The History of Local Political Power—Some Suggestions for Analysis
| Published date | 01 June 1977 |
| Date | 01 June 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1977.tb01179.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
THE HISTORY
OF
LOCAL POLITICAL
FOR
ANALYSIS
POWER-SOME SUGGESTIONS
JOHN
A.
GARRARD
University
of
Sdford
Abstrucr.
This paper represents
an
attempt to analyse certain aspects
of
the work
on
‘community power’ within
a
historical context. It
begins
with
a
critical review
of
those
writers whose work has included
a
historical dimension, particularly
R.
A.
Dahl. It
is
argued
that generalizations about the
location
of power in the past need to go beyond the mere
analysis of the background of o5ce-holders,
and
the consequent search for
a
socio-
economic ‘Blite’. Indeed, such generalizations need to be tested quite as rigorously
as
any
that are made about the present.
On
the basis of research done
on
Salford,
an
attempt is
made to suggest
a
framework for
the
comparative analysis
of
the political context within
which nineteenthcentury
urban
municipal leaders operated,
and
by which their power
was conditioned.
Om
the past two decades, there have been several studies of local politics in
Britain and America that have included
a
historical dimension.’ With varying
degrees of purpose, determination and success, these have attempted to analyse
the process of political change, sometimes for its
own
sake, sometimes to set up
an account upon which to base contrasting generalizations about the present.
In
this article,
I
will suggest that most of the work done
so
far has been handi-
capped by the absence of any clearly thought-out frame of enquiry, and some-
times of any very clear conception of purpose.
R. A. Dahl’s
study
of
New Haven
is uniquely free of these problems, but
I
shall argue that the resulting hypothesis
is
crucially under-substantiated.
The article will enter a plea for a more rigorous and more purposive analysis
of the history of local politics.
On
the basis of
an
analysis of our own work
on
Salford politics since
1830,2
I
will
suggest
a
foundation upon which future
historical work-particularly any
of
a
comparative nature-might be done.
The early chapters of G. W. Jones’ study of Wolverhampton and
A.
H.
Birch’s study of Glossop are both concerned, wholly or partly, with the changing
background
of
local leadership. Jones documents
a
change, between
1888
and
1900,
from
a
situation where the council was dominated by manufacturers,
shopkeepers and professionals to one in the nineteen sixties where council
representation
was
split
between
shopkeepers, manual and white collar workers.
Political change in Glossop
was
even more dramatic. Up to incorporation in
1866,
Birch suggests that the town was governed by an alliance of the main
I
shall
be
particularly concerned with
the
following:
A.
H.
Birch,
Smufl
Town
Politics
(London, Oxford University
Press,
1959);
J.
M.
Lee,
SociufLeuders
undPubfic Persons
(Oxford,
Clarendon
Press,
1963);
G.
W.
Jones,
Borough
Politics
(London, Marmillan,
1969);
R.
A.
Dahl,
Who
Governr?
(New Haven, Yale University
Press,
1961).
Between
1967
and
1972
a
multi-disciplinary study of Word politics was undertaken, based
on
the University of Salford, and directed by
M.
J.
Goldsmith, SSRC sponsored
1968-70.
P-
shdia.
VOI.
m,
NO.
2
(252-269)
JOHN
A.
GARRARD
253
landowners and
local
millowners. Between
1866
and 1919, local politics (along
with Glossop’s economic, social and philanthropic life) was ‘dominated’ by
a
mildly competitive ‘cottonocracy’, presided over by the town’s two leading
manufacturing families. Finally, after 1919, this gave
way
to people whom Birch
rather vaguely describes as ‘shopkeepers, artisans, civil servants and school
masters’.’
In both of these books, the author’s concern has been to present a rather
haphazard ‘picture’ of the town and its political history, set against the back-
ground of broader developments like suburbanization, changes in company
structure and the increasing complexity of local government. Moreover,
in
neither study
is
the function of the historical section very clearly thought out-
beyond a vague desire to provide ‘background’ and contrast.
In
all respects,
J.
M. Lee’s study
of
political change in Cheshire represents a considerable
improvement.
The central change which Lee identifies is one from social leaders, whose
political power is based upon social position within the locality, to ‘public
persons’, whose power is based upon expertise and political skill. The process is
really
a
two-fold one. In the nineteenth century, control of county government
gradually passed from the old landed aristocracy and gentry to an emerging
group of industrialists-men who had either entered the county as refugees
from the city, or who had established new industry in the towns within the
county. Either way, they had adopted the habits and attitudes of country
gentlemen-and thus represented a continuance
of
rule by social leaders.
The second stage began around the turn of the century, and was rapidly
completed in the years immediately after the First World War.
As
a result, social
leaders partially disappeared from county society, and totally withdrew from
county government. They relinquished their power to ‘public persons’-the
rapidly professionalizing county officials, and those councillors prepared to try
to match the officials’ expertise. The position
of
these councillors was based not
upon social position, but upon their links with political parties, and interest
groups. Again, though Lee’s is a study
of
a county rather than a town, the main
causal factors which he identifies as being responsible for political change are the
familiar ones of urbanization and industrial change.
Lee’s approach is better researched and clearly more conceptualized than
either of the foregoing studies and his use of historical analysis is also more
purposive. Past and present illuminate each other: without the sense of contrast
lent by the idea of social leaders, it would be difficult to describe twentieth-
century leadership in terms
of
public persons. The same applies to the generaliza-
tions about changing styles of government which he draws from this basic
contrast. At the
end,
he argues quite plausibly that the social leaders/public
persons pattern provides a framework within which the politics of any county
can be assessed, and the impact of urbanization measured.
Dahl’s study of
‘Who
Governs?’ in New Haven falls into
a
similar mildti
praiseworthy category. In fact, it is the most rigorously conceptualized of the
four studies under review. The part
of
the analysis that primarily concerns
us
here, and around which we shall centre our later criticism, is contained in
the
first seven chapters
of
a
twenty-eight chapter book. Nevertheless, this section. i.s
Birch,
Small
Town
Politics,
p.
31.
To continue reading
Request your trial