LIBERALISM QUESTIONS A2 (UNIT 4) Short Answers 1. Why do liberals support constitutionalism and consent?

? (Jan 02) Constitutionalism is a belief in limited government brought about through external (usually legal) and internal (institutional) checks on the exercise of power. Consent is the idea that govt power should be based on the agreement of the governed, usually expressed through regular and competitive elections. Liberals support constitutionalism and consent because they fear that govt may become a tyranny against the individual, based on the assumption that power is inherently corrupting and concentrations of power will lead to absolute corruption. This assumption is rooted in the liberal view of human nature: as individualism implies self- interest, those with power over others are apt to abuse it for their benefit and at the expense of others. Liberal constitutionalism is expressed through support for various external and internal devices, such as codified constitutions, bills of rights, the separation of powers, federalism or devolution, and so on. Liberal support for consent is evident in support for electoral democracy in general and, more specifically, sympathy for referendums and proportional representation. 2. Distinguish between negative freedom and positive freedom, and explain the implications of each for the state. (Jun 02) Negative freedom is the absence of external constraints upon the individual, usually understood as non-interference. It is manifest in freedom of choice and consistent with privacy. Negative freedom implies rolling back the state, because the state as a compulsory and coercive body is by definition an offence against freedom. Positive freedom can be variously defined as self-mastery, linking freedom to democracy, or as personal growth and self-realisation, the achievement of individual potential. Positive freedom, by contrast, is commonly, but not necessarily, used as a justification for state intervention, on the grounds that the state provides the conditions for personal development or the realisation of individual potential. A very popular question. Most candidates attempted this question by addressing tensions between classical and modern liberalism. Most candidates showed an understanding of the conceptual distinction between negative and positive freedom, although positive freedom, and why it is 'positive', was sometimes weaker. There was a tendency amongst some candidates to misunderstand the negative/positive freedom divide by portraying the former as the absence of all constraints, and the latter as freedom under the law. Similarly, some defined both concepts in terms of their implications for the state, so conflating the two parts of the question. 3. Outline a liberal defence of toleration and pluralism. (Jun 02) Toleration is a willingness to accept beliefs and actions with which one disagrees. Pluralism as a normative theory, is the belief that multiplicity or diversity desirable. Liberals defend toleration and pluralism on the grounds that they benefit both the individual and society. They uphold individual rights and freedoms and ensure solid progress by testing truth against rival conceptions of reality.

Other justifications are linked to individualism and its implication of human uniqueness, and the underlying liberal belief in consensus and social harmony. Strong responses will consider justifications that go beyond individual freedom. Most candidates simply treated toleration and pluralism as examples of diversity and failed to offer definitions at the outset. Most responses highlighted the protection of individual liberty as a key basis for toleration, but few picked up on the issue of pluralism enabling the 'truth' to emerge from debate in a diverse and pluralistic society. Thus, candidates viewed toleration and pluralism as good for the individual, but few saw it as socially desirable in a larger sense. 4. What kind of equality do liberals support, and why? (Jan 03) Liberals support several kinds of equality, all reflecting a commitment to individualism. Most basically, they endorse foundational equality, the belief that all humans are 'born' equal in the sense that their lives are of equal moral worth. This can be seen in the doctrine of natural rights. Foundational equality implies formal equality, the belief that citizens should enjoy the same formal status in society. The most important expressions of formal equality are legal equality ( equality before the law) and political equality (universal suffrage and one person, one vote). Liberals also endorse equality of opportunity, the idea of equal life-chances, sometimes expressed as a commitment to a 'level playing-field'. The doctrine of equal opportunities legitimises social inequality to a greater or lesser extent. Classical liberals have been particularly keen to reject social equality on the grounds that it is unjust (different people are treated the same) and that it removes economic incentives. However, modern liberals use equal opportunities, positive freedom and Rawlsian arguments to defend relative social equality, achieved through welfare/redistribution. This was a popular question. A large proportion of the candidates who attempted it lighted upon equality of opportunity, usually showing a good understanding of at least its implications for social inequality, usually linked to the idea of meritocracy. The idea of formal equality, reflected in the notions of legal equality and political equality, received less attention, however. The strongest responses were able to explain liberal support or equality of opportunity and formal equality by reference to the belief that human beings are of equal moral worth, sometimes portrayed as the idea of foundational equality. In some very good responses, there was a recognition that the core liberal principle of individualism has conflicting implications for equality, in that while it emphasises equality of status and respect, it also implies that human beings are different in terms of their endowments and potential.

5. Distinguish between individualism and collectivism, and explain the implications of each for the state. (Jan 03) Individualism: belief in primacy of the individual over any collective body or social group. Competing models of individualism include egotistical/market individualism, which emphasises self-interest and self-reliance, and developmental individualism, which is linked to human flourishing and realisation of individual potential. Collectivism is the belief that collective social action is morally and practically superior to individual self-striving. It highlights the social aspect of human nature and portrays collective bodies or social groups as meaningful entities.

Individualism is often associated with attempts to contract or 'rolling back' the state with a view to widening individual freedom and strengthening individual responsibility .This is reflected in the classical liberal preference for a minimal state and, in its most extreme form, in anarcho-individualism. However, developmental individualism has been used by modem liberals to support qualified interventionism, linked to the expansion of positive freedom. Collectivism is commonly associated with 'rolling forward' the state, the state being a mechanism through which collective energies are harnessed and collective ends achieved. This is evident in socialist support for social and economic intervention and, ultimately, state collectivisation. However, collectivism can have anti-statist implications in that it highlights the capacity for social harmony, most clearly reflected in ideas of anarcho- collectivism. In this question definitions of individualism and collectivism ranged widely, but most candidates showed an awareness of at least the difference between individual selfstriving and an emphasis upon co-operation and social solidarity. Strong distinctions were sometimes able to highlight rival tendencies within both individualism and collectivism, and provide examples beyond simply linking the former to liberalism and the latter to socialism. Most responses correctly link individualism to a general tendency to constrain or contract state power, and linked collectivism to a general tendency to expand state power. However, candidates did not always explain such tendencies clearly, eg by pointing out the state is seen as a mechanism through which collective or public goals are carried out. Strong candidates recognised the complex relationship between individualism and collectivism and the state, eg individualism has been used by modem liberals to imply personal self-development which may need to be underpinned by opportunities which only the state can guarantee. 6. On what grounds do liberals support democracy? (June 03) Liberals support democracy on a variety of grounds. First, democracy, in the sense of regular and competitive elections and a universal franchise, provides citizens with a vital protection against over mighty government; hence liberal support for the principle of consent. This argument has been used by both natural rights theorists and utilitarians to justify the extension of the franchise. Second, liberals, following J.S. Mill, have endorsed democracy on the grounds that political participation is an important basis for personal growth and individual development; democracy, in other words, has an educational value. Third, liberals have defended democracy on pluralist grounds, arguing that the wider distribution of political power amongst individuals and organised groups is the only means of ensuring stability and promoting equilibrium within complex modern societies; democracy in this sense is linked to consensus rather than consent. The main weakness of answers was a poor understanding of the nature of democracy. Stronger responses often started with a brief definition that gave their answers focus, weaker ones tended to drift onto issues such as limited govt and constitutionalism, eg seeing the separation of powers as one of the features of democracy. The most commonly acknowledged liberal justification for democracy was its tendency to protect the individual by constraining govt, but, in weaker cases, this was merely stated
3

rather than explained. The best responses examined a range of liberal justifications, looking, for instance, at the benefits of political participation for the individual and society, the implications of formal equality for voting rights, and pluralist arguments about the need to balance competing interests in society. 7. Why do liberals fear concentrations of power? (Jan 04) Liberals are concerned about power, most basically, because power constitutes a threat to liberty. Their concern about concentrations of power is rooted in their emphasis upon individualism and its implication that human beings are rationally self-interested creatures. Egoism determines that those who have the ability to influence behaviour of others are inevitably inclined to use that ability for their own benefit and therefore at the expense of others. The greater the concentration of power, the greater will be the scope of rulers to pursue self-interest and, thus, the greater corruption. Such thinking is reflected in the liberal fear of arbitrary government and in a commitment to constitutionalism and institutional checks and balances. This was a popular question, with many satisfactory or better responses. Weaker candidates tended to answer the question by pointing out that government is always apt to become a tyranny against the individual but failed to explain why liberals harbour such beliefs. Better responses explained the general liberal concern about power by reference to the egotistical nature of human beings and their tendency, when in positions of power, to use these for their own benefit. The best responses linked this critique of power to the further idea that as power becomes more concentrated, rulers have a greater tendency towards self- interest and therefore towards tyranny. In other words, the best answers recognised both aspects of the much-used Acton quote: that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' as well as that 'power tends to corrupt'.

8. Why do modern liberals support social reform and welfare? (June 04) Classical liberals are generally critical of social welfare and support only a 'safety-net' welfare provision. Modern liberals, by contrast, broadly support social welfare. Their arguments in favour include that welfare widens freedom in a positive sense by promoting personal growth, that the poor are deserving in that they are, to some extent, victims of class inequality; and that welfare helps to promote equality of opportunity. The purpose of welfare, from a modern liberal viewpoint is to help individuals to help themselves. Nevertheless, modern liberals do not support unqualified welfare support: they are also aware of the danger of dependency.

Most candidates who attempted this question were able to differentiate between classical liberal fears about state power and modem liberal support for intervention, particularly in the social sphere. In some cases, too much time was devoted to explaining the former position; in other words it was not used simply to show greater insight into modern liberal thinking. Many responses made effective use of the changing view of capitalism, modem liberals identifying welfare and social reform with the promotion of social justice, counter-balancing the tendency within a free-market economy towards inequality and iniquity. Strong responses noted that the changed view of welfare was a reflection of theoretical and conceptual shifts within modern liberalism, notably linked to positive freedom. Although the nature and implications of
4

positive freedom were often well understood, some weaker candidates still struggle with the concept, identifying it - unhelpfully - with 'freedom to do whatever you want within the constraints of law'.

9. Define individualism, and explain its implications for the state. (June 04) Individualism is a belief in the primacy or supreme importance of the human individual over any group or collective body. Each individual is thus separate and unique and enjoys the same status as every other individual. Egotistical individualism places a heavy emphasis upon self-interest and self-reliance, implying atomism. Developmental individualism, by contrast, stresses individuality and the ideas or personal growth and human flourishing. Most basically, individualism, especially in its egotistical form, implies the contraction and maybe the abolition of state power, in that the state is an offence against individual responsibility and, anyway, has little purpose if individuals are self-reliant. Views advanced by classical liberals and individualist anarchists. However developmental individualism, endorsed by modern liberals and some social democrats, may support the extension of state power on the grounds that the state may lay down the conditions that foster personal growth and human flourishing. Almost all responses to this question demonstrated some awareness of the meaning of individualism. However, only stronger candidates provided a full and accurate definition of a term which, like collectivism, features regularly in Route B questions. In some cases, candidates treated this as a liberalism question, and sometimes as an opportunity to explore differences within liberalism. While this was not an inappropriate approach to the question, it failed to demonstrate the wider use and significance of individualism. The link between individualism and a minimal state was widely noted, with sound or better responses being able to explain and discuss the nature of this link, usually by reference to the desire to expand individual rights or freedom. Strong candidates often demonstrated an awareness of the complex relationship between individuals and the state by pointing out that individualism has also been used to defend state power (social contract theory) or to expand the responsibilities of the state (promoting the conditions for human flourishing). 10. Distinguish between socialist and liberal views of equality. (Jan 05) The liberal view of equality stresses the importance of formal equality (in particular, legal and political equality) and equality of opportunity. Both of these are grounded in an underlying belief in foundational equality (equality of moral worth), which, itself, is a reflection of individualism. For classical liberals, wide social inequality may be justified on moral (meritocracy/individual rights) and economic (incentives) grounds. The socialist view of equality stresses, by contrast, equality of outcome, or social equality, based on the belief that equal rewards underpin community and that legal and political equality is inadequate if economic and social resources are unequally distributed. For fundamentalist socialists, formal equality masks the inequality of the capitalist system and equality of opportunity legitimises it. There are significant and growing overlaps, though, between the modern liberal view and the social democratic view, which both endorse relative social equality. Supporters of the 'third way' have been largely converted to a belief in equal opportunities and meritocracy.

This was a popular question. Very few candidates were unable to highlight valid differences between the liberal and socialist views of equality, often based on the difference between the socialist commitments to equality of outcome, or social equality, and the liberal commitment to equality of opportunity. Better responses were able to analyse the implications of these views, notably by explaining how equality of opportunity can justify inequality of outcome. Some candidates made effective use of the wider liberal approach to equality, pointing out that the belief in equality of opportunity is grounded in individualism and therefore foundational equality which is also reflected in a commitment to formal equality. While weaker candidates often portrayed a single liberal view and a single socialist view, stronger candidates recognised the range of liberal and socialist views, thereby drawing attention to the finer distinctions between them.

11. Why do liberals emphasise the importance of constitutionalism and consent? (June 05) Constitutionalism is the theory or practice of restricting government power through the establishment of a framework of constitutional regulations, usually involving the fragmentation of power to create a network of checks and balances. Consent is the principle that the right to govern derives from the willing agreement of the governed, who thus view the actions of government as rightful or legitimate. Consent is often in practice associated with the act of voting and therefore institutionalised through a system of electoral democracy. Liberals emphasise the importance of constitutionalism and consent because both are mechanisms for protecting or enlarging the sphere of individual liberty by restricting the capacity of government to encroach upon the individual. This commitment to limiting government reflects the underlying liberal fear that power is inherently corrupting, a consequence of egoism, meaning that government is always liable to become a tyranny against the individual. Constitutionalism achieved this aim through formal, institutional and often legal restrictions upon government officials and bodies. Consent achieves it by ensuring that politicians are publicly accountable and, ultimately, removable.

This question was popular and generally answered satisfactorily. The main weaknesses evident in candidates responses were as follows. There was a tendency, in the first place, for constitutionalism and consent to be taken as a job lot, often seen as indistinguishable methods of constraining government without their specific or distinctive features being highlighted. Weaker responses also failed adequately to address the why part of the question, sometimes simply stating that constitutionalism and consent follow from the liberal belief in freedom and individual rights. Stronger candidates, on the other hand, explained how and why liberals believe that government constitutes a particular threat to freedom and individual, rights, usually by reference to the corrupting nature of power Lord Acton, once again, proved to be a trusty friend to Route B candidates, although those who merely quoted him without any explanation gained but limited benefit. The best responses clearly defined constitutionalism and consent and examined

how each serves to check or constrain government power in the light of liberal concerns about incipient tyranny.

12. Distinguish between positive freedom and negative freedom, and explain the implications of each for the state. (June 05) Negative freedom is the absence of external constraint upon the individual, or noninterference, often expressed in ideas such as freedom of choice, individual responsibility or privacy. Positive freedom is defined either as self-mastery (Berlin) and is linked to democracy and the capacity to shape one's own destiny through political participation, or to personal growth and self-realisation (Green), in which case freedom implies human flourishing and the realisation of individual potential. Negative freedom generally implies the rolling-back of the state, as the state is usually viewed as the principal source of interference with the individual: the contraction of state power necessarily implies the expansion of negative freedom. However, the state may also be a guarantee of negative freedom in that it protects individuals from the encroachment of fellow individuals. Negative freedom may therefore only be possible within a framework of law, guaranteed by the state. Positive freedom, by contrast, is usually associated with the rolling-forward of the state. By protecting individuals from social evils such as poverty, disease, unemployment and so on, a welfare or interventionist state provides the conditions in which individuals can flourish and achieve self- realisation. On the other hand, Marx, who equated freedom with unalienated labour, and thus self-realisation, believed that such freedom would only be fully realised in a stateless as well as classless society.

Candidates understanding of the terms negative and positive freedom is clearly improving, with more candidates recognising that negative freedom is associated with the absence of external constraints on the individual whilst positive freedom is associated either with self-mastery or self-realisation. However, a limited number of responses continued to define these concepts not in terms of their rival meanings but in terms of their consequences for the state. For example, negative freedom was sometimes defined as the rolling-back of state power. Nevertheless, candidates did overwhelmingly recognise the anti-statist implications of negative freedom and the broadly pro-statist implications of positive freedom. Stronger candidates were nevertheless able to explain why the concepts have these implications for instance, by pointing out that, from the perspective of negative freedom, the state is the most important threat to freedom because it constitutes the chief external constraint upon the individual: maximising freedom thus means minimising state authority. The very strongest candidates were able to point out and discuss the complex, and at times contradictory, implications that both negative and positive freedom can have for the state. 13. Distinguish between economic liberalism and social liberalism. (Jan 06)

Economic liberalism is a species of classical liberalism, which provides the basis for neo-classical economic theory. Its core idea is the notion of the self-regulating market, based on Adam Smiths invisible hand and the belief that the market tends towards long -term equilibrium. Individuals are seen as self-interested and largely self-sufficient; and market competition ensures choice and consumer responsiveness as well as efficiency and growth. In line with the principle of laissez-faire, the state should leave the economy alone, in the belief that, however well intentioned, state intervention is likely to have more economic disadvantages than advantages. Social liberalism, by contrast, is a species of modern liberalism, associated with the belief that an unregulated market economy results in an unequal and inequitable distribution of wealth. The state, therefore, has important social responsibilities, in particular to safeguarding individuals from the social evils that can cripple their existence poverty, disease, unemployment etc. Social liberalism is thus linked to a commitment to a qualified form of welfarism: the desire to help people to help themselves, reflecting a general liberal preference for self-reliance. 14. Why have liberals criticised the socialist view of equality? (June 06) The socialist view of equality emphasises the need for equality of outcome, or social equality. For fundamentalist socialists (Marxists and anarchists), this must be absolute social equality, brought about through the common ownership of production, while in the social democratic tradition it means relative social equality, brought about through the redistribution of wealth via the tax and welfare systems. The liberal view of equality emphasises, by contrast, equality of opportunity, the idea that inequality should reflect only unequal natural abilities and not the unequal distribution of social and other opportunities. Liberals have criticised the socialist view of equality for a number of reasons. The moral critique of equality of outcome emphasises that it offends against individualism, in that it treats unalike individuals alike. Liberals argue that individuals should be rewarded according to their merits (skills and willingness to work), and that merit is inevitably unequally distributed in society. The economic argument against equality of outcome stresses that it is a disincentive to enterprise and hard work. Individuals will only work hard and use their talents if there is an incentive to do so if the able and hard-working are better rewarded. Moreover, social equality is a recipe for economic stagnation, meaning that people may receive equal portions but of a small economic cake. The vast majority of candidates who attempted this question recognised that the socialist view of equality endorses equality of outcome, or social equality, rather than equality of opportunity. However, stronger candidates demonstrated a wider understanding, pointing out, for example, that while communists endorse absolute social equality, social democrats favour relative social equality brought about through the redistribution of wealth rather than the abolition of private property. The liberal view of equality was generally well understood, being commonly linked to individualism and foundational equality as well as formal equality and equal opportunities. Strong responses nevertheless went beyond contrasting differences between the liberal and socialist views and highlighted when, how and why liberals object to the socialist view. The most common grounds of criticism referred to were moral objections that equality of outcome treats unalike individuals alike, thereby not treating individuals in line with desserts or merit, and the economic argument that the
8

levelling effect of social equality removes incentives to work and enterprise and so damages the economic well-being of all members of society. Some candidates spent too long discussing overlaps between the liberal and socialist view, which did not further an understanding of liberal criticisms of the socialist position. 15. Define positive freedom, and explain its implications for the state. (June 06) Positive freedom, in contrast to negative freedom, is linked to the achievement of some identifiable goal or benefit. In the modern liberal tradition (e.g. T.H. Green), it is reflected in personal development or self-realisation, the realisation of individual potential human flourishing. For Berlin, it is associated with self-mastery and linked to democracy; Berlin defines it as freedom to, as opposed to freedom from. Positive freedom is usually taken to have pro-state implications, although it can also have anti-state implications. The former are most clearly evident in the modern liberal and social democratic traditions. Such traditions have justified state intervention on the grounds that the state is responsible for establishing economic and social conditions that help to promote personal development and self-realisation and protect individuals from the social evils that may cripple their lives poverty, disease, ignorance and so on e.g. Beveridge. Marx, on the other hand, advanced a positive theory of freedom based on self-development through unalienated labour whilst at the same time predicting the withering away of the state. The understanding of positive freedom has generally improved, on the basis of responses to this question. Very few candidates completely misunderstood the concept, confusing it, for instance, with freedom under the law. Many responses, quite acceptably, treated the question as a modern liberal question, in stronger cases making good use of T.H. Green and notions of human flourishing, self-realisation and individual empowerment. Often, and helpfully, this position was explained by contrast with negative freedom or non-interference, although some candidates, less helpfully, spent too long on negative freedom and turned the question into one about the difference between the two conceptions of freedom. Berlins writings were also effectively used by a number of candidates. A major difference elsewhere in the question was between responses that accurately and reliably described the implications of positive freedom for the state and ones which explained them. For example, some very good response pointed out that if freedom is understood as the fulfilment of individual potential, the state acquires broader social and economic responsibilities to ensure that the opportunity to realize individual potential is equally distributed amongst citizens. This, then, was linked to forms of welfarism and economic intervention.

16. On what grounds have liberals raised concerns about democracy? (Jan 07) Democracy, most simply, refers to government by the people, for the people. Liberals have highlighted a variety of concerns about democracy. The most common such argument is that democracy can result in a tyranny of the majority, rule by the people degenerating into rule by the largest number. This empowers the majority to act however it wishes, even to infringe minority rights and individual freedom, in the name of the people. The link between democracy and Majoritarianism, as expressed by Mill

and Tocqueville, also held democracy to be responsible for dull conformism, an unwillingness for people to think and speak for themselves. Many liberals have also viewed democracy as an inherent threat to liberty due to its collectivist nature: it empowers the people acting as a collective whole rather than as citizens acting as autonomous individuals. A further liberal argument, reviving Plato, associates democracy with mob rule and the dominance of the ignorant and poor, who constitute the majority in most societies. Democracy thus penalises wisdom and property. Finally, some liberals have held democracy to be responsible for overgovernment, democracy creating public pressure for social and economic intervention, which undermines the workings of the market economy. Liberals have rarely used such arguments to reject democracy altogether; instead, they have warned against the dangers of excessive democracy.

This was a popular question, which elicited very few weak or poor responses. The most popular liberal concern about democracy identified was the notion of the tyranny of the majority. However, some candidates merely identified this concern as opposed to explaining it in relation to the threat that it poses to minority rights and individual freedoms. Only a minority of candidates also recognised that the tyranny that many liberals have associated with majoritarianism is reflected as much in a tendency towards dull conformism and an unwillingness to challenge widely-held beliefs as it is reflected in the persecution of minorities and of individuals. Similarly, there was insignificant recognition in many cases of the fact that liberal concerns about majority rule derive from the nature of the majority, notably from the fact that the majority is usually poorly educated and lack political wisdom, thus being susceptible to the entreaties of demagogues and would-be tyrants.

17. How and why have conservatives and liberals disagreed over authority? (Jan 07) Authority is the right to influence others, based on an acknowledged duty to obey rather than on coercion or force (power). Both liberals and conservatives regard authority as beneficial and necessary, but to different degrees and for different reasons. The liberal view of authority suggests that it arises from below, being a product of the recognition by individuals that peaceful and orderly existence would be impossible without a framework of authority expressed through the mechanism of law. Social contract theory is based on such a belief. In this view, authority exists to benefit the individual and should always be rationally based. This implies that, though essential, authority should be as minimal as possible, since it always limits freedom and autonomy. The liberal preference for limited government and the classical liberal preference for a minimal state both reflect a general preference for liberty over authority. Conservatives, by contrast, believe that authority comes from above. It is part of a fabric of society, helping to hold that society together and to give individuals a clearer sense of who they are and where they belong. Security seeking creatures thus need authority. Authority, moreover, needs to be imposed on people, because, having limited rationality, they often do not know what is good for them a good example being children within the family. The assumption that people are driven by irrational and often anti-social impulses also underlines the importance of authority, strongly and clearly imposed. This implies support for the strengthening of authority, order and
10

discipline at every level in society, reflected in support for strong government. This stance is adopted in particular by neoconservatives. Authority is thus emphasized over freedom. Limited responses to this question tended to go little beyond pointing out that while conservatives have positively endorsed authority, liberals have generally feared it and wanted to restrict its expression. Stronger responses, however, were able to discuss how differences over extent reflected different views about the nature and origins of authority. Some candidates did nevertheless recognise that the liberal view of authority is reflected in social contract theory and implies that authority arises from below, although only the strongest candidates were able to explain that this reflects the belief that authority is constructed by rational individuals to serve their own ends and thus has a limited, closely defined purpose. Generally, accounts of the conservative view of authority were stronger than accounts of the liberal view, with a widespread recognition of the idea that as authority comes from above, it helps to hold society together and give people a clearer sense of who they are, where they belong. 18. Define individualism and explain its importance within liberal ideology (Jun 07) Individualism is a belief in the primacy or supreme importance of the human individual over any group or collective body. Methodological individualism suggests that all statements about society should be made in terms of the individuals who compose it. Ethical individualism implies that moral priority should be given to the rights, needs or interests of the individual. Individualism is a core principle, even the defining principle, of liberalism. Individualism underpins most liberal beliefs, including those in freedom, equality (foundational, formal and of opportunity), justice, toleration, limited government and democracy. Classical liberals have endorsed egoistical individualism, which places a heavy emphasis on self-interest and self-reliance, implying atomism and minimal government. Modern liberals have, by contrast, embraced developmental individualism, which stresses individuality and the ideas of personal growth and human flourishing. This notion has been used to support positive freedom and qualified interventionism. This was a very popular question, and most responses were at least sound. However, the definitions of individualism were frequently skeletal and incomplete, which resulted in limited success in evaluating its importance to liberalism. A minority of candidates were able to distinguish between egotistical and developmental individualism, but this provided them with a very sound basis for exploring the implications in terms of the contrasting ideas of classical and modern liberalism. Too many candidates, however, simply defined individualism as the belief that individuals should make their own decisions; in other words, they mistook individualism for freedom. A belief in individual freedom is an implication of individualism, not what it means. Individualism is a belief in the primacy of the human individual over any collective body or social group; it is therefore an approach to social theorising.

19. Why have liberals feared the concentration of political power? (Jan 08) Liberals have feared power (the ability to influence the behaviour of others) because of their belief that human beings are naturally self-seeking creatures. Egoism therefore
11

encourages them to use other people to achieve their own ends. Power gives them the ability to do so, thus leading to corruption in the sense of a disregard for the interests of others and a willingness to use and (possibly) abuse them. Concentrations of power intensify this concern because the greater the power, the greater the scope for abusing others, and therefore the greater the corruption. Absolute power therefore corrupts absolutely (Acton). In the liberal view, dictators are necessarily tyrannical and oppressive. As a result, liberals favour constitutional and institutional devices that fragment or diffuse power. Examples include the separation of powers, federalism, parliamentary government, local government and so on. This was a popular question. Very few candidates failed to show how liberal assumptions about human nature implied concerns about political power. Not surprisingly, Lord Actons famous quote did sterling work here. However, there was a major difference between responses that did little more than illustrate Actons warnings about power by listing the constitutional devices that liberals support to contain it, and those who properly explained why absolute power is such an acute problem. Only a limited number of candidates were therefore able to explain how and why corruption, and therefore tyranny, intensifies as power is held in fewer and fewer hands. In a significant number of cases, responses appeared to be answering a question just about why liberals believe that power corrupts rather than one about their particular concern with concentrations of power. This was not a question in which there was great value (or, perhaps, any value) in exploring differences between classic and modern liberalism. In weak cases, candidates wrote more about liberal attitudes towards the state, rather than about the distribution of power within the state, which meant that they answered a different question. 20. Why have some liberals warned against the dangers of democracy? (Jun 08) Liberals have warned against the dangers of democracy for a number of reasons. These include the following: First, democracy may clash with individualism. The central liberal concern has been that democracy can become the enemy of individual liberty. This arises from the fact that 'the people' are not a single entity but rather a collection of individuals and groups, possessing different opinions and opposing interests. Second, democracy may lead to a majoritarian tyranny. This happens because the 'democratic solution' to conflict is a recourse to the application of majority rule. Democracy thus comes down to rule by the 51 per cent, or the 'tyranny of the majority', threatening minority and individual rights. Third, this concern about majoritarianism has been heightened by the make-up of the majority in modern, industrial societies. As the majority consists of people with limited education and inadequate political wisdom, democracy can end up operating as a form of mob rule. Some liberals have therefore argued that the rights of the educated and propertied minority need to be protected from the untutored instincts of the masses. Fourth, political democracy may conflict with economic efficiency. Classical liberals in particular have linked democracy to state intervention, arguing that although welfare and economic management may be electorally popular, they threaten to upset the vigour and balance of a market economy.

12

Level 3 13-20 A good or better understanding of at least two liberal arguments against democracy. 21. Using examples, distinguish between negative freedom and positive freedom. (Jun 08) Negative freedom refers to the absence of external restrictions or constraints on the individual, allowing freedom of choice. In this view, the principal threats to freedom arise through law and the use of force. Negative freedom is therefore upheld primarily through checks on government power, such a codified constitutions and bills of rights. Examples of negative freedom include civil liberties, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of religious worship. It is also evident in freedom from (excessive) taxation. Positive freedom refers to self-mastery or self-realisation, the achievement of autonomy and the development of human capacities. Instead of being 'left alone', the individual is able to develop skills and talents, broaden his or her understanding, and gain fulfilment. In this view, the principal constraints on freedom include poverty and social deprivation. Positive freedom is therefore often portrayed as freedom from the social evils that may cripple individual existence. Expressions of positive freedom can be found in freedom from ignorance (the right to education), disease (the right to health care) and want (the right to a social minimum. 22. How do modern liberals justify welfare and social reform? (Jan 09) Modern liberals justify welfare and social reform in a number of ways, including:  The doctrine of positive freedom (understood as personal development and selfrealisation) is linked to individual capacity, or freedom to. Welfare therefore promotes freedom in the sense that it safeguards citizens from the social evils that may cripple their existence examples including poverty, disease and idleness.  Welfare also promotes equal opportunities, by creating a level playing field and compensating for the social and economic inequalities of the capitalist system. This ensures that differences between and amongst people reflect natural differences, not ones imposed by society.  Rawls's theory of justice is based on the belief that inequalities of wealth are only justifiable if they work to the benefit of the least well-off.  Modern liberals have also argued that welfare provision is necessary for national efficiency a healthy workforce and an effective army. This was a popular question, with very few candidates failing to be able to provide at least a basic explanation of modern liberal views on welfare and social reform. Weaker responses tended to mention ideas such as equality of opportunity and positive freedom, often with limited explanation and no developed understanding. In some cases as well candidates devoted too much time to describing the contrasting modern liberal view of welfare and social reform, although some consideration of this often helped to provide a context and to demonstrate greater understanding of modern liberal thinking. Strong responses demonstrated an analytical understanding of either or both equality of opportunity and positive freedom. For example, effective answers were sometimes developed by showing how an emphasis on personal self-development and human flourishing were used to widen the responsibilities of the state, which acquired the duty to establish the social conditions in which this flourishing and
13

development could take place. Beveridges five giants often did good service, but some weaker responses did little more than identify the giants and explain that the Beveridge Report provided a blueprint for the expanded welfare state in the UK. 23. Define individualism, and explain its implications for the state (Jan 09) Individualism is a belief in the primacy of the human individual over any social group or collective body. It implies that society should be understood as a collection of individuals (methodological individualism), and, in the form of egoistical individualism, it suggests that people are essentially self-seeking and largely self reliant creatures. This view of individualism implies a clearly negative attitude to the state, which is viewed as an affront to individual liberty and a threat to self-help. Individualism, particularly in its egoistical sense, is linked to a belief in negative freedom, freedom from the state, as demonstrated by classical liberalism. Nevertheless, individualism is not always or necessarily anti-statist. Classical liberals believe that individual self-striving is the justifies the existence of a sovereign power, albeit one that has a minimal role. Moreover, developmental individualism, which is linked to a belief in personal self-development, has been used to justify qualified intervention. In this view, the state provides the conditions for human flourishing. Very few candidates were unable to offer at least a single-sentence, accurate definition of individualism, although in weaker cases this sometimes amounted to little more than a description of how attitudes changed through the transition from feudalism to capitalism. There were, however, many developed discussions of the nature of individualism, some of which helpfully focused on different forms of individualism, notably egoistical (or possessive) individualism and developmental individualism. Some also mentioned methodological individualism and ethical individualism, although the linkages between these classifications were not sometimes spelled out. For example, methodological individualism and egoistical individualism share strong similarities, as both place heavy emphasis on self-reliance. Even weak answers tended to recognise that individualism has usually had negative implications for the state, though poor responses merely stated this rather than explained it. Strong responses were often constructed on the basis of the difference between egoistical and developmental individualism, explaining how and why the former suggests rolling back the state while the latter has been used to roll it forward. In many cases, candidates were able to demonstrate a breadth of understanding drawn not merely from liberalism but also from conservatism, anarchism and elsewhere. 24. To what extent do classical liberals and modern liberals disagree about freedom? (June 09) Classical and modern liberals disagree about the nature of freedom and its implications for the state, as follows:  Classical liberals have endorsed a negative view of freedom. By this standard, freedom consists of noninterference the absences of external constraints on the individual. Freedom is thus associated with privacy or choice. The principle checks on negative freedom are laws and physical constraint. Support for negative freedom thus implies rolling back the state.  By contrast, modern liberals believe in positive freedom, the ability to grow and develop (achieving individuality), and realise individual potential (selfrealisation or selffulfilment). By this standard, the principle checks on freedom
14

are social in nature poverty, homelessness, unemployment and so on. Positive freedom thus implies welfare and state intervention. However, classical and modern liberals agree about freedom in that:  they both prioritise freedom, wishing to ensure that each individual enjoys the maximum possible liberty consistent with a like liberty for all  neither believe in unlimited freedom liberty may lead to the abuse of others  modern liberals do not reject negative freedom altogether. Their goal is to help people to help themselves, meaning that their support for positive freedom is conditional: they only support it when social disadvantage prevents people from making their own moral choices. The long-term goal of both classical and modern liberals is to promote individual autonomy (negative freedom).

This again was a popular and generally well answered question. Most candidates were aware of the basic nature of and contrasts between negative freedom and positive freedom, although a number did this very largely by outlining the implications of each view for the state. A recurring issue was often extended and usually inappropriate discussions of concepts such as the 'harm principle'. While not irrelevant to the question set, as it can be used to illustrate the notion of external constraints on the individual and when these may be legitimate, it sometimes lead candidates away from the question and in the direction, quite frankly, of philosophical musings. Candidates were often less effective in highlighting similarities between the classical and modern views. Only the strongest responses, for example, noted the conditionality of the modern liberal support for positive freedom: the fact that it applies only when, usually due to social deprivation, individuals lack the ability to make wise moral choices in their own interests. Modern liberals, in other words, do not reject negative freedom in all circumstances.

Essays 1. How, and to what extent, have modern liberals departed from the ideas of classical liberalism? (Jan 02) Modern liberalism departed from classical liberalism in a variety of ways, although it did so while remaining faithful to core liberal ideas and beliefs, only applying these ideas and beliefs in different ways and to different circumstances. While classical liberals believe in egotistical individualism, implying atomism and selfinterest as reflected in natural-rights theory and utilitarianism, modern liberals embraced the doctrine of developmental individualism that gave priority to human flourishing and took account of altruistic as well as egotistical sensibilities. While individualism and freedom remain core principles, classical liberals believe in negative freedom and wish to liberate individuals from external constraints, modern liberals developed the ideas of positive freedom, self-fulfilment or self- realisation.
15

This is reflected in differences over the state, classical liberals support a minimal state that merely lays down the conditions of orderly existence, while modern liberals view the state and state intervention in more positive terms, believing that they can enlarge and not merely diminish freedom. Classical liberals endorse laissez-faire and the free market and oppose the welfare state, modern liberals have advocated economic management, particularly Keynesianism, and favoured social reform and welfare. Differences over equality can also be identified, in that classical liberals recognise the economic benefits of social inequality while modern liberals are more likely to argue for redistribution and the narrowing of material inequalities. 2. To what extent is liberalism compatible with democracy? (Jun 02) Liberalism has an ambivalent relationship with democracy, usually supporting it but never giving it unqualified approval. Liberals support democracy, for example on the grounds that it protects individual freedom; that it fosters personal development via political participation; and that it helps to balance the rival interests in society . Liberals fear democracy because, for example, it threatens to become a tyranny of the majority, places political power in the hands of those least able to deal with it wisely, and can cause instability by raising expectations about govt. Many answers failed to examine how this ambivalence might be recognised and solved through a balance between popular rule and constitutional government that is the essence of liberal democracy. There was generally a better understanding of the incompatibility of liberalism and democracy, than of their compatibility, with the latter sometimes simply being assumed from the fact that modern democracies are liberal democracies. Although the 'tyranny of the majority' was well used by many candidates, others were also able to consider factors such as the implicit collectivism that resides in democracy and the link between democracy and 'big' govt. 3. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why do liberals believe this, and what are its implications? (Jan 03) The liberal fear of power derives from a belief in individualism. Self-interested individuals will, if they have power over others, use their position to benefit themselves, probably at the expense of others. The greater the power, the greater the capacity for abuse, and therefore the greater the corruption. Acton's quote thus expresses the core liberal belief that all systems of rule are potential tyrannies against the individual; hence the liberal commitment to limited government. Liberals support a variety of devices to 'tame' govt power and therefore prevent corruption. External legal constraints in effect ring-fence govt power; these include written constitutions and entrenched bills of rights. Internal and usually institutional constraints attempt to fragment govt power and create checks and balances; these include separation of powers, parliamentary govt, bicameralism, federalism. Democratic constraints attempt to check govt power by strengthening public accountability; these include universal suffrage, competitive party systems, referendums and the use of PR electoral systems. Almost all answers commented upon liberal anxieties about power and concentrations of power. Only better ones, however, fully explained the Acton quote by reference to the liberal view of human nature and its stress upon egoism. The strongest responses
16

were able to explain that corruption, in the sense that it is employed in the quotation, is reflected in deepening self-regard and a growing tendency to regard others as nothing more means to securing one's own ends. Most candidates explored the implications of this view by discussing the various ways in which liberals have sought to limit or 'tame' govt power. In weaker cases, candidates did little more than list the devices liberals have endorsed to limit government power. Stronger responses provided an explanation of how and why particular devices either constrain govt or protect liberty. In doing this, however, some candidates became unhelpfully absorbed in the details of the Blair govt's constitutional reform programme. 4. Have modern liberals abandoned individualism and embraced collectivism? (June 03) Modern liberalism is a theoretical development within liberal ideology that has revised some of the ideas of classical liberalism. Some classical liberals argue that modern liberalism has abandoned individualism and embraced collectivism to the extent that it has abandoned a belief in the free market and the minimal state and endorsed economic and social intervention. The alternative view is that modern liberalism has built on and revised core liberal ideas rather than abandoned them. Thus the modern liberal case for 'big' govt is based on a belief in developmental individualism (linked to human flourishing), and positive freedom (viewed as personal fulfilment or self-realisation). The modern liberal case for state intervention is an equivocal one: they only support intervention when individuals cant help themselves, usually because of social disadvantage. A further view could be that modern liberalism is characterised by an attempt to reconcile individualism with collectivism. Candidates understood the basic differences between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, with almost all candidates recognising that these represent the rival theoretical traditions within liberalism rather than different stages in liberalism's development. Limited responses tended to explain the nature of modern liberalism by contrasting it with the characteristic features of classical liberalism; in weaker cases, this was done very descriptively. In so doing, some candidates damaged their performance by spending more time discussing classical liberalism than modern liberalism. Stronger responses showed a clear understanding of individualism and collectivism, usually explaining why a more positive view of state intervention implies a shift towards collectivism - candidates explained these shifts less in terms of the abandonment of individualism and more in terms of its redefinition, implying an enduring commitment to freedom, albeit positive rather than negative. 5. To what extent are there tensions within modern liberalism over the role of the state? (Jan 04) Modern liberalism is a tradition within liberalism that is distinguished from classical liberalism by its rejection of the idea of a minimal state and limited govt. Nevertheless, there are significant tensions within modern liberalism over the proper role of the state. Modern liberals endorse economic and social intervention on various grounds. These include that an emphasis upon human development implies the state should intervene to enable individuals to realise their potential; that a belief that the state should protect individuals from the social evils that may cripple their existence; and that the state is a means of rectifying the unequal opportunities that are implicit within the capitalist system.

17

However, this only amounts to a qualified endorsement of interventionism. Welfarism is only justified when, through social disadvantage, individuals do not have the capacity to help themselves; its purpose is to expand opportunity and enable individuals to become independent and self-reliant. Similarly, the purpose of economic intervention is not to undermine/replace capitalism but to strengthen it by redressing its weaknesses, particularly its tendency towards long-term unemployment. Main weakness with the question was a failure to focus on tensions within modern liberalism, candidates instead discussed tensions between modern liberalism and classical liberalism. The latter approach enabled candidates to show understanding, based on the fact that tensions within modern liberalism arise from the survival of certain classical liberal ideas. Strong responses recognised that tension within modern liberalism over the state arises from its qualified endorsement of state intervention, the fact that while it generally favours social welfare and economic management, it also recognises that intervention can be 'excessive' in that it can threaten liberty, individual responsibility and prosperity. Modern liberals, in short, remain liberals. As explained in the specification, the term modern liberal refers to an ideological tradition within liberalism rather than to modern-day liberalism. 6. 'Liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms. ' Discuss. (June 04) Liberal democracy can be regarded as a contradiction in terms in that liberalism has both endorsed democracy and warned against it. Liberal arguments in favour of democracy include that it helps to safeguard individuals from over-mighty government; that it promotes personal development through political participation; and that it helps to maintain the balance or equilibrium amongst competing social interests. Liberal arguments against democracy include that it is inherently collectivist and so threatens individualism; that it boils down to a tyranny of the majority which threatens minority and individual rights; and that it fosters government intervention which upsets the delicate balance of the market economy. Liberal democracies are qualified democracies which allow democracy to operate only within constitutional constraints. Responses that address the question from a Marxist or radical democratic perspective will be regarded as legitimate. This was the least popular essay question, but it was generally done well. Most responses demonstrated an understanding of the tension within liberal democracy to which the question refers, but only stronger candidates explicitly addressed the 'liberal' and 'democratic' aspects of liberal democracy, highlighting their contrasting theoretical and political implications. Where this was done, tensions between, on the one hand, a commitment to limited government and individual liberty and, on the other hand, consent and public accountability were often highlighted. In the most impressive responses, these tensions were linked to ambivalence within liberalism towards democracy, and the fact that liberal democracies are based on a limited and indirect form of democracy. Weak responses sometimes did little more than describe the core features of liberal democracy, sometimes making only limited explicit reference to tensions between these features. Some poor responses tended to confuse liberal democracy with the ideas of the Liberal Democrats.

18

7. Analyse similarities and differences between classical liberalism and modern Liberalism. (Jan 05) Classical liberalism and modern liberalism differ over the proper role and responsibilities of the state. Classical liberals believe in a minimal state, support laissezfaire economics (economic Liberalism) and oppose welfare. Modern liberals believe in an enabling state, favour economic management (Keynesianism) and support welfare (social liberalism). Both classical and modern liberals support individualism and accept the priority of freedom over other values, but whereas classical liberals believe in egotistical individualism and negative freedom, modern liberals believe in developmental individualism and positive freedom. Modern liberals have revised classical liberalism in that they simply recognise that there are circumstances, usually linked to social disadvantage, in which individuals cannot make their own moral choices. In those circumstances, individuals need guidance and support form the state. Virtually all candidates understood the basic distinction between the rival classical and modern traditions within liberalism. Thankfully, very few interpreted modern liberalism to mean liberalism in the modern day. The core distinction highlighted was over the state, between the classical liberal defence of the minimal state and modern liberal support for intervention. In the case of weaker responses, this is where the distinctions sometimes ended. More developed responses went into some detail in highlighting differences over economic policy and social policy. Classical liberals believing in laissez-faire and self-help, and modern liberals believing in Keynesianism and welfare provision. However, the best responses recognised the theoretical bases of these alternative positions in terms of rival conceptions of individualism and contrasting models of freedom. The negative/positive freedom distinction was mentioned more often than it was accurately explained. There are still too many candidates who portray negative freedom, incorrectly, as freedom to do anything you want without restrictions, and positive freedom, also incorrectly, as the ability to do what you want within the constraints of law.

8. To what extent is liberalism compatible with democracy? (June 05) Liberalism's relationship with democracy is ambivalent although, since the eighteenth century, liberalism has been associated with support for democratic reform, few liberals have endorsed democracy unreservedly. Liberals have supported democracy for a variety of reasons. These include that in establishing a system of public accountability it protects the individuals against over-mighty government; that political participation, in the form of voting or holding public office, promotes personal selfdevelopment and political education; that political equality in the form of universal adult suffrage ensures formal equality amongst individuals; and that wide and equal access to policy formulation generates equilibrium amongst the competing groups in society. However, liberal concerns about democracy include that it is inherently collectivist and so may be insensitive to individual needs and interests; that it results in a tyranny of the majority that threatens individual rights; and that democratic pressures are often associated with an increase in economic and social intervention which undermines the fragile balance of the market economy. This ambivalence is evident in liberal democracy's attempt to balance popular political participation against the protection of individual rights.
19

This was the least popular essay question. Weak answers to it tended to be characterised by one of two approaches. The first was a tendency to over-focus on either liberal arguments in favour of democracy or against democracy, so that the other side of the argument was sometimes ignored altogether and the extent part of the question was given scant attention. The tendency here was usually to overfocus on liberal anxieties about democracy. The other weakness was an over-reliance on just one liberal argument on each side, and on the negative side this was invariably the argument about majoritarian tyranny. Stronger responses, on the other hand, provided a more balanced account of the ambivalent relationship between liberalism and democracy, looking at a range of positions on either side. One confusion demonstrated by a number of candidates was the simplistic link between classical liberalism and negative views on democracy and modern liberalism and the embrace of democracy. While it would be untrue to say that these linkages are false, they are certainly much more complex than most candidates who referred to them were aware.

9. Why do liberals support toleration and diversity, and on what grounds would they limit toleration? (Jan 06) Toleration means forbearance, an unwillingness to impose ones own views on others regardless of ones sense of dislike or disapproval. Diversity refers to pluralism or multiplicity, often seen as a result of toleration. The liberal case for toleration is based, first of all, on a commitment to individual freedom, the core liberal value. Individuals should be as free as possible to express their own views and pursue their own interests. Toleration is thus an ethical ideal representing the goal of personal autonomy and moral self-development. Toleration, however, is also a social principle for liberals. Toleration benefits the larger society because it ensures that there is a multiplicity of views and opinions in society, such that all views are challenged by rival views and that the truth emerges from this free market of ideas. Diversity thus promotes social advance and counters dull conformity. This is reflected in support for political, moral and cultural pluralism. Liberals nevertheless support limits on toleration and diversity in a variety of circumstances. Most importantly, toleration needs to be protected from the intolerant: liberals may thus support bans on anti-democratic political parties. Liberals are also concerned about the toleration of illiberal practices that violate individual freedom and autonomy, such as arranged marriages and female circumcision. This leads to a form of liberal multiculturalism based on the broad acceptance of liberal values and principles, ensuring that diversity operates within a liberal framework. 10. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Explain and discuss the implications of this view for liberalism. (June 06) Liberals believe that power tends to corrupt because self-interested humans in a position of control over others will, inevitably, use their position for their own benefit and at the expense of others. The greater their power, the greater their capacity to benefit themselves and, in the process, abuse and exploit others.
20

Such thinking has shaped liberalism in a number of ways. In particular it has encouraged them to endorse the principle of limited government brought through constitutionalism and democracy. Liberals thus support, for example, codified constitutions, bills of rights, the separation of powers, bicameralism, federalism or devolution, as well as regular, free and fair elections, party competition and universal suffrage. Constitutionalism delivers limited government either by legally ring-fencing government (e.g., codified constitutions and bills of rights or fragmenting government power so creating a network of checks and balances (e.g., the separation of powers, bicameralism and federalism). Democracy delivers limited government because it bases government on a system of popular consent and accountably that also enables the public (through competitive elections) to rid themselves of unpopular or corrupt governments. The quality of responses on the conceptual part of this question has generally improved compared with previous questions on similar topics. In particular, more candidates were able to explain more carefully the assumptions and thinking behind Actons famous quote about power and corruption, pointing out that this was based upon the liberal belief that, since human beings are individuals and therefore egoistical, they are bound to use power (the ability to influence the behaviour of others) to benefit themselves and they will use, or abuse, others in the furtherance of that goal. Stronger responses also explained why absolute power corrupts absolutely, pointing out that the greater the power the greater the scope for using and abusing others in the pursuit of self-seeking ends. Almost all candidates recognised that the chief implication of this view for liberalism is a preference for limited government, and therefore for a variety of constitutional and political devices that check or constrain those in government power. In some cases this resulted in a pedestrian list of devices that liberals have typically supported, ranging from electoral democracy and party competition through to written constitutions, bills of rights, separation of powers, federalism and devolution. More substantial answers were able to explain why and how such devices deliver limited government and place checks on power-holders, for example, better accounts of the separation of powers pointed out that its attraction is both that it cuts power into smaller pieces thus preventing concentrations of power from developing and that it creates internal tensions amongst institutions and power-holders (checks and balances) which further diminishes the capacity of each to abuse or tyrannise the general public. Some candidates, unhelpfully, strayed onto the distinction between modern and classical liberalism, arguing, unpersuasively, that since modern liberals are happy to support state intervention they must be less fearful of the corrupting nature of power. The constitutional and political views of modern liberals do not generally provide evidence supporting such an argument. 11. Modern liberals support state intervention, but only within limits. Discuss. (Jan 07) State intervention refers to ways in which the state exerts influence over economic and social life, its most common forms being social welfare and economic management. Modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism because of its rejection of laissezfaire and the minimal state. The modern liberal case for state intervention has both a social and an economic dimension. Socially, modern liberals have been influenced by the theory of positive freedom and the principle of equality of opportunities. Positive freedom defines freedom in terms of personal growth and self-realization. In this light, poverty and social disadvantage are
21

seen as constraints on freedom, as they impair the individuals ability to flourish and achieve his or her potential. Social welfare thus widens individual freedom in this positive sense. Equality of opportunity is also significant; in that it commits modern liberalism to creating social conditions in which all individuals have the capacity to realize their potential by enjoying at least a social minimum. This also requires welfare support. The economic case for state intervention is based on the Keynesian belief that capitalism is not self-regulating: it needs to be managed by government (demand management) to avoid a spiralling down into depression and unemployment. However, the modern liberal case for intervention is always a qualified one; intervention can be excessive. In the social/welfare sphere, the purpose of intervention is to help people to help themselves, not to rob them of dignity and selfrespect. The modern liberal preference is thus for autonomous individuals to make their own decisions and take responsibility for their own lives. Intervention is only justified when social injustice makes this impossible. In economic life, intervention is designed to make capitalism work, not to replace capitalism with a state controlled economy. This was a popular question; however, a number of candidates underperformed by virtue of misconstruing part of it. Very few of the responses failed to demonstrate an adequate and often good understanding of the reasons why modern liberals endorse state intervention. Social intervention tended to be better understood than economic intervention, with ideas such as equality of opportunity and positive freedom generally being well understood. In relation to this part of the question, the main differentiator was between candidates who described modern liberal arguments and those who explained them. Although Keynesianism often featured in answers, fewer candidates were able either to flesh out the Keynesian basis for economic intervention or note how and why it needs to be limited. However, the main concern in relation to limits arose when candidates explained the limits of state intervention by reference to fears about the corrupt and corrupting nature of power. The reason why modern liberals fear excessive intervention is because they have not entirely abandoned classical liberal ideas about the benefits of self-reliance and the virtues of market competition. Differences between modern and classical liberals over intervention do not stem from different levels of concern about the corrupting nature of power. Liberals, both modern and classical liberals, deal with the latter fear through limited government, not by limiting intervention. That said, some candidates advanced well focused and insightful arguments, usually along the lines that modern liberals favour helping individuals to help themselves once they can help themselves, state intervention is unnecessary.

12. The similarities between classical liberalism and modern liberalism are greater than the differences. Discuss (June 07) Modern liberalism is a theoretical development within liberal ideology that has revised some of the ideas of classical liberalism. Some classical liberals highlight the differences between classical and modern liberalism, even suggesting that modern liberalism does not belong within the liberal tradition as it has effectively abandoned individualism and embraced collectivism. The alternative view emphasises the
22

similarities between classical and modern liberalism, the latter being seen to have built on core liberal ideas (and sometimes revised them) rather than abandoned them. Classical and modern liberals disagree over issues such as individualism (the former supporting egoistical individualism and the latter favouring developmental individualism), freedom (negative versus positive freedom), the state (minimal state versus enabling state), social welfare (individual responsibility versus social responsibility) and economic policy (laissez-faire versus Keynesian economic management). The notion that the similarities are greater than the differences reflects the belief that modern liberals accept much that classical liberal support, the only difference being the recognition that under certain social and economic conditions the minimal state favoured by classical liberalism is not compatible with human flourishing. Certainly, all liberals hold similar views about limited government and democracy.

This was the most popular essay question by far, and it was generally competently answered. Candidates were usually well aware of at least some of the key distinctions between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, and many were able to write clearly about why they are important. At the top end of performance range, candidates were able to reflect not only on both similarities and differences, but were also able to reach a conclusion supported by evidence. In addition, there were able to consider a broad range of issues, ranging from philosophical ones to policy matters. In the case of weaker answers, these tended to focus more narrowly on issues such as social welfare and economic management, with the differences between the two traditions being treated descriptively rather than analytically. Moreover, in some cases, the emphasis was entirely on differences, with the similarities and overlaps between effectively ignored.

13. Liberal support equality, but only a qualified form of equality. Discuss (Jan 08) The liberal support for equality is based on a belief in individualism. Individualism implies foundational equality, the idea that human beings are born equal; they are equal moral worth. This is reflected in a belief in formal equality, the idea of equal rights and entitlements. Liberals thus believe in legal equality (the law is no respecter of persons) and political equality (one person one vote, one vote one value). Liberals take this belief in equality further by supporting equality of opportunity, a belief in a level playing field in which all people have an equal chance to realise their potential and achieve to the maximum of their ability. For modern liberals, this can only be achieved when social inequality is reduced by welfare and other strategies. However, liberal forms of egalitarianism have been criticised. In the first place, equal opportunities provide no guarantee of equal outcomes. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. Equality of opportunity provides a justification for social inequality, so long as it is based on different natural abilities or different levels of hard work. People therefore have an equal opportunity to realise their unequal talents and abilities. This leads to meritocracy rather than egalitarianism. Moreover, socialists have argued that liberal ideas such as foundational and formal equality are limited because they do not deliver social equality. Equal voting rights, for instance, do not ensure that millionaires
23

and beggars have the same political influence. Marxists argue that the liberal view of equality is only used to mask the underlying inequalities of the capitalist system.

Most of the candidates who attempted this question were able to show at least a sound understanding of liberal approaches to equality. Many demonstrated an awareness of foundational equality, formal equality, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. In some cases, a belief in foundational and formal equality was associated, unhelpfully, only with classical liberalism. A large proportion of responses primarily explored differences between classical liberalism and modern liberalism over social equality. Strong responses often examined how, although both classical and modern liberals believe in equality opportunity, only modern liberals believe that state intervention to reduce levels of social inequality is required to establish a level playing-field. Classical liberals, by contrast, believe that capitalism itself provides a level playing-field, and also place greater stress on the economic benefits of social inequality (incentives, efficiency and so on). In some weaker responses, equality of opportunity was associated exclusively with modern liberalism. The best responses, however, went beyond an examination of differences between classical and modern liberalism and looked at the extent to which all forms of liberal egalitarianism could be viewed as qualified. This was usually done by reference to their implications for social equality, contrasting the various liberal views with the more thorough-going egalitarian beliefs of socialism. Some very good responses emphasised that liberals place priority on freedom rather than equality and believe that it is unjust for unalike people to be treated alike.

14. Why, and to what extent, have liberals supported toleration and diversity? (Jun 08) Liberals have supported diversity in a variety of forms including political, social and cultural pluralism (multiculturalism). This has usually been done on the grounds of toleration, although toleration only provides a qualified justification for diversity. Toleration means forbearance, a willingness to accept the views or actions with which one is in disagreement. Liberals support toleration for a variety of reasons. First, it reflects their belief in rationalism and acknowledges that rational individuals should be allowed to determine 'truth' as each understands it. Second, and most fundamentally, toleration reflects a belief in autonomy. Respect for the individual as a self-determining creature implies that constraints on the individual should be minimal, perhaps restricted to the prevention of 'harm to others'. This is particularly important in order to promote individuality and personal development. Third, toleration benefits society at large. This happens because it ensures that ideas, theories and values are constantly tested against rival ideas and values. A 'free market of ideas' therefore promotes ongoing debate that contributes to the growth of understanding and therefore social progress. Restrictions on argument and debate will therefore lead to social stagnation. Some Liberals have gone further in supporting diversity by embracing the idea of neutrality or even value pluralism.

24

However, a belief in toleration does not endorse unlimited political, social or cultural diversity. The basic limit to toleration, from a liberal perspective is that it is difficult to extend toleration to actions or practices that are in themselves intolerant or illiberal. This may apply to expressions of race hatred, the political activities of fascist groups, or cultural practices such as female circumcision or the exclusion of women from education and public life. In this sense, toleration has to be protected from the intolerant. Liberals also believe that diversity should operate within an 'overlapping consensus' that establishes a deeper harmony or balance amongst competing interests and groups. This consensus is usually based on the maintenance of essentially liberal values, such as autonomy and equality. The maintenance of liberal-democratic structures that ensure government based on consent and guarantees for openness and individual freedom are therefore not negotiable from a liberal perspective. Liberals may thus not be prepared to 'tolerate' attempts to overthrow free political competition in the name of a single source of unchallengeable authority (be it a fascist state or an absolutist theocracy). There is also debate about the extent to which liberals can embrace neutrality and/or value pluralism.

15. Why do liberals support the principle of limited government, and do they propose that it be achieved? (Jan 09) Liberals support limited government because they believe that power is inherently corrupting. Unchecked power therefore means that government will become a tyranny against the people, a danger that is all the greater when power is concentrated in the hands of the few (Acton). As a result, liberals have endorsed a range of devices intended to limit government power. The most significant of these are:  'External' legal or constitutional checks, such as a codified constitution, a bill of right and the rule of law. These seek to ringfence government by forcing it to operate within a network of formal and enforceable rules.  'Internal' institutional checks, such as federalism, devolution, the separation of powers, parliamentary government and cabinet government. These seek to limit government through fragmenting government power, both reducing concentrations of power and ensuring that power is a check on power (checks and balances).  Democratic processes, such as universal suffrage, regular and competitive elections and so on. These seek to deliver limited government by making government accountable to the people. Effective responses will both explain the devices of limited government and explain how and why they serve to check government power.

Some candidates under-performed on this question by mistaking limited government for the minimal state. When they did this, they often discussed differences between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, and spent time examining the arguments for and against economic regulation and social intervention. These matters are, strictly
25

speaking, irrelevant to the question of limited government. Classical and modern liberals essentially agree about the configuration of government power, and the need to limit or contain it. Strong responses explained liberal support for the principle of limited government in terms of the tendency of power to corrupt and of absolute power to corrupt absolutely. Some very effective responses were developed examining the various proposals that liberals have made to constrain government power, focusing on external (constitutional and legal) constraints, internal (institutional) constraints and democratic constraints. An important distinction was between those candidates, and there were many, who merely provided descriptive accounts of these various constitutional, legal or institutional devices, and those who explained how they supported the goal of limited government. For example, checks and balances uphold the principle of limited government both by reducing the extent of power in the hands of any politician or official (preventing concentrations of power) and by creating a network of internal tensions that make power a check upon itself, thereby reducing the capacity of government to tyrannise its citizens.

16. Liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms. Discuss. (June 09) Liberal democracy has a hybrid nature: it attempts to reconcile limited government (reflecting a liberal desire to protect freedom) with a commitment to representation and popular consent (reflecting a democratic desire to promote government by and for the people). Liberal democracy can be seen as a contradiction in terms to the extent that liberalism is incompatible with democracy. Liberals have feared democracy for a variety of reasons. For example, it:  is a form of collectivism (based on the idea of rule by 'the people')  can lead to the tyranny of the majority  can degenerate into mob rule, because its masses lack wisdom and political education  may undermine economic prosperity by leading to increased state intervention. On the other hand, liberalism and democracy can be seen as entirely compatible, liberals being supporters of democracy on a variety of grounds, including that it:  serves to protect freedom and prevent over-mighty government by making politicians accountable to the people, especially when democracy operates within a constitutional framework (liberal democracy)  promotes political education and personal self-development  strengthens consensus in society by giving all groups a political voice. This was a popular question. It was generally well answered, many candidates being well prepared and almost everyone having at least one argument on either side of the issue. Many wrote sophisticated answers, drawing out the ambivalence of the liberal position, although only a few took the route of examining the concept of liberal democracy itself. Those who did often produced outstanding responses. As ever, the idea of majoritarian despotism featured largely in explanations of why liberals have feared democracy, although, thankfully, more candidates were able to make reference to other concerns. Oddly, definitions of liberal democracy were rather at the outset, so eager, it seemed, were many to get into the strengths and weaknesses of democracy from the liberal perspective. Needless to say, those who did start by defining the term
26

soundly, particularly when they noted its hybrid character, addressed the question in a more analytical fashion. They were also in a better position to make a judgment at the end on whether liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms.

27