|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
former colonies, there can be several such colonial relationships confronting parties in the colonizing country: France with respect to Tunisia, France with respect to Indo-China, and so forth. Party policy toward colonialism can be contradictory--depending on the circumstances surrounding these various colonial relationships. Although there may be no such thing as a "general" position on colonialism for given parties, particular colonial relationships become more salient at certain times, and judgments of the anticolonial stances of such parties must balance such policy complications. In recent and current international politics, the propaganda value of terms like "colonialism" and "imperialism" are so great that they elicit policy positions from parties in nations that have not been involved in any significant colonial relationships at all or perhaps none with significant impact for politics during our time period. In these instances, we acknowledge and record such explicit policy positions in our scoring. But, simultaneously, we have tried to avoid the "automatic" scoring of parties on this issue according to their public positions on anticolonialism without first determining whether their nation is implicated in any actual colonial relationships and then determining the parties' position on the actual situation. For this variable, when cases of "program" and "practice" disagree, "practice" is favored over "program" in scoring. Operational Definition. "Anticolonialism, " like the previous variable, "East/West alignment," is not interpretable for scoring along a "left-right" continuum on the basis of increase or decrease in governmental activity. We have simply established that anticolonial positions be assigned positive or leftist scores. With this amendment, the same scoring matrix applies, using the basic pro-con scale points in Table 6.9. Note that researchers coded parties on this variable after first determining the nation's status in possible colonial relationships as subordinate or superior. They then chose the appropriate code from those under the corresponding heading. Advocates complete independence
of foreign control immediately; rejects continued
or future cooperation with any superior foreign
country; urges expropriating foreign investments
without compensation. Advocates immediate withdrawal
of forces from colony and preparations for granting
complete independence; accepts expropriation of
investments without threatening sanctions for
compensation. Advocates moving toward complete
independence, but accepts some delay in
accomplishing that end; does not advocate
disruption of relations with superior country;
urges acquiring foreign investments with
compensation. Advocates eventual independent
status for nation, but proposes some period of
training and preparation for this end; willing to
negotiate the nationalization of investments with
compensation. Advocates remaining in some sort
of community with the superior country but with a
(new) status as a self-governing member; urges a
reduction in foreign influences in the
economy. Advocates granting
self-government but insists on some form of
continued political relationship, perhaps ensuring
preferential treatment in trade or other economic
ties; use for maintenance of membership in the
British Commonwealth. Includes ambiguous or
contradictory positions; for parties in nations . .
. . . . . . that are not involved in
colonial relationships. Advocates remaining within a
political community with the superior country,
insisting only upon control of domestic politics,
with foreign relations and defense the
responsibility of the superior country; accepts
foreign investments. Advocates a measure of
self-government, especially for domestic politics,
but insists on control of foreign relations and the
armed forces; investments in the country to be
protected and close economic ties
perpetuated. Advocates status of a political
state within a federal system, with representation
in the federal government, empowered to intervene
in domestic affairs; encourages foreign
investments. Advocates incorporating the
colony into the mother country, with equal
political rights-often a federal solution but not
necessarily; investments, of course, are protected
and increased. Advocates status as an
administrative subdivision of the superior country,
accepting political rule by the superior country
without insisting on participating in its
decisions; often the status quo situation in
colonial dependencies. Advocates retaining the colonies
as colonies, with perhaps some token increases in
political rights but not enough to challenge the
administration of the colony. Coding Results. The means for BV508 in Tables 6.10a and 6.l0b put the average party on the anticolonial side of the issue with party positions becoming |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||