Another contrast in these definitions is that between what has
been described as ‘zero-sum’ and ‘non-zero-sum’ theories of politics.
This terminology is derived from the mathematical theory of games.
A zero-sum game is the usual sort of game, such as chess, in which a
win by one player is, by definition, a loss on the part of the opposing
player or players. There is a fixed amount of ‘winnings’ which means
that the gains of one side are, by definition, losses to the other.
Obviously many politicians, and political scientists, see politics this
way. Thus Weber and (implicitly) Lasswell both seem to suggest that
the political success of one individual may well be at the expense of
others who oppose them. It is also a feature of Marxist theories, like
that of Poulantzas, that the interests of classes are opposed and are
gained at the expense of each other.
However, not all games are of this sort – for instance in collective
make-believe children’s games, new themes introduced by one player
can enrich the enjoyment of the game for everyone – in a game of
Cowboys versus Indians, the introduction of Aliens may lead to
everyone having a better time. There is not a fixed amount of
‘winnings’, but by co-operation both sides can achieve more. In a
similar way, Parsons explicitly argues that, by co-operation, different
groups in society can each obtain greater benefits than would be the
case if they work in competition. This view seems to fit well with
contemporary emphasis in many parts of the Western world on the
practice of mainstream politicians seeking to build coalitions, which
involves compromise. Thus different theories place radically different
emphasis on consensus (agreement) and conflict in their theories of
politics.
There is a growing sense that politics in the established Western
democracies is struggling. This unease has been referred to as a
democratic deficit, political alienation or civic disillusionment. The
possible explanations for such changes are examined by Gerry Stoker
(2006), but the argument is that citizens have been increasingly
‘turned off’ by traditional political behaviour, such as voting in elec-
tions. This has manifested itself in a decline in partisanship, or a
lessening sense of identifying with key political actors and structures.
It has been suggested that increasingly politically active citizens have
ignored the coalitions and compromises offered by the existing
political elite, and have instead turned to single-issue pressure group
activity. But does this apparent decline in traditional partisan6 POLITICS