الطيف السياسي من اليسار إلى اليمين

(تم التحويل من Left–right political spectrum)
لمعلومات عن the mathematical model of voter behavior، انظر Spatial model of voting.
لمعلومات عن the system to characterize and classify different political positions، انظر Political spectrum.
"Left wing and right wing" redirects here. For the incorporation of political ideas from opposing sides of the political spectrum, see Political syncretism.
 
جزء من سلسلة السياسة
سياسة حزبية
 
الطيف السياسي
الجناح اليساري
الوسط
الجناح اليميني
Party platform
نظام حزبي
ائتلاف
قوائم
بوابة السياسة

اليمين واليسار السياسيان

تقسيم للتيارات السياسية في المجتمع يشير ضمنه مصطلح ( اليمين ) إلى القوى المحافظة التي ترفض تغيير النظام السياسي والاجتماعي وتعمل على المحافظة على الأوضاع السائدة , بينما يشير مصطلح (اليسار) إلى القوى التي تنادي بتغيير الواقع السياسي والاجتماعي . وبين قوى اليمين واليسار تقع قوى الوسط التي تنادي بالإصلاحات التدريجية للنظام السياسي والاجتماعي . بدأ اول استخدام لهذه المصطلحات الثلاثة في أعقاب قيام الثورة الفرنسية في 1789م .واكتسب كل منها معناه الاصطلاحي من المواقع التي جلس فيها ممثلو القوى الاجتماعية والسياسية داخل الجمعية الوطنية ( البرلمان ) التي تشكلت بعد الثورة . فقد جلس المحافظون الذين كانوا يمثلون النبلاء ورجال الدين على يمين منصة المجلس فتم تسميتهم باليمينين . فيما جلس المنادون بتغيير النظام الملكي وإدخال إصلاحات جذرية على النظام على يسار المجلس فسموا باليساريين . شكلت الحرية الفردية مطلبا أساسيا ضمن مطالب اليسار أثناء الثورة الفرنسية، حيث شغلت حيزا أساسيا في مشروعه الهادف إلى بناء مجتمع فرداني يكون من ضمن أولوياته تكريس المبادرة الفردية كمبدأ أساسي لتنظيم المدينة. وبذلك واجه كافة المؤسسات الأخلاقية والدينية والإجتماعية القائمة على السلطة الأبوية والنظام التراتبي، والتي تعمل على ترسيخ قيم الخضوع، والتبعية، وارتهان إرادة الأفراد واستلابها في مواجهة المؤسسات العتيقة. أما اليمين فقد رأى "في الحرية بأنها ضد النظام الطبيعي للأشياء، وتحط من القيم الأخلاقية، وتعمل على بث الكبرياء، فاليمين كان يعارض مفهوم الحرية ويطرح كبديل لها السلطة والنبلاء وقيم الخضوع، ويحث على ضرورة التضحية بالطموحات الفردية لصالح المصلحة العامة والقيم الجماعية". وبعد أن أصبح اليسار يضع ضمن أولوياته مسألة العدالة الإجتماعية، والتوزيع المنصف لثروات المجتمع. ويحاول انطلاقا من أطره النظرية وأدواته السياسية تقليص التفاوت الصارخ في العلاقات الإجتماعية، نجد اليمين أخذ يركز على مفهوم الفرد المجرد ومفهوم الذات الفردية، حيث أصبحت مرجعياته السياسية ترى أن الحرية الفردية هي المبدأ والغاية من الوجود الإنساني، لأن الفرد المجرد هو صاحب الإختيار والمبادرة، وبكونه أصبح مهددا بالتدخلات العنيفة للدولة من خلال اكتساحها لكافة المجالات الإقتصادية والسياسية والإجتماعية، وإرسائها لنظام من المؤسسات يعمل على الحد من هذه الحرية ويعيق المبادرة الفردية. وبذلك أصبحت البرامج السياسية لليمين ترفض تدخل الدولة في النسيج الإقتصادي، وتناهض سياسات التأميم، وتطالب بضرورة عودة الدولة إلى وظائفها التقليدية، وأن تفسح المجالات التي تحتكرها أمام المبادرة الحرة الخلاقة والمبدعة، القائمة على ميكانيزمات وآليات السوق. وبذلك أصبح الدفاع عن الحرية الفردية أداة للتميز عن اليسار السياسي، الذي ينظر إليه عادة بكونه شمولي وتجسيدا واقعيا لليعقوبية وفلسفتها المساواتية الإطلاقية، التي تضحي بالفرد لصالح مقولة المصلحة العامة.

من هنا يتضح أن ثنائية اليمين واليسار ليست لها دلالات محددة أو مضامين قارة، بل أن حمولتها تبقى مفتوحة على كافة الصراعات التي يستبطنها المجتمع، لأن الرهانات الأساسية لكل من اليمين واليسار تتغير حسب الشروط التاريخية. ففي القرن التاسع عشر شكلت الحرية الفردية حجر الأساس في التصورات السياسية لليسار. "أما اليوم فإن العكس هو ما يحدث كما ترمز لذلك كلمة الإشتراكية نفسها".

وبعد تراجع الرهانات الأساسية التي شكلت المبدأ الأساسي الذي يميز بين اليمين واليسار، مثل العلمانية الجمهورية، التأميمات، اقتصاد السوق. ظهرت انشغالات جديدة تهيمن على الحقل السياسي، مثل تحرير الممارسات الجنسية، تحريم أو استعادة العمل بعقوبة الإعدام، حيث أن غالبية ناخبي اليمين السياسي يرغبون في استعادة العمل بهذه العقوبة. ولاشك أن هذا الموقف يتفاعل مع بعض الأفكار والتمثلات التي يحفل بها الفكر اليميني حول الطبيعة الإنسانية. فالإنسان اليميني يشكك في إمكانية إعادة إدماج المجرمين، ويؤمن بوجود حدود فاصلة بين الفرد المجرم - والسوي.

عرفت مفاهيم اليمين واليسار والوسط نجاحا كبيرا، حيث اكتسحت الكون، وأصبحت مقولات حقيقية للحقل السياسي، حيث أن هذه الثنائية لم تتوقف عن الإثراء، وأظهرت قوتها الدلالية من خلال امتدادها في الزمن وانفتاحها على كافة المتغيرات السياسية والمجتمعية. وعلى الرغم من أن العوامل والأسباب التي كانت وراء ظهور هذه الثنائية قد تراجعت، إلا أن هذه الأخيرة لازالت تعرف نجاحا استثنائيا. فأغلب استطلاعات الرأي داخل المجتمع الفرنسي تثبت أن أغلب المواطنين يفكرون في السياسة انطلاقا من هذه الثنائية . ومع ذلك فإن التمايز يمين / يسار لازال يثير الكثير من الإحتجاجات في الأوساط العلمية والسياسية، حيث أن هناك الكثير من الإشكالات النظرية والمعرفية التي تثار فيما يخص هذه الثنائية. وبتلخيص التقسيم بين اليمين واليسار، يمثل الأول الفكر الرأسمالي المؤيد للسوق الحرة دون تدخل الدولة، والثاني يمثل الفكر الاشتراكي أو الاقتصاد الموجه.. الأول مع تكافؤ الفرص والثاني مع عدالة توزيع الثروة.. الأول محافظ باعتبار أن طبيعة الإنسان والمجتمع ثابتة، بينما الثاني متحرر باعتبار أن هذه الطبيعة متغيرة.

الأحزاب السياسية

Seating in the 2024 European Parliament:
<span style="background-color:Value not in template. Please request that it be added.; color:; border:1px solid darkgray; text-align:center;">     The Left in the European Parliament (46)
     Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (136)
     Greens–European Free Alliance (53)
     Renew Europe (77)
     European People's Party Group (188)
     European Conservatives and Reformists Group (78)
     Patriots for Europe (84)
     Europe of Sovereign Nations (25)
     Non-Inscrits (32)

Political scientists have made models in which the ideologies of political parties are mapped along a single left–right axis.[1] Klaus von Beyme categorized European parties into nine families, which described most parties. Beyme arranged seven of them from left to right: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and right-wing extremist. The position of agrarian and regional/ethnic parties varied.[2] A study conducted in the late 1980s on two bases, positions on ownership of the means of production and positions on social issues, confirmed[how?] this arrangement.[3]

There has been a tendency for party ideologies to persist and values and views that were present at a party's founding have survived. However, they have also adapted for pragmatic reasons, making them appear more similar.[4] Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan observed that modern party systems are the product of social conflicts played out in the last few centuries.[5] They said that lines of cleavage had become "frozen".[6]

The first modern political parties were liberals, organized by the middle class in the 19th century to protect them against the aristocracy. They were major political parties in that century, but declined in the twentieth century as first the working class came to support socialist parties and economic and social change eroded their middle class base.[7] Conservative parties arose in opposition to liberals to defend aristocratic privilege, but to attract voters they became less doctrinaire than liberals. However, they were unsuccessful in most countries and generally have been able to achieve power only through cooperation with other parties.[8]

Socialist parties were organized to achieve political rights for workers and were originally allied with liberals. However, they broke with the liberals when they sought worker control of the means of production.[9] Christian democratic parties were organized by Catholics who saw liberalism as a threat to traditional values. Although established in the 19th century, they became a major political force following the Second World War.[10] Communist parties emerged following a division within socialism first on support of the First World War and then support of the Bolshevik Revolution.[11] Right-wing extremist parties are harder to define other than being more right-wing than other parties, but include fascists and some extreme conservative and nationalist parties.[12] Green parties were the most recent of the major party groups to develop. They have mostly rejected socialism and are very liberal on social issues.[13]

These categories can be applied to many parties outside of Europe.[14] Ware (1996) asserted that in the United States both major parties were liberal, even though there are left–right policy differences between them.[15]

مصطلحات معاصرة

حول العالم

The left-right political spectrum can change over time in a process that affects the views on politicians from more than one country. In most countries, classical liberalism is thought of as a right-wing ideology, but when classical liberal ideas made their debut, they were thought of as leftist.[16][17]

"Left-wing" and "right-wing" in non-Western political contexts may vary significantly from their meaning in Western political contexts.[18](p. 42) China, for example, is governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[18](p. 42) Like communist parties traditionally do, the CCP deems itself as a progressive force on the left-wing.[18](p. 42) In this context, "left-wing" groups present themselves as supporters of the CCP and its political system, while those supporting liberal democracy are construed as "right-wing".[18](p. 42) Summarizing research in the Chinese political context, academic Chenyang Song writes that the left-wing/right-wing dichotomy is not an essential criterion for differentiating Chinese ideological stances.[18](p. 45)

Western Europe

In the 2001 book The Government and Politics of France, Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright say that the main factor dividing the left and right wings in Western Europe is class. The left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the right defends private property and capitalism. The nature of the conflict depends on existing social and political cleavages and on the level of economic development.[19]

Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature and social justice and mistrust of strong personal political leadership. To the right, this is regularly seen as anti-clericalism, unrealistic social reform, doctrinaire socialism and class hatred.

The right wing believes in the established church both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion, and they believe in the need for strong political leadership to minimize social and political divisions. To the left, this is seen as a selfish and reactionary opposition to social justice, a wish to impose doctrinaire religion on the population and a tendency to authoritarianism and repression.[20][21]

The differences between left and right have altered over time. The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the left). During the 19th century, the cleavage was between monarchists and republicans. Following the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the cleavage was between supporters of a strong executive on the right and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the left.[22]

United States

A 2005 Harris Poll of American adults showed that the terms left wing and right wing were less familiar to Americans than the terms liberal or conservative.[23] Peter Berkowitz writes that in the U.S., the term liberal "commonly denotes the left wing of the Democratic Party" and has become synonymous with the word progressive,[24] a fact that is usefully contextualized for non-Americans by Ware's observation that at the turn of the 21st century, both mainstream political parties in the United States, generally speaking, were liberal in the classical sense of the word.[15]

Michael Kazin writes that the left is traditionally defined as the social movement or movements "that are dedicated to a radically egalitarian transformation of society" and suggests that many in the left in the United States who met that definition called themselves by various other terms.[25] Kazin writes that American leftists "married the ideal of social equality to the principle of personal freedom" and that contributed to the development of important features of modern American society, including "the advocacy of equal opportunity and equal treatment for women, ethnic and racial minorities, and homosexuals; the celebration of sexual pleasure unconnected to reproduction; a media and educational system sensitive to racial and gender oppression and which celebrates what we now call multiculturalism; and the popularity of novels and films with a strongly altruistic and anti-authoritarian point of view."[26] A variety of distinct left-wing movements existed in American history, including labor movements, the Farmer-Labor movement, various democratic socialist and socialist movements, pacifist movements, and the New Left.[27]

انتقادات

The Nolan Chart.
The Nolan chart in its traditional form

Political scientists have frequently argued that a single left–right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and include other axes to compensate for this problem.[28][29][18](p. 43)

American libertarian writer David Boaz argued that the political terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the left typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class; and those on the right usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the left of supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way these terms should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.[30]

In 2006, British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the main cleavage in politics as not left versus right, but open versus closed.[31] According to Blair, attitudes towards social issues and globalisation are more important than the conventional economic left–right issues. In this model, "open" voters tend to be culturally liberal, multicultural and in favour of globalisation while "closed" voters are culturally conservative, opposed to immigration and in favour of protectionism. The open–closed political spectrum has seen increased support following the rise of populist and centrist parties in the 2010s.[32][33]

Norberto Bobbio saw the polarization of the Italian Chamber of Deputies in the 1990s as evidence that the linear left–right axis remained valid. Bobbio thought that the argument that the spectrum had disappeared occurred when either the left or right were weak. The dominant side would claim that its ideology was the only possible one, while the weaker side would minimize its differences. He saw the left and right not in absolute terms, but as relative concepts that would vary over time. In his view, the left–right axis could be applied to any time period.[34]

A survey of Canadian legislative caucuses conducted between 1983 and 1994 by Bob Altemeyer showed an 82% correlation between party affiliation and score on a scale for right-wing authoritarianism when comparing right-wing and social democratic caucuses. There was a wide gap between the scores of the two groups, which was filled by liberal caucuses. His survey of American legislative caucuses showed scores by American Republicans and Democrats were similar to the Canadian right and liberals, with a 44% correlation between party affiliation and score.[35]

While in many Western European democracies, traditionally the left is associated with socially liberal and economically left values, while the right is traditionally associated with socially conservative and economically right values, Eastern European, post-communist parties are frequently juxtaposed, with economically left parties holding nationalist positions more frequently and economically right parties being liberal and internationalist.[36]

The Nolan Chart is a political spectrum diagram created by American libertarian activist David Nolan in 1969, charting political views along two axes, representing economic freedom and personal freedom. It expands political view analysis beyond the traditional one-dimensional left–right/progressive-conservative divide, positioning libertarianism outside the traditional spectrum.

انظر أيضاً

ملاحظات

المراجع

  1. ^ Ware 1996, pp. 18–20.
  2. ^ Ware 1996, p. 22.
  3. ^ Ware 1996, pp. 27–29.
  4. ^ Ware 1996, p. 47.
  5. ^ Ware 1996, p. 186.
  6. ^ Ware 1996, p. 202.
  7. ^ Ware 1996, pp. 29–31.
  8. ^ Ware 1996, pp. 31–33.
  9. ^ Ware 1996, pp. 33–35.
  10. ^ Ware 1996, pp. 36–37.
  11. ^ Ware 1996, p. 34.
  12. ^ Ware 1996, pp. 41–42.
  13. ^ Ware 1996, p. 43.
  14. ^ Ware 1996, pp. 44–47.
  15. ^ أ ب Ware 1996, p. 60.
  16. ^ Wright, Edmund, ed. (2006). The Desk Encyclopedia of World History. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 541, 370. ISBN 978-0-7394-7809-7 – via Internet Archive.
  17. ^ خطأ استشهاد: وسم <ref> غير صحيح؛ لا نص تم توفيره للمراجع المسماة :2
  18. ^ أ ب ت ث ج ح Song, Chenyang (2025). Nationalist and Popular Culture Practices on Social Media: A Digital Ethnography of Chinese Online Fandom Nationalists. Bielefeld: Transcript. ISBN 978-3-8376-7926-7.
  19. ^ Knapp & Wright 2001, p. 7.
  20. ^ Knapp & Wright 2001, p. 9.
  21. ^ Giddens, Anthony (1994). Beyond Left and Right, the Future of Radical Politics. Stanford University Press. pp. 22–24. ISBN 978-0-8047-2451-7. In many continental European countries, for example, 'conservatism' suggests the political influence of Catholicism. (p. 22) [...] American conservatism, in some of its major forms at least, has almost from its beginnings been aggressively pro-capitalist in ways that its European counterparts have not. [...] (However) the basic dilemmas now faced by conservative and socialist thought are everywhere similar. (p. 23) [...] Conservatism, it is often said, opposes rationalism. (p. 24)
  22. ^ Knapp & Wright 2001, pp. 2–5.
  23. ^ "Political Labels: Majorities of U.S. Adults Have a Sense of What Conservative, Liberal, Right Wing or Left Wing Means, But Many Do Not". The Harris Poll No. 12. 9 February 2005. Archived from the original on 9 February 2010.
  24. ^ Berkowitz, Peter (2007). "The Liberal Spirit in America and Its Paradoxes". In Jumonville, Neil; Mattson, Kevin (eds.). Liberalism for a New Century. University of California Press. p. 14.
  25. ^ Kazin 2011, p. xiv.
  26. ^ Kazin 2011, pp. xiii–xiv.
  27. ^ Kazin 2011, p. xix.
  28. ^ Heywood, Andrew (2017). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (6th ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education. pp. 14–17. ISBN 9781137606044. OCLC 988218349.
  29. ^ Fenna, Alan; Robbins, Jane; Summers, John (2013). Government Politics in Australia. Robbins, Jane., Summers, John. (10th ed.). Melbourne: Pearson Higher Education AU. pp. 126 f. ISBN 9781486001385. OCLC 1021804010.
  30. ^ Boaz, David (2008). The Politics of Freedom: Taking on the Left, the Right, and Threats to Our Liberties. Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-933995-14-4.
  31. ^ Cowley, Jason (24 November 2016). "Tony Blair's unfinished business". New Statesman. Retrieved 8 May 2017.
  32. ^ "Drawbridges up". The Economist. 30 July 2016. Retrieved 8 May 2017.
  33. ^ "The Dutch election suggests a new kind of identity politics". The Economist. 18 March 2017. Retrieved 8 May 2017.
  34. ^ Bobbio, Norberto; Cameron, Allan (1996). Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. pp. vi–xiv.
  35. ^ Altemeyer, Bob (1996). The authoritarian specter. pp. 258–298.
  36. ^ Rohrschneider, Robert; Whitefield, Stephen (10 October 2008). "Understanding Cleavages in Party Systems". Comparative Political Studies. 42 (2): 280–313. doi:10.1177/0010414008325285. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 154318189.

ببليوجرافيا

الكلمات الدالة:
تمّ الاسترجاع من "https://www.marefa.org/w/index.php?title=الطيف_السياسي_من_اليسار_إلى_اليمين&oldid=4328238"