Introduction to Comparative Government & Politics PDF

INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT & POLITICS Code: POL/H/C-5 Unit I – Understanding Comparative Politics (a) DEVELOPMENT, NATURE AND SCOPE Development: The comparative study is one of the oldest forms of political study. The earliest beginning of the comparat...

INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT & POLITICS Code: POL/H/C-5 Unit I – Understanding Comparative Politics (a) DEVELOPMENT, NATURE AND SCOPE Development: The comparative study is one of the oldest forms of political study. The earliest beginning of the comparative method can be traced back to the 4th Century when Aristotle made the first recorded attempt at describing some detailed characteristics of regimes and governments of 158 city-states of Greece. He observed the constitution of these city-states for answering such questions (a) which is the ideal state (b) which can be the best practicable state (c) which is the best constitution etc. Thereafter, a number of thinkers and philosophers like Cicero, Polybius, Machiavelli, J.S Mill, Bagehot and others in different periods have used the comparative methodology very productively. The main logic behind the use of comparative methods in political science as Bertrand Badie points out, that the rigor and validity of a science often depends upon its scope for comparing and quantifying similarities and differences between objects of the same category so as to distinguish between the universal and the specific to the extent that it has become an established science. The founding fathers of this subject concentrated upon developing comparative methods as a substitute for experiment. Degan and Polassy in their study ‘How to Compare Nations’ started with the statement “an old idea of philosophers is that knowledge of the self is gained through knowledge of others”. Traditional Comparative Politics studies (identified as Comparative Government) were used by the political scientists for arriving at true and valid conclusions regarding the nature and organization of state and government through comparative study of the organizations, powers and functions of various political institutions. The features, merits, demerits, similarities and dissimilarities of political institutions were compared and an attempt was made to identify the better political institution. However, fundamental changes in the study of comparative politics took place after the Second World War period which coincides with the end of colonialism and the traditional focus got replaced by a new focus. Till then, Comparative Politics was limited to the study of Western Democracies which concerns the government and political institutions using historical, normative and legalistic studies of the institutions. The main reason which encouraged the development of new approach for the study of politics was the dissatisfaction with the traditional descriptive approach to the subject i.e. Comparative government as it lacks comprehensive scope, unrealistic nature and unscientific methodology. The emergence of many new political systems in Asia, Latin America and Africa post colonial period added the need for new scientific approach to comparative studies. The scholars laid more emphasis on informal political process rather than political institutions. They borrowed a number of ideas and concepts from other social sciences and provided the political studies a new empirical orientation.  Modern political analysis had to become developmentalist in order to take account of both the universality of the Western political model and the underdeveloped nature of different models and practices. Comparison came to involve showing their divergence, their backwardness or failure in relation to a known type of established political order. The purpose for the study of Comparative Politics is to acquaint ourselves with the nature of discipline, changes that have come through in terms of scope and the use of approaches and understand various processes, phenomena, developments, emerging concerns and trends in politics. Definition: As stated earlier, the term “Comparative Politics” is of a recent origin, it came to be used more extensively after the 1950’s which indicates its expanding horizon in political science. Therefore there is no dearth of the definition but each definition at its best presents a point of view. And the reason is that politics is a continuous, ever-changing and universal activity having its key manifestation in the making of decisions to face or solve a predicament. According to Edward A Freeman, “Comparative Politics is a comparative analysis of the various forms of a government and diverse political institutions”. According to Jean Blondel, “Comparative Government can be defined in a preliminary fashion as the study or patterns of national government in the contemporary world”. According to Chilcote, “Comparative Politics studies a broader range of political activity, including governments and their institutions as well as other forms of organisations not directly related to the national government such as tribes, communities, associations, unions etc”. According to Wiarda, “the field of comparative Politics involves the systematic and comparative study of nations and their political systems”. According to M.G. Smith, “Comparative Politics is the study of the forms of political organisations, their properties, correlations, variations and mode of change”. Thus, from these definitions, it is clear that Comparative Politics involves a comparative study of various political systems or organisation as a whole in order to realize the similarities and differences that characterize them. It brings out the best and the worst features of political system. Distinction between Comparative Government & Comparative Politics Some scholars use the terms ‘Comparative Government’ and ‘Comparative Politics’ synonymously without realising the difference between them. But Edward Freeman is conscious of the fact that these two terms are not identical and says “By Comparative Government, it means the comparative study of political institutions or forms of government while Comparative Politics points out and bring together many analogies which are to be seen between the political institutions of times and countries most remote from one another”.  1. Scope: The scope of Comparative Politics is much wider than the scope of Comparative Government. Comparative Government concerns with the study of formal political institutions like legislature, executive, judiciary and bureaucracy while Comparative Politics makes a study of formal as well as informal political institutions such as leadership, political socialization, resolution of political conflicts, bargaining, communication, decision making etc. 2. Origin: The study of Comparative Government has been prevalent since the time of Aristotle while the term Comparative Politics is of a recent origin which took prominence after the 1950’s. 3. Values: Comparative Government is studied in the light of values while the study of Comparative Politics emphasis on value-free study of the subject. 4. Nature of study: The nature of the study of Comparative Government is formal while the study of Comparative Politics is concerned with formal as well as informal political institutions such as pressure group, political conflict etc. 5. Inter-disciplinary Approach: Comparative Government concerns with only the political activities and political institutions while Comparative Politics takes into account the economic, cultural and social factors and thus tries to study the political institutions though inter-disciplinary approach. 6. Study of Countries: Comparative Government is mainly confined to the study of Western democratic countries while Comparative Politics concentrates on the study of all the countries of the world including the Third World Nations and totalitarian governments. Thus, according to Michael Curtis, Comparative Politics concerns with the significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviour by using scientific method of study. Comparative Government stands for descriptive and theoretical studies of political institutions. NATURE The nature of the study of comparative government as provided by R.C. Macridis is essentially non-comparative, descriptive, traditional historical-institutional approach, parochial to Western Democracies, static study and essentially monographic. However comparative politics seeks to analyse and compare the political systems in various countries in a holistic way as well as through comparative analysis of their structures, functions, infrastructures and processes. The main nature/features/characteristic of Comparative Politics as discussed below. 1. Analytical and Empirical Research:- It seeks to analyse, empirically and analytically the actual activities of the governments and their structures and functions. It stands for scientific studies of politics and not confined to descriptive studies. 2. Objective Study of Politics:-It involves a value-neutral empirical study of the various processes of politics in their environment. It basically concentrates on the study of what  is and not what should be and thus rejects the normative prescriptive approach of the comparative government. 3. Emphasis upon the study of Infrastructure of Politics:- Comparative Politics seeks to analyse the actual political behavior of individuals, groups, structures, systems and sub- systems in relation to the environment in which their behavior manifests. It is not anymore confined to the study of formal institutions of the government in terms of their legal powers and functions. It studies the dynamics of politics and the decision-making process. 4. Inter-disciplinary focus:- It accepts the desirability and need for adopting inter- disciplinary focus where politics is studied with the help of the knowledge of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and other social sciences. 5. Study of political processes in both Developed and Developing countries:- The biased and parochial nature of Comparative Government is replaced by embracing the studies of developing as well as the developed political systems because each political system is a laboratory which can provide useful insights for theory-building of politics. 6. Horizontal and Vertical comparisons:- Horizontal comparison involves a comparative study of political structures and functions of national political systems and compares the present government with the past. Vertical comparison involves the study of political structures at work within a single state which comprises of a National government and the State government. 7. Scientific Theory-Building as the Objective:- The objective of the study of comparative politics is not only to make comparative studies of the similarities and dissimilarities of different political systems but also to build a theory of politics that is scientific. 8. Conceptualisation of Politics as Political System:- The concept of Political system has virtually replaced the concept of state. It stands adopted as a new analytical tool which enabled political scientists to study politics comprehensively, realistically and empirically. It is used both for macro and micro studies of politics. SCOPE There is no unanimity among scholars on the scope of Comparative Politics and the main reason for this is that the subject is still in transitional stage and with its ever widening scope, it is difficult to confine the study of Comparative Politics to few institutions. However, it includes all that comes within the purview of politics i.e all political processes, political activities and power relations in all parts of the world. Some of the main subjects included in the scope of Comparative politics are discussed below. 1. All Political Structures Legal/formal as well as Non-formal:- The scope of Comparative politics includes the study of all structures, formal and informal, governmental and non-governmental, legal and extra-legal, which are directly or indirectly involved in the struggle for power in any political system. Along with these,  bureaucracy, interest groups, pressure groups, elites, political parties and all other groups forms a part of the scope of comparative politics. 2. Emphasis on Functional Studies:- Comparative Politics seeks to study politics less from the point of view of the legal institutions in terms of their powers, and more from the point of view of the functions which constitute the political process and their actual operation in the environment. It studies the functions of interest articulation, interest aggregation, political communication, rule-making, rule-application, rule-adjudication, socialization, decision-making, policy-making etc. 3. Focus on Political Behaviour of i.e the actual functions and functioning of political structures:- It study the actual behavior of the people in the process of politics and thus voting behavior, political participation, leadership recruitment, elite behavior, mass politics, populism etc. forms an integral part of Comparative Politics. 4. Study of Similarities and Differences in the functioning of Political System:- This study also undertakes an analysis of the similarities and differences among political processes and functions. However, the approach is not descriptive, legalistic and formalistic and rather it is based on the actual functioning of political structures and processes where the similarities and differences are empirically explained, anlysed and compared. 5. Study of all Political System:- It abandons the traditional Eurocentric focus or the Western parochialism and studies the political systems of all countries. The objective here is not to decide which political system is the best but understand the actual working of various political systems and analyse them with a view to gather systematic knowledge for theory-building. 6. Study of Environment and Infrastructure of Politics:- The study of politics demands a study of the psychological, sociological, economic and anthropological environment i.e the social environment as a whole. For studying this, modern political scientists have developed concepts like political culture, political socialization, political modernization etc. which has enhanced the ability to explain and compare the behavior of various political systems in their environment. 7. Study of Political Culture:- It composes of attitudes, beliefs, emotions and values of a society that relate to the political system and political issues. The beliefs and values greatly influence the functioning of each political system. It constitutes the psychological environment of each political system and thus forms an important part of the scope of comparative politics. 8. Study of Political Socialisation:- It is the process by which an individual acquires his or her political culture. It is included in the scope because the behavior of each political system depends to a large extent on this process of how it is maintained and changed. 9. Study of Political Participation:- It provides legitimacy to the government and the administration and thus brings stability in the system which is based on the consent and will of the people. And wherever the participation of people is wider, it is more efficient and stable. The study also seeks to know how political participation influences the  functional aspect of the political systems in different states and try to know the factors which determine participation and their role in politics. 10. Study of Pressure Groups and Interest Groups:- These organized groups are found in every political systems, where some are formed voluntarily by individuals for fulfilling some special and common objectives. Also, there are some of these groups which come into existence suddenly due to a particular event and remain in existence for a short period 11. Study of Power, Influence, Authority and Legitimacy:- Modern political scientists lay special emphasis on the study of ‘Power’, ‘Influence’, ‘Authority’ and ‘Legitimacy’. These concepts are used for classification of political systems on the basis of their nature of authority relations and struggle for power. 12. Emphasis upon the Study of Political Processes:- Political processes like decision- making, policy-making, judicial process, leadership recruitment and others are always at work in all political systems and the actual working depends upon these process. 13. Inter-Disciplinary Focus:- Study of political systems in terms of relation and interactions with one another and thus uses the methodology, concepts and principles of other social sciences and even natural sciences too. The scope of the study of Comparative Politics, according to Jean Blondel presents two problems :- first, we have to deal with what he calls as the problem of boundary i.e having agreed that the study of Comparative Politics is the study of government, how do we define the term “government”? Blondel accepts Easton’s definition of governmental action as the authoritative allocation of values which involves a three stage process, formulation of values (input), their transformation (conversion process) and the issue of authoritative decisions (outputs). While it is comparatively easier to solve the problem of boundary, it is difficult to precisely define the relationship between norms and behavior. Norms are generally laid down by the laws of the land in the form of constitution and other legislative measure which are written and are extremely important, yet they are not enough for system maintenance. The patterns of behavior are equally important but it is unwritten. However the scope of the study of comparative politics includes both these aspects. (b) CLASSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS The classification of States is basically a classification of Governments or political systems. Some States have democratic governments, while others have monarchies, aristocracies or autocracies or dictatorships. Also some states have federal systems while others have unitary systems and still some others have mixture of both of these. The earliest classification schemes were formulated by Herodotus, Pindar, Thucydides, Socrates and Plato. In general, these ancient thinkers classified states into Monarchy, Tyranny, Aristocracy Oligarchy and Democracy. Herodotus Scheme of Classification: He classified states into Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy and held that these forms of governments always lead to tyranny. Monarchy is a government characterized by the rule of one person or man and becomes a tyranny because the king becomes intoxicated with powers. Aristocracy is a government which is ruled by few people or class of people or persons and becomes tyranny because of infighting for supremacy among the nobles. Democracy is government i.e rule of the people or majority of the people but becomes tyranny when the persons who lead the people to revolt against ignorance and corruption. Plato’s Scheme of Classification: Plato Conceptualized the ideal state as the state ruled by the philosopher king i.e Ideal Monarchy or rule of philosopher i.e aristocracy of intellect and knowledge or rule of men who personified reason/wisdom/knowledge. It can be presented as follows: Law is Obeyed ------> Ideal Monarchy (Best Constitution) A. Rule of One Law is Obeyed ------> Legal Monarchy Law is not Obeyed---- -> Tyranny (worst Constitution) Law is Obeyed--- -> Aristocracy- Normal Rule of few B. Rule of Few Law is not Obeyed -----> Oligarchy – Perverted Rule of few Law is Obeyed -----> Legal or Moderate Democracy C. Rule of Many Law is not Obeyed ----->Arbitrary or Extreme Democracy Platonic classification served as a basis for Aristotle’s classification of States/governments. Aristotle’s Classification: Aristotle was credited for attempting the first systematic and comprehensive classification of government which stands on two bases: (a) Quantitative Basis i.e the number of persons in whom the sovereign power was vested (number of rulers). On this basis, Aristotle held that either the sovereign powers could be in the hands of one person or few persons or all/majority of persons. (b) Qualitative Basis i.e the end to which the conduct of the ruler was directed. The power holders could rule either for promoting the good of all or for their selfish interest. And taking these two bases together, Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that the governments could be classified into six possible forms – Monarchy (Normal form) and its perversion Tyranny, Aristocracy and its perversion Oligarchy, Polity and its perversion Democracy. Classification of Modern States/Governments J.A.R Marriot classifies governments on a three-fold basis. First, on the basis of distribution of powers of government, he classifies governments into two parts i.e Unitary – centralization of powers in the hands of a single central government and Federal – the powers stand divided between one central government and several governments of the federating units. Secondly, on the basis of the nature of amending process of the Constitution, he divides into two categories i.e Flexible – where the method of amendment is easy and Rigid – amendment is difficult. Thirdly, on the basis of the nature of relationship between the legislative and executive organs of the government, he classifies the governments into three parts: (i) When the executive is superior to the legislature, the form of government is Despotic (ii) When the executive is subordinate to the legislature as in England, the form of government is Parliamentary (iii) When the executive is coordinate in power the legislature, as in United States, the form of government is Presidential. CF Strong suggests five bases for classification of Government in terms of their constitutions. On the First basis i.e the Nature of of the State to which the constitution applies, Strong makes classification between Unitary and Federal. On the Second basis i.e nature of the Constitution itself, a distinction can be made between written or unwritten constitution with Rigidity and Flexibility. Third basis is the Nature of the legislature i.e Bicameral and Unicameral legislature. On the Fourth basis is the nature of the Executive i.e Parliamentary Executive and Presidential Executive. The Fifth baiss is the nature of the Judiciary i.e states which follow the Rule of Law (e.g Britain) and states which have a system of Administrative Law (e.g France). In the classification of modern government, there are states which have the characters of both Federal and Unitary and are known as mixed form. Similarly, within either of the Unitary or Federal government, there are states which accept mixed form of unitary or federal government i.e partly parliamentary and partly presidential in both cases. However in contemporary times, States and governments are also classified on the basis of the developmental level of their economics i.e Developed States – rich and technologically advanced states and Developing States – the poor and underdeveloped states (Third World). Classification of Political Systems Modern political scientists regard the classifications of states and governments as inadequate and not useful as it does not take into account the actual political process in various states. A broad basis which is realistic and precise in judgement about the typology and actual working of political systems was needed and not just based on formal governmental institutions or nation of constitutions. A political system constitutes all interactions which are patterned and through which the struggle for power takes place in every society. It is the totality of political interactions through which binding laws, policies and decisions are made and implemented in the society. Thus modern political scientists came out with several classifications of political systems. Edward Shills Classification of Political Systems: In his book “Political Development in New States”, Edward Shills suggests a five-fold classification of political systems: 1. Political Democracy: The components in this system are civilian rule through representative institutions, important position of legislature, competitive elections, rule of law, functioning of government within the framework of the constitution, definite and fixed term of government, independent judiciary, trained and well-organised bureaucracy etc. 2. Tutelary Democracy: This system is characterized by dependence on modernization, a powerful executive, limitations on press and representative institutions and control of the elites over the masses. 3. Modernising Oligarchies: It is characterized by a well organized elite which is a relatively closed group and watchful over new members or aspirants. It is ruled either by a military group or civilian junta where it lack interest in political democracy, weak position of legislature, unreal and farcical elections, lack opposition and independent judiciary. 4. Totalitarian Oligarchies: It is characterized by a monolithic ideology and a strong well- disciplined party which is the custodian of the ideology and led by highly coherent elite. There is no rule of law, no independent judiciary and the highest law is the decision of the party. 5. Traditional Oligarchies: In this system, there is a firm dynastic constitution buttressed by traditional religious beliefs. All decision-making is done by the ruler and lacks modernized democracy, lay importance to royalty and blood relationships. Almond’s Classification of Political Systems: It is based on two criteria: 1. Structural Differentiation i.e the development and proliferation of specialized structures for the performance of specific functions or roles. 2. Cultural Secularisation i.e the growth of rational, analytical and empirical criteria in decision-making. And based on these criteria, it offered three-fold broad classification of political systems: 1. Systems with intermittent political structures-in which there is a minimum of structural differentiation and a concomitant diffused and parochial political culture. 2. Systems with differentiated governmental political structures characterized by a participant political culture. 3. Systems with differentiated political infrastructures characterized by civic political culture. S.E. Finer’s Classification: In his book “Comparative Government”, a comprehensive, relatively simple and taking into account the empirical realities of politics in various states, classification depends on three criteria: a) Participant-Exclusion Dimension i.e how far the masses or the public are involved or excluded from the governing process. b) Coercion-Persuasion Dimension i.e how far the masses or public obey their rulers out of commitment or out of fear. c) Order-Representativeness Dimension i.e how far the arrangements designed to cause the rulers to reflect the actual and current values of the masses or public or may disregard these for the sake of continuity and future values On the basis of these three dimensions and by relating one with the other dimensions, S.E Finer offers six-fold classification of political systems. 1. Military Regimes – Based on coercion, lacking in sub-group autonomy, having either high or moderate sub-group dependency. E.g Myanmar 2. Dynastic Regimes – Based on manipulation. E.g Saudi Arabia 3. Façade Democracies – Democratic in form by oligarchic in reality, shows representativeness, persuasion and participation but in reality dependence on manipulation, exclusion, coercion and other future goals. 4. Quasi-Democracies – Have varying degrees of representativeness but live under the hegemony of a single party. 5. Totalitarian Regimes – It relies on regimentation and are characterized by hegemonic party control. 6. Liberal Democracies – It has a high level of extensive popular participation, depend mostly on persuasion and characterized by a high degree of representativeness and sub- group autonomy. Of all the classification of political systems, S.E Finer’s classification was the most comprehensive but ignores the importance of the forms of government i.e parliamentary, unitary and federal as a variable for the political systems. However, classifying political systems is so complex that no single scheme can really serve the entire need. Thus by combining the views of several political scientists, we can attempt to arrive at a generally acceptable and nearly complete classificatory scheme into three specific categories i.e Liberal Democratic, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political Systems. The government can be classified into four main categories i.e Parliamentary, Presidential, Unitary and Federal. Prepared by: Solomon Chapao L Asst. Prof.