Chapter 6

Influences of Political Culture

For me, the most disturbing aspect of the [recent U.S. individualistic] political culture is how it puts unquenchable thirst for power, domination, and radical ideology, above facts, reason, and the truth.

- Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore

Above, Al Gore, the U.S. 45^th Vice President, offers his perspective on recent U.S. governing political culture. The characteristics of democracies discussed in the last chapter are only one form of governing ideology found around the world. The differing governing institutions and general beliefs of societal groups generate differing political cultures leading to diversity in attitudes and behaviors. To understand, compare, and explain political behaviors and decision-making for different countries requires knowledge of the diverse world political cultures. This chapter discusses the theoretical and empirical aspects of political cultures worldwide. It develops a Theory of Political Cultures, which, as Chapter 7 will expand, is a necessary input to many critical-thinking projects.

Political Culture Defined

The governing institutions and general beliefs of all societal groups generate differing political cultures that lead to differing attitudes and behaviors. This chapter discusses the theoretical and empirical aspects of political cultures worldwide, including the political, economic, and social aspects of different cultures. Understanding differing political cultures will help the reader analyze both U.S. and world politics.

Political culture defines a sub-set of a country or societal group’s larger culture. Cultural studies often look at the customs, languages, music, dance, dress, food, religions, history (legacy), literature, economics, and politics of countries and societal groups. In its most general sense, culture defines the social conventions surrounding values, lifestyles, and beliefs that influence a country or societal group’s pursuit of their goals. The remainder of this chapter specifically addresses political culture, a sub-set of larger cultures, and provides a theory of how political culture influences societal outcomes. This theory is equally applicable to not only individual countries but also to societal groups such as government departments, military services, political parties, international governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), terrorist groups, organized crime syndicates, corporations, community groups, and many others.

Political culture stipulates the general processes used by a country or societal group to reach its goals (i.e., decisions about who gets what, when, and how^[1]). This includes determining how a country or societal group is organized, how decisions are made, how power flows within the political structure, how both the leaders and the masses (citizens) view their societal roles, and how leaders and organizations interact with the government and among themselves to reach their goals.^[2] Political culture is a major sub-component in explaining and predicting societal outputs, behaviors, and conditions. It also helps identify the constraints (or lack thereof) placed on country and societal group leaders.

In 1963, U.S. political scientists Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba’s groundbreaking work The Civic Culture[3] first associated culture and modernization. Since then, there have been many scholarly attempts to classify differing political cultures and to use political culture as a factor to explain the strength of democracies and performance of governments. A synthesis of political culture literature reveals three principal types of political culture—egalitarian, individualistic, and authoritarian.^[4] Uncovering the differences among these three types of political cultures helps us understand the varying conditions in countries and societies.

Theoretical Foundations of Political Cultures

The theoretical foundations of political cultures are shown in Figure 6.1.

The theoretical characteristics in Figure 6.1 are developed from the liberal rule-oriented constructivist approach to theorizing offered in U.S. social theorist Nicholas Onuf’s book World of our Making.^[6] The figure includes the key components of the rule-oriented constructivist theory of social rules in differing cultures. Social rules tell people (or agents) what they should do (or think), what they must do, and what they have a right or duty to do. When people fail to follow rules, other supporting rules bring consequences (sanctions). Considering their material circumstances, some people choose to follow or disregard rules to achieve their goals. At the bottom of Figure 6.1 are columns correlating with the three principal types of political cultures—egalitarian, individualistic, and authoritarian—and their corresponding dominant rule structure.

Rule-oriented constructivists offer complex institutions consist of a constantly changing mix of three different categories of social rules. The term institution refers to patterns of rules, not just to the people and infrastructure (buildings, equipment, etc.) that make up an entity.^[7] Each of the Figure 6.1 three categories of social rules has distinct purposes and functions.^[8] First, instruction rules delineate the principles and beliefs informing agents (people and societal groups) of an institution’s purposes. Instruction rules tell agents what they should do (or think). Second, directive rules provide specificity to the instruction-ruled principles and beliefs. Directive rules support instruction rules by telling agents what they must do. For directive rules to be effective, they must be supported by other rules (sanctions) stipulating the consequences if an agent does not follow a particular rule. Third, commitment rules create roles for agents; they tell agents what they have a right or duty to do. Commitment rules give some agents well-defined powers, while ensuring other agents those powers will not be abused.

How well these three categories of rules perform their assigned function depends upon their strength and formality. A rule’s strength is determined by how frequently agents follow the rule. A rule’s formality refers to a variety of conditions that set the rule apart and emphasize its importance. Figure 6.1 displays the correlation of the three different categories of social rule with the three principal types of political culture. While all political culture types have mixes of all three categories of rules, specific political culture types will be dominated by the corresponding rule shown in Figure 6.1.

Onuf further offers three principal interests corresponding to the dominant rules in a society and establish motives that govern social behavior and decision-making—standing, security, and wealth.^[9] An agent’s decision-making process includes consideration of all three of these interests; however, one interest usually dominates the final behavior or decision based on the situation’s surrounding structure. Structure refers to institutions and their intended or unintended consequences.^[10] Where instruction rules dominate the decision-making situation, the agent’s principal interests are their standing or reputation among other internal or external agents. Standing entails an agent’s status or reputation among other agents and engenders feelings of esteem or envy. Where standing is the principal interest, the agent compares their situation with that of several other agents and then orders their behavioral preferences so they can be the best among agents. Where directive rules dominate a decision-making situation, the agent’s principal interests are security, which presents the agent with an awareness of threat (war, physical harm, job security, need for power, etc.). Where security is the agent’s principal interest, the agent compares their situation to that of one other agent (the one presenting the threat) and then orders their behavioral preferences so they can be the winner among agents. Where commitment rules dominate a decision-making situation, the agent’s principal interests are wealth. Wealth as an interest not only gives agents access to money or property but also includes other items of value such as health, education, civil liberties, political freedoms, and more.

The three categories of rules also foster three distinct forms of rule, or approaches for governing countries and societal groups. While all three rule categories exist in every society, those societies with a higher proportion of instruction rules are ruled by hegemony. The concept of hegemony used here follows the analysis of Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937),^[11] who argues a governing class must persuade other classes in society to accept its moral, political, and cultural values, making a society’s ideology central to the characteristics of its governing system. As Onuf describes:

Hegemony refers to the promulgation and manipulation of principles and instructions by which superordinate powers monopolize meaning which is then passively absorbed by the subordinate actors. These activities constitute an arrangement of rule because the ruled are rendered incapable of comprehending their subordinate role. They cannot formulate alternative programs of action because they are inculcated with the self-serving ideology of the rulers who monopolize the production and dissemination of statements through which meaning is constituted.^[12]

Societies with a higher proportion of directive rules are ruled by hierarchy. Onuf offers:

Hierarchy is the paradigm of rule most closely associated…as an arrangement of directive rules, it is instantly recognizable as bureaucracy. The relations of bureaux, or offices, form the typical pattern of super- and subordination, but always in ranks, such that each office is both subordinate to the one(s) above it and superordinate to the ones below…. The visualization of this arrangement of ranks linked by directives is the familiar pyramid of organization charts.^[13]

Finally, societies with a higher proportion of commitment rules are ruled by heteronomy. The use of this term is traced to German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who refers to heteronomy as a condition of not having autonomy. Onuf summarizes:

Kant posited heteronomy as an objective principle or command of reason, which constitutes the imperative guide for moral conduct in a situation. Here the individual faces a world of contingency and thus of uncertainty with respect to the consequences of any willful action. Citizens can do no better than heteronomy.^[14]

Heteronomy defines a condition where leaders are never fully autonomous and whose decisions toward particular ends are bounded both by societal rules and their material means. Commitment rules stipulate promises by some agents, promises that become the rights (i.e., promises kept) of other agents. Conditions of formal and strong commitment rules massively restrict agent autonomy.^[15]

A society’s goals correlate with their rule-based institutions as defined by the three categories of rules and forms of rule. A society dominated by instructional rules and governed by hegemony possesses goals related primarily to the good of the leaders and governing elites and focus less on the good of the masses. A society dominated by directive rules and governed by hierarchy demonstrates goals defining the good of specific individuals and groups. The groups can be either members of or associated with the governing hierarchy, which could include a variety of political, economic, and social interest groups. A society dominated by commitment rules and governed by heteronomy creates goals related to the good of the entire society. The theoretical foundations of political cultures thus correspond with Onuf’s rule-oriented constructivist framework and is further supported by societal empirical conditions discussed next.

Empirical Conditions Correlating with Different Political Cultures

Based on a country or societal group’s rule-based theoretical foundations in Figure 6.1, empirical (factual) correlations and some causal mechanisms are comparable with the country or societal group’s conditions. These empirical conditions emerge over decades, if not centuries, as countries and societies develop their rule-based institutions. Figure 6.2 provides a summary of a country or societal group’s empirical conditions correlating with the three types of political cultures. Governing ideologies, governing systems, and religions in Figure 6.2 may be classified by type based on the below discussions. Several IGOs and NGOs have devised methods to measure some of the country and societal groups’ empirical conditions in Figure 6.2 and are discussed in more detail below. Following Figure 6.2 is a discussion of each of the political culture types correlated with the empirical societal issues and measurements each generates.

Governing Ideologies and Systems.^[16]

Classifying governing ideologies resulting from the social rules structure in Figure 6.1 is a challenging and complex task because hybrid governing ideologies combine aspects of different mainstream political ideologies. This complexity contributes to several hybrid governing systems. This section discusses mainstream governing ideologies and conditions found in the world today. The International Governmental Organization (IGO) World Bank authors an annual report on World Governance Indicators.^[17] The report’s authors assess several indicators of the societal outputs of various world countries. For this section, the World Bank’s assessment of government effectiveness assists in evaluating how different governing ideologies correlate with societal outputs (empirical conditions). Government effectiveness indicates perceptions of the quality of a country’s public services, quality of the civil service, degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies.^[18]

Most social science textbooks classify the mainstream governing ideologies or theories into three main approaches. These approaches, and their synonymous names in parentheses, include Marxism (radicalism, critical theory), liberalism (idealism, globalism, neoliberalism, pluralism), and realism (neorealism, populism, patrimonialism, nationalism). These three approaches generally postulate that physical or natural science methods may be applied to the study of human behavior and therefore, social science combining empiricism and rationalism is possible. Marxism, liberalism, and realism can all be considered part of the Positivist approach to social science (behavioralism). These three theoretical approaches differ; however, in their ontologies, or views of how the world works. Because of differing ontologies, these three theoretical approaches have widely differing assumptions. Each of these approaches has its own lineage of philosophical literature dating back hundreds, if not thousands, of years and can be attributed to the likes of Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Marx, and many others.

The discussion below summarizes each of the three mainstream social science ideological approaches and provides their central assumptions. Note: More recent post-positivist or post-modernist approaches to social theory are not included here because they are not the governing ideologies found in existing countries and societal groups.

Marxism: the Layer Cake Approach. Marxists see economics as the key causal mechanism for explaining social behavior. German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883) is the primary author of this approach, with much of his material building on the work of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). To Marxists, the base, or larger bottom layer of a two-layer cake, consists of a society’s economic institutions and resources. The superstructure, or smaller second layer of a two-layer cake, constitutes a society’s political, cultural, religious, and other non-economic institutions. Marxists believe the base, or economics, conditions all society’s other institutions in the superstructure. Marxism’s central assumptions include:

1. To assess political, economic, and social behavior, the structure (base) of the country or society’s economic system must first be understood.

2. Social behavior must be viewed from a historical perspective. Marx’s analytic methodology was historical materialism using the dialectic.

3. Mechanisms of domination (exploitation) in a country or societal system must be identified.

4. Economics are recognized as the driving force of the non-economic institutions (superstructure) of the country or society’s social system.

Marxist analyses focus on class conflict and economic exploitation. In domestic analyses of both capitalist and authoritarian countries the principal class conflict is between the owners of the means of production (bourgeoisie) and the workers (proletariat), who sell their labor to the bourgeoisie. By not paying the proletariat a fair market price for their labor, the bourgeoisie generate “excess (surplus) value” from their enterprises, which become their profits and sources of wealth. The bourgeoisie thus exploits the proletariat under capitalist and authoritarian systems.

Beginning with Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), one of the founders of the Soviet Union, international Marxists applied the Marxist framework of class conflict and economic exploitation to the world governing and economic systems. The international bourgeoisie are considered the developed countries (core), and the international proletariats are considered the developing countries (periphery). International Marxists offer that the core has constructed a world economic structure (capitalism) that extracts labor and natural resources from the periphery. The core generates its excess value (profits) by exploiting the periphery, as it does not pay the periphery a fair market price for its labor and natural resources. The core is facilitated in its exploitation of the periphery by key core agents (developing country ruling elite; multi-national corporations; and IGOs such as the World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc.), which assist the core in building and strengthening the world system of economic exploitation. International Marxists argue that as long as this dependent core-periphery structure exists, developing countries will continue to experience widespread poverty and underdevelopment.

Marx predicted capitalism would eventually give way to a new economic structure he labeled socialism. He viewed the core of socialism as country (government) vice private ownership of the means of production. Under socialism, the workers themselves both manage and work in production and equally distribute the output (materials and profits) of production to the larger population. Marx also theorized how democracy would eventually give way to a governing structure of full communism, i.e., the creation of a perfect, classless, minimally governed system, with a horizontal vice vertical structure where governing actions would be coordinated by committees of workers. Under full communism, international borders would disappear as the entire world would become a classless society. Beyond that, Marx was vague about additional details of his vision of full communism. Many political leaders and the world public often conflate socialism and communism as the same thing—but, as Marx theorized, socialism is an economic system and communism is a political system. No country has ever been governed by Marx’s vision of full communism.

Marx wrote little about intercountry (interstate) conflict because he focused more on the internal struggle (conflict) of the proletariat against the oppressive bourgeoisie owners of the means of production. As Lenin took the basic tenets of Marxism and applied them to the international arena, he offered that the world would be in a constant state of conflict as long as there was uneven international development (rich and poor countries). The causes of this uneven development were that the core rich countries—especially the imperialistic colonial powers—were exploiting the peripheries’ poor developing countries. Lenin called for an international brotherhood, known as the Communist International, of the developing countries to throw off the yoke of the oppressive capitalist developed countries, with an end goal of all world countries uniting in one socialist/communist system. Lenin offered intercountry conflicts started or supported by Marxist countries were thus justified as both a struggle against the capitalists and as movement toward establishing the world state of socialism/communism.

Many thought Marxism disappeared with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union—this is not the case. China, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea still practice self-designed forms of Marxism. Marxism was (and still is in some cases) the foundation of educational systems in much of Eastern Europe, Russia, former Soviet Republics, Africa, and Latin America.

The Soviets took the basic ideas of Marx’s socialism and molded them into a government-owned patrimonial (command) economic system directed by an authoritarian governing elite, i.e., an Authoritarian-Socialist country. Under the Soviets the workers never managed their own production--which is not what Marx theorized. While many countries still give lip service to Marxism-Leninism, socialism, and communism, in fact no country has created economic or governing systems even close to the original ideas of Marx. A large majority of developing-country scholars, politicians, and populaces still embrace a Marxist-Leninist view of the world structure, which strongly conditions their thinking and behavior. Many scholars and policy makers outside the United States or other developed countries think, write, and behave from a Marxist point of view.

Many developed countries (Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) have adopted some socialist tenets as they created Democratic-Socialist (Social Democratic) economic systems. Democratic-Socialists seek to promote a more equal distribution of societal wealth. They see pure capitalism as incompatible with the ideals of liberty, equality, and solidarity. These developed countries do not embrace government ownership of the means of production, except when vital citizen services are not provided by the private sector; but they do deliver strong citizen social programs (health care, childcare, education, housing, food assistance, retirement programs, etc.).

Overall, Marxist-Socialist ideas, as developed by Marx and not as manipulated by the Soviets and other authoritarian regimes, are far from gone. Marx theorized a normative (what ought to be) future ideal condition for a world without societal conflict. To true Marxists the world will reach this ideal condition with the rise of socialist economies and eventual attainment of a world political system of full communism.

Liberalism: the Cobweb Approach. Liberals see the world as a mass of abstract interlocking webs (similar to cobwebs or spider webs), where the nodes of the webs (locations where web strands meet and/or cross) are both government and non-government actors. The web strands indicate the nature of the relationships or interactions between the various nodes. The denser the web, the more constrained government and non-government actors find themselves. Liberalism traces its roots to the writings of Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant, among others. Liberal central assumptions include:

1. Country specific actors and IGOs, plus non-governmental actors, i.e., Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), multi-national corporations, terrorist groups, etc., are all important actors in the international arena and cannot be ignored.

2. Countries are not unitary actors; i.e., countries are made up of many actors and/or institutions that do not necessarily pursue the same policy goals on key issues.

3. Countries are not rational actors; i.e., country decision making is really a complex mix of coalition and counter-coalition building, bargaining, and compromise, which might not lead to optimal decisions.

4. Agendas of country politicians are extensive and complex; i.e., not dominated by military-security concerns.

Countries adopting liberal governing ideologies tend to be democracies, a system where citizens elect their government. Several different forms of democracy have emerged (presidential, parliamentary, mixed presidential-parliamentary, constitutional-monarchies, etc.). All democracies are not alike; some are new, transitional, or weak, while others entail mature, strong (polyarchic) governing systems.

Liberals do not see the world as in a constant state of war. They recognize the international system is based on an anarchic structure, where there is no single all-powerful governing authority above countries. Liberals see the international system of anarchy as being regulated by international law and cooperation fostered by international institutions arrayed in ever-denser webs. They realize; however, that international law does not guarantee justice or prevent all intercountry conflict. Liberals argue countries have the right to make war when they have been injured in intercountry disputes, and international negotiations or legal proceedings do not provide satisfaction. Instead of focusing on war, liberals place more effort in seeking peace.

A key component in the liberal approach to peace is Democratic-Peace Theory. This theory offers that democracies do not go to war with each other (an empirical fact) because democratic values on both sides of a conflict will lead to cooperation and compromise to avoid armed conflict. However, it is also empirically supported how democracies will go to war with non-democracies, who do not share their same values. Democratic-Peace Theory also demonstrates democracies will be internally more peaceful than other political systems. The liberal approach offers how as democracy becomes more widespread, the world will become more peaceful, and other world problems (e.g., poverty, human rights violations, environmental degradation, corruption, etc.) eventually will be resolved. To liberals, a condition of total world peace is possible at some point in the future. The tenets of Democratic-Peace Theory drove U.S. foreign policy for decades after the end of World War II.

Realism: the Billiard Ball Approach. Realists see the world as an array of self-contained countries covered by hard outer shells (i.e., as billiard balls). The balls roll around the billiard table (world stage), frequently interacting (bumping into each other) and sometimes forming alliances with other balls (countries), but also frequently colliding (in conflict) with other balls. Realism traces its philosophical roots to the writings of Thucydides, Nicollò Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes, among others. Realist central assumptions include:

1. Countries are the principal and most important actors in the world system; i.e., country institutions, IGOs, and non-governmental actors are of secondary importance.

2. Countries are unitary actors; i.e., the country has one consistent policy on key issues.

3. Countries are rational actors; i.e., countries make decisions based on their goals and cost-benefit analyses.

4. National security tops the list of important issues; i.e., international military-security issues are considered high politics, while all other issues such as economics and the environment, etc., are considered low politics.

Country power is the most important concept to realists. While there is no one agreed-upon definition of power, it is generally based on the amount of military and economic power a country possesses that can be employed to influence the behavior of other countries. Countries with more power have larger billiard balls (i.e., the United States is really a bowling ball in comparison to Barbados’ tiny marble). Balance-of-power is also an important realist concept, whereby several countries will create an alliance to thwart the threat from other countries. Rational Choice Theory, and its sub-fields of Game Theory and Public Choice Theory, are used widely by realists.

While there are democracies and democratic leaders who govern from a quasi-realist world view, the majority of realist countries are authoritarian non-democracies. Countries employing an authoritarian approach tend to adopt governing systems that are nationalistic, autocratic, dictatorial, fascist, absolute-monarchical, oligarchical, sultanistic, or totalitarian. Authoritarian countries usually lack citizen participation in government and place severe restrictions on citizens’ political rights and civil liberties as discussed below.

Realists see the world as a “nasty and brutish” place.^[19] To realists, there is no ideal end-state for humans, just a continuing cycle of human conflict. Realists take a pragmatic approach to world problems and believe intercountry conflict can best be reduced, for at least short periods of time, by good diplomacy including a combination of alliance formation and proper application of power. Realists see the causes of war as human nature (rage, pride, reputation, revenge, etc.), in addition to differences in the nature of countries or societies (different governing approaches, economic structures, and cultures) and the nature of the intercountry system (shifts in relative power, capability imbalances, alliances, etc.). The security dilemma is a realist concept for explaining outbreaks of war. This concept offers that as one country improves its security by building a stronger military, it may instead find it has actually decreased its security as its neighboring countries get worried and start building their militaries too (i.e., a perpetual arms race). A security dilemma is usually caused by perceptions or misperceptions of country leaders.

Religion and Culture

A country or society’s points of view affecting its decisions and behaviors often are strongly influenced by religion. The rules, institutions, and structures of religions can influence how a country or society is organized and run. It is important that thinkers understand the religious influences that affect their thinking projects. This requires an in-depth search for information on how religion affects the leaders and societies under study, including how it affects political cultures.

The foundation of a religion consists of its sacred texts and supporting materials defining the values, ethics, rules/institutions, and myths of the religion.^[20] There are numerous world religions, but the majority of the world lives in countries under what scholars usually consider the five great religions (listed in order of emergence): Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. Each of the great religions are further divided into denominations or sects, which interpret the sacred texts of the religion in different ways. There are often radical sects whose interpretations of the sacred texts are well outside the mainstream. For example, Islamic Middle Eastern terrorist groups employ a radical interpretation of the Quran to justify jihad—armed struggle against non-believers (non-Islamics). Several U.S. white-supremacist hate groups use a radical interpretation of The Bible to support their racist ideologies and violent activities.^[21]

Political leaders benefit from a supportive majority religion because it offers “…divine sanction to their governance, legitimizes the social order, and can be used to establish boundaries to keep apart or establish links among people.”^[22] Most religions prescribe a framework of social ethics, including helping the poor, caring for others, and proscribing murder and stealing. If mixed with political nationalism, and the two become indistinguishable, religion can have extremely strong influences on societies. This may even result in religious leaders assuming direct or indirect roles as governing officials. Political leaders who claim the sanction of religion may bestow favors on its institutions and leaders. The country may pay the salaries of religious leaders and in return they rarely criticize a political leader. Subsidies for religious institutions, either indirectly through exemption from taxation, as in the United States, or through direct subsidies for their institutions, often facilitate religious leader silence and support.^[23]

Government interaction with religion was seen in how the Roman Catholic Church supported Spanish and Portuguese rulers as part of the colonization of the Americas beginning around 1494 CE. Along with Spanish and Portuguese military and political leaders, Roman Catholic missionaries were dispatched to spread their religion in the Americas. The Roman Catholic Church allied with and was supported by the colonizing military and political leaders and failed to speak up about Spanish and Portuguese abuses of indigenous peoples. It was not until 1542, when Roman Catholic priest Bartolomé de las Casas published his A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies that a church official spoke out about the Spanish enslavement and other atrocities committed against the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Based on de la Casa’s writings and his personal appeals to the Spanish King, a Spanish New Law was issued dismantling the past encomienda system allowing Spanish colonizers to enslave non-Christian people. Even with the New Law and de la Casas’ influence at the Spanish court, the Roman Catholic Church continued to ally closely with the oppressive governance of colonizing Spanish and Portuguese elites. Past abusive relationships are hard to change.

Figure 6.2 correlates different political culture types, religions, and empirical conditions with differing political cultures. These correlations; however, are not “set in stone” and will often differ based on a combination of: (1) the differing interpretations of the sacred religious texts in a society, and (2) the population percentages of members of main and/or different religions in a country or society.

The majority of Eastern Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic countries tend to be developing countries with authoritarian political cultures as they are still in the early phases of modernization and maintain “strongman” rule.

However, there has been democratization in some countries with these majority religions. Over the past few decades, the Eastern Orthodox Christian country of Georgia displays an individualistic political culture, while Eastern Orthodox Christian Greece displays a mixed individualistic-egalitarian political culture. Mongolia is a majority Buddhist country with an individualistic political culture. Among Islamic countries, Tunisia has moved away from a strong authoritarian political culture and now displays a mixed authoritarian-individualistic political culture.

Majority Episcopalian Christian, Hindu, and Jewish countries tend to have individualistic political cultures. As introduced in Chapter 5, Episcopalian Christian churches are hierarchical top-down governed. Roman Catholics, Church of England (Anglican), and some Evangelical churches are Episcopalian Christian. Hindu and Jewish countries are hard to correlate with political cultures. India is the most populated majority Hindu country and Israel is the only majority Jewish country, and both display individualistic political cultures based on other Figure 6.2 assessments.

Presbyterian Christian, mixed (no majority religion), and no-religion (secular) countries usually possess egalitarian political cultures. As described in Chapter 5, Presbyterian Christian religions use a bottom-up governing approach starting with the congregation. Presbyterian Christian churches include Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Church of Scotland, Presbyterian, and other protestant congregations. Countries with a mix of religions (no majority religion), or those significantly secular (large percentages of the population reporting no religious affiliation), tend toward egalitarian cultures. For example, mixed religions in Asian countries Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan contributed to these countries’ modernization after World War II resulting in present-day egalitarian or mixed individualistic-egalitarian political cultures. All three of these Asian countries embrace combinations of Buddhism and Taoism (Confucianism), plus Shintoism (in Japan), and Christianity (in South Korea).

It may be a challenge to uncover exactly how religion influences a country or society’s empirical conditions, but religion’s role in creating political cultures is important to determine.

Economic and Resource Management

Economic and resource management refers to the freedom of citizens to control their own labor and property and the efficient use of public resources. In an economically free society, individuals and businesses are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please (provided they follow the country or society’s laws). In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraints beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself. The NGO Heritage Foundation publishes an annual Index of Economic Freedom.^[24] It assesses a country’s economic legal structure and implementation, size of government, regulatory efficiency, and open market conditions. Then on a scale of 0 (worst) to 100 (best), each country’s level of economic freedom is rated ranging from repressed to free. The general characteristics of country economic and resource management systems are described below based on economic conditions as market (free), statist (mostly free), and patrimonial (mostly unfree or repressed).

Market economic and resource management systems are normally associated with egalitarian political cultures. Current countries with market economies employ free-market capitalism. Marxist-Socialist economic and resource management systems would also be egalitarian—in theory—but no such countries have ever truly existed. Thus, this discussion focuses on market-based systems presenting the neoliberal ideal of free and open economies and efficient country-owned resource management. Taking their lead from the works of Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith^[25] and British economist David Ricardo,^[26] market systems view the main role for the country’s government in the economy is to provide public goods the market is unable to provide (monetary systems, public transportation infrastructure, etc.). Government-ownership of enterprises is contemplated only if the enterprise has no competition, and government-ownership is in the public’s best interest (airlines, power plants, etc.). Market systems enjoy maximum economic transparency and openness. Government-owned resource management in market systems is efficient and transparent. Overall, market-based systems present the fewest opportunities for government officials’ rent seeking (corruption).

Statist economic and resource management systems are normally associated with individualistic political cultures. They are characterized as moderately regulated capitalism. Statist systems experience moderate government control of a country’s economy and government-owned resources. These systems often utilize a mix of patrimonial and free-market mechanisms to manage their economies, while still providing the governing elite ample opportunities for rent seeking. Knowing their opportunities to accumulate capital are dependent upon their control of the country’s resources and economic processes, governing and corporate elite in statist systems strive to ensure they play key decision-making roles in economic and country resource management. Statist systems include some protectionism of foreign trade (tariffs), some government ownership of key enterprises and infrastructure, and a strong emphasis on regulations (licensing, contracting procedures, etc.), allowing substantial rent seeking (corruption) by government officials. In effect, governing elite in statist systems see the country’s economy and resources as their own private business resources and regulate them in a manner providing ample opportunity for illicit capital accumulation.^[27]

Patrimonial economic and resource management systems are normally associated with authoritarian political cultures. They are characterized by repressed economic systems. Patrimonial systems foster maximum government control by limiting which classes of citizens (normally only the governing elite) have access to material resources. In these systems the small governing elite tightly control the economy and decide, often capriciously, how government-owned resources are distributed. Patrimonial systems are usually not transparent and provide almost unlimited opportunities for rent seeking (corruption). The governing elite are given the opportunity to use the national treasury and the country’s resources as if they were their own personal property, and decide what, if any, resources may be distributed for the public good. To maximize their access to societal resources, governments with patrimonial systems maintain strict control over their economies, usually including high levels of protectionism of foreign trade (high tariffs, etc.), high personal and corporate taxes, government-ownership of major enterprises (public utilities, basic foodstuff production, etc.) and infrastructure (ports, airports, railroads, etc.), strict wage and price controls, and a variety of strict regulations (licensing, contracting, customs procedures, etc.) allowing maximum rent seeking by government officials. One analysis of underdeveloped societies found where extensive patrimonialism existed, “the majority of the population are more or less permanently excluded” from the benefits of country resources.^[28]

Political Rights and Civil Liberties

How a country treats its people can be a major indicator of the effectiveness of its system of government. This is captured in the political rights and civil liberties a country allows its people. Political rights refer to citizens’ rights to be involved in the establishment and administration of a governing system, including the right to vote, hold public office, and participate in other political activities (attending government meetings, peaceful protesting, etc.). Ideally, these political rights allow participation in political life without discrimination or repression. Civil liberties allow for freedom of thought, expression, and peaceful action. Civil liberties are usually established in a country or society’s laws that are enacted for the good of the community. In the United States, the Constitution and Bill of Rights provided the foundation for political rights and civil liberties. Former U.S. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt championed the establishment of international standards for political rights and civil liberties as she led efforts to establish the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights used by NGO Freedom House to assess country and territory political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House creates a combined index rating countries and territories as free, partly free, and not free. By this rating, egalitarian political cultures tend to be free, individualistic political cultures free or partly free, and authoritarian political cultures as not free.

Rule of Law

At its core, rule of law refers to conditions where people and institutions, both in the public and private sectors, are subject and accountable to law, regulations, and rules; and these are applied fairly to both the elite and masses. In a nutshell, it means the laws of a country or society are obeyed by everyone and enforced fairly. This assumes there is a process to enact laws that are fair to all individuals and institutions and prevents the abuse of power. It also assumes there are fair systems to interpret the law, enforce the law, adjudicate individuals and organizations found violating the law, apply sanctions, and intervene when there are civil disputes.

There is no single definition or agreed-upon measurement of rule of law. The World Bank’s World Governance Indicators and Freedom House’s Freedom in the World, both discussed above, include differing rule of law evaluation factors in their research. One of the more comprehensive measurements of rule of law is found in the NGO World Justice Project’s annual Rule of Law Index.[29] The World Justice Project’s annual index focuses on two main principles. First, whether the law constrains the exercise of power by the country, individuals, and private organizations. Second, does the law serve the public’s interests, protect people from violence, and ensure methods to mediate disputes and grievances. To measure these principles the Rule of Law Index includes assessments of constraints on government power, absence of corruption, openness of government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice. The Rule of Law Index is designed to be applicable to any governing ideology or governing system.

Differing political cultures have different levels of rule of law accountability. Egalitarian political cultures tend to have strong rule of law where both elites and citizens are equally held accountable for violating societal rules. Individualistic political cultures tend toward selective rule of law, with governing leaders and certain interest groups seldom being held accountable for their actions. Authoritarian political cultures usually have weak rule of law accountability for their leaders and governing elites. In both individualistic and authoritarian political cultures, rule of law accountability is mainly used to control the masses (citizens), including initiating legal proceedings to suppress government opposition. Within Figure 6.2, two aspects of rule of law are especially important to assessing political cultures—levels of elite accountability and corruption.

Elite Accountability. Of particular concern to measures of rule of law is how a country or society’s elite are held accountable. Ideally, leaders and elites, both those politically connected and the wealthy, should be treated equally under the law as do other members of the country or society. This means leaders and elites should be accountable to the same laws and should not be immune to legal sanctions. No one should be “above the law.” Unfortunately, this is often not the case in many countries or societies, especially in individualistic and authoritarian political cultures.

Corruption. The World Bank defines corruption as the “abuse of public office for private gain.” Corruption is limited to relationships between politics and government-owned resources (money, property, etc.). In the private sector, the illegal abuse of office for private gain is considered fraud. Both corruption and fraud are often known as rent seeking. When corrupt political leaders or elites enrich themselves through the abuse of public resources, it diverts these resources away from serving public interests. One of the main corrupt behaviors is when unregulated sources of money in politics unduly influence public policy in favor of the interests of the money’s sources. Unregulated campaign donations, with future direct or implied expectations of reciprocity for the donor, are one of the main causes of corruption in democratic governing systems.

The World Bank’s World Governance Indicators, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World, and World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index research address country corruption levels. The most in-depth measure of corruption in individual countries is produced by the NGO Transparency International in their annual Corruption Perceptions Index.^[30] Transparency International research has found countries tend to have less corruption when political campaign financing is regulated, policymakers receive societal input from other than the politically connected and wealthy, and concentration of political power by the wealthy is limited.

Civic Engagement and Social Capital

Individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern is a definition of civic engagement.^[31] Found in many forms, civic engagement fosters electoral participation, organizational involvement, volunteer work, and a myriad of other civic activities.^[32] Further, civic engagement is the ability of individuals and societal groups to jointly solve problems and achieve community political, economic, and social goals. Community engagement generates norms (informal rules) of reciprocity. At the individual level, it creates reciprocity conditions of “if I do something for you, then I expect you will do something for me.” At the larger societal level, it generates a broader general reciprocity of “if I do things for others, then at some time in the future others will do things for me.” Civic engagement activities are what U.S. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam dubbed the “WD 40” that lubricates social interactions and builds trustworthiness throughout a society.^[33] The strength of civic engagement directly cultivates a “sense of community,” speaks to the “social fabric” of a society, and is a significant factor in building social capital (trust) discussed below.

Putnam identified several categories of civic engagement and community participation that help build social trust (social capital).^[34] Civic engagement (the focus of this book) includes not only voting but also volunteering to promote political candidates and working in polling stations. It also includes engaging political leaders and government agencies at all levels through letter writing, personal meetings with office holders, political meeting attendance, and even political protest participation.

In addition to civic engagement, non-political community participation is also a key factor in building social capital. This entails membership and engagement with a myriad of NGOs ranging from Scout troops and food banks to professional and social organizations, among thousands of other NGO activities. It also includes religious community participation through membership in a religious group and engagement with other similar religious groups at the local, state, country, and national levels. Community participation occurs in the individual’s specific workplace and with outside workplaces providing materials or other support to the individual’s workplace, and with unions representing workers. Community participation also entails informal social community interactions with family and friends. Except for the rare individual isolated from the larger society, every individual will be members and participate at different levels with a variety of political, civic, religious, workplace, family, and other informal groups.

Scholars coined the term social capital to conceptualize the output of civic engagement and community participation to allow its study. Social capital is normally thought to include three major components: social networks, social norms, and social trust.^[35] Social networks include the many nodes and connections of political, economic, and social groups and their relationships with individuals and among each other. This is similar to the “liberal cobweb” metaphor discussed earlier. The strength of the social networks can be determined by the number and nature of interactions among the many nodes. Sociologists have created methodological techniques of network analysis to study the size and strength of social networks. Social rules concern the laws, regulations, and informal norms that govern interactions for individuals and social groups. Of particular concern are the informal norms that help create general reciprocity. Social networks also include social norms (rules) that contribute to the creation of social trust; i.e., the ability to trust conditions of general reciprocity among nodes. Since it cannot be directly measured with the human senses, social trust is an intersubjective factor measurable through observation of social interactions and by answers to survey questions about an individual’s feelings concerning social trust. The terms social capital and social trust often are used interchangeably, but social capital is actually a broader concept incorporating social networks, social norms, and social trust.

Putnam identified two different types of social capital to better understand its effects in a society.^[36] Bonding social capital is the level of trust generated within a social group (family, workplace, or societal group). An individual may belong to a number of social groups that build bonding social capital. Putnam offers that bonding social capital is the “superglue” holding individual social groups together and affecting their abilities to meet their goals.^[37] Bridging social capital is the level of social trust generated by interactions among several groups outside of the bonded social group. Most social groups exist in a network of similar social groups. Bonding social capital is the previously mentioned “WD 40,” which lubricates relationships in the larger civil society.

Scholars have correlated social capital as a major factor in assessing societal conditions. Societies with higher levels of social capital have less crime and more secure neighborhoods; better health care, educational, and welfare systems; improved economies; and are overall happier.^[38] For the United States in 2000, Putnam identified the region with the highest social capital as the upper-Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Dakotas, Iowa). He explains this region’s higher social capital results largely from its population streams that originated in Scandinavia, Northern Europe, and West-Central Europe, regions that have the highest social capital in the world and foster the formation of complex civil societies with strong bridging social capital. Putnam also identified the U.S. region with the lowest social capital as the deep-South (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee). He explains this region’s lower social capital results from the aftermath of slavery in the post-Civil War era where racial segregation (Jim Crow) laws and policies kept these societies fractured along ethnic lines and retarded development of social capital and strong civil societies.^[39]

Strong bonding social capital can also have negative societal effects; for example, it may become so strong as to deny group entry and benefits to non-members. Strong bonding also may produce pressure toward social conformity, thus limiting personal freedoms. Strongly bonded groups also may restrict their ability to bridge with other outside groups and thus retard the bonded group’s ability to build bridging social capital by participating in the larger civic society. Mafia crime syndicates are examples of a strongly bonded social group with limited interactions with other groups. A Mafia group often is made up of family members and only the most loyal members from outside the family and normally only trust members who are part of the group. Mafia groups tend to distrust outsiders. Strict conformance with the bonded group’s rules, usually established by a central leader or group of leaders, is expected from all group members. Such conditions of strong bonding social capital also will be found in other organized crime groups (drug cartels, international and domestic gangs, etc.), in addition to centrally controlled terrorist and insurgency groups.

Recently scholars have devised a number of methods to measure social capital in states, countries, and among societal groups. The World Bank focuses on researching social capital in developing countries, as it has been shown that lower social capital retards sustainable development.^[40] Several international governmental organizations, including the World Bank, and NGOs also conduct research and publish measurements of social capital for all world countries.^[41] While several researchers study social capital in the United States, the Pennsylvania State University Northeast Center for Rural Development (NECRD) developed social capital measures down to the county level in each U.S. state.^[42] Using a different measurement methodology than Putnam, NECRD county-level social capital measures from 1990 to 2014 corresponded closely to Putnam’s 2000 state-level assessments in terms of social capital levels in different U.S. states. The NECRD measures revealed two interesting insights. First, social capital levels do not change appreciably over time. And second, individual U.S. states are not homogenous when it comes to social capital levels, as some counties or cities within the same state have much higher levels of social capital than others.

Since 2014, social capital has likely declined in the United States for two main reasons. First, the reliance on mobile computing and communication devices (digital phones, tablets, laptop computers) has isolated many U.S. citizens and degraded person-to-person interactions. This was especially true during the 2020 COVID 19 Pandemic lockdown. Such isolation has consequences for both bonding and bridging social capital. Second, U.S. politics have become so conflictual that people tend to avoid others not with their same political beliefs. Media reporting reveals this has affected both family structures and workplaces.

Summary of the Three Types of Political Culture

The previous discussion covered the rule-based theoretical foundations and empirical conditions of the three types of political culture: egalitarian, individualistic, and authoritarian. Referring to Figures 6.1 and 6.2, this section summarizes the key characteristics of each type of political culture and reveals some of the macro-level conditions created by each type of political culture.

Egalitarian Political Cultures

Egalitarian (civic) political cultures are ruled by heteronomy. An indicator of heteronomous rule is a lack of leader autonomy; i.e., governing elite behaviors are severely restricted by societal rules. It is found in mature, strong democracies (polyarchies—see Chapter 5) where the governing elite voluntarily change often as the result of free and fair elections. Although full communism is theorized as falling within egalitarian political cultures, communism as conceptualized by Marx has never existed at the country level.

Egalitarian societies are highly integrated and complex. Social and economic transactions in egalitarian cultures are conducted widely among a variety of differentiated groups. Individuals may belong to several political, economic, and social groups and have a large array of interests. Because of the widespread horizontal interactions and communications across differentiated groups, high levels of social capital (trust) develop in egalitarian cultures.^[43] Economic and resource management in egalitarian cultures tend to be market-based with an emphasis on free trade and minimal government economic regulation. Egalitarian cultures generally are found in developed countries that received their population streams and political ideology from Scandinavia, Northern Europe, and Western Europe; but some smaller Asian countries also have developed egalitarian characteristics.

Members of egalitarian political cultures see politics as a public activity centered on the idea of the public good and devoted to the advancement of the public interest. The search for the common good is the controlling rule of egalitarian politics. These political cultures view politics as healthy and promote wide-scale involvement of civil society in political decision making. Egalitarian political officials vie for power just as those in other societies; however, their ultimate objective is less self-interested and self-serving and focus more on the search for the good of society. Leaders of egalitarian political cultures reject the notion that politics is a legitimate realm for private economic enrichment (corruption or fraud). While political parties and interest groups exist in egalitarian political cultures, their influence on political decision making is more nuanced, but still have some impact on government policy (but less than in individualistic societies). Political competition is focused on societal issues. Egalitarian government structures are organized hierarchically; however, their bureaucracies tend to be smaller and flatter than similarly sized individualistic societies. In egalitarian societies, political decision-making processes and communications tend to be more horizontal, including inputs from a large array of public and private groups. The rule of law is strong in egalitarian political cultures and applies equally to the masses and governing elite.

Egalitarian political cultures were the driving force behind a worldwide movement entitled “The New World Order.” This movement arose after World War II and existed for over 70 years. In the United States both liberal and conservative governments promoted and supported The New World Order. The worldwide tenets of this movement followed egalitarian principles and were driven by not only countries but also IGOs and NGOs. These tenets included:

Advancement of Democracy worldwide (political rights and civil liberties).

Cultivation of International Free Trade—no tariffs, no non-tariff trade barriers.

Provision of International Aid to developing countries to prevent starvation and spread of diseases and provide health and education assistance.

Globalization (integration) of international communications, politics, security alliances, economics, sports, entertainment, etc.

Nurturing of International Environmental Stewardship.

Beginning in 2017, U.S. political culture began a transition from the New World Order to one more individualistic stressing aspects of nationalism and isolationism (see below). This helps explain the U.S. democracy decline in Figure 1.1.

Individualistic Political Cultures

Individualistic political cultures exist in hierarchical ruled countries and societies. Organizational pyramids and military chains-of-command are typical structures associated with hierarchical rule, a situation where governing elites are changeable by regular elections—but not always free and fair ones—or by organizational appointments. Governing elites dominate the very top of the hierarchy in individualistic political cultures. Hierarchical forms of rule normally are found in new, transitional, or weak democracies.

Individualistic societies are more integrated and complex than authoritarian societies, but less so than egalitarian societies. Within individualistic political cultures, social and economic transactions are conducted among people from different groups. Individuals frequently shift from one group to another and have a broader range of interests. Economic and resource management tends to be statist with government regulation to ensure elites benefit from the economic structure. Individual or group self-interest is the governing rule of this type of culture. The need to interact with persons from other groups to serve one’s own self-interests results in a moderate level of social trust.

Individualistic political cultures view government as strictly utilitarian—to provide those functions demanded by the citizens it serves.^[44] People in this culture see politics as a business; i.e., another means by which individuals can improve themselves socially and economically. Political competition revolves around individual attempts to achieve security by gaining and maintaining political or economic power. Politicians in individualistic societies are more interested in public office as a means for self-interested benefit than as a chance to build a better society. Political life in individualistic political cultures is based upon systems of mutual obligation that are rooted in personal relationships. These systems of mutual obligation usually are harnessed through the interactions of political parties, corporate elites, and powerful interest groups. Citizen participation in political decision-making is conducted through networks of political parties and interest groups that attempt to influence government policy. Patron-client relationships generated by the system of political parties, corporate elites, powerful interest groups, and government bureaucracies emerge in individualistic political cultures. Individualistic political cultures are extremely legalistic; however, the rule of law—while stronger than in authoritarian societies—remains focused primarily on controlling the masses and generates only limited accountability for the governing elite.

Individualistic political cultures include governing systems based in “rational-legal authority” as theorized by German Sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920).^[45] Weber offered that to obtain efficient, flexible, and competent governance a rational-legal system was the ideal. These systems are based on strict laws, rules, and regulations (a lawyer’s dream). They have a clear division of labor, defined hierarchy of authority, and definite formal rules. Weber theorized impersonality should be desired with citizen allegiance to the governing system or ideology and not to specific governing officials.

Authoritarian Political Cultures

Authoritarian (traditional) political cultures generally exist in countries with hegemonic forms of rule. Hegemonic rule indicates a central single-ruler or small governing elite who monopolize and mandate the values, principles, and beliefs (ideology) of the society—this is accomplished through either coercion or cooptation of the institutions of society. These countries tend to be ruled by nationalists, autocrats, dictators, oligarchs, or fascists.

Authoritarian societies are simple and segregated. Social and economic transactions in these societies are organized around small groups defined by familial, kinship, tribal, political, ethnic, religious, class, linguistic, or other social relationships. Each group tends to have its own narrow base of interests. Paternalism is the main intra-group controlling concept in authoritarian cultures; i.e., the father or group leader decides what is best for the family or group (like a mafia family). The best interests of the leaders and elites are the most important governing rule in authoritarian societies. Loyalty to the leader/group and maintaining the traditional status quo are other important rules. Economic and resource management tend to be patrimonial with the leaders and elites controlling the structure and processes of the economy. With most social and economic transactions carried out within groups (intra-group), intergroup social trust (bridging social capital) in authoritarian cultures is often weak.

Authoritarian political cultures place power in the hands of a small and self-perpetuating governing elite who often inherit the right to govern through family ties or social position.^[46] The hegemonic rule in authoritarian countries is often personal, meaning loyalty to the leader(s) is foremost and not based in a particular ideology or governing system. The method of rule often relies on strong patron-client systems of informal reciprocity, where the clients (citizens or specific groups) pledge their economic and political support to patrons (governing elite) for access to government positions and resources.^[47] Political competition in these societies is primarily among the small group of self-perpetuating governing elite. Politics is considered a privilege in authoritarian political cultures, and those active in politics are expected to benefit personally from their efforts. Authoritarian polities are centrally organized with the powerful governing elite constituting the central core of the most dominant societal group. The rule of law is weak in authoritarian political cultures, focused primarily on controlling the masses and offering little accountability for the governing elite.

Authoritarian countries tend to be nationalistic, where the leaders see their country as superior to others. Recent Western nationalistic movements prioritize their individual countries and seek to safeguard national traditions and culture over promoting democracy, encouraging free trade, or building global alliances.^[48] Nationalists often try to use patriotism to rally their citizens behind their isolationist rule—but these efforts usually are counterfeit agendas as the real goal (hidden agenda) is the perpetuation of the power of the ruling elite that offers minimal benefit to the masses. At the extremes, nationalistic countries tend to generate discrimination and prejudice among their citizens and with external actors. This can result in xenophobia, intolerance (racism), military expansion, imperialism, and nativist (anti-immigration) sentiments. Nationalism may also lead to internal and diplomatic conflict and wars.

Mixed Political Cultures

Figures 6.1 and 6.2 are not deterministic, meaning the theoretical and empirical conditions in these figures will seldom see a single country or societal group display all the Figure 6.2 empirical conditions under one type of political culture. Instead, most countries and societal groups will show a mix of two or more of the political culture types. Usually, one of the political culture types will dominate—but not always. Figure 6.3 provides a summary of political cultures in selected countries—with mixed political cultures shown at the boundaries of the three main types.

Singapore is an example of a mixed political culture country with a wide diversity in empirical conditions found in two types of political culture. Rating Singapore in Figure 6.2 and placing it in Figure 6.3 finds an overall mixed individualistic-authoritarian political culture. This is because Singapore has some conditions in the authoritarian column and others in the egalitarian column—thus its overall rating is pulled left away from strictly authoritarian conditions. A former British colony, Singapore has been ruled by a string of authoritarian prime ministers since its 1965 independence. Singapore citizens have highly restricted political rights and civil liberties. At the same time, Singapore is a world leader in free-market economic measures, strong rule of law, and low corruption levels, which foster an open and competitive business environment. These conditions correlate with an egalitarian political culture—not the authoritarian culture that might be expected. When a person encounters such a wide discrepancy in a country’s conditions they must investigate and attempt to explain the causes. In Singapore’s case, it is a small island city-state whose economy and the welfare of its elites and people rely on international trade and financial services. To facilitate an efficient business environment, its authoritarian leaders (often called “benevolent dictators”) have opened the economy and implemented strong (harsh) rule of law and anti-corruption measures to protect foreign investors and customers. This explains why Singapore has mixed characteristics located in both the egalitarian and authoritarian political cultures.

Changing Political Cultures

Countries and societies can change their political cultures, but changes are usually difficult to bring about. Political cultures can change gradually over time, or more suddenly due to a major societal event. During World War II, Axis powers Japan and Germany were ruled under authoritarian political cultures. As a result of their war losses, considered major societal failures, during the decades after the war Japan modernized to the point today it has an egalitarian political culture. As a result of the 1991 end of the Cold War, a then still-modernizing West Germany reunified with former Soviet vassal East Germany, an authoritarian political culture. Within three decades the reunified Germany possesses today’s egalitarian political culture.

Countries also can transition from individualistic or egalitarian political cultures toward more authoritarian political cultures. The 21^st-century saw the rise of populist and nationalist political movements in several countries, including Brazil, Hungary, the Philippines, Poland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Over the first 25 years of the 21^st-century all these countries moved toward more authoritarian political cultures as they rejected market economies (free trade), restricted political rights and civil liberties, and fractured their publics’ trust reducing social capital. In the early-21^st-century a modernizing Turkey would have fallen more solidly under the individualistic political culture. However, with the election in 2014 of President Erdogan and his populist, authoritarian approach to governing, by 2020 Turkey had changed political cultures to one with mixed individualistic-authoritarian characteristics.

Bottomline

Readers of this chapter should ask: “In what type of political culture do I want to live—egalitarian, individualistic, authoritarian, or mixed?” This should help decide what political candidates they will vote for and what other civic engagement activities and community participation they will engage in to achieve or maintain the desired political culture. In the next chapter we see how political culture is a major factor in influencing a decision-maker’s points of view, assumptions, and beliefs in a critical-thinking project.

Notes

1. Harold D. Lasswell, Politics: Who gets what, when, and how (New York: P. Smith, 1950).↑

2. Larry Diamond, “Introduction: Political Culture and Democracy,” in Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, ed. Larry Diamond (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publisher, 1993), 1-27. ↑

3. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1963). ↑

4. The political culture literature offers as few as two to as many as seven different types of political cultures. The three used in this discussion are the ones with the closest correlations to the rule-oriented constructivist framework presented in this work. See endnote 5 for additional context.↑

5. The Theory of Political Culture rule-based foundations are from Onuf’s, World of Our Making, Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989). The theoretical linkage of political cultures with Onuf’s societal rules was first developed in Michael W. Collier, Political Corruption in the Caribbean Basin, Constructing a Theory to Combat Corruption (New York: Routledge, 2005). Note: Onuf was my doctoral and dissertation advisor.↑

6. Onuf. ↑

7. Ibid.↑

8. Much of the constructivist literature references only two categories of rules, regulative and constitutive rules. In Onuf’s constructivism, all rules are deemed to have both regulative and constitutive properties. To Onuf, there are only three categories of rules that govern social action: instruction, directive, and commitment. The discussion under rules in social theory is an edited summary of Onuf’s and other works originally published in Collier, 26-29.↑

9. Onuf, 258.↑

10. Ibid.↑

11. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York, NY: International Publishers, 1971). ↑

12. Onuf, 209-210.↑

13. Ibid, 211.↑

14. Ibid, 189.↑

15. Ibid, 212.↑

16. Material in this section summarized primarily from Paul R. Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi, International Relations Theory, 5^th ed. (Boston, MA: Longman, 2012).↑

17. World Bank, “World Governance Indicators,” https://databank.worldbank.org/source/worldwide-governance-indicators (accessed November 22, 2020).↑

18. Ibid.↑

19. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, originally published 1651).↑

20. J. William Frost, “Why Religions Facilitate War and How Religions Facilitate Peace,” https://www.swarthmore.edu/friends-historical-library/why-religions-facilitate-war-and-how-religions-facilitate-peace (accessed November 30, 2020). ↑

21. Daryl Johnson, “Hate in God’s Name,” Southern Poverty Law Center, September 25, 2017, https://www.splcenter.org/20170925/hate-god%E2%80%99s-name (accessed November 30, 2020).↑

22. Frost.↑

23. Ibid.↑

24. Heritage Foundation, “Index of Economic Freedom,” https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking (accessed November 22, 2020).↑

25. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: Modern Library, 1937—first published 1776). ↑

26. David Ricardo, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1960—first published 1817). ↑

27. Luigi Manzetti and Charles Blake, “Market Reforms and Corruption in Latin America: New Means for Old Ways,” Review of International Political Economy, 3, no. 4 (winter, 1996): 662-697. ↑

28. Robin Theobald, Corruption, Development and Underdevelopment (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), 91. ↑

29. World Justice Project, “Rule of Law Index,” https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index (accessed November 25, 2020).↑

30. Transparency International, “Corruption Perceptions Index,” https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi (accessed November 25, 2020).↑

31. Michael Delli Carpini, “Definition of Civic Engagement,” The Pew Charitable Trusts, reprinted in https://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement (accessed November 27, 2020).↑

32. Ibid.↑

33. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), 23.↑

34. Ibid.↑

35. Ibid, 19.↑

36. Ibid, 22-24.↑

37. Ibid, 23.↑

38. Ibid.↑

39. Ibid.↑

40. World Bank, “Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners,” https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/14098 (accessed November 29, 2020).↑

41. For examples see SolAbility, “Social Capital Index,” http://solability.com/the-global-sustainable-competitiveness-index/the-index/social-capital (accessed November 29, 2020); Basel Institute of Commons and Economics, “World Social Capital Monitor,” https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/commitments/6686_11706_commitment_World%20Social%20Capital%20Monitor%202019.pdf (accessed November 29, 2020); and Social Capital Research and Training, “Social Capital: Benefits of Human Sociability,” https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/ (accessed November 29, 2020). ↑

42. Pennsylvania State University Northeast Center for Rural Development, “Social Capital Maps,” https://aese.psu.edu/nercrd/community/social-capital-resources/us-maps-showing-county-social-capital-levels (accessed November 29, 2020).↑

43. Francis Fukuyama, Trust, The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (New York: The Free Press, 1995). ↑

44. Daniel Elazar, The American Mosaic (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994), 230-232. ↑

45. Max Weber, Economy and Society (Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019, originally published 1921).↑

46. Daniel Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the Country, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1966), 92-93. ↑

47. Robert Klitgaard, Controlling Corruption (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988), 69-74. ↑

48. Simon Montiake, “Nationalist conservatives from US, Europe gather touting different views of democracy.” Christian Science Monitor, September 2, 2025, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2025/0902/natcon-democracy-europe-trump (accessed September 2, 2025).↑

49. Data from Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2025 Report, https://freedomhouse.org/country/scores (accessed May 25, 2025).↑