Radicals, liberals, moderates, conservatives and reactionaries (we will call them ‘the five groups’ hereafter) have differing attitudes on whether and /or how far the existing political system or the status quo should be changed. They differ also on policies or courses of action needed for changing the system. Status quo means the existing social, economic and political set up. Disturbing the status quo does not mean tinkering with it, but refers to fundamental changes in deep-rooted beliefs or in foundational institutions. We have to separate ordinary changes from fundamental social transformations. When one ruling party is displaced during elections in a democracy, the new government still represents status quo. There will be cosmetic changes; some old wine will be poured into new bottles. This is the likely scenario, despite the cacophony in main stream Western media, after the election of Donald Trump to US Presidency.
Political thinkers use four dimensions to explain the differences between the five groups to political change. The first aspect is the direction of change, or whether the proposed change will take society forward or backward. A forward change is progressive and a backward change is retrogressive. However, we need to be on guard here, for these terms are value-loaded. ‘Forward’ and ‘progressive’ are, to borrow an expression from George Sabine, ‘honorific’ or in plain language, smell of roses. ‘Backward’ and ‘retrogressive’ remind us of the smelly things of life. But we should attach no intrinsic value to these terms. We should think of progressive change simply as a change from the status quo to something new and different in that society. Likewise, we should understand retrogressive change as return to a policy or institution that existed in the past in that society.
The demarcation line between progressive and retrogressive change lies between the conservative and reactionary segments on the spectrum. The line between these two segments represents absence of any significant change or continuation of the status quo. Everyone to the left of the reactionary segment is progressive. Students may wonder whether conservatives can be called progressive in any sense. Even conservatives are progressive to some extent; though they dislike too much tinkering with the status quo, they allow a few institutional innovations. Only reactionaries want a change from the status quo to something that existed earlier.
Progressive change Retrogressive change
Radical
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Reactionary
Status quo demarcation line
Figure 2: The position of status quo on the political spectrum
Most people cannot be placed exclusively in any single group because their attitudes on issues will range over two or more segments on the spectrum. Even ardent conservatives may have some liberal views. Thus conservatives may agree on the need to cleaning up temple surroundings, and on entry of women into temples on the same footing as men. But we can observe a general tendency; some people more often support conservative policies than any other policies; consequently, we might call them conservatives though their opinions on some questions may not be conservative. Only doctrinaire individuals and party spokespersons may be highly consistent in their political attitudes.
The five groups as outlined in figure 2 above also differ on the depth of political changes they seek. Some would be satisfied with incremental changes or minor social adjustments. These will cause no ripples. Others want fundamental alterations in society or root and branch reforms. They would like to overturn many basic political institutions and create new ones. Such changes will bring in their wake unforeseeable and uncontrollable consequences. To cite an example, many educational reforms can be accommodated in the present system without overturning it. However, measures such as abridging fundamental rights or the powers of judiciary will be drastic systemic changes.
As with the direction of change, so with the depth of change, the demarcation line is that which lies between conservative and reactionary positions, or at the status quo point on the spectrum. The farther people are from the status quo, the greater is their dissatisfaction with the existing order and more drastic the changes they want.
Up till now, we considered the attitudes of the five groups towards direction and the depth of political change. The third dimension refers to how eager are people for change or how soon they want to see the change. Clearly, the more unhappy people are with the status quo, the more impatient they would be. Therefore, they would like the changes to be ushered in fast.
Methods of effecting political change
The five groups differ lastly on theappropriate methods for effecting political change. Political change can occur in many ways: officially or unofficially; legally or illegally/ extra legally; gradually or abruptly; and peacefully or violently. We tend to associate use of violence with extremist political groups.
Here, we make a small detour to alert students to some misinterpretations which are based on shuffling or playing with meanings of common words. Some leftist political thinkers point out that people of all political hues use violence. They cite as examples death penalty, property expropriation, chokeholds (methods used for immobilizing suspected criminals in USA) and other police techniques, and warfare itself. This is an example of what may be called ‘fancy pants theorising’. It deliberately changes the meaning of violence. Morally condemnable violence is private violence with no judicial or moral sanction such as settling scores or use of guns in elections or terrorising tribals in the name of their freedom. It equates violence of murderers with the death penalty awarded by a court of law. It puts on equal footing operations of a national army for self defence with violence of armed marauders. A different example is of a feminist writer who declared that all sex is rape. Though provocative, this statement is ridiculous: how can forcible sexual attack be compared with union of happy married couples? Sadly, many agitations such as for for aazadi which seduce students use similar perversions in the garb of logic and democratic ideals.
Those on either extreme of the status quo on the political spectrum are likely to be at odds with the laws of the society. This is because laws stand for the purposes, goals, and structures of the society. They broadly embody the current social ethos. Opponents of the values, goals, or structures of society will also oppose its laws. On the contrary, conservatives in tune with social values tend to be law-abiding and patriotic, since they are satisfied with the system. Radicals and reactionaries, and liberals to lesser degree, may not endorse the laws or the prevailing judicial system. However, conservatives may also violate the law to gain their political objectives. It is possible that even the conservative rich may be hurt by laws. Then they could violate laws. Examples include corporations ignoring health and safety requirements or stock market manipulators cheating smallinvestors.
We now turn to the values, programme world views of the five groups mentioned in figure 1, their conceptions of desirable societies and their methods for attaining their goals.