Comparative Politics

1.Approaches to Comparative Government and Politics
In the last chapter we saw that comparative politics is concerned with the study, analysis and explanations of significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions, political processes and in political behaviour. It has also been mentioned that during the course of its history the comparative method has gone through various developments and changes both in the scope of its areas of study as well as approaches and tools used. Since
Aristotle began the study of comparative politics, countless students have analysed the nature and quality of political regimes. They have looked at the way in which the functions of government are performed and relationships between rulers and ruled. They have also posed questions about the kind of rules that exist and actions that are taken. In recent years two major additions have been made in the study of comparative politics. One the students are also interested in the politics of the newer nation states in which an increasing part of the worlds population lives and try to include these states within the scope of generalisation about comparative politics. Second, students are not content merely with descriptions of political institutions and constitutional arrangements, more attention is now paid to non governmental and social organisations and to the political behaviour of individuals and groups.1 In this context the student today has many approaches to choose from. At the same time the various approaches and techniques have different implications for the process of theory building. Broadly the approaches are categorised into two: Traditional and Modern.
Traditional Approaches
Among the Traditional Approaches we can include:
a) The Historical Approach
b) The Formal-legal Approach
c) The Configurative Approach
16
d) The Problem Approach
e) The Area Approach
f)The Institutional Approach
Of these approaches the most important and still considered relevant is the Institutional approach. However, for information sake we may make a mention of each of the above.
The historical approach uses the knowledge of history and applies it to understand the political life. It is chronological and descriptive and seeks to explain linkages of political life with the changing situation. Thus on the basis of historical analysis new principles of political importance are developed. Aristotle, Montesgue, Hegal, Karl Marx, Henry Maine, Maclver, etc., in one way or the other relied substantially on history in their analysis.
The historical approach has various limitations. To begin with the events of various ages have been entered in history by different authors in different ways. Also, laws formulated in experiences of the past are not necessarily applicable to situations at present or in future which are different and are likely to change. It is only partly correct that history repeats itself. Identical situations might not recur. Political life in our own times has special characteristics, identity, features, problems and issues. There is also the danger that in our efforts to understand the historical context of political life and learn from it, we might be carried away by our own preferences and biases. Yet historical approach is important in the sense that the past serves as a window to the long process of evolution. Therefore inspite of its limitations it has not been complete discarded even now.
The other traditional approaches in one way or the other one to an extent reflect or the other form of Institutional Approach, some times giving importance to legal aspects and some times to functional. The Institutional Approach
The institutional approach is one of the oldest methods of analysing politics. Comparative politics for long has been dominated by this approach. In this approach the formal institutions of government like legislature, executive and judiciary provide the subject matter of comparison in terms of their constitution, powers, functions, role and mutual relations. Less official organisations, like pressure groups, are given little attention. Institutional comparison involves a relatively 17 detailed description of the institution under analysis followed by an attempt to clarify which details are similar or different. There are several ways of comparing political institutions. We can compare the institutions of a particular political system with each other at a given time. Different aspects of these institutions can also be compared. Painting on a broader canvas, we can compare the political institutions of one country with those of another, comparing them as sets or even systems of institutions.2
It should come as no great surprise that the detailed examination of the institutional ramifications of government was characteristic of the early efforts of political scientists. The approach had utility because it both permitted the study of easily observable and recordable phenomenon and precluded the use of subjectively derived data. However, the style was descriptive rather than analytical. The constitutions and formal organisations of government were examined in legal and historical terms, while informal relationships were unstudied. Earlier, the institutional approach was also strongly culture-bound, confined largely to the study of governments in the USA and
Europe.3 Therefore, in Post-World War Second years it started being criticised. The main criticisms of traditional approaches including that of Institutional approach can be described as under: a) Essentially Non-Comparative
In the traditional approaches the study of comparative government generally deals either with one country or with parallel descriptions of the institutions of a number of countries. The student is told of the constitutional foundations, the organisation of political power, and a description of ways in which such powers are exercised. In each case problem areas are discussed with reference to the country's institutional structure. The interest of the student is concentrated primarily on an analysis of the structure of the state, the location of sovereignty, the electoral provisions and the distribution of electorate into political parties.4 These studies thus are generally studies of foreign governments, or parallel descriptions of institutions or constitutions not exactly the comparative studies.
18
b) Essentially Descriptive
While description of the formal political institutions is vital for the understanding of the political process this does not lead to solution of problems through comparison. For instance the historical approach centres on the study of origins and growth of certain institutions. It is assumed that parallel historical accounts of the evolution of similar institutions will indicate similarities and differences. The approach followed is almost identical with that used by the historian. There is no effort to evolve an analytical scheme within which an antecedent factor is related in terms other than chronological to a particular event or development.
In the legalistic approach the student is exposed primarily to the study of the "powers" of the various branches of government and legal prescriptions. This is almost exclusively the study of what can be done or what cannot be done by various governmental agencies with reference to legal and constitutional provisions. It does not seek the forces that shape the legal forms, nor does it attempt to establish the casual relationships that account for another or from one period to another. These approaches are not sensitive to non-political determinants of political behaviour and the informal bases of government institutions. Description without systematic orientation becomes an obstacle in the discovery of hypothesis regarding the uniformities in political behaviour and prevent formulation of theory about change, revolution, conditions of stability, etc., on comparative basis. The description, thus, is without the use of any explicit conceptual
framework.