Unit 11 · Left, Right and the Kinds of Government

In May 1789, King Louis XVI of France had a problem. His government was deeply in debt. He needed new taxes. So he called a meeting that had not been held since 1614. It was called the Estates-General, and it met at the royal palace of Versailles.

French society was divided into three estates, or orders. The First Estate was the clergy, the leaders of the Catholic Church. The Second Estate was the nobility. The Third Estate was everyone else, from rich bankers to poor farmers. The Third Estate held almost all the people, but each estate had one vote as a group.

The Third Estate’s deputies felt the voting was unfair. Two groups could always outvote them. On June 17, 1789, they declared themselves a National Assembly for the whole nation. Three days later, locked out of their hall, they met on a tennis court. They swore not to leave until France had a constitution.

By late summer 1789, the new Assembly was writing rules for France. One big fight was about the king’s veto. A veto is the power to block a law. Should Louis XVI be able to stop any law forever? Or only delay it for a while?

Deputies who wanted a strong king, and who valued old traditions, gathered to the right of the Assembly’s president. Deputies who wanted to limit the king and change France quickly gathered to his left. A noble deputy later wrote that the groups began to recognize each other by where they sat.

The seats became a kind of political map. You could look across the hall and guess how someone would vote. Newspapers began to write about ’the left side’ and ’the right side.’ In the end, the Assembly gave the king a delaying veto. It was a middle path that fully pleased neither side.

The seating habit stayed in France. In French lawmaking bodies of the 1800s, groups kept sitting left, right or in between. Reporters and voters used the labels every day. The words stopped meaning a place in a room. They started to mean a set of ideas.

Other countries borrowed the words. Many parliaments in Europe sit in a half circle, like the French hall. Members often sit in blocks from left to right. Some other parliaments, like Britain’s House of Commons, face each other in two rows instead. Yet people there still talk about left and right. The words spread through newspapers, books and later radio and television.

Today you can hear these words in Mexico, India, Japan, Germany and the United States. This shows how an idea from one place can become part of a global way of talking. But as the words traveled, their meanings shifted. You will see why that matters later in this chapter.

Think of the deputies on the left in 1789. They wanted to end special privileges for nobles and clergy. In August 1789 the Assembly passed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Its first article said people are born free and equal in rights.

Since then, the left has usually stressed equality. That can mean equal rights under the law. It can also mean closing gaps between rich and poor. People on the left are often more willing to change old ways, and to use government to help people who have less.

Supporters say the left has pushed for many things people now take for granted, such as wider voting rights and the right to form unions. Critics say some left ideas cost too much, give government too much power, or change things too fast. Both sides of that debate are part of the story.

Now think of the deputies on the right in 1789. They wanted to keep the king, the Church and old customs. They feared that tearing down everything at once would bring chaos. In 1790 a British writer, Edmund Burke, warned that the French Revolution was moving too fast.

Since then, the right has usually stressed tradition and order. Tradition means customs passed down from earlier generations, like family, faith and old institutions. Many on the right, especially in the United States, also stress liberty from government: lower taxes, free markets and more choices left to families.

Supporters say the right protects what has been tested by time and guards people’s freedom. Critics say some right ideas protect unfair old ways or leave people with less on their own. Just like the left, the right is a family of ideas, not one single view.

In 1789, being on the right meant supporting a king. Today, almost no one on the right in the United States wants a king. The labels stayed, but the ideas under them moved. That is the first reason to use these words with care.

The second reason is place. In the United States, the right often stresses free markets and small government. In some European countries, parties on the right have supported a large welfare system for health care. After the Soviet Union ended in 1991, some reporters called Russia’s old Communist hardliners ’conservatives,’ because they wanted to keep the old system.

So left and right are relative words. They describe a position compared with others in the same country at the same time. Before you decide what a label means, ask two questions. Where is this? And when is this?

Picture the French hall again. Not every deputy sat far left or far right. Some sat in the middle. They agreed with the left on some things and with the right on others. People still call this middle the center, and those who stand there are often called moderates.

A moderate voter might want to keep old traditions and also support some new programs. She might like lower taxes but also want strong public schools. Many voters in many countries describe themselves this way. Centrist parties often try to build deals between larger groups.

Supporters say the center helps a country stay calm and find compromise. A compromise is a deal where each side gives up something. Critics say the center can avoid hard choices or move too slowly on real problems. Those who sit far from the center, on either side, are often called the ’far left’ and the ’far right.’

A map of Chicago’s trains does not show every street. It leaves things out so you can find your way. Scientists and teachers call a simple picture like this a model. A model helps us think, but it is never the whole truth.

The left-right line is a model of politics. It is sometimes called the political spectrum, like the spread of colors in a rainbow. It puts ideas in one row, from far left through the center to far right. That makes it quick to compare parties and people.

But one line hides a lot. A person can want lower taxes and also want big changes to schools. Another can love old traditions and also want more help for poor families. Real people often do not fit one spot. When the line does not fit, the problem may be the model, not the person.

Because one line leaves so much out, some thinkers draw two. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, an American named David Nolan drew a well-known chart. One line shows views on economic freedom, such as taxes and business rules. The other shows views on personal freedom, such as speech and private choices.

Other scholars use a line for economics, left to right, and a second line from authoritarian to libertarian. Authoritarian means wanting strong control by the government over people’s lives. Libertarian means wanting government to do as little as possible.

A grid with two lines can show things one line cannot. Two dictators, one on the far left and one on the far right, may sit far apart on the money line. Yet both sit near the authoritarian end, because both crush free speech. You will study them in the next chapter.

Labels can help. If a newspaper says a party is center-right, you get a quick idea of its views. But labels can also hurt. If you hear someone is ’on the left’ or ’on the right,’ you might guess what they believe about everything. That guess is often wrong.

A stereotype is a fixed idea that all people in a group are the same. Political stereotypes are common. They can make people stop listening to each other. Good citizens ask questions first. What do you think about this issue, and why?

Here is a helpful habit. When you hear a label, look for the actual idea underneath. Ask what the person wants, and what reasons they give. Describe the idea the way its supporters would, and then the way its critics would. That is how historians and careful citizens use these words.

King Louis XIV of France ruled from 1643 to 1715, one of the longest reigns in European history. He built a huge palace at Versailles and made nobles live near him so he could watch them. He made war, set taxes and named officials largely as he chose.

This kind of government is called an absolute monarchy. A monarch is a king or queen who usually inherits the throne from a parent. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch’s word is law. Many kings of that time said their right to rule came from God. This idea is called the divine right of kings.

Supporters said one strong ruler brought order and unity after years of civil war. Critics said no single person should have so much power, because no one could stop a ruler who made bad choices. A few countries today, such as Saudi Arabia, are still described as absolute monarchies.

Britain went a different way. After years of struggle between kings and Parliament, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 limited the monarch. The king could not raise taxes or keep an army in peacetime without Parliament’s consent. Over the next centuries, real power moved to elected lawmakers.

Today the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. A constitution is the set of basic rules for a government. The king is the head of state and has an important role at public events. But the prime minister and Parliament make decisions, and the monarch stays out of party politics.

Japan, Spain, Sweden and Norway are also constitutional monarchies. Supporters say a monarch above politics can unite a country and link it to its history. Critics say no one should hold a public position just because of who their parents were. People in these countries still debate it.

The United Nations has 193 member countries. Only about 43 of them have a monarch as head of state. That count includes 15 countries, such as Canada, Australia and Jamaica, that share King Charles III of the United Kingdom as their king.

Most of today’s monarchies are constitutional. Their kings, queens and emperors open parliaments, greet visitors and stand for national unity. A smaller number, mostly in the Middle East, still give the monarch real control over government.

Most countries have no monarch at all. Many of them are republics. In a republic, the head of state is chosen, not born into the job. You will learn more about republics in the next section.

Around 500 BCE, the Greek city of Athens began one of the first democracies. The word comes from Greek words meaning ’the people rule.’ Male citizens met on a hillside called the Pnyx. Thousands at a time listened to speeches and voted by raising their hands.

This is called direct democracy, because citizens decide laws themselves. But Athens left many people out. Women, enslaved people and foreigners living in the city could not vote. Only a minority of the people who lived there took part.

Direct democracy still exists in small places. In two Swiss cantons, or states, citizens meet outdoors once a year and vote by raising their hands. Many U.S. states, including Illinois, also let voters decide some questions directly on the ballot. Supporters say this is the purest form of self-rule. Critics say it is hard to run a big country this way.

The United States has more than 330 million people. They cannot all meet on a hill. So they elect representatives, people chosen to make laws for them. This is called representative democracy. Illinois voters, for example, elect members of the Illinois General Assembly in Springfield and members of Congress in Washington, D.C.

The United States is also a republic, because its president is elected, not born into power. France, Mexico and India are republics too. Each has an elected leader and elected lawmakers, though their systems differ in the details.

Most democracies today are representative. Supporters say representatives can study hard issues full time. Critics say representatives may drift away from what voters want. That is why regular elections matter: voters can keep a representative or replace one.

Suppose Congress passes a law. The president can veto it, or refuse to sign it. Congress can still override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses. Later, the courts can decide whether the law follows the Constitution.

This system is called checks and balances. Power is split among three branches. The legislative branch makes laws. The executive branch carries them out. The judicial branch, the courts, decides what laws mean. Each branch can limit, or check, the others.

James Madison, one of the writers of the U.S. Constitution, explained the idea in 1788. People who hold power might misuse it, so power must be set against power. Many democracies divide power in some way. Critics note that checks can also make government slow, and some people see that slowness as a benefit.

Think back to Lena and Arman in the story. Both voted. But only Lena’s vote could change who led her country. What made the difference? Political scientists look for a few clear signs.

First, there are real choices: more than one party can run and campaign. Second, the vote is a secret ballot, so no one can punish you for your choice. Third, the press is free to criticize any candidate. Fourth, the count is honest and watched by different sides.

The last sign is the most telling. A leader who loses must accept it and hand over power peacefully. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, says government should rest on the will of the people, shown in genuine elections.

In the Soviet Union, from its early years until 1990, only the Communist Party was allowed to rule. Elections were held, but usually with one approved candidate for each seat. This is called a one-party state.

China today is a one-party state led by the Chinese Communist Party. Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are also run by a single ruling party. Some of these states allow small, loyal parties to exist, but none of them may challenge the ruling party for power.

Supporters in these countries have argued that one party can plan for the long term and keep the nation united. Critics say that without rivals, a free press or fair votes, citizens cannot remove leaders who fail or abuse power. Human rights groups report jailing of critics in many one-party states.

On September 11, 1973, tanks rolled through Santiago, Chile. The army, led by General Augusto Pinochet, overthrew the elected president, Salvador Allende. This kind of sudden, forceful takeover is called a coup.

Pinochet’s military government ruled until 1990. It closed Congress, banned parties and arrested thousands of opponents. Many were tortured or killed. Its supporters said it saved Chile from chaos and built a stronger economy. Chile returned to democracy after voters rejected Pinochet in a 1988 vote.

Chile is one example among many. Argentina, Greece, Myanmar and Nigeria have all had periods of military rule. Generals often promise order and quick fixes. Critics note that armies are trained to give orders, not to listen to voters, and that military rulers often hold on to power.

A dictator is a ruler who holds total power and cannot be removed by fair votes. The 1900s saw some of the most destructive dictators in history. Some came from the far left. Others came from the far right. You will study them in depth in later grades.

On the far left, Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet Union from the late 1920s until 1953. Millions died in his labor camps, called the Gulag, and in famines and purges. Mao Zedong ruled China from 1949 to 1976. Tens of millions died in the famine of his Great Leap Forward.

On the far right, Benito Mussolini ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943. Adolf Hitler ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945. His Nazi government murdered about six million Jews in the Holocaust, along with millions of others. Their ideas differed, but all four crushed free speech, banned rivals and used terror. This is why the two-line grid places them all near the authoritarian end.