Is there a name in political science for an apparent paradox between societal ideals and practice?

Question

This phenomenon is not specific to any country as I have noticed it stretches across multiple regions and countries.

For example, marijuana is illegal in the United States at the federal level despite its use and sale being effectively condoned by both the federal government and several state governments. However, a repeal of the federal law that made marijuana illegal is still not seen as politically viable.

In another United State example, many migrants illegally enter the United States through the southern border with Mexico. However, there is neither a political consensus around making immigration laws more open for immigration nor around making illegal immigration more difficult. By default however, the effective policy in this specific area is one of quasi-open immigration. It's a common anecdote that the strongest opponents of illegal immigration are often the people who go to home improvement stores to hire illegal immigrants for various construction projects.

The context around migrants illegally entering the UK is slightly different, but largely the same.

In the Israel and Palestine conflict, neither side believes a 2 state solution is viable, but neither side will publicly change their position on it. The effective policy (for the time being) is to leave things as they are, but neither side is able to change the official position.

You'll also see in several countries with weaker governments that taxes are heavily evaded, but efforts to lower the official tax rate or increase enforcement have no public support.

I would summarize these discrepancies by saying that society has certain ideals that they don't want to deviate from but aren't willing to acknowledge the deviation in real life either. So the law says one thing, but society does another. Is there a name for this in political science? Is there a Political Science explanation for this phenomenon?

Answer 1

I think the terminology you are looking for is

"de facto"

describes practices that exist in reality, whether or not they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms

vs

"de jure"

describes practices that are legally recognized, regardless of whether the practice exists in reality.

Answer 2

The closest term you'll find for this, I think, is 'gridlock'. However, there are different kinds of gridlock:

• Partisan gridlock, where a political groups and actors has become attached to a particular issue as a political motivator, and refuses to allow it to be resolved for fear that their base will lose interest and cost them elections. This often fuels Risky Shift conditions, where individual members of the group produce consistently more extreme positions to keep that base stimulated and active.
• Ideological gridlock, where political groups and actors refuse to budge or compromise on a particular issue that is central to their identity, grinding the political process to a halt. This is a fairly common problem, differing from normal political deliberations to the extent that other legislative agendas are held hostage to this one particular issue.
• Bureaucratic gridlock, where political groups and actors are overly concerned about negative reactions to change, and resist supporting any action for which they might be held responsible. This (again, fairly normal) risk-averse strategy is only overcome by massive public pressure or by political actors willing to take risks, allowing more bureaucratized actors to give tacit (deflectable) support and consent.

I don't think this effect has a specific name-to-itself because — in US democracy, at least — it's considered a feature, not a bug. The Founders intentionally created contentious, decentralized, grinding systems (the agonistic model) to prevent factions from inflaming the mass public and quickly taking over the entire government: effectively the idea that a broken democracy is still better than a functioning tyranny.

Answer 3

I think you are just looking for this term: Realpolitik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik