Introduction
Corporatist states are those ones in which there is a merger between the civil elements of society and state. Corporatism has been particularly associated with a number of countries and many of them have different ways of implementing this phenomenon. However, in order to gain a deeper understanding of this issue, the paper shall place more emphasis on its implementation in Mexico and India as case studies.
Definition of terms
Corporatism is derived from a Latin word which in essence refers to anything that is collective in nature. In other words, the term was borrowed from a medieval understanding of corporations; where different categories of life in society could be merged to better people's ways of life. These categories included monasteries, universities and even guilds. (Kenworthy & Streeck, 2005)
Given this background, corporatism refers to a system (that may be either economic or political in nature) in which power is in the hands of civic groups.country chose to write a constitution that was founded on the principle of corporatism. This system focused on the issue of moral renewal for individuals within its society. This country was actually the first one in the world to formalize their corporatism status through their constitution.
Whether democracy and corporatism can co-exist
In the nineteenth century, corporatism was adopted in order to neutralize class conflict that arose out of a capitalist society. It encouraged functional representation from these particular groups. Additionally, it ensured that there was a merger between labor and capital. The major idea behind corporatism at that time was to create an organic society in which the obligations and mutual rights of its people could be catered for. It should be noted that most countries that exclusively adopted corporatism were fascist regimes such as those ones in Mexico, Italy, Spain and France. (Stevens, 2007)
In Mexico, prior to the nineteen seventies, corporatism was a decorative name. It was used as a tool that would cover up authoritarian rules. In other words, the issue of democracy was a forgotten one in that corporatist state. The state was used to repressing the rights of trade unionists; this was their motive from the very start and in the end, this is exactly what they achieved.
In light of the failure of corporatism prior to that time in Mexico and other countries, many individuals felt that there was no place for such a phenomenon in modern societies. However, certain social scientists acknowledged the fact that there were small elements of corporatism in certain political arrangements. This was the case in countries in which the institutional framework had certain aspects in the functional representation of such systems.
In Western Europe, the issue of corporatism was democratic in a sense because business federations and trade unions worked hand in hand with the state in order to plan and instate favorable policies for the electorate. The purpose of adopting corporatism in such countries was to sustain a welfare state in which these governments wanted to encourage greater productivity levels while at the same time curbing inflationary tendencies. (Stevens, 2007)
While corporatism seemed to be working in Western European countries, one cannot ignore the fact that most of the countries that adopted this system were actually not fully corporatist. In fact, corporatist structure merely supplemented the parliamentary system but they did not replace it. The latter structures were restricted only to relations involving the following groups;
* Government
* Labor
* Big business
In other words, these corporatist structures were not regarded as the centers of the political system; instead capitalism still was.
However, when one places emphasis on Mexico as a corporatist state, one can see that there was a purer form of this kind of governance in their country. In the latter country corporatism was manifested in rather negative light. This was especially the case prior to the political regime when Lopez Obrado took over power. At that time, this leader was interested in breaking down corporatist structures because of the negatives that they had caused in society. First of all, this leader had to deal with many monopolies and oligopolies within their economy. The telecommunication sector, the processed food industry, cement manufacture (construction industry), transportation and many other parts of the economy were controlled by these monopolies in the corporatist regime. The country's trade and industry systems were inherently weak owing to the fact that the principles of economics did not apply to them; this led to dilapidation. (Rodriguez, 2003)
Mexico was also characterized by a series of private conglomerates. Most of them did not have clearly defined functions. Consequently, their contribution to the economy was not well understood and most of them ended up being highly influential in the process of dealing with this matter. It also meant that the nation had given too much power to a group that did not really need it.
It was also imperative to realize that in Mexico, these cartels were regarded as Goliaths. Most of them were impeding greater levels of efficiency within the country. Also, most of them were very poor at ensuring that productivity was kept at its maximum. This also meant that there was very little competition in these economies. Most of them could not carry out their respective duties and this ended up harming the general public.
Lastly, corporatism in Mexico was not an effective system because only two major parties were considered in the decision making process; these were the private conglomerates or business entities and the government. It seems as though the public had been left out of this systems; policies would be approved by government only of it seemed that it would benefit their favored groups.
India is also a unique case in the discussion of corporatism owing to the fact that their model is not based on western ideals. Corporatism in India arose out of its peculiar Hindu and Buddhist culture. Most interests groups in that country are based on the caste system inherent in the Hindu religion. Besides that, corporatism in India is characterized by some ethnic concerns and labor issues. Business owners are also included here. Many scholars have questioned whether there is indeed true democracy in India. This is a difficult question to answer owing to the fact that most Indians have accepted the corporatist nature as it is. Their beliefs are founded upon harmonious co-existence with one another. Consequently, the question of class conflict does not arise in that country. In other words, one can say that corporatism in India protects only some of the latter mentioned groups but it alienates the underprivileged members of society. This means that the true face of democracy is yet to be realized there. (Wiarda, 2003)
Conclusion
Corporatism can only co-exist with democracy if capitalism complements corporatism as was the case in Western Europe. However, if this is the sole centre of power, then the public tends to be forgotten and only the interests of the government and its corporations are accounted for. This was the case in Mexico.
Reference
Kenworthy, L. & Streeck, W. (2005): Theories and Practices of neo-corporatism; Cambridge University Press, p 441
Glinski, D. (2006): The strengthening of the privatized state; Center for international studies and strategic management, 19, 2, 288
Rodriguez, L. (2003): Liberalism, Corporatism and professionalism in Europe, Journal of Accounting Historians, 34, 6, 96-101
Stevens, E. (2007): Mexico PRI- The institutionalization of corporatism; Pittsburgh University Press, p 231
Wiarda, H. (2003): Corpo
Corporatist states are those ones in which there is a merger between the civil elements of society and state. Corporatism has been particularly associated with a number of countries and many of them have different ways of implementing this phenomenon. However, in order to gain a deeper understanding of this issue, the paper shall place more emphasis on its implementation in Mexico and India as case studies.
Definition of terms
Corporatism is derived from a Latin word which in essence refers to anything that is collective in nature. In other words, the term was borrowed from a medieval understanding of corporations; where different categories of life in society could be merged to better people's ways of life. These categories included monasteries, universities and even guilds. (Kenworthy & Streeck, 2005)
Given this background, corporatism refers to a system (that may be either economic or political in nature) in which power is in the hands of civic groups.country chose to write a constitution that was founded on the principle of corporatism. This system focused on the issue of moral renewal for individuals within its society. This country was actually the first one in the world to formalize their corporatism status through their constitution.
Whether democracy and corporatism can co-exist
In the nineteenth century, corporatism was adopted in order to neutralize class conflict that arose out of a capitalist society. It encouraged functional representation from these particular groups. Additionally, it ensured that there was a merger between labor and capital. The major idea behind corporatism at that time was to create an organic society in which the obligations and mutual rights of its people could be catered for. It should be noted that most countries that exclusively adopted corporatism were fascist regimes such as those ones in Mexico, Italy, Spain and France. (Stevens, 2007)
In Mexico, prior to the nineteen seventies, corporatism was a decorative name. It was used as a tool that would cover up authoritarian rules. In other words, the issue of democracy was a forgotten one in that corporatist state. The state was used to repressing the rights of trade unionists; this was their motive from the very start and in the end, this is exactly what they achieved.
In light of the failure of corporatism prior to that time in Mexico and other countries, many individuals felt that there was no place for such a phenomenon in modern societies. However, certain social scientists acknowledged the fact that there were small elements of corporatism in certain political arrangements. This was the case in countries in which the institutional framework had certain aspects in the functional representation of such systems.
In Western Europe, the issue of corporatism was democratic in a sense because business federations and trade unions worked hand in hand with the state in order to plan and instate favorable policies for the electorate. The purpose of adopting corporatism in such countries was to sustain a welfare state in which these governments wanted to encourage greater productivity levels while at the same time curbing inflationary tendencies. (Stevens, 2007)
While corporatism seemed to be working in Western European countries, one cannot ignore the fact that most of the countries that adopted this system were actually not fully corporatist. In fact, corporatist structure merely supplemented the parliamentary system but they did not replace it. The latter structures were restricted only to relations involving the following groups;
* Government
* Labor
* Big business
In other words, these corporatist structures were not regarded as the centers of the political system; instead capitalism still was.
However, when one places emphasis on Mexico as a corporatist state, one can see that there was a purer form of this kind of governance in their country. In the latter country corporatism was manifested in rather negative light. This was especially the case prior to the political regime when Lopez Obrado took over power. At that time, this leader was interested in breaking down corporatist structures because of the negatives that they had caused in society. First of all, this leader had to deal with many monopolies and oligopolies within their economy. The telecommunication sector, the processed food industry, cement manufacture (construction industry), transportation and many other parts of the economy were controlled by these monopolies in the corporatist regime. The country's trade and industry systems were inherently weak owing to the fact that the principles of economics did not apply to them; this led to dilapidation. (Rodriguez, 2003)
Mexico was also characterized by a series of private conglomerates. Most of them did not have clearly defined functions. Consequently, their contribution to the economy was not well understood and most of them ended up being highly influential in the process of dealing with this matter. It also meant that the nation had given too much power to a group that did not really need it.
It was also imperative to realize that in Mexico, these cartels were regarded as Goliaths. Most of them were impeding greater levels of efficiency within the country. Also, most of them were very poor at ensuring that productivity was kept at its maximum. This also meant that there was very little competition in these economies. Most of them could not carry out their respective duties and this ended up harming the general public.
Lastly, corporatism in Mexico was not an effective system because only two major parties were considered in the decision making process; these were the private conglomerates or business entities and the government. It seems as though the public had been left out of this systems; policies would be approved by government only of it seemed that it would benefit their favored groups.
India is also a unique case in the discussion of corporatism owing to the fact that their model is not based on western ideals. Corporatism in India arose out of its peculiar Hindu and Buddhist culture. Most interests groups in that country are based on the caste system inherent in the Hindu religion. Besides that, corporatism in India is characterized by some ethnic concerns and labor issues. Business owners are also included here. Many scholars have questioned whether there is indeed true democracy in India. This is a difficult question to answer owing to the fact that most Indians have accepted the corporatist nature as it is. Their beliefs are founded upon harmonious co-existence with one another. Consequently, the question of class conflict does not arise in that country. In other words, one can say that corporatism in India protects only some of the latter mentioned groups but it alienates the underprivileged members of society. This means that the true face of democracy is yet to be realized there. (Wiarda, 2003)
Conclusion
Corporatism can only co-exist with democracy if capitalism complements corporatism as was the case in Western Europe. However, if this is the sole centre of power, then the public tends to be forgotten and only the interests of the government and its corporations are accounted for. This was the case in Mexico.
Reference
Kenworthy, L. & Streeck, W. (2005): Theories and Practices of neo-corporatism; Cambridge University Press, p 441
Glinski, D. (2006): The strengthening of the privatized state; Center for international studies and strategic management, 19, 2, 288
Rodriguez, L. (2003): Liberalism, Corporatism and professionalism in Europe, Journal of Accounting Historians, 34, 6, 96-101
Stevens, E. (2007): Mexico PRI- The institutionalization of corporatism; Pittsburgh University Press, p 231
Wiarda, H. (2003): Corpo
SHARE
