seizure by the king was extended to property owners who were not members of the nobility. They began to send elected representatives to the House of Commons, where they also gave or withheld approval of the king's tax requests. The
343
Учебное
пособие
для
философов
и
политологов
power to control the king's revenues proved to be the power to control the government. If the House of Lords or the House of Commons did not like a policy, it could withhold funds until it was changed.
Moreover, neither house of Parliament was dominated by a single group with identical interests. Policies favourable to some nobles often affected others adversely; policies good for merchants were often bad for shopowners or farmers. Thus, besides English kings having to depend on the two houses for their revenues, decisions within each house required a coalition of groups and therefore a compromise of competing interests. Governmental decision-making processes involved increasingly diverse groups and interests.
Of course, English rulers occasionally attempted to destroy these limits on their power and restore the absolute power of the throne. However, these efforts were always thwarted because too many people had too much to lose, should the king regain control. Therefore, if one faction of nobles wanted to restore an unlimited monarchy, others combined to block them.
It has been noted that the existence of the English Channel also played an important role in weakening the powers of English monarchs. The channel prevented European wars from extending into England. Thus, the king could not use external military threats as grounds to create and maintain a large, professional army that then could be used to repress anyone who opposed him. Indeed, England's defense was based on maintaining a powerful navy to control the English Channel — and a navy cannot be used for internal repression.