Factors that Determine Regime Stability

Introduction

Political stability is a concept that is often discussed as an extremely valued condition because it brings about a situation where there is good political development. Instability, on the other hand, is considered to come about because of a lack of political development on the part of the state involved. This project presents a case study of the determinants of regime stability with specific reference to the Middle Eastern countries of Egypt and Iran, on one hand, and Mexico on the other.

Hypothesis

Most definitions of regime stability tend to be based on the prominence of regularity which has a positive effect on the system of government involved, and fail to consider that stability depends on the unique circumstances facing each regime.

Definition of key concepts

Regime – a government, especially one that is considered authoritarian.

Stability – the state of being stable, in this case political or concerning government.

The justification for dependent variable: positive representations of regime stability

A considerable number of studies present regime stability as the having a positive effect on the system of government involved. It is a means through which governments are assessed by internal actors and brings about a situation where there is the advancement of policies towards such regimes by external actors.

The justification for independent variable

Regime stability is dependent on the prevailing political conditions at home. Some regimes might seem to be highly stable yet prove to be quite vulnerable in the long run. Moreover, those that are seen as being highly volatile end up proving more durable.

Other significant variables

Lack of democratic space: despite the relative stability of a regime, there are instances where the population might end up revolting because they do not participate in politics.

Slow move towards change: the world is rapidly changing and this process has also come into politics. Lack of political reforms could lead to regime instability.

Influence from external actors: there might develop a situation where external actors seek to influence internal events, leading to considerable instability.

Review of Studies on the Topic

The belief in political stability is one that has for the most part promoted the policies of most countries towards others. This is because stability tends to be given more prominence than any other aspect of politics because it enables the achievement of goals that would otherwise be extremely difficult to bring about. Therefore, there is a constant need by countries, especially those that are international players, to ensure that they bring about the maintenance of regime stability in order to serve their own interests (Game III, 2011). Under such circumstances, predicting abrupt political change is often an extremely difficult task because it is often influenced by the way that political analysts conceptualize regime stability. Countries such as the United States and those that make up the EU have pursued varying policies in the Middle East with the aim of promoting a situation where their interests are based on the stability of the non-democratic regimes in the region. A consequence has been that whenever political changes have taken place, they have happened in such a way that has caught them by surprise. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that there is the advancement of greater efforts aimed at bringing about a greater understanding of the stability of regimes in the Middle East and other parts of the world in order to help in the development of more effective policies. There seems to have been a failure in the foreign policies of both the United States and the EU when it comes to understanding the determinants of regime stability in the Middle East and this has been an extremely costly mistake as seen with the events of the Arab Spring and their aftermath.

Apart from the Middle East, another area of concern for the United States for decades has been Latin America (Holden & Zolov, 2000). The political instability in Latin America has been represented through the Roosevelt Corollary and the revolutionary movements that pervaded the Central American nations for decades (Ricard, 2006). A sense of urgency to ensure an understanding of the factors that lead to the development of stable political systems, especially when considering the extralegal means through which power has been seized in the history of some South American countries, has been a hallmark of American policy in the region (Hart, 1977). Despite these events, a study of the political development of Mexico can be considered an essential one when it comes to regime stability. This is because despite revolutions taking place in the country, unlike other Latin American countries, Mexico has been able to ensure that it enjoys a relatively stable political environment for more than half a century (De Janvry, Gonzalez-Navarro, & Sadoulet, 2014). Despite considerable pressure having been placed on its political system due to rapid economic growth as well as other challenges, Mexico has been able to ensure that it continues to remain stable. Under such circumstances, Mexico can be considered a country that has remained fairly stable despite facing similar challenges to its Latin American counterparts, which have not fared as well.

Presentation and Justification of Cases

Claude Ake promotes the idea that political stability is essentially the regularity in which there is the flow of political exchanges within a society (Ake, 1975, p. 273). This is especially the case considering that political stability can only come about because of the decision of members of a society to put restrictions on themselves in such a way that they conform to the limits that have been imposed on them through the expectations brought about by political roles. Moreover, there is need to ensure that there is no confusion between political stability and the lack of political change. Ernest Duff and John Mccamant define a stable political system as one that can essentially withstand change, but also within the political structure that has been developed in society (Duff & McCamant, 1968, p. 1125). Leon Hurwitz identifies five approaches to the study of political stability and concludes that the most effective is to study political stability as a multifaceted social attribute. This view sees political stability as systemic stability and is a synthesis or integration of the other approaches (Hurwitz, 1973, p. 449).

Stability is considered to be desirable for a vast number of reasons and these are based on the need to ensure that there is the provision of an advantage to external players when it comes to the predictability of government actions. The predictability of government actions can be considered to be essential in helping in the development of policy because it determines the direction that a government or regime is likely to take at certain times (Rodrik & Zeckhauser, 1988). Under such circumstances, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the advancement of a situation where external players are able to adjust their policies accordingly in order to bring about the achievement of the most advantage to themselves in their dealings with the regime. This is especially considering that dealing with a failing state can be an extremely daunting initiative, because it is often difficult to identify a counterpart that can be interacted with effectively in order to ensure that there is the establishment of strong policy initiatives. It is normal for countries to make use of a diversity of initiatives aimed at ensuring that their counterparts are able to accept their point of view and become influenced towards achieving desirable outcomes. However, in the case of an unstable regime, it becomes troublesome because the latter does not have full control over the state (Aisen & Veiga, 2013). Therefore, it becomes necessary for government to ensure that there are efforts to get as accurate an understanding of regimes and the possible risks surrounding them before undertaking to bring about a threat to their stability. The ramifications of an unstable regime can be catastrophic not only to the said state, but also to the region within which it is situated. There is need to promote the creation of a scenario where there are limited foreign interventions that might end up risking the stability of states, because regimes, especially authoritarian ones, can end up proving to be highly unstable whenever challenges by massive popular discontent.

The concept of regime stability is one that has a diversity of definitions and this creates a situation where they end up becoming quite controversial (Hurwitz, 1973). A broad definition of this concept is that it involves a situation where there is the absence of any sort of domestic civil conflict or widespread violence that might end up marring the functions of the state. Instead, the regime can be considered to be one that has essentially rid itself of instability in such a way that there are no systematic attacks on persons and their assets within the boundaries of the state. Furthermore, there is the advancement of a situation where there is need for the regime to ensure that there is the creation of an environment where it is in full control of the situation and it can enforce its will on its people. However, this definition might prove to be problematic, because there are instances where despite the political situation of a country looking stable at the moment, the entire system of governance can end up collapsing quite quickly. This means that despite there being no systematic attacks on individuals or property, the regime could actually be quite fragile; only awaiting an incident to trigger unrest and show its fragility for what it really is. An example of this situation is President Jimmy Carter in 1977 praising pre-revolutionary Iran as being one of the most stable countries in a region that was extremely troubled (Carter, 1977). At the time he made this statement, little did he know that the entire regime would end up unraveling within two years and that there would be a revolution in Iran that would overthrow the Shah. Thus, regime stability cannot be effectively defined based on the above definition because the signs of stability tend to end up actually being only a veneer that hides the decay that is actually being experienced within the political system.

Another interpretation of regime stability is one that essentially equates regime longevity with stability (Harymawan & Nowland, 2016). This is an extremely challenging definition because it involves the definition of a country that experiences constant changes in government as unstable. There is a failure to consider that there are some countries in the world that have experienced constant changes in government yet have for the most part maintained the same policies as their predecessors. Such states might even have very stable administrative systems that are not adversely affected whenever there is regime change. A country such as Italy, which had over sixty changes in government over a similar number of years, was able to maintain a fairly stable policy throughout this period without undergoing any form of instability that would have made the nation extremely vulnerable (Curini, 2011). Under such circumstances, this definition becomes redundant because there is a lack of consideration for those states that remain stable even when there is regime change. Another example is that of Belgium, which had to undergo over a year without a cabinet and would have ended up being ranked even lower that Egypt when it came to regime instability (Hooghe, 2012). However, these circumstances proved wrong because Belgium was able to ride out the storm through the ability of its institutions to not only weather the political storm, but also keep administrative activities going throughout the period. This can be compared to the uninterrupted thirty year old rule of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, which despite its longevity ended up falling within days of public protests in the country (Shehata, 2011).

Moreover, another approach to regime stability is based on the concept of lack of structural change (Maoz & Russett, 1993). This is an approach that seeks to promote the idea that a stable regime is one that essentially has the absence of internally or externally induced change in its basic configuration; resulting in a situation where it remains stable at all times. While this approach can be considered pertinent when it comes to the discussion of regime stability, it is also quite problematic because it promotes the idea of structural change, which is often quite difficult to define. Furthermore, there are instances where deep changes take place in regimes that despite the changes end up remaining quite strong to such an extent that there is a level of continuity in their economic, social, and constitutional formations (Eckstein, 1988). Therefore, the stability of regimes can be considered to be based on the unique situation of each state because there are instances where change can happen in a positive manner to such an extent that it leads to the advancement of stability rather than a failure of the regime. Furthermore, there are instances where it becomes possible for the progression of strong regimes through the development of locally induced changes that gradually bring about positive shifts in the power structure that enhance rather than break regime stability.

Speculative Conclusion

The review of literature above has shown that there is a diversity of definitions of the determinants of regime stability. This is because each regime has to be considered based on its own unique situation rather than being generalized. A study of the regimes has shown that those that seem to be the most stable could turn out to be extremely vulnerable and vice versa. It is therefore essential to make sure that the stability of each regime is studied based on its own unique development and the manner through which it has been able to develop towards the promotion of its institutions and their durability.

References

Aisen, A., & Veiga, F. J. (2013). How does political instability affect economic growth? European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 151-167.

Ake, C. (1975). A definition of political stability. Comparative politics, 7(2), 271-283.

Carter, J. (1977). Tehran, Iran Toasts of the President and the Shah at a State Dinner. The American Presidency Project, 31.

Curini, L. (2011). Government survival the Italian way: The core and the advantages of policy immobilism during the First Republic. European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 110-142.

De Janvry, A., Gonzalez-Navarro, M., & Sadoulet, E. (2014). Are land reforms granting complete property rights politically risky? Electoral outcomes of Mexico's certification program. Journal of Development Economics, 110, 216-225.

Duff, E. A., & McCamant, J. F. (1968). Measuring social and political requirements for system stability in Latin America. American Political Science Review, 62(4), 1125-1143.

Eckstein, H. (1988). A culturalist theory of political change. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 789-804.

Game III, F. G. (2011). Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 81-90.

Hart, J. A. (1977). Cognitive maps of three Latin American policy makers. World Politics, 30(1), 115-140.

Harymawan, I., & Nowland, J. (2016). Political connections and earnings quality: How do connected firms respond to changes in political stability and government effectiveness? International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 24(4), 339-356.

Holden, R. H., & Zolov, E. (2000). Latin America and the United States. A Documentary.

Hooghe, M. (2012). The political crisis in Belgium (2007–2011): a federal system without federal loyalty. Representation, 48(1), 131-138.

Hurwitz, L. (1973). Contemporary approaches to political stability. Comparative politics, 5(3), 449-463.

Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624-638.

Ricard, S. (2006). The Roosevelt Corollary. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 17-26.

Rodrik, D., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). The dilemma of government responsiveness. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 7(4), 601-620.

Shehata, D. (2011). The fall of the Pharaoh: how Hosni Mubarak's reign came to an end. Foreign Affairs, 26-32.

The Political Career of Margaret Thatcher

The political career of the formidable Margaret Thatcher began in the voting of the year 1950 and 1951, when she ran for a parliamentary seat on a Conservative ticket. During these elections, she was not only the only female candidate in the race, but she was also the youngest, at twenty five. Although she lost in both elections to the Labour party candidate, she managed to significantly reduce their majority in this constituency. Despite not being able to participate in the 1955 general elections, Thatcher, in the same year ran for the Orpington seat in a by-election in which she was also defeated, but in this case, the margin of defeat was quite narrow. This brought a realization that she could only win in a constituency where the Conservative party was downright dominant. To realize her ambition, she went looking for one such constituency, and as a consequence, was selected to run as the Conservative candidate for Finchley, where she was elected Member of Parliament in the 1959 general elections.

She made her first speech when she defended her bill, which required members of the local authorities to hold their council meetings in public. She displayed her strong will and character by going against the official position of her party by voting for the restoration of birching, which was a form of corporal punishment using a birch rod. From the outset of her career in politics, she declared herself a friend of the Jewish community. She was not only a founding affiliate of a pro Jewish group in her constituency, but she was also a member of the pro-Jewish association of the conservative party. Despite this friendship, however, she was of the opinion that Israel had to give up some of the land it had occupied in order to bring peace in Palestine. Moreover, she considered some of the actions of the Israeli government, such as the bombing of Osirak, as a severe abuse of international law.

In 1961, Thatcher was given an endorsement to the front bench by the Macmillan government of the time, and in this new capacity, she served as the Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. However, when the Conservatives failed to win the elections in the voting of 1964, she developed into the spokesperson for Housing and Land. Here, she showed her strong support for her party’s stand on allowing those tenants living in council houses to be allowed to buy their residences. In 1966, she was selected into the shadow treasury lineup where she was strongly in opposition to the policy of the Labour party which set compulsory price and income management, she stated that such policies would not help the economy and that they would, in fact, damage the economy. At a party conference in 1966, Thatcher criticized the high taxation policies of the Labour government, stating that they were going against the established order of British society and turning towards socialism, and perhaps they would later turn towards communism. Her main argument for this position was that low taxes encouraged people to work harder to earn an income.

She was among the small number of Conservative MPs to hold up the bill whose purpose was to decriminalize homosexuality in men. Moreover, she was also among those who voted in agreement of a bill to decriminalize abortion. She further gave her support for the maintaining of the death penalty but voted against the easing of the laws concerning divorce. These stances serve to show that while she was progressive in some of her views, she was extremely conservative in others. Edward Heath led the Conservative party to triumph in the 1970 general elections, and this proved to be an opportunity for her, as she was appointed Secretary for Education and Science. In her new position, she came to draw much public attention through her promotion of cutting spending in the education system. One of the most controversial moves during her first few months was the abolition of milk for school children at no cost. Because of this move, she encountered a lot of disapproval not only from the ranks of the Labour party, but also from the media.

The Conservative government, during its term, experienced a lot of difficulties resulting from the oil crisis of 1973 to the demands, by trade unions, for the increase of wages for workers. These difficulties led to the slender Conservative thrashing by the Labour party in the 1974 elections. This loss considerably weakened Heath’s leadership of the party, and Thatcher took this opportunity to challenge him for the leadership. Heath was forced to resign his position in the party after she trounced him, in the first vote, and William Whitelaw, the former’s preferred heir, in the second party vote, to become the new party head in 1975. To maintain the backing of the entire party behind her leadership, she appointed Whitelaw as her deputy. Because of the influence of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Thatcher was utterly opposed to the type of welfare state which then existed in Britain, believing that such a system was weakening the country. This institute was a firm proponent of the need for a reduction in the size of government, low tax, and more freedoms to allow businesses and consumers to run their activities without interference from the government. It is most probable that these ideas came to profoundly influence the policies of Thatcher, once she took the reigns of government.

In a 1976 speech, she made an attack on the Soviet Union’s aim to dominate the world, stating that while it did not care about what its people thought and put guns before everything, those who opposed them put everything before guns. These comments provoked a response from a soviet newspaper, which referred to her as the Iron Lady, a reference which stuck. In 1978, despite the economic improvement and the high ratings on the opinion polls in favor of the Labour party, the prime minister at the time, James Callaghan, chose to postpone the elections to 1979. The Labour party lost its popularity due to a series of events, such as strikes which occurred during that winter. The Conservative party took the opportunity to attack the Labour government, and this eventually led to its losing a motion of no confidence in parliament. This led to elections in 1979, with the Conservative party winning a comfortable majority in parliament, and its leader, Margaret Thatcher becoming the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Thatcher’s stand on domestic policy, as in all other issues was clear from the start of her administration. During her term as Leader of Opposition as well as prime minister, there was an increasing racial tension within Britain. When asked about it, she stated that the minorities in Britain added a wide variety and richness and that when these minorities became influential, then the local people became frightened. She further stated that Britain had done so much to bring democracy to other parts of the world and that because of this, it was only natural for the British to feel threatened by those coming into the country, not knowing what influences they would bring. The Conservative party, under her leadership, managed to take away the majority of the support of the far right National Front, almost leading to the latter’s collapse. Thatcher, in her duties as prime minister, was required to meet every week with the Queen to confer about matters of government. This led to a lot of speculation concerning their relationship, with some media stating that they did not agree on many issues, and that, in fact, they could not stand each other. Such speculation gave rise to rumors that a constitutional crisis was at hand, but this was headed off when the palace issued a statement that the media stories had no basis on fact. During Thatcher’s term, she practiced immense thriftiness in Downing Street, which included her insistence on paying for some of the things she used.

Thatcher’s economic policy was based on the belief that the government needed to be in control of all the money in circulation. To achieve this, her government came up with policies that ensured the lowering of direct taxes, especially on income, and the increase of indirect taxes. Moreover, the interest rates were increased so that the money supply in the economy would be reduced, and as a consequence, there would be a lowering of inflation. Thatcher not only established limits on the cash that was used on public spending, but also on social services. Because of her cuts on the government expenditure on tertiary learning, she became the first Oxford educated, prime minister, after the Second World War, to be denied an honorary doctorate. Despite the expression of doubt concerning her policies among some members of her party, Thatcher declared that although they might want her to turn away from them, she would not do so. This expressed her will not to abandon her guiding principles because of her belief that what she was doing was right. Her economic policies came under a lot of criticism from the public, especially during the recession in the beginning of the 1980s, which saw her popularity drop. To counter this recession, she ignored the advice of the leading economists, and instead increased taxes.

By 1982, there were indications of economic mending because of the lowering of inflation, but this was shadowed by the fact that there was a high unemployment rate. In this period, the unemployment rate was so high, the like of which had not been seen since the 1930s. By 1983, however, due to her economic policies, the economy was much stronger with low mortgage rates as well as less inflation. Because of the falling unemployment rates as well as a strong, stable economy, the opinion polls in 1987 showed the Conservatives in the lead. This prompted Thatcher to call for elections a year early, taking advantage of the situation as it was at the time. This must have been an attempt to avoid the same mistake which the Labour government had made in failing to call for an election in 1978.

The 1987 elections saw Thatcher elected for a third term, a sign that her move to call for elections early was exceedingly wise for her and the Conservatives. In the 1980s, a ninety percent tax was imposed on the extraction of oil from the North Sea, and the Thatcher government used the revenue derived to balance the economy as well as to cater for the expenditure of reform. She brought reform to the local government by putting a poll tax in place of the domestic rates. The latter was a tax based on the ostensible rental value of a home, while the former was to be charged to every adult occupant. The imposition of this new tax proved to be one of the most unpopular moves that her government had ever made, and this led to a large demonstration in London, which ended up becoming riots against the poll taxes. These taxes were s unpopular that when her successor came to office, he had them abolished.

Thatcher was determined to ensure that the power of the trade unions was reduced because of her belief that they undermined parliamentary democracy as well as the performance of the economy through their right to go on strike. Her government introduced legislation aimed at reducing the influence of trade unions, and despite going on strike in response, the resistance of the trade unions crumbled. During the elections of 1983, an unexpectedly low number of trade union members (some thirty nine percent) voted for the Labour party. Some have stated that Thatcher singlehandedly destroyed the power of the trade unions in the United Kingdom for a whole generation. Notable among the confrontations between Thatcher and the trade organizations was during the 1984 – 1985 miners’ downing of tools. This was due to the proposal by the National Coal Board to cut several thousand jobs as well as close over a hundred state owned mines. The National Union of Mine Workers, was at the forefront of two thirds of the miners in the kingdom to protest the actions taken by the Thatcher government. In response, Thatcher rejected their demands, comparing the confrontation to the Falklands war, stating that the unions were more difficult to fight, making them a dangerous threat to liberty. The strike went on for a whole year, during which Thatcher refused to back down, and because of this, the trade union had to concede.

The strike gave the economy enormous losses and these were further added when the government went ahead with plans to close more mines, even those that were profitable. As a consequence, thousands of jobs were lost and this led to the devastation of whole communities whose livelihood depended on them. Thatcher had noted that miners had had a hand in the bringing down of the Heath government, and she was determined that they would not do the same to her own. She gained victory through ensuring that there were adequate fuel stocks, and that she had appointed a leader for the National Coal Board who was tough on trade unions. Finally, she ensured that the police had received adequate training and were well equipped to counter any riots. Due to the strong policies which Thatcher initiated against them, the trade unions in Britain came to lose a lot of their power, and with this came a decline in membership. Throughout Thatcher’s government, the trade union membership dropped steadily to number less than ten million.

One of the most fundamental policies of the Thatcher government was privatization and this was accelerated especially after the elections of 1983. More than £47 billion was collected from the privatization of government owned business as well as the auction of council houses. The preparation of state owned industries for privatization ensured that there was a marked improvement in the performance of these industries. Moreover, since most of the privatized industries were monopolies, their privatization did not significantly affect their activities since there was no significant competition. While the privatization of government owned industries benefitted consumers in many ways, there were also some negative consequences, such as job cuts. It can, therefore, be said that the results of these actions were neither good nor bad. The sector which Thatcher considered to be most exempt from privatization was the rail industry. She believed that doing so would be disastrous to the government. The selling of state owned enterprises was accompanied by the easing of the regulations on the financial sector to hearten the expansion of the economy. In 1979, the monetary management of the United Kingdom was abolished, and this allowed the investment of an increased amount of capital in foreign markets. The Thatcher administration promoted the development of the fiscal and service segments to make up for the decline in the mechanized industry of the United Kingdom.

Among the issues which were of significant concern to the conservative government was that of Northern Ireland. The earliest of these was when the prisoners in the Maze Prison held a hunger strike in an attempt to regain their former status as political prisoners. For the duration of the hunger strikes, there was an increase in violence in Northern Ireland in support of the detainees’ actions. Thatcher, as was characteristic of her, did not accept these demands, and declared so in public. However, her government privately negotiated with the Irish republican principals to bring their influence to bear so that the starvation strikes would come to an end. After the deaths of some of the prisoners, however, some of their rights were restored, but the Thatcher government refused to concede to reinstating their former status. In 1984, Thatcher had gone for a party conference in Brighton, where she barely escaped being assassinated by the IRA, in an attempt which left five people dead. Despite this incident, she led the Conservative party in a conference the next day, showing that she would not be cowed by the attempt on her life. This action increased her fame with the public, who derived confidence from her action.

Thatcher saw the need to involve the Republic of Ireland in the governing progression of Northern Ireland as a way of fostering harmony in the troubled area. To achieve this, alongside the Irish prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, she created Irish Inter-Governmental Council in the year 1981. The meetings of this council resulted in the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, which made available to the Irish republic an advisory task in matters concerning the administration of Northern Ireland.  This move provoked a protest in Northern Ireland and prompted Ian Gow, a Minister of State, to resign his post in protest. Gow was opposed to any form of compromise with the Republic of Ireland, believing that Britain had to take a tough stance on issues related to Northern Ireland.

In 1989, the earliest confrontation Thatcher received to her position as leader of the Conservative party came from Anthony Meyer. While she managed to defeat the little known MP from the backbench, his challenge showed the growing discontent with her leadership within her party. Her supporters within the party played down these allegations, stating that her landslide win showed that the majority of the party members still backed her. Although Thatcher received poor approval ratings in opinion polls, Thatcher declared that she did not care about what they said, often citing her unbeaten record since she first got elected. Instead, she chose to stick to her way of thinking without having to change to please anyone. The growing discontent with her leadership within the Conservative party continued to increase, and by 1990, poll results showed that the party had been trailing behind the Labour party for months. Thatcher’s aggressive personality as well as her tendency to overrule the opinions of her associates further led to the dissatisfaction within the party.

It was Thatcher’s willingness to overrule her contemporaries which contributed to her demise. Her decision not to be in agreement to a schedule for the United Kingdom to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism made her second-in-command, Geoffrey Howe, to resign from the cabinet. This resignation prompted her leadership of the party to be challenged and although she won the first round, she did not do so decisively. As a result, a second ballot was called, and despite the fact that she wanted to fight on, her cabinet advised her to withdraw. She resigned her position and was substituted by John Major as party head as well as in the premiership. The latter managed to bring back the party fortunes and in the 1992 general elections, the Conservatives were victorious. Thatcher remained in the backbenches as a representative for her constituency until 1992, when she chose to resign from the House of Commons.

In conclusion, it can be said that Margaret Thatcher was one of the most formidable politicians and prime ministers in the history of Britain. Not only was she firm in her beliefs, she stuck to them no matter what those around her thought of it. The policies of her government were directed at making Britain an environment which was free of government interference, especially when it came to economic matters. Her confidence in her convictions are what kept her going since she was first elected to the time of her ouster from leadership of her party. While this may have been her strength, it also proved her undoing because her unwillingness to compromise led to her losing the support of members of her party.

Milton Friedman on CSR

One of the most fundamental views proposed by Milton Friedman is that a business manager has to make sure that profits are maximized. This is supposed to be conducted in such a way that promotes the objectives of shareholders. These views, while quite important for the achievement of business goals, have been criticized because of the belief that Friedman basically aims at narrowing the moral attitude of a business manager to concentrate on profit maximization instead of applying the virtues of management practices. In this paper, there will be an analysis of the criticisms leveled at Friedman and the manner through which his stance can be defended.

One of the criticisms leveled at Friedman’s stance is that it promotes the idea that profit should be the motivating factor of business managers. An argument that has been made in response to this stance is that managers should always seek to make sure that they are able to advance the ideals and ideas affecting their enterprises rather than seeking to achieve profits (Wight & Calkins, 2008). Profit maximization does not necessarily account for the motivation of the manager towards the achievement of business objectives. Instead, it promotes a situation where there is a drive towards profit maximization without considering the consequences of their actions. Under such circumstances, the manager does not have the behavioral motivation aimed at not only promoting the interests of the business, but also those of the people that contribute to it; especially its stakeholders (Arrow, 1973). Another criticism that has been made concerning Friedman’s stance is that it fails to consider that there are a number of motives, other than making profits, which inform the desire of individuals to participate in business. The achievement of a successful business is not just based on the making of profits, but also ensuring that there is the advancement of inspirational sentiments as well as the motivation that is brought about within the institution. A result of this situation is that it becomes possible for an organization to achieve success without concentrating only on profit making.

Another criticism of Friedman’s model is based on the fact that there are a large number of alternatives to it. Therefore, rather than being perfect, it is a model that essentially has a considerable number of alternatives that could work better than it. When it comes to entrepreneurship, managerial motivations are not necessarily the only determinants of the success of a business (Wight & Calkins, 2008). This is because success often involves a situation where there is the advancement of such ideas as risk taking and the desire to build the business in such a way that it is able to achieve its goals. The actualization of management objectives is fundamental in bringing about a successful business, but it cannot be the only motivation because without such input as risk taking and the protection of stakeholder interests, a business cannot hope to thrive. Moreover, there is also a need to develop means through which rivalries can be handled and this is in such a way that ensures that there is the creation of tactics that keep the business ahead of others (Arrow, 1973). This is especially the case where there is a need to make sure that the business is successful through keeping ahead of rivals, because staving off rivalries helps businesses come to terms with themselves, especially their strengths and weaknesses. Through such knowledge, they can work towards the improvement of products so that they can remain competitive. This is a situation, it is argued, that is not factored in by Friedman’s model.

Moreover, Friedman is also criticized for not factoring in the inspirational components of business practice. This is especially considering that while Friedman explains that motivated self-interest is an essential factor when among managers when it comes to maximization of profits. However, this factor can also end up being a mask for the greed that the managers have because profit alone as an aim can end up making managers make some very unethical decisions (Wight & Calkins, 2008). Therefore, under such circumstances, managers could end up promoting the corporate social responsibility (CSR) not because they are motivated to do so, but because they would likely to make sure that there is the advancement of the reputation of the business. This is especially considering that a manager could make use of corporate social responsibility as a mask for the organization so that it can end up aiding in an increase in productivity, customer loyalty, and finally, profitability. There is, under such circumstances, a failure to consider the ethical responsibility that the business has towards its stakeholders because managers only consider CSR as a means towards an end rather than as an end in itself (Arrow, 1973). Such a failure can end up being disastrous for a business because it only inspires profit making while not really caring about the welfare of stakeholders who actually make the contributions to its profits.

Despite the arguments above, there are cases where Friedman’s views can be defended. One of the most significant aspects of businesses is that they often undergo pressure from shareholders to make sure that they make profits. This is especially the case when it comes to meeting set profit targets because managers are often under considerable pressure to perform. Therefore, an organization ends up developing a culture of profit maximization using any of the means that are available to it. A result is that the business ends up being able to ensure that it undertakes those initiatives aimed at making it more successful through the advancement of profit making for the sake of securing the welfare of all its members. Moreover, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the advancement of means to ensure a positive outcome from its activities because without profits, organizations end up not being considered successful and are at risk of collapse. Friedman is therefore correct because he proposes that the making of profits should be the ultimate goal of any business and managers should be geared towards making this objective become a reality.

In conclusion, Milton Friedman has been criticized for promoting a model that pushes managers towards profit maximization. These criticisms are based on the argument that businesses should do more to ensure that they protect the interests of all stakeholders rather than only shareholders. While this ethical argument is pertinent, Friedman can be considered to be correct in his assumption that the main purpose of business is to promote the making of profit. Shareholders often hold managers responsible for making profits, meaning that it is essential for them to make sure that they make the businesses as profitable as possible through any means necessary, including the use of CSR.

References

Arrow, K. J. (1973). Social responsibility and economic efficiency. Public Policy, 21(3), 303-317.

Wight, J. B., & Calkins, M. (2008). The ethical lacunae in Friedman's concept of the manager. Journal of Markets and Morality, 11(2).