WHEN ONE COMES TO LOOK AT THE LITERATURE ON CIVIL-MILITARY relations one is struck by the enormous proliferation of ad hoc generalizations on the subject, particularly where the military in new nations is concerned. Many of these contradict each other. Often the theories are not adequate to the facts. And frequently they depend on so many other things being equal that by the time one has made all the necessary qualifications there is not much explanatory force left in the original hypothesis.

The colonial legacy has on the one hand been said to create political armies in the image of those of the colonial power, which are less likely to interfere in politics.

1 WOULD DEFINE TOLERANCE AS THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE ACCEPT things of which we disapprove. Such a definition is only to define roughly, for the moment, what we are talking about, it does not settle any argument and it will require elaboration before it can be shown, as I hope to, that it is an important subject for historical and social research, hitherto neglected or often treated most superficially, that is either shallowly or purely on the level of ideas. ‘Tolerance’ I will use as a specific term-we are tolerant of this and that. ‘Toleration’ I will use for explicit theories or doctrines which state that we should be tolerant (or as tolerant as possible) of wide classes of actions or types of belief and behaviour. All societies accept to some degree, however small, some things of which government, public opinion or tradition disapprove. Many of these latter are trivial, both in contemporary and subsequent perspectives; but there are plainly many cases of significant and important degrees of tolerance existing in societies long before theories or doctrines of toleration emerge – which fundamentally are no older than the 16th century and do not become commonplace until the I 8th. Indeed, in many ways, as I will argue later, degrees of tolerance in autocracies are more interesting to study (and have been less studied) than intolerance in politicaldemocracies, or whatever term one chooses to use for modern polity.

EXACTLY FIVE YEARS AGO THIS JOURNAL PUBLISHED A SPECIAL ISSUE devoted to ‘The Politics of European Integration’. British-European relations were then at one of their lowest ebbs and our endeavour might have seemed singularly untimely. Yet the issue has been exhausted, and the demand for it continues. But, when faced with the decision to reprint, we thought that the subject matter had evolved so much that we preferred to prepare a new collection of studies. Hence this issue on the new politics of European integration.

But there is continuity between the two numbers of the journal. Our subscribers will not fail to notice that many of the articles which appeared in 1966 on basic historical and political aspects of European integration have not been superseded. Indeed the historical articles from the previous issue, together with the political articles of the present issue, supplemented by two historical surveys of British, and British Labour attitudes to the EEC, by Stephen Holt and Michael Wheaton respectively, are to be published in book form in the near future by Messrs Macmillan.

PROFESSOR LAZARSFELD ONCE REFERRED TO SOCIOLOGY AS BEING IN A sense a residuary legatee, the surviving part of a very general study, out of which specializations have successively been shaped.

The same might be said of political science. In the West the first deliberate and reflective studies of political life were made in Greece at the end of the th century BC, and in the succeeding century. The histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, some of the pamphlets attributed to Xenophon, above all the normative and empirical studies of Plato and Aristotle were among the direct ancestors of contemporary political science. Parallel examples are to be found in the intellectual history of China, India and Islam. It seems that at certain stages in the development of great societies questions of legitimacy, power and leadership assume supreme importance; and intense intellectual effort, using the best analytical tools available, is devoted to the study of man as brought to a focus in the study of politics.

THE STUDENT OF POLITICS AND THE PRACTITIONER OF POLITICS approach the same problem from different ends. The student is concerned with searching for the underlying realities which can explain the surface shifts of political ephemera; or perhaps with disentangling the different levels of reality which he discerns from his dispassionate observation of the political scene. The practitioner is concerned above all with the intricacies of day-to-day politics. He is interested in long-term patterns of political behaviour only insofar as they affect his political chances, or insofar as foreknowledge will enable him to change and shape the developing pattern. At the opposite ends of this division of interest in the phenomena of politics one may imagine, as ideal types, the ‘pure’ political scientist, the neutral observer of the political battle whose attitude to the contestants and their fluctuating fortunes is one of scholarly detachment, and the dedicated politician, glorying in the clash and chaos of the battlefield, with little more than contempt for those who stand aside and watch. For those who stand towards either end of this division, there are now two separate worlds of politics.

THE NINETEEN YEARS DURING WHICH THE TREATY OF PARIS HAS been in force and the thirteen years of the Treaties of Rome have led to a development in the Communities which, in its extent, variety and depth, exceeds anything the signatories could have hoped for. The volume of derived Community legislation has increased considerably and it now governs important sectors of economic activity. The enlargement of the Communities provides the best confirmation of this success.

Furthermore, the dynamic force of the Community system has been such that the deepening of the Communities has extended far further than the areas delimited by the Treaty. More and more action has been undertaken in sectors at or beyond the limit of the Communities’ responsibilities – not to speak of decisions taken on ‘foreign policy’, which, since 1970, have led to the introduction of procedures for political co-operation.

THE USE OF THE CYBERNETIC MODEL IN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY HAS provided the tools for a more precise categorization of a multiplicity of political phenomena. A whole series of often very diverse activities with few reciprocal links are classified around the concepts of ‘pressures’, ‘demands’ and ‘supports’ brought to bear on the system. ‘Inputs’ flow from outside the system and outputs respond from within. This provides the social scientist with a more refined theoretical instrument for analysis and classification. As such, David Easton's system is va1uable. It is perhaps the most representative of its kind.

IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WE ARE CONCERNED WITH tolerance, not as a physical problem, but as a problem of human relations. In this context, ‘to tolerate’ generally means to endure, suffer or put up with a person, activity, idea or organization of which or whom one does not really approve. One can ‘put up with’ an item both when one can and cannot do anything about it. For example, one can ‘put up with’ the excesses of a ruler whose behaviour one has no power to amend. Equally, one can ‘put up with’ the excesses of a child even where one has no need to do so. In the second case, one has control; in the first, one does not. Both cases could be advanced as instances of ‘tolerance’. But cases of the first sort (powerlessness) I shall label as instances of ‘acquiescence’ or ‘sufferance’ or ‘endurance’, since it is obvious that acquiescence typically flows from powerlessness. I shall label cases of the second sort (powerfulness) as instances of tolerance. It is clear in any event that these two types of case are distinct, and, for the purposes of this discussion, at least, differential labelling is essential. In this context, an agent will be said to ‘tolerate’ an item where the item is disliked or disapproved and is yet voluntarily endured. On this definition it is plain that tolerance requires some form of self-restraint by the tolerator.

A CURIOUS PHENOMENON MAY BE NOTED WITHIN THE EUROPEAN Community, and also in the negotiations on the entry of other European countries into it. This is the absence of any move towards European integration among the political parties in the member states. Rather surprisingly, an obstinate silence prevails in Europe and within the national political parties regarding this deficiency. One cannot help wondering what is the reason for this and what can be done to break this silence.

Outwardly the process of European integration presents in the main an economic aspect. The EEC Treaty is a classic example of this. The goal striven for is a customs union with a common policy in the economic sphere. Thus the first steps are being taken in the Community towards a common policy in a number of sectors (agriculture, transport, energy, external trade). Recently attempts have been made to link this sector-by-sector policy through the inauguration of a common economic and monetary policy.

ALL POLITICAL CULTURES ARE MIXED AND CHANGING. WHAT IS interesting in the English case, however, is the way in which a veritable army of scholars has seized on the deferential component. Other features in the overall cultural pattern have been neglected. This paper is devoted to an examination of the concept of deference as it is applied to English politics. In particular it will focus on the different meanings that the concept has assumed in the literature describing and analysing the popular political attitudes, and those aspects of the political system, including stability, which it has been used to explain. My concluding argument is that deference, as the concept is frequently applied to English political culture, has attained the status of a stereotype and that it is applied to such variegated and sometimes conflicting data that it has outlived its usefulness as a term in academic currency.

ON THE MORNING OF 19 MARCH 1969, A CONTINGENT OF BRITISH paratroopers and police landed on the tiny Caribbean island of Anguilla and installed Mr Anthony Lee as Her Majesty's Commissioner. According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the reasons for taking this course of action were: there was a small group of disreputable characters from outside the state who not only possessed arms but were influencing those who purported to be the island's government. Further, this armed minority was frustrating the wishes of the great majority of Anguillans, and if, as a result of the absence of any lawful government or good order on the island, there was any damage done to the person or property of any foreign national, then Britain would be held responsible in virtue of her responsibility for the island's defence and external relations. It was therefore necessary to ensure that Britain would be in a position to discharge her responsibility fully.

THERE ARE FEW COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD IN WHICH THERE IS NO constitutional machinery for changing the head of the government. Certainly there are a number of heads of government in Latin America who are effectively irremoveable by constitutional means (and Mr Burnham would seem recently to have joined their ranks); constitutionally, however, they are bound to go through the motions of an election.

COMPARED WITH THE 19TH CENTURY, OURS IS AN AGE OF intellectual dishonesty. The 19th century did not invent the modern vision of the world, nor did it work out its implications. All that was already done in the 17th and 18th centuries. But it was in the 19th century that the awareness of these implications became widespread, partly through the sheer lapse of time, and more significantly, through the emergence of a large literate middle class which possessed the means, in various senses, for contemplating the new vision. The consequences of this are well known. The 19th century satisfied the demand and produced the secular prophets who wrestled, heroically, with the problem of finding a new meaning for life, honestly acceptable in the light of new critical standards and of the new knowledge.

THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PARLIAMENT OF THE ENLARGED EUROPEAN Community may, wholly or in part, be elected directly within the next few years must excite both advocates of European unification and students of that curious political phenomenon, the European Community. The event is still exceedingly problematical; no attempt is made here to assess just how much so. But the demand for direct election, and specific proposals to that end, have been actual for just over a decade and are worth analysing both as they relate to the possible future event and as they relate to other known factors – the existing state of organized political forces in Western Europe and the role of elections in the political life of member-states.

AMONG THE TOOLS USED TO STUDY SOCIAL, AND MORE PARTICULARLY political phenomena, the part played by public opinion surveys continues to grow, in spite of the tentativeness of some and the blunders of others. The study of the process of European integration and, more generally, of every process of regional integration has not escaped this. Indeed, it can be asked whether the most decisive progress in the theory of European integration has not been brought about by the very close co-operation between political scientists and the opinion poll experts Carrying out the intention which was expressed in this journal in 1967, the Press and Information Services of the Commission of the European Communities have tried, in the last two years, to promote a study in depths of the attitude towards the Common Market and the unification of Europe in the six founder countries.

IN THIS COMMENT ON THE TWO TREATISES ON TOLERATION COMPOSED for us by Preston King and Bernard Crick, I wish to raise three quite familiar questions. The first is how far the growth of toleration in the past, its prevalence in the present and its fostering in the future, may be related in any society to the general level of information,education and enlightenment, of rational knowledge and discourse, there obtaining. This vague issue can only be handled superficially in so short a space, but it has to be faced, though not directly tackled by King and Crick, because it seems to me to be entailed by the other two. They are, how far specifically political knowledge about present and past actions, beliefs and behaviour – political science in fact – is itself related to the tendency towards toleration. Finally, how effective the raising of the extent of enlightenment, general or politicalscientific, is likely to be in creating tolerant attitudes and tolerant practice.