Duncan Black has proposed a theory of political choices in which the individual ordering of preferences and voting procedures in committees are the basic elements. This paper shows that the theory must also take into account certain “objective” orders of preferences which affect individual rankings. To this end, the author analyses the results of a pre-1968 election poll in the federal ridings of Langelier and Louis-Hébert. All the respondents do not rank the four parties (Liberal, Progressive Conservative, New Democratic Party, and Social Credit Rally) in the same order; this can be explained in terms of the complexity of political issues, party strategies, or certain social characteristics of the respondents. The ranking by a majority of the respondents seemed related to two sets of criteria. The first, the sociopolitical, corresponds roughly to a left-right axis, on which the parties are aligned as follows: NDP–Liberals–Progressive Conservatives–Créditistes; the second is an ethnic criterion, according to which the parties take this order: Créditistes–Liberals–Progressive Conservatives–NDP.

Among the other insights provided by the analysis, two are particularly important: the strong rejection of the Social Credit Rally by those who do not place it first, and the indifference towards the other parties by those who do.

It is no longer in style to develop typologies of political regimes based on their party systems. Systematic studies today are interested in parties only in terms of their role in the functioning of the political system as a whole. No doubt it is an insoluble problem to determine whether parties and the party system are variables which are independent or dependent in relation to the political system. Besides, without being able to rule out a relationship of interdependence, the two terms display a certain degree of independence and are not in a relationship of co-variance. Thus it is that the political system is shaped to a certain extent by the opposition of the parties to the system, the parties in turn having been conditioned by three other kinds of forces.

The problem of specifying the functions of parties remains a central one, even though there is much confusion in the use of the language of functionalism. It is therefore important to clarify the notion of the functions of political parties. If one defines the political system as a set of processes and mechanisms which bring about the convergence or neutralization of irresistible social pluralisms without exploding the balance of these pluralist forces, then one can distinguish three functional requirements: (1) the legitimation-stabilization function; (2) the tribunician function (integration or neutralization of centrifugal forces); (3) the function of providing governmental alternatives.

Where there is interaction between parties and the political system, one can discern an aspect of non-dependence between the two terms. In the first place, the parties (and not only the anti-system or revolutionary parties) do not develop solely in accordance with their relationship to the political system. Secondly, the system too has a certain degree of self-determination, even when confronted with anti-system parties.

In describing the nature of an ethnic minority, the author distinguishes between two concepts: assimilation and acculturation. The former is the end result of a minority's contacts with the society in which it exists and through which it has lost its cultural heritage; the latter can be conceived of as a dynamic process, through which the individual is constantly absorbing, in various degrees, the norms, values and customs of the majority.

On the basis of this notion of acculturation the author has devised a simple instrument permitting the measuring of the degree to which various minorities have adhered to the total (majoritarian) society. Two criteria, a person's educational background and his use of language, are utilized to place an individual on a graph, showing the degree to which he is part of the majoritarian or minoritarian community.

The data required were collected through a questionnaire administered to two samples of Franco-Ontario school children, one in grade eight, the other in grade twelve. There were 2,900 respondents drawn from five different regions of Ontario.

The principal findings are that there are marked differences in the degree of acculturation of Franco-Ontarians in the different regions (the score usually ranged from 20 per cent to 80 per cent), and that over 43 per cent of the school children were in fact undergoing the process of acculturation.

After indicating that no rigorous political theory of groups exists, chiefly because interest groups are not genuine groups in the sense of “real collective units,” the author examines the disadvantages and advantages of using the systems analysis approach for the study of political parties and interest groups. Three correctives are suggested to systems theory, as it has been developed by a number of authors and more especially by David Easton, to make it better suited for the analysis of parties and interest groups. First, the environment must be made operational by the introduction, in addition to the political system, of a social system, providing constraints on the analyst comparable to those of the political system itself, and by the identification within both systems of a social and a political dynamic. Second, greater attention must be given to the way in which parties and interest groups, inasmuch as they act as input mechanisms, permit interactions between the social and the political systems. Third, a sharper focus must be put on the way the input function of political systems throws light on the life of groups.

American or Australian readers will not be surprised, at least at first glance, that a province should have kept a bicameral system for so long as Quebec since in their own country all but one of the states has a second legislative chamber. For other readers, and Canadians particularly, the survival of a Legislative Council poses a whole series of problems which, for the most part, are explained by the economic and social evolution of Quebec.

Why has Quebec maintained an upper chamber for so long when the other Canadian provinces have never had one or have abolished it a long time ago? The facts here presented confirm on several counts the classical theories about bicameralism, and add to them certain points arising specifically from Quebec's unique socio-cultural context: the overrepresentation of privileged social classes, irrespective of partisan attachment; or the representation in the Legislative Council of the English-speaking minority whose spokesmen were, however, closely tied to the French-speaking members by a community of economic interests.

It was during the last century that the Legislative Council exhibited most energy; it frequently interfered with the most progressive projects of the different Liberal governments. In the twentieth century, however, it was thought wiser to adapt itself to the changing mood, and it gradually became more self-effacing with respect to the elected chamber. Therefore its reasons for existence became doubtful as it either adopted without question all the proposals of the Legislative Assembly (and so provoked the accusation that it did nothing), or if it did object to anything in any way, it was accused of going against the wishes of the elected representatives of the people. Groups which had supported it finally decided that the council had become obsolete and their representatives have allied themselves with the enemies of the council to vote out of existence the last provincial upper chamber in Canada.

Herbert Marcuse owes his notoriety primarily to the loud echoes evoked by his words among American and European student militants; he is in danger of becoming their first victim as is the wont of fashionable men and ideas.

But the real interest of his intellectual approach lies elsewhere, in his unceasing and relentless efforts to criticize advanced industrial societies which he judges to be repressive; to explain the mechanisms through which this repression is internalized, thus blocking any perspective allowing for radical change; and to found a new type of industrial society, compatible with, and favourable to, the “liberation” of man.

This paper retraces the main lines of this intellectual development, stressing particularly its philosophical foundations and its innovations with respect to the sources from which it is derived.