Raymond Aron’s political sociology of regime and party

Abstract

This paper provides a critical exposition of Raymond Aron’s analysis of the distinct characteristics of constitutional-pluralist and totalitarian regimes. These regime types are distinguished by the nature of the party system — respectively, multi-party and monopolistic — and their underlying principles. Aron’s approach to the nature of political sociology is, it is argued, deeply influenced by the German — particularly Weberian — understanding of the social sciences as a hermeneutic enterprise concerned with meaning, and by Montesquieu’s analysis of regimes in terms of their (essential) nature, principles and the sources of their potential ‘corruption’. Aron’s analysis provides not only an account of totalitarian regimes in a late, developed stage, but also an analytical snapshot of Western pluralist democracies at the high point of ‘sociological liberalism’. The final section of the paper seeks to identify some differences between Aron’s account of democracy and that contained in contemporary debates on ‘governance’. The striking differences that emerge make Aron’s analysis relevant as an account of a high-tide mark of democracy grounded in a particular mix of party competition and compromise.