Modern Approaches to Comparative Politics, Nature of Comparative

Politics

Comparative politics is the study and appraisal of domestic politics

across countries. Comparative politics has a long and very eminent
history dating back just before the origin of systematic political
studies in ancient Greece and Rome. Even ancient people, compared
their situations with those of other people's with whom they came in
contact. The Bible is possibly one of the first written statements of
comparative politics. The ancient Greeks performed the earliest
systematic comparisons of a more modern and secular.

Comparative politics is key area in political science, pigeonholed by

an empirical approach based on the comparative method. To put it in
another way, comparative politics is the study of the domestic
politics, political institutions, and conflicts of countries. It often
encompasses comparisons among countries and through time within
single countries, emphasizing major patterns of similarity and
difference. Many political theorists like Arend Lijphart argued that
comparative politics does not have a functional focus in itself, instead
a methodological one (Lijphart, Arend,1971). In simple form,
comparative politics is not defined by the object of its study, but by
the method it applies to study political phenomena. Peter Mair and
Richard Rose gave modern definition of comparative politics and
stated that comparative politics is elaborated by a combination of a
substantive focus on the study of countries' political systems and a
method of recognising and explaining similarities and differences
between these countries using common models (Peter, 1996). Rose
mentioned that in comparative politics, "The focus is explicitly or
implicitly upon more than one country, thus following familiar
political science usage in excluding within-nation comparison.
Methodologically, comparison is distinguished by its use of concepts
that are applicable in more than one country"(Rose, Richard, 1991).

In the field of Comparative politics, the term politics has three

connotation such as political activities, political process and political
power. Political activity consists of the efforts by which the conditions
of conflicts are created and resolved in a way pertaining to the
interest of people as far as possible who play in their part in struggle
for power. Political process is an extension of political activity.
Political power is the major topic in comparative politics. The term
power has been defined by different writers. Friedrich described
power as a certain kind of human relationship. Whereas Tawney
explained power as a capacity of an individual or group of individuals
to modify the conduct of other individuals in a manner which he
desires (J. C. Johari, 1982).

Comparative government studies were used by political researchers

to get correct and valid conclusions regarding the nature and
organisation of state and government. Their major objective was to
discover the historical and legal similarities and dissimilarities among
the various governments and their political institutions. A
comparative- normative-prescriptive study of constitutions was
conducted. It was an attempt to recognise the best political
institutions.

When applied to particular fields of study, comparative politics

denotes by other names, such as comparative government (the
comparative study of forms of government) or comparative foreign
policy (comparing the foreign policies of different States in order to
establish general empirical connections between the characteristics
of the State and the characteristics of its foreign policy).
Many theorists articulated that "Comparative political science" as a
general term for an area of study, as opposed to a methodology of
study, can be seen as redundant. The political only shows as political
when either an overt or tacit comparison is being made. A study of a
single political entity, whether a society, subculture or period, would
demonstrate the political as simple brute reality without comparison
with another society, subculture, or period.

Different comparative method are used such as the experimental

method, the statistical method and the case study approach. These
are fundamental scientific methods which can be used to test the
validity of theoretical propositions, often with the use of empirical
data i.e. to establish relationships among two or more empirical
variables or concepts while all other variables are held constant
(Lijphart, A.,1971). Specifically, the comparative method is generally
used when neither the experimental nor the statistical method can
be implemented. Experiments can only hardly be conducted in
political science. Statistical method implies the mathematical
manipulation of quantitative data about a large number of cases,
while sometimes political research must be conducted by analysing
the behaviour of qualitative variables in a small number of cases. The
case study approach cannot be regarded as a scientific method,
however it can be useful to gain knowledge about single cases, which
can then be put to comparison according to the comparative method
(Lijphart, A., 1971).

Nature of comparative politics:

Nature and scope of comparative politics is fathomable only when
one understands the main characteristics and significance of
comparative government. Although the two terms 'Comparative
Politics' and 'Comparative Governments' are used lightly and
interchangeably, there is distinction between them. Conventionally,
the comparative study of politics stands entitled as 'comparative
government'. Comparative government includes the study of features
and legal powers of political institutions existing in various states. It is
the study of state and other political institutions in terms of their
legal powers, functions, and positions on a comparative basis.

Key characteristics of comparative government are mentioned below:

1. - Stress upon the study of political institutions of various

countries.
2. - Focus on the study of major constitutions of the world.
3. - Emphasis upon the study of powers and functions of various
political institutions working in different countries.
4. - Formal study of the organisation and powers, description of
the features of the constitutions and political institutions, and
legal powers of political institutions form the basic contents of
comparative government study.
5. - To devise a theory of ideal political institutions has been the
objective.

These traits make comparative government popular area of study

during the beginning of 20th century. Subsequently, Majority of
political scientists greatly displeased with its narrow scope, intuitive
methodology, and formal legalistic-institutional and normative
approach. These researchers then adopt comprehensiveness,
realism, precision and scientific study of the processes of politics as
their new goal. Their efforts came to be labelled as comparative
politics.

Basically, the study of comparative politics involves mindful

comparisons in studying; political experiences, institutions, behaviour
and processes of major systems of government. It comprises of the
study of even extra constitutional agencies along with the study of
formal governmental organs. It is concerned with important
regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political
behaviour. Consequently, comparative Politics can be defined as the
subject that compare the political systems in various parts of the
globe, with a view to comprehend and define the nature of politics
and to devise a scientific theory of politics.

Some popular definitions of comparative politics are given below:

According to John Blondel, comparative politics is "the study of

patterns of national governments in the contemporary world". M.G.
Smith described that "Comparative Politics is the study of the forms
of political organisations, their properties, correlations, variations and
modes of change". E.A Freeman stated that "Comparative Politics is
comparative analysis of the various forms of govt. and diverse
political institutions".

It can be established that comparative politics encompasses a

comparative study of not only the institutional and mechanistic
arrangements but also an empirical and scientific investigation of
non-institutionalised and non-political determinants of political
behaviour. Empirical study of political processes, structures and
functions shapes a major part of comparative political studies.

It is demonstrated in literature that comparative analyses and

compares the political systems operating in various societies. To do
this, it takes into account all the three implications of politics that
include political activity, political process and political power. Political
activity include all the activities involved in conflict resolution or in
the struggle for power. Since the basic means of conflict-resolution is
the authoritative allocation of values, it involves an investigation of
the process by which the authoritative values are made and
implemented in all societies. In this perspective, politics denotes
political process. It involves the study of all formal as well as non-
formal structures through which the political process gets
operationalised. The political process gets information and signals
from the environment and then changes such information and signals
into authoritative values. Lastly politics, being a struggle for power or
a process of conflict resolution through the use of legitimate power,
involves a study of power or power relations in society. Laswell
pronounced politics as the process of determining and sharing of
power whereas Robert Dahl maintained that politics involves power
rule and authority to a significant extent. Hence, the study of politics
involves the study of power. As such, comparative politics involves
the study and comparison of political activity, political process and
struggle for power in various political systems. It seeks to analyse and
compare political systems in a holistic way as well as through a
comparative analysis of their structures, functions, infra-structures
and processes.

Comparative Politics is pigeonholed by numerous features. These are

mentioned below:

1. Analytical and empirical research

2. Objective study of politics- A value free empirical study-It rejects
normative descriptive methods of comparative government.
3. Study of the infra-structure of politics-Comparative Politics, now
analyses the actual behaviour of individuals; groups structures,
sub-systems and systems in relation to environment. It studies
the actual behaviour of all institutions.
4. Inter-disciplinary focus: Comparative Politics focusses
interdisciplinary approach. It studies politics with the help of
other social science like psychology, sociology, anthropology
and economics.
 5. It studies political processes in both developed and developing
countries. The biased and parochial nature of traditional studies
stands replaced and the study of political systems of Asia,
Africa, and Latin America enjoys equal importance with the
study of African and European political systems.
6. Theory building as the objective: The objective of Comparative
politics study is scientific theory building.
7. Adoption of 'Political Systems

With above features, Comparative politics is emerged as a new

science of politics. It has prohibited the non-comprehensive scope,
formal character, legal and institutionalised framework, normative
approach and parochial nature of the traditional comparative
government studies.

Major approaches of comparative politics:

Political investigators use different approaches tools to arrive at
greater political understanding. Approaches support in defining the
kinds of facts which are relevant. The diversity of approaches are
used by political scientists to attack the complexity of political
systems and behaviour.

Conventionally, the study of comparative politics is termed as

'comparative government'. It includes the study of political
institutions existing in various states .The features, advantages,
demerits, similarities and dissimilarities of political institutions were
compared. It was an attempt to ascertain the best of political
institutions. The focus (Traditional view), continued to remain
popular up to the end of the 19th century. In the 20th century, the
study of political government underwent revolutionary changes. The
traditional focus of the study of politics got substituted by new scope,
methodology, concepts, techniques which was known as
contemporary view of the study of politics. Political researchers made
great attempts to develop a new science of 'comparative politics'.
They espoused comprehensiveness, realism, precision and use of
scientific methods as the new goals for the study of comparative
politics. This new endeavour is nowadays promoted as 'modern'
comparative politics. In the modern assessment, the scope of
comparative politics is much wider. It includes the analysis and
comparison of the actual behaviour of political structures, formal as
well as informal. Researchers believe that these political structures,
governmental or non- governmental, directly or indirectly affect the
process of politics in all political systems.

Both traditional and modern comparative politics adopt different

approaches to its study. Traditional scientists follow narrow and
normative approach. It involves descriptive studies with a legal
institutional framework and normative prescriptive focus. Whereas
modern political scientists follow empirical, analytical studies with a
process orientated or behavioural focus and they adopt scientific
methodology. It seeks to analyse and compare empirically the actual
behaviour of political structures.

Traditional approaches:
The traditional approaches to Political Science was broadly
predominant till the occurrence of the Second World War. These
approaches were mainly associated with the traditional outlook of
politics which underlined the study of the state and government.
Consequently, traditional approaches are principally concerned with
the study of the organization and activities of the state and principles
and the ideas which motivate political organizations and activities.
These approaches were normative and principled. The political
philosophers supporting these approaches and raised questions such
'what should be an ideal state?' According to them, the study of
Political Science should be limited to the formal structures of the
government, laws, rules and regulations. Therefore, the supporters of
the traditional approaches stress various norms such as what 'ought
to be' or 'should be' rather than 'what is'.

Characteristics of Traditional approaches:

1. Traditional approaches are mostly normative and stresses on

the values of politics.
2. Prominence is on the study of different political structures.
3. Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory
and research.
4. These approaches consider that since facts and values are
closely interlinked, studies in Political Science can never be
scientific.

There are many types of traditional approaches.

1. Philosophical approach:
Philosophical approach is conventional approach to study politics.
Customarily, the study of politics was subjugated by philosophical
reflections on universal political values that were regarded as
essential to the just state and the good state. The oldest approach to
the study of politics is philosophical. Philosophy "is the study or
science of truths or principles underlying all knowledge and being." It
entails that philosophy or philosophical approach tries to explore the
truth of political incidents or events. It discovers the objective of
political writings or the purpose of political writer.

Main aim of philosophical approach is to evaluate the consequences

of events in a logical and scientific manner. Van Dyke opined that
"philosophy denotes thought about thought. Somewhat more
broadly it denotes general conceptions of ends and means, purposes
and methods." The purpose of philosophical approach is to explain
the words and terms used by the political theorists. The enquiry
started by the philosophical approach removes confusion about the
assumptions.

Several Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle were the

creators of this approach. The main subject of Plato's writings was to
define the nature of an ideal society. This approach states that values
are inseparable from facts. It is mainly an ethical and normative study
of politics, hence is concerned with what 'should be' or 'ought to be'.
This approach seeks to understand our fundamental nature and aim
as human beings, recognizing principles and standards of right
conduct in political life. It is normative in character and believes in
developing norms or certain standards. It followed the logical
method where investigator has his own values and determined
philosophies.

Benefit of philosophical approach is that it enters into the depth of

every aspect of political phenomena and examines them without any
partiality. Its interpretation of political activities conjures interest in
the minds of students of politics. Words and phrases used by
philosophers highlight point on the subject. Philosophical approach
enhances linguistic clarity. That is why it is said that this approach
aims at thought about thought.

Philosophical approach use procedure of logical analysis. It uses

reason to explore the truth. The truth which this approach
establishes may be of various kinds-normative, descriptive or
prescriptive. But the philosophical approach is indifferent to the
nature or category of truth.
This approach also tries to establish standards of good, right and just.
Many critics observed that this approach determines what is in the
interest of the public and he identifies interest more with ends that
with means.

In the huge arena of political science, there are a number of great or

outstanding books. Philosophical approach explores the meaning and
central theme of these books as well as the exact purpose of the
authors. In the contemporary Greek city-states of Plato morality,
moral values and idealism ruined to such an extent that he received a
great shock and seriously thought to recuperate these and this urge
encouraged him to write The Republic. He wanted to establish that
politics and morality are not an etheric concepts. Rather, an ideal and
moral body politic can be made a real one through the selfless
administration by a philosopher-king. John Locke composed his
Second Treatise to rationalize the interests and objectives of the new
middle class and he struggle of people for liberty.

Other political philosopher such as Machiavelli and Hobbes wrote to

support royal absolutism. Some critics may not agree with the views
of these philosophers or the arguments of these books, but it must
not be forgotten that the books were written at particular and critical
moment of history.

It is well established that Philosophical approach helps people to

understand the contemporary history and the nature of politics
suggested by philosophers. In other words, the philosophical
approach aid to comprehend the political ideologies of past
centuries. In this sense, the philosophical approach is very important
for researchers and people.

Application of the philosophical approach in political science focuses

on the great ideas, values and doctrines of politics. The normative-
philosophical approach is the ancient and the least scientific
approach to the study of politics and it has been taken over although
not completely displaced by contemporary approaches.

Criticism of the Philosophical Approach:

Though philosophical approach is highly important for scholars and

other people to the study of politics, critics have raised several
problems about its worth. It is documented in literature that one of
the central ideas of political philosophy is idealism and it is
conspicuous in Plato's The Republic. Critics argued that idealism itself
is quite good but when its practical application arises it appears to be
a myth.

Plato emphasized Idealism in his theory, but it had not practical

importance and be fully realised that idealism would never be
translated into reality. It is a subject of absolute imagination.
Machiavelli and Hobbes wrote with the only purpose of supporting
the status quo.

The philosophical intellectuals of the earlier periods were impractical

philosophers. They had no intention to promulgate ideas which can
change society. They were apathetic to people's liking and disliking,
their love for liberty, their sorrows and sufferings and they failed to
provide prophylactic devices. As an academic discipline, philosophical
approach is appropriate, but in practical guide for action, it has barely
any importance.
2. Historical approach:
This approach states that political theory can be only understood
when the historical factors are taken into consideration. It highlights
on the study of history of every political reality to analyse any
situation. Political theorists like Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning
believed that politics and history are strongly inter-related, and
therefore, the study of politics always should have a historical
viewpoint. Sabine considered that Political Science should include all
those subjects which have been discussed in the writings of different
political thinkers since Plato. History defines about the past as well as
links it with the present events. Without studying the past political
events, institutions and political environment, the analysis of the
present would remain largely imperfect.

Main attribute of historical approach is that history as a written or

recorded subject and focuses on the past events. From history,
researchers come to know how man was in the past and what he is
now. History is the store-house of events. From the profiles,
autobiographies, descriptions by authors and journalists investigators
know what event occurred in the past.

It is to be prominent that the events must have political revealing or

they must be politically significant. These events provide the best
materials upon which theory and principles of political science are
built. History communicates researchers how government, political
parties and many other institutions worked, their successes and
failures and from these, they receive lessons which guide them in
determining the future course of action.

Evaluation of Historical Approach: The historical approach to the

study of politics has numerous challenges from several quarters. One
of the main fulcrums of the challenges is that history has two faces.
One is documentation of facts which is quite naive and the other is
construal of facts and phenomena. The accretion of evidences is to
be judged from a proper perspective.

The implication is that adequate care should be taken while

evaluating evidence and facts and such a caution is not always strictly
followed and, as a result, the historical facts do not serve the purpose
of those who use it. This is the main complaint against the historical
approach to the study of politics.

Alan Ball has also criticized the historical approach. He debated that
"past evidence does leave-alarming gaps, and political history is often
simply a record of great men and great events, rather than a
comprehensive account of total political activity." Very few historians
interpret historical events and evidences broadly and freely.

3. Institutional approach:
There is a strong belief that philosophy, history and law have
bestowed to the study of politics and it is in the field of institutional
approaches. Institutional approaches are ancient and important
approach to the study of Political Science. These approaches mainly
deals with the formal aspects of government and politics.
Institutional approach is concerned with the study of the formal
political structures like legislature, executive, and judiciary. It focused
on the rules of the political system, the powers of the various
institutions, the legislative bodies, and how the constitution worked.
Main drawback of this approach was its narrow focus on formal
structures and arrangements. In far-reaching terms, an institution can
be described as 'any persistent system of activities in any pattern of
group behaviour. More concretely, an institution has been regarded
as 'offices and agencies arranged in a hierarchy, each agency having
certain functions and powers.

The study of institutions has been dominant not only to the arena of
comparative politics, but to the political science field as a whole.
Many writers have argued that institutions have shaped political
behaviour and social change. These authors have taken an
"institutionalist" approach which treat institutions as independent
variables. In the last twenty-five years, the field of comparative
politics has experienced the advent of the "new institutionalism,"
which developed in reaction to the behavioural perspectives that
exercise a significant influence on the field during the 1960s and
1970s.

The new institutionalism body can be divided into three analytical

approaches:

i. Historical institutionalism
ii. Rational choice institutionalism
iii. Sociological institutionalism

These three theoretical approaches developed autonomously from

each other.

The institutional approach to political analysis emphasises on the

formal structures and agencies of government. It originally
concentrated on the development and operation of legislatures,
executives and judiciaries. As the approach developed however, the
list is extended to include political parties, constitutions,
bureaucracies, interest groups and other institutions which are more
or less enduringly engaged in politics.
In the descriptive-institutional approach, the stress is on facts rather
than values. In other words, the approach provide factual and
historical answers to such questions as;

1. - What are the historical sources of parliamentary supremacy

over the kingdom?
2. - What are the procedures followed when a bill becomes law?
3. - By what electoral arrangement are values or representatives
chosen?
4. - What are the relative merits and demerits of rigid and flexible
constitutions?

Though, descriptive-institutional approach is slightly old, political

experts still concentrate chiefly on scrutinising the major political
institutions of the state such as the executive, legislature, the civil
service, the judiciary and local government, and from these
examinations, valuable insights as to their organisation can be drawn,
proposals for reform conversed and general conclusions obtainable.
The approach has been critiqued for the disregard of the informed
aspects of politics, norms, beliefs, values, attitudes, personality and
the processes. Institutional approach is also criticized for being too
narrow. It ignores the role of individuals who constitute and operate
the formal as well as informal structures and substructures of a
political system. Another problem is that the meaning and the range
of an institutional system vary with the view of the scholars.
Researchers of this approach ignored the international politics (J. C.
Johari, 1982).

4. Legal approach:
In the realm of traditional approaches, there is a legal or juridical
approach. This approach considers the state as the central
organization for the creation and enforcement of laws. Therefore,
this approach is associated with the legal process, legal bodies or
institutions, and judiciary. In this approach, the study of politics is
mixed with legal processes and institutions. Theme of law and justice
are treated as not mere affairs of jurisprudence rather politics
scientists look at state as the maintainer of an effective and equitable
system of law and order. Matters relating to the organizations,
jurisdiction and independence of judicial institutions become and
essential concern of political scientists. This approach treats the state
primarily as an organization for creation and enforcement of law (J. C.
Johari, 1982).

The supporters of this approach are Cicero, Bodin, Hobbes, John

Austin, Dicey and Henry Maine. In the system of Hobbes, the head of
the state is highest legal authority and his command is law that must
be obeyed either to avoid punishment following its infraction or to
keep the dreadful state of nature away. Other scientists described
that the study of politics is bound with legal process of country and
the existence of harmonious state of liberty and equality is
earmarked by the rule of law (J. C. Johari, 1982). The legal approach is
applied to national as well as international politics. It stands on
assumptions that law prescribes action to be taken in given
contingency and also forbids the same in certain other situations. It
also emphasizes the fact that where the citizens are law abiding, the
knowledge of the law offers an important basis for predictions
relating to political behaviour of people. Though it is effective
approach but not free from criticism. This approach is narrow. Law
include only one aspect of people's life. It cannot cover entire
behaviour of political actions (J. C. Johari, 1982).

Criticism of traditional approaches:

The traditional approaches have gloomily unsuccessful to identify the
role of the individuals who are important in moulding and
remoulding the shape and nature of politics. In fact, individuals are
important players of both national and international politics. The
focus is directed to the institutions.

It is astounding that in all the institutions, there are individuals who

control the structure, functions and other aspects. Singling out
institutions and neglecting individuals cannot be pronounced as
proper methods to study politics. The definition politics as the study
of institution is nothing but an overstatement or a travesty of truth.

Other political researchers argued that traditional approach is mainly

descriptive. Politics does not rule out description, but it is also
analytical. Sheer description of facts does not inevitably establish the
subject matter of political science. Its purpose is study the depth of
every incident. Investigators want to know not only occurrence, but
also why a particular incident occurs at a particular time.

The standpoint of the traditionalists is limited within the institutions.

Political researchers in modern world are not motivated to limit their
analysis of politics within institutions. They have explored the role of
environment into which is included international politics
multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations or trans-
national bodies.

The decision-making process of the nation state is influenced by

international events and the political activity of other nation states.
When the traditionalists were writing the nature of politics, the
interdependence of national and international politics was not
unknown to them and it is their failure not to recognise it. In this
perspective, it can be said that traditional approach is prejudiced and
incomplete. It has not the ability to meet the needs which are
intensifying in the present age. Attention is to be paid to another
inadequacy. The traditional approach as a method of analysing
politics is lacking for the analysis of political institutions of the Third
World countries, particularly the countries which do not follow the
Western political system. In these countries, if researchers try to find
out Western system or institutions that will be an utter failure.

It is assumed that traditional analysis is inappropriate for all types of

political systems both Western and non-Western. To recompense this
deficiency, the political scientists of the post-Second World War
period have developed a general system approach which is quite
comprehensive. The outstanding feature of traditional approaches is
that there is value laden system.

Modern approaches:
The political philosophers later on realized the need to study politics
from a new viewpoint. Thus, to overcome the paucities of the
traditional approaches, various new approaches have been promoted
by the new political intellectuals. These new approaches are
considered as the "modern approaches" to the study of Political
Science. Many theorists regard these approaches as a reaction
against the traditional approaches. These approaches are mainly
concerned with scientific study of politics. The first innovation in this
regard comes with the advent of the behavioural revolution in
Political Science.

Characteristics of Modern Approaches:

1. These approaches draw conclusion from empirical data.

2. These approaches go beyond the study of political structures
and its historical analysis.
3. Modern Approaches believe in inter-disciplinary study.
They stress scientific methods of study and attempt to draw scientific
conclusions in Political Science.

System approach:This approach falls in the category of

modern approach. The notion of Systems Theory was emerged from
ancient time, dates back to 1920s. Ludwig Von Bertallanfy is
considered as the earliest advocate of the general systems theory. He
utilized this theory for the study of Biology. It is only after the Second
World War, the social scientists claimed for the amalgamation of
sciences for which they took the help of the systems theory.
However, when the general systems theory in its abstract form
traced back to natural sciences like Biology, in its operational form,
they are found in Anthropology. Then it was embraced in Sociology
and Psychology. In the decade of sixties, the systems theory became
an important tool to evaluate and investigate key factors in Political
Science. Among political scientists, David Easton has been the first to
apply this theory to political analysis.

This approach describes the relationship of political life with other

aspects of social life. The idea of a system was initially borrowed from
biology by Talcott Parsons who first promoted the concept of social
system. Later on David Easton further developed the concept of a
political system. This approach signified that a political system
operates within the social environment. Consequently, it is not
possible to analyse political events in isolation from other aspects of
the society. To put in other way, influences from the society, be it
economic, religious or otherwise, do shape the political process.

Figure: System approach
The political system operates within an environment. The
environment produces demands from different parts of the society
such as demand for reservation in the matter of employment for
certain groups, demand for soothing working conditions or minimum
wages, demand for better transportation facilities, demand for better
health facilities. Different demands have different levels of support.
Easton said that both 'demands' and 'supports' establish 'inputs.' The
political system receives theses inputs from the environment. After
considering various factors, the government decides to take action on
some of these demands while others are not acted upon. Through,
the conversion process, the inputs are converted into 'outputs' by the
decision makers in the form of policies, decisions, rules, regulations
and laws. The 'outputs' flow back into the environment through a
'feedback' mechanism, giving rise to fresh 'demands.' Accordingly, it
is a recurring process.

Presently, the term 'political system' has been chosen to the term
state or government because it includes both formal informal
political instructions and processes those continue to exist in a
society. Systems approach to political institutions by the behavioural
school has evolved new concept. David Easton, G. A. Almond and
Morton A. Kaplan are credited for applying this approach in Political
Science. According to this theory, political behaviour is conceived as a
system and the political system is well-defined as "Authoritative
allocation of values with threat or actual use of deprivations to make
them binding on all". It is the system of interactions to be found in
independent societies which performs the functions of integration
and adaptation both internally and externally by means of
employment of legitimate physical compulsion. A political system has
three important characteristics, specifically, comprehensiveness,
interdependence and existence of boundaries. However, the features
of a political system are openness, adaptiveness, comprehensiveness,
self-regulating, ongoing. It is composed of a number of structures
which have specific functions. These functions are pigeonholed as
input and output functions. A political system performs these in
order to maintain itself.

2. Behavioural approach:
Behaviouralism is considered as contemporary approach to the study
of political science. But this approach was emerged during 20th
century. An important consideration of Behaviouralism has been the
study of political behaviour, as an area of study within Political
Science. It concentrates is on the individual as voter, leader,
revolutionary, party member and the influences of the group or the
political system on the individual's political behaviour.

Behviouralism stresses scientific, objective and value-free study of

the political occurrences as conditioned by the environment, firmly
the behaviour of the individuals involved in that phenomena. As such,
it focuses on the role of the behaviour of the individual at various
levels and the scientific analysis. Behaviouralism is the development
of method against traditional political science which did not take into
account if human behaviour as an actor in politics.

Behaviouralism is quite different from behaviourism. Behaviourism is

narrow in its application. It refers to the response of an organism as
aroused by some stimulus. It does not consider role of the feelings,
ideas, prejudices that determine the response of that individual.
Behaviouralism does take into account the role of the feelings, ideas
and prejudices. David Easton differentiates between behaviourism
and behaviouralism through an example. The paradigm adopted by
behaviourists, according to him is S- R (Stimulus-Response). But the
behavioural lists have improved it by making it as S-O-R (Stimulus-
Organism-Response). David Easton regards behavioural revolution is
an intellectual tendency on the part of the political scientists to study
empirically the political behaviour of persons.

Striking Features of Behaviouralism:

David Easton has described certain key features of behaviouralism

which are regarded as its intellectual foundations. These are:

1. Regularities: This approach believes that there are certain

consistencies in political behaviour which can be expressed in
generalizations or theories in order to elucidate and predict
political phenomena. In a particular situation, the Political
 behaviour of individuals may be more or less similar. Such
regularities of behaviour may help the researcher to analyse a
political situation as well as to predict the future political
phenomena. Study of such regularities makes Political Science
more scientific with some predictive value.
2. Verification: The behaviouralists do not want to accept
everything as established. Therefore, they stress testing and
verifying everything. According to them, if phenomenon is not
verified then it will not be scientific.
3. Techniques: The behaviouralists stress on the use of those
research tools and methods which generate valid, reliable and
comparative data. A researcher must make use of refined tools
like sample surveys, mathematical models, simulation.
4. Quantification: After collecting data, the researcher should
measure and quantify those data.
5. Values: The behaviouralists have emphasised on separation of
facts from values. They believe that to do objective research,
one has to be value free. It means that the researcher should
not have any pre-conceived idea or a prejudiced view.
6. Systematization: According to the behaviouralists, research in
Political Science must be systematic. Theory and research
should go together.
7. Pure Science: Another feature of behaviouralism has been its
aim to make Political Science a "pure science". It believes that
the study of Political Science should be verified by evidence.
8. Integration: behaviouralists stated that political Science should
not be detached from various other social sciences such as
history, sociology and economics. This approach denotes that
political events are formed by various other factors in the
society and therefore, it would be incorrect to separate Political
Science from other disciplines.
Consequently, with the development of behaviouralism, novel
thinking and new method of study were evolved in the field of
Political Science.

Advantages of behavioural approach are as follows:

1. - This approach attempts to make Political Science as a scientific

method and brings it closer to the day to day life of the
individuals.
2. - Behaviouralism has bought human behaviour into the arena of
Political Science and thereby makes the study more relevant to
the society.
3. - This approach helps in predicting future political events.

The behavioural approach has been supported by different political

philosophers. However, the Behavioural approach also gripped under
various criticisms for its scienticism also. The main criticisms of this
approach are mentioned below:

1. This approach has been criticized for its dependence on

techniques and methods and ignoring the subject matter.
2. The supporters of this approach were mistaken when they
thought that human beings behave in similar ways in similar
circumstances.
3. Moreover, it is a difficult task to study human behaviour and to
get a certain result.
4. Most of the political phenomena are immeasurable. Therefore,
it is always difficult to use scientific method in the study of
Political Science.

- Furthermore, the researcher being a human being is not always

value neutral as believed by the behaviouralists.
Other criticisms by political thinkers are as under:

1. Behaviouralism over emphasizes on techniques.

2. It is criticized as Pseudo-politics as it aims at upholding only
American institutions as the best in the world.
3. It stresses behavioural effect at the cost of institutional effect.
4. It emphasizes static rather than current situations.
5. It is a value free research, as its debate is not possible.

Post behaviourism: The progress of behavioural movement in

Political Science is one of the important breakthroughs in the history
of Political Science. The growth of behaviouralism clearly presented a
scientific dynamism in the study of political phenomena.
Nevertheless, after sometime, it began to be realized that unlike
natural sciences, generalizations could not be made in the field of
social sciences, as the study of man in the societal framework was a
far more complex pursuit than the study of objects in the natural
sciences. Therefore, a new thinking emerged among the
behaviouralists for transforming behaviouralism.

David Easton who was a faithful supporter of behaviouralism later

became a strong opponent of behaviouralism. In his presidential
address to the Annual Convention of the American Political Science
Association held in 1969, David Easton avowed that he felt unhappy
with the political research and teaching made under the impact of
behaviouralism. He further said that because of excessive use of
mathematics, Political Science looked more of mathematics instead
of social science and that it does not study the current and
contemporary world.

Behaviouralism also disappointed people as it is unsuccessful in

providing solutions to many social and political problems. Such
dissatisfaction has led to the emergence of post- behaviouralism. This
new approach believed that mere use of refined techniques and
research tools would not solve the social and political problems of
the world. Therefore, post-behaviouralists criticized the idea of
behaviouralists to make Political Science a value-free science like
other natural sciences. Post-behaviouralists attempted to make
Political Science pertinent to the society. However, it must be
recalled that post-behaviouralism cannot be separated from
behviouralism as it has arose from behaviouralism. Through, using
different techniques and methods, post-behaviouralists try to
overcome the disadvantages of behaviouralism and make the study
of Political Science more applicable to the society.

According to post-behaviouralism, the use of scientific tools is

valuable if it can solve the various problems of the society.
Behaviouralists gave too much emphasis on methods and techniques
and believed that it was better to be wrong than ambiguous. On the
contrary, Post-behaviouralists believe that it is better to be vague
than non-relevantly precise. The post-behaviouralists disapproved
behaviouralism on the basis that the latter had lost touch with the
realities of the society because of over emphasis on techniques. Thus,
post-behaviouralists may be regarded as the reform movement
within behaviouralism. This new approach stresses identifying and
solving the major issues of political and social life. According to post-
behaviouralism, the political scientists should find out different
alternatives and means to solve the social problems. Consequently,
the main drive of post-behaviouralism has been to make Political
Science significant to the society. However, it is noted that it is only a
perpetuation of behaviouralism. It does not overall reject the ideas of
behaviouralism. It recognizes the achievement of behaviouralism and
escalates its effort to do objective research in Political Science. It only
attempts to bring research in Political Science closer to reality to
make the subject more relevant to the society. Accordingly, the post-
behaviouralists opposed the efforts of the behaviouralists to make
Political Science a value-free science. It was debated by the post-
behaviouralists that Political Science must consider basic issues of
society such as justice, liberty, equality, democracy to make research
relevant to the society. The post-behaviouralists have described
behaviouralism as a 'mad craze for scienticism'. Thus, the post-
behaviouralism is an improvement of behaviouralism as it changes its
focus strictly from empirical research to resolving problems
confronting the society.

8. Marxian approach:
Marxian approach to politics is not limited to the writings of Marx,
Engels and Lenin but all those of a congregation of later writers such
as Luxemburg, Trotsky, Gramsci and many others. Further, an
explicitly 'political' treatise cannot be found in the whole range of
classical Marxist texts. Miliband indicated that "a Marxist politics had
to be constructed or reconstructed from the mass of variegated and
fragmented material which forms the corpus of Marxism."

Marx views on Individual:

Marx stated that the individual is individual-in-society. Individual has

no identity without the society. Marx described that "society does
not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of inter-relations,
the relations within which these individuals stand." As such, Marx is
different from the liberal view which conceives individual as
atomized, insular and self-contained.

Views of Marx on Society:

Marxists specified that all societies in history have been class

societies. The contending classes from 'freeman and slave, patrician
and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman to
bourgeoisie and proletariat in the period of capitalism have stood in
constant opposition to one another. All class societies are
characterized by supremacy and conflict which are based on specific,
concrete features of their mode of production. Class domination has
been a historical process suggesting a constant attempt on the part of
the dominant classes to maintain and extend their power on the
society.

Marx on Politics:

Marxist opined that politics can be understood only with reference to

the nature of prevailing societal conflict and domination. Politics, as
such, conceived in terms of the 'specific articulation of class
struggles.' In general, in Marxian view politics has a derivative and
epiphenomenal character. The political life processes are considered
as part of 'superstructure' standing on the economic structure of
society. The subsidiary and derivative character of politics can be well
inferred from the following quotation from the 'Preface' to a
contribution to the criticism of Political Economy:

"In the social production of their existence, men enter into definite,
necessary relations, which are independent of their will, namely,
relations of production corresponding to a determinate stage of
development of their material forces of production. The totality of
these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of
society, the real foundation on which arises a legal and political
superstructure and to which there correspond definite forms of social
consciousness. The mode of production of social consciousness. The
mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and
intellectual life-process in general."
According to Marx, Politics, economics, culture and ideology are all
inseparably interweaved. The 'forces of production' at a particular
stage of historical development, are harmonized by definite 'relations
of production' that characterize the society. The relations of
production taken together constitute the economic foundation of the
society. The legal and political institutions stand on this "real
foundation" of economic structure.

From the Marxist perspective, the real nature of politics, has to be

assumed from "the hidden basis of the entire social structure." Ralph
Miliband stated that politics is 'a very determined and conditioned
activity indeed so determined' and 'conditioned' in fact, as to give
politics a mostly derivative, subsidiary, and 'epiphenomenal'
character."

It is well recognized that Marx put more emphasis on the

materialistic or economic interpretation of history. He stated that the
capitalists by controlling the means of production and distribution
also controlled not only the political but social and economic
structure of the society as well. He stressed economic aspect of life.
According to him, every other activity in the society revolved round
economics. All social and political activities are based on economic
activity.

9. Structural functional approach:

According to this approach, the society is a single inter-related
system where each part of the system has a definite and distinct role
to play. The structural-functional approach may be considered as an
offshoot of the system analysis. These approaches accentuate the
structures and functions. Gabriel Almond was an advocate of this
approach. He described political systems as a special system of
interaction that exists in all societies performing certain functions.
According to him, the main attributes of a political system are
comprehensiveness, inter-dependence and existence of boundaries.
Like Easton, Almond also believes that all political systems perform
input and output functions. The Input functions of political systems
are political socialization and recruitment, interest-articulation,
interest-aggression and political communication. Almond makes
three-fold classifications of governmental output functions relating to
policy making and implementation. These output functions are rule
making, rule application and rule adjudication. Therefore, Almond
believes that a stable and efficient political system converts inputs
into outputs.

System approach:
This approach falls in the category of modern approach. The notion of Systems Theory was
emerged from ancient time, dates back to 1920s. Ludwig Von Bertallanfy is considered as the
earliest advocate of the general systems theory. He utilized this theory for the study of Biology.
It is only after the Second World War, the social scientists claimed for the amalgamation of
sciences for which they took the help of the systems theory. However, when the general
systems theory in its abstract form traced back to natural sciences like Biology, in its
operational form, they are found in Anthropology. Then it was embraced in Sociology and
Psychology. In the decade of sixties, the systems theory became an important tool to evaluate
and investigate key factors in Political Science. Among political scientists, David Easton has been
the first to apply this theory to political analysis.
This approach describes the relationship of political life with other aspects of social life. The
idea of a system was initially borrowed from biology by Talcott Parsons who first promoted the
concept of social system. Later on David Easton further developed the concept of a political
system. This approach signified that a political system operates within the social environment.
Consequently, it is not possible to analyse political events in isolation from other aspects of the
society. To put in other way, influences from the society, be it economic, religious or otherwise,
do shape the political process.
Figure: System approach
The political system operates within an environment. The environment produces demands
from different parts of the society such as demand for reservation in the matter of employment
for certain groups, demand for soothing working conditions or minimum wages, demand for
better transportation facilities, demand for better health facilities. Different demands have
different levels of support. Easton said that both 'demands' and 'supports' establish 'inputs.'
The political system receives theses inputs from the environment. After considering various
factors, the government decides to take action on some of these demands while others are not
acted upon. Through, the conversion process, the inputs are converted into 'outputs' by the
decision makers in the form of policies, decisions, rules, regulations and laws. The 'outputs' flow
back into the environment through a 'feedback' mechanism, giving rise to fresh 'demands.'
Accordingly, it is a recurring process.
Presently, the term 'political system' has been chosen to the term state or government because
it includes both formal informal political instructions and processes those continue to exist in a
society. Systems approach to political institutions by the behavioural school has evolved new
concept. David Easton, G. A. Almond and Morton A. Kaplan are credited for applying this
approach in Political Science. According to this theory, political behaviour is conceived as a
system and the political system is well-defined as "Authoritative allocation of values with threat
or actual use of deprivations to make them binding on all". It is the system of interactions to be
found in independent societies which performs the functions of integration and adaptation
both internally and externally by means of employment of legitimate physical compulsion. A
political system has three important characteristics, specifically, comprehensiveness,
interdependence and existence of boundaries. However, the features of a political system are
openness, adaptiveness, comprehensiveness, self-regulating, ongoing. It is composed of a
number of structures which have specific functions. These functions are pigeonholed as input
and output functions. A political system performs these in order to maintain itself.