Political Ideology During the Cold War Period

During the Cold War period, it was viewed as an officially sanctioned belief system that claimed a monopoly of truth, making a spurious claim to be scientific. Conservative thinkers like Michael Oakeshott treat ideologies as elaborate systems of thought that orient politics towards abstract principles and goals and away from practical and historical circumstances.

William E. Connolly elaborates it as “a set of empirical claims not fully tested, and for practical purposes not fully testable, which functions both to orient political activity and to preserve from destruction, values and higher level beliefs cherished by its authors and supporters.” Broadly, it covers all intellectual positions, surrounding a subject, from the speculations of the crisis to the claims of practitioners’ (Menaud).

However, it may be made clear here that ideology is not philosophy, theory or approach. Still, today it encompasses a wide variety of thought. However, there are many approaches emphasising particular ideologies. Political ideologies are seen as sets of political beliefs involving programmes of political action which draw large-scale views about human nature and/or historical development.

They represent frameworks of thought about politics in which large-scale ideas about human beings and society support more specific ideas about politics which constitute the basis for considered political action (Eatwell and Wright: Contemporary Political Ideologies, 1993). Ideologies essen­tially embody an attempt on the part of an intellectual elite to construct a dogmatic and rationalist blueprint for social and to impose it on the pluralist social life.

Thus, political ideologies are sets of beliefs about politics incorporating specific proposals and general ideas about human beings. Political ideol­ogies make value judgements, support these values by argument in a practical world where their proposals about what to do are taken seriously. The involvement of political ideologies with the world of practice means that they are involved in a world of change. They do not stand still, and change over time. The identity of a political ideology may not be near and timelessly tidy. It constantly undergoes reappraisal.

While studying and analysing an ideology, one should be careful that ideology is neither a ‘theory,’ nor an ‘approach’ or ‘philosophy’. Often ideologues, even scholars, knowingly or unknowingly present their ‘ideology’ as though it were both philosophy and theory. Held finds such cases as a ‘political religion’. But it may be a mix of many things-rational as well as irrational.

“The men of power abstract out of the books of political theory words and phrases, and use them in the defense of an actual set of political arrangements or to justify a call for political change. As this process takes place, however, the original theory ceases to be a theory. The abstracted portions are now an ideology which has been put to work for some practical purpose.” (Andrew Hecker).

When ideology is used to defend an existing system or to advocate a limited or a total change in that system, it becomes a part of politics. It lends legitimacy to the ruling class or may involve an urge for revolution. In many cases political ideologies are presented as political theories such as liberalism or socialism. But political ideology is closely related to politics while political theory involves a disin­terested search for a better society. Its goals are under constant investigation and critical examination. Political Science calls for impartial observation of political and social reality.

Liberal democracy, according to Sartori, is the product of ‘idea-struck age’ and ideocracy. But its theory is besmeared with the tactics of ideologies of Marxian variety, or sociology of knowledge of Mannheim. The latter has become a trend now. It explains a theory ‘in terms of its psychological or economic social sources and functions’. It pretends to become super-rationalism.

But no sociology of knowledge can explain Marx or Mannheim. It can only explain the success of Marx and Mannheim. The thesis of sociology of knowledge blunts the distinction between receiver and creator of knowledge. It is, according to Sartori, neither an epistemology nor a logic. It cannot tell us either whence the creativity of thought springs, or how to judge the correctness of thought. To know how our present knowledge is conditioned or determined, no longer adds to our present knowledge.

With it our knowledge remains where it started, rather takes a step backwards. Accordingly, ideas are to be understood and not unmasked, and our first task remains ‘to inquire whether they are true or false, verifiable or unverifiable, consistent or contradictory’. As a science of ideas ideology has been described either as ‘sociology of knowledge’ (Karl Mannheim) or ‘critical theory’ {Frankfurt School). These views analyse causes of distortion in ideologies.

The first view thinks that our knowledge is determined, conditioned or distorted by our social background. It stands for the best form of society and government, as a matter of faith. It thinks with a closed mind and demands subordination to authority. For such people, ideology is an instrument of politics.

The second view maintains that human society has not yet evolved a rational form of existence, which is still to be achieved. All social institutions and behaviour should be analysed from the perspective of their deviation from a rational form. It is science of ideas which sees how ideas are formed and distorted. This is done by critical examination with an open mind. It allows individuals to question authority. It is engaged in disinterested search for better society. Thus, it moves in the direction of political theory.

Karl Marx (1818-83) wrote on the nature of ideology. According to him, it is a manifestation of false consciousness. In the process of social devel­opment material needs of people advance, but their social consciousness lags behind. This distorted consciousness is reflected in their ideology. Dominant class makes use of ideology to maintain its authority. Both Marx and Engels (1820-95) hold that it is an instrument of protecting the interests of the dominant class.

The bourgeoisie or the capitalist class needs ideology to maintain itself in power. A classless society does not need any ideology. But V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) held that ideology is not necessarily a distortion of truth to conceal the prevailing contradictions. To him, it is a neutral concept, which refers to the political consciousness of different classes.

The proletariat need an ideology – the ideology of scientific socialism for their guidance, lest they would be overpowered by the bourgeois ideology. Georg Lukacs (1885-1971) in his History and Class Consciousness (1923) proposed a theory of dependence of thought on social life which primarily consisted of class relations of material production.

Ideology refers both to bourgeois and proletariat consciousness without implying a necessary negative conno­tation. Marxism itself is the ideological expression of the proletariat. Bourgeois ideology is false, not because ideology itself is ‘false conscious­ness’, but because the bourgeois class situation is structurally limited. Bourgeois ideology is deplorable because it dominates and contaminates the psychological consciousness of the proletariat.

Karl Mannheim (1893-1947) in his Ideology and Utopia (1929) rejected Marx’s theory of ideology on three grounds:

(a) There is no direct correlation between consciousness of a group and its economic interests;

(b) All thought is shaped by its social background: Marxism itself is the ideology of a class; and

(c) Other social groups also have a significant influence upon consciousness.

The false consciousness may be manifested in two forms: ideology and Utopia. Ideology represents conservatism or maintenance of status quo. Utopia represents impetus to change. Marxist vision of a classless society was a Utopia. Thus, the relative character of all knowledge makes knowledge of objective truth extremely difficult. Only ‘free-floating stratum’ of intellectuals between the contending classes can achieve disin­terested knowledge. Mannheim identifies these intellectuals as social scientists. They should be given the authority to rule.

Another school of thought relates ideology with totalitarianism. Ideology as an instrument of motivating people for the achievement of predetermined goals comes close to totalitarianism. Karl Popper (1902-94) in his The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) writes that a totalitarian society claims that it has already found the absolute truth, and strives to implement it ruthlessly.

It is a tool which enables the rulers to mobilise manpower and other resources for a goal which is declared to embody the absolute truth. They do not allow anyone to oppose or criticise the public policy, which is exclusively determined by the ruling group. Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) in her The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) defined totalitari­anism as a system of total domination characterised by ideology and terror.

Ideology of totalitarianism was evolved in early twentieth century to describe the dictatorial way of working of communist regime of the Soviet Union till the end of the Stalin era (1953) and the Fascist regime of Italy (under Mussolini) and the Nazi Germany (under Hitler) till the end of Second World War.

Upload and Share Your Article: