BPSC-133 Comparative Government and Politics Text Book
COURSE PREPARATION TEAM
Unit 1
Unit 2
Comparative Analysis- Nature, Prof. Ujjwal Kumar Singh, Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi
Scope and Utility*
Methods of Comparative Political Prof. Anupama Roy, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Analysis *
Unit 3 Authoritarian and Democratic
Regimes*
Prof. Ashutosh Kumar, Panjab University, Chandigarh -160014
Content and Format Editing:
PRINT PRODUCTION
Mr. Rajiv Girdhar
A.R. (Publication)
MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi
August, 2020
D Indira Gandhi National Opai Unity, 2020
ISBN: 978-93-90496-09-9
Dr. Kishorchand Singh Nongmaithem, Consultant, Faculty of Political Science,
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Consultant, Faculty of Political Science, School of
Social Sciences, IGNOU
Secretarial Assistance/Graphics
Mr. Hemant Kumar
Section Officer (Publication)
IGNOU, New Delhi
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be produced in any form, by mimeography or any other means, without permission in writings from
the Indira Gandhi National Open University.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the University’s office at MaidanGarhi,
New Delhi -110068 or visit our website.’ http://www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Registrar, MPDD.
Laser Typeset by: Mr.Sandeep Maini, School of Social Sciences
Printed at Mls Saraswati Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd., Saraswati House, A-5, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028
CONTENTS
BLOCK I Introduction
Unit 1 Comparative Analysis – Nature, Scope and Utility
Unit 2 Methods of Comparative Political Analysis
BLOCK II Comparing Regimes
Unit 3 Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes
Unit 4 Civilian and Military Regimes
BLOCK III Forms of Government
Unit 5 Parliamentary and Presidential Systems
Unit 6 Federal and Unitary Sustems
BLOCK IV Patterns of Political Participation and Representation
Unit 7 Political Parties and Party Systems
Unit 8 Pressure Groups
Unit 9 Electoral Processes
BLOCK V State in Contemporary Perspective
Unit 10 State in Developed and Developing Countries
Unit 11 State-Civil Society Relations
Unit 12 State in the Era of Globalisation
Unit 13 Contemporary Debates on the Nature of State
Suggested Readings
COURSE INTRODUCTION
Comparative Government and Politics is an important sub-field of the discipline of political
science. While the nature and scope of comparative politics has undergone change over a period,
one political scientist has remarked that ‘everything that politics studies, comparative politics
studies; the latter just undertakes the study with an explicit comparative methodology in mind’
(Mahler 2000, p. 3). Well, almost ‘everything’. Comparative politics studies all political
phenomena occurring within countries, states, societies, or political systems. The study of
political phenomena between countries or states is another sub-field of political science,
International Relations. The distinction between Comparative Politics and International Politics
is captured in the titles of two well-known books- Joseph La Pa1ombara’sPo/ifics within Nations
and Hans Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations. However, as you will discover in this course, it
is not always easy to draw a neat distinction between Comparative Politics and International
Politics.
Scholars who specialize in comparative studies insist that comparison is fundamental to human thought and that it is very difficult to describe or explain anything without comparison. The tentacles of comparison are difficult to escape comparison with other similar political actors., structures, institutions, ideas etc. or even with their past,. The introductory units of this course bring the ambiguities, pitfalls and challenges in undertaking comparative study of politics and government. But this should not deter us from undertaking comparison. After all, knowledge of the self is gained through the knowledge of the others.
Being an introductory course on Comparative Government and Politics, this course will touch upon some key issues, methodologies and areas of comparative analysis in the study of government and politics. It will begin with approaches and methods in comparative politics and then proceed to examine how comparativists have classified, described and explained political regimes, governments, institutions (poltical parties, pressure groups and electoral systems) and the origin and functioning of states. After going through this course, you should be able to understand, contextualize and explain major concepts, theories and methods in comparative politics, apply these concepts, thories and methods in comparative politics to analyse political regimes, governments, political institutions and states and improve your analytical presentation and writing skills.
All units of this course have a uniform structure. Each unit begins with Objectives to help you
find what you are expected to learn from the unit. Please go through these objectives carefully.
Keep reflecting and checking them after going through a few sections of the unit. Each unit is
divided into sections and sub-sections for ease of comprehension. In between these sections,
some Check Your Progress Exercises have been provided. We advise you to attempt these as and
when you reach them. This will help you assess you study and test your comprehension of the
subject studied. Compare your answers with the answer or guidelines given at the end of the unit.
Some key words, unfamiliar terms and ideas have been provided as box items or at the end of
each Unit.
While the units in this course are carefully designed and written by specialists, it must however
be added that the units are by no means comprehensive. For deeper understanding of the themes
dealt with in this volume, you are advised and encouraged to read as much of the books, chapters
and articles listed in the Suggested Readings given at the end of this course book.
BLOCK I
INTRODUCTION
Comparison is probably one of the oldest and the most widely used methods of
acquiring scientific knowledge about any phenomena. This method has been used
since the time of Aristotle who made the first recorded attempt to describe in
detail the characteristics of the political system by comparing different regimes
and governments of his time. Thereafter, a number of thinkers and philosophers
in different periods, such as Roman philosophers like Cicero, Polybius;
Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, etc.
and many others in the nineteenth century such as Alex de Tocqueville, Karl
Marx, John Stuart Mill, Walter Bagehot, etc. have used comparative
methodology as a convenient and significant means to arrive at comprehensive
and holistic understanding about political activities With ‘comparison’ as a method of political enquiry gaining wider acceptance in the nineteenth century, comparative politics emerged as a major subfield of study within the discipline of political science.
As in other areas of intellectual endeavour, there has been no consensus among those who study comparative politics concerning the subject matter. In particular, comparativists have found themselves pulled between two poles; that of the areas specialist and that of the social scientist. The two units in this block attempt to explain the subject matter as well as the theoretical and methodological foundations of comparative politics as a means of political analysts. Unit 1 is devoted to the evolution, development, nature, scope and significance of comparative politics. It will also introduce you to the key concepts, constructs and other attributes associated with comparative politics Unit 2 focuses on the operational aspects like methods, tools and methodological techniques used in the study of comparative politics.
UNIT 1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – NATURE,
SCOPE AND UTILITY‘
Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Comparative Study of Politics: Nature and Scope
1.2.1 Comparisons: Identification of Relationships
1.2.2 Comparative Politics and Comparative Government
1.3 Comparative Politics: A Historical Overview
1.3.1 The Origins of Comparative Study of Politics
1.3 2 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
1.3.3 The Second World War and After
1.3.4 The 1970s and Challenges to Developmentalism
1.3.5 The 1980s The Return of State
1.3.6 The Late Twentieth Century; Globalisation and Emerging Trends/Possibillities
1.4 Comparative Study of Politics: Utility
1.4.1 Comparing for Theoretical Formulation
1.4.2 Comparisons for Scientific Rigour
1.4.3 Comparisons Leading to Explanations in Relationships
1.5 Let us sum up
1.6 Key Words
1.7 References
1.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
1.0 OBJECTIVES
We often compare ourselves with others knowingly or unknowingly; what others
think, what they do or how they live and so on. Comparing with others and
comparing things around enable us a deeper understanding of our own conduct
vis-à-vis those of others. Such a process of comparison shapes a large part of who
we are. Such a process of comparison takes place at the collective level too.
Within the field of Political Science, we do engage in the activity of comparing
different political systems, institutions, process, activities, etc. across countries.
*Prof. Ujjwal Kumar Singh, Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi. Adopted from EPS – 09:
This introductory unit is designed to enable us to be theoretically and
methodologically informed about comparative study of politics. In this unit we
shall focus on the major aspects—nature, scope and utility—of comparative
study of politics. After going through this unit, you should be able to
• Explain the meaning and scope comparative study of politics;
• Define and describe major concepts of comparative study of politics;
• Explain the purpose of the comparative study of politics;
• Explain the significance and relevance of the comparative study of politics;
• Describe the historical background of the comparative study of politics; and
• Identify and explain key concepts used in the comparative study of politics
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Comparative study of politics is about comparing political phenomena. The primary goal of comparative politics is to encompass the major political similarities and differences between countries around the world. The emphasis is on how different societies cope with various problems by making comparisons with others. Although comparative methods and methods of comparisons are widely used in other disciplines as well e.g., Psychology, Sociology, Economics etc., it is the substance of comparative politics – i.e., it’s subject matter, vocabulary, perscpective, and concepts – which gives comparative politics its distinctiveness both as a “method” and as a sub-field of the study of “comparative politics”
The nature and scope of comparative politics has been determined historically by changes in the (a) subject matter (b) vocabulary and (c) Political perspective. To understand where, why and how these changes took place we have to look at what is the gocus of study at a particular historical period, what are the tools, languages or concepts being used for the study and what is the vantage point, perspective and purpose of enquiry. Thus in the sections which follow, we shall look at the manner in which comparative politics has evolved, the communities and dicsontinuities which have informed this evolution, the ways in which this evolution has been determined in and by the specific historical contexts and socio-economin and political forces, and how in the context of late twentieth century viz, globalisation, radical changes have been brought about in the manner in which the field of comparative politics has so far been envisaged.
1.2 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS: NATURE AND SCOPE
As we saw, the comparative method is commonly used in other disciplines as
well and that what distinguishes comparative politics from other disciplines
which also use comparative methods is its specific subject matter, language and
perspective. In that case, one may well ask the question, is there at all a distinct
field of comparative political analysis or is it a sub-discipline subsumed within
the larger discipline of Political Science. The three aspects of subject matter, language, vocabulary, and perspective, we must remember, are inadequate in
establishing the distinctiveness of comparative politics within the broad
discipline of Political Science, largely because comparative politics shares the
subject matter and concerns of Political Science, i.e. democracy, constitutions,
political parties, social movements etc. Within the discipline of Political Science
thus the specificity of comparative political analysis is marked out by its
conscious use of the comparative method to answer questions which might be of
general interest to political scientists.
1.2.1 Comparisons: Identification of Relationships
This stress on the comparative method as defining the character and scope of
comparative political analysis has been maintained by some scholars in order to
dispel frequent misconceptions about comparative politics as involving the study
of ‘foreign countries’. Under such an understanding, if you were studying a
country other than your own, (e.g., an American studying the politics of Brazil or an Indian studying that of Sri Lanks) ou would be called comparativist. More often that not this misconception implies merely the gathering of information about individual countries with little of at the most implicit comparison involved. The distinctiveness of comparative politics, most comparativists would argue, lies in a conscious and systematic use of comparisons to study two or more countries with the purpose of identifying, and eventually explaining differences or similarities between them with respect to the particular phenomena being analysed. For a long time comparative politics appeared merely to look for similarities and diffrences, and directed this towards classifying, dichotomising or polarising political phenomena. Comparative pollitical analysis is however, not simply about identifying similarities and difference. The purpose of uisng comparisons, it is felt by several scholars, is going beyond identifying similarities and differences or the compare and contrast approach, to ultimately study political phenomena in a larger framework of relationships. This, it is felt, would help deepen out undestanding and broaden the levels of answering and explaining political phenomena (Mohanty, 1975)
1.2.2 Comparative Politics and Comparative Government
The often-encountered notion that comparative politics involves a study of
governments arises, asserts Ronald Chilcote, from conceptual confusion. Unlike
comparative government whose field is limited to comparative study of
governments, comparative politics is concerned with the study of all forms of
political activity, governmental as well as non-governmental. The field of
comparative politics has an ‘all encompassing’ nature and comparative politics
specialists tend to view it as the study of everything political. Any lesser
conception of comparative politics would obscure the criteria for the selection
and exclusion of what may be studied under this field. (Chilcote, 1994:4)
It may, however, be pointed out that for long comparative politics concerned
itself with the study of governments and regime types and confined itself to
studying western countries. The process of decolonisation especially in the wake
of the Second World War, generated interest in the study of ‘new nations’. The increase in numbers and diversity of units/cases that could be brought into the gamut of comparison was accompanied also by the urge to formulate abstract universal models, which could explain political phenomena and processes in all the units. At around this time, along with the increase and diversification of cases to be studied there was also an expansion in the sphere of politics so as to allow
the examination of politics as a total system, including not merely the state and its institutions but also individuals, social groupings, political parties, interest groups, social movements etc. Certain aspects of institutions and political process
were especially in focus for what was seen as their usefulness in explaining political processes, e.g., political socialisation, patterns of political culture, techniques of interest articulation and interest aggregation, styles of political recruitment, extent of political efficacy and political apathy, ruling elites etc.
These systemic studies were often built around the concern with nation-building i.e., providing a politico-cultural identity to a population, state-building i.e., providing institutional structure and processes for politics and modernisation i.e., to initiate a process of change along the western path of development.
The presence of divergent ideological poles in world politics (western capitalism and Soviet socialism), the rejection of western imperialism by the newly liberated countries, the concern of these countries with maintaining their distinct identity (very well reflected in the rise of the non- aligned movement) and the sympathy among most countries with a socialist path of development, gradually led to the irrelevance of most modernisation models for purposes of global/large level comparisons.
Whereas the fifties and sixties were the period where attempts to explain political reality were made through the construction of large-scale models, the seventies saw the assertion of Third World-ism and the rolling back of these models, Then in the eighties we saw constriction in the level of comparison to narrow or smaller units. With globalisation, however, the imperatives for large level comparisons increased and field of comparisons has diversified with the proliferation of non-state, non-governmental actors and the increased interconnections between nations with economic linkages and information technology revolution.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1) How is comparative government different from comparative politics?
1.3 COMPARATIVE POLITICS: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The nature and scope of comparative politics has varied according to the changes
which have occurred historically in its subject matter. The subject matter of comparative politics has been determined both by the geographical space (i.e. countries, regions) which has constituted its field as well as the dominant ideas concerning social reality and change which shaped the approaches to
comparative studies (capitalist, socialist, mixed and indigenous). Likewise, at different historical junctures, the thrust or the primary concern of the studies kept changing.
1.3.1 The Origins of Comparative Study of Politics
Comparative politics has a long intellectual pedigree, going back to Aristotle and continued by thinkers like Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, Max Weber etc. In its earliest incarnation, the comparative study of politics comes to us in the form of studies done by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle studied the constitutions of 150 states and classified them into a typology of regimes. His classification was presented in terms of both descriptive and normative categories i.t., he not only described and classified regimes and political systems in terms of their types e.g., democracy, aristocracy, morarchy etc., he also distinguished them on the basis of certain norms of good governance. On the basis of this comparison, he divided regimes into good and bad – ideal and perverted. These Aristotelian categories were acknowledged and taken up by Romans such as Polybius (202-120 B.C.) and Cicero (106-43 B.C.) who considered them in formal and legalistic terms. Concern with comparative study of regime types reappeared in the 15th century with Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) who compared different types of principalities (hereditary, new, mixed and ecclesiastic ones) and republics to arrive the most successful ways to govern them.
1.3.2 The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries
The preoccupation with philosophical and speculative questions concerning the ‘good order’ or the ‘ideal state’ and the use, in the process, of abstract and normative vocabulary, persisted in comparative studies of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century. This was a period when liberalism was the reigning ideology and European countries enjoyed overwhelming dominance in world politics. The rest of the world of Asia, Africa and Latin America were either European colonies or under their sphere of influence as ex-colonies. Comparative studies taken up during this period, for instance, James Bryce’s Modern
Democracies (1921), Herman Finer’s Theory and Practice of Modern
Governments (1932) and Carl I. Friedrich’s Constitutional Government and Democracy (1937), Roberto Michels’, Political Parties (1915) and Maurice Duverger’s Political Parties (1950), were largely concerned with a comparative study of institutions, the distribution of power, and the relationship between the different layers of government. These studies were ‘euro-centric’ i.e., confined to the study of institutions, governments and regime types in European countries like Britain, France and Germany. It may thus be said that these studies were in
fact not genuinely comparative in the sense that they excluded from their analysis a large number of countries. Any generalisation derived from a study confined to a few countries could not legitimately claim having validity for the rest of the world. It may be emphasised here that exclusion of the rest of the world was symptomatic of the dominance of Europe in world politics. All contemporary history had Europe at its centre, obliterating the rest of the world (colonised or liberated from colonisation) (a) as ‘people without histories’ or (b) whose
histories were bound with and destined to follow the trajectories already followed by the advanced countries of the West. Thus, the above-mentioned works manifest their rootedness in the normative values of western liberal democracies which carried with it the baggage of racial and civilisational superiority, and assumed a prescriptive character for the colonies/former colonies.
1.3.3 The Second World War and After
In the nineteen thirties the political and economic situation of the world changed. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1927, brought into world, Socialism, as an ideology of the oppressed and, as a critical alternative to western liberalism and capitalism. With the end of the Second World War, a number of significant developments had taken place, including the declining of European (British) hegemony, the emergence and entrenchment of United States of America as the ‘new hegemon’ in world politics and economy, and the bifurcation of the world into two ideological camps viz, (western) capitalism and (eastern) socialisn. The majoridy of the ‘rest of the world’ had, by the time the Second World War ended, liberated itself from European imperialism. For a period after decolonisation the notions of development, modernisation, nation-building, state-building etc., evinced a degree of legitimacy and even popularity as ‘national slogans’ among the political elite of the ‘new nations’. Ideologically, however, these ‘new nations’, were no longer compelled to tow the western capitalist path of development. While socialism had its share of sympathisers among the new ruling elite of the Asia, America and Latin America, quite a number of newly independent countries made a conscious decision to distance themselves from both the power blocs, remaining non-aligned to either. A number of them evolved their own specific path of development akin to the socialist, as in the case of Ujjama in Tanzania, and the mixed-economy model in India which was a blend of capitalism and socialism.
It may be worth remembering that the comparative study of governments till the l940s was predominantly the study of institutions, the legal-constitutional principles regulating them, and the manner in which they functioned in western (European) liberal-democracies. In the context of the above stated developments, a powerful critique of the institutional approach emerged in the middle of 1950s.The critique had its roots in behaviouralism which had emerged as a new movement in the discipline of politics aiming to provide scientific rigour to the discipline and develop a science of politics. Known as the ‘behavioural movement’, it was concerned with developing an enquiry which was quantitative, based on survey techniques involving the examination of empirical facts separated from values, to provide value-neutral, non-prescriptive, objective observations and explanations. The behaviouralists attempted to study social reality by seeking answers to questions like ‘why people behave politically as they do, and why as a result, political processes and systems function as they do’.
It is these ‘why’ questions regarding differences in people’s behaviours and their implications for political processes and political systems, which changed the focus of comparative study from the legal-formal aspects of institutions. Thus in 1955 Roy Macridis criticised the existing comparative studies for privileging formal institutions over non-formal political processes, for being descriptive rather than analytical, and case-study oriented rather than genuinely comparative (Macridis, 1955). Harry Eckstein points out that the changes in the nature and scope of comparative politics in this period show sensitivity to the changing world politics urging the need to reconceptualise the notion of politics and develop paradigms for large-scale comparisons (Eckstein, 1963). Rejecting the then traditional and almost exclusive emphasis on the western world and the conceptual language which had been developed with such limited comparisons in
mind, Gabriel Almond and his colleagues of the American Social Science Research Council’s Committee on Comparative Politics (founded in 1954) sought to develop a theory and a methodology which could encompass and compare political systems of all kinds – primitive or advance, democratic or non-democratic western or non-western.
The broadening of concerns in a geographic or territorial sense was also accompanied by a broadening of the sense of politics itself, and in particular, by a rejection of what was then perceived as the traditional and narrowly defined emphasis on the study of formal political institutions. The notion of politics was broadened by the emphasis on ‘realism’ or politics ‘in practive’ as distinguished from mere ‘legalism’. This included in its scope the functioning of less formally structured agencies, behaviours and processes e.g. political parties, interest groups, elections, voting behaviour, attituded etc. With the deflection of attention from studies of formal institutions, there was simultaneously a decline in the centrality of the notion of the state itself. We had mentioned earlier that the emergence of a large number of countries on the world scene necessitated the development of frameworks which would facilitate comparisons on a large scale.
This led to the emergence of inclusive and abstract notions like the political system. This notion of the ‘system’ replaced the notion of the state and enabled scholars to take into account the ‘extra-legal’, ‘social’ and ‘cultural’ institutions which were critical to the understanding of non-western politics and had the added advantage of including in its scope ‘pre-state’/’non-state’ societies as well as roles and offices which were not seen as overtly connected with the state. Also, with the change of emphasis to actual practices and functions of
institutions, the problems of research came to be defined not in terms of what legal powers these institutions had, but what they actually did, how they were related to one another, and what roles they played in the making and execution of public policy. This led to the emergence of structural-functionalism approach, in which certain functions were described as being necessary to all societies, and the execution and performance of these functions were then compared across a variety of different formal and informal structures.
While the universal frameworks of systems and structures-functions enabled
western scholars to study a wide range of political systems, structures, and
behaviours within a single paradigm, the appearance of ‘new nations’ provided to
Western comparativists an opportunity to study what they perceived as economic
and political change. Wiarda points out that it was in this period of the sixties that
most contemporary scholars of comparative politics came of age. The ‘new
nations’ became for most of these scholars [ironically] ‘living laboratories’ for
the study of social and political change. Wiarda describes those ‘exciting times’
which offered unique opportunities to study political change, and saw the
development of new methodologies and approaches to study them. It was during
this period that some of the most innovative and exciting theoretical and
conceptual approaches were advanced in the field of comparative politics: study
of political culture, political socialisation, developmentalism, dependency and
interdependency, corporatism, bureaucratic-authoritarianism and later transitions to democracy etc. (Wiarda, 1998).
This period saw the mushrooming of universalistic models like David Easton’s political system, Karl Deutsch’s social mobilisation and Edward Shil’s centre and periphery. The theories of modernisation by Apter, Rokkan, Eisenstadt and Ward and the theory of political development by Almond, Coleman, Pye and Verba also claimed universal relevance. These theories were claimed to be applicable across cultural and ideological boundaries and to explain political process everywhere. The development of comparative political analysis in this phase coincided with the international involvement of the United Staes through military alliances and foreign aid. Most study in this period was not only funded by research foundations, it was also gearred to the goals of US foreign policy. The most symbolic of these were the ‘Project Camelot’ in latin America and the ‘Himalayan Project’ in India. This period was heralded by the appearance of works like Apter’s study on Ghana. Published in 1960, Politics of Developing Areas by Almond and Coleman, sharply defined the character of the new ‘Comparative Politics Movement’/ The publication of a new journal in the US entitle Comparative Politics in 1969 reflected the height of this trend (Mohanty, 1975). ‘Developmentalism’ was perhaps the dominant conceptual paradigm of this time. To a considerable extent, the interest in developmentalism emanated
from US foreign policy interests in ‘developing’ countries, to counter the appeals
of Marxism-Leninism and steer them towards a non-communist way to
development (Wiarda, 1998).
Post-Behaviouralism
Advocates of behavioural revolution who wanted to bring scientific rigor in political science were disappointed that the discipline could not
anticipate or study the social and political turmoil of the times: with its
new environmental and feminist movements, its anti-war perspective, its civil rights concerns etc. Their efforts to reconcile two forces: making
political science more rigorous, and making it more relevant led to the
post-behavioural movement. David Easton’s Presidential Address to the
American Political Studies Associations in 1969 best captures this
movement. Easton outlined the ‘credo of relevance’ with following seven
key points which became the hallmark of post-behavioural movement.
• Substance must dominate over technique. What is studied matters
more than how it is studied.
• To claim simply to study empirically politics as it exists lends itself to
a conservative outlook as it tends to focus on what is rather than what
might be.
• Too much sophistication in method obscures the brutal reality of much
of politics and prevents political science from addressing pressing
human needs.
• Science cannot be neutral: what you choose to study is driven by value
judgements, and how that work is used should be steered by values.
• The role of intellectuals is to promote the ‘humane values of
civilization’.
• To know is to bear the responsibility to act; scientists have a special
obligation to put their knowledge to work.
• This commitment to engage should be institutionalized and expressed through associations of scholars and universities. They cannot stand aside politicization of the professions is inescapable as well as desirable.
1.3.4 The 1970s and Challenges to Developmentalism
Towards the 1970s, developmentalism came to be criticised for favouring abstract models, which flattened out differences among specific political/social/cultural systems, in order to study them within a single universalistic framework. These criticisms emphasised the ‘ethnocentrism’ of these models and focused on the Third World in order to work out a theory of underdevelopment. They stressed the need to concentrate on solutions to the backwardness of developing countries. Two main challenged to developmentalism which arose in the early 1970s and gained widespread attention were (a) dependency and (b) corporatism. Dependency theory criticised the dominant model of developmentalism for ignoring domestic class factors and
(b) international market and power factors in development. It was particularly critical of US foreign policy and multinational corporations and suggested, contrary to what was held true in developmentalism that the development of the already-industrialised nations and that of the developing ones could not go together. Instead, dependency theory argued, that the development of the West had come on the shoulders and at the cost of the non-West. The idea that the
diffusion of capitalism promotes underdevelopment and not development in many parts of the world was embodied in Andre Gundre Frank’s Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (1967), Walter Rodney’s How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (1972) and Malcolm Caldwell’s The Wealth of Some Nations (1979). Marxist critics of the dependency theory, however, pointed out that the nature of exploitation through surplus extraction should not be seen
simply on national lines but, as part of a more complex pattern of alliances between the metropolitan bourgeoisie of the core/centre and the indigenous bourgeoisie of the periphery/satellite as they operated in a world-wide capitalist system. The corporatist approach criticised developmentalism for its Euro-American ethnocentrism and indicated that there were alternative organic, corporatist, often authoritarian ways to organise the state and state-society relations. (Chilcote, 1994: 16)
1.3.5 The 1980s: The Return of the State
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, still reflecting the backlash against developmentalism, a number of theories and subject matters emerged into the field of comparative politics. These included bureaucratic-authoritarianism, indigenous concepts of change, transitions to democracy, the politics of structural adjustment, neoliberalism and privatisation. While some scholars saw
these developments as undermining and breaking the unity of the field which was being dominated by developmentalism, others saw them as adding healthy diversity, providing alternative approaches and covering new subject areas. Almond, who had argue in the late 1950s that the notion of the state should be replaced by the political system, which was adaptable to scientific inquiry, and Easton, who undertook to construct the parameters and concepts of a political system, continued to argue well into the 1980s on the importance of political system as the core of political study. The state, however, received its share of attention in the sixties and seventies in the works of bureaucratic authoritarianism in Latin America, especially in Argentina in the works of Guillermo O’Donnel e.g., Economic Modernisation and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (1973), Ralph Miliband’s The State in Capitalist Society (1969) had also kept the interest alive. With NIcos Poulantzas’s State, Power, Socialism (1978), and political sociologists Peter Evans, Theda Skocpol, and others Bringing the State Back In (1985), focus was sought to be restored onto the state.
1.3.6 The Late Twentieth century: Globalisation and Emerging Trends
Scaling down of systems: Much of the development of comparative political analysis in the period 1960s to 1980s can be seen as an ever widening range of countries being included as cases, with more variables being added to the models such as policy, ideology, governing experience, and so on. With the 1980s,
however, there has been a move away from general theory to emphasis on the relevance of context. In part, this tendency reflects the renewed influence of historical inquiry in the social sciences, and especially the emergence of a ‘historical sociology’ which tries to understand phenomena in the very broad or ‘holistic’ context within which they occur (Theda Skocpol and M. Somers, 1980). There has been a shying away from models to a more in-depth understanding of particular countries and cases where more qualitative and contextualised data can be assessed and where account can be taken of specific institutional circumstances or particular political cultures. Hence we see a new emphasis on more culturally specific studies (e.g., English speaking countries, Islamic countries), and nationally specific countries (e.g., England, India), and even institutionally specific countries (e.g., India under a specific regime). While emphasis on ‘grand systems’ and model building diminished, the stress on
specific contexts and cultures have meant that the scale of comparisons was brought down. Comparisons at the level of ‘smaller systems’ or regions, however, remained e.g., the Islamic world, Latin American countries, SubSaharan Africa, South Asia etc.
Civil Society and Democratisation Approach (es): The disintegration of Soviet Union brought into currency the notion of the ‘end of history’. In his article “The End of History?” (1989), which was developed later into the book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), Francis Fukuyama argued that the history of ideas had ended with the recognition and triumph of liberal democracy as the ‘final form of human government’. The ‘end of history’ thesis invoked to stress the predominance of western liberal democracy, is in a way reminiscent of the ‘end of ideology’ debate of the 1950s which emerged at the height of the Cold War and in the context of the decline of communism in the West. Western liberal scholars proposed that the economic advancement made in the industrialised societies of the west had resolved political problems, e.g., issues of freedom and state power, workers’ rights etc., which are assumed to accompany industrialisation. The U.S. sociologist, Daniel Bell in particular, pointed in his work The End of Ideology?: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the 1950s, (1960), that in the light of this development there was an ideological consensus, or the suspension of a need for ideological difference over issues of political practice. In the early nineties, the idea of the ‘end of history’ was coupled with another phenomenon of the eighties, ‘globalisation’. Globalisation refers to a set of conditions, scientific, technological, economic and poliltical, which have linked together the world in a manner so that occurrences in one part of the wrold are bound to affect or be affected by what is happening in another part. It may be pointed out that in this global world the focal point or the centre around which events move world-wide is still western capitalism. In the context of the so-called triumph of capitalism, the approaches to the study of civil society and democratisation that have gained currecy give importance to civil society defined in terms of protection of individual rights to enter the modern capitalist world.
There is, however, another significant trend in the approach which seeks to place questions of civil society and democratisation as its primary focus. If there are on one hand studies conforming to the contemporary interest of western capitalism seeking to develop market democracy, there are also a number of studies which take into account the resurgence of peoples ‘movements seeking autonomy, right
to indigenous culture, movements of tribes, dalits, lower castes, and the women’s movement and the environment movement. These movements reveal a terrain of contestation where the interests of capital are in conflict with people’s rights and represent the language of change and liberation in an era of global capital. Thus,
concerns with issues of identity, environment, ethnicity, gender, race, etc. have provided a new dimension to comparative political analysis.
Information collection and diffusion: A significant aspect and determinant of globalisation has been the unprecedented developments in the field of information and communication technology viz., the Internet and World Wide Web. This has made the production, collection and analysis of data easier and also assured their faster and wider diffusion, worldwide. These developments
have not only enhanced the availability of data, but also made possible the emergence of new issues and themes which extend beyond the confines of the nation-state. These new themes in turn form an important/influential aspect of the political environment of the contemporary globalised world. The global network of social movement organisations, the global network of activists is one such
significant aspect. The diffusion of ideas of democratisation is an important outcome of such networking. The Zapastista rebellion in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas used the Internet and the global media to communicate their struggle for rights, social justice and democracy. The concern with issues regarding the promotion and protection of human rights which is dependent on the collection and dissemination of information has similarly become pertinent in the contemporary world.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1 ) Is it possible to say that comparative politics refers only to a method of studying governments?
2 ) The nature, field and scope of comparative politics had evolved in response to the changing socio-political concerns over different historical periods. Comment.
1.4 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITICS:
UTILITY
The question of utility of comparative politics is concerned with its usefulness and relevance for enhancing our understanding of political reality. It seeks to know how comparative study helps us understand this reality. First and foremost, we must bear in mind that political behaviour is common to all human beings and manifests itself in diverse ways and under diverse social and institutional set ups
all over the world. It may be said that an understanding of these related and at the same time different political behaviours and patterns is an integral part of our understanding of politics itself. A sound and comprehensive understanding would commonly take the form of comparisons.
1.4.1 Comparing for Theoretical Formulation
While comparisons form an implicit part of all our reasoning and thinking, most comparativists would argue that a comparative study of politics seeks to make comparisons consciously to arrive at conclusions which can be generalised i.e. held true for a number of cases. To be able to make such generalisations with a degree of confidence, it is not sufficient to just collect information about countries. The stress in comparative political analysis is on theory-building and theory-testing with the countries acting as units or cases. A lot of emphasis is therefore laid and energies spent on developing rules and standards about how comparative research should be carried out. A comparative study ensures that all generalisations are based on the observation of more than one phenomenon or observation of relationship between several phenomena. The broader the observed universe, the greater is the confidence in statements about relationship and sounder the theories.
1.4.2 Comparisons for Scientific Rigour
As will be explained in the next unit, the comparative method gives these theories scientific basis and rigor. Social scientists who emphasise scientific precision, validity and reliability, see comparisons as indispensable in the social sciences because they offer the unique opportunity of ‘control’ in the study of social phenomena. (Sartori, 1994).
1.4.3 Comparisons Leading to Explanations in Relationships
For a long time, comparative politics appeared merely to look for similarities and differences, and directed this towards classifying, dichotomising or polarising political phenomena. Comparative political analysis is however, not simply about identifying similarities and differences. The purpose of using comparisons, it is felt by several scholars, is going beyond ‘identifying similarities and differences’
or the ‘compare and contrast approach’ as it is called, to ultimately study political phenomena in a larger framework of relationships. This, it is felt, would help deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of answering and explaining political phenomena. In other words, the most significant purpose of comparative politics is not simply to be sceptical of others but to question our own system and
beliefs in the light of new evidence and arguments.
Check Your Progress 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the
unit.
1) What according to you is the usefulness of a comparative study of politics?
2) What are the features that determine the nature and scope of comparative politics?
3) Trace the development of Comparative Politics in the twentieth century bringing out (a) the specificities of the period before and after the Second World War; (b) developmentalism and its critique; (c) late twentieth century developments.
1.5 LET US SUM UP
The nature and scope of comparative study of politics is related to its subject matter, its field of study, the vantage point from which the study in carried out and the purposes towards which the study is directed. These have, however, not been static and have changed over time. While the earliest studies concerned themselves with observing and classifying governments and regimes, comparative politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was concerned with studying the formal legal structures of institutions in western counties. Towards the end of the Second World War a number of ‘new nations’ emerged on the world scene having liberated themselves from colonial domination.
The dominance of liberalism was challenged by the emergence of
communism and the powerful presence of Soviet Union on the world scene. The concern among comparativists changed at this juncture to studying the diversity of political behaviours and processes which were thrown up, however, within a single overarching framework. This led to the use of ‘systems’ and ‘structures functions’ frameworks to study political phenomena. These frameworks were used by western scholars particularly those in the United States to study phenomena like developmentalism, modernisation etc. While the political elite of the newly independent countries found concepts like development, nationbuilding and state building attractive, in many cases they evolved their own ideological stances and chose to remain non-aligned to either ideological blocs. In the late 1980s focus on studying politics comparatively within an overarching framework of ‘system’ declined and regional systemic studies assumed significance. The focus on state in these studies marked a resurgence of the study of power structures within civil society and its political forms, which had
suffered a set-back with the arrival of systems and structures-functions into
comparative politics. The petering out of Soviet Union in the same period,
provoked western scholars to proclaim the ‘end of history’, marking the triumph
of liberalism and capitalism. Globalisation of capital, a significant feature of the late nineteen eighties, which continues and makes itself manifest in technological, economic and information linkages among the countries of the world, has also tended to influence comparativists into adopting universalistic,
homogenising expressions like ‘transitions to democracy’, the ‘global market’ and ‘civil society’. Such expressions would have us believe that there do not in fact remain differences, uncertainties and contests which need to be explained in a comparative perspective. There is, however, another way to look at the phenomena and a number of scholars see the resurgence of civil society in terms
of challenges to global capitalism which comes from popular movements and trade union activism throughout the world.
16 KEYWORDS
Comparative
Analysis – Nature,
Scope and Utility
Methodology
Neoliberalism
Normative
Theory
The study of different methods of research,
including the identification of research questions,
the formulation of theories to explain certain events
and political outcomes, and the development of
research design.
An advanced version of classical liberalism in
which political economy focused on market
individualism and minimal statism.
The prescription of values and standards of
conduct, dealing with questions pertaining to ‘what
should be’ rather than ‘what is’.
A theory is a set of systematically interrelated
ideas, constructs or propositions intended to
systematically explain a particular phenomenon, 21
Introduction events or behavior. In social science, theories
provide explanations of social behaviours, events
or phenomena.
1.7 REFERENCS
Chilcote. H Ronald. (1994).’Part I: Introduction’. In Ronald H. Chilcote.
Theories of Comparative Politics. The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered.
Boulder, Westview Press (Second Edition).
Landman, Todd. (2000). Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. An
Introduction. London, Routledge.
Lim, C Timothy. (2006). Doing Comparative Politics: An Introduction to
Approaches and Issues. Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Rienner.
Mair, Peter. (1996). “Comparative Politics: An Overview”, in R.E. Goodinand H.
1.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
1) Comparative government is the study of different governments through
methods of systematic comparison. Comparative politics, on the other hand,
is the study of all aspects of politics, government as well as nongovernmental. The scope of comparative government is confined to the
study of government alone, but the field of comparative politics is all
encompassing in nature which extends to almost every aspects of political
life. Therefore, comparative politics is often describes as the study of
everything ‘political’ which encompasses state, institutions, individuals,
22
groups, political parties, interest groups, social movements etc.
Check Your Progress 2
1) No, it’s not merely a method of studying governments, it’s much broader.
The scope of comparative politics encompasses a wide range of issues
concerned with governance, policy formulations, political process,
institutions, regimes, and so on. It is the study of everything political, which
involves all sorts of political phenomena—governmental as well as nongovernmental.
2) The subject matter, scheme and scope of comparative politics has been
evolving through various historical epoch depending upon the changing
socio-political context of the time. The evolution and development of
comparative politics can be seen both in terms of geographical space as
well as ideas and theories. Comparative politics has undergone significant
developments throughout the different periods of history.
Check your Progress 3
ate etee t a d ea y twe t et ce tu y. ut p o to WW , t was
highly ‘Eurocentric’, i.e., confined to the study of European countries like,
Britain, Germany, France etc. But with the emergence of newly
independent states in the post-WW II period, scholars began to study
political systems of other parts of the world. In the 1990s, globalisation led
to a tremendous expansion in the scope and domain of comparative study of
politics.
Comparative
Analysis – Nature,
Scope and Utility
23
Introduction
UNIT 2 METHODS OF COMPARATIVE
POLITICAL ANALYSIS‘
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction: What is Comparison?
2.2 Some Thoughts on Method
2.3 The Comparative Method: Why Compare
2.3.1 Social Scientific Research
2.3.2 Integrative Thinking
2.4 Methods of Comparison
2.4.1 Experimental Method
something about ‘comparison’ as a ‘method’ which makes it more appropriate
than other methods for the purpose. To assess this appropriateness, we first need
to know what is the comparative method and how it can be distinguished from
other methods, some of which also compare e.g., the experimental and statistical
methods. We should also understand as to why, we should use the comparative
method rather than any other method. Again, how one goes about comparing or
planning strategies of comparison, is also important to bear in mind. In this Unit,
we will take up these issues.
*Prof. Anupama Roy, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Adopted from EPS -09:
Comparative Government and Politics (Unit 2).
24
After going through this unit, you will be able to:
• Explain comparative method and how it differs from other methods;
• List the relative advantages and disadvantages of comparative method over
other methods;
• Identity and describe the important methods of comparison;
• Describe the use of comparative method for understanding social and
political phenomena; and
• Explain the significance of comparative method in the field of Comparative
Politics.
2.1 INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS COMPARISON
In the previous section we noted how comparisons form part of our daily lives.
None of us, however, live in a vacuum. Our daily lives are crisscrossed by
both similarities and dissimilarities can also be made after exploring the
commonalities and variations in the conditions of their lives. In order to illustrate
this, let us imagine a residential colony in which majority of the male resident
leaves for work by a chartered bus at 8 AM in the morning and return at 6 PM in
the evening. Some residents, however, leave at 9 AM in the morning, in their
respective cars, and return at 5 PM in the evening. The residents of the colony
thus form roughly two groups displaying two kinds of patterns of behaviour.
Explanations for both similarities within each group and dissimilarities between
the two groups can be found by comparing individual situations or conditions in
each group. While explanations for similarities can be seen in the commonalities
in the conditions, explanations of irregularity or dissimilarities between groups
can be explained in terms of absence of conditions which permit the similarity in
one group e.g., it may be found that those who travel by bus have a lot of things
in common besides going to their offices in the chartered bus such as same office,
absence of personal vehicles, more or less similar positions/status in the office,
location of offices on the same route etc. Those who travel by their cars, would
Methods of
Comparative
Political Analysis
25
Introduction
26
likewise exhibit similarities of conditions within their group. The explanation for
the different patterns between the groups can be seen in terms of the absence of
conditions which permit similarities in the two groups e.g., the car group
residents may be going to different offices which do not fall on the same bus
route; they may be the only ones owning cars; their status in their offices may be
higher etc. The explanations could be numerous and based also on numerous
other variables like caste, gender, political beliefs etc. On the basis of this
observation of similarities and dissimilarities, propositions can thus be made in
terms of a causal-relationship e.g. men/women who drive to work do so because
there are no chartered buses to their place of work or men/women who own
private vehicles are more likely to drive to work than those who do not own
vehicles or upper class women are more likely to drive to work etc. Let us move
on from this simplistic example to the complex ways in which social scientists
use comparisons.
2 2 SOME THOUGHTS ON METHOD
concepts which are to be applied or studied will have to be thought out. All this
will eventually have to be organised so that the nature of the data and the manner
in which it is collected and the application of the concept is done in away that we
are able to study with a degree of precision what we want to study. In a scientific
inquiry much emphasis is placed on precision and exactness of the method.
Social sciences, however, owing to the nature of their subject matter, have to
think of methods which come close to the accuracy of scientific experiments in
laboratories or other controlled conditions. A number of scholars, however, do
not feel that there should be much preoccupation with the so called ‘scientific
research’. Whatever the beliefs of scholars in this regard, there is nonetheless a
‘method’ in thinking, exploring and research in all studies. Several methods—
comparative, historical, experimental, statistical etc.—are used by scholars for
their studies. It may be pointed out that all these methods may use comparisons to
varying degrees as comparative method is not the monopoly of comparative
politics. It is used in all domains of knowledge to study physical, human and
social phenomenon. Sociology, history, anthropology, psychology, literature,
etc., use it with similar confidence. These disciplines have used the comparative
method to produce studies which are referred variously as ‘cross-cultural’ (as in
Anthropology and Psychology) and ‘cross-national’ (as in Political Science and
Sociology) seeming thereby to emphasise different fields.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the model answers given at the end of the unit
1) What is method? Why do you think method is an important part of research?
Swanson similarly emphasised that it was unthinkable to think of scientific
thought and all scientific research’ without comparisons (Swanson, 1971, p. 145).
Whereas, in physical sciences comparisons can be done in laboratories under
carefully controlled conditions, precise experimentation in social sciences under
conditions which replicate laboratory conditions is not possible. If, for example, a
social scientist wishes to study the relationship between electoral systems and the
number of political parties, s/he cannot instruct a government to change its
electoral system nor order people to behave in a particular way to test his/her
hypothesis. Nor can s/he replicate a social or political phenomenon in a
laboratory where tests can be conducted. Thus, while a social scientist may feel
compelled to work in a scientific way, societal phenomena may not actually
permit what is accepted as ‘scientific’ inquiry. S/he can, however, study ‘cases’
i.e., actually existing political systems and compare them i.e., chalk out a way to
study their relationship as worked out in the hypothesis, draw conclusions and
offer generalisations.
Methods of
Comparative
Political Analysis
27
Introduction
28
Thus, the comparative method, though scientifically weaker than the
experimental method, is considered closest to a scientific method, offering the
best possible opportunity to seek explanations of societal phenomena and offer
theoretical propositions and generalisations. The question you might ask now is
what makes comparative method, scientific. Sartori argued that the ‘control
function’ or the system of checks, which is integral to scientific research and a
necessary part of laboratory experimentation, can be achieved in social sciences
only through comparisons. He goes further to propose that because the control
function can be exercised only through the comparative method, comparisons are
indispensable in social sciences. Because of their function of
controlling/checking the validity of theoretical propositions, comparisons have
the scientific value of making generalised propositions or theoretical statements
explaining particular phenomena making predictions, and also what he terms
‘learning from others’ experiences’. In this context, it is important to point out
that the nature of predictions in comparative method has a probabilistic causality.
This means that it can state its results only in terms of likelihoods or probabilities
P ) g P
comparisons. He substantiates, simple descriptive words like ‘densely populated’
and ‘democratic’ presuppose a universe of situations that are more or less
populated or more or less democratic and one situation can be stated/described
only in relation/comparison to the other (Smelser, 1976: 3). It is this
‘presupposition of a universe’ in which a descriptive category can be placed,
within a set of relationships, helps us to analyse it better, feel quite a number of
scholars. Manoranjan Mohanty, therefore, seeks to emphasise relationships rather
than looking merely for similarities and dissimilarities among phenomena. The
latter or the ‘compare and contrast approach’ as he calls it would ultimately
become ‘an exercise in dichotomization, an act of polarising’. In other words,
such an exercise would lead to classification of likes in groups of isolated
compartments so that a comparative exercise would become nothing more than
finding similarities within groups and dissimilarities among them. For the
identification of relationships of unity and opposition, one must modify one’s
questions. This would mean that the questions asked should not be such as to
bring out answers locating merely similarities and dissimilarities but ‘the
relationship which exists between them’. Only then shall one be able to
understand the comparability of political systems like the United States of
America and the United Kingdom, for instance, which differ in their forms of
government (Presidential and parliamentary forms, respectively).
The need to look for relationships rather than only indicators of similarity and
dissimilarity is also asserted by Smelser. Smelser feels that often a comparative
exercise ends up looking for reasons only for differences or ‘dissimilarities’ and
gives explanations which are often ‘distortions’. The fascination or preoccupation
with the ‘new’ and the ‘unique’, in other words, what is seen as different from the
rest, has always been part of human nature. Historically there has been a
tendency to either praise these differences as ‘pure’ remainders of a previous age
or see them as deviations from what is seen as normal behaviour. Thus, the
emphasis on similarities and differences may lead to similarities or uniformities
being seen as norms and dissimilarities and variations as ‘deviations’ from the
norm The explanations offered for such deviations might not only be
appeal to look for relationships is lent weight by Eric Wolf, whose work corrects
the notion that the destiny of nations has historically been shaped by European
nations while the others were merely quiet spectators. Wolf shows that
historically interconnections have been and continue to be a fact in the lives of
states and nations (Wolf, 1982). This means that looking for relationship is not
only possible; ignoring such ‘interconnections’ will in fact be historically invalid.
Check Your Progress2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your answers with the model answers given at the end of the unit.
1) How do comparisons help achieve the purposes of social-scientific
research?
Methods of
Comparative
Political Analysis
29
Introduction
30
2.4 METHODS OF COMPARISON
Scholars have used a variety of comparative methods in the study of political
science. Some widely used methods of comparison are as follows:
2.4.1 Experimental Method
Although the experimental method has limited application in social sciences, it
provides the model on which many comparativist aspire to base their studies.
Simply put, the experimental method aims to establish a causal relationship
between two conditions. In other words, the objective of the experiment is to
establish that one condition leads to the other or influences the other in a
particular way. If, for example, one wishes to study/explain why children differ
in their ability to communicate in English in large-group setting, a number of
factors may be seen as influencing this capability viz., social background,
adeptness in the language, familiarity of surroundings etc. The investigator may
want to study the influence of all these factors or one of them or even a
that sense, while the method itself is not strictly comparative, it provides the data
(on single cases) which can become the basis of general observations. These
observations may be used to make comparisons with other ‘cases’ and to offer
general explanations. Case studies, however, may, in a disproportionate manner,
emphasise ‘distinctiveness’ or what are called ‘deviant’ or unusual cases. There
might be a tendency, for example, among comparativist to explore questions like
why United States of America does not have a socialist party rather than to
explore why Sweden along with most western democracies has one. We will
study briefly Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic studies of 18th century France (The
Old Regime and the French Revolution, 1856) and 19th century United States
(Democracy in AmericaVoll, 1835) to show how comparative explanations can
be made by focussing on single cases. Both his studies seem to ask different
questions. In the French case, he attempts to explain why the 1789 French
Revolution broke out and in the case of U.S.A. he seems to concentrate on
seeking reasons for, and consequences of, conditions of social equality in the
U.S.A. While both these works were spaced by more than twenty years, there is
an underlying unity of theme between the two. This unity is partly due to
Tocqueville’s preoccupation in both with similar conceptual issues viz., equality
and inequality, despotism and freedom and political stability and instability and
his views on social structure and social change. Also underlying the two studies
is his conviction regarding the inexorability of the Western historical transition
from aristocracy to democracy, from inequality to equality. Finally, and this is
what makes these individual works comparative, and according to some, a single
comparative study, is the fact that in both the studies the other nation persists as
an ‘absent’ case or referent. Thus, his analysis of the American society was
influenced by his perspective on the French society and vice versa. The American
case was understood as a ‘pure’ case of ‘democracy by birth’, where the social
evolution towards equality had ‘nearly reached its natural limits’ leading to
conditions of political stability, a diminished sense of relative deprivation among
its large middle class and a conservative attitude towards change. The French
case was an aristocracy (a system of hierarchical inequalities) which had entered
a transition stage in the 18th century, with conditions of inequality mixing with
explanations in terms of a relationship. The use of the statistical method also
helps explain and compare long term trends and patterns and offer predictions on
future trends. A study, for example, of the relationship of age and political
participation can be made through an analysis of statistical tables of voter turnout
and age-categories. Comparison of this data over long periods, or with similar
data in other countries/political systems, or with data showing voter turnout in
terms of religious groups, social class and age can help us make complex
generalisations, e.g., middle class, Hindu, male voters between the age of 25 and
30 are the most prolific voters. Cross national comparisons may lead to findings
like, middle class women of the age group 25 to 30 are more likely to vote in
western democracies than in developing countries like India. The utility of this
method lies in the relative ease with which it can deal with multiple variables. It
fails, however, to offer complete answers or give the complete picture. It can,
however, be employed along with qualitative analysis to give more
comprehensive explanations of relationships and the broad categories which the
statistical method uses in order to facilitate their numerical representation.
Methods of
Comparative
Political Analysis
31
Introduction
32
2.4.4 Focused Comparisons
These studies take up a small number of countries, often just two (paired or
binary comparisons), and concentrate frequently on particular aspects of the
countries’ politics rather than on all aspects. A comparative study of public
policies indifferent countries has successfully been undertaken by this method.
Lipset distinguishes two kinds of binary or paired comparison—the implicit and
explicit. In the implicit binary comparison, the investigator’s own country, as in
the case of Tocqueville’s study of America, may serve as the reference. Explicit
paired comparisons have two clear cases (countries) for comparison. The two
countries may be studied with respect to their specific aspects e.g., policy of
population control in India and China or in their entirety e.g., with respect to the
process of modernisation. The latter may, however, lead to a parallel study of two
cases leaving little scope for a study of relationships.
2.4.5 Historical Method
Comparative history is commonly used rather loosely to refer to any study in
which two or more historical trajectories of nation-states, institutional complexes,
or civilisations are juxtaposed. Some studies which fall in this genre, like
Charles, Louis and Richard Tilly’s The Rebellious Century 1810-1930, aim at
drawing up a specific historical model which can be applied across different
national context. Others, such as Reinhard Benedix’s Nation Building and
Citizenship and Perry Anderson’s Lineages of the Absolutist State, use
comparisons primarily to bring out contrasts among nations or civilisations,
conceived as isolated wholes. Skocpol herself subscribes to the second method
i.e., comparative historical analysis, which aims primarily to ‘develop, test, and
refine causal, explanatory hypothesis about events or structures integral to macrounits such as nation-states’. This it does by taking ‘selected slices of national
historical trajectories as the units of comparison’, to develop causal relationship
about specific phenomenon (e.g. revolutions) and draw generalisations. There are
two ways in which valid associations of potential causes with the phenomenon
one is trying to explain can be established. These methods laid out by John Stuart
Mill in his A System of Logic are (a) the method of Agreement and (b) the
method of Difference. The method of agreement involves taking up for study
several cases having in common both the phenomenon as well as the set of causal
factors proposed in the hypothesis. The method of difference, which was issued
by Skocpol, takes up two sets of cases: (a) the positive cases, in which the
phenomenon as well as the hypothesized causal relationship are present and the
(b) the negative cases, in which the phenomenon as well as the causes are absent
but are otherwise similar to the first set. In her comparative analysis of the
French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions, in States and Social Revolutions: A
Comparative Analysis ofFrance, Russia and China, Skocpol (1979) takes up the
three as the positive cases of successful social revolution and argues that the three
revolutions reveal similar causal patterns despite many other dissimilarities. She
takes up a set of negative cases viz., the failed Russian Revolution of 1905, and
selected aspects of English, Japanese and German histories to validate the
arguments regarding causal relationship in the first case. Critics of the historical
method feel that because the latter does not study a large number of cases, it does
2) What are the different methods of comparison? What are the relative
advantages of each in the study of comparative politics?
Methods of
Comparative
Political Analysis
33
Introduction 2.5 LET US SUM UP
Comparison is a basic human endeavour. Consciously or unconsciously we keep
on comparing many things around us. In the discipline of political science, using
comparative methods, one can not only explain the general description or
characteristics of the institutions, systems or phenomena but also provide a
nuanced understanding of the political system—the patterns, similarities and
differences.
In the process of using comparison as a method of political enquiry, scholars
have used variety of methods such as experimental method, case-study method,
statistical method, historical method, etc. These methods are the basic tools and
technique employed by comparativists for establishing a scientific and in-depth
explanation of political phenomena through the use of empirical data and
quantifiable variables. But, it is the task of the researcher (comparativists) to
identify the appropriate method for his/her enquiry. When a single method is not
Model
Sampling
34
Methods can be classified into: (a) comparative
(using more than one case), (b) configurative
(using a single case study) and (c) historical (using
time and sequence). Method is more about
‘thinking about thinking’.
A representation of the whole or a part of system
that is constructed to study the system. A model
simplifies the reality by representing the system or
phenomena.
It is a statistical process of selecting subsets called
‘samples’ for the purpose of making observations
and statistical inferences. For example, we cannot
study the entire population of a country because of
feasibility or constraints; therefore, we select
representative samples from the population for
observation and analysis so that the inference
derived from the sample can be generalize to the
population.
Theoretical Propositions: A statement (like a generalisation) confirming or
denying a relationship between two variables. The
statement is expected to have a general application.
2.7 REFERENCES
Durkheim, Emile. (1984). The Division of Labour in Society. London,
Macmillian Press.
Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop, and Shaun Bres1in.(1993). Comparative Government
and Politics. London, Macmillan, (third edition).
Mohanty, Manoranjan. (1975). “Comparative Political Theory and Third World
Brothers.
Wolf, R Eric. (1982). Europe and the People Without History. California,
University of California Press.
2.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1
1) Method is a useful way and means of doing things or accomplishing
something with relative ease. In the field of comparative politics, scholars
have employed variety of methods for social and political analysis.
Methods are used in generating hypotheses, conceptual innovation, and
theory formulation while studying/researching political process, systems or
phenomena.
Methods of
Comparative
Political Analysis
35
Introduction
36
Check Your Progress 2
1) Study with comparison gives enormous significance in social-scientific
research. Comparativists have always argued that scientific research can be
achieved in social sciences through comparisons. In the discipline of
comparative politics, comparativists do not simply compare but compare in
order to get an accurate and the best possible picture of political life—the
patterns, similarities and differences between and among political
institutions, systems or phenomena.
Check Your Progress 3
1) Experimental method is primarily used in comparative politics to establish a
causal relationship between two equivalent conditions. Experimental
method enabled the researcher to establish the particular conditions or
manner in which one lead to the other or influence the other. A significant
Block-2 Comparing Regimes c
BLOCK II
COMPARING REGIMES
The classification of political regimes is as old as the study of politics itself.
Beginning from the 4th Century BC onwards, there have been numerous attempts
to classify the regimes, define the concepts, and specify the basis of
classification. The most widely accepted classification in those days was the one
proposed by the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. He classified governments on the
basis of number of rulers and quality of rule. In the medieval ages, attempts were
made by Bodin, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Kant, etc. to improve upon the
Aristotelian classification but they could not carry farther. New modes of
classification emerged with the rise of modern nation-state. The American and
French revolutions gave a blow to monarchy and brought about the republican
and democratic forms Further refinements in the classification of governments
Authoritarian and
Democratic Regimes
37
Comparing
Regimes UNIT 3 AUTHORITARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC
REGIMES‘
Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Government, Political System and Political Regime
3.3 The Purpose of the Classification of Political Regimes
3.4 Evolution of Democratic Regimes
3.5 Democratic Regimes in the Developed States
3.6 Democratic Regimes and the Developing States
• distinguish the terms government, political system and political regime;
• explain the evolution of democratic regimes;
• analyse the nature, forms and characteristics of modern democratic regimes;
• identify the features of authoritarian regimes; and
• analyse the forms of post War authoritarian regimes.
‘Prof. Ashutosh Kumar, Panjab University, Chandigarh.Adopted from EPS-09: Comparative Government
and Politics.
38
3.1 INTRODUCTION
As we saw in the last unit, classification as well as characterisation of the various
forms of political regimes began with Aristotle, the Greek philosopher of 4th
century BC. In his attempts to describe the political regimes then in existence, he
coined the terms ‘democracy’, ‘oligarchy’ and ‘tyranny’. Comparative political
theorists working in the context of modern nation states continue to use these
terms to describe modern political regimes.
Contemporary political systems/regimes are broadly categorised as democratic or
authoritarian. As we shall see, this categorisation was a response to the events of
historical significance in the 20th century -the emergence of Stalinist Russia,
Fascist Italy and Spain and Nazi Germany. Before we proceed to examine the
nature and evolution of modem democratic and authoritarian forms of
government, it is necessary to address a theoretical issue of critical significance.
This relates to the different connotations of the terms government, political
system and political regime
Among the parameters, most commonly used to classify the nature of political
regimes, are the following:
Who rules? Does the process of political participation involve only elite, or does
it involve the people as a whole?
How is compliance achieved? Is the political regime obeyed as a result of the use
of coercion, or through consensus, bargaining and compromise?
Is the political power of the regime centralised or fragmented? What kind of
mechanisms are needed to ensure separation of powers and checks and balances
exist within the political regime?
How is government power acquired and transferred? Is the regime open and
competitive, or is it monolithic?
What is the relationship between the state and the individual? What is the nature
of distribution of rights and responsibilities between government and the
citizens?
Authoritarian and
Democratic Regimes
39
Comparing
Regimes
40
What is the nature of political economy? Is the political economy geared to the
market or to State regulation and planning?
Within what limits and scope the political regime operates? Whether it is a
limited or unlimited Government and what is the proper extent of democratic
rule?
Under which conditions and constraints is the government operating? What are
the socio-economic and cultural problems coming in the way of the functioning
of the political regime?
How stable is a political regime? Has a particular regime survived over a
considerable period of time, and has it shown the capacity to respond to new
demands and challenges?
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
P P g q
the transition liberal democratic regime in the former communist countries from
people’s democratic regime be welcomed? Should developing countries favour a
‘guided’ democratic regime on the pattern of South East Asian countries and
similar other questions? etc.
3.4 EVOLUTION OF DEMOCRATIC REGIMES
The term democracy is an ancient political term whose meaning is derived from
the Greek words demos (people) and Kratia (rule or authority). Hence it means
‘rule by the people’, The word demokratia was first used by the Greeks towards
the middle of the fifth century BC to denote the political regimes of their City
States, The usage was part of the ‘classical’ classification of regimes that
distinguished rule by one (monarchy), the few (aristocracy or oligarchy) and the
many (democracy).
The advocates of democracy have always debated the question as to who should
compose the demos. Both the classical Greece as well as in modern times the
citizen body has always excluded some individuals as unqualified. When
Athenian democracy was at its height in the fifth century BC, only a small
minority of the adult population of Athens comprised the ‘demos’, or those able to
participate in the political process. It is only in the twentieth century that
universal suffrage and other citizenship rights were extended to all, or almost all,
permanent residents of a country. For instance, universal adult franchise was
introduced in Germany in 1919. A year later it was introduced in Sweden. France
introduced universal adult franchise only in 1945, just a couple of years ahead of
India.
Along with the changing notion of what properly constitute the people, the
conceptions as to what it means for the people to rule have also changed. The
political institutions and the systems have evolved in the contemporary
democratic regimes primarily to facilitate ‘rule by the people’. The ideas about
political life that lend legitimacy to these institutions and systems enshrined in
P y y P y P 8
Western countries relied on traditional political and legal language, emphasised
electoral and civic rights, democratic constitution and institutions and the formal
liberty and equality of the political system.
The above brief historical sketch of the evolution of democratic regimes shows
that democracy has been subjected to marked ambivalence and intense
philosophical and ideological debates. It acquires distinct characteristics
depending on the nature of the countries they are based: East or West, developed
or developing ones.
3.5 DEMOCRATIC REGIMES IN THE DEVELOPED
STATES
The liberal democratic regimes in the developed states have been categorised as
polyarchical regimes by Robert Dahl in his work Polyarchy: Participation and
Opposition. The term ‘polyarchy’ has been preferred to ‘liberal democracy’ by
Authoritarian and
Democratic Regimes
41
Comparing
Regimes
42
the Western comparative political theorists primarily because of two reasons.
First, liberal democracy as a concept has been treated mostly as a political ideal
than a form of regime, and is thus invested with broader normative implications.
Second, the usage of the concept of ‘polyarchy’ tends to acknowledge that the
democratic regimes in the developed countries still fall short, in significant ways,
of the goal of democracy as theorised in political theory.
The liberal democratic or polyarchical regimes are to be found in the states of
North America, Western Europe and Australia. However, there are states like
Japan and South Africa who also exhibit the same characteristics. Some of these
characteristics may be identified in a brief manner as given below:
• These democratic regimes represent political institutions and practices which
include universal suffrage. Elections of representatives for a specified period
makes them directly responsible to people. These regimes also provide equal
opportunities to the citizens to compete for public office. The political parties
and the political leaders enjoy the rights to compete publicly for support.
• Modern democratic regimes are distinguished by the existence, legality and
legitimacy of a variety of autonomous organisations and associations which
are relatively independent in relation to government and to one another.
• These democratic regimes derive their underpinnings from the Western
liberal individualistic tradition of political thought. Thus, besides
guaranteeing the individual rights they also support free competitive market
society. The cultural and ideological orientation of these regimes likewise is
also derived from Western liberalism.
• The democratic regimes in the developed World are not considered all alike,
some of them tend to favour centralisation and majority rule whereas others
favour fragmentation and pluralism. Thus, the comparative political theorists
like Lijphart distinguish these regimes between ‘majority’ democratic
regimes and the ‘pluralist’ democratic regimes.
The ‘majority’ democratic regimes are organised along parliamentary lines in
accordance with the Westminster model. Such democratic regimes are to be
found in United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Israel. Some of
the significant features shared by these regimes are single party government, a
lack of separation of powers between the executive and the legislature, a simple
plurality or first past the post electoral system, unitary or quasi-federal
government, legislative supremacy, etc. We will be examining some of these in
detail in Block III and Block IV of this course.
The pluralist democratic regimes based on the US model represent the separation
of power and checks and balance. The provisions of the Constitution allow
institutional fragmentation. The states like the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and
Switzerland which are divided by deep religious, ideological, regional, linguistic
and cultural diversities have adopted such regimes which are also called the
consociational democratic regimes. These regimes promote the value of
bargaining and power sharing which can ensure consensus. The common features
these regimes share are coalition government a separation of power between the
DEVELOPING STATES
A number of newly independent states of Africa and Asia emerged from colonial
rule after the Second World War. Decolonisation brought forth the hope that the
modernising political elite of the ‘new’ states might successfully transform the
nationalist, anti-colonial movements into democratic government and thereby
advance the gigantic task of nation building and State building. Most of these
new States, however, suffered from severe handicaps, some in the shape of
objective conditions like lack of literacy and industrial development and others
because of their traditional cultures like lack of democratic experience. Thus,
even when most of these Asian and African post-colonial states adopted
democratic form of regimes, many of these regimes developed authoritarian
tendencies. Many states in the developing world alternate -between democratic
and authoritarian forms of regime. Pakistan is such an example. Then, while
some regimes maintain the democratic form, they are authoritarian in actual
working.
Authoritarian and
Democratic Regimes
43
Comparing
Regimes
44
A major obstacle to the success of the democratic regimes in the developing
states has been the deep ethnic divisions along the linguistic, tribal and religious
lines -affecting their civil societies. These ethnic groups remain at different
stages of socio-economic and political development. The ethnic diversities are
naturally reflected in political organisations and form the basis of political
mobilisation on the part of the ethnic groups for the fulfilment of their demands
in a resource-scarce economy. The political regimes in the face of the increased
level of political participation by the wider groups with their increased
expectations find it necessary to introduce measures that would co-ordinate and
control these groups and their demands. Often such measures are the beginnings
of the authoritarian measures. Participation explosion has forced most of the
democratic regimes into authoritarian military or bureaucratic regimes in the
States of Latin America.
Another major problem before the democratic regimes in the developing States
has been that of underdevelopment as the dependency theorists have put it. This
calls for strong initiatives on the part of the regime Thus the democratic regimes
P y P
However, unlike the erstwhile communist party regimes in Eastern Europe, these
regimes have been noted for the extensive participation as citizens have got used
to voting periodically in local elections.
Islam, as Samuel P. Huntington has argued in his work Clash of Civilisations,
has had a profound effect on politics in the States of North Africa, the Middle
East and parts of South and South East Asia. As a consequence of the challenge
to the existing regimes in the last two decades by the pro-urban poor militant
Islamic groups, ‘new’ democratic regimes have been constructed or reconstructed
on Islamic lines. Iran, Sudan and Pakistan among others are the pertinent
examples.
Such Islamic democratic regimes have been considered ‘by the Western
comparativists as ‘illiberal’ on two counts. First, these regimes violate the
distinction between private and public realms, in that they take religious rules and
precepts to be the guiding principles of both personal life and political conduct.
Second, these regimes invest political authority with potentially unlimited power,
because temporal power is derived from spiritual wisdom. As such these regimes
cannot claim to be based solely on the popular consent or follow the
constitutional framework. It would be apt to note, in this context, that Islam has
been found compatible with the political pluralism followed by the ‘guided’
democratic regime in such countries like Pakistan and Malaysia. In essence,
however, authoritarian tendencies have remained in the Islamic regimes even if it
may not be correct to call them ‘fundamentalist’ in character.
Check Your Progress 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1) List out the major obstacles to the success of the democratic regimes in the
developing states.
y g P P P
authoritarian. As such authoritarianism is a belief in, or practice of ‘government
from above’.
The practice of government ‘from above’ is also associated with monarchical
absolutism, traditional dictatorships, most single party regimes, and most forms
of military regimes. They all are authoritarian in the sense that they are
concerned with the repression of opposition and political liberty.
Authoritarian regimes are distinguished from the totalitarian regimes.
Totalitarian regimes depict modern dictatorship in terms of a model
government by complete centralisation and uniform regimentation of all aspects
of political, social and intellectual life and in these respects transcending by far
the earlier manifestations of absolute or autocratic or despotic or tyrannical
regimes and their capacity to control and mobilise the masses. In this sense
totalitarianism is truly a phenomenon of twentieth century. The term has been
applied to the three radical dictatorial regimes of the inter-war period: Italian
Fascism, German National Socialism and Stalinism in Russia.
Authoritarian and
Democratic Regimes
45
Comparing
Regimes
46
It follows that though totalitarian regimes are authoritarian- all authoritarian
regimes are not necessarily totalitarian. No doubt the authoritarian regimes are
concerned with the repression of opposition and political liberty. However,
unlike the totalitarian regimes, these regimes do not aim to achieve far more
radical goal of obliterating the distinction between the state and civil society.
Authoritarian regimes tend to tolerate a significant range of economic, religious
and other freedoms.
3.7.1 Characteristics of Authoritarian Regimes
In the authoritarian regimes the techniques of decision by public discussion and
voting are largely or wholly supplanted by the decision of those in authority.
• The authoritarian regimes exercise sufficient power to dispense with any
constitutional limitations.
• Those in power in an authoritarian regime claim to derive their authority not
necessarily and always from the consent of the governed but from some
components of the limited pluralism supporting them.
• Contrary to the democratic regimes which represent almost unlimited
pluralism in institutionalised form, the authoritarian regimes represent limited
pluralism. The limitation of pluralism may be legal or de facto, implemented
more or less effectively, confined to strictly political groups or extended to
interest groups.
• Moreover, political power is not legally accountable through such groups to
the citizens, even when, it might be quite responsive to them. This is in
contrast to democratic regimes, where the political forces are formally
dependent on the support of constituencies.
3.7.2 Authoritarian Regimes in the post-Second World War
Period
Authoritarian regimes have been mostly established in the developing states of
Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia. Developed states of
the West like Spain, Portugal and Greece, however, have also experienced it in
the post-World War period. These regimes -more than political, economic,
cultural or ideological factors- have been dependent on the use of military power
and systematic repression. Democratic institutions-both formal and informalhave been either weakened or abolished and the political and legal rights have
been non-existent.
These regimes have been mostly under the control of a military junta comprising
of the officers of the three wings of armed forces like in Argentina during 1978-
1983 or in present day Myanmar. However, there are other forms of regimes
where a military backed personalised dictatorship is established. In such cases a
single individual acquires pre eminence within the junta or regime often being
Note:i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of the unit.
1) What is the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes?
2) What are the characteristics of an authoritarian regime?
Authoritarian and
Democratic Regimes
47
Comparing
Regimes
48
3.8 LET US SUM UP
Government in its broadest sense represents any mechanism through which
ordered rule is maintained, its central feature being its ability to make collective
decisions and implement them. A political regime or system, however, involves
not only the mechanisms of government and institutions and instructions of the
state, but also the structures and processes through which these interact with the
society;
Classification of political regimes enables us in the understanding and evaluation
of politics and government. It also helps us in analysing the problems of a
particular regime.
The inter-war period saw the alteration in the nature of classifying the regimes.
Broadly speaking, two kinds of regimes, democratic and authoritarian can be
universally accepted.
Democratic regimes ha e ndergone a process of e ol tion beginning ith the
democracy, liberty and law. Such regimes insist on unqualified obedience,
conformity and coercion. Authoritarianism can be distinguished from totalitarian
in the sense that the former does not seek to obliterate the distinction between the
state and civil society.
Authoritarian regimes during the post-second World War period, whether in the
developing or developed countries, have been primarily established with either
the covert or overt role of military.
3.9 REFERENCES
Bogdanov, Vernon. (1987). (ed.). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political
Institutions. Oxford, Blackwell Reference.
Heywood, Andrew. (1997). Politics. Macmillan, London.
Millar, David. (1987). (ed.). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought.
Blackwell Reference, Oxford.
3.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
1) While the former refers to the institutional process through which collective
and binding decisions are made, the latter is a much broader term involving
structures, processes and values through which the political institutions
interact with civil society.
Check Your Progress 2
1) These promote values of bargaining and power sharing through institutional
arrangements like checks and balances among different organs of the
government, multiparty system, and division or devolution of power.
Authoritarian and
Democratic Regimes
49
Comparing
Regimes UNIT 4 CIVILIAN AND MILITARY REGIMES‘
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Civil-Military Relations
4.2.1 India
4.2.2 China
4.2.3 Explaining Military Intervention in Politics
4.3
4 4
Military Regimes: Meaning and Features
4.3.1 Types of Military Regimes
4.3.2 Strategies of Rulership
Military in Politics: The Consequences
• Describe the consequences of military rule for society, economy and polity.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The military is a powerful institution in contemporary society of states. Military
regimes are a sub-set of authoritarian regimes, but all authoritarian regimes are
not ruled by the military. Generally, the military has taken over the reins of
*Dr. P Ramana, Independent Policy Analyst. Formerly, Research Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and
Analysis, New Delhi
50
government in a state afflicted with internal crisis. Otherwise, irrespective of the
form of government, the military is expected to be subservient to the executive
and assist it when called upon. On its part, the executive is expected to cater to
the genuine requirements of the armed forces and give them their due. In other
words, the civilian executive and the military are expected to perform their
respective duties and not encroach upon one other’s space and, thus, not impede
the smooth functioning of the other. However, among the newly emergent
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, there has been a wide prevalence of
the military’s intervention in politics. A number of these newly established states
have witnessed military coups. Since the 1980s, there has been a transformation
of military regimes into civilian ones in both developed countries and in East
Europe in the 1990s. But coups and attempted coups continue to plague many
countries and military regimes have persisted in the developing countries.
In our own neighbourhood, the military in Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan
has either come to power or have dictated, or continue to dictate, the civilian
government from behind the scene The relationship of super ordination and
st tut o s a d o ga at o s, bot state ( eg s at ve, e ecut ve a d jud c a
branches of the government) and non-state (political actors such as political
parties, interest groups, social movements, and associations of civil society etc.)
Thus, the term ‘civil-military relations’ refers to the relationship between the
military and civilian authorities or in a broad sense, between the military and
society at every level.
It should be noted, however, that the broad distinction between the two terms,
civil and military, has not been easy to put in practice. There have been societies
in which the ruler and the tribesmen were also warlords and the armed hoard.
Similarly, in the feudal monarchies of Europe, the barons were both the warriors
and political leaders. It is only in the late 18th century, particularly after the
French Revolution, that the loyalty of the officer corps to their dynastic
sovereign, or even to elected authorities, was replaced by loyalty to the nation.
This development, combined with the development of the officer corps into a
career-oriented institution with distinct life styles, training, social status and
Civilian and Military
Regimes
51
Comparing
Regimes
52
material interests made possible the divergence of outlook between the armed
forces and the government of the day.
In the post-war period, the military emerged as a ruler or as a major factor in the
politics of several developing post-colonial countries of Asia, Africa and Latin
America, The wide prevalence of military rule in these countries can be gauged
from the fact that in the five decades since the Second World War, about 56 per
cent of the developing states (excluding the communist states and mini-states
with a population below 10 lakhs) had undergone at least one military coup
d’état. Of course, military regimes existed in a few developed countries of
Europe- Spain (between 1930s and 1970s), Portugal (between 1920s and 1970s)
and Greece (between 1967 and mid-1970s), but it was nevertheless the high
incidence of military intervention in politics of developing countries that
attracted the attention of political scientists. While the nature of civil-military
relations has varied from one political system to the other and the issues of
concern have differed at different points of time, one can classify political
systems into three groups based on their pattern of civil military relations with
acquired enormous influence over the civilian government. Nigeria and Pakistan
offer a good example of this pattern of civil-military relations. Both these
countries were under military rule for a prolonged period of three decades and
despite returning to a democratically elected civilian government, find that the
military had emerged as a strong pressure group wielding enormous influence in
political decision making.
Let us take up prominent examples from the first two groups – India and China,
for examination. The examples and features of military regimes are discussed in a
separate section.
4.2.1 India
In India, there has been the established tradition of the apolitical nature of the
military. In the early years after independence, the military was more or less
excluded from any decision making in matters of foreign and security policies.
After the 1962 war with China, there was an increased sensitivity to matters of
external security and defence acquired high policy priority. However, the military
has not been accorded any significant role in the affairs of the state.
The relationship between the civilian leadership and the military has not always
been smooth. There have been a few occasions when the military had entered
into a tug with its political masters. By far, the best-known example is that of the
then head of the Indian Army, General (later Field Marshal) Thimmayya
tendering his resignation to the then Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, hours before
his Pakistani counterpart was due to arrive in Delhi. The General withdrew his
resignation later. Several years later, a detachment of the Army had been moved
from its peacetime location without the required permission from the civilian
leadership anticipating a serious law and order problem. Much later, in December
1998, the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, was sacked for
‘compromising national security and wilfully disobeying the orders of his
Defence Minister. The Admiral challenged the decision of the government, but
the Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to dismiss him from
service
Forces have been appointed as public representatives. Moreover, the Indian
Army, at the express orders of the Union government, has been involved in
fighting insurgencies/terrorists.
4.2.2 China
In China, a country guided by Marxist ideology, it is the Communist Party of
China which controls the affairs of the state. The military is at once a part of the
ruling structures and yet under the firm control of the Party. The military and the
Party were closely inter-linked, at least in the earlier years. Mao Tse Tung had
drawn a clear line of distinction between the military and the Party and said ‘the
Party must always control the military’, though he had also said that ‘political
power grows out of the barrel of the gun’. Over a period of time, the military has
acquired ‘professionalism’ and this had, on occasion, brought it into a conflicting
role with the Party, though it is the Party that still controls the military; a position
Civilian and Military
Regimes
53
Comparing
Regimes
54
that continues to the present times. In other words, the military has not always
remained totally subservient to the Party.
The military was often a member of the highest decision-making structures in the
country, like in the Standing Committee of the Politburo. However, it should also
be noted that in the year 1987, the military was not represented on the Standing
Committee, for the reason that reforms initiated during that time sought to draw a
clear line of distinction between the Party, the government and the military.
Having realised during the events that unfolded later- the 1989 demonstrations
against the policies of the Party-that military did not evince expected levels of
enthusiasm in performing internal security duties assigned to it, the military’s
membership in the Standing Committee was restored in 1992. One analyst has
observed that there is a greater interdependence between the Party and the
military at the higher levels than at the lower levels of the hierarchy.
Whether the military would go on to acquire significant influence over the Party,
meaning political power, is a matter of debate among several analysts. The
nature of civil-military relations in the developing countries. Samuel F Finer’s
book Man on Horseback is the first major work on civil-military relations in
developing countries. Finer relates civil-military relations with political culture.
He identifies four levels of political culture- mature, developed, low and
minimal- and relates them with the propensity of the military to intervene and to
the different kinds of military intervention. Low level political cultures lack state
institutions and procedures regulating the exercise of power are weak or lack
popular legitimacy. Developing countries characterised by low political culture,
that is, weak legitimacy, are prone to experience coup d’ etat or extreme form of
military intervention. According to Finer, such intervention may also occur in
countries with developed political culture, but they are usually limited to the
exercise of pressure by the military on the political leadership. Critics of Finer
analysis say it is tautological. Low political culture is defined as a lack of
consensus. Rather than offering an explanation of lack of political consensus, the
concept of political culture offers a statement that is true by definition.
Nevertheless, his work has inspired a number of studies to explain the absence of
functioning and legitimate state institutions as the key factor in prompting
military intervention into politics.
Other factors have also been identified to explain the political role of the military
in developing countries. For instance, some scholars have highlighted the link
between the political influence of the military and the role it has played during
the struggle for independence and subsequent state creation. Here they cite the
example of Algeria where the armed forces were in the forefront in the country’s
struggle for independence from France. This has continued to legitimise its
predominant role in the Algerian political system upto the present day.
A few studies have also looked at the social conditions that might be conducive
for a strong role of the military. Amos Perlmutter, who has studied civil-military
relations in Egypt, for instance, has identified several social conditions which
contribute to what he called praetorianism, that is, state in which political
decision making is controlled or at least heavily influenced by the military. Some
of the social conditions identified as providing a fertile ground for military
2) How did the prolonged absence of political activity affect Pakistan polity?
Civilian and Military
Regimes
Comparing
Regimes
56
4.3 MILITARY REGIMES: MEANING AND
FEATURES
As we observed earlier, military regimes are states where members of the armed
forces make the top political decisions exclusively or predominantly. Although
the term covers the cases where an alien army of occupation rules a conquered
state (as the Allied military governments in Germany and Italy during the Second
World War), the term, military regime, is frequently used with reference to states
whose military forces have supplanted a former civilian government and rule in
their own name.
Military regimes differ from other forms of authoritarianism in terms of origin or
legitimacy or range of governmental penetration into the society or in
combinations of all these factors. Modern military regimes differ from the
civilian autocratic regimes in their sources of legitimacy. The civilian dictators in
the developing world derive their legitimacy from their ‘leadership in the
widespread use of terror.
4.3.1 Types of Military Regimes
Broadly speaking, different military regimes can be distinguished by the place
the military holds in the decision-making structure of the state and or by what
they do with the power they wield.
The role played by the military in top decision-making varies from state to state.
We can broadly distinguish two types here. First, there is the military-junta type
in which the supreme policy making organ is a junta or command council of
officers representing the three services (army, navy and the air force). The
military junta usually appoints a civilian cabinet to administer under its authority.
Parties and legislatures are suppressed or else only a single official party is
permitted. Often parties and legislatures are nominal and subservient artefact of
the military executive. The military, as represented by its senior officers, plays
the active and supreme role in policy making in the military-junta type of regime.
Secondly, there is the presidential type in which the military plays a supportive
role rather than a creative or active role. Here, the cabinet is formed largely or
wholly from civilian rather than military personnel. In Zaire for instance, the
army’s role is supportive of the president, while the official party is largely
nominal. In Syria, however, the local political party is at the vanguard in a
symbiotic relationship with the officer corps. Here the military’s role is not
limited to being supportive, but extends to play a more active role. However, the
existence of the party enables the president to arbitrate, and so exert independent
leadership over both civilian and military sectors.
Military regimes can also be distinguished by the way they wield power. Some
military governments confine themselves to supervising or ‘patrolling’ the
society. In Thailand, for instance, the largely military cabinets permit the civil
service a wide autonomy in running affairs, and preside over what is on the
whole a freewheeling economy. In Ghana and Nigeria, however, the governments
go further: they direct a national programme, but they leave the civil service to
administer it Finally there are those military regimes such as those in Burma
one-lakh employees for surveillance of politicians as well as officers.
Violence and intelligence surveillance are, however, negative strategies of
rulership. Military rulers also adopt positive strategies to keep the armed forces
satisfied. Increasing the salaries and other allowances and prerequisites of the
members of the armed forces does this. Military rulers almost invariably increase
the defence budgets soon after take over. Once raised, defence allocations usually
remain at high levels in subsequent years.
4.4 MILITARY IN POLITICS: THE
CONSEQUENCES
In the 1950s and ’60s, when armed communist cadres threatened the countries of
Southeast Asia, Western capitalist countries came to see the military as an
important institution to fight and defeat their onward march. Social scientists,
particularly those in the United States, keen on making their studies policy
Civilian and Military
Regimes
57
Comparing
Regimes
58
relevant, overestimated the role of the military in the modernisation of the
developing countries. Lucian Pye, M. Halpem and J.J. Johnson, for instance,
developed theoretical models depicting the military as a highly modern force,
capable of transferring its organisational and technical skills to fields of
government and administration. However, these expectations were belied by
several studies done later. Most empirical studies conducted on military regimes
in the developing countries revealed that they had a negative or, at best, no
unique effect on social and economic modernisation.
The performance of the military regimes in the sphere of political development
has been more disastrous than in the sphere of economic development. It was
argued that in the developing countries, which are mostly divided on religious,
ethnic, linguistic and regional lines, the military alone can bring about national
integration that is a prerequisite for political development. The performance of
military regimes till date does not support this hypothesis. It was the military
dictatorship in Pakistan in the 1950s and 60s that produced the first successful
secessionist movement in the Third World In a similar fashion the process of
Military regimes, however, restrict the free flow of political process. In order to
retain their power, military leaders prevent the aggregation and articulation of
protest. Often their first actions in office are to ‘impose censorship on the press’
and ‘ban political activity’. Political leaders either move into a self-imposed exile
or are forced into exile into far-off countries. With would-be politicians failing to
acquire political skills, civilian democratic traditions fail to take root. Among the
military regimes in the developing countries, in one-third of the cases, civilian
governments have been restored. In most cases of civilian restoration, civilian
leaders, that is, politicians have failed. They have demonstrated their inability to
match their official performance with the expectations of the people. While this is
partly due to the intractable nature of the problems faced by these nations, to a
large measure this is due to absence of political skills in the civilian leaders
resulting from the preceding period of military rule. ‘This provides scope for the
military to intervene in politics once again asserting the vindication of their selffulfilling prophesy of the inevitable failure of the self-seeking politicians’. Thus,
the chain of political underdevelopment gets perpetuated.
The political role of the military also corrodes the military vitality of the armed
forces. Several armies have been compromised by their political role expansion
and suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of other armies that have been
encouraged only to excel in professionalism. In the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, the
Syrian army’s performance suffered immeasurably because of fratricidal feuds
among its officers. The Iraqi army was similarly debilitated by internal political
strife. The political role expansion of the Egyptian armed forces, similarly,
robbed its professionalism. More professional Israeli armed forces inflicted a
quick and humiliating defeat on the Egyptian army. Armed forces in Uganda,
which first acted as an instrument of Idi Amin’s terror and brutality, simply
disintegrated when faced with poorly equipped Tanzanian troops and a Ugandan
exile force in 1979. Argentina’s armed forces, spoiled by politics, were easily
defeated by Britain in the Falklands war.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
4.5 LET US SUM UP
A military regime is a usurper of political power through force. Unlike most
civilian forms of government, a military government is characterised by absence
of legitimacy.
We have seen that the soldier-politicians seem incapable of furthering major
socio-economic development in the countries they rule. The military’s
performance in the field of political development has been even more dismal.
Military regimes accentuate the problems of political development with which
the civilian regimes were initially faced, and they deprive the would-be civilian
Civilian and Military
Regimes
59
Comparing
Regimes
60
politicians of the opportunity to acquire much needed political skills, thus
perpetuating the claims of political underdevelopment. The role expansion of the
military also robs the armed forces of professionalism, resulting in external and
internal security vulnerabilities.
A harmonious relationship between the executive and the military is essential for
a healthy all-round development of a country. Civil-military relations in countries
having different forms of government are varied. While in some countries the
military had remained subservient to the civilian leadership, in others it had,
many a time, organised a coup and had overthrown elected governments.
However, even in countries where it had assiduously remained loyal to the
government of the day, there have been instances when it had differed with the
civilian leadership. There is more or less a general agreement among scholars
that in the present times the balance in civil-military relations has somewhat
tilted more towards the military than ever before.
4.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
1) Marxist regimes are characterised by a symbiotic relationship between the
armed forces and the ruling party.
2) Political institutions became weak. In the absence of political skills that call
be acquired through participation in political activities, civilian leaders
demonstrate a lack of ability to deal with issues confronting the nation.
Moreover, the armed forces remain powerful as a pressure group, often
directing civilian rulers from behind.
Check Your Progress 2
1) Totalitarian regimes are different from military regimes in the sense that
they are guided by ideology, collie to power by organising armed political
parties and seek to control all aspects of an individual’s life.
2) The growth of durable political institutions.
3) In order to manage the armed forces and political opposition, military rulers
resort to ruthless violence and surveillance on press and political activities.
They also increase salaries and other allowances and prerequisites of the
members of the armed forces.
Civilian and Military
Regimes
61
Block-3 Forms of Government
Forms of
Government
62
BLOCK III
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
In political science, especially in the field of comparative politics, we classify
and categorize diverse forms of political institutions, political systems,
constitutions, parties, and various other elements of politics by using different
classificatory parameters. The intention is primarily to find or search for ‘ideal’
type of what is being classified but also to acquire a comprehensive and holistic
understanding about it. In the previous block we have discussed about different
types of political regimes. Similarly, ‘government’ is another important
institution of the State and politics which political scientists have tried to classify
from time to time. Aristotle made the first recorded attempt to classify various
forms of governments based on the number of rulers- one, few or many. Later,
Jean Bodin in the sixteenth century and Montesquieu in the eighteenth century
UNIT 5 PARLIAMENTARY AND PRES&ENTIAL
SYSTEMS‘
Parliamentary and
Presidential Systems
Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Meaning and Features of Parliamentary System
5.2.1 Two Executive Heads
5.2.2 Fusion of the Executive and Legislature
5.2.3 Collective Responsibility
5.2.4 Leadership of the Head of Government
5.2.5 Absence of Fixed Terms
5 3 F i f G i P li
5.0 OBJECTIVES
Parliamentary and presidential systems are the two different forms of democracy.
This unit does a comparative study of these two systems. After going through this
unit, you should be able to:
• explain the meanings of parliamentary and presidential systems;
• discuss the salient features of parliamentary and presidential systems;
*Mr. Abdul Maajid Dar, Research Scholar in Political Science, School of Social Sciences,
Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi
63
Forms of
Government
64
• identify the strengths and weaknesses of these two forms of government; and
• compare the parliamentary and presidential forms of government.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The relationship between the legislature and executive has been a key debate in
political science. One of the main variables in explaining the relationship
between the two institutions is the difference between parliamentary and
presidential systems. Though the parliamentary and presidential categories
cannot comprehensively explain different political outcomes between states, they
contribute in explaining the key differences between political systems. Both the
parliamentary and presidential systems have their distinctive features and
respective strengths and weaknesses. In comparing parliamentary and
presidential systems, this unit seeks to address the following questions related to
these systems. How is the legislature and executive elected or selected? What is
the relationship between the legislature and executive? What is the position of
irresponsibility”. This form of government originated in Britain and has been
adopted by number of countries such as India, Japan, Germany, Italy, Sweden,
Canada, New Zealand, Israel, Australia etc.
The parliamentary system has its distinctive features that distinguish it from a
presidential system. Its key features are: (i) two executive heads (ii) fusion of the
executive and legislature (iii) collective responsibility (iv) leadership of the head
of government and (v) absence of fixed terms. These features are discussed
below.
5.2.1 Two Executive Heads
In parliamentary systems, there are two executive heads: head of state and head
of government. The head of the state is a symbolic or figurehead representative
of the state. His or her role is primarily non-political, formal, symbolic and
ceremonial, with real power lying with the head of government. The head of a
state can be either hereditary or elective. In the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium,
Denmark, Netherlands and Japan, the head of the state is constitutional monarch
meaning that this position in these states passes by hereditary succession. On the
other hand, in other states, such as India, Germany, Italy, Austria, Ireland and
Israel, there is elected head of the state known as President (non-executive
President). The head of state enjoys and performs a wide range of ceremonial
powers and functions, such as appointing head of government and other ministers
and officials, giving assent to legislation and treaties, representing his or her state
in world affairs, awarding honours, and receiving ambassadors, high
commissioners, heads of states and so on. Owing to ceremonial nature of these
powers and functions, the head of state is a mere non-partisan figurehead. The
head of government, on the other hand, is the political leader of government who
serves as a real executive in a state. It is the head of the government that
exercises decision-making and political responsibilities. The head of state is
known as Prime Minister in India, Britain, Australia, Japan and most of the
countries, as Chancellor in Germany and Austria, and as Minister-President in
members of legislature about the activities of their respective departments.
Secondly, members of executive are also the members of legislature. Thirdly,
legislature can remove the government from power before the completion of its
term by passing a vote of no confidence, a vote by a majority of the legislature
indicating its lack of confidence in the Prime Minister. Fourthly, the Prime
Minister can dissolve legislature before the expiry of its term and call for new
elections.
5.2.3 Collective Responsibility
The principle of collective responsibility is another important feature of
parliamentary systems. This principle denotes that Council of Ministers as whole
must support all government decisions publicly as well as in the legislature. It
means that the Council of Ministers are equally responsible for all acts of the
government, and therefore no member of the Council of Ministers may castigate
actions of the government after a collective policy decision has been taken.
Decisions made in the Cabinet are considered as collective decisions which have
Parliamentary and
Presidential Systems
65
Forms of
Government
66
to be supported by all members. A member of the Council of Ministers who
cannot support government decisions in the legislature or in the public is
expected to resign from the Council of Ministers. This principle ensures unity
and encourages balance and moderation within the Council of Ministers, the two
essential conditions for the survival and efficiency and efficacy of Cabinet. This
principle becomes critical when there is a coalition government the Cabinet
members of which belong to different political parties. Moreover, the principle of
collective responsibility contributes in arriving at a conclusion about what
legislative proposals are to be formally introduced in legislature and thereby
enabling the government to get these proposals passed with ease as the members
of cabinet are themselves members of legislature and senior leaders of the
majority party. However, critics argue that principle of collective responsibility is
basically a means of achieving the goal of disciplined party rather than
encouraging balance and moderation.
5.2.4 Leadership of the Head of Government
the government is formed by a single-majority party of which he or she is the
leader than in a situation where there is coalition government. The main
determinants of Prime-ministerial power are: legislative strength of his or her
party, degree of unity within the party, his or her ability to appoint or remove the
ministers and exercise authority in relation to Council of Ministers, his or her
ability to deal with policy-making process and exercise authority in legislature,
his or her image at international level, and his or her accessibility to the media.
Rod Hague, Martin Harrop and John McCormick have identified three types of
parliamentary government for evaluating the position of head of government in
parliamentary systems: cabinet government, Prime ministerial government, and
ministerial government. In cabinet government, the Council of Ministers enjoys
extensive decision-making authority. Decisions are taken in cabinet meetings and
Prime Minister mainly takes the chair in these meetings. This type of
parliamentary government exists in Finland. In Prime ministerial government, the
Prime Minister is the most powerful actor who deals directly with individual
ministers. Its best example is Germany where the accountability of the ministers
to the legislature exists through the office of Chancellor, who is appointed by the
lower house of Germany’s legislature known as Bundestag, that is, ministers are
answerable to Chancellor for the activities of their respective departments, while
the Chancellor answers to legislature. In ministerial government, the ministers
enjoy autonomy in their respective departments of which they are heads and
thereby do not function entirely under the control of Prime Minister or cabinet.
This form of parliamentary government is found in countries where there is
multi-party coalition government the ministers of which are in reality appointed
by the parties, as coalition partners themselves. In such a situation, the position of
Prime Minister, as a leader of coalition government, is weak in that the ministers
remain more loyal to their parties than to the ruling Prime Minister or the cabinet.
5.2.5 Absence of Fixed Terms
In parliamentary systems, there is absence of fixed terms of office. The
legislature (generally the lower house) can remove the government before the
completion of its term via a vote of no confidence and the Prime Minister can
newly elected representatives form a legislature as well become busy in forming
the government (organizing the executive). If a single political party wins
majority of legislative seats on its own, then the formation of government is
straightforward. The head of state invites the leader of that majority party (a party
that holds a majority of the seats in legislature) to serve as Prime Minister and
form a government. The Prime Minister then constitutes his Council of Ministers
or cabinet and allocates portfolios to his ministers who are appointed by head of
state on his or her advice. The ministers, including the Prime Minister, must be
the members of legislature.
If no single party gains a majority of legislative seats on its own, there are two
alternatives for the formation of government in parliamentary states; the head of
state in both situations can use his or her discretion in appointing the Prime
Minister. First, the head of state may recommend to the leader of party with most
legislative seats to form a coalition government, a government in which two or
more parties pool their legislative seats to secure together a legislative majority.
The parties constituting the coalition jointly determine the head of government
Parliamentary and
Presidential Systems
67
Forms of
Government
68
and cabinet positions. Second, the head of state may recommend to the leader of
party with most legislative seats to form the minority government, the
government which is formed by the single party without a clear majority of
legislative seats. Sweden, Norway and Canada have the tradition of forming
single-party minority governments.
In parliamentary forms of government, the Prime Minister and his Council of
ministers (government) are thus taken from the legislature. The government
remains in power as long as it enjoys the support of legislature. If an incumbent
government loses its majority in the legislature (generally in lower house), then it
is removed via a vote of no confidence before the expiration of its term and
elections are held to form a new government. In general, the coalition
governments and single-party minority governments tend to be short-lived as the
vote of no confidence is far more likely in these governments. Some
parliamentary states, such as Germany, Hungary, Israel and Spain, use a different
form of the confidence vote known as the constructive vote of no confidence
under which the legislature is required to first select a new government before the
5.4 MEANING AND FEATURES OF
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
The presidential system is a form of government in which the executive and
legislative branches of government are separate and there is mutual independence
between the two. In this system, the executive and legislature are elected
separately and have independent powers. According to J. W. Garner (1952),
presidential form of government “is that system in which the executive (including
both the head of the state and his ministers) is constitutionally independent of the
legislature in respect to the duration of his or their tenure and irresponsible to it
for his or their political policies”. The best example of this system is the United
States where it emerged and has been adopted by almost all the states of
continental Americas such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, etc. It
also exists in African countries such as Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe, etc. and in
some Asian countries as well such as Indonesia, Maldives, Philippines, etc.
The presidential system has its distinctive features that distinguish it from a
parliamentary system. Its key features are: (i) single head (ii) separation of
powers (iii) President and cabinet members (iv) law-making authority, and (v)
fixed terms of offices. Let us examine these features in some detail.
5.4.1 Single Head
In presidential systems, a single elected person, known as President, wears what
Andrew Heywood called ‘two hats’, both the head of state and the head of
government. The President directs the government and exercises the political
responsibilities as well as performs the ceremonial duties. However, the President
is far weaker than Prime Minister in a parliamentary system and has less control
li
of its term. Fifth, the members of executive including the President cannot be the
members of legislature and vice-versa. A member of the legislature cannot join
the executive branch and executive members cannot sit in the legislature and take
part in the legislative process.
5.4.3 President and Cabinet Members
In the presidential system, the President has complete freedom in the
appointment of cabinet members and formation of government though they
cannot be drawn from the legislature. The cabinet members appointed by
President serve as his or her policy advisers rather than policy makers and are
individually accountable only to the President, not to the people or legislature.
Since the President is politically responsible to the people, he or she has absolute
authority to hire and fire his or her cabinet members who share no decisionmaking powers with him or her. In this respect, there is unipersonal executive
responsibility in presidential form of government and cabinet is a far less
important decision-making body.
Parliamentary and
Presidential Systems
69
hlil di b h i ii h i
Forms of
Government
70
5.4.4 Law-making Authority
In presidential system, the executive has far less law-making authority than
executive in a parliamentary system. The American President, for example, can
veto a legislation passed by the Congress (legislature of USA), but the latter can
override a veto with a two-thirds majority vote. Similarly, the President can sign
treaties but such treaties are subject to approval of the Senate (upper house).
Because of mutual independence of executive and legislative branches in terms
of their selection, tenure and membership, the legislature is far more independent
law-making body than legislature in a parliamentary system.
5.4.5 Fixed Terms of Offices
Another distinguishing feature of presidential systems is the presence of fixed
terms. Both the President and legislature have fixed terms of office meaning that
neither can usually remove the other before the expiry of given term. The
President is elected separately for a fixed term, which varies from four to six
2) Explain the principle of separation of powers.
5.5 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL
SYSTEM
The debate regarding the respective advantages and disadvantages of
parliamentary and presidential systems has a long history in political science. It
saw resurgence and has become central to scholarship in comparative politics
since the early 1990s. The debate in 1990s was initiated by Juan J. Linz (1990) in
his thought-provoking article The Perils of Presidentialism in which he argued
that parliamentary systems deliver more democratic stability than presidential
systems which he characterized as inherently unstable systems. Linz’s criticism
of the presidential system has generated considerable debate among political
scientists. Donald L. Horowitz (1990) insists that the degree of democratic
stability is not associated with parliamentary or presidential systems, but rather
depends on what form of electoral system a particular country uses (plurality,
majority or proportional representation system). Matthew Shugart and J. Carey
(1992) argue that presidential systems offer more accountability and transparency
than parliamentary systems and former are not inherently unstable. Jose Antonio
Cheibub (2007) has added a new aspect to the debate by maintaining that
presidential systems are not inherently dangerous; rather it is the social, cultural
and historical contexts in which they operate that cause democratic instability.
Cheibub went on to argue that ‘presidential institutions have been adopted in
countries where any form of democracy is likely to perish’.
than presidential systems in the sense that legislatures in parliamentary states
using proportional representation forms of electoral system for electing their
legislatures are highly representative bodies and the coalition governments
formed in these states represent the multiplicity of interests and opinions. Refer
to Unit 9 of this course for information of different forms of electoral systems.
Fifthly, the parliamentary systems are more flexible in the sense that they impel
the elected representatives, who have different political views, to negotiate
compromises in order to form the government. Sixthly, given the significance of
disciplined parties in parliamentary systems, they are more conducive to forming
and maintaining parties. Lastly, the absence of fixed term of executive offers an
opportunity to voters to remove incompetent and unpopular representatives at
any time.
The critics however argue that parliamentary systems are not, overall, better than
the presidential systems because they suffer from a number of problems. Firstly,
parliamentary systems tend to create the problem of executive domination. This
Parliamentary and
Presidential Systems
71
Forms of
Government
72
usually happens in single-party majority based parliamentary governments where
executive enjoys so much control over legislature that the latter serves as a mere
talking shop. Secondly, parliamentary systems are associated with weak
government and political instability. This usually exists in parliamentary states
where because of proportional representation forms of electoral system either
single-party minority governments or coalition governments are formed. Thirdly,
parliamentary systems are far less efficient than presidential systems in the sense
that the voters do not know in advance (prior to casting a vote) what the
composition of new government will be which depends on the final electoral
results and the subsequent negotiations for forming a coalition government.
Fourthly, in a situation where no party wins a majority of legislative seats, the
preferred policies of the voters may not be actualized as the parties holding
different political positions have to compromise their positions in order to form a
government. Lastly, the Prime Minister can call earlier elections at any time in
the interests of his or her party.
the 45th president of the United States. Fifthly, presidential systems provide
voters more opportunities to influence and shape the policy-making process in
that they are represented by two separately and independently elected
institutions- legislature and executive. Finally, because of independence of
legislature, the individual elected members of the legislature in presidential
system tend to have more influence on policy-making than in a parliamentary
system.
The presidential systems are not free from weaknesses either. Critics of
presidential system point out a number of potential disadvantages. Firstly,
because of separation of powers, the presidential systems are likely to cause a
deadlock between legislature and executive in the sense that these two
institutions on the basis of their equal public legitimacy (dual legitimacy as Linz
calls) tend to clash over policy causing a threat to effective policy-making and
effective implementation of policy programmes. Secondly, several political
scientists (Linz, Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skach) argue that there is far less
democratic stability in presidential states with deep political cleavages and
multiple parties than in parliamentary states in the sense that dual legitimacy
prevents the executive and legislature to arrive at democratic resolution of
conflict. Thirdly, presidential systems are highly rigid in that both the executive
and legislature have fixed terms of offices. As Bagehot insisted that ‘everything
is rigid, specified, dated’. The President cannot be usually removed from office
before the expiry of his or her term even if he or she is incompetent to meet any
serious problem causing political crisis. Fourthly, the President on the basis of his
or her supposedly national mandate tends to be averse to any form of power
sharing and compromise. In this respect, the presidential system is problematic in
highly divided societies. Fifthly, accountability in presidential systems becomes
blurred in that both legislative and executive branches claim credit for policy
successes and offload the blame for policy failures. Finally, because of
unipersonal executive responsibility, the presidential systems suffer from the
problem of weak cabinet causing far less deliberation than occurs under
parliamentary systems.
5.6 LET US SUM UP
On the basis of relationship between the legislature and executive, two important
models of democratic government are identified: parliamentary system and
presidential system. The former is more common globally, while the latter
historically has dominated in the Americas. Both the systems have their
distinctive features and strengths and weaknesses that distinguish one system
from another. Both are conducive to democratic government. The functioning,
performance and consequences of both these systems are contingent on historical,
Parliamentary and
Presidential Systems
73
Forms of
Government
74
social, economic and political contexts in which they operate. As such,
parliamentary and presidential systems are simply different, neither system is
better overall. Further, a hybrid system known as semi-presidential system is
found in many countries, such as France, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and
Russia. This system containing the features of both presidential and
parliamentary systems aims at, theoretically, mitigating the weaknesses of either
parliamentary or presidential systems and realizing the best of both worlds.
5.7 REFERENCES
Cheibub, J. A. (2007). Presidentialism, Parliamentarism and Democracy. New
York, Cambridge University Press.
Garner, J. W. (1952). Political Science and Government. Calcutta, World Press.
Horowitz, D. L. (1990). Comparing Democratic Systems. Journal ofDemocracy,
1 (4) 73-79
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) The parliamentary system refers to that form of government in which the
executive and legislative branches of government are fused where the power
of the executive is drawn from the legislature. Though the executive and
legislature functions on the basis of collective responsibility, the former is
always accountable to the later.
2) This principle denotes that Council of Ministers as whole must support all
government decisions publicly as well as in the legislature. It ensures unity
and encourages balance and moderation within the Council of Ministers.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
1) The presidential system refers to that form of government in which the
executive and legislative branches of government are separate but there is
mutual independence between the two. In this system, the elected president
serves as the head of both the state and the government. The system is based
on separation of powers with unipersonal executive responsibility.
2) This principle represents a clear division of powers and responsibilities
among the three branches of government- legislature, executive and judiciary.
It is the defining feature of presidential system.
Check Your Progress Exercise 3
1) (a) The two advantages are more responsible and accountable government,
and more effective policy-making. The disadvantages are the problem of
executive domination, and weak government and political instability.
(b) The advantages are limited government and greater continuity in the
executive. The deadlock between legislature and executive, and too
rigidity in fixed terms of offices are the key disadvantages.
Parliamentary and
Presidential Systems
75
Forms of
Government
76
UNIT 6 FEDERAL AND UNITARY SYSTEMS‘
Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Understanding Federal System
6.2.1 Evolution of Federal Systems
6.3 Federalism: Essential Features
6.3.1 Division of Power
6.3.2 Written Constitution
6.3.3 Judicial Review
Governments can be classified as federal or unitary systems on the basis of
division of powers between the central, regional and local authorities This unit
brings out the basic features of federal and unitary political systems. After going
through this unit, you should be able to:
• Identify the basic elements of federal and unitary system
• distinguish between federal and unitary system
*Ms. Surbhi Rao, Research Scholar in Political Science, School of Social Sciences, Indira Gandhi
National Open University, New Delhi
• explain the changing nature of federal and unitary system
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The early modem states that emerged in Europe were absolute monarchies. They
were predominantly hierarchic or organic states with power vested in the hands
of the monarch. But as their economies underwent change culminating in the
industrial revolution, political ideas about how people should be governed too
underwent a change. The American and French revolutions in the latter half of
the 18th century gave a blow to monarchy and brought about republican and
democratic forms of government. Even in countries where democratic ideas had
not gained popularity, the rulers realized that the power can’t be managed
entirely by a central authority and that there was a need for decentralisation. The
two major political systems which emerged on the basis of distribution of power
between different political units of a state were unitary and federal systems. With
gg
America in the late 18* century. When the thirteen colonies became free from
British colonial control in the War of American Independence (1775-83), they
first established a confederation. As this confederation proved inadequate to meet
the needs of the situation, the representatives of states met together in a
convention in 1789 and drafted a federal constitution. The states created a
structure of government at the centre and conferred on it certain specified
powers, retaining the residual powers with themselves. This constitution has
become a model for over a score of federal polities that came into being in the
subsequent years.
The American states, even while uniting to establish a federal government, took
care to hedge the powers of the central or federal government in order to protect
their interests. For instance, the Senate, a part of the federal legislature, gave
equal representation to the states. They also ensured that the constitution itself
could not be amended without the consent of three fourths of the states. For a
time, it was held that the states and the federal government held dual sovereignty.
Federal and Unitary
Systems
77
Forms of
Government
78
This matter reached a point of crisis when some of the states in the south
attempted to assert their sovereignty and seceded on the question of slavery. The
Civil War that followed decided once for all that the United States was an
‘indestructible union of indestructible states’.
Although the US federation has undergone a change through formal amendments,
judicial interpretations and political processes, it became a prototype, a model of
federal polity for many to emulate. The first country to follow the US example
was Canada which adopted a federal system in 1867. The British colonies in
Australia too adopted a federal polity when it attained dominion status in 1901.
In Europe, the Swiss cantons had already organised themselves into a federation.
Soon after the Bolshevik revolution, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia adopted a
federal constitution. Following decolonisation, several newly independent
countries in Asia and Africa saw federalism as a mechanism for accommodating
diversities. India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria and Cameroon adopted federal
system for this purpose. In Latin America too, large state like Argentina, Brazil
and Mexico have become federations.
system is that of the USA. Second form is when the characteristics of a particular
political system are federal in nature, but with strong centralization tendencies.
For instance, in India, which is not formed on the basis of a pre-agreed
arrangement and where despite the division of power between the centre and the
states, the centre holds the major power, even of altering the states geographical
area without their consent. Thirdly, there are ‘decentralized unions’, which though
being primarily unitary, have various sub-national units which are given
considerable amount of autonomy to manage their affairs so their identity doesn’t
get threatened. For instance, Scotland in United Kingdom has autonomy to
handle a wide range of matters including legal system and local administration.
From the above it is clear that the federal form of government has been adopted
when there is a large geographical area or when there are particular regions
having concentration of different social groups. In some cases, both the reasons
act side by side. For instance, though India opted to be union of state due to its
large geographical expanse, later it recognised the need for reorganising states on
linguistic and ethnic basis thus providing for the accommodation of the diversity.
In a large geographical area, federal system helps in better administration and
governance. And when a federal system is adopted to address the political
cleavage, it provides firm basis for holding the diversity together by providing
them a degree of autonomy to govern their own affairs. For instance, in 1993,
Belgium adopted a federal system to prevent its three different linguistic regions
from falling apart.
6.3 FEDERALISM: ESSENTIAL FEATURES
Whether a federal system comes into being as a result of independent political
units coming together (as in America) or as a result of unitary states
constitutionally devolving powers to the states (as in India), all federal forms of
government have some common features. Let us examine these common
features.
6.3.1 Division of Power
constitution. The constitution is supreme in a federal set up. Every power, –
executive, legislative or judicial-whether it belongs to the centre or the states is
subordinate to, and is controlled by the constitution. Neither the centre nor the
states can make a law violating the provisions of the constitution. Given the
centrality of the constitution, most federations have provisions which make it
difficult to alter the constitution unilaterally, either by the centre or the states.
Because of the difficult procedures prescribed for the amendment of the
constitution, especially its federal provisions, federal constitutions are regarded
as rigid constitutions.
6.3.3 Judicial Review
The legal supremacy of the constitution, which is an essential future of a federal
system, makes it necessary that there is a body above both the federal
government and the state governments to decide whether they are operating
within the powers given to them. This function of interpreting the Constitution is
Federal and Unitary
Systems
79
Forms of
Government
80
usually given to the Supreme Court. It is the Supreme Court which decides the
legal disputes arising between the centre and states or between two or more
states. It can declare any act or law unconstitutional and void if it goes against the
constitution and its spirit. In some cases, this function can be entrusted to an
independent body. For a long time, this function relating to the Canadian
constitution was performed by the Privy Council in England. The power of the
Supreme Courts to decide the constitutional validity of laws is called the power
ofjudicial review.
6.4 CHANGING NATURE OF FEDERALISM
As mentioned earlier, there is no fixed meaning of federalism and its meaning
keep on evolving with the changing times. The earliest understanding of
federalism as put by Johannes Althusius, the German thinker in the early 17
century is that every human association is formed by a pact and that pact forms
the fundamental basis for living together, which then further leads to the
the name of achieving welfare of the citizens, led to centralisation of powers,
effectively reducing the autonomy and authority of the state governments.
In the recent times, several federal studies scholars have advanced the notion of
interdependent federalism in which the two governments would neither be fully
independent as is the feature of dual federalism nor would be subordinate to
other, as is the case in the cooperative federalism. Elazar stresses that federalism
as an institutional arrangement is based on the principles of ‘self-rule plus shared
rule’. Self-rule is permitted exclusively in the matters of local importance, and
shared rule is exercised through interactive partnership between two levels of
government to take decisions on matters of common interests. This takes out
federalism from a mere structural category to a process ‘by which a number of
separate political communities enter into an arrangement for working out
solutions, adopting joint policies, and making joint decisions on joint problems’
(CJ Friedrich 1968).
In India too, the federal process has been in the direction of centralisation. This is
largely attributable to the growing responsibilities of the modern state. The
Indian state was expected to play interventionist role in socio-economic
development as well as to wield a highly segmented society into an integrated
national and political entity. Given the enormity of these tasks, it is not surprising
that the union or central government has come to assume the position of
leadership or primacy. A major factor shaping federal politics in India has been
the very development strategy by the state. The development policies adopted by
Independent India have succeeded in increasing the production base of the
economy and improving the quality of life, but have failed to ensure a balanced
and equitable development of different sections and regions of the country. This
has led to tensions between different regions and ethnic communities,
occasionally straining the federal balance (secessionist movement in Tamil Nadu
in the 1960s and Punjab in the 1980s). Other factors, such as the role of the party
system in shaping federal arrangement in India have been discussed in the BPSC
132. Here, you should note that despite the centralising trends, the process has
6.5 UNDERSTANDING UNITARY SYSTEM
Unitary systems are much older than federal systems. As said earlier, the
emergence of modern unitary system could be traced to the collapse of the
feudalism and the rise of absolute monarchies in Europe. It is in the context of
the emergence of the king and his ministers as the centre of political power that
monistic theories of sovereignty were put forward by thinkers like Thomas
Hobbes and Jean Bodin. The central government claimed political supremacy.
Since the 19th century, the ideology of nationalism which sought integration of
diverse regions or people under one command has further strengthened this
tendency. As nations came to be organised on the basis of common language,
sometimes in combination with religion, England, France, Italy, Holland and
other European states emerged as nation-states. All these nation-states had
unitary form of government, though the extent of centralisation of power varied
among them.
Federal and Unitary
Systems
81
Forms of
Government
6.5.1 Unitary Systems: Basic Features
This is a political system where the powers (legislative, executive and judicial)
are vested in a centralized authority (whether a republican authority or monarch),
which may or may not devolve power at lower level; and which may or may not
provide for local (or regional or provincial or sub national) autonomy.
In simpler terms, in a unitary form of government, all powers are vested in a
central authority. At the central level, there may be a separation of power
between the three organs of the government, but there is no division of power
between the centre and the geographical sub-units. This doesn’t imply that the
sub-units may not have any powers. The central government can ‘devolve’
certain power to the lower levels if it finds it difficult to administer the entire
state by itself. The power thus devolved to the sub-units at the local or regional
level is not permanent. It can be revoked by the centre at any time without even
having to provide any justification. This is because the sub-units do not derive
their powers from the constitution but from the legislative enactments of the
power is with central authority which might depending on the situation devolve
some amount of power to the peripheries, and it might appear that the peripheries
have significant power but in reality the source of power and authority is with the
core only. The classic example for this core periphery form of unitary system is
Britain. Here, Scotland (periphery) has autonomous power to regulated large
number of issues but that power has been delegated by the UK parliament (core).
It is now clear that in a unitary form of government the power flows either from
the top to the bottom or from core to the periphery and not the other way round.
Check your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with that given at the end of the unit
1) What are core features of a federal system?
Federal and Unitary
Systems
2) Nature of federalism has kept on evolving. Comment.
3) What is a unitary system? Give examples.
6.6 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND
UNITARY SYSTEMS
which devolves the power to the lower units. So, in the case of unitary system,
the source of power for the lower units is the central authority rather than the
constitution.
6.6.2 Nature of Power
In federal system, the power is inherent in the constituent units and thus is of a
permanent nature and can’t be altered or taken away by the federal government
on its whims and fancies. Thus, in a federal system there is power sharing rather
than just devolution of power. The power to the constituent units is guaranteed by
the constitution and can be only altered within the constitutional framework with
their prior consent. Whereas in a unitary form of government the power which is
devolved or decentralized is not of permanent nature and can be retrieved by the
central authority as and when they wish without any consent of the lower units.
Further, there is a hierarchical relation between the central and lower units which
83
Forms of
Government
84
is subordinate to the former. Thus, the power of the constituent unit in federal
system is permanent and temporary in the unitary system.
6.6.3 Territorial Demarcation
In the case of a federal system when the units are divided or when various units
come together it is mainly for the purpose of accommodating the diversity and
providing scope for pluralism. While on the other hand when a territory is
demarcated into smaller units in a unitary system, then the main objective is
effective administration of the territory Although this is not a concrete parameter
for distinguishing between the two but the former tends to be associated with the
normative dimension of accommodating the diversity which is missing in the
unitary system.
6.6.4 Decentralization v/s Non-Centralization
relative autonomy and independence in their working. The sub units are thus
self- sustaining centres of power. Therefore, the powers of the state government
can’t be taken away unilaterally by the federal government and as there is no
particular one centre, recentralization can’t happen. The classic example of noncentralization is USA.
6.6.5 Functional Autonomy
In a federal system, the constituent units have greater degree of functional
autonomy and have substantive functional powers. The constituent units embody
the ideas of ‘self-rule’ and ‘power- sharing’. On the other hand, when the power
is decentralized in a unitary system, the regional administration enjoys a limited
functional autonomy. As when the power is devolved to the lower level it leads to
‘off-loading’ of some of the functions for the purpose of administrative
convenience rather than providing for substantive autonomy in decision making.
Check your Progress 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with that given at the end of the unit
1) Compare and contrast federal and unitary system.
2) Differentiate between decentralization of power and non-centralization of
with its values of toleration and consensus is congenial to a federation. Elazar
pointed out that ‘despite the advantages of federalism, it is by no means suitable
for all peoples or polities In order to succeed, there must be a will to federate,
sufficient goodwill to make federal arrangements work, and a political culture
able to bear those arrangements with the combination of moderation, willingness
to negotiate and compromise, and a spirit of comity needed to make shared-rule
relationships work’.
A unitary system is on the other hand is characterised by concentration of
political powers in the central government, a sovereign legislature and a strong
spirit of national unity.
In recent years, there has been a trend towards centralisation of power in a
federation. This has been largely due to the compulsions of achieving rapid
development and security. In developing countries, the pressures of diversity on
the one hand and the centralisation tendencies on the other continue to strained
the federal balance.
Federal and Unitary
Systems
85
Forms of
Government
86
6.8 REFERENCES
Baldi, Brunetta. (1999). Beyond the Federal- Unitary Dichotomy, Berkeley,
University of California.
Burgess, Michael and Alain-G. Gagnon (eds). (1993). Comparative Federalism
and Federation: Competing Traditions and Future Directions, New York,
Harvester, Wheatsheaf.
Burgess, Michael. (2006). Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. New
York, Routledge.
Elazar, J Daniel. (1995). Federalism: An Overview. Pretoria, HSRC.
Friedrich J Carl. (1968). Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice. New
York, Praeger.
6.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
1) Source of power (constitution v/s central government); Nature of power
(permanent v/s temporary); territorial demarcation (normative v/s
administrative purpose); power (non-centralized v/s decentralized);
functional autonomy (substantial v/s limited autonomy).
2) Explain how the nature of power and source of power result in the
difference between purposive decentralization and non-centralization. Cite
the example of Spain or UK and USA to make the distinction clear.
Block-4 Patterns of Political Participation and Representation
BLOCK IV
PATTERNS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND
REPRESENTATION
As individuals, few of us have much influence in politics. In order to have an
impact on policies, we join others with like-minded interests or programmes. We
use our democratic rights of assembly and freedom of speech to create or join
groups to influence public policies or acquire power to shape those policies.
In this block, we turn to another equally significant aspect of Comparative
Politics, actors and processes that link society and the governments. The first two
units of this block examine the role of two major actors, political parties and
pressure groups, and the last unit focuses on how electoral systems affect the
actors involved in the political process.
9 of this block discusses the complicated question of electoral rules, which decide
how votes are cast, counted, and translated into seats in a legislature. As you will
notice, these systems vary widely and make a huge difference in the distribution
of political power.
Political Parties and
Party Systems
87
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
88
UNIT 7 POLITICAL PARTOS AND PARTY
SYSTEMS‘
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Political Parties
7.3 Functions of Parties
7.4 Party and Party Systems
7.4.1 Two Party System
7.4.2 Multi-Party System
7.4.3 One Party System
• Identify different types of party systems;
• Trace the evolution of party policy and organisation; and
• Analyse the importance of political parties in a democratic structure.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
In ancient Greece, the city-state of Athens practised a system of direct democracy
in which citizens participated in the decision-making process (though citizenship
*Dr. Priyamvada Mishra, Asst. Professor in Political Science, Symbiosis Law School, Noida
was restricted to adult males; and slaves and women were excluded). Today,
citizens in a few Swiss Cantons (all voters meet in annual assemblies also called
Landsgemeinde) and some towns of New England continue to gather, debate and
vote in open meetings. But everywhere else, direct democracy has become
impractical. Modern states are too large in territory and in population for a
sizeable fraction of the citizenry to directly participate in governance. Moreover,
the range and complexity of most issues that fall under public consideration are
such that it has become impossible for a citizen to master them. As a result,
indirect or representative democratic systems began to take shape in the late 18th
century Europe and spread gradually to the rest of the world. In these systems,
the citizens instead of deciding directly choose through regular elections, a
number of politicians to set policy and govern them. Both because of the scale of
modem political systems and the electoral and parliamentary dynamics of
representative democracies, politicians were compelled to create or join electoral
and legislative ‘teams’ or parties, that is, stable organizations through which they
coordinate their political activity across electoral districts, in parliamentary
groups within the society at the expense of individual liberty and common good.
In fact, such groups were derogatively called as ‘factions’ rather than ‘parties’. It
was only with the expansion of civil rights and electoral franchise in the latter
half of the 19th century that political parties started gaining acceptance and
popularity. At the beginning of the 20th century, Moisei Ostrogorski, a Russian
political thinker recognised the growing importance of political parties in politics
and prophetically said that “wherever this life of parties is developed, it focuses
the political feelings and the active wills of its citizens” (1902). Indeed, in the
next couple of decades, mass political parties were battling for votes in Western
Europe while in other parts of Europe, ruling parties in totalitarian states
(communist and fascist) sought to reconstruct society according to their vision of
ideal society. In the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America,
nationalist parties began to emerge as mass parties, mobilising people against
colonial rule. Today, political parties have become synonymous with organised
polity. In democratic systems, they have become indispensable, so much so that
20th century democracy has often been described as ‘party democracy’.
Political Parties and
Party Systems
89
or non-free), candidates for public office
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
90
If political parties are the agencies which facilitate the political process, what are
they and what distinguishes them from other social groups, like civil societies,
associations, clubs etc.? Given their ubiquity, we would assume that it would be
easy to arrive at a consensus. But political parties have been evolving over time
and in specific national contexts-with different genesis, organizations, ideologies,
electoral campaign resources, patterns of competition etc. Political science
scholars have therefore found it difficult to arrive at a precise definition of a
party. Moreover, their definition of political parties has undergone change over a
period of time.
In his famous political pamphlet, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present
Discontents (1770), Edmund Burke defined a party as a “body of men united for
promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some particular
principle in which they are all agreed”.
Roughly a century later, Max Weber, the famous German sociologist, shifted the
attention from the promotion of national interest to that of power. He argued that
These definitions of political parties, as you can see, focus on some aspects and
dimensions of political parties and miss out on others. For instance, as White has
highlighted, not all parties ‘compete’ to appoint some candidates in public office.
There are a few small parties which are not interested in gaining access to the
government or parliamentary seats. Instead, they function to lend voice to a
peculiar identity or standing claims. In some cases, their function is to say that
they are ‘there’, i.e. the voters and the elected representative exist, even though
they represent a tiny minority of the electorate.
From the perspective of comparative politics, we need to have a minimal
operational definition so that we know what a party is and what a party is not.
This has become important in recent years because of emergence of several
social and hybrid organisations that seek to have a voice in policy process. In this
context, La Palombara and Myron Weiner (1966: 6) provide a broader, albeit a
longer definition of party, which can be described as an operational definition; in
their words:
When we speak of political parties, we do not mean a loosely knit of
group of notables with limited and intermittent relationships to local
counterparts. Our definition requires instead: (I) continuity in
organization, i.e., an organization whose expected life span is not
dependent on the life of current leaders; (II) manifest and presumably
permanent organization at local level, with regularized communication
and other relationship between locals and national units, (III) selfconscious determination of leader, at both national and local levels to
capture and to hold decision making power alone or in coalition with
other, not simply to influence of exercise of power; and (IV) a concern on
the part of the organization for seeking followers at the polls or in some
manner striving for popular support.
A look at some of the functions of a political party also helps in better
advancement of the cause their own groups.
Secondly, political parties contribute to democratic government by nominating
candidates for election to public office. In the absence of parties, voters would
be confronted with a bewildering array of self-nominated candidates, each
seeking a narrow victory over others because of personal friendships, fame, or
name. Parties minimize this danger by setting up their candidates in different
constituencies. They carry out campaigns to win elections. They also defray the
cost of contesting elections where the candidate is from an economically
disadvantaged background.
Again, political parties help democratic government by structuring voting
choice reducing the number of candidates on the ballot to those who have
realistic chance of winning. Parties that have won sizeable portions of the vote in
past elections are likely to win comparable portions of the vote in the future also.
This discourages non-party or non-serious candidates from running for the office.
This in turn focuses the election on the contest between parties and on candidates
Political Parties and
Party Systems
91
92
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
with established records, which reduces the amount of new information that
voters need to make a rational decision.
Another critical function of a party is that of coordination within government. In
addition to coordinating within society and between government and society at
large through its interest aggregation function, a political party acts as a bridge
between the legislature and the executive in both presidential and parliamentary
forms of government. Political parties structure coordination between different
levels of government-national, regional and local. As we saw in Unit 5 of this
course, the presidential system, as in the United States, is based on the principle
of separation of powers between the three organs of the government. The
President and leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate are not required
to cooperate with one another. Political parties are the major means for bridging
the separation of powers, of producing co-ordinated policies that can govern the
country effectively. Individuals of the same party in the presidency, the House,
and the Senate are likely to share political principles and thus to cooperate in
making policy In a parliamentary political system where the formation and
candidates of one party nonetheless usually tend to differ from those proposed by
candidates of other parties. In the case of the United States, for example, even
though the neutrality of the names of major political parties, namely, Democratic
and Republican suggests that they are undifferentiated in their policies, in reality,
however, these parties regularly adopt very different policies in their platforms.
Though victory is certainly the first commandment of a political party, in a
democracy defeat of party also does not mean its demise. In that case, a party
functions as a critic and watchdog of the government’s policy. Political parties,
thus, play an extremely significant role in democracies. While, on the one hand,
they must maintain and strengthen the structure of democratic norms and values;
on the other, they have to secure maximal mobilisation for social and economic
development. Political parties have thus to induce both political and socioeconomic development.
93
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
1) On which two aspects does Edmund Burke emphasize in his definition of a
party?
2) How can political parties be distinguished from ideological organizations,
associations, clubs?
competitiveness of opposition (Robert Dahl, 1966), on the degree of
institutionalisation (Mainwaring, 1999) and on the extent of citizen involvement
in politics (La Palombara and Weiner, 1966).
The most widely accepted criterion, however, has been the number of parties,
often defined in terms of their relative sizes. Several scholars of comparative
politics have classified party systems based on the numbers of parties or their
relative sizes. Most of such classifications have been modification of the system
initially proposed by the two French political scientists, Maurice Duverger and
Jean Blondel. Duverger (1954) pioneered the classification of party systems by
identifying two broad categories: (i) one party system and (ii) pluralist party
system. In the first category, he included two types (a) one-party system, and (b)
dominant party system, whereas, in the second category, he included: (a) twoparty system and (b) multi-party system. Blondel (1968) carried forward the
work on classification of party system by not only defining the types identified
by Duverger in operational terms, but also introduced additional categories. On
Political Parties and
Party Systems
94
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
the basis of share of votes, Blondel distinguished two party systems, two-and-ahalf party systems, multiparty systems with a predominant party and multiparty
systems without a predominant party. His typology was derived by investigating
clusters in the average share of the vote won by the largest two parties and then
considering the ratio of the first party’s share to that of the second and third
parties. In the two party systems like in the case of the United States, New
Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Austria, the two party share was 90
percent and above and closely balanced between the two parties. In the next
cluster, the two party share ranged from 75-80% of the vote cast but there was a
wider average difference (10.5%) between the first and second parties as in
Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland. Taking account of
imbalance in the share of the vote, Blondel categorized these as two-and-a-half
rather than three party systems. Blondel classified all others as genuinely
multiparty systems that can be divided into multiparty systems with a
predominant party (for example, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy and Iceland)
and multiparty system without a predominant party (Netherlands, Switzerland,
than the other on a permanent basis. There is a constant competition between the
two parties for securing majority of popular votes and seats in the legislature.
Both the parties keep on occupying either the treasury benches or sit in the
opposition, though this may not always be alternate. Besides, there may be one or
more smaller parties also in the two-party system. But the smaller parties neither
come to power nor do they normally influence the outcome of elections, though
at times smaller parties may associate themselves with one or the other major
party. As we saw, in Blondel’s calculus, these parties fall under the category of
two and half parties. At times, a third emerging party may even compete with the
major parties, as was done in 1970s by the Liberal-Democratic Party in Britain.
Some examples of two-party system are given below:
1. The modern political party system in the U.S. is a two-party system
dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two
parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and
have controlled the United States Congress to some extent since at least 1856.
95
2. United Kingdom is not quite a two-party system as other parties have
significant support. The major parties were Conservative and Labour Party.
The Liberal Democrats were the third largest party until the 2015 general
election when they were overtaken by the Scottish National Party in terms of
seats and UK political party membership, and by the UK Independence Party
in terms of votes.
3. Two political groups dominate the Australian political spectrum, forming a de
facto two-party system. One is the Australian Labour Party (ALP), a centreleft party which is formally linked to the Australian labour movement. The
other group is a conservative grouping of parties that are in coalition at the
federal level.
7.4.2 Multi-Party system
With the evolution of society and the democratic processes, multiple parties
emerged each with its unique ideology and beliefs or objective. Multi-party
Democratic Party of Austria and Freedom Party of Austria. Since the 1980s,
four parties have consistently received enough votes to get seats in the
national parliament.
3. Belgium is a federal state with a multi-party system, with numerous parties
like New Flemish Alliance, Christian Democratic and Flemish and Socialist
Party who factually have no chance of gaining power alone, and therefore
must work with each other to form coalition governments. Almost all Belgian
political parties are divided into linguistic groups, either Dutch-speaking
parties, Francophone parties or Germanophone parties.
4. New Zealand national politics features a pervasive party system. Usually, all
members of Parliament’s unicameral House of Representatives belong to a
political party. Independent candidates succeed rarely. While the two primary
parties do indeed still dominate the New Zealand political landscape, the
country now more closely resembles a multi-party state since the introduction
of proportional representation, where smaller parties can reasonably expect to
Political Parties and
Party Systems
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
96
play a role in government. As of May 2018, five parties have representatives
in Parliament.
5. Political parties in Italy are numerous and since World War II no party has
ever gained enough support to govern alone. Parties thus form political
alliances and coalition governments. In the 2018 general election three
groupings obtained most of the votes and most of the seats in the two houses
of the Italian Parliament: a centre-right coalition, composed of the League,
Forza Italia, the Brothers of Italy and minor allies; the anti-establishment Five
Star Movement; a centre-left coalition, composed of the Democratic Party
and minor allies.
6. India is an established multi-party democracy comprising of national,
regional, state level parties. As per latest publication from Election
Commission of India, the total number of parties registered was 2599, with 8
national parties, 53 state parties and 2538 unrecognised parties. Multiple
parties collaborate together to form coalition government both at State and
Centre.
3. The only legal political party in Vietnam is known as the Communist Party of
Vietnam (CPV). The party centrally controls state organs, the media, and the
military. The Vietnamese Fatherland Front party (VFF) exists without many
powers because the constitution of Vietnam gives CPV the supremacy under
Article 4.
4. In Cuba no political party can hold campaign meetings. The President of
Communist Party of Cuba is elected to office for every five years, and there is
no restriction as to number of times, he can contest for the same seat.
7.4.4 Dominant Party System
In a dominant party system, several political parties exist but only one party has
the capabilities to form the government. In this system, though rooted in
democratic traditions, other parties have rare chance of coming to power. The
emergence of the dominant party system can be attributed to several factors such
as popularity among the masses, its historical lineage, charismatic leadership,
strong organizational structures, etc. The Congress dominance in India from
1952-1967 could be seen as the predominant party system. The Bharatiya Janata
Party which is in power at the Centre since May 2014 and in many states in India
is also seen as dominant party.
7.5 TRENDS IN THE EVOLUTION OF PARTY
ORGANISATION
In the early stages of their evolution, parties were created internally within the
parliament, to voice common concerns and fight an effective campaign. They are
also referred to as caucus parties. As we saw, in the early 19th century, very few
people qualified for suffrage and therefore a few elites, nobles, aristocrats and
wealthy people came together for the governance or implementation of public
policies.
With the rise of nationalism in many parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America in
the first half of the 20th century as well as the spread of adult franchise, the parties
party was coined by Otto Kirchheimer who while studying party transformation
in Europe observed that many parties (Social Democratic and Christian
Democratic parties) in order to win elections and take over the government, were
trying to catch all the votes they can, drawing them from a diversity of social
classes, religions, ethnic groups, and other segments of the population. In the
process they were loosening their commitment to specific groups or principles.
Many, both within the party and outside, lamented that the rise of catch-all
parties was leading to disappearance of ‘principled opposition’ which led to a
politics devoid of substance, conflict and choice. Nevertheless, particularistic
parties continued to exist in Europe and elsewhere advancing the interests of
religious groups, environment, women’s rights etc.
In the recent past, with the spread of information and communication
technologies, political parties are facing new organisational challenges. New
technologies and social media are making it easier for parties to connect with
their supporters and mobilise new group of people. While this has decreased the
financial burden on the parties, which earlier relied on mass meetings, one-onPolitical Parties and
Party Systems
97
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
98
one campaigning, parties no longer require deeper roots in society. Secondly, in
many countries parties are losing their mass and competitive character and
becoming cartel parties. Cartel parties often collaborate with each other for state
resources (money and patronage) as well as career stability and continuity for
their leaders. Parties, in other words, are becoming part of the machinery of the
state. Finally, it is said that party policy and organisation is now as much a
technical and professional matter as an ideological one. The widespread use of
communication technologies in society has led parties to rely on professionals to
bolster their public image. Most successful parties run highly centralised and
technically skilled party operations and election campaigns. This often involves
opinion polling, focus groups, spin doctors, carefully planned public relations and
use of mass media, including social media.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
7.6 LET US SUM UP
Parties and party systems have become the constituent elements of modern
representative democracies. Today, they are the most visible institutions of a
representative democracy. They are the linkage making institutions between
political leadership and voters, political elite and civil society, the rulers and the
ruled in all representative democracies.
Parties perform vital functions, making them indispensable in a democratic set
up. Political parties are instrumental in aggregating interests, channelizing the
efforts of people bound by common belief structure, providing leadership, giving
shapes to movement, forming governments, and checking on the policies of the
ruling parties, working for the larger interests of society etc. Classification of
party systems on the basis of numbers is the widely accepted system. As we saw,
Duverger and Blondel evolved the number-based classification system which has
stood the test of time with minor modifications. Based on this classification, we
99
have briefly examined Two-party systems; Multi-party systems; One-party
systems and the dominant party system.
In Britain and the United States, for example, a system of two-party prevails
while in majority of countries including India, France, Bangladesh, Switzerland
etc. a multi-party system has come into existence. On the other hand, in
authoritarian and communist countries like China, Cuba and North Korea, oneparty system operates.
Unlike the United States, most democracies around the world follow the British
system of parliamentary democracy. Most of them have multi-party system
where different parties compete for votes in the election. But such a multi-party
system often does not produce clear majority in election, resulting in the
formation of coalition governments.
7.7 REFERENCES
Ne ton Kenneth and Jane Wandeth (2010) F d ti f C ti
S a a , Ca pbe a d c a d Jo sto . ( 0 5). a ties and a ty Systems.
Structure and Context. Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press.
7.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Exercisel
1) Burke’ definition focuses on two aspects: a) Political parties are organizations
composed by persons; and b) Parties have specific goals they want to pursue.
2) Political parties have an objective of occupying power i.e. to form a
government. Political parties can be regional, linguistic in nature but are very
wide as compared to ideological organizations, associations, clubs.
Political Parties and
Party Systems
100
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
Check Your Progress2
1) In a dominant party system, several political parties exist but only one party
has the capabilities to form the government, whereas one party-system clearly
has single accepted political party. However, in both the cases, that single
party only wins elections.
2) A coalition government is a form of government in which political parties
cooperate, reducing the dominance of any one party within that “coalition”.
The usual reason for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve
a majority in the election.
101
UNIT 8 PRESSURE GROUPS‘
Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Defining Pressure Groups
8.3 Origin of Pressure Groups
8.4 Pressure Groups and Other Social Groups
8.4.1 Pressure Groups and Interest Groups
8.4.2 Pressure Groups and Political Parties
8.4.3 Pressure Groups and Civil Society Organizations
8.5 Characteristics of Pressure Groups
8.6 Classification of Pressure Groups
As we saw in the last unit, political parties provide the critical link between
citizens and the government in a democracy. Pressure groups, the subject of this
unit, also perform a similar role and contribute to the policy process. After going
through this unit, you will be able to:
• Explain the meaning and characteristics of pressure groups;
*Dr. Kishorchand Nongmaithem, Consultant, Faculty of Political Science, School of Social
Sciences, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi
Pressure Groups
102
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
• Distinguish pressure groups from political parties, interest groups, civil
society
• Classify pressure groups;
• Describe the methods, strategies and techniques used by pressure groups; and
• Explain the role of pressure groups in democratic politics.
8.1 INTRODUCTION
We normally associate modernization with the widespread belief that the
conditions of life can be altered through human action. But modernisation is also
associated with economic and social changes like industrialisation, urbanisation,
modern education, spread of public communications etc. These changes lead to
an increasing diversity of life conditions which results in the formation of large
numbers of special interest groups. Most democracies provide scope for such
special interest groups to express their needs. These groups, commonly
identified as ‘interest groups’ or ‘pressure groups’ seek to protect or advance
chosen direction, though never themselves prepared to undertake the direct
Government of the country” -Samuel Finer.
• “an association of individuals joined together by a common interest, belief,
activity or purpose that seeks to achieve its objectives, further its interests and
enhance its status in relation to other groups, by gaining the approval and cooperation of authority in the form of favourable policies, legislation and
conditions” -Peter Shipley.
• “organizations which seeks to influence government policy without at the
same time being willing to accept the responsibility of public office” -N.C.
Hunt.
Despite differences in their emphasis, these definitions make it clear that pressure
groups are voluntary social groups characterized by persuasive activism to
achieve a desirable change or to prevent an undesirable change. Their activism,
often termed as ‘pressure politics’ involves various methods to influence the
government and other state apparatus like legislatures, executives, or individuals
in responsible positions of decision-making and implementation of public
policies.
In the recent times, pressure groups also emerged in the form of social
movements on issues like protection of environment, corruption, human rights,
education, health, livelihood etc. For example, groups like Narmada Bachao
Andolan (NBA) or India Against Corruption (IAC) have propagated public
awareness on issues of environment protection and comiption respectively while
pressurizing the government for a better policy outcome.
Pressure groups vary in terms of size and influence as well as the area of
operation. Some are relatively small, formed on the basis of highly specific
interests, and operate at local or domestic level, while others are extremely large
and powerful with some of them even operating beyond national boundaries. For
example, groups like Confederation of Free Trade Union, Council of European
Federation of Industry, Amnesty International, Anti-Apartheid Movement,
forum then emerged as a challenger or alternative to the World
Economic Forum which has been organized in Davos, Switzerland,
denouncing its neoliberal economic policies. The WSF is known
for its opposition to globalization driven by neoliberalism and
defended by global financial institutions like the WTO, IMF and
other multinational corporations.
8.3 ORIGIN OF PRESSURE GROUPS
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle in his book, Politics, famously said,
‘Man is by nature a social animal’. This idea of Aristotle implies that man cannot
live alone and that men enter into relationship with others to live a social and
political life. This behaviour of men incentivises them to form social groups in
almost every sphere of life. Therefore, as many scholars also suggested, ever
since the inception of organized human society there had been groups in society
Pressure Groups
103
104
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
whose character and activities were similar to what we identify today as pressure
groups. In this regard, ‘groups’ and ‘group politics’ can be considered as old as
the human society itself. People belonging to different sections of the society, be
it religion, caste, ethnicity, profession, trade unions, farmers came together and
voluntarily organized themselves in order to advance their interests.
Pressure groups gained prominence in the modem times, particularly after the
American and French revolutions in the late 18th century. The spread of
democratic rights, ideas and values led to an astonishing increase in the number
of pressure groups. Prominent among the new pressure groups are those of
minorities and women. They have come together to demand social and political
rights to ensure that they are not subjugated. For instance, the Abolition Society
in Britain was founded in 1787 to oppose the slave trade. Similarly, the Society
for Women’s Rights was founded in France in 1866 with the purpose of exerting
a worldwide women’s suffrage movement. Thus, by the end of the 19th century,
many such groups asserting the interests of business groups, trade unions etc.,
had become operationalised in most of the industrial societies
parties, civil society organizations (CSOs) and so on. Although these groups exist
to serve their common interests, they differ from what we identified as pressure
groups. Therefore, we should be able to differentiate pressure groups from other
entities.
8.4.1 Pressure Groups and Interest Groups
Among the many social groups, interest groups are possibly the closest to
pressure groups. In fact, many scholars do not make a distinction between
pressure groups and interest groups and they often treat the two as synonymous.
Alan R Ball (1994: 103), for example, puts pressure groups under the same
category as interest groups, attitude groups etc. He defined these groups as
“social aggregates with some level of chosen and shared aims which attempt to
influence the political decision-making process”. Likewise, Robert H. Salisbury
also argued ‘pressure group is only more pejorative but perhaps more familiar a
term for interest groups’. For these scholars, pressure groups, in a sense, are
105
similar to interest groups in that they strive to achieve the interests of their
members.
There are other groups of scholars who seek to differentiate pressure groups from
interest groups. They believe that pressure groups always attempt to influence the
government’s decision-making process, whereas interest groups do not
necessarily have the intention to do so. Interest groups merely insist on
promoting their interests to achieve their specific goals but they do not exert
pressure on the government. Therefore, the word ‘pressure’ can be taken as the
basic point of distinction between the two. For these scholars, pressure groups are
far more powerful than interest groups or any group of similar kind because they
have the intent or capability to pressurize the government to get policy decisions
favourable to them. In this regard, Hugh A. Bone says, “every group is an interest
group or a group with an interest, but not every group attempts to influence
public policy”. This implies that interest groups transformed themselves into
pressure groups when they begin to influence the decision-making process. In a
sense one can say that all pressure groups are interest groups but not all interest
achieve the interests of different sections of society. In some respects, the roles of
pressure groups are parallel to those of political parties—as agents of political
mobilization and representation by linking the government and the governed. But
there are theoretical and practical distinctions between the two. While political
parties aim to get into power and form the government, pressure groups generally
seek to influence and pressurize the government in accordance with the particular
interests and aspirations of the people they represent. Unlike political parties
whose central objective is to capture power and run the government, pressure
groups never aim to gain formal control of the government. Instead, pressure
groups devote themselves to influence the government to realize their demands
and objectives. In other words, pressure groups seek to influence government,
parties seek to become government.
Another distinction between pressure groups and political parties is that while the
former focus on only one policy area, the latter have broad programmes covering
all (or almost all) policy areas. For instance, trade unions or human rights groups
Pressure Groups
106
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
are concerned with limited goals of protecting or promoting welfare of the
workers or human rights. They rarely concern themselves with economic or
external policies, except when those policies impinge on their interests. Political
parties on the other hand are concerned with diverse policies related to national
development.
However, the distinction between political parties and pressure groups can
sometimes be extremely complicated by the fact that some pressure groups are
found to have close relationship with one political party or another. In fact, there
are pressure groups which render support to certain political parties whenever
they think their political purpose can be served by supporting them and viceversa. On the other hand, there are also pressure groups which have transformed
into political parties. For example, the Labour parties in Britain and Australia had
their origins in the working people’s movements. Likewise, in India, Shiv Sena in
Maharashtra, the Mizo National Front (MNF) in Mizoram and the Aam Admi
Party (AAP) in Delhi were pressure groups before they become political parties.
However in general most pressure groups seek to keep some distance rather
power-centric than CSOs which are interest oriented. Moreover, the domains of
pressure groups are relatively restricted compared to CSOs whose arenas of
functioning are usually vast and diverse.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
1) Define pressure groups. How are pressure groups different from interest
groups?
107
. . .. .. Pressure Groups
2) Explain the difference between pressure groups and political parties.
8.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESSURE GROUPS
Pressure groups came into existence to serve the interest of the community or
group they represent. Therefore, their objectives and demands are different
depending upon the collective interest of the particular group. However, despite
of functioning is generally restricted. However, their demands may be many
(social, political or economic) and they may vary from time to time while the
group remains intact. This flexibility of demands and objectives is an important
characteristic of pressure groups. Another characteristic of pressure group is their
emphasis on the need for a collective approach rather than an individualistic
approach. They believed that group activities are more effective than activities of
individuals.
8.6 CLASSIFICATION OF PRESSURE GROUPS
Pressure groups have been classified by several scholars into different categories
on the basis of their structure and organization. Among them the four-fold
classification given by Almond and Coleman is more suitable and widely
applicable. They are:
108
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
8.6.1 Institutional Pressure Groups
Institutional pressure groups are those groups which are formed in various
institutions, including government institutions like schools, colleges, universities,
judiciary, bureaucracies, hospitals, police etc. Since these pressure groups exist
within formal organizations formed by professionally employed personnel like
doctors, lawyers, teachers, they are highly organized in accordance with proper
rules and regulations. Therefore, they are also known as professional pressure
groups. In India, groups like Civil Services Association, Police Families Welfare
Association, Defence Personnel Association, Indian Medical Association, All
India Bar Association, etc. all come under this category. They are formed in
order to serve their interests without directly getting involved in the government.
Since they are close to the government they can easily influence the government.
Apart from articulating their own interest, they may also articulate and represent
the interest of other groups. For example, a pressure group in the Ministry of
Agriculture can easily and effectively convince other ministries or bureaucrats on
and peasants unions such as All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Bharatya
Kisan Sangh, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sanghand student’s organizations like Akhil
Bharatya Vidhyarthi Parishad (ABVP), National Students Union of India (NSUI),
Students Federation of India (SFI), etc. Therefore, this category is sometimes
divided into different types such as business groups, trading groups, agrarian
groups, worker groups, and student groups and so on.
8.6.3 Non-Associational Pressure Groups
This category refers to those groups which are informal in nature brought
together by religion, culture and traditions, kinship, ethnicity, tribal affiliation, or
family ties etc. There is no formal and structural procedure in their activities and
demands. They do not have permanent demands or interests. Their demands and
interests keep changing according to requirements of a specific situation. Nonassociational pressure groups are mostly based on language, ethnicity, religion or
any other socio-cultural aspects in the society. They are more concerned with
109
community service focusing on protection and promotion of the interest of the
whole community. Therefore, they are also known as socio-cultural pressure
groups. In India, religious based groups such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad,
Shiromani GurudwaraPrabhandhakSamiti or caste-based groups like LorikSena,
Bhumi Sena, VaishayaSamaj, BalmikiSamaj, etc. are some examples of socioreligious and cultural pressure groups. These groups are formed with the aim of
protecting and promoting the culture, tradition and beliefs of particular religious,
ethnic or cultural communities.
8.6.4 Anomic Pressure Groups
Anomic pressure groups are those which appear for a short span of time for
specific objectives and purpose. In Almond’s words, they are ’more or less
spontaneous groups, penetrated into the political system from the society’. These
groups are generally formed in response to unpredictable moments like, famine,
drought, scarcity of resources or any similar kind of urgency. Since these groups
Pressure Groups
8.7 METHODS AND TACTICS OF PRESSURE
GROUPS
We know that pressure groups constantly endeavour to shape public policy. For
this, they use different methods and tactics. And tactics adopted by pressure
groups are not similar because, their choice of tactics is determined by various
factors such as the nature of the political system, attitude of the government, the
capability and strength of the particular pressure group. It also depends on the
availability and convenience of methods which the groups have at their disposal.
They tend to use any possible methods that will provide maximum benefit in the
i d di h fh h
110
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
group’s interests. Following are some common tactics employed by pressure
groups:
8.7.1 Lobbying
Lobbying refers to an effort made by pressure groups to influence government
decisions. Lobbying is one of the most common and significant persuasive tactics
used by pressure groups. The term ‘lobby’ is derived from the lobby or the hall of
Britain’s House of Commons. Therefore, lobbying refers to any attempt or efforts
made by individual members or groups, usually in the lobbies or halls of
parliament buildings, to garner support for their cause by influencing politicians,
legislatures, or anyone who is in the government or in the authority of policymaking. The act of lobbying can be conducted in multiple ways, such as direct
personal contacts, sending delegations or representatives, writing of letters,
telephone calls, email conversations or any other form of communication activity
that can be used for persuasion. Although the act of lobbying remains highly
pressure groups are able to shape public opinion in their favour on the one hand
and to present a criticism of the government policy on the other. The purpose of
influencing public opinion is to alert the government thereby making their voice
heard.
8.7.3 Publicity and Propaganda
Publicity and propaganda are another common technique used by pressure
groups. Pressure groups usually do this by propagating their interests through
mass media, such as newspapers, radio, television, internet, and so on. Through
this pressure groups can highlight their demands and opinions as well as inform
and educate the government and the public at large on matters that are crucial for
their collective interests. By doing this, pressure groups are able to attract and
influence those in authority to accede to their demands.
lb i 11 i d ih i iii fidiid 1 b fh
111
8.7.4 Strikes and Agitations
Usually pressure groups use peaceful means to achieve their goals. But they may
also resort to agitations to get maximum benefits of their demands. Such tactics
include strikes, protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience. Strike is a form of
agitation which attempts for a temporary stoppage of work to force government
or those in authority to concede to their demands. It is one of the most effective
and common form of agitation adopted by pressure groups. Strikers often refuse
to carry out their legitimate duties and may try to persuade others not to perform
their duties. Though most forms of strikes are constitutional and peaceful, they
sometime go out of control and result in violent. Bandh and Gherao are other
forms of direct-action methods. A Bandh is a combination of a strike and a
shutdown or blockade. Participants refrain from economic activity and usually set
up roadblocks or shut office, shops, public transport etc., to ‘enforce’ the bandh.
Gherao, on the other hand, involves the confinement of government officials by
members of pressure groups for forcing them to concede to their demands. It is
purposes rather than the parliament. However, the targets of
American pressure groups are the Congress and its committees
rather than the President for lobbying purposes. Thirdly, in India,
pressure groups based on caste, religion, region, etc. are more
powerful than the modern groups like business organisations.
Finally, a significant feature of American pressure groups is that
they take interest in foreign policy issues while in India pressure
groups are concerned more with domestic policy issues and
problems, and less with foreign policy matters. Despite these
differences, democratic politics presupposes the crucial role of
pressure groups for serving the interests of different sections of
society.
Pressure Groups
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
112
Check Your Progress 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
1) Why do pressure groups attempt to pressurize the government? Elaborate
some pressure tactics used by pressure groups.
2) What is lobbying?
g P
interests and grievances which are essential rights in any democracy. Their
activities give representation and voice to the minorities or the disadvantaged
sections of the society who are not adequately represented in the government. For
instance, women, ethnic minorities, gays, transgenders that are inadequately
represented by political parties, find opportunity to express any resentment about
their treatments, and to suggest ideas that would help overcome obstacles that
prevent them from fulfilling their potential.
Pressure group activity also encourages wider participation in decision making
process. Ordinary individuals participate in political life only during election
time. Elections which are held once in four or five years may not allow voters to
express a preference on individual issue. Pressure groups give an opportunity to
individuals be politically active and to make a contribution to the working of
democracy between elections.
Pressure groups act as a link between the people and the government, a useful
intermediary between the electors and those whom they elect, allowing a variety
of views to be expressed. They counter the monopoly of the political process by
political parties. As one political scientist put it “The views which pressure
groups convey are legitimate interests…Modern democracy would not exist
without pressure groups. As a channel of representation, they are as legitimate as
the ballot box.. .. They can mediate between the government and the
governed”(Baggott, 1995).
Pressure groups often provide specialist information to the government and often
help in the implementation of policy. Some of the well organised pressure groups
often participate in official consultative committees, advisory groups and
commissions. Most governments rely on these groups for advice, information
specialist expertise and help in implementing policies. Pressure groups thus
contribute in the formation, shaping and implementation of public policies.
Finally, activities of pressure groups make the public at large better informed
about public policies. These activities keep political system and government
more responsive to the aspiration and demands of the people.
Critics of group activity also contend that the methods and tactics used by
pressure groups are often comipt and intimidating. For example, large-scale
demonstrations or protest may cause inconvenience to many. Sometimes direct
actions methods go out of control, thereby resulting into violent clashes between
the protestors and state machineries. However, the right to make a protest,
particularly when those in power take actions that are detrimental to a section of
society, is a fundamental one in any democracy.
It appears that excessive group power creates the possibility of organised
interests foisting their particular views upon elected representatives who are
expected to keep the general interest of the people. On the other hand, too little
group power poses the threat of elected government behaving in high handed
manner and ignoring the legitimate needs and preferences of the people. Given
that pressure groups have become indispensable components of modern political
life, it is important to draw a line between excessive and reasonable influence of
group activity. In general, governments which allow pressure groups to operate
Pressure Groups
113
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
freely are far more accountable and responsive to the public than those without
pressure groups.
8.9 LET US SUM UP
Pressure groups are organizations, associations and groups representing the
collective interests of their members. They play an important role in democratic
politics of a country by articulating the demands and interests of different groups
in society. By forming pressure groups, people seek to protect and promote their
shared interests and beliefs while exerting pressures on the government. In fact,
many of the pressure groups are able to influence the government and change the
community’s socio-economic and political structures. Since they do not attempt
to exercise governing power, they are different from political parties in many
ways. Though similar in their orientation and nature, pressure groups are also
different from other groups in the society like interest groups, or civil society
Forman F.N. and N.D.J. Baldwin. (1999). Mastering British Politics. London,
Macmillan Press.
Key, V. 0. (1969). Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups. New York, Thomas
and Crowell Co.
Watts, Duncan. (2007). Pressure Groups. London and Edinburgh, Edinburgh
University Press.
8.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
1. Group of individuals or associations that seek to exert pressure or influence in
the decision-making process of the government in order to gain policy
114 outcome in accordance with their interests. Although pressure groups are
organi ations The are e11 str ct red organi ed and formali ed in their
similar to ‘interest groups, the former aim to influence the government’s
decision-making process, the latter do not have the claims against the
government or cannot influence the government.
2. Pressure groups aim to influence the decision-making process without
directly involve in forming the government. Political parties, on the other
hand, are groups that seek to contest elections to form the government.
Check Your Progress 2
1. Almond and Coleman’s classification of pressure groups consists of four
types. They are: (i) institutional pressure groups, (ii) associational pressure
groups, (iii) non-Associational Pressure groups, and (iv) anomic pressure
groups
Check Your Progress3
Pressure Groups
115
116
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation UNIT 9 ELECTORAL PROCESSES‘
Structure
9.0 Objectives
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Defining an Electoral System
9.3 Varieties of Electoral System
9.3.1 Plurality System
9.3.2 Majority System
9.3.3 Proportional Representation System
9 4
9.3.4
Factors
Mixed-member System
Affecting the Degree of Proportionality
should be able to:
• Explain the meaning of an electoral system;
• Identify the terminology used in the study of electoral politics;
• Describe and explain the different categories of electoral system;
• Compare the electoral systems that are in use in the world; and
• Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different electoral systems.
*Mr. Abdul Maajid Dar, Research Scholar in Political Science, School of Social Sciences, Indira
Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Election is the process by which people choose, by voting, representatives to act
on their behalf, to represent them, in a legislative body. It may be Parliament or
even a local body. This process of choice by elections is now almost inseparable
from representative democracy.
In the twentieth century, elections have come to be based on the principles of
universal suffrage; one person one vote and one vote one value; extensive
popular participation; secret ballot; and electoral fairness, competition and
choice. Elections, when they are conducted on the basis of these principles, are
the central mechanisms through which the project of representative democracy
can be realized. They perform the functions of choosing representatives, making
governments, ensuring governmental accountability and public representation,
providing education to the public and shaping public opinion, facilitating
1 iti f th t i fl i bli li d liti 1 ti
81 1 P 8 P
financing; district magnitude; electoral threshold; date of voting; fairness in
counting of votes; resolution of electoral disputes and so on. In this respect, an
electoral system is a broader concept. In a technical sense, an electoral system
refers to legal mechanisms that convert votes into seats. Electoral systems are
‘rules for soliciting citizens’ preferences over parties and candidates and for
converting those votes into representation’ (Carey, 2018 p. 85).
An electoral system consists of three components: structure of the ballot,
electoral formula, and districting and district magnitude. Ballot structure signifies
the number of votes a voter can cast or the number of choices a voter can express.
Ballots can be categorical, permitting a voter to vote for only one candidate and
therefore cast a single vote only or dividual permitting a voter to divide votes
among different political parties or candidates. Ballots can also be ordinal
allowing voters to rank order the candidates against the list of candidates in the
electoral district.
Electoral Processes
117
118
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
Electoral formula refers to a particular mechanism for converting votes into seats.
In other words, it represents the way votes are translated into seats. Generally,
there are three such mechanisms for converting votes into seats: plurality,
majoritarian and proportional.
Districting refers to the process of dividing the territory into discrete
constituencies or electoral districts from which voters elect their representative or
representatives to the legislature. Electoral district is what we in India and Britain
refer to as constituency. District magnitude refers to the number of seats that are
to be filled from each electoral district or constituency. In other words, it
represents the number of candidates who are to be elected from any electoral
district. It varies from single-member district to multimember district systems
(allowing election of more than one candidate).
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
c) District magnitude
9.3 VARIETIES OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM
Electoral systems that are currently in use vary across the globe. There are many
different ways on the basis of which electoral systems can be classified.
Classifying them on the basis of structure of the ballot, electoral formula and
district magnitude, we get four broad categories: plurality system, majority
system, proportional representation system and mixed-member system. Further,
different types of systems fall within each of these categories.
119
9.3.1 Plurality System
Plurality system of election is one of the oldest and most prevalent systems of
representation. It is often referred to as theJrst-past-i/te-port syS/em (FPTP). It is
based on plurality rule, meaning that the winning candidate is the one who
receives most votes than any other candidate in a particular constituency
regardless of whether that candidate has acquired an absolute majority. Examples
are Lok Sabha and State Vidhan Sabha elections in India. It is also used in the
Philippines and Venezuela and for members of the lower houses of the
legislatures in Canada, United Kingdom, and United States. In it, there are
single-member constituencies and voters have a single vote which they cast for
candidates rather than political parties. So, the structure of ballot in it is
categorical. This system is based on the principle that the candidate with the most
votes wins, irrespective of the percentage of the vote that this constitutes. For
instance, in an election, in which four candidates receive 33, 30, 27, and 20 per
cent of votes, respectively, the winner is the candidate who received 33 per cent
first round, all the candidates below the top two are excluded from the
competition and then a second round of voting is held between the top two
candidates of whom one will secure an absolute majority of votes. In this system,
there are single-member constituencies and voters vote for candidates rather than
for political parties. Although voters, who have to vote for a single candidate,
may switch from one party at the first round to a different one at the second, they
cannot divide their vote in any one round (Gallagher & Mitchell, 2018). In this
respect, two-round system falls within the category of categorical ballot structure.
It is also called double-ballot or run-off system. It is employed in France, Iran,
Mali and Vietnam.
In alternative vote system (AV), there are single-member constituencies and is
based on preferential voting, meaning that voters rank all candidates in order of
preference rather than voting for just one in a particular constituency. They mark
‘1 beside their first choice, ‘2’ beside their second choice, ‘3’ beside their third,
and so on. Votes are counted on the basis of first preferences and winning
Electoral Processes
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
120
candidate requires to secure an absolute majority. If no candidate secures a
majority of the voters’ first preferences, the last-placed candidate is excluded and
his or her votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the
second preferences. This process of eliminating the bottom candidate and
redistributing his or her votes to the remaining candidates continues until one
candidate secures an absolute majority (at least 50 percent plus one of the votes
cast) to become the winner. In this system, structure of the ballot is ordinal and
voters vote for candidates rather than for parties. It is known as preferential
voting system in Australia and as instant run-off voting (IRV) in United States.
9.3.3 Proportional Representation System
Proportional representation was invented in the nineteenth century. It was
adopted by many European democracies about the turn of the century or in the
early decades of the twentieth century (the United Kingdom and France being the
main exceptions). It also became a much-preferred electoral system for many
single vote to cast.
In single transferable vote system, there are multimember constituencies and
voters vote for candidates, not for parties. From each party there may be as many
candidates in the contest as there are seats to fill in a particular constituency. Like
alternative vote system, it employs preferential voting, meaning that voters
(having a single vote only) rank the candidates in order of preference rather than
voting for just one in a particular constituency. The winning candidates require
to obtain a particular quota, generally known as Droop quota, which represents
the minimum number of votes that the candidates must secure in order to become
the winners. The Droop quota is:
q = [V/(M+1)] +1,
Where q represents the electoral quota sufficient for election, V represents the
total number of valid votes cast, and M is the district magnitude, that is, total
number of seats to be filled in the constituency. For example, in the constituency
121
where 100,000 valid votes are cast and district magnitude is four, the Droop
quota is:
Q = [100,000/(4+1)] +1
= (100,000/5) + 1
= 20,000 + 1
= 20,001
In this case, the four seats are captured by only those four candidates who satisfy
the electoral quota, that is, who secure 20,001 or above 20,001 of votes. Under
single transferable vote system, votes are counted on the basis of first
preferences. The candidates obtaining the votes more than the quota on first
preferences are elected and their surplus votes (the votes above the quota) are
transferred to the remaining candidates according to second preferences in orderto
fill all the seats in the constituency. If no candidate secures the required quota or
seats are still unfilled even after transferring the surplus votes on first
parties in direct proportion to the total number of votes they secure in the national
election. It means that each party receives more or less the same share of seats in
legislature as of total votes it has secured and then fills these seats from its
published list. If a particular party, for example, secures 20 percent of the total
vote in an election to a 160-seat legislature, it receives eight seats (160/20) which
are then awarded to its top eight candidates on its list. List system is the pure
form of PR.
Israel, South Africa and Spain use what may be described as a closed list system
in which each party provides a ranked list of candidates for the seats in the
legislature and voters vote for the party with having no choice to vote for
individual candidates on the list or to alter the order of selection of candidates on
the list prepared by the party. Each party allocates the total seats it gains to the
candidates on its list in rank order. For example, if a particular party wins nine
seats in the national legislature, the top nine candidates on its list capture those
nine seats. In this format, ‘party officials exert enormous control over political
Electoral Processes
122
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
recruitment, including the ability to include women and minorities near the top of
the list’ (Hague and Harrop, p. 195). So, it is the party not the voters that
determines which of its candidates are to be elected.
Colombia, Finland, Indonesia, Chile, Denmark and Netherlands use the open list
system in which each party presents an unranked list of candidates for the seats in
the legislature, voters vote for the individual candidate from the party list of their
choice and the candidates who secure the most votes in the party list receive the
seats the party wins.
9.3.4 Mixed-member System
Mixed-member system refers to an electoral system in which some seats of
legislature are filled by a plurality or majority formula using single-member
districts, and other seats are filled by PR. For instance, in Germany, 50 percent
seats of national legislature are filled by plurality formula in single-member
districts while the remaining 50 percent seats are filled by party list variant of PR.
allocated at this tier are employed to compensate the parties that have remained
underrepresented at the lower tier and to rectify disproportionalities that have
resulted from lower tier. This system is used in Germany and New Zealand. In
mixed-member majoritarian system, the candidate tier and party list tier are
entirely independent of each other in the sense that there are separate seats for
representatives from the two tiers and there is no mechanism about to achieve
overall proportionality. This system is used in Japan, Russia and Thailand.
9.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEGREE OF
PROPORTIONALITY
Though the forms of PR produce higher levels of proportionality than plurality
and majority systems, most of them are not absolutely proportional as their
mechanism and practical application provide largest parties an advantage over
the smallest parties. Moreover, the levels of proportionality vary across the
123
variants of PR. It is the variable of district magnitude and device of electoral
threshold that contribute in determining the levels of proportionality, among
others. As pointed out by James Hogan (1945), “the decisive point in P.R. is the
size of the constituencies: the larger the constituency, that is, the greater the
number of members which it elects, the more closely will the result approximate
to proportionality” (p.13). For example, in Chile, Ireland and Spain, the size of
district magnitude on an average is just 2, 3 and 6 respectively. This small district
magnitude relatively causes decrease in proportionality in these countries in the
sense that it favours the larger parties to such an extent that the smaller parties
cannot expect to win a seat in legislature. On the other hand, Israel treats the
whole country as a single large constituency. This larger magnitude in Israel
relatively generates higher levels of proportionality than Chile, Ireland and Spain
signifying that even the small parties can gain representation in legislature
provided that there is low threshold as well.
The use of electoral thresholds in some PR systems also influences the levels of
proportionality Thresholds represent the minimum percentage of votes that a
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the model answer given at the end of this
Electoral Processes
unit.
1) What do you understand by plurality, majority, proportional representation
and mixed-member systems?
2) Explain the mechanics of two-round and single transferable vote systems.
124
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
3) What is the relationship between degree of proportionality and district
magnitude and electoral thresholds?
9.5 DIFFERENT ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: AN
ASSESSMENT
In the previous section we shed a light on the mechanics of four broad categories
of an electoral system and their variants that are in use across the world. Among
these electoral systems, no one is perfect as each of them carries strengths and
weaknesses as well. The advantages and disadvantages of each electoral system
are mainly judged on the basis of two criteria: stability (stronger government)
and fair representation (more representative government). The former is
providing citizens in each constituency one representative who is certainly
and solely responsible for carrying out duties towards the constituency that
he or she represents.
4. They usually produce single-party majority governments. Owing to a
cohesive majority in the legislature, such governments tend to be more
strong, effective and stable.
5. They hold extremism at bay by preventing small extremist parties to gain
representation and legitimacy.
Despite the above advantages associated with plurality and majority systems,
detractors argue that these systems are not good for representation due to the
following disadvantages that they carry:
1. In these systems, many votes are wasted. Suppose, the four candidates A, B,
C and D contesting an election from constituency ‘X’ have secured 30, 35,
20 and 15 votes of the total number of votes (100) respectively. Under FPTP
125
system, Candidate B securing merely 35 votes is a winner, while 65 votes,
those cast for losing candidates, constitute ‘wasted votes’, the votes that do
not contribute towards the election of any candidate or party. It signifies that
the voice of 65 voters is ignored.
2. In plurality based FPTP system, it is not certain that the party which wins a
majority of the vote nationwide will gain most seats in the legislature simply
for the reason that it is the number of seats rather than number of votes won
by the candidates of the party in their constituencies that are counted for
allocating seats in legislature. This system sometimes creates the situation in
which the party that gains majority of votes comes second in seats and the
party that comes second in votes gains majority of seats in legislature. As a
result, the government in such situations is formed by the party that comes
second in votes. Such a situation occurred in Britain in the general elections
of 1951 and 1974. This, as Arendt Lijphart argues is ‘probably the plurality
method’s gravest democratic deficit’.
representation. Sweden and Denmark moved from FPTP system to PR system in
1908 and 1920 respectively, Norway replaced two-round form of majority system
with a PR system in 1921 and New Zealand switched from FPTP system to
mixed-member proportional system in 1993.
9.5.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Proportional
Representation Systems
Generally, proportional representation system is seen as an alternative to plurality
based FPTP system and majority systems. Advocates of this system insist that it
provides broad and fair representation to a wider range of parties and groups and
therefore is more democratic than any other electoral system. The main
advantages associated with PR systems are:
1. Under them, very few votes constitute ‘wasted votes’ as all parties gain seats
in more or less strict proportion to their share of votes.
Electoral Processes
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
2. They enable the small parties to gain representation in the legislature as the
votes won by them are not simply ignored, but rather counted for allocating
seats. What they require is only to cross the given threshold to gain
representation.
3. They provide wider opportunities to women and members of minority
communities to gain representation in legislature in two ways: their
mechanics of counting all the votes for allocating seats, and realization (in
fact, politics) on the part of party leaders to include the candidates of these
two categories on their party lists.
4. Owing to very less number of wasted votes, PR systems produce higher
levels of political participation than plurality based FPTP system and
majority systems.
5. They produce a highly representative legislature reflecting the multiplicity of
interests and opinions.
.yy 8
her Party’s proportional vote share.
126
2. They produce ineffective, fragmented legislatures and weak and unstable
governments by providing representation to a broad range of parties in
legislature which leads to formation of coalition governments. Owing to
broader representation, often no single party wins a majority of the
legislative seats on its own. As a result, a coalition government is formed in
such situations which frequently arise in countries using the PR systems. It
signifies that coalition governments are inherently associated with PR
systems under which the formation of government by a single majority party
is very unlikely. Advocates insist that the situation of coalition formation
may encourage consensus and bargaining, and thereby the policies of
coalition government, as the reflection of wider sections of society, tend to
be more stable and effective. But, the critics argue that firstly it is difficult to
form coalition government in a highly fragmented legislature, and secondly
where it is formed, it may remain unstable. Therefore, PR systems are
127
frequently criticized for producing governmental instability and ineffective
policy-making.
3. They may create a situation where the parties constituting the coalition
government may not exercise power in proportion to their electoral strength.
While negotiating with larger parties, the small parties may gain
disproportionate power (power in excess of electoral strength) in ruling
coalition by pressurizing to abandon their support in favour of another party.
4. They may encourage extremism by providing an opportunity to small
extremist parties to gain inordinate power in ruling coalition.
9.5.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Mixed-member Systems
Mixed-member systems consist of some of the advantages of plurality based
FPTP system and some of list form of PR system. The countries using these
systems seek to achieve what Matthew S. Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg have
called “the best of both worlds” The 1990s saw the replacement of plurality
good number of individual seats. Though small parties also gain representation in
legislature, the dominance of two large parties makes coalition formation easy
and ensures stability than the multiparty coalition governments often formed
under PR systems. Fourthly, because of single-member constituency component,
they produce high level of candidate recognition than list forms of PR. Lastly,
they provide voters a choice to cast their vote at the candidate tier for the
individual candidate of one party and their list vote not necessarily for that
candidate’s party but rather for a different party.
Mixed-member systems are not free from problems. Firstly, the presence of
single-member constituency component contributes in restricting the levels of
proportionality. As compared to MMP system, MMM system produces more
disproportionalities as there is no mechanism under it to rectify
disproportionalities that result from the candidate tier (single-member
constituency component). Secondly, they, particularly MMP system, may make
the parties and voters to adopt the strategy of manipulation representing that
Electoral Processes
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
128
sometimes on the basis of agreement between the small parties and large party
supporters of small party cast their vote at the candidate tier for the candidate of
large party to save their candidate-based vote from being wasted while some
sympathizers of the large party in return cast their list vote at the list tier for the
small party (the allied partner of their party) in order to enable it to cross the
threshold. Thirdly, they create two unequal categories of representatives: one
from the candidate tier carrying out duties towards the constituency with having
no security, and other from the list tier occupying ministerial office and enjoying
dominance within the party. Fourthly, they make the party officials more
important and dominant as in MMP system it is the number of votes won by the
party at the list tier that determines the party’s overall number of representatives.
Lastly, because of party list component, they produce low levels of candidate
recognition than plurality based FPTP system.
Check Your Progress 3
3) What are ‘wasted votes’? In which system most of the votes are wasted?
9.6 LET US SUM UP
We have different forms of electoral system each marked by distinctive features
and electoral mechanics. None of them is absolute and perfect. Mitchell
Gallagher has identified eight criteria for evaluating electoral systems which are:
accuracy of representation of voters’ preferences; socio-demographic
representation in legislature; personal accountability of representatives to
constituencies; high levels of political participation; cohesive and disciplined
parties; stable, strong and effective government; identifiability of government
options; and opportunity for voters to remove governments from office. The
electoral systems that are in use across the world do not satisfy all these criteria
except the mixed-member proportional system which nearly comes close to them.
The relevance, validity and reliability of each system depends on the context in
which it operates and the priorities of the country and the people of that country.
As Gallagher has insisted that “which electoral system is ‘best’ depends on just
what we want from an electoral system”. The countries giving top priority to
stable and effective governments, high accountability and responsibilities of
representatives towards their constituencies and ejectable government tend to go
for plurality based first-past-the-post system and majority systems using singlemember constituencies. Closed list proportional representation system using a
single, national constituency may be found in the countries focusing on achieving
high degree of proportionality and disciplined form of parties. Single transferable
vote variant of PR and open list proportional representation system may attract
the countries aiming at realizing high levels of political participation and
Herron, E. S., R. J. Pekkanen, & Shugart, M. S. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of
Electoral Systems (Eds.). New York, Oxford University Press.
9.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
1) In a technical sense, an electoral system refers to legal mechanisms that
convert votes into seats. In this sense, it consists of three components:
structure of the ballot, electoral formula, and districting and district
magnitude.
2) Ballot structure signifies the number of votes a voter can cast or the number
of choices a voter can express. It can be categorical, dividual or ordinal.
Electoral Processes
129
Th 11 di t i t it d
Patterns of Political
Participation and
Representation
Electoral formula refers to a particular mechanism for converting votes into
seats. District magnitude refers to the number of seats per constituency.
Check Your Progress 2
1) In plurality system, the winning candidate simply requires to gain most
votes. In majority system, the winning candidate is one who receives
majority of votes. In PR system, the share of seats in legislature for each
party is more or less equal to its vote share. Mixed-member system contains
some of the features of plurality based FPTP system and some of list form of
PR.
2) In two-round system, two rounds of voting take place if no candidate wins
majority in the first round. In STV system, the winning candidates are
required to obtain a particular quota, generally known as Droop quota, and
votes are transferred to achieve this quota.
3) d hi h th h ld d th d f
130
Block-5 State in Contemporary Perspective
BLOCK V
STATE IN CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE
State has been and continues to be one of the major concerns of the political
theory. As the modern state evolved, it has become important in almost all
aspects of the society, not just politics. The state appeared to hold the key to
development, to social welfare, to security, to individual liberty, and through the
advances in weapons and other technologies, to life and death itself. Yet in the
last few decades, states have to contend with non-state rivals. Actions of nonstate organisations such as multinational corporations, inter-governmental
organisations and non-governmental organisations are limiting the state power.
These non-state actors have not replaced the state, but they seem to have taken
away the power of states to govern their territories. They have emerged as
organisations affecting the context in which state pursuer power In some cases
States in Developed
and Developing
Countries
131
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
132
UNIT 10 STATES IN DEVELOPED AND
DEVELOPING COUNTRYS‘
Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 What is State?
10.2.1 State and Related Terms
10.2.2 Liberal and Marxist Perspectives of the State
10.3 The Modern Conception of State
10 4 Theorising the Developmental State
and functioning of states in developed and developing societies. By the end of
this unit, you should be able to:
• Explain the idea of the State and its different interpretations;
• Identify the components that constitute a State, its power and legitimacy;
• Describe the changing nature of the State; and
*Dr. KishorchandNongmaithem, Consultant, Faculty of Political Science, School of Social
Sciences, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi
• Distinguish the nature, characteristics and functions of States in developed
and developing countries.
10.1 INTRODUCTION
When we look at the map of the world, almost the whole of its surface is divided
into separate parts (or territories), where each part represents a neatly defined
geopolitical entity, known as the State. And since most of us are citizens of a
State and live within the boundary of one, the State is probably the greatest
determinant of how our lives turn out. Our interaction with the State shapes and
conditions almost every sphere of our daily lives-from cradle to grave. The State
also provides a wide range of services for the security and protection of every
individual in the society and delivers ‘public goods’ for a better living. On the
other hand, the power of the State also compels us to do certain things, and bars
us from doing other things. We are obliged to obey the laws of the State and
those who disobey are liable to be punished by the State, which exercises the sole
10.2 WHAT IS STATE?
This question appears to be simple but the answer is far more elusive than what is
normally perceived. In the course of answering it, several definitions have been
given to the State by various scholars who ventured to study it, but no definition
ever has been able to capture the State in its entirety. The primary reason for lack
of consensus on the definition of the State has been the difference in perspectives
and views from which the State is envisaged. The Liberals, for instance, viewed
the State as an organized social institution or a community of men which stands
above all other organizations in the society, while for Marxists the State is an
instrument of exploitation and domination of one class over another. Likewise,
the Anarchists, Democrats, the Gandhians, all have different perspectives of the
State. Some see the State in terms of morality, while others view it as
‘institutionalized political power’. There are others who viewed it as a social
States in Developed
and Developing
Countries
133
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
134
phenomenon or a juristic personality or a monopolistic organization. And for
anarchists like Peter Kropotkin or Michael Bakunin, the State is an enemy of man
and ‘a great hindrance in the path of human progress’.
Among various definitions given to the State, one of the most authoritative
definitions is the given by the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) who
defined state as “a compulsory political organization with a centralized
government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a
specific territory”. One fundamental aspect found in Weber’s definition is the
power of the State to exercise its authority and use of violence which is
commonly referred to as the ‘sovereignty’ of the State. It legitimizes the State to
effectively and independently enforce its will over its subjects (citizens) who are
obliged to accept the authority of the State as long as they continue to live within
its boundary. Weber’s definition, thus, upholds certain fundamental
characteristics of statehood—such as the notion of ‘territoriality’ and access to
the legitimate use of force within its territorial jurisdiction—which are essential
requirements for the existence of the State and also a compulsory element for
known as the basic elements of State, namely the population, land (territory),
government and sovereignty. In the absence of any one of these factors there can
be no State.
10.2.1 State and Related Terms
In common parlance, the idea of State is often confused and loosely used as
synonymous with other terms such as nation, country, government, nation-state
and so forth. Though these words are quite close to the idea of State, they are
different both in theory and practice. For instance, the term State, one must be
sure, is essentially a political concept, whereas the word country is purely
geographical. Thus, in a sense, one may say that every State is a country, but
unless the country is independent or has a government, it cannot be a State.
Again, State is also different from the concept of ‘nation’ which carries a
cultural-political connotation that refers to a community of people bound together
by some shared identity which can be based on language, religion, race, culture,
and any other form of collective identity—often treated as ‘national identity’ that
distinguishes one nation from another. In this context, a nation requires a
collective ‘sense of oneness’ which is inherently subjective; whereas, State may
exist in the absence of this oneness.
And when this ‘national identity’ is attached to a specific State, it creates the
concept of ‘nation-state’ which is the most predominant form of State today.
However, technically speaking, a ‘nation-state’ is only possible when all the
people within the State are collectively bound together by a common national
identity. In this regard, there is hardly any State in the world today which can be
perfectly called a ‘nation-state’ in its strict sense of the term. Though, there are
many ‘community of people’ who identified themselves as a ‘nation’ but without
the State. For example, the Jews who are widely recognized as one of the most
intelligent people had no State of their own before the present state of Israel was
created after World War-II. Others like the Tibetans, Chechens, or Catalans etc.
are sometimes considered as ‘people without a State’ though they may live
within a State which they do not think their own
according to liberalism, should be the protection of individual rights, property
and upholding the values of democracy, liberty, justice and so on. Thomas
Hobbes was among the first to reflect on the liberal perspective of the state. In
the Hobbesian conception, the state is regarded as preeminent in political and
social life which has emerged from a ‘contract’ of ‘free and equal’ individuals in
the society. According to him, while individuals exist prior to the formation of
society and the state, it is the State that provides the conditions of existence of the
former and pursues their interests. In a slightly similar fashion, John Locke also
argued that the state (or the government as he often put it) is an ‘instrument’ for
the protection of individual rights and property—which in Locke’s words the
raison d’ etre of the State.
Therefore, for liberalism, the State came into existence not only for the sake of
good life but also indispensable for human existence because in the absence of it
there will be disorder and anarchy where a condition of war of all against all will
prevail. The State acts as an impartial arbiter among competing groups and
States in Developed
and Developing
Countries
135
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
136
individuals, protecting each individual citizen from the encroachment from
fellow citizens. Thus, State is viewed as a neutral arbiter, serving the interest of
all and upholding what is called the ‘common interest’ or ‘public interests’.
On the other hand, Marxists view the State not as a protector of rights or property
of individuals, but an ‘apparatus’ or instrument of the dominant ‘class’ to
suppress the other class. Unlike the liberal view of the State, Marxism argued that
the State can neither represent nor stand for the community as a whole; it can
only stand for the dominant class alone. The State, therefore, exists not for all in
the society, but for those who belong to the dominant class. The State, in short, is
a ‘class State’ created with the purpose of suppressing its class enemies.
Check your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
authoritative political institutions. With this collectivized living people could
live a settled life while refraining from the selfish and disorderly traits of human
perversity. In different phases of history, such sort of institutions appeared in one
form or the other which may have made oblique reference to the ‘idea of State’.
The Greeks in the ancient times called them Polis, the Romans used the
expressions like Civitas,res publica, or res populi. The Teutons adopted the term
Status Rom which probably the modern term ‘State’ was derived. Yet, the
concept of ‘State’ as it exists and understood in the present form is comparatively
modem. It can be traced to the writings of the 16th century Italian thinker Niccolo
Machiavelli. . In his famous book The Prince (1513) Machiavelli defined the
State as “the power which has authority over men”. Machiavelli, thus, explained
the State in terms of the position of the ruler in regard to its subjects. This
Machiavellian conception of State then became the focus of attention for many
political thinkers of Europe, particularly in Italy, France and England. For
instance, Jean Bodin (1530-1596) described the State as a “lawful government
with sovereign powers”. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) speaks of the State as a
‘public power’ which gives people their own life. Similarly, Bentham (1748-
1832) considers the State as a ‘means of attaining the greatest happiness of the
greatest number of people’. Subsequently, the term ‘State’ came into use widely
in the vocabulary of politics, first in Europe, and then exported to rest of the
world through colonialism.
10.4 THEORISING THE DEVELOPMENTAL STATE
As State continues to play a pivotal role in contemporary society, it has received
foremost concern of theorization in political theory and comparative politics. But
the traditional approaches to the study of State have primarily been from
epistemological, historical, and institutional aspects focusing on its origin,
composition, or administrative functions. However, the post Second World War
period witnessed an outpouring of scholarship which attempts to articulate and
theorize the modern State from ‘economic’ and ‘developmental’ perspectives.
The idea of ‘development’ was conceived out of two post-War historical
The relevance of the term ‘development’ in this context demonstrates two
interpretations. The first is that, the idea of ‘development’ is overwhelmingly and
often exclusively understood in ‘economic’ terms but less in ‘political’ and
‘governance’ terms. The second interpretation is broader than just economic
growth or economic development that also includes the presence of progressive
political and social values. While the former conception of development seems
narrow, the latter emphasised the development of the State in its totality so that it
promotes justice, liberty, equality, freedom of expression, social mobility or any
other factor for people to lead productive, creative and fulfilling lives (Cowen
and Shenton, 1996, 12-18). It was the former interpretation of the idea of
development that dominated in the 1960s and 1970s resulting in emphasis
‘industrialization’ or ‘emulating the West’. It is primarily because of the ethnocentric presumption or approach of western scholars that the West is developed
and ideal, better than the rest of the world, and hence the comparatively
‘backward’ states of the non-West can hope to ‘develop’ using the West as the
States in Developed
and Developing
Countries
137
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
138
model. But, nonetheless, measuring development or success of a State requires
wide range of markers which includes, adequate housing, access to education,
health care, life expectancy, adequate income, successful government policies
and planning, and various other parameters to measure of quality of life.
10.5 WHAT ARE DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES?
There is no universal, agreed-upon criterion for what makes a country developed
or developing. It can also be argued that all States are developing simply because
no society can afford to remain stagnant or stop developing unless it is
degenerating or decaying. Though people may disagree on the precise definition
of these terms, they tend to have certain similarity in their interpretation. For
instance, if some people are randomly given names of few countries—say,
Germany, Namibia, Brazil, Cambodia and the United States—and asked them to
identify which are ‘developing’ countries and which are ‘developed’, .it is very
1ik1 tht 1 ill N ibi B il dC bdi ‘d 1 i hil
these countries have not completed the process of development and
still remain a ‘third world’.
Another way of explaining the developed-developing dichotomy is
in terms of ‘North-South’ debate. The term ‘North’ refers to the
advanced developed countries of the West as most of them exist in
the northern side of the equator and the ‘South’ represents the lessdeveloped countries which are mostly located south of the equator.
There are certain yardsticks on which countries fit these two categories, such as
the country’s GDP, per capita income, level of industrialization, infrastructure,
living standard of people etc. In the post-Second World War period, colonialism
began to decline and countries got independence one after another. As a result, a
new group of countries emerged which were formerly under colonialism. These
countries became known as post-colonial countries. Mostly found in Asia, Africa
and Latin America, they account for nearly seventy percent of the world’s
population. To understand the nature of the State in these countries, it is
important to look at their historical experience of colonialism and also the
challenges faced by post-colonial societies. At the time of independence, these
societies faced acute economic crisis, problems of illiteracy, education, public
health, social tensions, lack of political awareness, and so on. In short, they are
development deficit. Therefore, the primary tasks before post-colonial societies
were economic development and socio-political progress. It is due to these
specificities that these post-colonial countries have been clubbed together to be
called as ‘developing countries’ or ‘developing societies’.
Another set of countries is the ‘developed’ countries or the industrialized
capitalist countries of Western Europe and Northern America. Others like New
Zealand, Australia, and Japan are also included in this group due to their level of
development and modernization. According to Oxford Dictionary of Sociology
(2005), developed countries are those which achieved high level of economic
efficiency growth and standard of living for their population
ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
1) What are the specific features of a developing State?
10.6 NATURE OF STATE IN DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES
No doubt, States in advanced developed countries have different histories,
cultures, traditions, or institutional structures. Though what distinguishes the
State in developed countries from the state in developing countries is not an
States in Developed
and Developing
Countries
139
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
140
absolute, and many of them may face challenges similar to post-colonial
developing societies, there are two fundamental characteristics common to them;
first, they are highly industrialized, and second, larger portion of the country’s
economic activities remains under private ownership and control. These two
characteristics make them distinct from those in developing world.
According to Gramsci, the state in advanced countries is rules by perfecting the
ideological apparatus rather than the through repressive measures like the use of
force. According to him, the state consists of two elements; (i) the coercive
apparatus like police, army and judiciary to uphold the authority of the ruling
class through force and (ii) institutions of civil society such as media, school,
colleges, political parties, pressure groups, trade unions which are the instruments
of hegemony used by the ruling class to comply to its rule. States in advanced
developed countries, therefore, are highly industrialized and have wellestablished democratic political institutions and stable governments. However,
activities of governance are largely in the hands of a relatively small number of
non state private individuals who continue to own and control disproportionate
economic dependence, ethnic, religious, or tribal conflicts, imperialist
exploitation, widespread corruption, illiteracy, political turmoil and glaring
inequalities. The main task before them was to fight against this backwardness.
But, the newly independent States failed to maintain political stability which was
much needed for social, economic, and political transformation. It was primarily
because the various institutions, apparatus, and agencies of the modern State,
which the developed Western countries had taken centuries to formulate and
refine themselves, the developing countries were expected to have them in place
almost instantly after their colonial masters left. Many of these societies were in
semi-tribal or semi-feudal conditions with diverse cultures, religions, languages,
races and ethnic groups. In many instances, ethnic, tribal or religious groups
which were traditionally bitter rivals were thrown together in new State, leaving
the society prone to instability and civil wars. For instance, in 1967, Nigeria
plunged into a vicious civil war when the majority ethnic group Igbo tried to
secede and form an independent state called Biafra. Similarly, in 1994, Rwanda
witnessed one of the bloodiest genocides in modem history when the majority
Hutus slaughtered minority Tutsis. Likewise, the civil war in Sri Lanka between
majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils and the civil war in Kenya were all
outcomes of nation-building process in diverse societies. These internal unrests
or civil wars often plunged into anarchy or de facto collapse of a State—as it
happened in Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia, and more recently in
countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
In such a condition, most developing States have failed to perform their basic
functions which include protecting the State from internal and external
aggression, better governance, a strong law and order, social development and
economic growth. This inability of developing States to fulfil their prescribed
duties is what Gunnar Myrdal called the ‘soft state’. The ‘soft state’ of the State,
according to Myrdal, is a common nature of the State or societal ‘indiscipline’
prevalent developing world, particularly in South Asian States which are unable
to protect their citizens’ interest in the first instance, and in the second, the low
capacity of the state in law enforcement and implementing economic policies and
programmes
restrictions on private enterprise were so strong that the State was often termed as
the ‘License Raj’. The primary motive was to restrict foreign interference in the
economy and control economic interaction with the outside world.
Check your Progress 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
1) What are Soft States?
States in Developed
and Developing
Countries
141
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
142
2) What is meant by ‘overdeveloped’ State?
10.8 CHANGING NATURE OF STATE
Since the 1980s, States around the world, both in developed and developing
countries have faced the gale of globalization which led to huge transformations
in their polity, economy and society. Globally, trade, rather than production for
domestic consumption has become the driving force of the new global economy.
This trajectory of globalization coincided with increased internationalized
production and rapid advancement in high-quality technology. For example, the
advancement in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has
to help the countries that faced financial crisis, many critics pointed out that the
policies were unhelpful and imposed harsh conditions on developing countries.
For example, these financial institutions put pressure on developing countries
like, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc. to adopt Structural Adjustment Programmes
(SAPs) in 1980s and 1990s which increased their dependency on global financial
institutions. The adjustment programmes and reforms allowed global financial
institutions to intervene in their economic affairs, particularly in monetary policy,
budgetary policy, policies of trade and commerce and also in the management of
State enterprises. These externally-imposed ‘conditionalities’ compelled the
States to change not only their economic policies but also their political, legal
and institutional aspects. This has undermined the economic autonomy of the
State which Francis Fukuyama described as ’the End of Nation State’.
At the core of neoliberalism is the idea that the self-regulating
economy can operate not only at the national but also at the
international level. This neoliberal ideology is associated with the
United States and the Washington based global organizations over
which it exerted great control- the IMF and the World Bank.
Neoliberalism is often referred to as the ‘Washington Consensus’
because of its linkage to the political and economic position of the
United States and the physical location of the IMF and the WB in
the nation’s capital.
With all these global economic transformations, States, both in developing and
developed countries, have devised for themselves several programmes of action
aiming to “roll back the State”. These programmes aim to curb state intervention,
cut public welfare expenditures, privatize State-run enterprises, restrict the power
of trade unions while promoting the doctrine of free market liberalism and
competitive individualism. Such policies led to what is today we called as the
“neo-liberal state”. Neo-liberalism is basically a strategy of capitalist
accumulation or a specific growth model which undermined the ‘Welfare State’
century global order are increasing the importance and centrality of the State.
Take for instance the challenges posed by migration of people across national
borders. The fear of mass migration and population influx from neighbours has
made the States increasingly conscious of their borders. For example, the soaring
of problems along the borders of USA and Mexico, Germany and Poland, India
and Bangladesh, India and Myanmar etc. pressurized the States to protect their
borders against refugees and illegal immigration. At another level, the notion of
‘statelessness’ experiment of the European Union (EU) with the aim of
‘borderless’ Europe is now breached with the withdrawal of Britain (referred to
as ‘Brexit’) from the Union.
10.9 LET US SUM UP
The concept of State has been an integral part of our political life. There are
multiple traditions of studying the State. One such tradition of looking into the
States in Developed
and Developing
Countries
143
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
144
State has been by examining the similarities and difference between States in
developed countries of the West and developing countries of Asia, Africa and
Latin America—categorised on their level of development. The developed
countries are highly industrialized and have well-established democratic political
institutions and stable governments. However, States in the developing countries
continue to experience different features of underdevelopment such as high
unemployment, low income growth, high inequality, poverty, low literacy, poor
health care, high mortality rate and numerous other problems. Majority of the
people living in these countries have no access to basic necessities like, potable
drinking water, good infrastructures, proper health care, electricity, roads etc.
These countries also faced extreme debt and dependency on foreign aid.
However, there have been few cases of countries which are rapidly moving
towards development. In countries like India, Brazil or Indonesia, we find rapid
industrialization and expansion of growth leading to economic growth and
improvement in the living standards of the people.
Ridge University Press
10.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check your Progress 1
1. State may be defined as a community of persons more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent or nearly
so of external control and possessing and organized government to which a
great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. Every state has four
fundamental attributes, known as the basic elements of State, namely the
population, land (territory), government and sovereignty. In the absence of
any one of these factors there can be no State.
2. States are geopolitical entities with basic elements like population, land
(territory), government and sovereignty. A nation on the other hand, carries
a cultural-political connotation. It refers to a community of people bound
together by some shared identity which can be based on language, religion,
race, culture, and any other forms of collective identity—often treated as
‘national identity’.
Check Your Progress 2
1. Developing States are the post-colonial countries of Asia, Africa and Latin
America characterized by a relatively low standard of living, undeveloped
industrial base, and moderate to low Human Development Index (HDI).
Check Your Progress 3
1. Soft States are the States commonly found in developing countries which
ha e failed to perform the basic f nctions of the State According to G nnar
States in Developed
and Developing
Countries
145
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
146
UNIT 11 STATE – CIVIL SOCOTY RELATIONS
Structure
11.0 Objectives
11.1. Introduction
11.2 Civil Society: A Conceptual Understanding
11.3 Civil Society and State: Evolutionary Perspective
11.3.1 Early Modern Period
11.3.2 Rise of Political Economy and the Enlightenment Concept of Civil
Society
11.3.3 Civil Society as a Part of Society and Life Breath of the State
11 3 4 Ci il S i P bli S h
political theory. The democratisation of several polities since the 1980s and the
debate on development in the context of globalisation have brought the role of
civil society into sharp focus. This unit seeks to throw light on the different
understandings of the term civil society and its relationship with the state. After
going through this unit, you should be able to explain:
• The idea of civil society;
• The role and purpose of civil society;
*Dr. Borun Dey, Asst. Professor, Dept of Political Science, Dibrugarh University, Assam
• The attributes of civil society; and
• The relationship between civil society and the State.
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The relationship between state and civil society has been a core issue of politics,
both in theory and practice. In the last three decades or so, there has been a
renewed attention in social sciences on the idea of civil society. The concept of
civil society is generally identified with the activities of certain non-state and
non-governmental organizations which comprise a wide range of organized
groups of different forms, size and function, and specifically, groups which share
similar views and interests that engaged in a ‘collectivized’ politics. There are
alternative conceptions of civil society which regard it as a type of society and as
a public sphere in which issues of common or public concern are deliberated and
resolved.
the meaning of civil society. How do we make sense of the term that has come
into everyday use? Michael Edwards (2004), a British academic closely
associated with civil society organisations, says that the term ‘civil society’ is
used as a noun (a part of society), as an adjective (a kind of society) and as an
arena for societal deliberations, or a mixture of all the three. Being aware of the
several ways the term is being used will help in better understanding different
viewpoints in the dialogue on development and democracy in contemporary
times.
The widely accepted notion of civil society is that of regarding it as a part of
society is relatively of recent origin. It can be traced to the writings of Alexis de
Tocqueville, the Frenchman who travelled across the United States in the 1830s.
He linked the peoples ‘incurable tendency to form voluntary associations’ with
emerging democracy in America. He believed that democracy depended on many
things besides voting and that voluntary associations had an important role in
strengthening democracy by providing a means for solving collective problems.
‘Among democratic nations all citizens are independent and weak; they can
State – Civil Society
Relations
147
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
148
achieve almost nothing by themselves and none of them could force his fellows
to help him. Therefore, they sink into a state of impotence, if they do not learn to
help each other voluntarily’. Besides, voluntary associations indirectly
contributed to democracy by drawing individuals out of their private concerns,
where they would otherwise stay focused and striving, and enabling them to be
part of something larger than the circumstances of their own existence.
Tocqueville described these voluntary and other intermediary organisations
standing between the individual and the state as civil society. This conception of
civil society as a part of society is the one we often encounter in the discussions
of policy makers, development planners and those seeking to promote
democracy. Some even regard civil society as a part of society that is distinct
from the state and the market. For them, civil society isthe third sector.
Before the term civil society became associated with voluntary associations and
other groups, it was used in political theory- from Aristotle to Thomas Hobbs to
represent a kind of society that was identified with certain ideals such as good
life political equality and peaceful coexistence Realising these ideals of course
discourse. While they may appear mutually exclusive, they are in fact
interrelated. Voluntary, non-governmental or other civil society organisations are
generally regarded as agencies that promote democratic ethos. The second
interpretation of civil society as the good society sets the contributions of civil
society organisations in proper context and guards against the tendency to
privilege one part of society over others on ideological groups- civil society over
state and market, market over both state and civil society or state over market and
civil society. Achieving the goal of good society often requires arriving at a fine
balance between all the three sectors of society. In other words, good society
requires coordinated action between different institutions all pulling in the same
direction. But how are collective choices made, trade-offs negotiated, and ends
reconciled with means in ways that are just and effective? It is here that the role
of public sphere becomes important. The concept of a ‘public’ — a whole polity
that cares about the common good and has the capacity to deliberate about it
democratically — is central to civil society thinking. Public sphere is the arena for
argument and deliberations as well as for associational and institutional
collaboration.
Given that the meaning of civil society has undergone significant changes and
that different interpretations of the term coexist in contemporary debates, an
analysis of the historical development of the concept of civil society would help
in understanding its current usage with clarity as well as its relations with the
state. We can classify into the following phases.
11.3 CIVIL SOCIETY AND STATE:
EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE
The classical conception of the idea of civil society was mainly drawn by the
Greek philosophers. Aristotle (385-323 BC) used the term koinonia which
referred to ‘free association of peers’ formed for the betterment of human life.
For Aristotle, a polis was an association of free and equal men bound together by
phases. The first phase is associated with the historical events of Renaissance and
the Reformation in Europe. This phase was mainly characterized by a long
ideological and political battle on behalf of the institution of the state and against
the claims of the Church. With the emergence of a powerful modern state with a
new idea of sovereignty, we can say that this struggle ended in favour of the
state. The second phase which is an outcome of the Enlightenment period of 18*
century was marked by articulation of political interests of individuals against the
authority of the state. The state’s monopoly of power came to increasingly
challenged by the individuals (Singh 2008).
11.3.1 Early Modern Period
It is in the writings of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) that
we find articulation of the modern idea of civil society. Hobbes used the term
civitas’ or ’commonwealth’ to refer to a society which was formed by
individuals living in a ‘state of nature’ to overcome the untenable situation that
prevailed during the time (Nyar 2005:124). Hobbes believed that in their original
State – Civil Society
Relations
149
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
150
state of nature, people regarded themselves as equal to all others and in
competing for scarce resources, lived in a society of ‘all against all’.
Consequently, life was ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. Upon realizing
that such a state of constant struggle for individual power limited the social
development and common wealth, people strived for a new basis for society in
which civic virtues are derived from natural laws, the first of which is that all
persons ought to seek peace and the second, one should respect the rights of
others in order to safeguard one’s own rights.
Another English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) stressed that civil society
should be understood as a body in its own right, separate from the state. In his
The Two Treatises of Civil Government (1689), Locke related the idea of civil
society with political society. Civil Society, in Locke’s usages, is the optimal
remedy for the state of nature. He observed that when people relinquish the state
and set up a government for the protection of their natural right to life, liberty and
property, they enter into civil society. The state of nature, according to Locke, is
a hypothetical condition of human beings prior to the formation of the political or
y P q y g
the nature of the common good and civil liberty emerges when all people are
willing to abide by the ‘general will’.
11.3.2 Rise of Political Economy and the Enlightenment
Concept of Civil Society
The end of the 18th century brought about another distinction between the state
and society. Society no longer meant the fundamental union between human
beings that the state establishes. Civil society emerges as a network of interaction
and exchange formed by individuals exercising the right to pursue the satisfaction
of their particular needs in their own way. Montesquieu points out that
commercialism cures human beings of their prejudices that conceal their true
needs. Once human beings realize their true neediness, they will discover their
sense of ‘humanity’ which would supersede the previous religious, ethnic and
national sectarianism.
On the other hand, David Hume considers interest rather than the contract as the
factor that strengthens individual to the society. Adam Smith, like his
contemporaries- Hume, Ferguson and Millar, accept the advantages secured by
commerce and mutual support as the bases for forming society. Civil society, by
now, is shaped not merely by material desire for exchange, but, also by contract
which requires trust and justice. These thinkers provide a new description of civil
society, as the expanding material sphere of trade and manufacture, and make a
break with the traditional conception of the economy and the political idea of
civil society.
Adam Ferguson in his Essays on the History of Civil Society (1767) observed that
civil society is not a sphere of life that is distinct from the state; the two are, in
fact, identical. A civil society is a kind of political order which protects and
polishes its cultural achievements and sense of public spirit.
It was however Thomas Paine (1737-1809) who articulated the idea that civil
society stood in opposing to the state. Writing in the context of the American
societies need to play its role to safeguard against the tyranny of the state and for
the defence of the freedom of individuals. According to him, there is a despotic
tendency in modem states which can be controlled only by the developing civil
associations which are not under the control of the state. Civil society must find
the means to limit state power and hold it accountable. In this regard, plurality of
civil associations is necessary for consolidating the democratic revolution. He
considers civil associations as arenas in which individuals can direct their
attention to more than their selfish. Therefore, a pluralistic and self-organised
civil society that is independent of the state is absolutely necessary for
democracy to flourish.
11.3.4 Civil Society as Public Sphere
The conception of civil society as a public sphere where individuals and groups
come together to freely deliberate and identity society problems is a recent one. It
can be traced to the writings of Jurgen Hebermas, a German philosopher. In his
State – Civil Society
Relations
151
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
152
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962), Hebermas argued
that in the pre-Enlightenment years, European culture was dominated by
representational culture, where one party sought to ‘represent’ itself on its
audience by overwhelming its subjects. The monarchs, for instance, built
enormous palaces and monuments to overwhelm the public. With the rise of
capitalism, this feudal stage of representation has been replaced by Offentlichkeit
(public sphere) which is outside of the control by the state. Public sphere is an
area in social life where individuals come together to freely discuss and identify
societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. The
‘public’ debate takes place in the public sphere through the mass media, as well
as at meetings or through social media, academic writing and government policy
documents_ In this ‘public sphere’, civil society becomes the arena for argument
and deliberation as well as for association and institutional collaboration. The
extent to which such public space is available is a good indicator of democracy as
it is only in a democracy that all opinions and viewpoints are represented and no
viewpoint is excluded or suppressed.
3) With which political thinker would you associate the preservation of life,
liberty, and property as natural rights?
11.4 CIVIL SOCIETY AND ITS CRITIQUES
Two principal critiques of the Enlightenment concept of civil society appeared in
the 19th century in the philosophies of Georg.W. Freidrich Hegel (1770-1831)
and Karl Marx (1818-1883). The German philosopher Hegel brought a paradigm
shift in theoretical study of state-civil society relationship. He was the first
scholar to draw a theoretical distinction between the state and civil society. For
him, civil societies are historical products of economic modernization and
bourgeoisie driven economy. He conceptualized civil society as a sphere
consisting of people involved in the market. In other words, civil society is a
specific arena of economic activity, based on property exchange. In this sense, he
positioned civil society between the spheres of family and state. He also argued
that civil societies are based on the principle of ‘universal egoism’ and, therefore,
it represents conflict of interests in the society. Therefore, according to him, state
should represent the whole interest of the society and there is a necessity for the
state to constantly supervise and control the civil societies.
Another German scholar Karl Marx further expanded the study of state-civil
society relationship. Marx, in his writings such as On the Jewish Question,
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right used the term civil
society to make a critique of Hegel and German Idealism Marx also claimed that
stressed on the separation of state and civil society, Gramsci viewed the two as
interrelated. And unlike Marx who argued that economic relations, that is, the
base, was the driving force of historical change, Gramsci considered the
superstructure, that is, the civil society as equally important. In fact, it is by
capturing the apparatus of civil society that is establishing its hegemony that the
dominant class exercises control over others and not through coercion. For
Gramsci, the superstructure of civil society consists of basically two components:
first, ‘private institutions’ like schools, churches, clubs, journals and parties
which are instrumental in crystallizing social and political consciousness, and
second, the ‘political society’ that comprises of public institutions like the
government, courts, police and the army, the instruments of direct domination. It
is in the civil society that the intellectuals play an important role by creating
hegemony. However, this hegemony of the civil society exists differently in
different societies or countries. Writing about the former USSR, Gramsci
observes:
State – Civil Society
Relations
153
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
154
In Russia, the state was everything, civil society was primordial and galantines;
in the West, there was a proper relationship between state and civil society and
when the state trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed.
The state was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of
fortresses and earth works.
Thus, Gramsci expanded the Marxian notion of civil society and provides a mode
of understanding and classifying states through their civil societies. To Gramsci,
all states are coercive power structures, but, states without civil societies are
transparent states (Chandoke 1995).
11.5 CIVIL SOCEITY AND STATE IN DIFFERENT
CONTEXTS
The concept of civil society has been debated in different contexts. Within
political science research in recent years, the main focus has been on the role of
g•gyy•y Europe
was determined by economic and academic elites that demanded civil andhuman
rights and political participation. In its second phase during 19th and early
20th century, civil society widened its area of activity and potential. New actors
entered into civil society, for instance, the social movements of the working
class, farmers or churches, who not only engaged in social welfare, but, also
articulated political and societal claims. In their programmes, these new actors
were less universal than the elites of the first phase, focusing instead on specific
interests, sometimes stressing societal conflicts and deprivations. A third phase of
civil society in Western Europe began with the emergence of new social
movements in the 1960s, such as women’s liberation, the student, peace and the
ecology movements. These new movements considerably expanded both the
scope of civil society activities and the reasons for being part of civil society in
its various appearances. These developments had far reaching impact in statecivil society relations.
Th t i f th W t E t th h i l d liti 1
11.5.2 The US and Western Europe: Social Capital Debate
Beginning in the United States, a rich debate emerged in the 1990s regarding the
performance of major social institutions, including representative government,
and its relations to political culture and civil society. Robert Putnam, an
American political scientist, regarded social capital, social networks, a rich
associational life and the norms of reciprocity and reliability associated with it, as
the core element of civil society. He affirmed that the characteristics of civil
society and civic life affect the health of democracy and the performance of
social institutions. In his empirical study called Bowling Alone (1995) Putnam
found that there has been a tremendous erosion of social capital in the US since
the 1960s. His work has encouraged considerable research on various forms of
social capital and its conduciveness for democracy.
11.5.3 Eastern Europe: Challenges of a Three-Fold Transition
The applicability of the concept of civil society in a post-colonial context has
been heavily criticized as arguments against the universal applicability of a
concept developed within Western political philosophy. Like the Western and
Eastern Europe, in the developing post-colonial countries too, the concept of civil
society was revived during the 1980s- the 1990s, particularly when the Latin
American countries —including Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Uruguay—
came under authoritarian dictatorships. These regimes established political and
economic domination by tiny elite, effectively excluding large masses of people
from the process of decision making. A simmering discontent was present in
these countries as the military regimes were extremely repressive. They did not
pursue policies that could cater to the economic and social demands of the lower
and middle classes of the society. By the early 1980s, most of these regimes were
faced with economic and political crisis because of increasing foreign debts and
popular discontent. Soon, various kinds of associations, later called Civil Society
Institutions (CSIs), were formed to press for the extension of civil and political
rights.
State – Civil Society
Relations
155
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
156
Like in East Europe, in the developing countries too, the idea of civil society was
invoked as a sphere of freedom against the authoritarian state. It is the decreasing
faith in the capacity of the state to cater to people’s needs and aspirations along
with the democratic struggle against authoritarianism that the concept of civil
society in the post-colonial context became popular. Most of the newly
independent states in the Asian, African and Latin American countries failed to
meet the expectations and aspirations of the people. These states were neither
capable of attaining high economic growth nor were they able to institutionalized
democratic politics (Singh 2008:120). The crisis of the state led to questioning of
the very ideas of political and economic development that had dominated
political discourse so far.
In the post-colonial context, since the 1980s, the challenge to the existing model
of development appeared in the form of ‘new social movements’. They were new
in the sense that they carved out an oppositional political space distinct from
traditional political parties and pressure groups. They were also new in the sense
development. Kaviraj also highlighted the gross fallibility of these assumptions
about democracy and civil society in a post-colonial society. Rajni Kothari on the
other hand posits civil society as an alternative to the state, equating the former
with non-state, non-governmental organisations. Yet, as Gurpreet Mahajan has
pointed out, such a non-statist conception of civil society in post-colonial context,
rests on an imperfect assumption that all kinds of institutions and associations are
necessarily agencies of democratization and would safeguard liberty, equal
access to citizenship and resources and political participation. Andre Bateille has
distinguished between institutions of civil society and other types of mediating
institutions in society. The former embodies the modem concern for individual
liberty and function more as open and secular forces which are conducive to civil
society. Such institutions protect the individual autonomy and freedom in a nondiscriminatory manner and are controlled neither by the state nor by religion.
Rajesh Tandon, in this context, considers the role of civil society in India as
challenging the state in three different ways.
• Faced with the centralized power of the state, civil society first has a role of
enabling the hitherto voiceless and unorganized communities’ interests to be
represented. In other term, the sphere of civil society has a goal of
empowerment for local communities. In that specific function, civil society
can be considered as a ‘space’ that is free and accessible to everybody.
• Civil society can also be considered as a ‘movement’ that has to influence
public negotiation on public issues like health, education or security.
Contesting the frameworks of development programmes, criticizing the longterm effect of a large displacement of people are examples of this vision of
civil society as a contestation movement.
• Civil society finally has a role of ensuring the accountability of the state in
different spheres. Ensuring access to information is a first step into the state
accountability. In a more general way, civil society has the monitoring
function of holding the law and order machinery accountable. This function
implies the control of political parties, electoral process and the local bodies
2) What is ‘new’ in the new social movements?
11.6 LET US SUM UP
We have seen in this unit that civil societies are increasingly becoming a
significant institution of ‘collectivized’ social and political life. While the
State – Civil Society
Relations
157
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
158
concept of civil society is often contested and elusive, in its contemporary sense
civil society is generally recognizes as an organized political community or unit
which is neither connected to the state nor managed by the government, formed
by some identical group of people in pursuit of their interests. Although Civil
societies are associated with certain activities of ‘public’ affairs, they are distinct
from the activities of the state. In this regard, civil society is also regarded as an
autonomous realm of social and political existence, where individuals come
together to deliberate their societal issues. This deliberation is conducted in the
form of meetings, debates, discussions, academic writing, mass media, social
media or through any other exercise of debate and discussion. However, the
notion of civil society-state relations has been a matter of intense debate in civil
society discourse.
It is also observed that civil societies play important roles in strengthening
democracy. They provide citizens an avenue where they can participate in the
conduct of public affairs freely and collectively. Civil society also ensure that
citizens opinions and viewpoints are freely expressed and represented In this
Keane, John. (1988). Civil Society and the State. New European Perspectives,
London, Verso
Mahajan, Gurpreet. (1999). ‘Civil Society and its Avatars: What Happened to
Freedom and Democracy?’ in Carolyn M. Elliot. (ed.) Civil Society and
Democracy. A Reader, New Delhi, Oxford University Press
Singh, Mohinder. (2008). ‘Civil Society’, in Rajeev Bhargava and Ashok
Acharya (ed.). Political Theory, New Delhi, Pearson
Tandon, Rajesh. (2003), ‘The Civil Society-Governance Interface: An Indian
Perspective’, in Rajesh Tandon and Ranjita Mohanty (eds.), Does Civil Society
Matter? Governance in Contemporary India, New Delhi: Sage
Taylor, Charles. (2012). ‘Modes of Civil Society’, in Carolyn M. Elliot, (ed.)
Civil Society and Democracy: A Reader, New Delhi, Oxford University Press
11.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress1
1) Civil society has been seen as an actor, as a kind of society and as a public
sphere for debate and policy outcomes.
2) The expanding material sphere of trade and manufacture make a break with
the traditional conception of the economy and the political idea of civil
society. The period was marked by articulation of political interests of
individuals against the authority of the state.
3) John Locke
Check Your Progress2
1) Gramsci modified the Marxist formulation to say that state and civil society
State – Civil Society
Relations
159
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
160
UNIT 12 STATE IN THE ERA OF
GLOBALISATION‘
Structure
12.0 Objectives
12.1 Introduction
12.2 What is Globalisation?
12.3 Approaches to Globalisation
12.4 Impact on State Sovereignty
12.4.1 Challenges from the New World Economy
12.4.2 Challenges from New International Organisations
the state in the era of globalisation. After going through this unit, you should be
able to:
• Explain the meaning of globalisation and its dimensions;
• Identify and describe the dominant approaches to globalisation;
• Assess the impact of globalisation on state in the developing countries; and
• Identify the major challenges to states in the era of globalisation.
‘ Prof. Sudha Pai (Retd.), Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Adapted from MPS: 004
(Unit 7- Globalisation and the State)
12.1 INTRODUCTION
Globalisation is a concept for which no standard definition can be given. This is
because it stands for a tremendous diversity of issues and has been interpreted
from a variety of theoretical and political positions. Yet scholars agree that it is a
process that is supplanting the primacy of the state by transnational corporations
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), eroding local cultures and
traditions through a global culture and strengthening the dominance of a capitalist
economic system. Hence, its importance lies in the change it has introduced in
our traditional understanding of the state. Having introduced you to the idea of
the state, its evolution, nature and functions in Unit 10 of this block, here we will
examine the debate on the state in age of globalisation. The questions central in
this debate are: is globalisation associated with the demise of the state power?
Does contemporary globalisation impose new limits to politics within nationstates?
There is considerable difference of opinion among scholars about its impact, yet
there exists a shared belief that globalisation is taking place and is affecting the
state. A pattern of interconnectedness has always existed since the rise of the
modem state in the 15th century where internal politics was affected by
international events and developments. This is reflected in the writings of Hugo
Grotius and Emmanuel Kant who argued that states existed within a ‘society of
states’ and ‘international law’ and focused upon cooperation and coexistence of
states. However, what we are experiencing today is a qualitatively new
phenomenon: vast networks of global interaction and financial flows over which
individual states have very limited control, tremendous growth in
communication, emergence of international organisations and regimes, transgovernmental action, global military order and the declining role of geographical
and physical distance in politics, economics and war due to proliferation of
powerful computers, microelectronic technologies and social media.
Globalisation is the end product of a historical process of capitalist expansion
that originated in Europe and has covered the world. While there is no agreed
State in the Era of
Globalisation
161
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
162
starting point, certain historical epochs over which it has developed can be
identified. The first great expansion of European capitalism took place in the 16th
century following the first circumnavigation of the earth in 1519 and 1521 by
Magellan. But the first major expansion of world trade and investment took place
in the late 19th century following the Industrial Revolution in Europe, which
made these countries producers of manufactured goods. It was also the golden
period of colonialism when the great powers of the West were able to divide the
world between them and exploit its resources. This was brought to a halt with the
First World War and the bout of anti-free trade protectionism due to the Great
Depression of the 1930s. The end of the Second World War brought another
great expansion of capitalism with the rise of multi-national corporations
(MNCs), which further internationalised production and trade. In the economic
field, the new Bretton Woods system helped in the liberalisation of trade. The
introduction of floating exchange rate in place of fixed exchange rate in the
1970s led to the rise of international financial markets. In political terms,
decolonisation created a New World Order with the emergence of a number of
global capital, or simple intermediate institutions sandwiched between
increasingly powerful local, regional and global mechanisms of governance.
International markets and multi-national corporations have become strong and
impersonal forces driving the world. Consequently, the power of states is
correspondingly declining. Now power is diffused. It is the local and the
international forces that are important, not states, which have lost their earlier
authority and legitimacy and have little control over what is happening within
their borders. Hyperglobalists believe that economic globalisation is creating new
forms of social and political organisations – international civil society and suprastate government – which will eventually replace the traditional nation-state as
the primary political and economic unit of world society. Thus, the old NorthSouth divide, or the core-periphery based international relations, is disappearing
and a more complex architecture of economic, political and social power is
emerging. In this situation, states that do not globalise or move with the times, it
is held, will be left behind. Older welfare state policies or social democratic
models of governance are now of no use. A new international elite or
‘knowledge’ class is developing world-wide which is equipped to benefit from
the changes that globalisation has introduced, while others are marginalised,
These changes are accompanied by a worldwide consumerist ideology, which
displaces traditional cultures and ways of life and imposes a new global common
identity within a global civilisation defined by universal standards set by the
discipline of markets. The Hyperglobalists, therefore argue that globalisation
represents ‘a fundamental reconfiguration of human action’.
Sharply opposed to Hyperglobalists is the viewpoint of scholars who can be best
described as the Sceptics. The Sceptics argue that globalisation as described by
the Hyperglobalists is a ‘myth’. They maintain that contemporary globalisation is
neither new nor revolutionary. Interdependence, they insist, is not higher today
than in the late 19th century which witnessed a greater increase of trade, labour
flows and economic interdependence with much higher levels of integration of
states into the international system. They argue that what is being described as
globalisation is actually high levels of interstate trade and the expansion of
regional common markets such as the North American Free Trade Agreement
South, as a result of which inequalities between the two areas are increasing, and
the old international division is becoming stronger. In fact, they feel that it is
these rising inequalities, which are leading to fundamentalism, ethnic resurgence
and aggressive nationalism rather than a world civilisation and internationalism.
Instead of cultural homogenisation, what we are witnessing is re-emergence of
local identities. There is no global governance, only Western dominance, which
hides behind a convenient slogan of globalisation.
A third, and more balanced view comes from the Transformationists, who believe
that globalisation is transforming the world and see it as a driving force behind
the rapid social, political and economic changes that are reshaping modern
societies and a world order. In such a system there is no longer a clear distinction
between international and domestic, external and internal affairs. In this account,
globalisation is conceived as a powerful transformative force, which is
responsible for a ‘massive shake-out’ of societies, economies, institutions of
governance and world order. However, the direction of this shakeout remains
State in the Era of
Globalisation
163
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
164
uncertain since globalisation is an essentially contingent historical process replete
with contradictions. Rather than putting forward a fixed ideal type,
Transformationalists emphasise globalisation as a long-term historical process
that is inscribed with contradictions, and significantly shaped by conjectural
factors. Yet, they do believe that contemporary patterns of global economic,
political, military, technological and cultural flows are historically
unprecedented. They argue that virtually all countries in the world, if not parts of
their territory and all segments of their society are now functionally part of that
larger (global) system in one or more respects. This does not mean the arrival of
a global society; rather globalisation is associated with new patterns of
stratification in which some states, societies and communities are becoming
increasingly enmeshed in the world order, while others are becoming
increasingly marginalised.
Thus, at the core of the globalisation debate is a belief that it is reconstituting or
re-engineering the power, functions and authority of national governments. While
not disputing that states still retain the ultimate legal claim to effective
following the oil crisis of the 1970s and 80s. While these policies helped the
advanced countries, it did not help the developing states on whom there is
tremendous pressure today to liberalise and privatise internally, and externally to
open their economies to the forces of globalisation. For the developing world,
globalisation is part of the Debt Crisis of the I980s, which led to Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAPs). Many of them, with the drying up of official
aid in this period, borrowed heavily from commercial multinational banks, which
were flush with petro-dollars at that time. Inability to repay debts by some
countries such as for example, Mexico in 1982, led to ‘conditionalities’ by the
IMF and multilateral banks. Borrowing countries were pushed to adopt SAPs
which involved many changes such as rolling back of the state, removal of trade
barriers and emphasis on export-led growth, regional price controls etc. In the
political field, the conditionalities on the developing states have taken the shape
of insistence on maintenance of democracy, good governance and human rights.
These developments have led to introduction of competitive market forces and
dismantling of welfarism within the developing states. This has in turn led to
greater class and regional inequalities within them, leaving large sections of the
population such as the smaller farmers, agricultural labour and smaller
industrialists vulnerable to the impact of globalisation. In India, this is visible in
the suicides by cotton farmers in regions such as Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra
and Punjab. Thus, globalisation in the form of SAPs has led to a decline of
developing states and their inability to thrive in a world of open economies.
These states are not in a position to compete and take advantage of the new
opportunities that globalisation has introduced, which have gone largely to the
advanced Western states, and even within them, to already better-off sections of
the population. While there was growth initially in some Latin America states as
a result of the SAPs, they have also contributed to widening of social inequalities
and poverty, a suitable example being the impact on Argentina. The impact on
Africa was clearly indicated by the World Bank itself in its 1989 report on the
continent. In fact, during the 1990s the World Bank and the IMF have themselves
Transformationists?
2) What are the conditionalities imposed by the IMF on developing countries
seeking relief from the debt crisis?
State in the Era of
Globalisation
165
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
166
12.4 IMPACT ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY
Most scholars agree that the age of the nation-state is not over, rather it has
suffered a decline by the end of the 20th century after the glorious hights it
reached in the 19th century. The state still remains the most significant actor in
the international arena and retains a degree of autonomy. But this position is
uneven; some states have declined while others have risen, and in some cases
classic empires have declined and given way to new empires. What this implies
is not the end of the state but a transformation in its power and authority. This is
best understood by examining certain ‘international’ or ‘external’ disjuncture or
challenges upon the sovereignty of the nation-state pointed out by the British
political scientist, David Held.
12.4.1 Challenge from the New World Economy
economies in 1997, for example, affected a very large number of countries.
As a result, internal policymaking, investment, employment and revenue within a
state is often affected by the activities of MNCs and changes in the world
economy. Keynesian-based welfare policies, and import or tariff barriers by
governments (state interventionism) practiced by governments to protect home
industry in an era of ’embedded liberalism’ are now much harder to implement.
This is because state economies are no longer ‘managed’ by state governments but
are subject to external forces, such as recession, inflation and trade agreements,
due to the interconnectedness of the world economy. However, it must be
underlined that some states can manage better in this situation, and are able to
‘restore boundaries’ and take advantage also of the regionalisation of the world
economy, as in the case of the USA or the European Union, respectively. Thus,
the trends within the world system are not uniform in their impact upon
individual states, but there is a definite disjuncture between the idea of a
sovereign state determining its own future and modern economies, which are
intersected by international economic forces.
12.4.2 Challenge from new International Organisations
Between the state and the international system there have arisen a large number
of international organisations and regimes — new forms of political associationswhich now manage whole areas of transnational activity (trade, oceans, outer
space) and collective policy problems. At the beginning of 20* century, there
were 37 inter-governmental organisations and 176 international NGOs. Over the
past century, their numbers have risen to approximately 300 and 4,000,
respectively. Consequently, we are witnessing new forms of decision making
involving a number of states, and whole array of international pressure groups. A
number of international agencies such as the International Postal Union or
Telecom Unions, etc. are largely non-political organisations. Moreover, there are
a large number of international organisations such as the World Bank, IMF,
Traditionally, a rule that upheld state sovereignty was the immunity of
individuals and state agencies from being tried in a court in any other country.
However, in recent years these rules are being questioned in international courts.
A tension now exists between states and international law which is yet to be
resolved, particularly within the European Union. Moreover, the establishment of
the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms in 1950 was an important step. Unlike many other Charters on Human
Rights, it takes a step towards ‘collective enforcement’ of certain rights. An
important innovation is that individuals can initiate proceedings against their own
governments. European countries in the European Union have accepted that their
citizens can directly petition the European Commission on Human Rights that
can take cases to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and then
the European Court of Human Rights. Thus, no state can any longer treat its
citizen, as it thinks fit. In this regard, an important initiative has been taken by
United Nations (UN) in 2005 by constituting what is called Responsibility to
Protect (R2P) which says that the UN has a right to intervene in the domestic
State in the Era of
Globalisation
167
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
168
affairs of a particular state if that state has failed to protect its citizens from
human rights violation. A gap has also emerged between membership of a state,
which traditionally gives individuals certain rights, and duties and the creation in
international law of new forms of rights and liberties as laid down by the
International Tribunal at Nuremberg. The Tribunal has laid down that when
international law, which protects basic humanitarian values, is in conflict with
state laws, it is the duty of every individual to follow the former. Moreover, the
scope and direction of international law has changed. Traditionally, it was meant
to uphold the idea of a society of sovereign states as the supreme political
organisation of mankind. In recent years, international law is no longer defined as
the law between states but as a cosmopolitan agency above states, but accepted
by all. At the same time, it is important to remember despite globalisation it is not
accepted by all states and individuals such as Islamic fundamentalist movements,
who do not accept it.
Finally, there is a disjuncture between the idea of the state as an autonomous
strategic military actor and the development of the global system of states
symmetrical and corresponding relationship between the rulers and the ruled. The
former made decisions for the latter based upon notions of majority rule and
accountability, and the latter accorded them legitimacy. Nation-states were seen
as self-contained units and changes in other states or the international system,
except in case of war or an invasion, were not taken into consideration. The
emergence of neo-liberalism has led to the retreat of the state creating more space
for civil society and competitive markets, which are not limited to or enclosed
within nation states. Moreover, active intervention by agencies such as the World
Bank and the IMF led to the Structural Adjustment Programmes and
development projects, trade sanctions, aid, military imports etc. had grave
implications for democratic decision-making. Consequently, states no longer
control their own decisions and actions as in the past. What this implies is a
change in the traditional notion of ‘consent’, which is an important core of
democratic theory. The earlier notions of a social contract and electoral
democracy based on the use of the ballot box which leads to participatory
democracy based upon a community of free and equal persons is no longer valid.
The question, that arises is, which is the relevant community – local, regional,
national or international? Who makes the law is a valid question as territorial
boundaries are no longer sacrosanct? So, globalisation has the possibility of reopening the assumptions underlying liberal democracy. With the advent of
globalisation, the theoretical underpinnings of a liberal democratic state requires
a review.
12.5.2 Ethnic Resurgence
A second issue is the coexistence of globalisation and assertions based on ethnic
identities, of language, tribe or religion, which is today questioning the concept
of a homogenous nation-state based upon a common national sentiment, whether
constructed out of long struggles against feudalism and the Church in the West,
or colonial rule in the developing world. Earlier scholars examining ethnic
identities and their relationship with the nation-state believed that ethnic ties were
primordial, that is, given from the beginning and fixed, and with modernisation
distinct ethnic group which has remained backward and marginalised, for
example, the dalits in India. Today, therefore, while globalisation is the first
major force posing a fundamental challenge to the state, the resurgence of ethnic
identities is the second, and they often exert contrary pulls. As the term suggests,
globalisation promotes a global culture, while ethnic identities promote the local,
the parochial and stress upon the ‘other’. The nation-state thus experiences a
twofold pressure from without and within. The principle of nationalism, which
created the state in the 19* century, is no longer able to hold states together.
External influences can also impinge upon the redefinition of identities.
Most scholars would agree with David Held who attempts to provide a balanced
view about the impact of globalisation on state sovereignty. He argues that the
nation-state has not become totally irrelevant. “Global processes should not be
exaggerated”, he insists, “to represent either a total eclipse of the state’s system
or the simple emergence of an integrated world society” (1995, p. 136). He
demands a re-evaluation of the theory of democracy, taking into account of the
State in the Era of
Globalisation
169
di i 11 i f1 hbi f i lii i i h
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
170
changing nature of the polity both within pre-established borders and within the
wider system of nation-state and global forces. What we are moving towards is a
system of overlapping authority and multiple loyalties, with conflicting
interpretations of rights and duties and authority structures, in which no state is
supreme. In this respect, sovereignty is no longer one and indivisible. This is
similar to Christendom’s principle that existed in the medieval period with no
ruler being supreme or above the others. This would require new international
organisations to secure law and order. Such a new ‘secular medievalism’ could
be fraught with problems on which democratic states have functioned
traditionally such as notions of representation and accountability. The institutions
of democracy may undergo change due to these pressures. Citizens would no
longer have control over their states as in the past. A good example is the new
states of Eastern Europe which have tried to keep control over their own affairs
but international events beyond their control have had an influence. Thus, an
ideal system for the future would be the continuation of sovereign states, but coexisting with new plural authority systems. The need of the hour is a democracy
12.6 LET US SUM UP
Globalisation is a highly contested concept. It stands for a tremendous diversity
of issues and has been interpreted from a variety of theoretical and political
positions. We have seen the dominant perspectives on globalisation theory and
what is happening to the state in the globalised world- Hyperglobalist, the
Sceptics, the Transformationalists and the neo-Marxists. The transformationalist
school is persuasive: globalisation, is ‘transforming’ the world. It is a driving
force behind the rapid social, political and economic changes that are reshaping
modern societies and a world order. New patterns of stratification are emerging
in the world order in which some states, societies and communities are becoming
increasingly enmeshed in the world order, while others are becoming
increasingly marginalised.
As we saw, the nation-state is no longer a unified command centre that it was in
the 19th century or even until the Second World War. Although it still remains
the most significant actor in the international arena and retains a degree of
autonomy, its sovereignty authority is increasingly challenged by the global
economic forces, the international organisations (intergovernmental as well as
international non-governmental organisations), and the widening scope of
international law.
Globalisation is also impacting the internal functioning of nation-states. Civil
society and competitive markets, both of which are not limited to or enclosed
within nation-states, have found more space. This has implications for
democratic representation and decision-making. Challenges to nation-state are
also emerging from assertions based on ethnic identities. While globalisation
promotes a global culture, it is also strengthening the local or other identities
Marsh, David., Smith, Nicola., and Hothi, N. (2006). Globalisation and the State.
In The State. Theories and Issues. (Ed) Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David
Marsh, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Strange, Susan. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the
World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, Linda. (2010). ‘Globalisation and The Myth of the Powerless State’. In
Ritzer, George and Zeynep Atalay. (2010). Readings in Globalisation: Key
Concepts and Major Debates. UK, Wiley- Blackwell Publications
State in the Era of
Globalisation
171
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
172
12.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXCERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) Sceptics say globalisation is a myth and that economic interdependence and
integration is limited to a few regions. They also believe that the states have
effective control over the market forces. Transformationists say that
globalisation is real and is transforming all institutions, including the state.
2) These conditionalities included introduction of economic reforms that would
minimise the state intervention, remove barriers to trade, and give a export
orientation to the economy. Barrowing countries were also asked to maintain
democracy, good governance and human rights.
Check Your Progress2
UNIT 13 CONTEMPORARY DEBATES ON THE
NATURE OF STATE‘
Structure
13.0 Objectives
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Traditional Debates
13.2.1 Classical Liberalism
13.2.2 Modern Liberalism
13.2.3 Classical Pluralism
13.2.4 Classical Marxism
13 3 Contemporary Debates
introducing you to position of the traditional approaches on the state debate.
After going through this unit, you should be able to:
Explain the different theoretical positions on the nature of state;
Compare the positions of diverse perspectives on the nature of state;
Examine the role and jurisdiction of state from different theoretical
perspectives;
*Mr. Abdul Maajid Dar, Research Scholar in Political Science, School of Social Sciences, Indira
Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi
Contemporary
Debates on the
Nature of State
173
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
174
• Identify the relationship between state and civil society; and
• Analyse the question of state neutrality.
13.1 INTRODUCTION
The state is of central importance in political science. Despite the fact that we
come into contact with different aspects of state in our everyday lives, the state is
a deeply contested and ambiguous concept. As David Held (2000) the British
political scientists pointed out “the state … appears to be everywhere, regulating
the conditions of our lives from birth registration to death certification. Yet the
nature of the state is hard to grasp”. Although the Max Weber’s definition of state
as “the human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of
physical force within a given territory” is widely recognised, there exists an
unending debate among scholars about the essence of state and its role and
jurisdiction. This is no doubt because there are different perspectives from which
the state has been analysed. Focusing on the diverse debates on the nature of
Although liberalism as a political philosophy has a longer history than most
political ideologies, as a political programme, it came into existence in the 19*
century. Both as a philosophy and as a political programme, the core values of
liberalism are individualism, rationality, freedom, choice, constitutionalism,
consent and toleration. All the versions of liberalism – classical, modern and neoliberal, share these values. However, there exists a disagreement, particularly
between the classical and modern liberals, about the meaning of freedom, role of
state and the ways for realising the freedom. Initially, liberalism as a political
philosophy and political programme emerged in the form of what is called the
classical liberalism. The classical liberalism found expression in contractual
tradition of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, economic theory of Adam Smith
and David Ricardo, social theory of Herbert Spencer, utilitarian tradition of
Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, individualist theory of J. S. Mill, and
teleological theory of Thomas Paine. Its central assumption is that the individual,
as a rational and egoistic being, is the best judge of his interests and so his
freedom lies in leaving his private realm free from the interference of state. Any
form of state intervention in his private realm is violation of his freedom. In their
pursuit of individual liberties, classical liberals argue for a minimal state or what
John Locke calls a night-watchman state. This negative conception of state
became the ideological foundation for the emerging laissez-faire capitalism.
Classical liberals argue for a minimal but not for a stateless society. They
maintain that state is what Thomas Paine calls a necessary evil or what Herbert
Spencer describes an “unfortunate but necessary committee of management”. For
them, state is necessary in the sense that it has the capacity of establishing and
maintaining the environment necessary for the enjoyment of freedom, and it is
evil in the sense that it tends to sacrifice the individual freedom at the altar of
collectivism and welfarism.
In other words, in the classical liberals’ conception, state’s role is limited to the
maintenance of internal law and order, and the protection of society against
external aggression. This is justified on the ground that minimal state action
maximises individual freedom and vice-versa. Beyond these two functions, the
state has no reason to intervene in the lives of individuals and in the market
presence of certain socio-economic and other enabling conditions, which make
enjoyment of liberty meaningful. On the basis of this conception of freedom, the
modem liberals advocate a more positive and activist role for the state, and
justify the necessity of what is called the welfare state, a state that is responsible
for social amelioration of its citizens. State was expected to discharges a widerange of services related to education, health, social security, housing and so on.
In other words, modern liberals see the state as having a more extensive role in
removing socio-economic evils, such as unemployment, poverty, homelessness,
sickness, ignorance and so forth, which they believe prevent individuals from
realising their freedoms. The state intervention is, thus, seen not as reducing
liberty but rather as expanding it and promoting justice. Like classical liberals,
the modem liberals view the state in an epiphenomenal way in that the state
intervention is allowed on the condition that itshould expand liberty.
Contemporary
Debates on the
Nature of State
175
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
176
13.2.3 Classical Pluralism
Pluralism is an extension of liberal tradition. It emerged as a distinctive
philosophy in late 19th century as a reaction to monism and notion of an
absolutist state. Methodologically, the spread of behaviouralism in the 1950s and
early 1960s gave a concrete shape to pluralist position. It believes that: (a) groups
rather than individuals are the building block of politics and state, (b) political
power is dispersed amongst a wide variety of social groups, and (c) state is like
one of the associations present in society which are independent of it in terms of
their origin, existence and loyalty of members. However, state is an association
of associations in that its jurisdiction is compulsory over all individuals and
groups within its fold. This does not, however, mean that state has an
overwhelming or absolute sovereignty. State has to justify the exercise of its
special powers. The role of state is, thus, to resolve the conflicting and competing
interests of different groups not by imposing its own will on them but by simply
acting as mediator. By and large, both the classical and neo-pluralists share these
of groups on political process, the classical pluralists advocate a limited state
whose role is to simply process demands laid upon it by different groups. It
means that state is not an independent source of political power and does not
have that form of autonomy as proposed by the modern state concept.
13.2.4 Classical Marxism
Marxism, as a dominant political philosophy and ideology, has emerged in the
19th century as a thought-provoking critique of liberal-capitalist tradition.
Marxism is associated in its earliest form (classical Marxism) with the work of
Karl Marx and his lifelong associate Frederick Engels. The primary assumption
of classical Marxism is that the base consisting of economy (economic mode of
production) determines the superstructure consisting of social, political,
intellectual, religious and legal systems. The class which dominates the base has
a control over superstructure. On the basis of this assumption, Marx and Engels
in their works German Ideology and Communist Mam esto advocated an
instrumental theory of state. Challenging the liberal notion of state as a neutral
institution, the instrumental theory proposed by Marx and Engels argues that the
state in capitalist society is a class institution which as an instrument in the hands
of the economically dominant class serves the interests of this class. As they
(1848/2008) put it, “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for
managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. Sharing this position,
Vladimir Lenin in his The State and Revolution has insisted that state in capitalist
society is an instrument for the oppression of the exploited class. In his words,
(1917/1965) “the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of
one class by another”. Ralph Miliband in his State in Capitalist Society (1969)
too advocated an instrumental theory as a critique of classical pluralists’
assumption that there are no predominant groups or interests within society and
no class dominates the political process. He argued that most of the decisionmaking positions in major state structures- government, military, administration,
police and so forth, are controlled by dominant economic class and, therefore, the
state in the Western capitalist societies is not a neutral mediator amongst
2) Define the term welfare state.
3) What is the core assumption of classical pluralism?
Contemporary
Debates on the
Nature of State
177
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
178
4) Define the instrumental theory of state from the perspective of classical
Marxism.
13.3 CONTEMPORARY DEBATES
The latter part of the 20th century witnessed unprecedented social, economic and
political developments characterised by rise of big governments, global spread of
capitalism and democracy, increasing power of business in a market economy,
and rise of identity politics, among others. In the context of these developments,
the liberals, Marxists and Pluralists, while pursuing the core values of their
respective traditional philosophies revised and updated the classical liberal
are the ardent faith in atomistic individualism, free market economics,
competitive capitalism and absolute right to ownership of property.
Neoliberalism treats liberty as a primary value and economic freedom as
prerequisite for other freedoms. In the light of these beliefs, the neoliberals
advocate a minimal state and argue that, in contrast to classical pluralist position,
state is not neutral but serves its own interests. Criticising the welfare state as a
principal threat to individual liberty and cause of economic and other crisis,
Hayek and Friedman argue that market is efficient and productive, guarantor of
individual liberty and widespread growth and prosperity, and solver of all
problems. Market delivers these virtues and benefits only when state
interventions are limited and its role is limited to maintenance of such conditions,
as the encouragement and promotion of privatisation, public expenditure
reductions, tax cuts, deregulation and reduced welfare provisions, in which
competitive capitalism can operate successfully. They, therefore, call for rolling
back the frontiers of state and giving greater autonomy to market forces.
Influenced by their ideas, the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the
American President Ronald Reagan gave a practical shape to neoliberal
programme. By the early 1980s, international economic institutions began design
policies on the lines of this programme.
Pursuing the Lockean tradition, Nozick in his Anarchy, state and Utopia has
criticised the John Rawls’s egalitarian-liberal philosophy by arguing that state
directed welfare provisions and redistributive scheme aiming at enlarging
equality violate individual’s liberty and therefore are unjust. As he has insisted
that “taxation of earnings from labour is on a par with forced labour” (1974, p.
169). He sees minimal state limited by the side-constraints of natural rights (each
person is the morally rightful owner of his own person and powers) as morally
justifiable solution for protecting individual’s right to ownership of property,
which for him is absolute and inviolable. He has conceptualised the jurisdiction
and necessity of minimal state in the following words:
Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow
functions of protecting against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so
category in the hands of economically dominant class but rather is relatively
autonomous and can bring changes in the base.
Let us try to understand the neo-Marxist approach to state through Poulantzas’s
conception of state and class in capitalist society. Influenced by French
structuralist Althusser, Poulantzas in his book Political Power and Social Classes
and in an article The Problem of the Capitalist State has advocated a structural
Marxist theory of state as a critique of Miliband’s instrumental theory. His
structural theory suggests that capitalist mode of production is not associated
merely with economic structure but rather is composed of four distinct levelseconomic, political, ideological and theoretical- which exist together in the form
of what he calls a complex whole. Each level is relatively autonomous. The
political (state) and ideological levels influence the economic level, although in
the last instance it is the economic level which plays the determinant role.
Against the Miliband’s claim that separate economic elites in capitalist society
are homogenous with high degree of cohesion and solidarity, Poultantzas argued
that there are internal divisions based on economic interests within a capitalist
Contemporary
Debates on the
Nature of State
179
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
180
class as a whole. Thus, to ensure the continuance of the capitalist system and
save the long-term interests of the capitalist class as a whole, the state, he argues,
plays the role of maintaining cohesiveness between the levels of social formation.
It is in this sense that Poultantzas and other neo-Marxists hold that the state has a
relative autonomy in capitalist society. This position was accepted by Miliband
in his subsequent writings, such as Marxism and Politics. However, neo-Marxists
insist that the state in capitalist society is not neutral as its existence lies in
maintaining that exploitative capitalist system in which wealth produced by one
class is expropriated by another class.
Neo-Marxists also maintain that capitalist system and state are maintained not
simply through coercion but also and principally through consent which is
generated through what Gramsci calls bourgeois hegemony or what Althusser
describes ideological state apparatus (ISA), both of which consist of such
spheres of civil society as the media, educational institutions, religion, art and
literature, family, advertising and so on. These spheres of civil society generate
and spread such capitalist values and beliefs which serve to perpetuate the
compared to other groups. Lindblom in his Politics and Markets celebrates the
classical pluralist notion of the state as fragmented but then insists that business
enjoys a privileged position in that fragmented state. In capitalist economy, the
government in order to realise its goal of economic growth and gain electoral
popularity becomes dependent on business resources. This, he argues, provides
considerable space to the business corporations to advance their interests and
shape state policies. In this sense, the business corporations compared to other
groups enjoy dominance over public policy making, particularly over the
economic agenda of the government. Galbraith in his The Affiuent Society has
pointed out that large corporations in relation to small firms have the ability to
control their markets through the power of advertising. Thus, the large
corporations by virtue of their dominance over economic markets exert preeminent influence over public policy making. Robert Dahl in his later work,
Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy, accepted the position held by Lindblom and
Galbraith that pluralism cannot be regarded as an open competition between truly
equal political forces.
Although neo-pluralists recognise the dominant position of business in public
policy making, unlike the elite theorists and Marxists, they do not see the state as
dominated by elite group or economically dominant class. They still treat the
state as neutral institution. They believe that the inequalities of political forces in
liberal democracy can be reduced through more and more redistribution of power
in society and through other liberal institutional mechanisms.
13.3.4 Feminism
Feminism as a body of thought puts emphasis on eliminating the oppression of
women and on improving the condition of women. However, there are different
schools of feminist thought, such as liberal feminism, Marxist feminism and
radical feminism, which widely differ in analysing the sources of women
oppression and in suggesting the ways for eliminating this oppression.
Liberal feminism has been deeply influenced by values of liberalism such as the
individualism, rationalism, choice, freedom and procedural equality. The liberal
procedural justice. Oppression of women, for them, is rooted in the impersonal
logic of capitalist expropriation. Mary McIntosh, the British sociologist in her
essay The State and the Oppression of Women (1978) has pointed out that:
Capitalist society is one in which men as men dominate women; yet it is not this but
class domination that is fundamental to the society. It is a society in which the
dominant class is composed mainly of men; yet it is not as men but as capitalists that
they are dominant. (p. 255)
Other contemporary Marxist feminists such as Margaret Benston, Mariarosa
Dalla Costa, Juliet Mitchell and Mary McIntosh argue that women’s domestic
role plays a role in sustaining capitalist economy through making men free to
work and through the production and reproduction of labour power within a
family, where they are subordinate to men. Thus, the capitalist state is interested
in maintaining women’s subordination and the structures of the patriarchal family
which ensure the continuance reproduction of labour power, and encourage the
maintenance of women as a reserve army of labour. In this sense, the Marxist
Contemporary
Debates on the
Nature of State
181
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
182
feminists hold that the state is not autonomous and neutral but rather is biased,
and they see the state in negative terms believing that it cannot improve the
condition of women.
Radical feminism has emerged in 1960s as a critique of liberal feminist
conceptions of public/private separation and neutral state, among others. The
radical feminists like Simone de Beauvoir, Mary Daly, Kate Millett, Eva Figes,
Germaine Greer and Catharine MacKinnon locate the oppression of women in
what they call patriarchy as opposed to legal and political equality or class
conflict. By patriarchy they mean a structural domination of men over all aspects
of society- personal, political, social, economic, cultural, educational and sexual
existence, resulting in subordination of women. This conceptualization of
patriarchy has led them, while denying public/private divide, to claim that
personal is political- personal sphere as the sphere of power is the source men’s
domination and power- and so male domination and women’s oppression occur
everywhere. Thus, radical feminists see the state as a patriarchal state where the
values and structures of the state are created and dominated by men They have
for instance, argues that however autonomous of class the liberal state may
appear, it is not autonomous of sex. Male power is systemic. Coercive,
legitimized, and epistemic, it is the regime” (p. 170). Radical feminists therefore
view the state in negative terms, believing that it being patriarchal cannot
contribute in improving the condition of women. It is “impossible to separate
state power from male power” (Johanna Kantola, 2006, p. 120). To realise
women’s liberation, the whole structure of patriarchy has to be dismantled and
only then can the state be feminised.
13.3.5 Communitarianism and Multiculturalism
Communitarianism and multiculturalism as political philosophies have emerged
in 1980s as a critique of contemporary liberal philosophy, particularly of John
Rawls’s theory of justice. Both communitarians, such as Michael Sandel,
Michael Walzer and Alasdair MacIntyre, and multiculturalists, such as Will
Kymlicka, Charles Taylor and Bhikhu Parekh, share a belief that human beings
are essentially social beings and that humans are constituted by communities in
which they live and develop. On the basis of this belief, they reject the
contemporary liberal conceptions of what Sandel calls unencumbered self(self as
asocial and ahistorical) or isolated self, justice as a universal value applicable
uniformly to all cultures, and single citizenship in favour of encumbered self(self
as social) or situated self, justice as a particularistic value depending upon
particular community’s beliefs, customs, perceptions and practices (way of life),
and celebration and recognition of cultural differences and distinct identities.
As far as the nature of state is concerned the communitarians criticise the
contemporary liberal theorists like Rawls, Nozick and Dworkin for claiming that
state has no reason to apply a particular notion of the good life on people and
therefore the state should remain neutral between different and competing
conceptions of the good life. Communitarians argue that this commitment of
liberals to state neutrality is based on their belief that individual rights and
personal freedom are prior to common good. As Sandel (1982) has insisted that
the central idea of liberals like Rawls is that:
virtues that shape and govern our lives, and causing instability in society. To
prevent these evils, they insist that state should promote a shared vision of the
good, encourage the civic virtues, cultivate a sense of belonging, and nurture the
community’s central values. The communitarians, thus, argue for a perfectionist
state.
Multiculturalism focuses on the celebration and recognition of two interrelated
values- cultural differences, and group-differentiated rights. Multiculturalists
maintain that the justice theories of contemporary liberals, like Rawls, Nozick,
Dworkin and Gauthier, are based on the conception of single citizenship, that is,
justice for them is about providing equal rights to all citizens regardless of their
ethnicity, religion, race, or culture. This conception of citizenship,
multiculturalists argue, encourages creation of culturally homogeneous society to
be realised by assimilating minority cultures into the dominant culture, and by
ignoring the cultural aspirations of such minority cultural groups as the national
minorities, indigenous peoples, immigrants and the subnational groups. Thus,
they see this politics of single citizenship as essentially problematic in today’s
Contemporary
Debates on the
Nature of State
183
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
184
multicultural and polyethnic societies. Against the politics of single citizenship,
they argue for what Taylor calls the politics of recognition and groupdifferentiated citizenship. Politics of recognition represents a celebration of
cultural differences and demands that “everyone should be recognised for his or
her unique identity” (Taylor, 1994, p. 38). It refers to a multicultural approach
that signifies that state should take into account and recognise the cultural
aspirations and identities of different disadvantaged cultural groups while
distributing the political and economic resources. Multiculturalists maintain that
denial of cultural recognition by the state makes the minority cultural groups
direct victims of exclusion, assimilation and marginalisation which in turn tend to
cause political instability and encourage the forces of extremism and the politics
of hate. As Taylor has pointed out “non-recognition or misrecognition can inflict
harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and
reduced mode of being”.
To protect the minority cultural groups from the processes of exclusion,
homogenisation and assimilation and ensure the maintenance of unity in
representation of disadvantaged cultural groups in public and political spheres
like education, state services, or legislative bodies through the mechanism of
positive discrimination.
For multiculturalists, the state, in nutshell, in contemporary multicultural
societies cannot and should not remain indifferent or insensitive to cultural
aspirations of different cultural minority groups. The state should play a positive
role in developing and protecting the rights of these minority groups.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What is meant by structural Marxist theory of state?
2) Define the concept of patriarchy from the perspective of radical feminism.
3) What is the role of state from the perspective of communitarianism?
.. Contemporary
Debates on the
Nature of State
13.4 LET US SUM UP
The question pertaining to the nature of state is constantly under debate and
discussion in contemporary political theory. The neoliberalism, neo-Marxism,
neo-pluralism, feminism, communitarianism and multiculturalism, as the central
perspectives to the state in contemporary times, provide a different and
University Press.
Held, David. (2000). Political Theory and the Modern State: Essays on State,
Power, and Democracy. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Kantola, J. (2006). ‘Feminism’. in C. Hay, M. Lister, & D. Marsh (Eds.), The
State. Theories and Issues (pp. 118-134). Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Kymlicka, Will. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy. An Introduction
(2nd ed.). New York, Oxford University Press.
Lenin, V. (1965). The State and Revolution. Peking, Foreign Languages.
(Original work published 1917)
MacKinnon, C. (1989). Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge,
Harvard University Press.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2008). The Communist Manifesto. Hertfordshire,
Wordsworth. (Original work published 1848)
185
State in
Contemporary
Perspective
186
McIntosh, M. (1978). ‘The State and the Oppression of Women’. in A. Kuhn &
A. M. Wolpe (Eds.), Feminism and Materialism: Women and Modes of
Production (pp. 254-289). London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford, Blackwell.
Sandel, M. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Taylor, C. (1994). ‘The Politics of Recognition’. in A. Gutmann (Ed.),
Multiculturalism. Examining the Politics of Recognition (pp. 25-73). Princeton,
Princeton University Press.
13.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
loosely defined determination in the last instance by the economic mode of
production (base).
2) A structural domination of men over all aspects of society- personal,
political, social, economic, cultural, educational and sexual existence,
resulting in subordination of women.
3) To promote a shared vision of the good, encourage the civic virtues,
cultivate a sense of belonging, and nurture the community’s central values.
SUGGESTED READINGS Contemporary
Debates on thiNature of StatiBLOCK 1
Chandhoke, N. (1996) ‘Limits of Comparative Political Analysis’, Economic and Political
Weekly. vol. 31, No. 4, (January 27).
Chilcote H Ronald. (1994). Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm
Reconsidered. Boulder, Westview Press (Second Edition).
Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop, and Shaun Breslin. (1993). Comparative Government and
Politics. London, Macmillan.
Landman, Todd. (2000). Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction.
London, Routledge.
Mohanty, Manoranjan. (2000). Contemporary Indian Political Theory. Samskriti, New
Delhi.
Siaroff, Alan. (2013). Comparing Political Regimes- A Thematic Introduction to
Comparative Politics. Toronto, University of Toronto
Webb, E. (2011) ‘Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism’, in Ishiyama, J. T. and Breuning, M.
(eds.) 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Book. Los Angeles, Sage.
BLOCK III
Baldi, Brunetta. (1999). Beyond the Federal-Unitary Dichotomy, Berkeley, University of
California.
Burgess, Michael. (2006). Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. New York,
Routledge.
Cheibub, I. A. (2007). Presidentialism, Parliamentarism and Democracy. New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Friedrich I Carl. (1968). Trends ofFederalism in Theory and Practice. New York, Praeger. 187
Horowitz, D. L. (1990). Comparing Democratic Systems. Journal of Democracy,
1 (4), 73-79.
Stepan, A and C. Skach. (1993). ‘Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation:
Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism’. World Politics, 46 (1), 1-22.
BLOCK IV
Bara. J & M. Pennington (Eds.), Comparative Politics: Explaining Democratic Systems. New
Delhi, Sage.
Downs, W. M. (2011). ‘Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective’. in J. T. Ishiyama, &
M. Breuning (Eds.), 21st Century Political Science. A Reference Handbook (vol. 1) (pp. 159-
167). London and New Delhi, Sage.
Katz, S Richard. (2018). ‘Political Parties’, in Daniele Caramani (ed). Comparative Politics.
Oxford University Press, London.
Kitschelt Herbert (2007) Party Systems in Charles Boix and Susan C Stokes (Eds) The
Chandhoke, Neera. (1995). State and Civil Society. Explorations in Political Theory. New
Delhi, Sage Press.
KavirajSudipta and Sunil Khilnani. (2001). (Eds.), Civil Society: History and Possibilities,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, David., Smith, Nicola., and Hothi, N. (2006) ‘Globalisation and the State’. in The
State. Theories and Issues. (Ed) Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Marsh, Basingstoke,
Palgrave.
Ritzer, George and Paul Dean. (2019). Globalisation. The Essentials. Second Edition. New
Jersey, Wiley Blackwell.
Zakaria, F. (1997), ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’. in Foreign Affairs, 22-43, Ridge
University Press.
188
B.A. GENERAL (BAG) Term-End Examination June, 2023 BEGLA-137 : LANGUAGE THROUGH LITERATURE Time: 3 hours …
Psychology Professor's Tips for Studying Smarter: Breaks, Efficiency, and Creating a Study Area Take…
Study Tips to Maximize Learning: Effective Note-Taking and Asking Questions for Academic Success Taking…
June, 2023 BEGC-134 : READING THE NOVEL Section—A Note: Write short notes on any four…
In-depth Notes for BEGC 133 British Literature Block 1 Question: Write a note on Renaissance…
Term-End Examination December, 2022 BEGC-133 : BRITISH LITERATURE Time : 3 hours …