Today in the study of Political Science, great significance is attached to the study of Comparative Politics. It helps in understanding the different ways the people have adopted in different regions of the globe to regulate their political life. Though the aim of political organisations in different countries is almost the same but they have adopted different forms of government to achieve that aim. Even one form of government adopted in two different countries differ in some degree and cannot be cent per cent identical. The term comparative politics does not mean comparison of politics in two or more nations. It actually means the comparative study and analysis of the political organisations or governments of two or more countries. It also includes the analytical study of the elements found in political organisations. Elements found in the political institutions of the same type are not identical in all the states, they are different in details and in their actual working. Political institutions are worked by the people, they do not work by themselves, so their working is not cent per cent identical.
Meaning
Comparative method of the study of politics is one of the oldest and is also a very significant method. Aristotle adopted this method and studied the working of about 158 constitutions of his time before arriving at most of his conclusions. Lord Bryce also adopted this method. Today a great significance is attached to Comparative Politics. Through Comparative Politics a student can understand the different ways the men have adopted for solving their political problems and regulating their political life. Comparative Politics does not mean simply the comparison of the politics of two or more nations, it actually means the comparative analysis of the political associations and governments.
Following are a few definitions of comparative politics which throw light on its meaning also :
“Comparative Politics is the study of patterns of national governments in the contemporary world.”
—Jean Blondel
“Comparative Politics is comparative analysis of the various forms of governments and diverse political institutions.”
—Edward A. Freeman
“Comparative Politics is concerned with significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and in political behaviour.”
—Michael Curtis
“Under comparative governments and politics, we study the workings of the states, political institutions and governments. It also includes the study of political parties and the pressure groups.”
—C.K. Roberts
From the definitions of Comparative Politics, it becomes clear that it is concern with the comparative study and analysis of working of governmental systems, political institutions, political procedures and even the political behaviours in various countries.
As a matter of fact it is not easy to make a rigid demarcation of the scope of study of comparative politics. However on the basis of its various definitions the study of comparative politics includes the following aspects:
Political Culture
Under Comparative Politics we study, compare and analyse the political cultures of various countries. Political culture is the aggregate of political attitudes, beliefs and values of the society. These are based upon the historical heritage, socio-economic system, geographic conditions and ethical or moral ideas of the people. Religious beliefs of the people also play part in the formation of political culture.
It is also a fact that the political culture of one society cannot be hundred per cent similar to that of any other society. Political culture of the society has its impact upon the political system and actual working of the political structures and institutions.
Political Institutions
Under Comparative Politics we study and compare the organisaion and functioning of various political institutions like legislature, executive and judiciary. It is a very important aspect of comparative politics and the traditional thinkers of comparative politics were concerned mainly with this aspect. But these days it is one of the important aspects of its study.
Even the behavioural approach of comparative politics require a pre-study of theoretical and structural analysis of political institutions. Thus a student of comparative politics has to study, compare and analyse the structures and functioning of various political institutions that play part in the working of political system. Thus by comparing the set up and working of cabinet system of England and India, it is tried to find out which of the two is stronger and why?
political parties, interest and pressure groups
Political parties, interest groups, pressure groups and influential organisations play an important role in the actual working of political system and the political institutions. They serve as a link between the people and the government and enable the political institutions to work according to public opinion.
Without the study of political parties and interest and pressure groups, study of political institutions remain incomplete. They have significant impact on policy formation, decision-making, electoral process, voting behaviour and exercise of political power. They have their influence even on the political socialisation and formation of political culture. They put a check on the ruling elite as well. Thus when political institutions of two or more societies are compared, their party systems and working of interest and pressure groups cannot be ignored, otherwise their comparative study would not yield fruitful results. Though political parties and pressure groups are not as active in dictatorial, authoritarian and monarchical regimes, yet their indirect impact always remains.
Role of Bureaucracy
Study of the role of bureaucracy on the administration and exercise of political power is another important aspect of study of comparative politics. Bureaucracy is the backbone of the administration and exercises the political power in actual practice and plays important role in policy formation and decision making. In a welfare state and particularly in developing countries their role cannot be undermined and where the people are illiterate and politically backward, bureaucrats consider themselves and act as the masters of the people, not their servants. Thus in comparative politics, set-up, role and influence of bureaucracy in the two countries has to be studied and analysed very minutely.
Political elite
In every society political power is actually exercised by a small group of people called political elite who has great impact on policy formation and decision taking. Even the decisions of the democratically elected legislatures are influenced by the political elite. Comparative politics demands that comparison should be made on the basis of the elite, or people who actually influence the exercise of political power, what sections of the society they belong to and how they influence policy formation and decision making. Thus in comparative politics, ruling elites, of the two or more countries are also studies, compared and analysed.
Study of Electoral Process
In comparative politics comparative study of factors like political process, electoral process, political violence, political corruption has also to be undertaken because these factors have a direct impact on the working of the political system. Where electoral process is polluted by violence, money power, horse-trading, political defections and other corrupt practices that democratic set-up cannot give good results and becomes meaningless. A sound and healthy electoral process cannot be equated with a vitiated electoral process.
Inter-state Relations
No state can function successfully in a state of complete isolation. This is the age of internationalism and globalisation which means that every state has to maintain relations with other states. Every state seeks help from more developed nations and extends financial, military and educational help to the others who are less developed or are comparatively backward. Thus inter-state relations can never be based on the basis of equality. A theocratic state cannot maintain real friendly relations with a secular state.
Study of Various Political Ideologies
Comparative study of political ideologies adopted by the states whose politics and governmental systems are compared has also to be undertaken. For example, if we want to have comparative analysis of democratic setup of western democratic states like France and that of China, we must keep in mind the political ideologies adopted by them because political institutions are based, organised and worked according to the political ideologies. In France concept of liberty is different from its concept in China. Thus while making comparative study of two political systems we have to compare the ideologies upon which those systems are based.
Thus aspects of study of comparative politics are various and it cannot be confined to the comparison of their political institutions alone. As a matter of fact comparative politics means comparative political systems. Its scope is vast and unlimited.
Main Features
There are some common features applicable to all the traditional methods of study of comparative politics. These are as under :
Descriptive
The traditional approaches to the study of comparative politics are mainly descriptive. They have simply described the evolution, organisation and functions of the political institutions like parliament, executive and judiciary and have not tried to make an analytical assessment of these institutions. They have explained the power and functions of these organs of various countries. They have also explained similarities and dissimilarities between the institutions of two or more societies but have not bothered to find out and explain the reasons of those similarities and difference. The treatment given to various governments was essentially descriptive, not analytical. They have not tried to explain the causes of revolution or factors which promote stability of political system.
A non-comparative study
Traditional approaches to comparative politics are mainly non-comparative. Most of the scholars and thinkers of traditional approach have described the governmental systems of various countries like England, France, U.S.A., Switzerland, Italy, former Soviet Union etc. but have not tried to compare and analyse the political institutions of two or more countries. For example, they have explained the cabinet systems of England and U.S.A. but have not tried to compare the two. No doubt their works are scholarly but their inclusion in the field of Comparative governments and politics is not worth merit.
A Parochial Approach
Traditional thinkers of comparative politics undertook study in a very parochial way, not in a wide way and with a liberal approach. They focussed their attention only on the study of political institutions and governmental systems of Western European countries like England, France, U.S.A., Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Soviet Russia. According to them democracy meant only western type of democracry. They did not bother to study the governmental systems of Asian and African countries. They also did not bother to study the various types of non-democratic systems under one category. They did not consider it worthwhile to study the constitutions or governmental systems of countries of the Third World.
Dynamic Factors of Politics Ignored
It is also a common feature of the traditional approaches to study of comparative politics that they ignored or took very little note of the dynamic factors of politics and thus traditional comparative study has been static, not dynamic. It means traditional thinkers laid emphasis on the study of political institutions but ignored the study of the factors which actually affect the working of these institutions. They explained the powers of the parliament, but ignored the impact of political parties, pressure groups, elections, mass media, caste-considerations, voting behaviour which influence the legislation, policy making decision taking and ministry formations etc. Traditional thinkers studied questions like what is sovereignty, where sovereignty resides, what is law and what are the sources of law, what are the various forms of government etc., they did not like to find out the factors which actually influences the exercise of power, working of legislature, policy formation and decision taking.
Monographic Study
Traditional approach to Comparative Politics has been mainly a monographic study which has been dealing with the study of political system of one country or a single institution of one political system like Democracy in France, American Presidency, British Cabinet, French Administrative Law. The scopes of their works were very limited and did not cover up the political systems of two or more countries. Thus traditional approaches of comparative politics have been not only parochial, but monographic also.
Legal and Formal Institutional Study
It is also another feature of traditional approaches of Comparative Politics that they have confined to legal or formal institutional study. It means most of the traditional thinkers have studies and explained legal institutional framework of a country. They have studied and sometimes even compared only those institutions which have been provided by the Constitution or the law of the land. They have taken no notice of those institutions which are extra-constitutional or have emerged and developed on the basis of conventions and practices. They have expressed their views on the legal relations, for example, of the centre and the state in a federation, or relations between the executive and judiciary and have devoted little attention on what their relations in actual practice exist.
A Normative Study
Traditional approaches to comparative politics have been mainly normative in character. Traditional thinkers seem to have accepted some political institutions as ideal institutions and have undertaken comparative study on that foundation. They tried to compare and judge the political institutions of other countries only on the basis of institution which has been judged ideal already. Most of them have already accepted the western type of democracy as the best form of government and judged other democracies on that basis.
Institutional Study
Traditional methods of study of Comparative Politics remained confined to the study and comparative analysis only of the political institutions of the society and tried to take no notice of the factors which influence their working. They did not bother to study the impact of political parties, pressure groups, social and economic and caste organisations which have a direct bearing on the working of these institutions. Hence this study was not a complete or comprehensive study. Traditional study took no notice of the non-political institutions and activities prevalent in the society.
Lacks Analytical Approach
Traditional approach to Comparative Politics has been mainly non-comparative. It is decriptive and lacks analytical outlook Traditional thinkers have simply described the political institutions, they have not tried to study how they work or how their working is influenced by some factors. They have described the similarities and dissimilarities of the political institutions of two or more countries but have not tried to compare them not to find out the causes of their dissimilarities. Thus traditional approach is simply a descriptive study of political institutions.
Behavioural Aspect of Political Institutions Neglected
Traditional approach to Comparative Politics has completely ignored the behavioural aspect of the political institutions. They have explained in detail from legal angle, the organisation, power and functions of political institutions and their legal mutual relations. But they have not pointed out how they actually work and the factors which influence their working and the activities of non-political institutions which have impact on the decision making, law making, policy making, and the actual exercise of power. Thus traditional study of comparative politics is not a complete study.
Lack of Inter-disciplinary Approach
Traditional thinkers have not paid due attention to the inter-disciplinary approach in their study of comparative politics. They have paid full attention towards the political institutions and the politics conditions of the countries, but have not paid due attention towards the social, economic, cultural and other conditions which influence the political system of a society. Political system of every society influences and influenced by the social, economic, and cultural conditions. Thus the mere description of the emergence and growth of a political system does not give a true picture of the nature and working of that institution if the socio-economic circumstances in which the institution had emerged and developed are also not studied.
Shopping Cart
