Comparative Politics: Nature
and Major Approaches
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).