Suvi Soininen, Ph.D
Researcher, Postdoctoral researcher’s project of the Academy of Finland (01.01.2007 – 31.12.2009)
Political Science
Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy
Fax +358 14 260 2535
E-mail: sumaso@cc.jyu.fi
Postal address:
P.O. Box 35 (MaB)
FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä
Two Styles of Politics. Parliament in British Political Theory between the 1920’s and 1970’s
Suvi Soininen’s research intends to show how the descriptions and ‘ideas’ of the British parliament relate to various understandings of politics as activity. The parliamentary perspective highlights how the ‘British’ conception of politics diverges from the conventional notion of politics as virtually synonymous to government, to politics as a conflict between interests, a game between government and opposition, the art of dealing with contingency etc.
From the viewpoint of the theorisation of political activity, the question of Parliament brings out another interesting dividing line between what Soininen refers to as the two styles of politics. Characteristically, the “politics of argument” emphasises results as the ‘essence’ of political activity, whereas the “politics of conversation” turns to the importance of procedures and rules and the play of the game itself.
From a parliamentary perspective, the first style tends to diminish Parliament (or specifically the House of Commons) to the mere rubber stamp of set agenda or even decisions made by public opinion, functional groups or the Cabinet/Government. Economic or scientific expertise often seems to be a determining factor in relation to the content, or activity and sphere, of politics.
Contrarily, the second style implies an anti-foundational understanding of politics. Rules are emphasised, the content of politics, as such, remains open. On the other hand, procedures are also open to discussion and change.