1
Topics covered in this document with respect to
syllabus
Section A, Paper I:
 Political theory, meaning and approaches
Section A, Paper II:
 Comparative Politics: Nature and major approaches;
political economy and political sociology perspectives;
limitations of the comparative method.
 State in comparative perspective: Characteristics and
changing nature of the State in capitalist and socialist
economies, and, advanced industrial and developing
societies.
 Politics of Representation and Participation: Political
parties, pressure groups and social movements in
advanced industrial and developing societies
Lectures covered in this pdf:
1. Lecture 55 Part II – 31st January, 2020
2. Lecture 56 – 5th February, 2020
3. Lecture 57 – 6th February, 2020
4. Lecture 58 – 7th February, 2020
LEC 55 PART II: 31st JANUARY, 2020 (2 PM BATCH)
POLITICAL THEORY, MEANING AND
APPROACHES (SEC A, PAPER I)
Nature and Scope of Political Science:
Previous Year Questions:
Year Question
2019 Comment in 150 words: Resurgence of political
theory
2018 Comment in 150 words: Decline of political theory
2016 Comment: The post-behavioural approach
2015 Discuss David Easton’s model of system analysis
2014 Comment in 150 words: “……political theory is not
an escape mechanism but an arduous calling.”
(John Plamanetz)
2013 Explain Berlin’s notion of value pluralism
2013 Comment in 150 words: “Original position”
2012 Comment on difference between normative and
empirical theories of politics
2011 Examine the significance of the behavioural
revolution in politics
2010 Comment: “Personal is political”
2010 Comment: “Power flows throughout the system
like blood in the capillaries of our body.
(Foucault)”
2008 Explain the changing analytical perspectives in the
development of political theory
Question:
Sudheer Pulapa
 Discuss the nature and scope of political science as a
discipline
 Political science is one of the oldest disciplines
 It has its roots in Ancient Greece
 It started as a part of philosophy
 Aristotle is considered as father of political science
 He calls political science as master science. It denotes
the inter-disciplinary nature of political science. It also
denotes that it is a science to be learnt by the masters
 Masters are those who have to deal with decision
making in the state. Thus, the study of state,
constitutions became the core concern of political
science
 According to GARNER, political science begins and ends
with the state
 If we look at the evolution of the discipline –
o It was dominated by philosophy in Ancient
Greece
o It was overshadowed by religion in medieval
times
o It was in works of Machiavelli, who established
the autonomy of politics from ethics and
religion, the autonomous status of the
discipline was recognised
o Political science till WW II primarily developed
in Europe
o After WW II, it shifted to USA
o In Europe, there has been greater emphasis on
philosophy
o In USA, the greater emphasis is on science
(scientific research)
 Till WW II we call the state of discipline as traditional
political science
 Traditional political science focussed on the study of
state and constitutions. Traditional political science was
dominated by philosophical; historical; empirical
methods
 In the field of comparative politics, the study of
constitutions was prominent. Hence, even legal
institutional methods played role
 After WW II, political science developed in USA under
the guidance of American Political Science Association
(APSA)
o This has led to the developments of
Behavioural methods
o Behaviourists focused on –
 Study of human behaviour rather than
institutions
 Scientific methods rather than
philosophical, historical or legal
methods
o Behavioural methods were later modified into
post-behavioural methods
o In American universities, PBA is the primary for
research in political science
 There is a revival of philosophy in Europe which has
given rise to new approaches like:
o POST-MODERNISM

o FEMINISM
o CRITICAL THEORY
 Political science is a vibrant discipline with expanding
frontiers
o New areas of research are emerging ranging
from family to environment
o Discipline became too expanded that there
was a fear of the discipline losing its identity
o Hence scholars like THEDA SKOCPOL calls for –
“BRINGING THE STATE BACK IN”, a call to make
state the core area of research
 Political Science as discipline has greatest utility among
social sciences and needs to be actively promoted in
universities by funding agencies
What is the meaning of scope?
 Scope means subject matter of the discipline or
boundaries of the discipline
Scope of the subject:
Political science can be defined as the study of
state. It begins and ends with the state. Even the terms
‘political’ comes from the Greek word ‘polis’ which
represents ‘city state’. Since all activities comes under the
state, Aristotle held that political science is a master science
Political science is a dynamic discipline. Political
science is a subject with expanding frontiers. It means new
areas of research are emerging. Today political science is not
confined to the study of state. It also includes the study of
politics in family (Feminism). It also includes the study of
environment. For example, GREEN POLITICAL THEORY
Nature of the subject:
When we discuss the nature of the discipline, the
idea is whether it is scientific in nature or philosophical in
nature.
Why there is a debate?
 The problem begins with its nomenclature
 According to WILLIAM MAITLAND – “When I look at a
question paper with the title political science, I am more
troubled with the title than with the questions”
Whether political science is a subject of scientific nature or
philosophical nature is matter of debate?
TRADITIONALISTS:
 The traditionalists consider political science as
philosophical
Why?
1. It emerged as a sub-discipline of philosophy
2. It deals with normative issues like justice, rights,
liberties. These issues can be studied only through
philosophical methods like dialectics
Hence, any attempt to make political science –
“SCIENCE” will impact its relevance. There are very few
things in politics which can be studied through scientific
Sudheer Pulapa
2
methods. According to LEO STRAUSS, political science is
hardly different from philosophy.
BEHAVIORALISTS:
However, Behaviourists would prefer that political
science should not be treated as philosophy. It impacts the
credibility of the subject. Philosophical theories cannot be
verified. They are speculative in nature. Hence, we should
attempt to make political science as pure science. Scholars
like DAVID EASTON believe that political science can be
studied by using scientific techniques.
POST-MODERNISTS:
Post-modernists have established the knowledge
power connection. Hence, neither scientific theories are
purely scientific nor philosophical theories are purely
philosophical. Every theory is a story or narrative or a
discourse. Even political theories are discourses or
interpretations.
JACQUES DARRIDA has shown the limitations of
human language. Hence, there is no theory which can be
called as theory. From this perspective, political science is
interpretative discipline. At the same time, we should not
ignore that political science is the most democratic of all
disciplines.
How?
 Various point of views is accepted
APPROACHES:
In social sciences, it is better to use the word
approaches rather than method. Method is too procedural
idea which is possible only in natural sciences. Broadly we
can categorise approaches into two phases –
1. Tradition (until second world war)
2. Modern (Behavioural, Post Behavioural – since WW
II)
TRADITIONAL METHODS:
1. Philosophical
2. Historical
3. Empirical
4. Legal-institutional
1. PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH:
Structure of an answer should be:
 Meaning
 Exponents – Plato, Socrates
 Method – Logic, not necessarily dialectics
 Nature of the theory
 Pros and Cons
 Conclusion
Note:
 Scientific theories are based on facts, empirical results
 Philosophical theories are arm chair theories

Plato – a father of political philosophy. Plato had made a
difference between true knowledge (philosophy) and
Knowledge. Idea is permanent. Facts keeps on changing. Ideas
and concepts will not change. Idea can know through logic.
Note:
 Handout page no: 202
SOCRATES:
Socrates is known as father of philosophy. He has
given theory of knowledge. According to him, the real
knowledge is the knowledge of ideas and the mode of
learning this is LOGIC. Socrates prescribed dialectics.
Why this knowledge is superior?
 Physical world is a world of change. Hence, there cannot
be a permanent knowledge. Whereas, the world of idea
is a world of permanence. Hence, this knowledge is of
permanent nature, subject to the condition that it is a
product of LOGICAL REASONING
PLATO:
Plato is known as father of political philosophy. He
has suggested that it is not enough to understand the
features of existing society. It is important to understand the
idea of state, purpose of existence of state.
Why?
 When we understand the idea we can mould the
existing state, which are bound to be imperfect, towards
perfection. Besides the advantage of getting the
foundational or permanent knowledge, philosophy can
help in making our lives better
Plato emphasised that the knowledge of
philosopher is not just for his betterment, but for the
betterment of society. Thus, philosophy has a huge utility for
making our lives better.
Philosophical approach is the OLDEST approach
present in political science. Political science was started as a
sub-discipline of philosophy. Early or classical scholars dealt
with philosophical or normative issues like justice, equality,
liberty and rights
Philosophical approach remained dominant till WW
II. Major development happened in WESTERN EUROPE.
Philosophical approach came under criticism by
Behaviourists. They wanted to make political science “PURE
SCIENCE”. Hence they rejected the study of normative
issues. They advocated the study of facts. LORD BRYCE held
that “WE NEED FACTS, FACTS AND FACTS”
Philosophical theories were criticised as “ARM
CHAIR THEORIES”. They do not constitute verifiable hence
reliable source of knowledge. They are also inherently biased
and divorced from reality
Sudheer Pulapa
3
However, scholars like:
1. JOHN RAWLS
2. LEO STRAUSS
3. ISAIAH BERLIN
4. DANTE GERMINO
Believe that the philosophical approach is most suitable for
the discipline of political science
Conclusion:
 Politics is too complex. Choice of approach will depend
on the objective of research. Single approach is never
sufficient. Different approaches to be used in
combination
Lecture 56: 5th February, 2020
2. HISTORICAL APPROACH:
 Historical method – Machiavelli, Laski, Sabine
 Every thinker is a child of his times – Laski
 Hobbes – thinker of Bourgeoisie class
 Sabine – history of western political thought – has written
books
 History and Political science
 History – challenging – history is very vast. Biggest problem
is to manage
 Political science – certain ideas which are not based on
historical facts – philosopher king, communism etc.
 History is itself politicised
 Concept of Orientalism
 History is also an ideological discipline
 Many scholars has misused history – like LENIN
 Historical approach is also among the oldest
approaches. It is considered as the simplest and
common sense based approach for understanding
politics and building theories.
 History is closely connected with politics. The
relationship between the two disciplines is explained by
scholars as –
o “If history is a root, politics is a shoot”
o “History is past politics; politics is present
history”
 It is to be noted that traditional international politics is
studied as DIPLOMATIC HISTORY
 Machiavelli:
o It was Machiavelli who strongly advocated the
study of history to understand politics
o According to him, HISTORY rather than
PHILOSOPHY is the better guide for prince.
 In modern times, scholars like LASKI and SABINE have
preferred historical approach
 Laski:
o “Every thinker is a child of his times”
o He also writes that no political idea is ever
intelligible save in the context of the time

 Sabine:
o “Political ideas are themselves the product of
crisis phases of history”
 Historical approach is the most common sense based
approach. It serves the requirements of sound approach
o Factual
o Causal
o Evaluative
 Though historical approach has found huge favour, yet
it suffers from following challenges –
o History is too vast. It is a challenging task to find
out the relevant data
o All that is in history may not be relevant and
there are many concepts in political science like
– philosopher king and communism which are
never present in history yet important for the
student of political science
o History is itself in a highly politicised discipline
o EDWARD SAID’s OREINTALISM shows that
history writing has been a political project
o Political science may not use history in a
scientific manner. Machiavelli himself has done
the selective use of history. He only used those
examples which served his political purpose
o There are examples of political scholars making
politics out of history. KARL POOPER criticised
HEGAL and KARL MARX for committing the
guilt of historicism (ideological use of history).
For example, when MARX explains history as a
product of class struggle, his purpose is political
o JOHN PLAMANETZ has criticised making
political ideas dependent on history. He
suggests that political ideas should be
understood on the basis of logic
Conclusion:
 Politics is too complex. Choice of approach will depend
on the objective of research. Single approach is never
sufficient. Different approaches to be used in
combination
3. EMPIRICAL APPROACH:
 Philosophical approach is about the study of ideas
 Empirical approach is about the study of facts – present
facts
 Logic is the method to understand the idea. Facts can be
understood through the method of observation
 Idea is inherent in all human beings – Socrates
 Empirical Approach – inspired by John Locke – Mind is
tabular rasa. Experience is the basis of knowledge
 Empirical approach deals with present, descriptive – what
is?
 Philosophical approach – future oriented, normative –
what should be? Or what ought to be?
 History is also the study of facts – past facts
 Empirical approach is not the scientific approach
 In science nothing is accepted, until and unless it is proved
 Right and Wrong is value based
 True and False – scientific based
Sudheer Pulapa
4
 Empirical is not scientific – repeat of observations  Then
it becomes scientific
 Scientific approach
 Empirical approach
 Scientists – has to prove the things
 It is based on observation. We can observe the physical
facts and human behaviour. We cannot observe ideas.
 Machiavelli proposed empirical approach along with
historical approach. He warns Prince against living in the
world of ideas, whereas he suggests Prince to look at the
things “as they are”
 If Plato recommends philosophy; Machiavelli
recommends observation; Aristotle is the connecting
link
 Aristotle theory of forms emphasises on the
interdependence between idea and matter, the world
of being and becoming
 In order to understand empirical approach, we need to
compare it with philosophical approach
Philosophical approach Empirical approach
Study of ideas Study of facts
Method: Logic Method: Observation
Prescriptive or Normative Descriptive i.e. what is
i.e. suggestive – what
should be
Criteria – right and wrong Criteria – true and false
Change oriented Status quoist
 Empirical approach can also be differentiated from
scientific approach. Empirical approach is just
observation. It does not become science on its own
 Scientific approach is rigorous. It includes observation,
verification, measurement, free from biasness
(quantitative)
 John Locke is supporter of EMPIRICISM over SOCRATES
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE. He rejects the view that
knowledge is imprinted in human soul. According to
him, “MIND IS TABULA RASA”. It means human mind is
clean state, observation and experience imprint
knowledge.
Conclusion:
 Politics is too complex. Choice of approach will depend
on the objective of research. Single approach is never
sufficient. Different approaches to be used in
combination
4. MODERN APPROACH:
 What is Behaviourism?
 What is post-behaviourism?
 Behaviour = Modern / Scientific / Positivism
 Positivism is used in sociology
 Modern age began in 17th century
 But modern methods in political science started after WW
II
 Movement is called as Behavioural Revolution

 Political Science is dominated by American Political
Scholars
It means scientific approach. In political science we
can even use the term Behavioural Approach. Behavioural
Approach in political science began after WW I, but it
became prominent after WW II. It was strongly promoted by
APSA (American Political Science Association). Core idea is
to make political science PURE SCIENCE. It denotes a
complete change i.e. change in the entire epistemology and
even the ontology of the discipline.
When we change the method, it obviously changes
the scope and nature. Thus, behaviourists is often called as
“REVOLUTION”.
BEHAVIOURISM:
 When started and Where?  After second world war
and USA
 Why this method came?
o Situational Factor
o Intellectual Factor
 Situational factor: The neglect of political scientists in
academic conferences. Why?  It was felt that they
have nothing to offer. Why nothing to offer?  They
were dealing with centuries old ideas. Hence, could not
offer solutions for contemporary problems. Whereas
sociology and psychology adopted new methods,
political science has not changed. Hence, these theories
were not theories, rather speculations of certain
individuals.
 Intellectual factor: Certain scholars were already
advocating that political science needs the study of
facts. For example, LORD BRYCE held that we need
facts, facts and facts.
 Scholars of Chicago School were emphasising on study
of politics as power
 Beginning of Behaviourism:
o American Political Science Association (APSA)
promoted the emergence of Behavioural
Methods
ROLE OF DAVID EASTON:
 David Easton has given a lecture at APSA
 There were two aspects in his lecture –
o Status/State of the discipline: Political science
is in the state of decline.
 Who was responsible for decline? 
According to David Easton,
traditionalists are responsible.
Specifically, historicists and
institutionalists.
 Historicists – Sabine, Dunning – there
were responsible. Why?  They were
not dealing with contemporary
problems. They were busy in the study
of old ideas.
Sudheer Pulapa
5
 Institutionalists – they were focusing
on the constitutions and ignoring the
dynamic aspect of politics. Dynamic
aspect means underlying processes.
o In his lecture, he proposed eight intellectual
foundation stones of behaviourism. It means
the eight parameters which is to be adopted in
the research to make it scientific.
What are those eight parameters?
1) Regularity:
 Observe discernible regularities in human
behaviour
 Traditionalists – they believe that regularities
are not possible in human behaviour
 Why?  there is no guarantee that the same
person will behave in a similar manner under
similar circumstances twice i.e. law making is
not that much relevant
2) Systematisation:
 Close relation between theory and data
 Scientific research is systematic. Hence,
political research should also be systematic.
There should be relation between objective of
the research and collection of data
 Traditionalists – According to them social
sciences are analytical in nature. Hence, we
cannot be very particular about
systematisation
3) Technique:
 Behaviourists suggests the adoption of
mathematical and statistical techniques
 Traditionalists – they are very limited areas of
research where we can adopt quantitative
techniques. For the sake of technique, there is
no point in compromising with subject matter
4) Quantification:
 Just like scientific research are measured in
quantitative terms for the purpose of precision,
political research should also be represented in
the form of quantitative data for precision
 Traditionalists – they believe that such
approach will limit the scope of the subject as
there are very few areas where measurement
is possible like electoral behaviour
5) Verification:
 Like Scientific theories, political theories should
also be verifiable so that a reliable knowledge
is developed.
 Traditionalists – they continue to believe that
verifiability is not possible in all cases. For
example, we must understand the idea of
communism which can be understood,
explained only using logical analysis
6) Integration:
 It means inter-disciplinary approach

 Political science has always been inter-
disciplinary
 The only difference is that traditionalists look
for data in disciplines like philosophy, history
and law
 On the other hand, behaviourists suggests to
borrow from sociology, psychology and nature
science disciplines. They even warn against
bringing the discipline near to philosophy,
history and law
 Maintain distance from history, philosophy and
law. Borrow from sociology, psychology,
mathematics
7) Value Neutrality:
 Like scientific research is value neutral, political
scholars also not prescribe value preferences.
(not be normative).
 Traditionalists like LEO STRAUSS is very critical
of rejecting the values.
 According to him, when we ignore the values it
is like not making any difference between pure
and dirty water
8) Pure Science:
 When we will adopt above parameters,
political science will become pure science
POST-BEHAVIOURISM:
 Time period – 1960’s
 There were many protests in USA
First decline of political science:
 In this case, the responsibility was on traditionalists and
primarily historicists
 This decline was addressed by Behaviourists
Second decline of political science:
 The first decline was because of traditionalists, the
second decline was because of behaviourists
 How?
o Behaviourists were busy in improving the
techniques
 What was the outcome?
o It resulted into the compromise with scope of
the subject and relevance of the subject
o How scope? – there are very few areas where
scientific technique can be employed. For
example, electoral behaviour.
o Hence, compromised with the relevance
Role of David Easton:
 He gave another lecture at APSA
 This time he blamed behaviourists
 He criticised behaviourists as “SITTING IN IVORY
TOWERS, PERFECTING THEIR TECHNIQUES,
FORGETTING THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE
TECHNIQUE IS TO BE USED”
 He called for “creative theory”
Sudheer Pulapa
6
 Creative theory:
o It has two elements –
 ACTION
 RELEVANCE
He has given 7 features of post-behavioural
approach, which he called as CREDO OF RELEVANCE.
1. Technique is important, but the purpose for which
the technique is used is more important
2. It does not reject values rather invite values
3. Theories should have the capacity to solve the crisis
4. We should promote such values which contribute
towards the flourishing of human civilisation
5. Political science is applied science rather than pure
science
6. The responsibility of social scientists is bigger than
the responsibility of natural scientists
7. Political science is extremely
Nature of post-behaviourism:
Whether post-behaviourism is rejection of behaviourism?
and Whether post-behaviourism is closer to traditionalism?
 No
Post-behaviourism is not rejection rather it takes
behaviourism forward. It is not closer to traditionalism –
though it adopts the normative angle of traditional theories,
yet its fundamental assumptions are similar to
behaviourism.
What are fundamental assumptions?
They also believe that political science should adopt
scientific method, should stay away from philosophy,
history. They only give less emphasis on adopting rigorous
techniques.
Contemporary status:
 It is a prominent method of research accepted in
political science
 It has made political science a vibrant discipline
 They are normative theories, but based on facts and not
just speculations
 Behaviourism has greatest importance in the field of
comparative politics
Criticism of behaviourism:
1. Marxists – It is justification of status-quo. It ultimately
goes for the defence of western way of life.
2. Traditionalists – Unnecessary complications, cosmetic
exercises and unnecessary investment
Note:
 The decline of political science ended with the
publication of Rawls theory of Justice. It led to the
revival of normative theories.
 7

According to scholars of contextual approach,

Contemporary approaches: there is no interpretation which can be called as purely
literal.
1. Post-modernism: Refer “ideology” topic According to scholars of CAMBRIDE SCHOOL like
2. Existentialism: Refer “radical feminists” (SATRE; SKINNER AND POCOCK, we have to understand even
SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR) “linguistic context”. We should know how people
3. Feminist perspective: Refer “ideology” topic interpreted the meanings at the time when the texts had
4. Critical school: Refer “Neo-Marxism” been written. For example, to understand exactly what
5. Phenomenological: Refer “Hannah Arendt” LOCKE meant when he uses the term “TRUST”, we need to
6. Structuralism: ALTHUSSER, GRAMSCI, MARX understand how the people in his time were using that term.
DERRIDA has given the concept of
Discuss different analytical perspectives found in political “deconstruction”. He suggests that there can be multiple
science interpretations of the texts. We have to understand the
context of the writer as well as the context of the reader.
 There are all philosophical analytical perspectives According to him, “no meaning can be regarded as ultimate,
o Idealism every understanding can be a misunderstanding”
o Liberalism
o Marxism PAPER II: SECTION A
o Anarchism
o Feminism COMPARATIVE POLITICS
o Post-modernism
 These two are empirical approach TOPICS:
o Behaviourism
o Post-Behaviourism 1. Comparative Politics: Nature and major approaches;
 Historical approach / Analytical approach political economy and political sociology perspectives;
limitations of the comparative method.
2. State in comparative perspective: Characteristics and
CONTEXTUALIST APPROACH: changing nature of the State in capitalist and socialist
economies, and, advanced industrial and developing
 It is an approach to study texts especially classical texts societies.
i.e. the writings of political philosophers like PLATO’S 3. Politics of Representation and Participation: Political
“REPUBLIC”; MACHIAVELLI’S “PRINCE” are considered parties, pressure groups and social movements in
CLASSICS. advanced industrial and developing societies.
 There are two ways to study classics –
o Textual approach Comparative Politics: Nature and major approaches;
o Contextual approach political economy and political sociology
perspectives; limitations of the comparative method
Textual Contextual
Static Dynamic Note:
Wisdom  Relevant Wisdom  Analysed  Comparative Politics is not International Politics
Fundamentalist Post-modern  Compulsory question from comparative politics –
Orthodox Not fundamental. It means o Approaches
only contextual o Contemporary politics based

Note: Questions:
 Religious texts – revealed knowledge 1. Explain the nature and scope of comparative politics.
 Oral tradition in India  More probability of What are the limitations of traditional approaches?
misunderstanding 2. What are the reasons behind the emergence of new
approaches?
Textual approach:
It goes for literal meaning and interpretation. It is  CP – politics of third world countries
static, believes that text contains universal and  CP – the politics of developing countries
transcendental relevance  Americans after WW II – established their hegemony:
control of other countries. America should have knowledge
about society, culture, economy etc. of developing
Contextual approach:
countries
Meanings are to be interpreted in accordance to
 Indian Government and Politics is part of CP
present situation. This is the only way texts will remain  Indian Politics is part of CP
relevant

Sudheer Pulapa
 8

 Indian Scholars hardly is about 5-10. Remaining all are 1. Systems approach
American Political Scholars 2. Structural or Functional
 CP – method – we can study Indian Politics 3. Political Sociology
 Indian Politics studying from American University – 4. Political Economy
Comparative Politics – politics of developing area 5. Political Development
 Section B PAPER I – application of CP
6. Political Culture
7. Political Modernisation
APPROACHES: (can also come in PAPER I and II)
1. SYSTEMS APPROACH: (Input-Output Model)
Introduction:
Comparative politics is as old as political theory. Note:
How?  Aristotle is known as father of comparative politics  They can ask direct questions about systems
also (studied and compared 158 constitutions) approach, features of systems of approach etc.

Evolution of Comparative Politics: 2 phases Purpose:

I. Phase I: up till second world war called as Traditional
 To develop scientific models for political analysis
Comparative Politics. In traditional CP, scholars studied
 To develop grand theory/model which can be utilised to
the political systems of Western Countries. Why only
study political systems of different countries
western?  the rest where colonies.
 To create a model which is value-free
Methods:
Source of influence:
1) Talcott Parsons – he has developed social system
Traditional methods –
analysis in sociology
2) General systems theory was produced to develop the
1) Philosophical
general model of analysis which can be used for
2) Historical
different disciplines
3) Empirical
4) Legal-institutional or constitutional – most prominent
Main scholar:
method. It was the study of constitutions of western
 DAVID EASTON
countries. That is why it was essentially non-
comparative. Why? 
Basic concepts in Systems Approach:
a. Western countries do not differ from each
other in a big way.
What is a system?
b. It was not the study of politics. It was the
 System is a set of elements in the state of interaction
study of constitutions. It means it was not
(patterned interaction and not haphazard)
the study of politics rather the study of
law. Law is static, textual, bookish, politics  Behaviourists aimed to make political science a science,
is contextual and dynamic hence, they imported the concept of natural sciences
like system from biology
II. Phase II: after WW II
Concept of political system:
Evolution of modern comparative politics:  Just like there are different systems in our body, there
After WW II  Decolonisation  Emergence of are different systems in the society
non-western political systems. These political systems could
be studied by using constitutional methods. How to distinguish one from the other?
 Though structures vary, yet the important basis to
a) These countries had constitutions but lacked differentiate is function
constitutionalism
b) Constitution keep on changing Unique function of political system:
 According to David Easton, function of political system
Hence, it is necessary to go for new methods. Going is “authoritative allocation of values”
beyond the text, understanding context. Context means  Allocation of values denotes dividing the distribution of
environment in which the constitution operates goods, resources, honours, titles or deciding who will
get what (the prime decision making body)
What will be environment of the political system?  Authoritative means the power to make binding
 Nature of society, culture, the people, mind-set, state of decisions. Binding means power to punish in case
development people do not follow rules or laws
 Thus the focus of modern comparative politics is the
study of developing areas using modern techniques –
Sudheer Pulapa

Difference between state and political system:
 Traditionalists use the term state. State denotes
institutions (legislature, executive, judiciary). Thus, state
is a term used in institutionalist approach
 Behaviourists use the term political system. System not
only denotes structures; it also denotes process or
functions. System denotes set of elements or
environment in which a particular institution is based
Concept of environment:
 All sub-systems which impact the main system is called
environment of that system
Concept of boundary:
 Every system has its boundary
 Boundary denotes unit of environment
 Systems kept out of boundary do not impact the main
system
Operation of political system:
 According to David Easton, we can conceive political
system as a machine
 Every machine functions on the principle of input and
output
 Political system can also be understood as a conversion
machine which converts input into output
Political systems get inputs from surroundings: Inputs are
two types –
1) Demands – what people want from the system
a. Demand for regulation. Ex: Smoking
regulations
b. Demand for participation. Ex: Citizen charter,
Social audit
c. Demand for distribution. Ex: 2G, 3G etc.
d. Demand for communication. Ex: RTI
2) Support – It shows peoples support for the system
which is necessary for the functioning of the system
a. Material support – people pay tax
b. Obedience to law
c. Participation in government programmes
d. Paying attention to government
communication
Outputs – 2 types
1) If a single decision comes, it will be treated as a decision
2) If multiple decision comes, it will be treated as a policy
Feedback:
 It plays important role in maintenance of system
 Outputs interact with environment; they re-enter into
system through feedback loop. If this loop does not
exist, systems will collapse
To what extent systems approach can be called as status
quoist?
Sudheer Pulapa
9
 Marxists consider systems approach as STATUS
QUOIST, because it projects as if the western political
systems are the ideals or models
What led to the evolution of systems approach?
 Since, it was realised that the study of constitutions
would be inadequate and to study the developing areas,
we will have to take into consideration, the social,
economic, cultural factors, the concepts of systems was
used.
Critical evaluation:
TRADITIONALISTS:
 It brings unnecessary complications, unnecessary
jargons
 It does not have much analytical importance. It is just a
very preliminary conceptual framework. It can be
utilised only at initial level of research
 It’s only importance can be conceptual framework for
the collection of data
MARXISTS:
 They are critical of behaviourists
 Why?  Behaviourism emerged at the time of cold war.
It was an initiative of American Political Scientists. Most
of the behavioural research were directed towards
understanding and explaining the social realities in
“SOCIALIST COUNTRIES”
 Example: Elitist theory of democracy is an example of
Behavioural-Empirical Research. Elitist theory of
democracy has shown that oligarchy is the iron law i.e.
whether a country is socialists or liberal, power will
always be in the hands of the state. Situation is better in
western countries because elite structures is fractured
 Thus, Marxists looked at Behaviourism as a conspiracy
against socialist countries
 According to Marxists, systems approach is status-
quoist
 Systems approach is not universalist
 Systems approach is modelled on political system of
western countries
 Systems approach gives too much focus on system
maintenance. They do not explain the crisis in system.
They have not pointed towards protests, revolutions,
disruptions. They project as if system is capable of
absorbing all types of challenges

 Scientific model has to be universalist, unbiased. But this
model is not universalist. It takes western model as an
ideal. Hence, political system which are not based on
western model will appear defective or problematic
 Marxists suggests that the system is not even correct
explanation of system in Western countries. It shows as
if there is no problem in western countries: political
system operates smoothly and there are no disruptions
or protests
 Political system is status-quoist. It is not change
oriented. It projects American system as the ideal type.
It means they show as if there is no system which can be
considered as better than this system.
 For Marxists, even western countries should move
towards the communist model
Lecture 57: 6th February, 2020
Note:
 System approach – above notes is for handout and here
it is followed dictations by mam in Lecture 57 here.
Similar concept given below. No change.
Purpose of systems approach:
 To develop scientific model. Scientific models are
universal in nature
 To develop a model that can explain the
fundamental/foundational principles/features of
political system. It means to develop universal model
How to develop the fundamental model?
 It is to identify what are fundamental structures and
processes. Hence, systems approach is taken
Why systems approach is taken?
 Since we cannot understand politics only on the basis of
constitutions, we have to understand the environment
in which the constitution is placed. Hence, we have to
take systemic view
What is systemic view?
 Understanding politics as a system
What is a system?
 System is a concept
 It denotes the set of elements in the state of interaction.
Interaction is patterned but not haphazard
Components of the system:
 Environment – those systems which are in the state of
interaction
 Boundary – elements kept outside
Diagram of political system:
Sudheer Pulapa
10
How to distinguish political system from other systems?
 On the basis of unique function performed by political
system
What is the unique function?
 The unique function of political system is authoritative
allocation of values
How political system operates?
 Political system can be seen as a machine
What is a machine?
 Machine converts input into output
 Political system is a machine which converts input into
output
Input: Demand and Support are inputs
Output: Decision and Policies are outputs
Political systems get inputs from surroundings: Inputs are
two types –
3) Demands – what people want from the system
a. Demand for regulation. Ex: Smoking
regulations
b. Demand for participation. Ex: Citizen charter,
Social audit
c. Demand for distribution. Ex: 2G, 3G etc.
d. Demand for communication. Ex: RTI
4) Support – It shows peoples support for the system
which is necessary for the functioning of the system
a. Material support – people pay tax
b. Obedience to law
c. Participation in government programmes
d. Paying attention to government
communication
Outputs – 2 types
3) If a single decision comes, it will be treated as a decision
4) If multiple decision comes, it will be treated as a policy
Feedback:
 It plays important role in maintenance of system

Outputs interact with environment; they re-enter into
system through feedback loop. If this loop does not exist,
systems will collapse
Critical evaluation:
TRADITIONALISTS:
 It brings unnecessary complications, unnecessary
jargons
 It does not have much analytical importance. It is just a
very preliminary conceptual framework. It can be
utilised only at initial level of research
 It’s only importance can be conceptual framework for
the collection of data
MARXISTS:
 They are critical of behaviourists
 Why?  Behaviourism emerged at the time of cold war.
It was an initiative of American Political Scientists. Most
of the behavioural research were directed towards
understanding and explaining the social realities in
“SOCIALIST COUNTRIES”
 Example: Elitist theory of democracy is an example of
Behavioural-Empirical Research. Elitist theory of
democracy has shown that oligarchy is the iron law i.e.
whether a country is socialists or liberal, power will
always be in the hands of the state. Situation is better in
western countries because elite structures is fractured
 Thus, Marxists looked at Behaviourism as a conspiracy
against socialist countries
 According to Marxists, systems approach is status-
quoist (modelled on western countries)
 Systems approach is not universalist
 Systems approach is modelled on political system of
western countries
 Systems approach gives too much focus on system
maintenance. They do not explain the crisis in system.
They have not pointed towards protests, revolutions,
disruptions. They project as if system is capable of
absorbing all types of challenges
 Scientific model has to be universalist, unbiased. But this
model is not universalist. It takes western model as an
ideal. Hence, political system which are not based on
western model will appear defective or problematic
 Marxists suggests that the system is not even correct
explanation of system in Western countries. It shows as
if there is no problem in western countries: political
system operates smoothly and there are no disruptions
or protests
 Political system is status-quoist. It is not change
oriented. It projects American system as the ideal type.
It means they show as if there is no system which can be
considered as better than this system.
 For Marxists, even western countries should move
towards the communist model
Sudheer Pulapa
11
2. STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL APPRAOCH
Scholars: Almond and Powell Model
Why this approach? (or) Purpose:
 To address some of the deficiencies in systems approach
Deficiencies in systems approach:
 It was too general
 It does not tell in detail about the structures and
processes within the political system
 It was criticised for being too static
 It was modelled on western countries
 Hence it was found to be very relevant for the study of
‘developing societies’. Thus limited importance in
comparative politics
Source of influence:
 Even structural functional approach is based on Easton’s
model
 Malinowski and R C Brown
 Institutional approach
Thus systems approach remains the basic
conceptual framework. However, it takes micro view than
macro view. Structural functional approach aimed at
formulating ‘more universalistic’ model. So that it is useful
for developing countries
How to make it universalist?
 Almond and Powell looked into the developments in
other disciplines
 They found the approach of anthropologists like
Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown also useful
What was their contribution?
 They have shown that all societies perform some
essential functions which are necessary
 However, societies may vary with respect to the
structures performing such functions i.e. every political
system may have to perform the function of security but
the structure or institution performing this function may
vary. Hence, by understanding the universal functions,
we can develop universal models

Since, it emphasizes on functions, it is called as
Structural Functional Approach. It is also called as seven
input output function
Why type of approach it is?
 Behavioural approach
Structural Functional Approach takes the
DYNAMIC VIEW OF POLITICAL SYSTEM. According to them,
different political systems are at different stages of
development. This approach utilises the concept of
institutional approach to give the macro view of functioning
of political system
Critical evaluation:
It could address the defects of system approach but
partially. How? 
 Since they focus on function, so more universalist
 They acknowledge that different political systems are at
different stage. So, it is more dynamic. However, it
continues to suffer the same problem –
o It is a cosmetic exercise
o It lacks analytical depth
o For Marxists, it remains status quoist
TRADITIONALISTS:
 It brings unnecessary complications, unnecessary
jargons
 It does not have much analytical importance. It is just a
very preliminary conceptual framework. It can be
utilised only at initial level of research
 It’s only importance can be conceptual framework for
the collection of data
MARXISTS:
 They are critical of behaviourists
 Why?  Behaviourism emerged at the time of cold war.
It was an initiative of American Political Scientists. Most
of the behavioural research were directed towards
understanding and explaining the social realities in
“SOCIALIST COUNTRIES”
 Example: Elitist theory of democracy is an example of
Behavioural-Empirical Research. Elitist theory of
democracy has shown that oligarchy is the iron law i.e.
whether a country is socialists or liberal, power will
always be in the hands of the state. Situation is better in
western countries because elite structures is fractured
 Thus, Marxists looked at Behaviourism as a conspiracy
against socialist countries
 According to Marxists, systems approach is status-
quoist (modelled on western countries)
 Systems approach is not universalist
 Systems approach is modelled on political system of
western countries
 Systems approach gives too much focus on system
maintenance. They do not explain the crisis in system.
They have not pointed towards protests, revolutions,
Sudheer Pulapa
12
disruptions. They project as if system is capable of
absorbing all types of challenges
 Scientific model has to be universalist, unbiased. But this
model is not universalist. It takes western model as an
ideal. Hence, political system which are not based on
western model will appear defective or problematic
 Marxists suggests that the system is not even correct
explanation of system in Western countries. It shows as
if there is no problem in western countries: political
system operates smoothly and there are no disruptions
or protests
 Political system is status-quoist. It is not change
oriented. It projects American system as the ideal type.
It means they show as if there is no system which can be
considered as better than this system.
 For Marxists, even western countries should move
towards the communist model
Though it does not remove all the defects of
systems approach, yet it is improvement in the sense that it
gives more detailed view of the political system. However, it
lacks much analytical importance.
3. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
Scholars:
 Lucian Pye and F W Riggs
Type of approach:
 Behavioural
Purpose:
 Study of developing areas
LUCIAN PYE:
 He has given the parameters of political development
 We can compare the countries on the basis of amount
of development
 Political development should not be confused with
economic development. Political development means
the development of democracy
Three parameters of political development:
According to Lucian Pye, there are three
parameters of political development:
1) Equality: Increasing political equality or political
participation
2) Capacity: It denotes capacity of state to enforce laws
3) Differentiation: Functional specialisation. It means how
specialised the bodies performing different functions
are
Samuel P Huntington adds the concept of political decay.
Ex: Indira Gandhi Era
 13

F W RIGGS: movement of a political system in lines of western liberal

 He added the concept of development trap
 Sometimes development may get trapped when all
dimension of development does not develop equally.
Ex: INDIA
Critical evaluation:
MARXISTS:
 They are critical of behaviourists
 Why?  Behaviourism emerged at the time of cold war.
It was an initiative of American Political Scientists. Most
of the behavioural research were directed towards
understanding and explaining the social realities in
“SOCIALIST COUNTRIES”
 Example: Elitist theory of democracy is an example of
Behavioural-Empirical Research. Elitist theory of
democracy has shown that oligarchy is the iron law i.e.
whether a country is socialists or liberal, power will
always be in the hands of the state. Situation is better in
western countries because elite structures is fractured
 Thus, Marxists looked at Behaviourism as a conspiracy
against socialist countries
 According to Marxists, systems approach is status-
quoist (modelled on western countries)
 Systems approach is not universalist
 Systems approach is modelled on political system of
western countries
 Systems approach gives too much focus on system
maintenance. They do not explain the crisis in system.
They have not pointed towards protests, revolutions,
disruptions. They project as if system is capable of
absorbing all types of challenges
 Scientific model has to be universalist, unbiased. But this
model is not universalist. It takes western model as an
ideal. Hence, political system which are not based on
western model will appear defective or problematic
 Marxists suggests that the system is not even correct
explanation of system in Western countries. It shows as
if there is no problem in western countries: political
system operates smoothly and there are no disruptions
or protests
 Political system is status-quoist. It is not change
oriented. It projects American system as the ideal type.
It means they show as if there is no system which can be
considered as better than this system.
 For Marxists, even western countries should move
towards the communist model
democracies. For example, political development of China
requires that China should move towards democracy. Hence,
Marxists challenged that political development model is
biased. Hence, scholars invented a new parameter for
comparison. This new parameter is modernisation.
What does modernisation denote?
It is an economic category. It denotes the nature of
economic development. It denotes –
a. Industrialisation
b. Urbanisation
c. Secularisation
d. Rationalisation
If we compare on above parameters, ideological
dimension loses importance. Thus, political modernisation
overlaps with END OF IDEOLOGY THESIS. It shows that
ideological differences do not matter much so long countries
go towards modernisation.
SAMUEL P HUNTINGTON:
 When countries go for modernisation, they ultimately
move towards democracy
Modernisation thesis faces a major challenge in
context of China. Ideally China should have moved towards
democracy after economic modernisation. However, the
control of communist party has become more entrenched.
Communist party has an example of USSR. Hence, Chinese
Communist Party has not gone for democratic reforms.
Above analysis show that even political
modernisation theory is not completely neutral. It does have
the inherent agenda – [Knowledge-Power Connection –
Foucault]
5. POLITICAL CULTURE APPROACH
Scholars:
 Almond and Verba
“THE CIVIC CULTURE”

4. POLITICAL MODERNISATION APPROACH

Scholars:
 Samuel P Huntington
 Edward Shils

Why political modernisation approach?

Political development approach was seen as biased
because it defines political development in the form of
Sudheer Pulapa

According to these scholars, culture can be a
determinant for comparisons because culture is a long term
phenomenon
What does culture denotes?
 Culture denotes the set of norms, values, orientations of
the people
What does political culture denote?
 It is a subset of culture
 It denotes people’s norms, values and orientations
w.r.to the political system
Almond and Verba have used the concepts from following
approaches:
a. Concept of ideal types by Max Weber – it denotes
formulation of models
b. Concept of input and output approach by David Easton
– Almond and Verba had developed certain ideal types
of political culture.
The prominent types can be discussed by following –
1. Parochial political culture:
 It denotes the attitude of people towards a
political system where people are not very
much connected to the system, they feel
themselves at the margins of periphery
 For example, Tribes in Andaman have a very
peripheral position with respect to what goes
in the Indian Political System
 Parochial political culture can be explained
through input-output model method. When
people neither influence input nor output,
their culture is called Parochial political culture
2. Subject political culture:
 When people matter only at output, they are
not very influential at input level. It means they
are not in a position to determine what the
political system should do; however, they
matter in terms of implementation of policies
 It means political system is concerned about
people’s reactions
Sudheer Pulapa
14
 For example, India’s political culture till 80’s
and 90’s was primarily subject political culture.
People were not in a position to influence the
policies which could go inside the political
system, but political system could not entirely
ignore how people will react
 Another example is one of the reasons for
inability of Indian elites to take economic
reforms earlier was the fear that people may
not support such policies
3. Participant political culture:
 People pay active role in input and output. It
means they have active participation in
formulation of laws and are not just at the
receiving end of the political system
 For example, the political culture of
Switzerland can be said to be participant
 Another example is even in India, there is a
growth of participant culture, since the
beginning of 21st century. The assertion of civil
society to get JAN LOKPAL BILL implemented is
an example of growing participant culture in
India
4. Civic culture:
 It is considered to be the most conducive for
democracy
 It is a combination of participant, subject and
parochial political cultures
 According to the idea of civic culture, excessive
participant culture is not good
 Excessive participation may convert democracy
into mobocracy which will give rise to FASCISM
and DEMOGOGIC leaders. The best scenario
for democracy is where majority has
participant cultures but some sections also
have subject and parochial culture
6. POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY APPROACH
Sociology: It is study of society.
Importance of studying society: Since, it is not possible to
analyse politics only on the basis of constitution especially
for developing countries.
Status of political sociology: It started as an approach but
presently it is a discipline. Why?  The amount of research,
concepts that have emerged.
Aristotle who is considered as father of political
science. Aristotle is also considered as father of political
sociology. His theory of revolution where he explained
sociological factors like rising inequalities as cause for
revolution can be considered as example of political
sociology.
Machiavelli prescribed that the form of
government is dependent on nature of society. If society is
corrupt, then the rule of Prince will be with iron hands

Above examples show that political sociology deals
with issues that are in the interface of politics and society
Origin of modern political sociology:
We can consider MARX as father of modern
political sociology. It was Marx who suggested that to
understand politics, we have to understand the basic
structure of the society. Politics cannot be studied
independently. Marx proposed the base and super structure
model as method of analysis
Against Marxist approach to political sociology,
there emerged another school known as Weberian School.
Weber challenges the Marxist mode of analysis as Mono-
causal explanation.
There are two prominent schools in political sociology:
1. Marxian school
2. Weberian school
Areas of study in political sociology:
 Interface of politics and society
 Example: Class, Caste, Religion, Political parties,
Pressure groups, Electoral Behaviour
Recent methods:
 Under the impact of behaviourism, scientific method –
such as field work, questionnaire and statistical
methods
What is the current status in political science?
 Political scholars have moved away
Why?
 There was a fear that subject will lose its identity, it will
get submerged in sociology
 Hence, in political science, there is a revival of
institutionalism
Impact of behavioural movement:
 Political sociology approaches were further enriched by
behavioural studies and methods
 Even scholars like Easton proposed that instead of
institutional approach, politics should be studied with
“Systemic Perspective”. It has been felt that specifically
for developing areas, the study of constitutions will not
be enough, it is necessary to understand the socio-
cultural environment in the country
 Political sociologists deal with issues located at interface
of politics and society like role of caste, class, religion,
political parties, pressure groups, authority, legitimacy,
elite structure, revolution, electoral behaviour etc.
 Political sociology has become a most prominent
approach in comparative politics
 Some of the prominent scholars and works that have
used political sociology in Indian context are:
o ANDRE – studied role of caste
o PAUL – studied role of religion
Sudheer Pulapa
15
o CHRISTOFFE JAFFRELOT – studied role of
RSS
o YOGENDRA YADAV – studied role of India’s
electoral behaviour
What is the status of political sociology?
 Political sociology has once attracted lot of attention of
political scholars but later on, they had realised that
political sociology makes politics too much dependent
on society. There is a fear that political science will lose
its independent identity, it will get submerged in the
discipline of sociology
 Thus, political sociology had been so much growth in
political sociology in terms of amount of research that it
has become a hybrid discipline in itself rather than just
the approach
 THEDA SKOCPOL calls for “BRINGING THE STATE BACK
IN”. What does this mean?  It means political science
should not het submerged in sociology. We have to give
centrality to study of state in the discipline. It is true that
society influences politics. But it is also true that politics
shape society. Ex: Under the leadership of Charismatic
leaders like Nehru, Indian Society was being transferred
into modern society. The call to bring the state back also
led to the renewal of interest in the study of institutions
which has given rise to a new approach known as “NEO-
INSTITUTIONALISM”
NEO-INSTITUTIONALISM:
Scholars:
 March and Olsen in their book “Reinventing
Government”
Theme:
 It is true that institutions are shaped by behaviour of
persons occupying the institutions but it is also true that
institutions constrain the behaviour. The formal and
informal rules of institutions will limit the actions of
individuals. Hence, it is necessary to study institutions,
the formal and informal rules or conventions
 For example, the institution of Speaker in India will
definitely be shaped by the person occupying the
institution. But, whosoever is a speaker cannot
completely ignore the formal rules and conventions
 Neo-institutionalism later on evolved into three
dimensions –
o Sociological
o Historical
o Rational choice
Sociological approach – Neo-institutionalism as developed
by March and Olsen
Historical approach – some scholars focused on the study of
history and evolution of institutions
Rational choice approach – these scholars study how
decisions emerge from institutions

 Traditional institutionalism (old) – study of institutions
 Behaviourism – suggests institutionalist approach as
static. They focused on the study of behaviour
 Neo-institutionalism – it integrates both –
o Actors shapes institutions
o Institutions also constrain the choices of
actors
7. POLITICAL ECONOMY APPROACH
What is political economy?
 Studying economic policy
Origin of the subject:
 East: Kautilya – Arthashastra
 West: Adam Smith – Wealth of Nations
Status of political economy:
 It is not just an approach but it has become a separate
discipline
Nature of the approach:
 Combination of quantitative as well as prescriptive
Schools in political economy:
1) Neo-Liberal, Classical Liberal, Utilitarian, Public choice
– they all favoured minimum intervention by the state
in economy
2) Socialists – Karl Marx – “A critique of political economy”
– he has criticised policies of Adam Smith
3) Welfare Economics – Keynes, Amartya Sen, Abhijit
Banerjee
In the east, political economy approach goes back to
Ancient India. Kautilya “Arthashastra” can be treated as first
textbook in political economy. According to him, the most
important obligation of the state is to secure the material
well-being of its people
In the west, the tradition of political economy starts
with Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”, which is considered
as the first text book
Political economy shows the interface of economics and
politics. In political economy, scholars analyse “Economic
policies of State”. Political Economy approach helps us in
understanding the nature of the state as well as suggest the
type of public policy which a country can adopt.
It is a useful approach because it has the qualities of
being quantitative as well as prescriptive.
This approach has different schools of thought:
1) Classical and Utilitarian approach – Adam Smith,
Ricardo, Bentham
2) Marxist approach – Marx, Lenin, Engels, Rosa
Luxembourg
3) Neo-Marxist approach – Dependency school, A G
Frank, Samir Ameen, Structuralist school, Hamza
Alvi
Sudheer Pulapa
16
4) Welfare Economics school – Keynes, Galbrith,
Abhijit Banerjee
5) Neo-Liberal school – Hyak, Nozick, Jagdish Bagwati,
Arvind Panagariya
6) Public Choice school – James Buchanan
Political economy approach has also been used widely in
context of study of India by scholars like –
 PRANAB BARDHAN
 ATUL KOHLI
 RUDOLPH and RUDOLPH
 FRANCINE FRANKEL
 GUNNNAR MYRDAL
They have analysed Land Reforms, Green Revolution,
Neo-liberal economic policies etc.
Disadvantages –
 It is just focussed on analysing the economic factors or
policies
 Hence, to be used in combination with other
approaches
State in comparative perspective: Characteristics
and changing nature of the State in capitalist and
socialist economies, and, advanced industrial and
developing societies
What to read?
 Compare states in capitalist societies and socialist
societies
 Characteristics and changing trends
Characteristics of capitalist state:
 Examples – USA, Britain, France, Germany etc.
 Liberal view – state is neutral arbiter
 Marxist view –
o Instrumentalist (executive committee)
o Relative autonomy
 Elitist view – Oligarchy is the iron law. Reference – C
Wright Mills – studied the state in USA
 Pluralist view – Robert Dahl – they are polyarchies or
deformed polyarchies
Nature of state in socialist countries:
 Former USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea
 Socialist view – dictatorship of proletariat – power lies
with the people
 Western scholars view – Hannah Arendt’s totalitarian
view. Karl Popper – closed societies
 Elitist – ruled by communist parties or Junta (monolithic
elite)
Changing trends:
 Capitalist trends – from Laissez Faire to Welfare state;
from Welfare to Neo-liberal; from Neo-liberal to Neo-
rightist
 17

 Socialist trends – collapse of USSR, Russia and other 2) Gunnar Myrdal’s concept of soft state:
east European countries and former republics of USSR
embraced democracy  They are sort of authoritarian
states. China  since 19th Party Congress 2018,
constitution of China is amended and Xi Jingping has
become president for life. It means becoming more
totalitarian. North Korea  unique form of
communism, hereditary communism

Lecture 58: 7th February, 2020

States in developing societies:
The nature of states in these societies can be
analysed from western and non-western perspective.
Western perspective:
 Scholars have used behavioural approaches like political
developments, political modernisation. The two
prominent works from behavioural perspective are –
1. Riggs concepts of prismatic societies
2. Gunnar Myrdal’s concept of soft state
 In his book “ASIAN DRAMA”, he has analysed the nature
of states in countries like India, Indonesia etc.
 He calls Indian state as a ‘soft state’
What is soft state?
 The state which is soft on criminals
 It means it has poor capacity to implement laws and
rules
Implication of soft state:
 Lawlessness
 Failure to achieve developmental objectives

1) Riggs concept of prismatic societies:
Instead of calling states he prefers the use of
‘society’. He calls this societies as prismatic societies.
What does it denote?
 It denotes developing societies – Developing societies
reflect some features of undeveloped and some
features of developed. They are societies in transition.
The concept of ‘prism’ shows features of both a
fused light as well as diffracted light. Here fused light show
absence of functional specialisation. Diffracted light shows
functional specialisation.
Hence, he was sceptical about the success of
poverty alleviation programmes in India.
What makes India a soft state?
1. Corruption – Corruption is a colonial legacy. It allows
criminals to evade laws
2. Indian Culture – In India, those who disobey law get
more respect than those who obey law
3. Gandhi – Gandhi has taught disobedience to law.
Indians have won independence by such methods

Riggs has given eight features of prismatic societies:

1. Heterogeneity – it reflects the existence of old and new
2. Formalism – there is a gap between theory and practice
3. Poly-communalism - yet to become nation states.
Hostile communities co-exist
4. Nepotism – It means in recruitment kinship ties matter. Galbraith (1908-2006)
Nepotism represent ‘sala model’ of administration
5. Economic system is called as BAZAAR-CANTEEN model. Similar ideas were expressed by GALBRAITH, the
It means some will get goods at market price and some first US ambassador to India. He called India a “functional
will get at cheaper price anarchy”.
6. Overlapping – functions are not clearly defined
7. Authority and Control – There is a centralisation of Marxist perspective:
authority, but control is localised (in the hands of
administrator) 1. Instrumental perspective
8. Poly-normativism – co-existence of modern and 2. Structural perspective
traditional norms

Sudheer Pulapa

INSTRUMENTAL APPROACH:
Theme of this approach:
 According to them, the states in developing countries
are the instruments of the bourgeoisie class sitting in
core countries. They are puppet regimes or clientalist
regimes
Source of influence:
 This theory is influenced by ‘LENIN’S THEORY OF
IMPERIALISM’. From his theory comes the concept of
dependency or colony
 The scholars of Latin America like RAUL PREBISCH, A G
FRANK, HENRIQUE CARDOSO
 The scholars from Africa like SAMIR AMIN, EMMANUEL
ARGHIRI have applied the concepts for Latin America,
Africa and countries of middle east
What is their observation?
 The eradication of poverty is not possible
Why?
 Though formal colonialism has ended, yet they are
under neo-colonialism
 Neo-colonialism term coined by Former Ghana
President KWAME NKRUMAH.
The most prominent contribution is of A G FRANK.
His theory is known as “THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT OF
UNDER-DEVELOPMENT”  He categorises the states into
two types –
 Metro polis advanced
 Satellites
The third world states are like satellites which do
not have their autonomous existence. According to him,
there is an unequal exchange which is resulting into uneven
development, which means development at core or
metropolis and underdevelopment at satellites.
Hence according to this school, these countries
should focus on ‘Autonomous National Development’. So,
long they will be integrated with international economy, the
unequal exchange will continue.
STRUCTURAL APPROACH:
Note: Done in theory of state topic
 HAMZA ALVI – he has given the concept of over
developed states applicable for states in South Asia
Sudheer Pulapa
18
Politics of Representation and Participation:
Political parties, pressure groups and social
movements in advanced industrial and developing
societies
Party system and Comparison between developed
and developing world:
Role of political parties:
 Interest aggregation
 Besides interest aggregation, they do political
socialisation, political recruitment, political
modernisation and political communication
How to define party system?
 Party system does not depend on number of parties, but
number of parties having systemic relevance (SARTORI)
 For example, India from the beginning had multiple
parties, but until 1967 it was known as one party
dominant system
Types of party system:
 Type of party system can be classified on the basis of the
nature of electoral systems
Page no: 248, 249, 250 – have a look from handout
Politics of participation and representation:
 Party System
 Pressure Groups
 Social Movements
 Comparison between developing and advanced
societies
PARTY SYSTEM
The study of political parties has become an
extremely specialised field in itself – STATISIOLOGY. Political
parties perform the ESSENTIAL INPUT function known as
INTEREST AGGREGATION. Political parties have become the
universal feature of politics around the world irrespective of
the fact that the country is democratic or not.
Prominent theories of political parties:
Political parties have been analysed by different
perspectives –
 Normative Approach – EDMUND BURKE. According to
him, political parties are the set of people sharing
common ideology, coming together for promotion of
national interest.
 Behavioural Approach – Behavioural scholars show that
political parties are POWER HOUSES (MAX WEBER).
Their purpose of formation is to come to power.
 19

In recent times, ideology has lost relevance and we 2. BEHAVIOURAL THEORY

see the rise of “CATCH ALL PARTIES” – a term coined by
OTTO VON KIRCHHEIMER. Robert Michel’s – “POLITICAL PARTIES”

Theories of Political Parties:  He has given the concept of ‘IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY’
 He has analysed the internal functioning of socialist
1. LENIN’S THEORY parties in GERMANY to examine the claim of Marxists
that socialist parties operate on different principles
 Lenin has given the theory of communist party in his  He came to a conclusion that there is not difference in
pamphlet ‘what is to be done’ the internal functioning. All powers are in the hands of
 Marx never accepted the idea of party because party top leaders. Hence, he suggested that OLIGARCHY is the
creates hierarchy, which goes against the idea of iron law – power will always be in the hands of elites.
equality Masses never shape decisions. Thus, irrespective of
 Lenin believes that workers are not capable of ideology, all parties operate in a similar fashion. Political
developing the revolutionary consciousness on their parties are oligarchies
own. Hence, political parties will act as VAN GUARD of
revolution
 Communist party is different from trade unions. Trade
Unions are the part of bourgeoisie systems. They can
get only some concessions for workers whereas political
parties (communist parties) can bring workers to power
 Communist party is a secret society as the aim of
communist party is to overthrow the state
 Communist party will be having its CELLS at local levels
 Communist party is PYRAMIDAL in structure; broad at
the base

Question:
 Discuss the structural growth of political parties.

 He has given “DUVERGER LAW”

 This law tells the relationship between the electoral
system and the party system
o If a country has SIMPLE MAJORITARIAN TYPE
ELECTORAL SYSTEM, it will have TWO-PARTY
SYSTEM
o If a country has PROPORTIONAL
 Communist party works on principle of DEMOCRATIC
REPRESENTATION, it will have MULTI-PARTY
CENTRALISM. In what way it is democratic?  Top
SYSTEM
leadership will do what is determined by the base i.e.
Note:
BOTTOM UP APPROACH
 India is an exception to this law where multi-party
system exists with simple majoritarian type
In what way there is centralism?
 People will communicate to top leadership what they
 He has also given structural analysis of political parties.
want. Top leadership will convert people’s demands
On basis of ideology, there are two types of political
into a workable program of action. Once decision is
parties –
taken by top leadership, it will be implemented at all
o Mass parties – Liberal and Communist
levels and hence, it is centralised model
o Cadre based parties – Right parties. On the
basis of internal structure, they are 4 types –
Summary:
 Branch – Some parties have branches.
 VAN GUARD OF REVOLUTION
Ex: Liberal parties
 Difference in communist party and trade unions
 Cells – features of communist parties
 Organisational structure – Pyramid structure

Sudheer Pulapa

 Caucus – A small group of leaders,
elites, Junta, primarily associated with
rightist parties
 Militia – Some parties can have their
armed wings also. Ex: Fascist party of
Mussolini, Red Guards of Communist
Party of China
Types of Political Systems:
Electoral
systems
Competitive Systems
•One party dominant system Ex:
Congress System in India, Position of
African National Congress in South
Africa, United Russia Party
•Two party system
•Ideological Ex: UK
•Pragmatic Ex: USA
Non-competitive Systems
•Multi-party system
•Very Polarised. Ex: India (non-healthy)
•Consociational. Ex: Germany
•Hegemonic party system. Ex: China
Question:
 Compare the party system of developing countries with
developed countries
Sudheer Pulapa
20
Introduction to the above question:
Developed and developing world is too vast and
heterogeneous. For the want of time and space, it is not
possible to go for very specific features hence the
differences can be discussed in a very general sense. Thus,
formulating the ideal types
Developed countries:
 Multi-party system – Ex: Continental Europe
 Two-party system, which is ideological
 Tw-party system, which is pragmatic
Developing countries:
 With the exception of India, other countries are very
new from the perspective of democracy. Hence, we can
describe the features on the basis of India
India keeps on shifting from one party dominant to
multi-party system. Multi-party system does not reflect the
type of maturity found in countries like Germany,
Switzerland etc. There is growth of catch all parties. Parties
are modern as far as origin and structure is concerned.
However, they are traditional in their functioning, lack of
transparency and parties are not institutionalised they are
personality based.
 CPI – Nationalist
 CPI (M) – Pro China
 CPI (ML) – Revolutionary
According to SARTORI, party system is not shaped
by number of parties, but number of parties having
SYSTEMIC RELEVANCE i.e. influencing system.
Scholars like MYRON WEINER & JOSPEH LA
PALOMBRA have explained types of party system on the
basis of nature of electoral systems.
Pragmatic:
 It is said that two USA’s political parties are: “SAME
WINE IN TWO DIFFERENT BOTTLES WITH DIFFERENT
LABELS”
Comparison between Western and Non-Western Party
System:
 Western and Non-Western is a very broad concept
 There is a lot of internal differentiation or heterogeneity
 It will be difficult to give MICRO analysis. Hence, the
differences can be analysed at a very general level by
constructing the ideal types
 It is to be noted that political parties do not operate in
vacuum, they are influenced by systemic factors (social,
cultural, economic, cultural etc.)
Features of Western countries:
1. They are mature democracies. Hence, democracy is
institutionalised. Thus, political parties are also
democratic. There is internal democracy with respect to
selection of leaders and candidates.

2. The working of political parties is TRANSPARENT and
FINANCIALLY ACCOUNTABLE.
3. Political parties are primarily built on IDEOLOGICAL lines
4. They are institutionalised and hence they do not end
with leader’s death. There are two models – Two Party
System – ideological and pragmatic – explained before
and written above
Features of non-western countries:
1. They show paradoxical features
2. Parties are modern, bureaucratic in their organisation,
but traditional in functioning. Thus, representing the
uniqueness of prismatic societies.
3. Politics in these countries are more complex, multi-
dimensional. Besides caste, class, religion, region,
language may also play role.
4. Political parties may not have secular ideologies
5. They lack intra-party democracy
6. They are controlled by dynasties
7. They revolve around personality
8. They lack transparency and financial accountability
INTEREST GROUPS / PRESSURE GROUPS
Introduction:
 Interest groups are called as Invisible Empires (FINER)
 This shows that the basic difference between political
party and pressure groups is that political parties
context for acquiring formal post in government
institutions. Pressure groups do not compete for formal
posts, yet they may be influencing govt.’s decision
making to a significant extent
 It may have said that pressure groups play the game of
HIDE AND SEEK in political system
1. Political parties perform role of Interest
aggregation
2. Pressure Groups play role of Interest
articulation
 The study of interest groups has been one of the main
concerns of political sociologists as they operate at the
interface of politics and society
 The study of pressure groups is known as Pluralism
 ‘Pluralistic Theory of Democracy” put importance on
the study of pressure groups. Ex: Robert Dahl on the
basis of role of pressure groups in liberal democracies
preferred to call these democracies as Polyarchy
Difference between political parties and interest groups:
 Aim of political parties is to capture political offices
 Pressure groups seek to influence policy from outside
without formally joining the political offices. Hence,
they are called as invisible empires. For example, BJP is
a political party, but RSS has invisible empire
Difference between interest groups and pressure groups:
 There is no difference except terminology
 In traditional approach, the term pressure group was
preferred
Sudheer Pulapa
21
 In behavioural approach, the term interest group is
preferred
 Behavioural political scholars wanted to develop
standard terminology in political sciences as in natural
sciences
 When we use the term Pressure Group, we are focussing
on the technique employed by these groups i.e.
lobbying for the promotion of their interests. When we
sue the term interest group, we emphasize in purpose
i.e. interest articulation.
 Interest group term is more appropriate as pressure as
a technique can be employed by oppositions, social
movements etc. Hence, this term may create ambiguity
Types of Interest Groups:
 GABRIEL ALMOND’S classification – he has classified it
into 4 types:
1. Institutional (government) – IAS Officers,
Army personnel
2. Non-Associational
3. Associational
4. Anomic
1) Institutional Pressure Groups:
 They are those which are the part of governmental
institutions or whose members are part of such
institutions. For example, organisation of civil servants,
military personnel, govt. sector banks etc.
 They are the most powerful pressure groups as they
operate within the system and are in the best possible
situation to influence government policies
 They are more prominent in developing countries
considering the fact that states in developing countries
are over developed states. In western countries, they
may not be as powerful because they normally have
Minimal state
 However, difference is only based on ideal types, in
reality the situation may vary. For example, Army in
Pakistan is the strongest pressure group, hence army
there is called as DEEP STATE. Though USA is a
democracy, yet its politics give prominent role to its
military and industry. C Wright Mills held that USA is
ruled by Power Elites
2) Non-Associational Pressure Groups:
 It is community-based
 Pressure groups based on caste, religion, language, race
will come under this category. For example, JAT MAHA
SABHA, KSHATRIYA MAHA SABHA, GUJJAR MAHA
SABHA
 They are exclusive in nature. Membership is based on
ASCRIPTIVE (based on birth) criteria
 They play greater role in (developing) prismatic societies
3) Associational Pressure Groups:

 Association denotes the organisation purely based on
INTEREST
 People come together for a particular interest
irrespective of caste, colour, nationality or any other
ascriptive criteria
 For example, Amnesty International, Green Peace,
FICCI, BHARATIYA KISAN UNION, SEVA etc.; RSS Media,
Media (except DD), Trade Union etc.
 They are more prominent in Western countries
 However, in developing countries also trend is changing
since 1990’s, the beginning of globalisation. There is
proliferation in terms of number and there is increase in
the shape of their impact.
4) Anomic Pressure Groups:
 ‘Anomic’ means ‘Normlessness’
 Pressure groups is a collective activity
 There are some sorts of collective behaviour which
cannot be put under any of the before three categories
and hence are categorised as Anomic
 Normally, the term is used for crowd behaviour or short
term association. For example, people protesting
against road accidents
 They are more visible in developing countries because
of the lack of institutionalisation of democracy
JEAN BLONDEL’S classification –
Why this new classification?
Almond’s model is static. It does not tell how pressure
groups politics evolve over a period of time. Hence, Blondel
proposed more Dynamic model.
Pressure Groups
Non-associational
In terms of
membership
Associational
Protective
In terms of
function
Developmental
 Protective pressure group – Narrow interest of
members only. Ex: Trade Union
 Developmental – broader interests. Ex: Human Rights;
Environmental etc.
 Non-associational  Associational ≅ Traditional 
Western. Similar is the case with the type i.e. in terms of
function
Sudheer Pulapa
22
Social Movements
 They are also a type of collective behaviour like political
parties and pressure groups
 Their study is also the main concern of political
sociology as they are at interface of politics and society
 Pressure groups, Political Parties and Social Movements
are interchangeable. Ex: INC started as social
movement, changed into pressure group and then into
a political party. Ex: AAP too same transformations as
INC
 Out of the three, social movements are the LEAST
INSTITUTIONALISED. Social movements have their
ideology, leadership, life cycle
 It is primarily a feature of left politics. Social movements
are aligned to LEFT IDEOLOGY
 In liberal discourse, scholars do not prefer to use the
term social movement. They prefer to use the term
“Resource Mobilisation”
Origin of modern social movements:
 They started in WEST as REACTION against exploitation
of working class. Workers movements were the earliest
social or left movements
 Now, these movements are called as old social
movements
New social movements:
 They started in west in 1960’s
 They are concerned with developmental issues, quality
of life etc. For example, environmental, human rights,
civil rights, peace movements
Difference in developing and developed world:
 In developing world, considering prismatic nature of
society, old and new social movements are not entirely
distinct but are overlapping. For example, Indian
Environmentalist Movement is a mix of old and new. As
an old social movement, it deals with livelihood
concerns of poor, tribes etc. As anew social movements,
it deals with protection of environment
Difference between old and new social movements:
i. In terms of objective –
a. Old social movement – deals with bread and
butter or basic issues
b. New social movement – deals with quality of
life issues like sustainable development
ii. In terms of class composition –
a. Old social movement – are that of lower class-
workers
b. New social movement – are movements by
middle classes
iii. In terms of leadership –
a. Old social movements and New Social
movements – the leadership has primarily
come from advanced section of middle classes.
However, it does not mean lower classes have
 23

not provided leadership. For example, Lenin

was from middle class and Mao was from
peasantry
iv. In terms of techniques used –
a. Old social movement – primarily political
techniques – force, protests, demonstration.
They take direct action to gain political and
economic power
b. New social movement – various medians like –
art, literature, theatre, movies. Their main
focus is not capturing power but on raising
consciousness
v. In terms of ideology –
a. Old social movement – they are materialistic
b. New social movement – they are post-
materialistic

Note: HERBERT MARCUSE is known as “Father of New

Left/New Social Movement”. Book: “One Dimensional
Man”

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Importance:
 Since representative democracy has become inevitable,
electoral system has become part and parcel of any
theory of democracy
 Any electoral system has to be –
o Free and Fair
o Representative with minimum wastage of
votes
 It is to be noted that democracy is needed for the
protection of minorities. Hence, electoral system must
be such that it gives enough space for representation for
views of minorities
 Real democracy is not majoritarian but consociational
(consensus based)

Simple Majority
System
Types of Electoral Systems

Second Ballot
Majoritarian
System
Alternative Vote
System

STV
Proportional
List System

Note:
 Applicable only for joint-electorates. Separate
communal electorates are in different context

Refer Handout Page – [265-269]  Handout name in

channel is: “Approach to Political Science-1”

Sudheer Pulapa