Developments and problems in contemporary thinking about strategy

The purpose of this analysis is to review the most important changes in contemporary thinking about strategy and to draw certain conclusions. Beginning with the different stages in the evolution of “classical” theories and the coming of “academic” ideas developed as explanations of a strategy of deterrence between the two super-powers, the analysis emphasizes the relation between the new explanations of conflicts among social groups and the new categories for defining strategy. It also stresses the relation between a theory of the multiple causes of conflicts and wars and the development of the interdisciplinary interpretation of the analysis of strategy. In conclusion, it is argued that the current stage of research into a “qualitative” change in the analysis of strategy also implies new objectives for strategy that are required for the problem of the survival of mankind.

In the many volumes written on the “agrarian question” in Mexico, probably no subject has received as much attention as the ejido, village communal land. Whether polemical or objective, most of these works have been concerned with the ejido primarily in economic terms. Questions have been raised about its importance as an economic unit, government action to improve its output, and its reform or even abolition for economic reasons. Related studies have been concerned with the ejido in terms of social justice, that is, the extent to which and the ways in which the ejidatarios, members of the ejido, have benefitted from the revolution. A few studies have been sociological or anthropological in nature, examining the ejido in terms of how it reinforces or breaks down traditional social and cultural patterns. While utilizing the data presented in these various studies, this note is concerned with the political aspect of the ejido or more specifically, how the ejido is a device which, both alone and in conjunction with a subculture of poverty, allows political control to be exercised over a vast peasant population engaged for the most part in primitive agriculture while urban Mexico proceeds with industrialization.

In the early 1920s George McCutcheon McBride insisted in his major study of Mexican land tenure patterns that the Indians had to be kept on the land.

In his article “Land and Politics in Mexico” Robert Adie argues that the ejido has served the important political function of maintaining stability in the Mexican countryside. We agree entirely with this conclusion; however, we disagree with the arguments which Adie uses to arrive at this conclusion. To develop his thesis concerning the primacy of the ejido's political function, Adie attempts to demonstrate the non-viability of the ejido as a unit of economic organization. Thus he argues that “for political reasons the ejidatarios have the land, while the federal government has devised a means to use that land for its own economic purposes.” The implications of this statement are that ejidos not only do not but could not have played a major role in Mexico's agricultural development, and that the policies of the federal government (which have favoured the large, privately owned capitalist agricultural enterprises) have been rational and correct in economic terms. To corroborate his thesis, Adie uses an extensive body of literature which essentially maintains that the economic performance of the ejido has been weak as a consequence of peasant backwardness – the persistence of traditional attitudes, or of a “subculture of poverty” in which the ejidatarios are inextricably caught.

Raymond Hudon of Université Laval recently undertook, in the pages of this Journal, to offer a critique of my treatment of the Lapalme affair. Unfortunately, Hudon's critique is so overburdened with irrelevancies and digressions that it is difficult to discern a coherent line of argument. Indeed, one is sorely tempted to follow him from paragraph to paragraph, discussing each of his statements in turn. However, that would only produce a reply as difficult to follow as the critique. Instead, I shall attempt to divide the substance of the critique into two sets of arguments and proceed to deal with each set separately.

I should like to congratulate Alan Cairns on his splendid analysis of the introductory texts on Canadian government in the March 1974 issue of the Journal (“Alternative Styles in the Study of Canadian Politics”). It should be required reading for all phd students of Canadian government and politics. In fact, I think it should also be read by all undergraduates, so that they would be aware of the particular slant of the text that they are using.

Perhaps the reason I am so favourably impressed by the piece, in addition to the sophisticated style in which it is written, is that I agree with nearly everything he says. In particular, I agree with his favourable portrayal of the historical-institutional approach to the study of Canadian government and politics. But this may be just an indication that he and I belong to the same older generation.

I certainly agree that all of the texts are deficient in their treatment of provincial and local government and politics and in their use of French-Canadian materials and points of view, and feel that the authors’ replies to his article did not adequately justify these deficiencies. I believe that he missed an important reason for the concentration of our interest on the federal level. A main reason for this, and for the lack of scholarly research on provincial and local government in Canada, was simply that Dawson's text omitted provincial and local government entirely.

The volume and variety of published works on voting in Canada suggest to us it is time to take stock of where we have been and where we should go. It is our belief that developments have not matched the rosy prognosis implicit in Donald Smiley's 1967 statement that “undoubtedly the most extensive developments in Canadian political science in the past two decades have been in the field of studies of voting behaviour and political parties.” To be sure, the body of literature has expanded considerably, but we are struck by major gaps in its coverage and by certain conceptual and technical shortcomings.

Traditionally review articles have treated a limited number of works in detail or have attempted an overview of an entire body of literature. We have eschewed the former approach since it presupposes the existence of a few outstanding works, comprehensive in nature, which can be fruitfully compared because of the diversity of approaches or interpretations they present. Such a situation does not yet obtain in the field of Canadian voting behaviour. The latter approach is less necessary since the recent appearance of a propositional inventory by John Terry and Richard Schultz, and a long summary chapter by Mildred Schwartz.

Therefore, we propose to outline major trends in the last decade or so and to suggest new directions.