Comparitive Politics - 1 | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction - Comparitive Politics

Comparative politics, as the name suggests, is a method of studying political phenomena by comparing them. This field of study is unique due to its subject matter, vocabulary, and perspective, which provide its distinct identity as both a method and a specialized area of research. The nature and scope of comparative politics have evolved over time, influenced by changes in its subject matter, vocabulary, and political perspective. To comprehend the reasons behind these changes and their impact on the field, one must analyze the focus of study during different historical periods, the tools and concepts employed, and the viewpoint and purpose of the inquiry. In the following sections, we will examine the evolution of comparative politics, the continuity and discontinuity in its development, and the influence of specific historical contexts and socio-economic and political forces on its growth. Furthermore, we will discuss how globalization in the late twentieth century has led to significant shifts in the way comparative politics has been approached.

Comparative Study of Politics: Nature and Scope

Comparative politics is a sub-discipline within the larger field of Political Science that uses the comparative method to answer questions of general interest to political scientists. Its distinctiveness comes from its systematic use of comparisons to study two or more countries to identify similarities and differences between them, as well as exploring relationships and broader explanations for political phenomena.

• Comparisons: Identification of Relationships: Comparative politics goes beyond simply identifying similarities and differences between political systems. The aim is to study political phenomena within a larger framework of relationships, which can help deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of explanation for political phenomena.
• Comparative Politics vs. Comparative Government: Comparative politics is different from comparative government, as it studies all forms of political activity, both governmental and non-governmental. Comparative politics has an all-encompassing nature, and specialists in this field view it as the study of everything political. Any lesser conception would obscure the criteria for selecting and excluding what may be studied in this field.
• Evolution of Comparative Politics: Historically, comparative politics focused on the study of governments and regime types in western countries. However, the process of decolonization after World War II led to an increase in the number and diversity of units for comparison, as well as an expansion in the sphere of politics. This allowed for the examination of politics as a total system, including individuals, social groupings, political parties, interest groups, and social movements.
• Focus on Nation-Building, State-Building, and Modernization: Systemic studies in comparative politics were often built around the concerns of nation-building, state-building, and modernization. This involved providing a politico-cultural identity to a population, institutional structures and processes for politics, and initiating a process of change along the western path of development.
• Shifts in Comparative Political Analysis: The 1970s saw the assertion of Third World-ism and the rolling back of large-scale models that characterized the 1950s and 1960s. The 1980s witnessed a constriction of levels of comparison, with regional or smaller-scale studies becoming prevalent. However, globalization has increased the imperative for large-scale comparisons, while also diversifying the field with the proliferation of non-state, non-governmental actors and increased interconnections between nations through economic linkages and information technology revolution.

In brief, comparative politics is a distinct sub-discipline within the field of Political Science that uses the comparative method to study political phenomena. It has evolved over time to encompass a broader range of political systems and issues, with a focus on understanding relationships and providing broader explanations for political phenomena. As globalization continues to shape the world, comparative politics will remain a vital area of study for political scientists.

Comparative Politics: A Historical Overview

• The Origins of Comparative Study of Politics: The comparative study of politics can be traced back to the work of Greek philosopher Aristotle, who studied the constitutions of 150 states and classified them into a typology of regimes. He not only described and classified regimes and political systems in terms of their types (e.g., democracy, aristocracy, monarchy), but also distinguished them based on norms of good governance. This focus on the 'good order' or the 'ideal state' persisted in comparative studies for centuries.
• The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: During this period, liberalism was the dominant ideology, and European countries were at the center of world politics. Comparative studies focused on the institutions, distribution of power, and relationships between different layers of government in European countries like Britain, France, and Germany. These studies were Eurocentric, largely ignoring the rest of the world.
• The Second World War and After: After the Second World War, several significant developments occurred, such as the rise of socialism as an alternative to Western liberalism and capitalism, the waning of European hegemony, and the emergence of the United States as the new global hegemon. Many newly independent countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America chose to adopt their own paths of development, often incorporating elements of socialism or mixed economies.
• The Behavioral Movement: In the 1950s, the behavioral movement emerged in the discipline of politics, aiming to provide scientific rigor by focusing on quantitative, value-neutral, and empirical analysis. This approach led to a shift in comparative politics, moving away from the study of formal institutions and focusing more on political processes and systems.
• Structural-Functionalism: The structural-functionalism approach emerged, comparing the execution and performance of certain functions across different formal and informal structures. This approach allowed for more inclusive and abstract notions, such as the political system, to replace the more narrowly defined concept of the state.
• The 1960s and Beyond: New Methodologies and Approaches: The appearance of new nations on the world stage led to the development of innovative theoretical and conceptual approaches in comparative politics, such as studies of political culture, political socialization, developmentalism, dependency and interdependency, corporatism, bureaucratic-authoritarianism, and transitions to democracy. Universalistic models and theories, such as Easton's political system and the theory of modernization, were developed and claimed to have relevance across cultural and ideological boundaries.

However, it is important to note that much of the research during this period was influenced by US foreign policy interests, with a focus on steering developing countries towards non-communist paths of development.

The 1970s and Challenges to Developmentalism

In the 1970s, developmentalism faced criticism for its reliance on abstract models that ignored differences among political, social, and cultural systems. Critics emphasized the ethnocentrism of these models and the need to focus on solutions to the underdevelopment of Third World countries. Two main challenges to developmentalism emerged: dependency theory and corporatism.

• Dependency theory criticized the dominant developmentalism model for ignoring domestic class factors and international market and power factors. It argued that the development of industrialized nations came at the expense of developing countries. Marxist critics of dependency theory emphasized the need to consider exploitative relationships between the metropolitan bourgeoisie and the indigenous bourgeoisie within a global capitalist system.
• Corporatism criticized developmentalism for its Euro-American ethnocentrism and suggested alternative, often authoritarian, ways to organize state and state-society relations.

The 1980s: The Return of the State

In the late 1970s and 1980s, new theories and subjects emerged in comparative politics, such as bureaucratic-authoritarianism, indigenous concepts of change, transitions to democracy, the politics of structural adjustment, neoliberalism, and privatization. Some scholars saw these developments as undermining the unity of the field, while others welcomed the diversity and alternative approaches they provided.

Despite the emphasis on political systems by scholars like Almond and Easton, the notion of the state remained important in comparative politics. Bureaucratic-authoritarianism in Latin America, particularly Argentina, explored this concept, as did works like Ralph Miliband's "The State in Capitalist Society" (1969). With Nicos Poulantzas's "State, Power, Socialism" (1978) and the collaborative work "Bringing the State Back In" (1985) by political sociologists Peter Evans, Theda Skocpol, and others, focus on the state was restored.

The Late Twentieth Century: Globalisation and Emerging Trends/Possibilities

• Scaling down of systems: During the period from the 1960s to the 1980s, comparative political analysis saw a trend of including more countries and variables in the study, such as policy, ideology, governing experience, etc. However, from the 1980s onwards, there has been a shift towards emphasizing the relevance of context, and focusing on historical inquiry and holistic understanding of specific countries and cases. This has led to a shift away from grand theories and model-building, towards a more in-depth, qualitative, and contextualized approach. Consequently, studies began to focus on more culturally specific contexts, nationally specific countries, and even institutionally specific regimes. Comparisons at the level of smaller systems or regions, such as the Islamic world, Latin American countries, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, continued to be made.
• Civil Society and Democratisation Approaches: The disintegration of the Soviet Union led to the emergence of the idea of the 'end of history', suggesting that liberal democracy has triumphed as the final form of human government. This idea was further reinforced by the phenomenon of globalization, which refers to the interconnectedness of the world due to scientific, technological, economic, and political factors. However, the study of civil society and democratization has seen two significant trends. One trend focuses on the development of market democracy and the protection of individual rights to enter the modern capitalist world. The other trend emphasizes the resurgence of people's movements, such as those of indigenous cultures, tribals, dalits, lower castes, women, and environmentalists, which challenge the interests of capital and represent the language of change and liberation in the era of global capital.
• Information collection and diffusion: The advancements in information and communication technology, particularly the Internet and World Wide Web, have been a significant aspect and determinant of globalization. These developments have made the production, collection, and analysis of data easier, as well as ensured faster and wider diffusion of information worldwide. As a result, new themes and issues have emerged that extend beyond the confines of the nation-state and form an influential aspect of the political environment in the contemporary globalized world. One example of this is the global network of social movements and activists, which have contributed to the diffusion of ideas of democratization. The concern for promoting and protecting human rights, which relies heavily on information collection and dissemination, has also become an important aspect of the contemporary world.

In conclusion, the late twentieth century has seen significant shifts and emerging trends in the field of comparative political analysis. The scaling down of systems, various approaches to civil society and democratization, and advancements in information collection and diffusion have all contributed to the evolving landscape of political study. These developments have enabled researchers to better understand and analyze the complex and interconnected nature of the contemporary globalized world.

Comparative Study Of Politics: Utility

• Enhancing Understanding of Political Reality: The utility of comparative politics lies in its ability to provide a deeper understanding of political reality across different social and institutional setups. By comparing diverse political behaviors and patterns, comparative politics enables us to gain a comprehensive understanding of politics as a whole.
• Theory-Building and Theory-Testing: Comparative politics places a strong emphasis on the development of theoretical frameworks that can be applied to multiple cases. By making conscious comparisons, generalizations can be made with a higher degree of confidence. This involves not just the collection of information about countries, but also the development of rules and standards for conducting comparative research.
• Scientific Rigor in Social Sciences: The comparative method provides a scientific basis and rigor to the study of political phenomena. Social scientists who emphasize precision, validity, and reliability consider comparisons to be essential in their research, as they offer unique opportunities for control in the study of social phenomena.
• Identifying Relationships among Political Phenomena: Comparative politics goes beyond merely identifying similarities and differences between political systems. Instead, it aims to study political phenomena within a broader framework of relationships. This deepens our understanding of politics and broadens the scope for answering and explaining political questions.

Problems in Study of Comparative Politics 

The study of comparative governments, however, involves many difficulties. 

Some of the difficulties faced in the study can be described under the following heads: 

1. Difficulty in collecting information: The major difficulty in collecting information and getting data about individual governments is that sometimes the facts and figures are simply forbidden by the country or countries under study. Specially, information in the totalitarian countries is very meagre. But it does not mean that these countries are totally closed to investigation. Many facts come out and some others are published by their governments to show the achievements that they make during a particular period. Moreover, a careful study of the members of the government over a time is revealing in many ways, for example, it can be known whether the government is stable or unstable, what kinds of men lead the country and also what are the various factions, if any, that exist in the ruling group. Information-gathering in the democratic countries is easy. Information can be gathered readily both from the news-papers, reports etc. and from those who are running the government. 
   But even in a democratic country full information may not be available. Many facts are got given by these countries on the pretext of “public interest” specially those dealing with the security of the country or the defence, or the foreign affairs. Similarly the decisions of the Cabinet are not ‘leaked’ out; the decisions reached at the closed door meeting of the party are also kept a secret. So even a democratic country is not absolutely “open” to the investigator. Another difficulty faced in the field is that data are difficult to gather because they are sometimes difficult to measure. In fact, many political decisions defy accurate measurement and hence can hardly be put to comparative use. Still another difficulty that faces a student of comparative politics in collecting information is that many events seem to be ‘unique’ and a comparative analysis appears consequently inappropriate. 
   One may study the chief executives of different countries, say, the British Prime Minister, the Indian Prime Minister, the American President. But the studies of these executives without other “unique” influences would prove futile. For these studies in true perspective it is, therefore, essential that the forces of decision-making must be taken into account and these forces consist of voters, legislators and many other factors in each country under study. Finally, the unwillingness of the governments to give complete details is another hurdle in collecting information. 
2. Difficulty faced due to the background variables: In addition to the above difficulties, the background variables create some problems for the student of comparative governments. In every country, the pattern of thinking and acting of the masses as well as of those who are in power depends on different factors known as variables. These variables range from economic conditions to the climate of a country or its geographical conditions or certain historical happenings. 
   These variables have a complex influence on the politics of an individual country. Earlier attempts were made to explain the influence of these variables on a very small scale. For example, explanation on the basis of economic factors divides the countries on the variables of those who possess capital (capitalistic system of society) and socialists. 
   A similar attempt was made to simplify the influence of variables on the basis of seafaring countries vs. landbased states, i.e., the influence of climate or geography. It is, however, futile to look for a factor accounting for all the variations between governments. Students of comparative governments have now turned their attention to a better and maturer approach i.e. they now measure the relative weights of all variables and describe as precisely as possible the extent to which a particular variable accounts for the characteristics of a political system. This approach is called the multi-variate analysis. 
3. Problems as a result of the role of norms, institutions and governmental behaviour: Nearly all the countries have the government of their own choice. They decide in advance what type or form of government they should have. This decision to have a particular type of government introduces the element of value or norm in the governmental system. It is also decided as to what the government should do and about how it should do. In other words, we have to see whether the norm corresponds to the behaviour. The question of the relationship between norms and behaviour is complex. 
   These norms are usually to be found in Constitutions or the various practices which become “solidified” and become the conventions (as in the British Constitution). Different kinds of norms can be found in different societies and political systems could be compared in terms of the relationship between norms and behaviour. Thus for the study of comparative governments it is essential to look into the relationship of norms with institutions and with behaviour.However the relationships between the three elements is not simple.

Conclusion

In conclusion, comparative politics is a crucial sub-discipline within the field of Political Science that has evolved significantly over time. The comparative method allows for a comprehensive understanding of political phenomena across different social and institutional contexts, enabling the development of theoretical frameworks and the identification of relationships among political phenomena. As globalization continues to shape the world, comparative politics remains a vital area of study for political scientists, providing scientific rigor and enhancing our understanding of the complex and interconnected nature of the contemporary globalized world