An Approach To The

Analysis Of Political
Structure
Political Systems and Some Attributes
 VARIETIES OF POL. STRUCTURE

 Political systems have many kinds of structures. Such structural

variety within and among systems cannot be and has not been ignored
or neglected, however much the idea of structures as a theoretical
concept may have been overlooked.
 Higher- and Lower-Order Structures: As we develop a picture of
the variety of things that we consider part of the structure of a political
system, it will put us in the position of being able to differentiate
between what we shall call lower-order structures as against those that
have typically been overlooked, the basic or higher-order structures.
 concept of lower-order or observed structures is an economical way of
identifying those highly variable forms we are accustomed to seeing and
examining in political systems across space and time.
 the idea of a higher­ order structure will prove useful in exploring an
important part of a possible explanation. This distinction between lower-
and higher-order structures will give us a major theoretical tool
 as an element in systematic analysis, political science has for the most
part ignored higher-order and the reason for this may be that, unlike the
lower-order ones, which are observable, the former patterns of
relationships are at a higher level of abstraction, an object of "reflective
abstraction".
 higher-level structures are influentially related to the lower ones
 In ordinary usage we do not have to penetrate very deeply into
political relationships for the discovery of lower-order political
structures.
 They seem to be directly visible and for that reason can be called
observable. Others may prefer to refer to them as surface as against
deep structures (structural linguists), base vs. superstructures
(Marxists), or just political relationships (adapting Levi-Strauss's
terminology).
 What are these observable lower-order structures?

 'in political science have been calling structure it shall take the time
to specify, at least broadly, various categories of lower-order structures
 We can usefully classify lower-order political structures into two
subtypes: regimes and differentiated structures.
 Regime Structures: Structure often assumes a somewhat restricted
meaning in political analysis. Frequently such analysis focuses our
attention on the presumed causal force of that aspect of the political
system that is called regime structure.
 at times, the idea of structure also often appears in association with
the notion of "state". regime and state may at times suggest very
different objects. Hence, regime and state structure may not always
be interchangeable concepts, so that we need to be wary about
automatically transferring what to say about the one to the other.
 a regime, may be understood to refer to a number of specific aspects of a
political system
 when we speak about the structure of a political system, we clearly have
in mind just the structure of the regime
 Structure here clearly refers to the stable patterns of power relationships
among the major individual and collective actors in a political system.
 regime structure is something much less general than the overall or
global political structure implied in the Aristotelean conception of regime
 it embraces a wide range of relatively poorly defined elements

 regime often becomes confused with the political system as a whole.

 Apter defined modernization as development and equity.
Development refers to the expansion of the capacity to choose,
and equity, to the criteria in terms of which choices about the
distribution of goods and benefits are made.
 Apter followed Parsons in viewing a political system, of
which government is both a functional and structural
component.
 A political system becomes a system of choice for a particular
collectivity. Government, on the other hand, one of the major
structures within a political system, is the mechanism for
regulating choice.
 government as a concept become cloaked in doubt if not
obscurity.
 He described government "as a group of individuals sharing
a defined responsibility for exercising power?"
 In practice, however, he was seldom able to confine himself
to this limited meaning despite his explicit intentions.
 It does seem to include regime structures or patterns of
relationships such as the formal division of labour among
political authorities. But it frequently reaches beyond them to
embrace associated elites.
 Apter analysis is but part of a vast body of research that explores
the extent to which modernization, variously defined, has been
linked to the adoption of particular kinds of regime as well as
associated political structures such as competitive party systems,
centralized as against pluralized policy-making structures,
efficiency­oriented administrative organizations, and the like.
 What is true for modernization applies equally to other areas of
political research.
 the kinds of political structures included in have designated as
the political regime are usually considered significant variables in
shaping almost every aspect of the operations of political systems.
 every classification of regimes in effect represents an attempt to
show that there is a relationship between such a structural type, on
the one hand, and potential for change, representativeness,
responsiveness, pacific or warlike proclivities, and so forth of the
political system, on the other.
 Formal Structures in Regimes: Regime structures
characteristically appear in political research in both formal and
informal guise.
 formal structure refers to relationships among those organs that are
established through some public procedure and through which the
special kind of power we call political authority is allocated and
organized.
 In literate societies, this procedure may require the
specification of an arrangement of political relationships or
organizations in a written document, such as a law, decree, or
regulation.
 In nonliterate societies the arrangement may be prescribed
through some special oracular or ceremonial statement.
 Rituals such as these that are associated with the initiation of
the structure prescribe the rules by which members are to define
their roles and to conduct themselves.
 these rules constitute not a part of the political structure but
only the definition of the relationships or structure.
 We must consider formal structure to be part of the cultural
structure.
 What makes these rules of political culture formal is the ritual
surrounding their introduction.
 By their very nature the rules are prescriptive; they describe the
form that the relationships should take.
 Political cultural rules such as these specify the character of a
regime structure its division of political labour as found in the
organization of authority roles and offices.
 a written constitution represents the clearest and most direct
expression of a formal political structure.
 When we examine formal structure more closely we find
that it conceals certain ambiguities.
 it is not that easy to distinguish formal structures from what
have been called crescive ones, that is, from kinds that seem to
evolve naturally, without explicit or ritualistic establishment.
 a pattern of interest groups may evolve independently and
must therefore be considered part of the informal structure of
the system.
 They may have just gradually taken shape on their own and
found a place in the system.
 What we have just considered is true at the level of the political
system, now drop down a level to the interest group subsystem.
 we find that these groups, in modem industrial societies at least,
are likely to arise out of deliberate decisions by some or all of
their membership to cooperate in the pursuit of shared objectives.
 They conform to our definition of a formal structure.
 lower-order structure may at the same time be formal and
informal only gives the appearance of a contradiction.
 the formality of a structure depends on two criteria: its level
and its origins.
 At a given level in the political system a structure of behavior will
be formal or informal depending upon whether it originates through
some special prescription or crescively.
 at a more general level a set of political relationships may
typically arise without formal specification even though at a lower
level in the system it may be a product of formal rules.
 There is a second source that we must take into account.

 When we describe a structure as formal, do we intend to refer

only to the prescribed rules that define what the structure ought to
be or do we also intend to include the actual behavior of those who
participate in the relationships that form the political structure?
 Does formal structure refer to behavior as well as to
prescriptions, to actual patterns of interactions as well as to
tables of organization?
 In observing this relationship, since it does conform to the
prescribing rules, would we be correct in saying that the
patterns of actual behavior represent part of the formal structure
of the American political system?
 if we exclude troublesome informal behaviour, what we
would seem to have in mind when speaking of the formal
structure in this case would be not only the prescribing rules
but the actual behavior as well.
 If this is so, it would appear that we would be in error to conclude
that formal structure refers exclusively to rules that prescribe
behavior. Presumably, it is intended to include actual patterns of
interaction as well, at least to the extent that they conform to the
prescribed rules.
 the disparity between formal rules and actual conforming or
diverging patterns of behavior may become an important criterion for
differentiating political systems and the way in which they perform.
 Practice seems to match form. Yet even with such a close fit, it is
never perfect. There is always some discrepancy. Furthermore,
systems such as these, where formal rules and behavior so closely
approximate each other, are the exception rather than the rule.
 In summary then, although the term regime structure
embraces what has tradition­ally been called formal structure,
the meaning of the latter concept has retained some irreducible
ambiguity.
 In the first place, what is formal or informal will depend upon
the level of analysis, as we have seen.
 In the second place, it is not always clear from our conceptual
usages as to whether we intend to include, in the notion of
formal structure, the prescribed rules as well as the actual
patterns of interaction in which members of a political system
engage.
The idea of formal structure, as part of the regime
structure, seems to float uncertainly between exclusive
reference to formal statements about ideals, expectations,
or legal prescriptions on the one hand, and inclusion of a
description of conforming practices on the other.