--- title: "Complete Book 0" book: "MA Pol.SC 102 Final" category: "MA" publisher: "Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd." type: "Educational Material" ---  According to Latest Syllabus Read For Sure Success In University Examination RATAN TEXT BOOK COMPARATIVE POLITICS : APPROACHES & PROCESSES M.A.Political Science (Sem-I) Dr. Manashi Das Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 Copyright Authors & Publishers Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 ISBN :978-81-69604-10-9 Price 326.00 only Printed at : KIDS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. C-60, 61, 62, 63, EPIP, Shastripuram, Agra - 282007 Ph. : +91 9719004921 Preamble to the Constitution of India WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, Having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens : JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION. SUCCESS Success is not permanent and failure is not final. Never stop working after success and, never stop trying after failure. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM Block-IUnit-1Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics Structure 1.1    Introduction 1.2    Learning Objectives 1.3    Meaning and Definitions of Comparative Politics Self Check Exercise-1 1.4    Nature of Comparative Politics Self Check Exercise-2 1.5    Features of Comparative Politics Self Check Exercise-3 1.6    Difference between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics Self Check Exercise-4 1.7    Scope of Comparative Politics Self Check Exercise-5 1.8    Difficulties in the way of Comparative Politics Self Check Exercise-6 1.9    Summary 1.10    Glossary 1.11    Answer to Self Check Exercise 1.12    Suggest Readings 1.13    Terminal Questions 1.1    Introduction In this unit, we will explore the meaning, nature, and scope of comparative politics. Firstly, we’ll define comparative politics, elucidating its significance in comprehending diverse political landscapes. By comparing and contrasting political phenomena, we gain insights into universal principles and unique variations among nations. Secondly, we’ll delve into the nature of comparative politics, examining its interdisciplinary nature, which draws upon political science, sociology, economics, and other fields. This interdisciplinary approach enriches our understanding of political dynamics. Lastly, we’ll explore the scope of comparative politics, encompassing various dimensions such as political institutions, ideologies, political culture, and public policy. Analyzing these aspects enables us to grasp the complexities of governance and democracy worldwide. 1.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit you will be able to:- •    Understand the meaning and definitions of Comparative Politics. •    Know the features and scope of Comparative Politics. •    Explain the difficulties in the way of Comparative Politics. 1.3    Meaning and Definitions of Comparative Politics The study of Comparative Politics involves conscious comparisons in studying political experience, behaviour of Political Structures and processes of the system of government in a comprehensive manners. It also includes the study of extra-constitutional agencies having their immediate connection, open or tacit, with formal governmental organs. It is, therefore, concerned with significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and in the patterns of political behaviour. Definitions Some popular definitions of Comparative Politics are as under:- According to M.G Smith, “Comparative Politics is the study of the forms of political organisations, their properties, correlations, variations and modes of change.” According to Roy C. Macridis and Robert Ward, “Government is not the sole concern of students of comparative politics. Comparative Politics, no doubt, has to be concerned with the government structure, but at the same time, it has to take note of: (i) society, historical heritage and geographic and resources endowed, its social and economic organizations, its ideologies and value systems, and its political style; and (ii) its parties, interests and leadership structure. According to M. Curtis. “Comparative Politics is concerned with significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviour.” According to Braibante, “Comparative Politics is the identification and the interpretation of factors in the whole social order which appear to affect whatever political functions and their institutions which have been identified and listed for comparison.” On the basis of all these above definitions, we can say that Comparative Politics, in its contemporary form, involves a comparative study of not only the formal institutional and mechanistic arrangements but also analysis of non-institutionalized and non-political determinants of politics, such as culture or the socio-economic arrangements within which the political systems operate. Comparative Politics seeks to build a scientific and valid theory of politics capable of explaining all phenomena of politics in all parts of the world. 1.3.1    Self Check Excersice-1 Q. 1 Comparative politics as a discipline developed: A)    After World War 1st            B) In the 1950,s C)    In the inter-war period           D) In the seventies of the 20th Century Q.2 In modern limes which one of the following writers made a comparative study of government and mod to classify and analyse the political institutions? A) Herman Finer                B) Lord Bryce C)    Fredrich                       D) All the above 1.4    Nature of Comparative Politics Comparative Politics aims to examine and contrast the political systems functioning across different societies. It considers all three dimensions of politics—political activity, political process, and political power. Political activity encompasses all actions related to conflict resolution or the pursuit of power. Since conflict resolution primarily occurs through the authoritative allocation of values, politics entails analyzing how these values are formulated and implemented. In this sense, politics represents a political process, involving the study of both formal and informal structures—governmental and non-state mechanisms—through which political processes operate. The political process receives inputs from the surrounding environment and converts them into authoritative values. As politics revolves around power struggles and conflict resolution through legitimate power, it inherently involves the study of power dynamics within society. Lasswell defines politics as the process of shaping and distributing power. Consequently, the study of politics naturally extends to power relations and interactions. Thus, Comparative Politics focuses on the comparative analysis of political activity, processes, and power struggles across various political systems. The traditional emphasis on comparing formal political institutions has evolved into a broader examination of all political structures and functions. It aims to understand and compare political systems comprehensively by analyzing their structures, functions, and processes. 1.4.1    Self Check Exceisice-2 Q.1 What is the primary focus of the nature of comparative politics? A)    Studying the intricate details of a single political system. B)    Analyzing the similarities and differences among various political systems. C)    Exploring the historical context of political movements. D)    Evaluating the effectiveness of governmental policies. Q.2 Comparative politics seeks to study political reality through new techniques and approaches: a) True                      b) False 1.5    Features of Comparative Politics 1.    Analytical and Empirical Study of Politics: Contemporary Comparative Politics studies give more stress on empirical research. It is no longer confined to descriptive studies. It seeks to analyse, empirically and analytically, the actual activities of the governments and their structures and functions. It stands for scientific and empirical studies of politics. Facts of human political behaviour are the objects of study. 2.    Objectivity as a Goal: Comparative Politics aims for an empirical study of political processes across different environments, emphasizing value-neutrality. It only considers values that can be scientifically validated and focuses on analyzing what exists rather than what should be. Rejecting the traditional normative and prescriptive approach of classical political science, its objective is to develop an empirical and objective political theory that can explain and compare various political phenomena. 3.    Emphasis on the study of Infrastructure of Politics: Modern Comparative Politics examines the actual behavior of individuals, groups, structures, sub-systems, and systems in their respective environments. Instead of limiting itself to the formal governmental structures and their legal functions, it explores how these structures operate in practice. Additionally, it considers the influence of non-political institutions on political processes. 4.    Interdisciplinary Approach: Comparative Politics recognizes the necessity of an interdisciplinary perspective, integrating insights from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and other social sciences. Since political behavior is intertwined with broader social behavior, studying politics within a multidisciplinary framework enhances understanding and analysis. 5.    Study of Political Processes in both Developed and Developing Countries: Traditionally, Comparative Politics focused primarily on the political systems of developed countries. However, contemporary studies now emphasize the political structures of developing nations as well. The previous Western-centric approach has been replaced by a more inclusive examination of political systems across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, alongside those of Europe and North America. Scholars like Almond, Coleman, Verba, Easton, Powell, and Shills have significantly contributed to expanding the scope of Comparative Politics to include developing societies. Today, the discipline covers all political systems, recognizing each as a valuable source of insights into political processes. Key areas of study include policymaking, decision-making, electoral processes, voting behavior, and political participation. 6.    Horizontal and Vertical Comparisons: Comparative Politics incorporates both horizontal and vertical comparative studies. Horizontal comparisons analyze political structures and functions across different national political systems, while vertical comparisons examine political structures and sub-systems within a single state. Unlike traditional comparative government studies, which primarily focused on horizontal comparisons, modern Comparative Politics gives equal importance to both perspectives. 7.    Scientific Theory-Building as the Goal:- The objective of the study of Comparative Politics is not only to make comparative studies of the similarities and dissimilarities of different political systems but also to build a theory of politics. Scientific theory building is its objective. 1.5.1    Self Check Excersice-3 Q.1 Which one of the following is a feature of comparative politics? a) Study of developing societies     b) Analytical investigation c) Inter- disciplinary approach       d) Study of infra-structure Q.2 Which one of the following has been wrongly listed as a feature of comparative politics? a) Uni-disciplmary approach b) Stress on study of political modernization c) Use of input-output system d) Linkage of political system with social structure 1.6 Difference between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics In order to be fully clear about the nature of Comparative Politics, it is essential that we should compare it with Comparative Government and know the distinction between two. Comparative Politics has a wider scope, analytical-empirical approach and scientific theorybuilding as its objective. It stands for analysing the Politics in all political system-European, Asian, African and Latin American. As against this, Comparative Government involves the traditional way of concentrating upon the study of legal powers and functions of political institutions. Its scope is narrow and approach is normative descriptive. The major differences between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics can be identified as: 1.    Comparative Government is older than Comparative Politics, Comparative Government is the traditional way of studying politics, whereas Comparative Politics is the modern way of studying it. 2.    Comparative Government is normative and prescriptive. Comparative Politics is analytical and largely value free. 3.    Comparative Government has a narrow scope. It involves the study of the state and formal political institutions. Comparative Politics has a very wide and comprehensive scope. It involves the study of all structures, functions and processes of politics at work in all parts of the globe. 4.    Comparative Government depends upon historical, legal, institutional and philosophical approaches and methods. Comparative Politics depends upon scientific empirical methods of study. 5.    Comparative Government fails to give due place to the study of the environment of political institutions. Comparative Politics gives due and big importance to the study of the environment and infra-structure of politics. 6.    Comparative Government ignores the importance of interdisciplinary focus. Comparative Politics accepts fully the importance of interdisciplinary focus and in all its studies uses this focus. 7.    While description has been the goal of Comparative Governments, explanation and prediction have been the goals of Comparative Politics. 8.    Comparative Government has traditionally focused on European political systems. In contrast, Comparative Politics recognizes the importance of studying all political systems, including both European and non-European, Western and Eastern, as well as developed and developing nations. Ultimately, Comparative Politics examines key patterns, similarities, and differences in political institutions and behaviors, employing a scientific approach to analysis. On the other hand, Comparative Government primarily involves descriptive and theoretical studies of state political institutions. Self Check Excersice-4 Q. 1 What is the key distinction between comparative government and comparative politics? A)    Comparative government focuses on structures, while comparative politics examines processes. B)    They are identical concepts. C)    Comparative politics studies governance, while comparative government focuses on political systems. Q. 2 What distinguishes comparative government from comparative polities’? A)    Comparative government focuses on individual countries, while comparative politics examines global political systems. B)    Comparative government analyzes political structures, while comparative politics studies political behavior and processes. C)    They are synonymous terms. 1.7 Scope of Comparative Politics The field of comparative politics has significantly expanded, encompassing the study of political processes, activities, and power relations across the world. It focuses on the comparative analysis of similarities, differences, and patterns among various political systems. The key areas covered under comparative politics include: 1.    Political Structures – Comparative politics examines all formal and informal political structures, both governmental and non-governmental, that influence power dynamics in different states. This includes not only the three branches of government—legislature, executive, and judiciary—but also bureaucracy, interest groups, pressure groups, elites, political parties, and other associations involved in political competition. 2.    Political Functions – The field emphasizes studying political functions beyond legal institutions and their powers. It focuses on the actual operations within the political environment, including interest articulation, interest aggregation, political communication, rule-making, rule enforcement, rule adjudication, socialization, decision-making, and policy-making. 3.    Human Behavior in Politics – Comparative politics also explores the behavior of individuals and groups within the political process. This includes voting behavior, political participation, leadership recruitment, elite behavior, mass politics, and populism, all of which shape political systems. 4.    Comparison of Political Institutions and Processes – Another essential aspect is analyzing the similarities and differences in political institutions, processes, and functions. The approach is empirical rather than merely descriptive or legalistic. The aim is not to determine the best system but to systematically explain and build theories based on how political structures function in practice. 5.    Study of Political Systems – Comparative politics evaluates both Western and nonWestern political systems in terms of their structures, functions, capacities, and performances. The goal is not to judge which system is superior but to develop a deeper understanding of how various political systems operate. 6.    Study of Infrastructure of Political System – A comprehensive study of politics requires analyzing the psychological, sociological, economic, and anthropological factors that shape political systems. Concepts such as political culture, political socialization, and political modernization help explain how different political systems function. This approach enhances the ability of political scientists to compare systems and understand variations in their functioning, bridging the gap between micropolitics and macro-politics. Comparative politics, therefore, provides a systematic framework for analyzing political structures, behaviors, and processes worldwide, contributing to a broader understanding of global political dynamics. 7.    Study of Political Culture- Political Culture is composed of attitudes, beliefs, emotions and values of a society that relate to the political system and to political issues. These beliefs and values influence the working of each political system, its successes and failures. The study of Political Culture is an important part of the scope of Comparative Politics. Political Culture constitutes the sociological environment of each political system and hence deserves full attention. 8.    Study of Political Socialisation- Political Socialisation is the process by which an individual acquires his Political Culture. The study of political socialisation is also included in the scope of comparative politics because the success and failure of many political systems depend upon this process. It is the process by which Political Culture are maintained and changed. 9.    Study of Political Participation and Voting Behaviour of the People- Political Participation is a universal feature. The only difference is that in some states (Authoritarian States), it is limited while in others (Democratic states) its scope is very vast. Political participation provides legitimacy to the administration and brings stability in it because an administration which is based on the consent and will of the people and where the participation of the people is wider is likely to be more legitimate and stable. The student of comparative politics seeks to know how political participation influences the functional aspect of political systems in different states. Moreover, he also tries to know the factors which determine political participation and their role. 10.    Study of Political Pressure Groups and Political Elites- Several groups are found in every political system. Some of them are formed voluntarily by individuals for fulfilling some special and common objectives, e.g., Political Parties, Interest Groups and Pressure Groups, and some other groups. Beside, there are some groups which come into existence suddenly due to a particular event and remain in existence for a short period. These groups reflect the wishes of the people through public meetings, symbols, programmes, demonstrations, etc. and influence the working of the political system. Political Parties contest elections, form government, criticize government, etc. There is a one-party system in some socialist countries like China and there is two-party or a multi-party system in democratic countries. The nature of the party system in different states and activities of other groups vastly influences their political system. Therefore, the student of Comparative Politics comprehensively study the structure, working and policy-programmes of these groups. 11.    Study of Power, Influence, Authority and Legitimacy- Modem political scientists lay special emphasis on the study of ‘Power’. The study of the concepts of Power, Influence, Legitimacy and Authority is also included in the subject-matter of Comparative Politics. 12.    Study of all Political Processes- Political processes like Decision-making, Policymaking, Judicial Process, Leadership recruitment process and others are always at work in all political systems. The actual working of every political system depends upon these processes. Therefore, comparative study of various political processes is also a part of the scope of Comparative Politics. Thus, the scope of Comparative Politics has become very broad. It includes everything that falls within the purview of political activity and political process. It involves the study of all structures and functions, which directly or indirectly, vigorously or passively, affect and characterise the political processes in all the states. Political Behaviour, Political Culture, Political Socialisation, Decision-making, Power-struggle, Interest Groups, Political Parties, Elites, Direct Action, Public Protests, violence, urbanization, modernisaion, power etc, are all included in the scope of politics. 1.7.1    Self Check Excersice-5 Q.1 Which one of the following does not fall within the scope of comparative polities’? a) Use of authority                 b) Decision making process c) Extra-constitutional agencies d) History of political authority. Q.2 Which of the following best describes the scope of comparative politics? A)    Comparing government policies across different countries. B)    Analyzing political behavior within specific countries. C)    Studying the impact of globalization on international relations. D)    Investigating the role of international organizations in world politics. 1.8 Difficulties in the way of Comparative Politics In the study of comparative politics, we find various difficulties. It is here worthwhile to discuss the same as under: 1.    Inter-connections between Norms, Institutions and Behaviour: In the first instance, there are -difficulties arising from the inter-connection between norms, institutions and behaviour which stem from the fact that some governments exist naturally and other are imposed. Traditionally, this question was examined through the opposition between constitution and “real” political life, this opposition is important, as no constitution will ever be fully implemented. But the problem is more general. Constitutions are only one type of normative arrangement under which countries can be organized. Constitution makers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries attempted to modify societies in a certain way, generally in order to increase the liberal content of the government. To that extent, they tried to impose rules, and constitutional rule is therefore, a form of imposed system of government, in that the system might naturally, have developed otherwise. But other types of imposition also occur, though by different means and in the name of different principles. The distinction between natural and imposed arrangements is thus a problem for all political systems. 2.    Range of Variables: The analysis will become precise only when it is possible to list and weigh the numerous variables which enter into the ‘definition’ of a political system. But the list is impressive and the task is impossible to calculate as many of these variables lack quantitative formalization and still appear truly heterogeneous; economic conditions, social conditions, the climate, physical geography all seem to be a part of the ‘explanation’ of political system and all have been used atone period or another by political scientists anxious to “explain” the norms, institutions and behaviour of nations.. Single-variable explanations have ‘explanatory value only at levels of generality which make them truly unusable. But multi-variable analysis requires a degree of operationalisation which few “factors” can easily achieve in the realm of comparative politics. 3.    The Problems of using Scientific Method are also problems of Comparative Politics Studies: Hindrances in the way of application of Scientific Methods to human relations in society are also hindrances in the way of Comparative Politics. (a)    The complexity of social data. (b)    The problem of using the empirical method in the study of human political relations and interactions. (c)    The problem of verification of the generalization mode. (d)    The issue of explanation and prediction in politics. (e)    The dynamic nature of social phenomena. (f)    The problem of applying the scientific methods to the highly complex and dynamic political phenomena. All these hindrances combine to create a big hindrance in the use of the scientific method in Comparative Politics. However, gradually, political scientists have been overcoming these difficulties. Comparative Politics studies are now becoming quite well organised and systematic. 4.    Limitations of Empirical Study: Comparative Politics aims to conduct a scientific and empirical analysis of political phenomena. However, challenges arise in observing and collecting factual data, particularly when studying authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, where access to reliable information is often restricted. 5.    Dynamic Nature of Politics: Politics, being a reflection of human behavior, is inherently dynamic. The constant evolution of political processes, along with the persistent gap between theory and practice in all political systems, poses a significant challenge to conducting a realistic and scientific study of politics. 6.    The Challenge of Objectivity: A scientific approach to the study of politics requires objectivity in the observation, collection, and analysis of data. Researchers must strive to separate personal values and biases from their studies. Achieving this level of impartiality demands heightened awareness and commitment, making objectivity a major challenge in Comparative Politics. Despite these challenges, modern political scientists are progressively addressing them through the development of innovative concepts, methodologies, models, and theories. 1.8.1    Self Check Excersice-6 Q.1 What is one of the primary challenges faced in conducting comparative politics? A) Lack of available data                 B) Overabundance of comparative studies C) Clear definition of comparative politics D) Homogeneity among political systems Q.2 Which of the following is a potential obstacle in comparative politics studies related to the selection of cases? A) Too many relevant variables           B) Homogeneous political environments C) Unambiguous research questions D) Insufficient funding for research 1.9    Summary In conclusion, as M. Curtis aptly noted, the study of Comparative Politics lies at the core of modern political science. It has undergone significant advancements in recent years, becoming increasingly systematic and expanding in scope. However, it remains an evolving field. To further its development, both horizontal and vertical comparative analyses of political systems must be conducted. The principles of comprehensiveness, realism, and precision should guide these efforts. Additionally, understanding political behavior and functions requires examining both formal governmental institutions and their legal powers. Therefore, the focus should not be solely on comparative government or comparative politics but on an integrated study of both 1.10    Glossary •    Descriptive - Statements given empirical facts, delineating characteristics and attributes. •    Normative - The prescription of values and standards of conduct, dealing with questions pertaining to ‘what should be’ rather than what is’. 1.11    Answers to Self Check Exercises Self Check Exercises-1 1.    B2. D Self Check Exercises-2 1.    B2. A Self Check Exercises-3 1.    C2. D Self Check Exercises-4 1.    A2. B Self Check Exercises-5 1.    D2. B Self Check Exercises-6 1.    A2. A 1.12    Suggested Readings •    Tapan Biswal (ed.), Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Trinity, Press, 2015). •    O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.). •    Hari Hara Das, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: National Publishing House). •    J.C. Johari, Comparative Politics (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.). •    Parmatma Sharan, Comparative Government and Politics (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan). •    Eddy Asirvathan and K.K. Misra, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.). •    Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors). •    A.C. Kapoor, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.). •    S.C. Singhal, Political Theory (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarawal). •    V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.) •    Sri Ram Maheshwari, Comparative Government and Politics (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Aggarwal, 1985). •    Manoj Kumar, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis (New Delhi: Anmol Publication, 2004). •    Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered (West view Press, 1994). •    Howard J. Wiarda, ‘Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the field in the Post cold War Era’ Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19 No.5. •    See also, Comparative Politics, Lesson-1 Old Study Material of M.A. Pol. Science, ICDEOL. 1.13    Terminal Objectives 1.    Define Comparative Politics? What is the subject matter of Comparative Politics? 2.    Discuss the meaning and scope of Comparative Politics? 3.    Discuss the nature and scope of comparative politics? 4.    What do you understand by the term comparative politics? How does it differ from comparative government? ***** Unit-2Comparative Method Structure 2.1    Introduction 2.2    Learning Objectives 2.3    Meaning and Definitions of Comparative Method Self Check Exercise-1 2.4    Traditional Comparative Method Self Check Exercise-2 2.5    Modern Comparative Method Self Check Exercise-3 2.6    Essentials of the Modern Scientific Comparative Method Conceptual Units Classification Formulation and Testing of Hypothesis Self-Check Exercise-4 2.7    How and where to use Comparative Method Self Check Exercise-5 2.8    Advantages of Modern Comparative Method Self Check Exercise-6 2.9    Summary 2.10    Glossary 2.11    Answer to Self Check Exercise 2.12    Suggested Readings 2.13    Terminal Questions 2.1    Introduction Comparative studies can be systematically and fruitfully conducted through the use of the comparative method of investigation. Further, it is only through the use of the Scientific method that scientific theory-building can be pursued. Traditionally the method of Normative-Description and Legalistic institutionalism which involved a dependence upon History, Law and Philosophy was used for comparative studies because this method could not satisfy its goals of comprehensiveness, realism, precision and scientific theory-building. Modem political scientists began using the scientific method of study. This modem method of Comparative Politics has become very popular. However in respect of study of some dimensions of Politics, the traditional-method is still being used. Let us study both Traditional and Modem Comparative Methods. In this unit we delve into the fundamental principles and constraints of the comparative method, a cornerstone in various disciplines. 2.2    Learning Objectives By the end of this unit, you will be able to:- l Understand the meaning of Comparative Method. l Discuss the nature of Modern Comparative Method. l Explain how and where to use Comparative Method. l Understand the advantages of Modern Comparative Method. 2.3    Meaning and Definitions of Comparative Method Before taking up the discussion of the meaning and nature of the comparative method, it must be clearly stated that the field of operation of this method is not confined only to comparative studies. It is a method which can be and which has been used since very ancient times for the study of all aspects of politics. The Comparative Method stands for analysing systematically various processes of politics with a view to secure systematic knowledge capable of explaining their nature and working. It involves collection, classification, correlation and analysis of the facts of politics in various states, it seeks to scientifically establish the similarities anti dissimilarities among various political systems and their structures, functions, sub-systems and processes. On the basis of such analysis, it also attempts at a classification of political systems. According to Arend Ligphart Comparative Method, “is one of the basic methods of establishing general empirical propositions." Analysing the meaning of the Comparative Method, David M. Wood has observe “The only reason for including the term comparative’ in the designation of the field is to emphasize that the responsibility which the field has to the discipline of political science is to treat the political systems existing in the world as units tor comparison in the general quest of theorybuilding and testing in political science. The student of comparative political systems, in other words, is doing at the ‘macro’ level what all other political scientists are doing when they are attempting to advance the science of politics : he is taking a number of instances of a particular type of political unit (in this case the nation state as a political system), formulating propositions pertaining to all the instance he is examining, testing the validity of the propositions for each of the instances (national political systems), and refining or abandoning his propositions on the basis of the results. Other political scientists deal with other units of analysis, such as individual voters, legislators, pressure groups, administrative agencies, or units of local government to the extent that they are attempting to expand the body of political science knowledge; they too are being comparative.” 2.3.1    Self-check exercise- 1 Q.1 What is the comparative method primarily used for in social sciences? a)    To analyze historical events b)    To compare different societies or groups c)    To conduct experiments in controlled settings d)    To survey public opinion Q. 2 Which of the following statements is true regarding the comparative method? a)    It is exclusively used in qualitative research b)    It can be applied in both quantitative and qualitative research c)    It is limited to analyzing only historical data d)    It is primarily concerned with proving causation rather than correlation 2.4    Traditional Comparative Method The Comparative Method used by Aristotle and followed and developed by a large number of political thinkers till the beginning of the 20th century got the name Tradition Comparative Method. In fact, Aristotle, the father of Political Science, was one of the earliest philosophers to use comparative method systematically for arriving at conclusions about politics. He analysed and compared the working of as many as 158 Greek constitutions for analyse various aspects of their political life and for arriving at conclusions valid for explaining, predicting and planning political activities in different states. After Aristotle, a large number of political scientists used this method of drawing their conclusions about State, Government, Sovereignty, Rights, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, in fact for all political institution the first modern political scientist, ‘Machiavelli used this method for arriving at his conclusions about politics and government. In the 18th century, Montesquieu used the Comparative Method to formulate his political theory. Similarly De Tocqueville, J.S. Mill, James Bryce, and many other political scientists used the comparative method of study. J.S. Mill even tried to define a sound comparative method. He observed, “A sound comparative method involves a comparison of two political institutions which are identical in all but one element, in order to explore the consequences of the variable element.” However, the traditional comparative method was confined to the study of similarities and dissimilarities in the organizations and powers of political institutions of various constitutions, mostly the European constitutions. Its exercise was parochial, configuration and formalistic. Basically, formal political institutions of the European constitutions we described and compared in terms of their peculiar or salient features. The discipline was designated as Comparative Government and Comparative Method was used to describe the similarities and dissimilarities, of various political institutions. Quite often, an attempt was made to specify which institution was better than the other and which political institutions were the best or more powerful and efficient than others. The use was neither systematic nor scientific. According to Garner, “‘The comparative method aims through the study of existing politics or of those who had existed in the past, at assembling a definite body of material from which the investigator by selection, comparison, and elimination may discover the ideal types and progressive forces of political history. Only those states which are contemporaneous in point of time and which have a common historical basis and common historical, political and social institutions may be compared with advantage.” In the Second half of 20th Century Modem Comparative Method had its birth and it became more popular than the Traditional Method. 2.4.1    Self-check exercise-2 Q.1 Which of the following statements best describes the traditional comparative method? a)    It focuses solely on understanding one culture in depth b)    It involves comparing cultural traits across different societies c)    It primarily utilizes statistical analysis d)    It examines the impact of technology on cultural evolution Q. 2 Which scholar is often credited with pioneering the traditional comparative method in political science? a) Robert Dahl                    b) Samuel Huntington c) Seymour Martin Lipset d) David Easton 2.5 Modern Comparative Method In contemporary times, the revolutionary changes in the nature and scope of Comparative Politics have also changed the nature and scope of the comparative method. Now it is used as a scientific method of data collection, classification, correlation and analysis. It has been developed as a method of scientific investigation capable of leading to scientific knowledge and theory building. It is now used tor analysing and comparing till processes of politics, systems of politics, political activities, structure and functions for empirically and systematically analysing and presenting significant realistic and precise similarities and dissimilarities in the working of two or more or all political systems and their structures, functions, sub-systems and processes. Nature of Modern Comparative Method Modem Comparative Method has the following features: 1.    It is a definite method of investigation into all phenomena of politics. 2.    In its contemporary form, it is a scientific method of research and theory-building. 3.    By the use of modern comparative method, empirical relations among variables are established. 4.    It is a broad gauge general method and not a narrow specialized technique. 5.    It seeks to systematically analyse and compare the political systems and their structures, functions, sub-systems and processes. 6.    The Comparative Method involves an investigation of political as well as nonpolitical factors which affect the political behavior of the people in different societies. 7.    The Comparative Method is the scientific method of investigation. It is a rigorously ordered formal method of research. It emphasises empirical investigation of facts. 8.    In the comparative method, values are kept separate from facts. 9.    In contemporary times, the Comparative Method has undergone revolutionary development and it has developed into a highly useful method of study. 2.5.1    Self-check exercise-3 Q.1 What is the primary objective of the modern comparative method? 2.6 Essentials of the Modern Comparative Method As a systematic method of comparative politics, as David M. Wood observes, the comparative method involves the following processes or characteristics: 1.    Definition of Conceptual Units. 2.    Classification. 3.    Formulation of Hypotheses and Testing of Hypotheses. Definition of Conceptual Units According to David M. Wood, “One only compares those things which one conceives to be comparable.” The things must have some identifiable similarities and only then can these be compared in terms of similarities as well as dissimilarities. As such, while selecting the conceptual units for comparing their behaviour, the researcher has to take into account the similarities. The focus of attention in comparison may be on differences and contrasts; but the comparison itself is possible because some element of similarity, howsoever lonely, is postulated as existing. For example, while comparing the political systems of the Soviet Union (now Russia) and the United States, it has to be agreed that both are systems involving the authoritative allocation of values for their respective societies. Only then can we analyse the differences in their actual operations. The field of comparative politics includes not only macro level comparisons between various political systems each taken as a whole unit, but also micro level comparative studies e.g. comparative study of voting behaviours, legislative processes, pressure groups, elites, political parties, municipalities, etc. The researcher has to select and delimit his area of research. Classification As Wasby writes. “Whenever we compare units which are deemed similar, we do so in terms of the variation among them with regard to certain criteria.’’ Such an exercise necessarily involves classification. “When we have defined precisely the conceptual unit with which we are dealing, we have only begun the process of determining the specific elements which will be manipulated in the eventual process of hypothesis testing. The hypothesis we will be testing will specify that given characteristics of the units in question will be accompanied by other characteristics. In order to test the hypothesis, it will be necessary to classify the units in terms of the characteristics to be considered. Hence, classification is an integral part of the comparative method. Classification, like the comparative method itself, has perhaps been more readily identified with the field of comparative politics because of the necessity to make broad general judgements as to the characteristics of very complex phenomena. In macro studies, classification of political systems as liberal, Democratic. Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Parliamentary, Presidential, Dictatorships or Constitutional Systems is an imperative necessity. In micro studies, classification of facts about the political processes, structures, functions alone can lead us to systematic testing of hypotheses. Formulation and Testing of Hypothesis Formulation of hypotheses forms another essential feature of comparative method. Without Hypothesis formulation, there can be no systematic research towards theory building in Comparative Politics. The Comparative Method is a scientific method of research through several formal and rigorously ordered steps. 2.6.1    Self-check exercise-4 Q.1 Which of the following is a key characteristic of the modern scientific comparative method? a)    Relying solely on anecdotal evidence b)    Subjectivity in data interpretation c)    Use of empirical data and statistical analysis d)    Ignoring cross-cultural differences Q .2 What role does hypothesis testing play in the modern scientific comparative method? a)    It is unnecessary as the method relies on qualitative analysis b)    It provides a framework for generating research questions c)    It helps in establishing causality between variables d)    It guides the process of data collection and analysis 2.7 How and where to use Comparative Method According to Macridis, a Comparative study should proceed in the following manner : 1.    The collection and description of facts on the basis of carefully constructed and generally adhered to classificatory schemes, 2.    The discovery and description of uniformities and differences, 3.    The formulation of interrelationships between the component elements of that political process and other social phenomena in the form of tentative hypotheses, 4.    The subsequent verification of the tentative hypotheses by rigorous empirical observation for the purpose of amplifying the original hypotheses and ultimately verifying them, and finally 5.    The slow cumulative process of the acceptance of certain basic propositions. 2.7.1    Self-check exercise-5 Q.1 Where is the comparative method commonly used in research? a) In laboratory experiments b) In qualitative research c) In historical analysis              d) In surveys and questionnaires Q. 2 Which step is typically involved in using the comparative method? a) Formulating a hypothesis b) Conducting statistical analysis c) Randomly selecting samples                    d) Generating qualitative data. 2.8 Advantages of Modern Comparative Method The advantages of the analytical scheme are: First, the study of a political system on the basis of the categories suggested enables a student to make comparison with other systems on the basis of the same categories. In this sense, institutional arrangement and ideology also become comparable. A common scheme of analysis illuminates tentatively common aspects of the political processes of various systems and suggests comparisons. Secondly, comparative study is likely to give us better knowledge of the particular instruments that can be used for the achievement of certain broad goals on which there is agreement. Thirdly, comparative study can indicate areas in which certain types of contemplated action may bring about unanticipated consequences. For the purpose of illustration, Macridis has developed a scheme composed of four basic analytical categories in the light of which political systems can be studied and compared. They are as follows:- 1.    The deliberative process and decision-making as a function of politics, 2.    The power configuration and its social and political aspects, 3.    Ideology and its role in political motivation and institutional organization, and 4.    The organization of political authority. According to David Apter the new lines of enquiry in Comparative Politics include; (a) problem of social change and political socialization, (b) consequences of economic development and changing technologies, (c) the roles of voluntary organizations, and (d) the comparative study of mass media and social communications. This conceptual framework, can give us relevant categories for the study of both political morphology and political dynamics. These can be usefully used for comparing political systems in respect of their structures, functions, processes, sub-systems, behaviours, regularities, similarities and dissimilarities. 2.8.1    Self-check exercise-6 Q.1 which of the following is a key advantage of the modern comparative method in research? A)    Limited scope of analysis B)    Overemphasis on historical data C)    Ability to analyze large datasets D)    Lack of flexibility in adapting to different research contexts Q. 2 How does the modern comparative method enhance research outcomes? A) By limiting data collection methods            B) By disregarding cultural nuances C)    By fostering collaboration across disciplines    D) By emphasizing cultural superiority 2.9    Summary In summary, while comparisons can take various forms, a student of comparative politics must ensure that the conceptual units they select are clearly defined and that their theories are empirically verifiable and testable. They should also recognize that in the pursuit of general principles, the diversity of conditions—such as differences in people's temperament and intellect, economic and social structures, moral and legal norms, and political training and experience—should not be overlooked or underestimated. 2.10    Glossary l Precision: The attribute of being exact, definite or accurate. l Hypothesis: This is a statement which holds something to be true under some conditions e.g. land holdings would decreased continuously as population increased. l Generalizations: A general statement made in a manner so that it can be seen as holding true in a number of cases. l Configurative: The term refers to a combination of favourable conditions or aspects of any observed political phenomenon, e.g. the necessary and sufficient conditions for revolution, democratic participation etc. 2.11    Answer to Self Check Exercises Self Check Exercise-1 1.    B          2. B Self Check Exercise-2 1.    B          2. A Self Check Exercise-3 Ans.1. To analyse similarities and differences between cultures to understand underlying patterns and processes. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    C          2. D Self Check Exercise-5 1.    C          2. A Self Check Exercise-6 1. C 2.    C 2.12    Suggested Readings • For suggested readings see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.1. 2.13    Terminal Questions 1.    What is Comparative Method? Discuss its main Characteristics? 2.    Define Comparative Method? Explain the problems of comparative method? 3.    Discuss the utility and problems of comparative method in the study of politics? ***** Unit-3Approaches to the study of Comparative Politics: Traditional Approaches Structure 3.1    Introduction 3.2    Learning Objectives 3.3    Traditional Approach 3.3.1    Use of History, Law and Philosophy 3.3.2    Features of Traditional Approach Self Check Exercise-1 3.4    Traditional Approaches 3.4.1    Philosophical Approach 3.4.2    Historical Approach 3.4.3    Institutional Approach 3.4.4    Constitutional Legal Approach Self Check Exercise-2 3.5    Evaluation of the Traditional Approach Self Check Exercise-3 3.6    Summary 3.7    Glossary 3.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise 3.9    Suggested Readings 3.10    Terminal Questions 3.1    Introduction The study of politics can be broadly categorized into two main approaches: normative and empirical. The normative approach is considered value-laden, whereas the empirical approach is recognized for its value-neutrality. In other words, normativism characterizes the former, while empiricism defines the latter. This classification is based on the relationship between facts and values. Accordingly, traditional approaches tend to emphasize 'values,' while empirical approaches prioritize 'facts.' Traditional approaches are historical, descriptive, and prescriptive in nature, placing significant emphasis on values and goals. Various types of these approaches will be explored in this unit. 3.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit you will be able to : •    Understand the features of Traditional Approach. •  Explain the Philosophical Approach. •  Understand the Historical Approach. •    Know about the Institutional Approach. 3.3    TRADITIONAL APPROACH The Traditional Approach is a broad term encompassing normative, institutional, historical, legal, and ideological methods in the study of comparative politics. 3.3.1    Use of History, Law and Philosophy This approach emphasizes the use of history, law, and philosophy to describe and compare political institutions. It views politics as the functions and activities of state institutions, particularly the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. As a value-laden or normative approach, it focuses on historical analysis, description, and prescription, prioritizing values and goals. It addresses normative questions such as: What should be? What ought to be? What is the ideal? 3.3.2    Features of the Traditional Approach- The following are the salient features the Traditional Approach:- (1)    It emphasises the study of formal political institutions of the State and Government. (2)    Its approach is theoretical. Its main source of study is the library. Opinions, view and impressions of various political scholars are studied and used for describe and comparing political institutions. Field research is beyond its methodology. (3)    Its main objective is description. Theory-building through data collection and analysis is given little importance. (4)    Till 1945, the traditional approach focused only on the study of Western Europe Constitutions. (5)    The scope of study is limited. No attempt is made to relate the working of political institutions with the socio-economic environment in which they work. (6)    Non-political and extra-constitutional elements of politics are given scant attention. (7)    In the traditional approach, normative-prescription, value studies and judgements form the core of all comparative studies. (8)    It involves a study of politics with the help of law, history and philosophy. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1    The traditional approach, apart from history, made use of :- (a)    Ethics (b) Philosophy (c)    Law             (d) All the above 3.4    Traditional Approaches 3.4.1    Philosophical Approach The philosophical approach is the oldest method of studying politics and is also referred to as the ethical approach. It intertwines the study of the state, government, and human political behavior with the pursuit of moral principles, truths, and overarching ideals that are believed to underpin all knowledge and reality. This approach is inherently speculative, as the term "philosophical" denotes reflection on thought itself. It aims to clarify concepts, refine understanding, and provide coherence in analyzing political subjects. A philosopher adopting this approach seeks to enhance clarity in language, ensuring that descriptions accurately reflect reality and guiding thought to make political concepts more intelligible. Because of its focus on ideals and values, proponents of the philosophical-ethical approach often appear to advise rulers and political communities on pursuing higher goals. Influential thinkers such as Plato, More, Bacon, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Green, Bosanquet, Nettleship, Lindsay, and Leo Strauss have elevated political study to a highly abstract level, blending values with normative ideals of an ideal political system. Similarly, classical theorists like Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu integrated politics with ethics, history, psychology, or law to present visions of well-ordered political communities. However, this approach is criticized for being overly abstract and detached from reality. It is often regarded as hypothetical, particularly in the works of Kant and Hegel, where the state is exalted to almost mystical heights. As a result, politics appears to serve as a subsidiary of ethics or metaphysics, prioritizing ideals over practical realities. Critics argue that it distances itself from empirical analysis, focusing more on what politics "ought to be" rather than what it "is." Nonetheless, scholars like Leo Strauss and Isaiah Berlin argue that values are an essential part of political philosophy and cannot be excluded. As Strauss states, "If this directedness becomes explicit, if men make their explicit goal to acquire knowledge of the good life and of the good society, political philosophy emerges." 3.4.2    Historical Approach The historical approach emphasizes studying the past, analyzing specific periods and sequences of events to understand the evolution of political institutions. It assumes that political theories arise in response to socio-economic crises and the intellectual reactions of great thinkers. For instance, the conditions of ancient Greece shaped the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, while 17th-century England influenced the ideas of Hobbes and Locke. Similarly, the capitalist system of the 19th century gave rise to the works of Mill and Marx. Understanding political theories requires an awareness of the historical context in which they emerged. Scholars adopting this approach differ in their interpretations. Machiavelli used history to glorify Rome and inspire national revival, while Oakeshott linked it to conservative traditions, seeing political activity as shaped by established customs rather than abstract principles or immediate desires. Despite its significance, the historical approach has limitations. James Bryce warns of superficial parallels, which can sometimes be misleading rather than insightful. Likewise, Ernest Barker likens history to a maze of tracks rather than a straight highway, highlighting the challenge of selecting relevant historical data without bias. Scholars may emphasize particular aspects while neglecting others, potentially allowing emotions or prejudices to shape their analysis, as seen in the works of Machiavelli and Oakeshott. Nonetheless, the historical approach remains valuable in tracing the development of political thought from ancient thinkers like Plato and Aristotle to medieval figures such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Marsiglio, and later to modern theorists like Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill, Marx, and Laski. The enduring relevance of political theory is rooted in its historical evolution. 3.4.3    Institutional Approach The institutional approach focuses on the formal structures of political systems, such as the legislature, executive, and judiciary. This perspective can be traced back to Aristotle and Polybius and extends to modern scholars like Bryce and Finer. Contemporary political scientists have expanded this approach to include political parties as a "fourth estate" and, later, interest groups as fundamental components of the political system. Due to this broader scope, the institutional approach is also referred to as the structural approach. Prominent scholars in this field include Walter Bagehot, F.A. Ogg, W.B. Munro, Herman Finer, H.J. Laski, Richard Neustadt, C.F. Strong, Bernard Crick, James Bryce, Harold Zink, Maurice Duverger, and Giovanni Sartori. Their work is characterized by an emphasis on both formal and informal institutional structures, often comparing governmental systems in Western democracies. However, this approach has been criticized for being too narrow. It overlooks the role of individuals who operate and influence political institutions. The rise of behavioral approaches has overshadowed its significance by focusing on political behavior rather than just institutions. Additionally, scholars differ in their definitions and scope of institutional systems, leading to inconsistencies. Another limitation is its neglect of international politics, as traditional institutions analogous to the state or government were historically absent at the global level, leaving little for political scientists to analyze. 3.4.4    Constitutional-Legal Approach The constitutional-legal approach examines politics through the lens of legal frameworks and judicial institutions. It treats the state as the enforcer of law and order, integrating legal processes into political analysis. This approach views law not merely as a field of jurisprudence but as a fundamental component of political science. Themes of justice, state organization, and judicial independence are central to this perspective. Historically, analytical jurists from Cicero to Dicey have regarded the state as a legal entity, emphasizing legal norms over political dynamics. Early modern theorists such as Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius, and Thomas Hobbes developed doctrines of sovereignty, with Hobbes asserting that the head of state is the ultimate legal authority whose commands must be obeyed to avoid chaos. Later thinkers like Bentham, John Austin, Savigny, Sir Henry Maine, and A.V. Dicey further developed legal theories that linked political stability to legal structures. This approach extends to both national and international politics, emphasizing that legal frameworks dictate permissible actions and establish political order. In societies where citizens respect the law, legal knowledge serves as a foundation for predicting political behavior. The legal approach ultimately underscores the integral relationship between politics and law, ensuring a balance of liberty, equality, and the rule of law. Self Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Which one of the followings has been wrongly listed as a traditional approach? (a) Historical Approach            (b) Legal Approach (c) Philosophical Approach        (d) Behavioural Approach Q.2 The philosophical approach is also known as: (a) Speculative Approach          (b) Ethical and Metaphysical Approach (c) Both (a) and (b)                 (d) None of the above 3.5 Critical Evaluation of the traditional Approach The traditional approach has now undoubtedly suffered a decline in popularity. The origin and development of the modem behavioral or scientific approach became instrumental in reducing its popularity. A large number of modem political scientists, mostly Americans, point out several limitations of the traditional approach. Almond and Powell have criticized the traditional approach on the following three grounds :- (1)    The Traditional Approach has been guilty of Parochialism: The Traditional Approach has been a parochial approach because of its near obsession and almost total concentration on the study of European states and governments. It offers a political theory based on a study of governments and patterns of politics in major European states. It accepts the British Constitution as the “mother constitution” and concentrates on the comparing of other European constitutions with the “mother constitution”. Things which are found similar to the British Constitution are considered good. (2)    Limited Descriptive and Configurative Focus- The main focus of Traditional Approach has been the -description of the peculiar characteristics - the salient features - of individual constitutions. Too much emphasis is placed on law and constitutions. (3)    Formalism and absence of Realism: The focus of life approach has been on the study of the formal institutions and their legal norms, rules and regulations, or on political ideas and ideologies, rather than on performance, interaction and behaviour. Too much emphasis was placed on the study of law and the constitutions and too little attention is given to the study of the general social framework of political institutions - that is, the context within which institutions operate. No attempt is made to study the actual mechanisms and processes of politics. Almost total concentration is placed on the study of constitutions and institutions. Roy C. Macridis has identified seven key shortcomings of the traditional approach: 1.    It primarily focuses on formal government institutions while overlooking the informal societal structures that influence decision-making and power dynamics. 2.    By ignoring these informal arrangements, it fails to account for the non-political factors that shape governmental institutions. 3.    Comparisons are often limited to the formal constitutional elements of Western political systems—such as parliaments, executives, civil services, and legal frameworks—rather than broader concepts that would facilitate a truly comparative study. 4.    With the exception of research on proportional representation, legislation, and electoral systems, this approach lacks a strong foundation in hypothesis testing and empirical verification. 5.    Even as a descriptive method, it is relatively disconnected from cultural anthropology, which effectively uses general concepts and integrative hypotheses to analyze societies. 6.    The descriptive nature of Comparative Government does not easily support hypothesis testing or the systematic collection of significant data across multiple societies. 7.    Without a structured orientation, this approach hinders the identification of patterns in political behavior and prevents the development of a comprehensive theory of political dynamics, including change, revolution, stability, and other factors. Due to these limitations, the traditional approach gradually lost favor among political scientists. The expansive scope and scientific rigor of modern comparative political studies necessitated a shift toward the Empirical-Scientific Approach, which quickly gained popularity. However, this does not imply that the traditional approach is obsolete. Many political scientists still support it, emphasizing the importance of law, history, and philosophy in understanding political institutions. Self Check Exercise-3 Q.1 Critically evaluate the traditional approach? 3.6    Summary In conclusion, traditional approaches offer foundational insights and time-tested methods in various fields. They provide a structured framework that has proven effective over time. However, while these approaches remain relevant, they must continually evolve to integrate modern advancements and address contemporary challenges, ensuring their applicability in a rapidly changing world. 3.7    Glossary •    Normative : The prescription of values and standards of conduct, dealing with questions pertaining to ‘what should be’ rather than what is’. •    System Theory: The theory that treats the political system as a self regulating mechanism, responding to ‘inputs’ (demands and support) by issuing authoritative decisions or ‘outputs’ (policies). 3.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    D Self Check Exercise-2 1.    D 2.    C Self Check Exercise-3 For details (see section 3.5) 3.9    Suggested Readings • For suggested readings see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.4. 3.10    Terminal Questions 1.    Critically examine the main theme of philosophical, legal and institutional approaches to the study of comparative politics? 2.    Explain the historical approach to the study of comparative politics? ***** Unit-4Modern Approaches Structure 4.1    Introduction 4.2    Learning Objectives 4.3    Modern Approaches 4.3.1    Sociological Approach 4.3.2    Psychological Approach 4.3.3    Economic Approach 4.3.4    Quantitative Approach 4.3.5    System Approach 4.3.6    Structural Functional Approach 4.3.7    Behavioural Approach 4.3.8    Marxian Approach 4.3.9    Political Economy Approach 4.3.10    New Institutional Approach Self Check Exercise-1 4.4    Differance between modern and traditional Approaches Self Check Exercise-2 4.5    Summary 4.6    Glossary 4.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 4.8    Suggested Readings 4.9    Terminal Questions 4.1    Introduction Comparative politics is a vibrant and dynamic field that seeks to understand the diverse political landscapes and governmental systems around the globe. Modern approaches to the study of comparative politics integrate advanced methodologies, interdisciplinary perspectives, and an emphasis on both quantitative and qualitative analyses. By employing innovative frameworks such as behavioralism, rational choice theory, institutionalism, and the study of political culture, scholars aim to uncover patterns, explain variations, and predict political phenomena. This modern toolkit enables a deeper comprehension of how political systems operate, how policies are formed, and how different societies navigate the complex interplay of power, governance, and public life. 4.2    Learning objectives After going through this unit, You will be able to: •    Explain Sociological, System approach and Structural Functional approach. •    Understand the Marxist approach. •    Explain the features of Modern approaches. 4.3    Modern Approaches In this unit, we may refer to the following important approaches: 4.3.1    Sociological Approach The sociological approach to studying politics has gained significant popularity. Prominent scholars such as R.M. MacIver, David Easton, and G.A. Almond, who adhere to this perspective, recognize that sociology provides abundant empirical data to establish patterns of political behavior. They align with leading sociologists like Comte, Spencer, Ratzenhofer, Weber, Parsons, and Merton, who argue that the state is more of a social institution than merely a political one. This perspective emphasizes that understanding political behavior requires analyzing the broader social context in which individuals exist, each holding a specific status and performing distinct roles. These roles are shaped by traits acquired through socialization. The process of passing values from one generation to another is known as political socialization. Another key concept popularized by this approach is political culture, which encompasses the collective knowledge, beliefs, and practices that individuals adopt as members of a society—it shapes their way of thinking, acting, and feeling. A thorough examination of political systems reveals that their rise and decline often stem from flawed political socialization, which directly influences a society’s political culture. Therefore, the sociological approach plays a crucial role in understanding both political development and political decay. Given its diverse subfields, some scholars prefer to use the term sociological approaches rather than a singular definition. 4.3.2    Psychological Approach In recent times, Political Science has become closely linked to psychology, particularly through the contributions of scholars such as Graham Wallas, Charles Merriam, Harold D. Lasswell, R.A. Dahl, and Eric Fromm. Historically, thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes emphasized the pursuit of security and material possessions as fundamental human motivations, inseparable from the desire for power. More recently, numerous political scientists have drawn insights from the works of renowned psychologists like Freud, Jung, Eysenck, and McDougall to establish principles of political behavior. This approach highlights the influence of emotions, habits, sentiments, instincts, and ego—fundamental aspects of human personality—on political actions and decision-making. 4.3.3    Economic Approach Matters relating to the production and distribution of goods have an economic character. But as their regulation is done by the state, they are very’ much involved in the political process. The prominent schools of liberalism, socialism and communism emerge because of the divergent interpretations of the role of the state in regulating economic matters. Eminent political scientists like Mill, Marx, Mitchell, Schumpeter, Friedman and a host of others have written volumes having a relevance of their own in the domain of political economy. However, in this regard the most outstanding name is that of Karl Marx who has built his political theory on the basis of the criticism of the prevailing capitalist system. It is contained in his well-known assumption: “The mode of production of the material means of existence condition the whole process of social, political and intellectual life.” So says Engels: “The ultimate cause of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought not in the minds of men—but in changes in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought not in the philosophy but in the economics of the period concerned.” 4.3.4    Quantitative Approach Also known by the name of statistical approach, it stands for - the use of numerical data so as to impart exactitude to the process of describing and analysing a political phenomenon. Mere descriptive or prescriptive analysis is not enough. The subscribers to this approach demonstrate their conviction in an old saying that ‘there is safety in numbers’ and, as such, we may prove scientifically the validity of a proposition by making use of tables, charts, graphs, etc. For instance, a study of electoral behaviour, questions asked by the members and answers given by the ministers in the legislature, organisation, achievements and failures of a government department or of a public undertaking, voting and cross-voting records of a public institution, constructive and destructive aspects of the politics of defection, rise and fall of a political party and the like can be well analysed with the help of quantitative data. 4.3.5 . Systems Approach The systems approach has gained significant popularity in recent times. As the name suggests, this approach emphasizes systems, which are defined as "bounded regions in spacetime, involving energy interchange among their parts, which are functionally related to one another and their environment." Drawing from biological sciences, sociologists like Talcott Parsons conceptualized society as a social system. This idea was later adopted by political scientists such as David Easton and G.A. Almond, who developed the concept of a political system. The primary goal of general systems theory is to streamline efforts by integrating knowledge and viewing all systems as interconnected. Even the components within a system (sub-systems) should not be seen as separate entities but as integral parts of the whole. The theory aims to be applicable to various types of systems, ranging from atomic sub-systems to vast galactic structures. This approach views political systems as sub-systems of the broader social system, continuously interacting with external entities. Scholars have analyzed political systems in three key ways: 1.    As a guided missile – This perspective suggests that the political system functions with a specific trajectory, automatically adjusting in response to internal and external pressures to achieve its goals. 2.    As a converter of inputs into outputs – Here, the political system is likened to an automated machine that processes inputs (such as public demands for education or healthcare) into outputs (policies). These policies, in turn, create changes in the environment, generating new demands, which re-enter the system in a continuous feedback loop. 3.    As a structured system performing essential functions – This viewpoint emphasizes the role of political systems in carrying out key functions necessary for their survival. In essence, the systems approach provides a comprehensive framework for understanding political structures by highlighting their interdependence with society and their dynamic nature. Despite its widespread popularity, the systems approach has several shortcomings. Firstly, it is ineffective in analyzing political aspects related to perception, exception, formation, or cognition. Secondly, it focuses solely on the present and fails to consider social reality from a historical perspective. Thirdly, it is inadequate for studying the political systems of third-world countries, as models based on Western political systems are not always applicable. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, the systems approach has introduced new questions and expanded the scope of political investigations, offering valuable insights that political scientists can utilize in their analyses of political phenomena. 4.3.6    Structural Functional Approach The structural functional approach in political science developed in the second decade of the present century. This approach started in Mathematics by Leibriz found its way into Political Science through Sociology and Anthropology. The chief exponents of this structural functional approach were Marion Levy, Robert Merton, Talcott Parson, Mitchel, Apter, Almond, David Easton etc. Under the structural - functional approach the state or government are not treated as units, rather the political system is treated as a unit and an effort is made to find out the centre of authoritative decisions. Accordingly this approach is helpful in making a systematic study of the functions performed by the political system and their mutual relations. In short, this approach seeks to make a study of the political systems and institutions and tries to impart knowledge about the similarities and dissimilarities of the various systems. The structural-functional approach assumes that the political system is merely a subsystem of the main social system, which performs distinctive function of making legitimate policy decisions or which works for 'goal attainment' for the society of which it is apart. This approach is based on the following basic assumptions: 1.    The society is a single inter-connected system in which each element performs a specific function. As a result of the interaction of the various components of the system a sort of equilibrium is maintained. "The functional analysis seeks to understand a behaviour pattern or a socio-cultural institution in term of the role it plays in keeping the given system in proper working order and thus maintaining it as a going concern." 2.    Secondly, the various parts of the main system (society) are interrelated and the social system has a built-in tendency for stability. As a result, the deviations and tensions within the system are automatically resolved, in other words 'the system undergoes constant and gradual adjustments. 3.    Thirdly, there are certain broad aims and principles of the system which are observed by the members. In other words value consensus and on-going usefulness of the system are important factors. As the very title of this approach suggests, it revolves round two key concepts-structures and functions. To understand this approach fully, it shall be desirable to understand these two concepts. Structure generally refers to those arrangements within the system which perform the functions. For example, a political party is a structure which performs important functions within the system. Similarly the pressure groups and other formal institutions of the government also constitute the structure. The functions, on the other hand are "those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or readjustment of a given system; and dysfunctions those observed consequences, which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the system." According to Edwin Fogelman "In its widest usage functionalism means simply that in analysing some phenomena the political scientists will be concerned with among other things, their functions in the sense of purpose served by the phenomena." In short functionalism has three basic features viz. (a) a fact or event which needs explanation; (b) events in which that fact is being reflected; and (c) the relation of that fact with the whole event. Some of the important works based on structural- functional approach include Almond and Coleman's 'The Politics of Developing Areas' Almond and Powell's 'Comparative Politics; A Developmental Approach' Mitchell's 'The American Polity' etc. Merton made special contribution to the structural- functional approach. He draws a distinction between functions and dys-functions. He also makes a distinction between manifest functions and latent functions. He says 'functions' are those observed consequences which make tor the adaptation or adjustment of a given system, 'dysfunctions' are those observed consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the same. Similarly he means by manifest functions those functions whose purposes and consequences are both intended and recognized. The latent functions are those whose purposes and consequences are covert, unintended and unrecognised. But probably the most important contribution of Merton to the structural-functional approach was that he emphasized that the structural-functionalism could throw considerable light on the process of political modernization in the name of conservatism. Merton also emphasised that we should not confine to the study of the manifest alone but also pay attention to what is latent. However, Merton's approach suffered from certain drawbacks. Firstly, he asserted that government and politics should aim at achieving some social objectives, but did not explain those social objectives. Secondly he failed to establish a clear link between the political and social methods and functions. Thirdly, though Merton drew a distinction between governmental and political methods, he did not discuss their relations in detail. Fourthly, Merton took only government and politics into account and neglected other elements of social system. He also failed to explain the relationship between the social system and the government or administrative agencies. Mitchell was another prominent American political writer who made valuable contributions to the structural functional approach. He was greatly influenced by Talcott Parson, the great sociologist. Mitchell described the policy as a sub-system which was primarily concerned with the mobilisation of the resources to meet the goals of the system. He did not limit himself to the consideration of the mobilisation of resources to meet systems goals alone bid also pointed out the ways in which political processes contribute to performance of all the functions. After Mitchell, Apter gave a new direction to the structural functional approach. He made a study of the political system in systematic terms and gave the classification and analysis of types of government. He also tried to bring about a workable reconciliation between the normative and empirical dimensions of political theory. He paid special attention to the study of the political system of the third world countries. He tried to study the political system in three respects- nature and purpose of the government types and models of the government, and functions of the government. As regards the nature and purpose of the government, Apter insists it is the business of a political scientist to see conditions under which a government can maintain itself during the period of transition, without causing loss to its legitimacy. With regard to the models of government, he suggests that the modernising governments should be placed in the category of pre-democratic rather than antidemocratic category. Apter holds that all political systems are characterised by a number of functions. He says all political systems must act as (i) the role of sanctions in a society (ii) providers of symbols linking a people's past and future; (iii) the responsible agents for the orderly arrangement and performance of roles in the system; and (iv) the providers of criteria for deciding on membership and participation in the society. Thus Apter, like other Structural-functionalists tries to make a search for the functional and structural requisites of the Government. According to Almond a political system has four basic characteristics which he designates as 'legitimate patterns of interactions'. These are as follows; (i)    Every political system has its structures-some more specialised and others less specialized which perform more specialised functions and less specialized functions respectively. (ii)    Despite the differences between the system and its structures, same political functions are performed by all the political systems. (iii)    Political functions which can be designated as 'multifunctional'. (iv)    All political systems being part of the society have a culture of their own which is a mixture of the traditional and modem. Almond holds that the environmental factors greatly influence the roles, structures and sub-systems and offer an input-output analysis with seven variables. Out of these four are designated by him as input functions viz. political socialisation and recruitment; interest articulation; interest aggregation; and political communication. The three output functions mentioned by him include rule making, rule- application and rule adjudication. Almond holds that the input functions are performed by non-governmental subsystem viz. the society and the general environments, while the output functions are performed by the three organs of the government viz. the legislature, the executive and the Judiciary. 4.3.7 Behavioural Approach Modern empirical approaches are best exemplified by the rise of behaviouralism, a movement where several prominent American scholars emphasize the collection and analysis of factual data concerning human behaviour in social and political contexts. This approach emerged amid significant debate within the discipline and has been hailed by its advocates as a revolutionary shift in political science. The behavioural approach is characterized by the following key aspects: 1.    It focuses on the behaviour of individuals and social groups as the central unit of both theoretical and empirical analysis, rather than events, structures, institutions, or ideologies. 2.    It seeks to integrate political research with the perspectives of social psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology. 3.    It highlights the interdependence of theory and research, requiring theoretical concepts to be framed in operational terms for empirical study while ensuring that research findings contribute to the development of political theory. 4.    It emphasizes rigorous research design and the application of precise analytical methods to study political behaviour. David Easton, a leading figure in this field, outlined the fundamental principles of behaviouralism as follows: 1.    Regularities exist in human behaviour that can be discovered and formulated into generalizations. 2.    These generalizations must be testable with reference to human behaviour. 3.    The methods of data collection and interpretation should not be assumed but examined critically. 4.    Measurement and quantification should be applied where they serve a meaningful purpose. 5.    Ethical evaluation should be distinct from empirical explanation. 6.    Research should be systematic; theory without empirical support is futile, and research without theoretical guidance may be trivial. 7.    Understanding and explaining political behaviour should precede its practical application. 8.    Political science should integrate insights from various social sciences. While the behavioural approach has expanded the scope of political science and enhanced its ability to explain political realities, it has also faced criticism on several grounds: 1.    It relies on a flawed epistemological foundation by considering only facts as real, overlooking the significance of universal concepts that give meaning to facts. 2.    It is based on an incorrect notion of the scientific method, as even after collecting, measuring, and quantifying data, researchers remain influenced by subjective perspectives and value judgments. Consequently, political science cannot achieve the same level of objectivity as natural sciences. 3.    It limits the study of political science to aspects that can be measured and quantified, thereby neglecting the importance of speculative political theory in favor of an overly rigid scientific approach. 4.    By asserting that political institutions and activities are primarily shaped by societal divisions, it risks reducing political science to a mere extension of sociology. 4.3.8    The Marxian Approach The Marxian approach occupies a distinctive position, differing fundamentally from both traditional and modern perspectives in several key ways. However, it does share certain similarities with both. A striking aspect of this approach is its view of the state, which is central to political science, as an inevitable outcome of class conflicts. According to Marxian dialectics, the ultimate goal is a stateless society, which emerges as the final stage of social evolution. Furthermore, economic factors dominate this framework to such an extent that disciplines like history, sociology, psychology, and ethics are considered its byproducts. Politics, in this view, is inseparable from the economic structure, manifesting in the forces and relations of production. This perspective emphasizes the continuous interaction between economic and political factors, making it difficult to separate one from the other. The Marxian approach is significant because it demands a deeper examination of politics, beyond merely analyzing the formal structures of a political system. It asserts that the economic system determines the class structure, and as the means of production, distribution, and exchange evolve, so too do relationships between dominant and subordinate classes— such as masters and slaves, feudal lords and serfs, or capitalists and workers. Political struggles for power are thus best understood through the lens of class conflict. This contradiction, according to Marx, will ultimately lead to the establishment of a socialist society. The approach not only highlights social contradictions but also proposes their resolution, giving it a deterministic nature. In this way, it resembles an ideology based on a set of rigid propositions that drive collective action toward social transformation. It aims not just to interpret the world but to change it, exposing the flaws of capitalism and rallying the exploited classes—workers, peasants, and laborers—to break free from oppression. The state is viewed as a tool of exploitation, which will only disappear once a classless society is achieved. As Marx stated in The German Ideology, a communist society would enable individuals to engage in diverse activities without being confined to a single role, allowing people to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, and criticize after dinner—without becoming permanently defined by any of these roles. Since comparative politics often focuses on Third World countries, the Marxian approach examines the politics of underdeveloped and developing nations through the lens of imperialist exploitation. It argues that many Afro-Asian nations have been subjected to political subjugation and economic domination for centuries, a condition that continues under the guise of neo-colonialism. In this framework, the primary actor in international politics is not the state, but the global working class, which is urged to challenge imperialist forces. Lenin described imperialism as the "final stage of capitalism," while Maurice Dobb characterized it as a system of global oppression and financial strangulation imposed by a few powerful nations. These powers, in their struggle over economic spoils, embroil the entire world in conflict. Given this perspective, the study of politics in impoverished and underdeveloped nations should account for external forces shaping their political landscape. Instead of making superficial comparisons between developed nations like the U.S., Britain, and France and newly independent states such as Zaire, Zimbabwe, and Cambodia, political analysis should consider how external economic pressures shape political outcomes. Frantz Fanon, for instance, argued that Marxist analysis must be adapted to account for the realities of colonialism. This view also explains why Marxists support liberation struggles in oppressed regions, as articulated by Khrushchev: "Communists fully support just wars and march in the front rank of liberation struggles." The Marxian approach claims to be both scientific and progressive. It rejects the existing capitalist system as oppressive and exploitative, advocating for a new order based on cooperation and equality. Politics, in this framework, is an expression of class struggle, ultimately leading to a society free of class divisions and conflict. Thus, while it begins as an empirical approach, it eventually takes on a normative character. In essence, the Marxian approach functions as both a theory and a vision for social change, emphasizing the fundamental role of production, economic structures, and class dynamics throughout history. This approach is commendable for its empirical foundation. The influence of economic factors on politics cannot be overlooked, particularly when studying political systems using modern methodologies such as structural-functional analysis, input-output models, political communication theories, and modernization studies. Economic forces shape political inputs, which in turn influence decision-making processes. Similarly, international economic dynamics affect national political environments, especially in poorer nations. Multinational corporations and transnational entities wield significant economic power, often acting as agents of neo-imperialism, influencing political events and even triggering revolutions and counter-revolutions in countries like Indonesia, Chile, and Iran. However, a major criticism of the Marxian approach is its tendency to become an inflexible ideology. Its rigid framework restricts scholarly inquiry, replacing analytical flexibility with dogmatism. This rigidity undermines its scientific credibility, leading critics to describe it as the "pseudo-scientism of degenerated Marxism." As a result, many contemporary political scientists have sought to develop alternative approaches to studying politics and comparative political systems, collectively known as the Modern or Empirical-Scientific approach. 4.3.9    Political Economy Approach The political economy approach is a social science perspective that examines the interconnections between economic and political processes. It is widely accepted that political systems operate within a broader ecology of human interactions, including sociological, economic, and religious influences. As a result, merely studying constitutions and institutions is insufficient to fully understand the nature of politics and the state in terms of their functions and capacity to achieve desired objectives. Marxists, in particular, argue that economics forms the foundation of society and the political system. The ultimate goal of Marxism is to establish a classless society. Until this objective is realized, the state and politics must be analyzed through the lens of class relations, class domination, and class struggle. From a Marxist perspective, comparative politics should also be understood in terms of class control over political structures. Political regimes are seen as expressions of specific interests and forces within national states, which have the power to shape economic operations. It is essential to recognize that the state is influenced by civil society—a complex interplay of social, cultural, economic, and political forces. Only through historical analysis can one truly comprehend the state's structure, function, and legitimacy. To investigate the origins and characteristics of modern states, it is necessary to examine their political history alongside the dynamics of different modes of production, whether capitalist or socialist. Additionally, the interplay of socioeconomic and political forces has shaped national cultures, which in turn legitimize the role of the state and define the extent of its involvement in social and economic activities. In this context, significant differences exist not only between states operating under different modes of production but also among political regimes within the same economic framework. 4.3.10    New Institutionalism Approach New institutionalism is also called neo institutionalism. It is a methodological approach in the study of Political Science, Economics, Organisational Behaviour, and Sociology. Such methodology became prominent in the 1980's among scholars of US politics. New institutionalism combined the interests of traditionalist scholars, who focused on studying formal institutional rules and structures, with behaviouralist scholars, who examined the actions of individual political actors. Historical Background of New Institutionalism Approach From the 1930s through the 1950s, traditionalist scholars dominated political science as a discipline, especially in the United States. Scholars which were most interested in examining the formal structures and rules, were the foundation of political and governmental institutions such as the executive, legislative and judicial branches.' The new institutionalist approach has its roots in the early to mid-1980s. The two of the leading founders of the new institutionalism, American political scientist James G March and Norwegian political scientist Johan P Olsen published at a very influential pace. The New Institutionalism, Organisational Factors in Political Life (1984), followed by a book. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics (1989). They continued to argue for further institutional analysis in Democratic Governance (1995). According to these authors, studying individual political behavior without examining institutional constraints on that behaviour was giving scholars a skewed understanding of political reality. There are at least three branches of neo institutionalism (i)    Rational choice institutionalism (ii)    Sociological institutionalism (iii)    Historical institutionalism Despite the differences, there are some common notions in this line of research. Historical institutionalists define and explain specific real-world political outcomes (such as an election) by using the historical legacy of institutional structure and feedbacks available to them. They also view politics as a competition over scarce resources and highlight differences in political power between institutions, such as between the courts and the legislature. Historical institutionalists note that institutions do not perform with perfect efficiency (because they were designed in earlier times) and institutional rules are slow to change and thus these factors must be taken into account in any analysis. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Which one of the following was associated with the structural functional approach for the study of political system? (a) David Easton            (b) Michel (c) Apter                   (d) All the above Q.2 Who was the author of book ‘Political System’? (a) David Easton           (b) G.A. Almond (c) Robert Merton          (d) Oran Young Q.3 Who of the following deserve the credit for developing model of input-output analysis? (a) G.A. Almond           (b) David Easton (c) Robern Merton          (d) None of the above 4.4    Difference between modern and Traditional Approaches The following are the features of the Modern Approach. These also fully demonstrate the difference between it and the Traditional Approach. 1.    Whereas the traditional approach focuses on the study of the state, the modem approach focuses on the study of the political system - a concept which is much broader than the concept-of state. 2.    Modem approach advocates the study of political processes and patterns of political beliaviour of the people of all the countries whereas the traditional approach advocates the study of political institutions of major states. 3.    Modem approach stands for a realistic study of the actual behaviour and functions of political structures, while the traditional approach stands for legal-institutional and philosophical-normativist study of the formal political institutions of the state. 4.    Modem approach places great attention on the study of the environment - social, economic, cultural and psychological - which surrounds political institutions and strictures. The traditional approach pays little attention to this aspect. 5.    Modem approach stands for interdisciplinary focus, whereas traditional approach upholds the autonomy of political science as a distinct science of state and government. 6.    Modern approach undertakes the study and comparative study of all political systems - their processes, structures and functions - located in all pails of the globe. As against this, the traditional approach was initially dominated by the study of European political systems and even now stands inclined in favour of this direction. 7.    Modern approach stands for the use of scientific methods for conducting political and comparative political research. Traditional approach favours the use of the knowledge of Law, History’ and Philosophy for this purpose. 8.    Modem approach stands for explanation, prediction and theory-building and the traditional approach stands mainly for description. 9.    Modem approach stands for the empirical study of relevant facts of politics. It gives only a limited place to the study of values. Traditional approach, however, stands for the study of values as the essential ingredient of all studies in politics and comparative politics. Thus, the features of the modern and traditional approaches are quite different from each other. Self Check Exercise—2 Q.1 Discuss any three features of Modern Approaches. Q.2 What are the key differences between modern and traditional Approaches? 4.5    Summary Modern approaches to the study of comparative politics integrate both qualitative and quantitative methods, leveraging advancements in data analytics and technology. These approaches emphasize the importance of empirical evidence, cross-national comparisons, and case studies to understand political systems, behaviors, and institutions. By combining theoretical frameworks with robust data analysis, contemporary comparative politics provides deeper insights into the dynamics of power, governance, and policy-making across different countries. This holistic approach allows for more nuanced and comprehensive analyses, fostering a better understanding of global political phenomena. 4.6    Glossary: •    Methodology: The study of different methods of research, including the identification of research question, the formulation of theories to explain certain event and political outcomes, and the development of research design. •    Eurocentric: Refers to the bias and distortions which emerge from the application of European Values, beliefs and theories, to other cultures and groups. 4.7 Answer to Check you Progress Exercises Self Check Exercise-1 1.    D 2.    A 3.    B Self Check Exericse-2 Ans 1 & 2. For details See Section 4.4 4.8    Suggested Readings •    Tapan Biswal (ed.), Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Trinity, Press, 2015). •    O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.). •    Hari Hara Das, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: National Publishing House). •    J.C. Johari, Comparative Politics (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.). •    Parmatma Sharan, Comparative Government and Politics (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan). •    Eddy Asirvathan and K.K. Misra, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.). •    Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors). •    A.C. Kapoor, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.). •    S.C. Singhal, Political Theory (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarawal). •    V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.) •    Sri Ram Maheshwari, Comparative Government and Politics (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Aggarwal, 1985). •    Manoj Kumar, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis (New Delhi: Anmol Publication, 2004). •    Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered (West view Press, 1994). •    Howard J. Wiarda, ‘Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the field in the Post cold War Era’ Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19 No.5. •    See also, Comparative Politics, Lesson-1 Old Study Material of M.A. Pol. Science, ICDEOL. 4.9    Terminal Objectives 1.    What is modern approach to comparative politics? Explain its features and compare it with the traditional approach? 3.    Critically examine the Marxist approach to the study of Comparative Politics? 3.    Examine the structural functional approach to the study of Comparative Politics? 4.    Write a brief note on Political Economy Approach used in the study of Comparative Politics? ***** BLOCK-II Unit-5Political System: Meaning and Typologies Structure 5.1    Introduction 5.2    Learning Objectives 5.3    Shills Classification of Political System Self Check Exercise-1 5.4    Apter’s Classification of Political System Self Check Exercise-2 5.5    Summary 5.6    Glossary 5.7    Answer to Self-Check Exercise 5.8    Suggested Readings 5.9    Terminal Questions 5.1    Introduction A major types of Political System are democracies, monarchies and authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more unstable politically because their leaders do not enjoy legitimate authority and instead rule through fear. In other words, the classification should be done by taking into consideration the nature and activities of the political systems and not on the basis of formal governmental institutions or nature of constitutions and the like. Such variables as political development, political structures, political functions, political chance, political culture, nature and process of political socialization, etc. should be taken into consideration while classifying political systems. Most of the modem political scientists have now fully realised the importance of this this necessity and hence have come forward with several classifications of political systems. 5.2    Learning Objectives After reading this Unit, you will be able to:- •    Explain Shills’s Classification of Political System. •    Know the meanings totalitarian Political System. 5.3    Edward Shills’s Classification of Political Systems Edward Shills in his book “Political Development in New States” suggests a five fold classification of political systems based on his observation of the contemporary world. These are : 1.    Political Democracy: The components of the political systems of this category are : (1) regime of a civilian rule through representative institutions, (2) important position of the legislature, (3) political enjoyment of liberties by the people, (4) periodic assessment by the people (competitive elections), (5) rule of law, (6) functioning of all the branches of the government within the framework of the constitution, (7) definite term of government, (8) independence of the judiciary, (9) high degree of legitimacy of the political institutions, (10) intelligent leadership with high credibility, and (11) trained and well organised bureaucracy. 2.    Tutelary Democracy: Such a political system retains all the institutions of political democracy but adapts them in the direction of a greater preponderance of the executive. This system is characterized by (1) dependence on modernisation, (2) a powerful executive, (3) limitations on press and representative institutions, and (4) control of the elites over the masses. 3.    Modernising Oligarchies: This type of political system is characterised by a well-organised elite which is “clique-like in structure”, a “relatively closed group” watchful over new members or aspirants. It is ruled either by a military group or a civilian junta. Its main features are ; (1) lack of interest in political democracy, (2) rule of a military or civilian clique, (3) weak position of the legislature, (4) unreal and farcical elections, (5) lack of opposition, (6) efficient and modernised bureaucracy, (7) lack of independent judiciary and stability in appearance but hollowness within. 4.    Totalitarian Oligarchies: Such political systems are characterised by a “monolithic ideology” and a “strong well-disciplined party” which is the “custodian of the ideology” led by a “highly coherent elite.” In them, “no other party or opposition is tolerated” and they completely “dispense with representative institutions” except for “acclaiming or ceremonial purposes.” There is no rule of law, no independent judiciary and the highest law is the decision of the party. In other words, its main features are : (1) glory of the ruling elite, (2) democratic cloak, (3) lack of real rights and liberties of the people, (4) supreme regard for ideology, i.e., official ideology, (5) monolithic position of the party of the rulers, (6) identity between party and government, (7) lack of political participation by the people, and (8) absence of rule of law and independence of judiciary. 5.    Traditional Oligarchies: In this type of political system, there is a “firm dynastic constitution buttressed by traditional religious beliefs.” “Kinship” or “a constitution of Kinship and choice of the qualified” is the basis of the rule of the rulers. All decision -making is done by the ‘palace of the ruler’. Its main features are : (1) Importance of “royal/rulers’ blood” relationships, (2) lack of modernised bureaucracy, (3) respect for traditions (4) parochial and traditional culture, (5) weak government since it is an instrument in the hands of the feudal lords, the clergy, and the rich. Shills’s classification is comprehensive but is based on values and standards drawn from Western political systems. Self Check Exercises-1 Q.1 What is Shill’s classification primarily concerned with? A)    Economic development in political systems. B)    Political ideologies in democratic systems. C)    Administrative structures of authoritarian regimes. D)    Political participation and power distribution. Q.2 According to Schill’s classification, which type of political system grants the highest level of citizen participation and control? A) Authoritarian regimes B) Totalitarian regimes C)    Democratic regimes D) Oligarchic regimes 5.4 Apter’s Classification of Political Systems Apter’s classification is based on two identifiable criteria and their combinations. They are : (a) “measure of stringency of control” or “centralisation of authority”. (b) “degree to which ultimate ends are employed in action, i.e., whether the ends are ‘sacred’ or secular”. By a combination of these two bases, Apter suggests a fourfold classification of political systems. He shows these with the help of the following figure : Values                     Hierarchial Pyramidical         Authoritative Pattern Consummatory (Sacred or Religious)          A           B Instrumental                 C           D (Secular) Where (A) = Mobilization System (Totalitarian). (B)    = Reconciliation System (Democratic) (C)    = Modernising Autocracies or Modernising Oligarchies (Military or Civil Modernising Regimes) (D)    = Theocracies (Religious Rules) 1.    Mobilising System: It is a totalitarian system in which the ruling elite is not, any way, limited by constitutional provisions and it has full control and forcibly secured support of the people. The legislature is merely an instrument for legitimizing the policies of the rulers. A single all-powerful party carries out the entire operation of politics. 2.  Reconciliational System: Such a system gives importance cooperation among various groups. Its model can be confederal or federal. The emphasis is upon the coordination of consenting and dissenting opinions. The pattern of author is pyramidical, there is dispersion of powers, the leadership is pluralistic, power is exercised both by the centre and the units and legitimacy depends upon the representatives. This type of system is very near to the one described by Shills as political democracy. 3.    Modernising Oligarchic Systems or Modern Autocracies: In these, the authority is hierarchically organised. They believe in values of modernisation. Power is exercised by hierarchically organised groups of leaders working at different levels. They follow revivalist and neo-traditionalist ideology. They tolerate new changes. 4.    Theocracies: Such systems are ruled by religious leaders or leaders in the name of religion, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, even Pakistan are theocracies. Apter’s classification is modem but does not cover all political systems. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. In Apter’s classification, which political system is characterized by high levels of political participation and mobilization? a) Incipient          b) Authority-oriented c) Participant         d) Ideology-oriented 5.5    Summary In conclusion, Edward L Apter’s classification offers a succinct framework for understanding the diverse structures of political systems. By delineating between autocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and anarchy, Apter provides a valuable tool for analyzing the distribution and exercise of power within societies. This classification underscores the importance of governance structures in shaping political dynamics and societal outcomes, serving as a foundation for further exploration and analysis in political science and comparative politics. 5.6    Glossary l Mobilising : “mobilizing” means actively organizing and engaging resources or individuals to achieve a specific goal or purpose within a limited timeframe. l Totalitarian: A regime of command by the government and obedience by the citizens. The regime controls all aspects of political and social life. 5.7    Answer to self- check Exercise Self- Check Exercise-1 1.    D          2. C Self-Check Exercise-2 Ans. C 5.8    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 5.9    Terminal Questions 1.    What do you understand by Political System? 2.    Discuss the typologies of Political System as suggested by Edward Shills and Apter? 3.    Write and essay on Modern Classification of Political System? ***** Unit-6Classification of Political System Structure 6.1    Introduction 6.2    Learning Objectives 6.3    Almond’s Classification of Political System 6.4    Almond’s Classification of Political System on the basis of Political Culture 6.4.1    Anglo American Political System 6.4.2    Continental European Political System 6.4.3    Pre-Industrial or Partially-Industrialized System 6.4.4    Totalitarian Political System Self-Check Exercise-1 6.5    Finer’s Classification of Political System Self Check Exercises-2 6.6    Summary 6.7    Glossary 6.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise 6.9    Suggested Readings 6.10    Terminal Questions 6.1    Introduction Exploring the intricacies of political systems, this unit delves into the structures, processes, and actors that shape governance within societies. From democracies to authoritarian regimes, it examines how power is distributed, decisions are made, and citizens engage with their governments, illuminating the complexities of political dynamics. 6.2    Learning objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to •    Know about the Almond’s classification of political system, •    Discuss Finer’s classification of political system 6.3    Almond’s Classification of Political Systems In the work ‘Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach,’ Almond and Powell have suggested a comprehensive classification of Political Systems. Their classificatory scheme is based on two criteria: (i)    Structural Differentiation, i.e., the development and proliferation of specialised structures for the performance of specific functions or roles. (ii)    Cultural Secularization, i.e., the growth of rational, analytical and empirical criteria in decision-making. On these abovetwo bases they offer a three-fold broad classification of political systems :- (1)    Systems with intermittent political structures - in which there is a minimum of structural differentiation and a concomitant diffused and parochial political culture. (2)    Systems with differentiated governmental political structures characterised by subject political culture. (3)    Systems with differentiated political infrastructures characterised by participant political culture. Within these three broad categories, they have specified several specific categories of political systems. The whole scheme is given below :- ALMOND AND POWELL'S Classification ol Political Systems Basis I Structural I Differentiation i Cultural Secularisation 'I (Levels of Political Primitive Systems Development) with Intermittent Political Structures and Parochial Political Cultures "I Traditional Systems with Differentiated Governmental Political Structures and Subject Political Cultures Systems Pyramidal Systems Feudal Political Systems Segmentary Systems Secularised Crty States ; Limited Differentiation Patrimonial Centralised Systems Bureaucratic Systems Modern Systems Differentiated Political Infrastructures with Participant Political Cultures Mobilized Modern Systems, High Differentiation and SeoMarisation 4 Démocratie Systems with Sud-System Autonomy and Participant Cutures r High Limited Subsystem Sub-system Autonomy Autonomy LOW Sub-system Autonomy Authoritarian Systems with Sub-system Control and Subject Participant Cutures Radcal Conservative Conservative Modernising Totalitarian Totaitarian Authoritarian Authoritarian Premobrhsed Medern Systems wltn Limited Differentiation and Secularisation Premobilised Premobilised Authoritarian Democratic The classification of Political Systems offered by Almond and Powell is very comprehensive and covers all political systems. However, it is a very lengthy scheme. 6.4 Almond’s Classification of Political systems on the basis of political culture In the study of Comparative Politics, political culture serves as a foundation for classifying political systems. Almond utilizes this concept to categorize political systems into four distinct types: 1.    Anglo-American Political Systems 2.    Continental European Political Systems 3.    Pre-Industrial or Partially-Industrialized Political Systems 4.    Totalitarian Political Systems 6.4.1    Anglo-American Political Systems The Anglo-American political systems possess the following key characteristics: •    They exhibit a multi-valued political culture, where the majority of the population is committed to values such as individual freedom, mass welfare, and security. Cultural pluralism and political integration define these systems. •    Political culture is largely homogeneous, with general consensus on political goals and the means to achieve them. •    Politics functions as a competitive game, where outcomes are uncertain, yet rival political groups avoid turning the competition into a battlefield. •    The political system operates as a marketplace, with clearly defined roles and extensive bargaining. Policies are essentially traded for votes, and the group that secures the most votes emerges victorious. •    Roles within these systems are highly specialized. Institutions such as political parties, pressure groups, voluntary organizations, and government bodies serve distinct functions within the system. •    These role structures maintain stability, ensuring the smooth functioning of the system. •    Power and influence are widely distributed among various institutions, with effective checks and balances in place. •    All political interest groups actively participate in the system, influencing the political process. Anglo-American political systems are prevalent in developed Western nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom. 6.4.2    The Continental European Political Systems Continental European political systems differ from Anglo-American systems in several ways: •    Their political culture is fragmented rather than homogeneous. Society consists of various subcultures, each at different levels of development—some feudalistic, others modernized. These subcultures often contain internal divisions. •    Unlike the bargaining and compromise seen in Anglo-American systems, these societies experience deep ideological divisions, where political affiliations are more about belief than negotiation. •    Conflict resolution tends to involve dominance rather than compromise, as different groups strive to impose their views on others. •    Each subculture develops its own subsystem of roles, which are embedded within the subcultures rather than integrated into the broader political system. There is limited mobility between different subcultures. •    Movements driven by charismatic nationalism sometimes attempt to unify the fragmented political culture through coercive means. According to Almond, the political systems of France, Germany, and Italy fall under this category. 6.4.3    Pre-Industrial or Partially-Industrialised Systems This category of political systems exhibits the following features: •    A mixed political culture that combines traditional and Western influences. •    This cultural blend often results from a history of imperialism or colonial rule, where indigenous political traditions interact with Western political systems. •    The erosion of traditional values leads to societal tensions, with some groups resisting change and expressing insecurity through protests, sometimes escalating into violent opposition. •    Like in Continental European systems, conflicts between political cultures can give rise to charismatic nationalist movements seeking to establish new cultural norms. •    These systems have a high potential for violence due to difficulties in communication and coordination, as different groups hold vastly different political perspectives. •    Unlike Anglo-American systems, which emphasize functional specialization, preindustrial systems often experience significant overlap in roles. The military and bureaucracy may take on legislative functions, legislatures may interfere with judicial proceedings, and policymaking often occurs within party structures. Many newly independent nations, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, exhibit characteristics of pre-industrial or partially-industrialized political systems. 6.4.4    Totalitarian Political Systems Totalitarian systems differ fundamentally from Anglo-American systems in several ways: •    Independent voluntary associations are not permitted to exist or function. •    The government exercises strict control over mass communication. •    Although political culture is portrayed as homogeneous, this uniformity is artificially imposed. •    Power is centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite, which is controlled by a single, dominant political party. •    Authority is maintained through coercion, force, and propaganda rather than democratic legitimacy. •    Fear and repression are primary tools for maintaining control over society. •    Unlike Anglo-American systems that distribute power among multiple institutions, totalitarian regimes concentrate power within a single ruling party that dominates the government, military, bureaucracy, and police. Historically, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy exemplified totalitarian systems. In modern times, countries such as China, Cuba, and former communist states of the USSR and Eastern Europe have followed this model. Almond’s classification of political systems based on political culture, though somewhat rigid, provides a useful framework for analyzing and comparing political structures worldwide. In the era of postmodernism, political cultures—particularly in developed nations—are expected to evolve. Movements centered on feminism, subaltern rights, and justice will likely play a significant role in shaping future political systems. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. 1 According to Almond, what role does political culture play in shaping political systems? a)    It has no significant impact. b)    It determines the economic structure. c)    It influences the behavior of political actors and institutions. d)    It determines the geographical boundaries of the state. Q. 2 Which term did Almond use to describe political systems that are highly adaptable to change? a) Developmental           b) Authoritarian c) Totalitarian                d) Feudalistic 6.5 S.E. Finer’s Classification of Political Systems S.E. Finer, in his book “Comparative Government” has given a classificatory scheme which is quite comprehensive, relatively simple and takes into account the empirical realities of politics in various states. For his classificatory scheme, he identifies and depends upon three criteria : (a)    how far are the masses or the public involved in or excluded from the governing process - this is the participant-exclusion dimension: (b)    how far the masses or the public obey their rulers out of commitment or how far out of fear - this is the coercion-persuasion dimension; and (c)    how far are the arrangements designed to cause the rulers to reflect the actual and current values of the masses or the public or how far may they disregard these for the sake of continuity and future values - this is the order-representativeness dimension. On each of the three dimensions, S.E. Finer classifies political systems in several categories. (1)    Under the first dimension, i.e., the participant-exclusion dimension. Finer classifies political systems on the basis as to whether the mass of the people extensively participates in the system or stands excluded from it. In developed democratic systems, like the USA, the UK, and Switzerland, the political participation of the people is very big and effective whereas in less democratic or developing systems, it is limited. In non-democratic totalitarian authoritarian systems, it is negligible. (2)    Under the second dimension - coercion-persuasion dimension. Finer seeks to classify political systems on the basis as to whether the rulers use coercion or persuasion for securing people’s obedience or they use a mixture of persuasion and coercion or they use coercion for this purpose. He sub-divides this dimension into four parts; (1) Coercion (Fear), (2) Manipulation (Deference), (3) Regimentation (Sentiments), and (4) Persuasion/ Bargaining (Cognition) interests. (3)    The third dimension - the order-representativeness dimension, is used by Finer to classify political systems on the basis whether the rules reflect the present goals or disregard these for the sake of continuity and future values. The qualities expected of government are by no means simple. On the contrary, they form a complex of requirements which are mutually inconsistent and so the composition of this complex tends to differ from one society to another. Each government has to take care of the present as well as future goals, represent as well as lead the people. It has to maintain order and rule as well as act as representative of the people. In some political systems, there is a large amount of sub-group autonomy whereas in others, there is sub-group dependence. Representativeness demands turn-over of rulers but many rulers, in practice, trample upon the representative principle and build personal or collective (group) despotism; they discount the present goals for the sake of future goals. On the basis of above these three dimensions and by relating one with the Other dimension, S.E. Finer offers a sixfold classification : 1.    Military Regimes. Based on coercion, lacking in sub-group autonomy, having either high or moderate sub-group dependency, e.g.. Military Regime of Pakistan. 2.    Dynastic Regimes. Based on manipulation (deference), e.g., Saudi Arabia. 3.    Facade Democracies. Democratic in form but oligarchic in reality, show of representativeness, persuasion and participation but in reality dependence upon manipulation, exclusion, coercion and other future goals. 4.    Quasi-Democracies. Having varying degrees of representativeness but living under the hegemony of a single party. 5.    Totalitarian Regimes. These rely on regimentation and are characterised by hegemonic party control. 6.    Liberal Democracies. These have a high level of extensive popular participation, depend mostly on persuasion, are characterised by a high degree of representativeness and sub-group autonomy. S.E. Finer’s classification is indeed very comprehensive but ignores the importance of the forms of government - Parliamentary, Presidential, Unitary and Federal, as a variable for the classification of systems. Self Check Exercise-2 Q.1 In Finer’s classification, what characterizes a patrimonial political system? a)    Power is concentrated in the hands of a ruling family or individual b)    Power is shared among various social classes c)    Power is decentralized and diffused among local communities. d)    Power is exercised through a system of elected representatives Q.2 In Finer’s classification, what type of political system is most conducive to modernization and economic development? a) Patrimonial              b) Feudal c) Bureaucratic              d) Totalitarian 6.6    Summary Classification done by Almond and Powell and S.E. Finer can be regarded as two of the best classificatory schemes, though not without inadequacies. By combining the views of several political scientists and by combining the attempts at the classification of states and governments, we can attempt to arrive at a generally acceptable and nearly complete classificatory scheme. Political Systems can be classified into three specific categories. Liberal Democratic, totalitarian and Authoritarian Political Systems. Governments can be classified into four Main Categories - Parliamentary, Presidential, Unitary and Federal. 6.7    Glossary •    Liberal Democracy : Democratic government that provides for the protection of individual human rights, in order to prevent a majority from oppressing a minority. •    Authoritarian : A regime command and control by the ruler of the government. The government is fully controlled by the ruler. •    Order : A state of peace and security, maintained by protecting citizens from violence and criminal activity. 6.8    Answer to Self-Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    C          2. A Self Check Exercise-2 1.    A          2. C 6.9    Suggested Readings •    Blum, W.T., Theories of Political Systems, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall), 1981. •    Caramani, Daniele (ed.) Comparative Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press), 2008. •    Dahl, Robert A., Pluralist Democracy in the United States, (Calcutta Scientific Books), 1969. •    Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their origin and Activities in Modern State, (London: John Yiley), 1954. •    Eckstine, H. and Apter, David, Comparative Politics: A Reader, (New York: Free Press), 1963. •    Gena, C.B., Comparative Politics and Political Institutions, (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House), 2014. •    Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, (New York: Palgrave), 2001. •    Johari, J.C., Comparative Politics, Latest Revised edition, (New Delhi : Sterling Publishers). •    Landman, Todd, Issue and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, (London : Routledge), 2000. •    Macridis, C.R. and Ward, R.E., Major Political Systems, (New Jersey : Prentice Hall), 1963. •    Milbarth, Lester W. and Goel, M.L., Political Participation, (Chieago: Rand Menally College),1977. •    Palekar, S.A., Comparative Politics and Government, (Delhi: PHI Learning), 2009. •    Ray, S.N., Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall). •    Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis, (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press), 1976. 6.10    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss the typologies of Political System as suggested by Almond? 2.    Examine the modern classification of Political System? 3.    Discuss Almond's classification of Political system on the basis of their political culture? 4.    While analysing the classification of political system done by several contemporary political scientists, suggested which are can be accepted as the best classificatory scheme? ***** Unit-7Democratic Political System (Part-I) Structure 7.1    Introduction 7.2    Learning Objectives 7.3    Meaning of Liberal Democracy Self Check Exercise-1 7.4    Forms of Liberal Democracy Self Check Exercise-2 7.5    Features of Liberal Democracy Self Check Exercise-3 7.6    Advantages of Liberal Democratic System Self Check Exercise-4 7.7    Demerits of Liberal Democratic System Self Check Exercise-5 7.8    Summary 7.9    Glossary 7.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise 7.11    Suggested Readings 7.12    Terminal Questions 7.1    Introduction A Liberal Democratic System is one of the three most popular types of contemporary political systems which are at work in various states. Some of the states have maintained this system for well over a century; for example, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries. The list also includes several other states which are today liberal democratic states but whose past has been chequered, e.g., France, West Germany, Italy and Japan. Further, we can add to the list of developing liberal democratic states like India, Zambia, Sri Lanka. A liberal democratic political system is considered to be the best system that the people of a state can adopt, provided they have the willingness and a certain commitment to its values and norms. 7.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to: •    Understand the meaning of Liberal Democracy. •    Discuss the features of Liberal Democracy. •    Examine and evaluate the features of Liberal Political System. 7.3    Meaning and Definition of Liberal Democracy In a Liberal Democratic Political System, people are regarded as the final source of all power. The government of the state derives its power from the people and is responsible and accountable to the people. It always works in accordance with the dictates of public opinion. People enjoy rights and freedoms which are constitutionally granted and guaranteed. There is rule of law, independence of the judiciary, decentralization of powers, sub-system autonomy, open struggle for power among voluntarily organized groups and political parties, consensus politics, peaceful conflict resolution, dependence on persuasion, little role of coercion and a harmonious balance between the present and future goals. S.E. Finer clarifies the meaning of the terms “Democracy” and “Liberal” for clearly conceptualizing the essential features of a Liberal Democratic Political System. S.E. Finer assigns three meanings to Democracy:- (i)    The primary meaning of democracy is government which is derived from public opinion and is accountable to it. Accountability does not mean that the government once elected represents public opinion. It means that the government must continuously test its representativeness, that it must continuously test its claim that it is derived from public opinion. (ii)    The public opinion is orderly and freely expressed. The people have the means to express their opinion freely. They have the political rights to elect, to get elected,’ to get information from the government, to criticize the policies of the government and to change the government in elections, (iii)    In matters of contention between sections of public opinion, it is the majority opinion that prevails. In other words, Democracy means a system in which people’s power is supreme, and they are the determinants of the government. Public opinion is freely expressed and rule of majority is there, but the majority does not ride rough shod over the minority. Attempts are always made to coordinate or harmonies majority and minority opinions into a coherent whole - a consensus. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q. 1 the term Democracy is derived from which of the following Greek words: A) Demos and Gratia B) Casta D) None of the above B) People’s democracy D) Socialist democracy C) Both the above Q.2 The modern Democracy is known as : A) Direct democracy C) Representative democracy 7.4 Forms of Liberal Democracy : A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms as it may be constitutional monarchy such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, India, Italy, Ireland and the United States. It may have parliamentary system, a presidential system or a semi-presidential system such as France and Romania. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Which type of liberal democracy allows citizens to vote for representatives who then make decisions on their behalf? a) Direct democracy               b) Autocratic democracy c) Representative democracy       d) Oligarchic democracy Q.2 In a parliamentary democracy, who holds the executive power? a) President                       b) Prime Minister c) Monarch                      d) Governor 7.5 Features of Liberal Democracy After having conceptualized Liberal Democracy, it becomes easy for us to comprehend and describe its salient features. These are as under: (1)    Representative Government: In a Liberal Democratic system, the government is the representative of the people. It is elected by the people. The members of the legislature are elected by the people for a fixed term. The legislature is the custodian of the finances of the nation and representative of national public opinion. The right to vote is available to all without any discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, creed, place of birth, religion, sex, and property. Except for a minimum age qualification (18 or 20 or 21 years), there is no rigid and formal qualification in respect of the right to vote. People elect their representatives, who govern them. They have to continuously prove their representativeness. They have to maintain and periodically prove their popularity. People can change the government through elections. (2)    Civil Liberties: In a Liberal Democracy, the people have the right to freely express their views. They have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of the press and other means of mass media are ensured. They have the right to form voluntary associations and through them to pursue their interests. (3)    Defined and Specific Role of the Executive: In a Liberal Democratic system, the role of the executive is defined. The political executive undertakes policy formulation and the permanent executive - the Bureaucracy/Civil Service, implements the decisions and policies of the government. The latter advises the former and places at its disposal professional expertise, non-political non partisan advice, technical knowledge and experience. The political executive head and the executive is representative of and responsive to public opinion. It supervises the functioning of the civil service. The civil service is skilled, neutral, dispassionate and permanent. Its main function is to advise and run the day-to-day administration of the government. (4)    Limited Government: Liberal Democracy involves the concept of limited government. The government exercises only those powers which are granted to it by the Constitution. The manner in which powers are to be exercised by the government institutions is also specified and definite. It is not allowed to exercise its power arbitrarily. A separation of functions is affected. The powers of all the organs are granted in a manner which help them to act out well their roles and involve inter-original checks and balances with a view to prevent arbitrariness on the part of any one organ. The government is accountable to the people for all actions. It holds office for a fixed tenure after which it must seek a fresh mandate from the people. (5)    Social and Economic Checks and Balances: In a Liberal Democracy, there are social and economic checks and balances on the activities of the government. It is characterized by the active existence and activities of a large number of social and economic associations and interest groups of the people which enjoy a large amount of autonomy. These groups play a vital role in interest articulation, political communication, political socialization and the policy-making processes of the political system. The bulk of economic decisions in liberal democracies are not taken by the government alone. The economic interest groups play a vital role in it. Likewise, many decisions are taken in consultation with the associations of professional men. (6)    Political Checks and Balances: Political participation of the people in very large numbers is a hallmark of liberal democracy. All shades of public opinion are involved in the political process. The right to form political associations and use them to influence decision- making is an accepted and popular practice. The three organs of government are held by different hands and never united under the control of same man or body of men. None of these three is given the power to coerce or dominate either of the other two. The division of powers between the three organs of government acts as an intenal brake and prevents the government from being autocratic. Further, the division of the legislature into Upper and Lower Houses also serves this end. In some states, the adoption of the federal system involving division of powers between one central government and several unit governments is also designed as a system of checks and balances. According to A.R. Ball, liberal-democratic system has the following characteristics:- 1.    There is more than one political party the parties are able to compete freely with each other for political power. 2.    The competition for power is open not secretive, and based on established and accepted forms of procedure. 3.    Entry and recruitment to positions of political power is relatively open. 4.    There are periodic elections based on a wide franchise. 5.    Pressure groups are able to operate to influence government decisions. Associations such as trade unions and other voluntary societies are not subject to close governmental control. 6.    Civil liberties such as freedom of speech and religion and freedom from arbitrary arrest, are recognised and protected by the government. 7.    There is an independent judiciary. 8.    The mass media, that is, television, radio, newspapers, are not monopolized by the government and have, within certain limits freedom to criticize the government. Self-Check Exercise-3 Q.1 Which of the following are features of a liberal democracy? A)    Rule of law B)    Majority rule without minority rights C)    Centralized authoritarian government D)    Free and fair elections E)    A and D Q.2 Which of the following are features of a liberal democracy? A)    Protection of individual rights and freedoms B)    Single-party rule C)    Limited civil liberties D)    Government control over media 7.6 Advantages of Liberal Democratic System A Liberal Democratic system is considered the best system which can enable the people to develop under a freely organised, representative and responsible government. It is suited most for safeguarding the interests of the common man. To him, it provides several social, economic, political and individual benefits. It is a source of stable and responsible government, because the government always rests upon and works in accordance with the dictates of public opinion. All the people are equal partners in organising, working and controlling the government. It ensures an open, free, fair and continuous struggle for power in society. It encourages peaceful resolution of conflict and is a source of self-education for the people. It provides adequate political education to the people by involving them in the activities of the political system at various levels. Since the government is limited and rests upon the consent of the people, its policies and actions are neither arbitrary nor violently opposed by the people. In it the people get the chance to elect their representatives, i.e., the government after regular intervals. Periodic, secret, free and fair elections ensure such an opportunity. It, therefore, leaves little reason for the people to plan and effect revolutions. Through their political parties and interest groups, the people play a vital role in the political process. There is always a close relationship between the “governors” and the “governed”. The government is responsible and accountable for all its actions and is, therefore, always engaged in explaining its actions to the people. It enjoys a high degree of legitimacy and credibility because of its representative character. It always tries to work efficiently because only through good productive development results can it maintain and strengthen its popularity, legitimacy and credibility. Self-check exercise-4 Q.I In a liberal democratic system, who holds the ultimate power? a)    Ruling elite b)    Single political party c)    People through elected representatives d)    Military dictatorship Q.2 Which of the following is an advantage of a liberal democratic system? a)    Limited individual freedoms b)    Centralized decision-making c)    Protection of minority rights d)    Authoritarian rule 7.7 Demerits of Liberal Democratic System Along with the above merits, there are several possible demerits of a liberal democratic system. Any unscrupulous and rigid approach towards the system can be counter productive. Critics criticize it as a system involving the possibility of the rule of ignorance and incompetence. They advocate that equality is neither possible nor really desirable. The government under this system is weak because of several social, economic, political, legal and constitutional checks upon its authority. The principle of the rule of the majority can be exploited by it against the interests of the minorities. The political parties and interest groups keep the people fragmented and give rise to the problems of maintaining national unity and integrity. It is a very expensive system. Elections involve a lot of expenditure on the part of both the government which organises and the candidates who contest elections. In modem liberal democratic systems, the executives have come to occupy a position of dominance and the legislatures have suffered a decline. The systems of Delegated Legislation and Administrative Justice have strengthened the hands of the executive vis-a-vis the legislature. It is responsible only in theory and not in practice. Self-check exercise-5 Q. 1 What is a demerit of the liberal democratic system? a)    Limited protection of minority rights b)    Strong centralized government control c)    Lack of political participation d)    Elimination of free speech Q.2 What is a potential drawback of a liberal democratic system? a)    Limited individual freedoms b)    Lack of accountability c)    Slow decision-making process d)    Reduced political participation 7.8    Summary In conclusion, we can say that these above demerits can be eliminated through several constitutional and extra constitutional, formal and non-formal devices. Enlightened citizenship, external vigilance, free, fearless and well-organized press and means of mass media, economic equality, high level of literacy, independent judiciary, well qualified, trained and disciplined civil service, special steps against political corruption, a healthy and competing party system, organised, disciplined and active opposition, and similar other devices can go a long way in eliminating or at least considerably reducing its possible demerits. Liberal Democracy is a way of life and not just a system of government. Its values have to be adopted and cultivated as habitual values. “No rule is better than self-rule.” ‘’No education is better than self-education” and “No system is better than a responsible, responsive and accountable system.” 7.9    Glossary •    Liberty: The fullest freedom of individuals consistent with the freedom of others in the society. •    Public Opinion: It is the collective opinion of the people of a society or state on an issue or problem. •    Minority: A Small group of people who are a different race or religion to most of the people in the community or country where they live. •    Franchise: The right to vote. Universal franchise is a modern phenomenon. 7.10    Answer to Self Check Exercises Self Check Exercise-1 1.    A2. C Self Check Exercise-2 1.    C2. B Self Check Exercise-3 1.    E2. A Self Check Exercise-4 1.    C2. C Self Check Exercise-5 1    A2. C 7.11    Suggested Readings •    See, Liberal Democratic Theory, Comparative Politics, Course-3, Lesson-8 (ICDEOL). •    A.H. Birch, The British System of Government, (London : George Align, 1970). •    C. Wright Mills, Power Elites, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957). •    Apan Biswal ed; Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (Jalandhar : Trinity Press, 2015). •    Dawryl Bakshi, American Pluralist Society, (New York: Von Noatrant, 1971). •    G.A. Almond and B. Powell, Comparative Politics:A Developmental Approach, (Boston:Little Brown, 1966). •    Eckstein and D. Apter, Comparative Politics: A Reader, (New York: free Press, 1963). •    Jean Blondel, Commparative Politics, (New York: Free Press, 1963). •    Lester W. Milbrach and M.L. Geol, Political Participation, (Chicago : Rand Mchally College Publishing Co.1977). •    Mehran Kamrava, Understanding Comparative Politics:A Framework for Analysis, (London:Rontledge. 1996). •    R.C. Macridis, The study of Comparative Government, (Garden City : Doubleday, 1955). •    Robert A. Dahl, Pluralist Democracy in the United States, (Calcutta : Scientific Books, 1969). •    Who Governs ? New Haven, (Yale University Press, 1961). •    Samarsen Ashish Bbandari, Advance Readings in Comparative and Politics, (New Delhi:Sandarbh, 1998). •    T.B. Bottomore, Elites & Society, (Penguin, 1971) •    Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics, (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 1997). 7.12    Terminal Questions 1.    Define Liberal Democracy? 2.    Define and discuss the features of Liberal Democracy? 3.    Examine and evaluate the silent features of Liberal and Democratic Political System? ***** Unit-8Democratic Political System (Part-II) Structure 8.1    Introduction 8.2    Learning Objectives 8.3    Procedures Self Check Exercise-1 8.4    Elections 8.4.1    Direct Elections 8.4.2    Indirect Election 8.4.3    Merits of Indirect Elections 8.4.4    Demerits of Indirect Elections 8.4.5    Merits of Direct Election System 8.4.6    Demerits of Direct Election System Self Check Exercise-2 8.5    Summary 8.6    Glossary 8.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise 8.8    Suggested Readings 8.9    Terminal Questions 8.1    Introduction The systems of election and representation are basic to a democratic form of government. With the rise of political consciousness of the people it has become imperative that governmental action must conform to the people’s aspiration. In ancient democracies, the citizens of the city-states participated in the making of laws and administration of public business. But now with large nation-states, direct popular participation is nearly impossible. As a consequence the practice of periodically electing some representatives who would work as the trustee of the people came to be developed. In the realm of politics, ‘representation’ can be defined as a process through which the attitudes, preferences, viewpoints, and desires of the entire citizenry or a part of them are, with their expressed approval, shaped into governmental action on their behalf by a smaller number among them, with binding effect upon those represented. The process of representation is intrinsically linked to elections and voting. Some thinkers have portrayed elections as the very heart of democracy. Joseph Schumpeter (Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy, 1942) has portrayed democracy as an ‘institutional arrangement’, as a means of filling public office by a competitive struggle for the people’s vote. As he put forth, ‘democracy means only that the people have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them’. While interpreting democracy as nothing more than a political method, he identified it with elections, and especially with competitive elections. Now barring a few democratic theorists, most follow Schumpeter in understanding democratic government in terms of the rules and mechanisms that guide the conduct of elections. 8.2    Learning Objectives After reading this unit, you will be able to: * Know the meaning of Electoral System. * Understand the Procedures of Election. * Discuss about the merits and Demerits of Indirect Democracy. 8.3    Definition and Procedures An electoral system is a set of rules that governs the conduct of elections. These rules vary across the world. The oft-cited variant in electoral systems is the formula by which votes are converted into seats. There is a generalized assumption that electoral formulae are what matter in determining the proportionality of a system. There are a number of determinants of, and distortions to, proportionality. Farrell mentioned four of them among others: 1.    Malapportionment - where by changes in constituency profile and size over time mean that unchanged electoral boundaries and constituency sizes result in unequal representation. 2.    Gerrymandering - where politicians deliberately re-draw boundaries, often in bizarre ways, in order to maximize concentrations of supporters and consequently win more seats. 3.    Electoral thresholds - where parties need to win a certain proportion of the vote to qualify for seats. 4.    Party laws which impose certain criteria on the kinds of party which are allowed to run in a race. Self-check exercise-1 Q.1 Electorate means. a) the body of voters                        b) the elected representatives of people c) the nominated members of parliament d) none of these Q.2 Electorate process means: a)    the process by which elections are held b)    the process by which bureaucracy is appointed c)    the process by which judges are appointed d)    the process by which political parties work 8.4 Elections Organized method of periodical popular expression: Every democracy holds elections periodically to choose its representatives. In India, elections are held once in five years. For elections and such other similar matters, Britain can be taken as a model. “In form, a British general election is still the election by each locality of a representative to consult with the representatives of other localities whose action shall be taken in the various affairs of the nation. In fact an election has become a plebiscite to decide whether one party or another shall be empowered, for the next few years, to govern the country as it sees fit.” An election is a grand occasion for a democratic country, as the people feel that they are important and their opinion of candidates is of great value. Reinow says: “A democratic election carries some of the spirit of the Greeks visiting the Oracle of Delphi....Elections are more, however, than a spontaneous outpouring of the public will. They are a highly organized channel of popular expression.” A vote is a valuable possession. R.H. Soltau says : “Men made revolutions and sacrificed their lives for the vole. To the disfranchised it appeared us the door for liberation from all chains.” In election time particularly the importance of the voter increases and he is much “in demand”. The electorate may elect the representatives directly indirectly. 8.4.1    Direct Elections: In direct elections, representatives are elected directly by the voters and not through an electoral college. The members of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) at the Centre and of the Legislative Assemblies in the States in India and the members of the House of Commons in England are elected directly by the electorate. 8.4.2    Indirect Elections : In indirect elections voters do not elect representatives directly; they elect persons, who form an electoral college or an intermediary body to elect representatives. Members of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) at the Centre and of the Legislative Councils in the States in India, and the Members of the Upper chamber in France and of several other countries arc indirectly elected. 8.4.3    Merits of Indirect Election Indirect election has the following advantages. (i)    Eliminates defects of Universal Suffrage : As an electoral college or an intermediary body elects members, the drawbacks of universal suffrage are eliminated. (ii)    Proper candidates selected : As the members of an electoral college are superior to the average voter in the street, there is a greater possibility of election of the right type of candidates. (iii)    No popular passions : The high election fever and the reign of popular passions are absent. (iv)    Evils of Party System reduced : As indirect elections do not need the type of intense propaganda which direct elections demand, the evils of the party system may be reduced. (v)    Good for backward countries : Indirect elections may yield better results than direct elections in countries in which the masses of people are illiterate, ignorant and economically backward. 8.4.4    Demerits of Indirect Election The following are the defects of indirect elections (i)    Undemocratic : Indirect election is undemocratic, as it does not enable all the people to have a share in the election of leaders. Leaders are elected by those, who are elected by the people. (ii)    Little interest : People have little interest in an indirect election. For instance, while people in India have great interest in electing members of the Lok Sabha they have little interest in the election of the members of the Rajya Sabha or of the Legislative Councils in States. (iii)    Bribery and Corruption : Political parties may indulge in bribery and corruption. They may try devious ways to buy the votes of the members of the electoral college. 8.4.5    Merits of Direct Election System These are as follows: (i)    It makes people conscious about their rights and duties. (ii)    This system is more democratic. (iii)    It stimulates political interest among the voters. (iv)    The representatives cannot dare to become despotic because they have to seek the election. (v)    People give willing obedience to laws made by their own elected representatives. (vi)    It maintains a close relationship between the rulers and the ruled. 8.4.6    Demerits of Direct Election System These are as follows: (i)    Ordinary voter, being indolent does not care to know as to who is the deserving candidate. (ii)    Ordinary voters can be swayed by the emotional speeches of politicians. (iii)    This system is quite expensive. (iv)    Ordinary voter, being poor, may bargain his vote for material benefit. (v)    Uneducated and ignorant masses may misuse the right to vote. (vi)    An ordinary voter cannot make proper use of his vote. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q. 1 Direct election means: a)    when the representatives are nominated b)    when the representatives are elected by bureaucrats c)    when the representatives are elected by the people themselves d)    when the representatives are elected by the elite group Q.2 The chief defect of direct election is : a)    It promotes aversion towards public affairs b)    It is not in keeping with democratic principles c)    It has no educative value d)    Representatives are responsive to public opinion Q.3 The minimum age limit for exercising right to vote in India is a) 1 8 years          b) 25 years c) 1 9 years          d) 21 years 8.5    Summary In conclusion, the electoral system plays a crucial role in shaping democratic processes and representation. Its intricacies impact voter participation, political parties, and governance outcomes. By understanding its strengths and weaknesses, societies can strive for fairer, more inclusive elections that uphold the principles of democracy and reflect the will of the people. 8.6    Glossary l Liberal democracy- Liberal democracy refers to a political system that combines elements of liberal principles, such as individual rights, freedoms, and rule of law, with democratic governance, including regular elections, representation, and accountability to the populace. It aims to protect the rights of individuals and minorities while ensuring popular participation in decision-making processes. l Direct democracy- Direct democracy is a form of governance in which citizens participate directly in decision-making processes, rather than through elected representatives. This can involve mechanisms such as referendums, initiatives, and town hall meetings, allowing citizens to have a direct influence on policy and legislation without intermediaries. 8.7    Answer to Self-check Exercise Self check exercise-1 1.    A 2.    A Self check exercise-2 1.    C 2.    D 3.    A 8.8    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 8.9    Terminal Questions 1.    Explain in detail Electoral System? 2.    What are the features of liberal Democracy? 3.    Explain the Merits and Demerits of Indirect Elections? ***** Unit-9Electoral System (Part-III) Structure 9.1    Introduction 9.2    Learning Objectives 9.3    Types of Electoral System 9.3.1    First Past the Post System 9.3.2    Proportional Representation 9.3.4    List System 9.3.4    Single Transferable Vote System 9.3.4.1    Merits of Single Transferable Vote System 9.3.4.2    Demerits of Single transferable Vote System 9.3.5    Mixed System 9.3.6    Right to Recall 9.3.7    Right to Reject 9.3.8    Compulsory Voting Self Check Exercise-1 9.4    Majoritarian Democracy Self Check Exercise-2 9.5    Participatory Democracy Self Check Exercise-3 9.6    Summary 9.7    Glossary 9.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise 9.9    Suggested Readings 9.10    Terminal Questions 9.1    Introduction A democratic political system is a form of government in which power is vested in the hands of the people, either directly or through elected representatives. It is characterized by free and fair elections, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and the separation of powers among different branches of government. In a democracy, citizens have the right and responsibility to participate in decision-making processes, ensuring that governance reflects the will of the majority while protecting minority rights. This system promotes transparency, accountability, and equality, fostering a society where diverse voices can be heard and respected. 9.2    Learning Objectives: After going through this unit, you will be able to: •    Explain the types of Electoral system. •    Know about Right to Recall and Right to reject. 9.3    Types of Electoral System 9.3.1    First Past the Post System This system is more familiar to English-speaking countries such as the UK (House of Commons), the USA, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and also countries like India which follows the same pattern after getting independence due to familiarization with the system during the colonial era. In this system the whole country is divided into a number of electoral districts that may or may not coincide with the administrative districts into which the country is divided. These electoral districts are termed ‘constituencies’. This constituency may be either single-member or multi-member. (i)    First Past the Post is the simplest form of plurality/majority electoral system. The winning candidate is the one who gains more votes than any other candidate, even if this is not an absolute majority of valid votes. The system uses single-member districts and the voters vote for candidates rather than political parties. (ii)    In true majoritarian system however, election requires that the victorious candidate must hold at least ‘50 per cent plus 1’ of votes cast. Here a single-member constituency raises a very important problem. When three or more parties are engaged in the contest, the successful candidate may be elected by less than an absolute majority. To remedy this specific defect, the second ballot and the alternative vote system have been proposed. (iii)    The second ballot system involves a second or ‘run-off’ election immediately after the first. The method is that if in the first election none of the candidates in a constituency gets an absolute majority, all the candidates below the top two are eliminated from the contest; then a second election takes place in which the contestants are only the top two candidates. This system of voting was prevalent in France and Germany for some time. (iv)    The alternative vote system, also known as the method of preferential voting, does not involve two elections. In an election the voters are required to make their order of preference for the candidates in a constituency. Thus a voter is to mark 1 opposite his first choice on the ballot, and 2 and 3 opposite the names of his choices to express his second and third alternative preferences. Then, if on the counting of the first preferences of all the voters none of the candidates is found to get an absolute majority, the candidate getting the lowest number of votes is dropped out of the contest and the second choices of the voters who voted for him as their first choice are distributed according to their preferences. In the second counting that follows, the first and second choices are totaled to see if any candidate gets an absolute majority. Even then if an absolute majority for someone does not emerge, the process of eliminating candidates from the bottom of the poll continues, till one gets an absolute majority. This system operates in Australia and some Polynesian states. In this system it is possible for a candidate who came second or, in closely run races lower, on first preferences to win the seat eventually. One of the most well-known examples of this was the Australian election of 1998, where the extreme right party ‘One Nation’ candidate, Pauline Hanson, who had the greatest number of first-preference votes, lost the Blair constituency to the third-placed Liberal Party candidate, who received more second-preferences from other candidates, including those of the originally second-placed Labour Party candidate. There is a form of the first past the post system known as the ‘Block Vote System’ used in multi-member constituencies and each voter has as many votes as there are candidates to be elected. The candidates with the highest vote totals win the seats. Usually voters vote for candidates rather than parties and in most systems may use as many, or as few, of their votes as they wish. Canada, Britain, and the US all use the Single Member Plurality system, sometimes called first-past-the-post. In this system there is one representative in the legislature for each riding, and that person only has to win one vote more than any other candidate in that riding. When the results are added up across a province or the whole country, there are usually significant discrepancies between the share of votes won by the political parties and their share of seats in the legislature. 9.3.2    Proportional Representation System (PRS) The purpose of the proportional representation system (PRS) is to ensure, with as much mathematical precision as possible, that all significant currents of political opinion are guaranteed a voice in the legislative body. The characteristics of proportional representation are: •    First, at least two candidates must be chosen from a single district. Election of three to five candidates seems to be the usual case. In both the Netherlands and Israel, the entire country is constituted into a single election district for the selection of the entire strength of membership in the second chamber which is popularly elected. •    Second, this focuses on party rather than on personality. Usually in a single- member electoral district, independent of the electoral system, the personal impression made by the candidate on the voters determines the result. Under the proportional representation system, a party offers three or five or more candidates and the main consideration is the party label rather than the personal qualities of any individual candidate. The fundamental idea is that if a number of seats are filled by the same voting operation, they can be distributed among two or more parties proportionately on the basis of the votes polled by each of them. Due to the fact that a single-member constituency can never be guaranteed to produce a proportional result, a more complex formula generally needs to be employed to produce this outcome. In the majoritarian and plurality systems, a single candidate is elected to the constituency on the basis of their vote being higher than everyone else’s but in the proportional system, the number of seats which a party wins is based upon the size of the vote. Suppose a party X’s vote is smaller than party Y, this does not mean that party X will not get a share of the seats. Instead, it will precisely get the share which corresponds to its share of the votes. One of the key determinants of proportionality in an electoral system is the number of seats within each voting district (so called ‘district magnitude’). Proportional Representation stands on the principle that the votes should be ‘weighed, not counted’. This has three ingredients: (i)    there is a multi-member constituency; (ii)    a candidate is elected not by gaining an absolute or relative majority but by obtaining a quota of votes that is equivalent to a number of votes cast divided by the number of seats to be filled or the method suggested by Thomas Hare for calculating Electoral Quota, and; (iii)    there is a mathematically exact, as far as possible, representation of the electorate in the legislature. There are basically two methods involved in putting proportional representation system to application - the list system and the single transferable vote system (also known as the Hare system). 9.3.3    List System Second Method of proportional representation is list system. Here the candidates are grouped in lists according to the labels of their political parties. Each party submits a list of its chosen candidates equal to the number of seats to be filled up or even less than that. One common list system described as characterizing the ‘newer democracies’ is the ‘closed list’ whereby the party chooses its set of candidates and puts them in ranking order. Voters have no choice in deciding which candidate to vote for, but vote simply for the party. On the basis of the number of votes this party wins, the upper corresponding proportion of the list is elected. In the older democracies, the list systems tend to have varying degrees of ‘openness’. In these cases, there is the possibility of not only voting for a party list, but of also expressing some preferences amongst candidates, either by ticking a box next to the candidate’s name or by writing their name in a space on the ballot paper, often called personal votes. How these personal votes are used varies as per the system, and allows voters more or less individuation amongst candidates, something which is entirely absent in the closed list. At the time of counting, election quota is determined in the same manner as in the Hare System. Quota = (Total number of valid votes/Number of seats + 1) + 1 The total number of votes polled by a party list is divided by the quota, and each party receives a number of seats according to the quotient. Sometimes when all the seats cannot be filled, the party which has the largest fractional surplus is entitled to the remaining seat. Another method is to make up the deficiency in the quota by adding the fractional surplus of votes secured by the party in an adjacent constituency. For example, if a party secures 30,000 votes and the fixed quota is 10,000 three candidates of that party will be declared successful whose name appear in the list at 1st, 2nd, 3rd number from the top. This system with minor changes has been adopted by Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland. 9.3.4    Single Transferable Vote System The STV system is used in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, and Australia for its Senate elections. In India this system is followed in the election of the members of the Council of States. In this system, the election is held across a number of constituencies, each containing multiple seats. Unlike the PR List System, there is freedom of choice of candidates — party affiliations can be entirely ignored. Voters list their preferences by numbering each candidate. A quota is established beyond which candidates will be elected, up until the allocation of all constituency seats. The quota is determined by dividing the total number of valid votes cast by one more than the number of seats to be filled, and then by adding one to the result. Quota = Total number of valid votes Number of seats + 1        + 1 Or Total Votes Total Seats + 1    + 1 = Quota A candidate securing votes equal to or more than that of the quota is declared successful. The candidates who reach the quota after the result of the first counting of the ballots are declared elected. It may, however, be found that all the seats have not been filled, as sufficient number of candidates have not been able to reach the quota of votes. Then the remaining seats are filled by taking the second choice of the voters who have voted for the already elected candidate or candidates who do not require these votes any longer. By the addition of such second choice votes those candidates who achieve the quota are similarly declared elected. In this way surplus votes may further be distributed according to third choices and so on until all the seats have been filled. There is another way of transferring the votes. When the requisite number of candidates fail to reach the quota even after the surplus votes of the successful candidate or candidates are transferred to others, then the candidate with the smallest total is eliminated and his ballots are transferred to the candidates in accordance with preferences expressed. This elimination occurs until there are equal number of candidates with quota surpluses to seats to be filled. This method was invented by Thomas Hare in 1857 in a pamphlet entitled ‘The Machinery of Representation’. In 1859 the scheme was expanded in his larger treaties, ‘The Election of Representatives’. This complex formula, despite being based upon candidates and consequently retaining the notion of constituency linkage, attains a high degree of proportionality. In addition, where there is a level of political diversity in a constituency and candidates from a number of parties or political affiliations are elected, constituents can be more confident of finding a representative close to their own political view than in a singlemember plurality system. 9.3.4.1    Merits of Single Transferable Vote System This system has gradually come into use in different parts of the world. The reason is that this system possesses more merits than others. These merits are as follows (i)    No vote goes waste : This system has the merit that no vote goes waste, because excess votes of one candidate transferred to another (ii)    Gives political education : Each voter is given his preference on the basis of qualifications of the candidates. For tins he has to acquire die knowledge of the ability of those candidates and has to study the policies and manifestoes of those parties to which they belong. In this way this system is the best medium of imparting political edu-cation (iii)    Representation to Minorities : In this system the minority communities get representation in proportion to their number while in other systems, minorities do not get representation in proportion to their number. (iv)    Freedom to voter : The voter has sufficient freedom in the choice of his representatives. He can cast his votes to representatives in accordance with his preference. (v)    The importance of parties diminishes : The voter elects the representatives on the basis of their ability and the influence of political parties diminishes in Legislative Assemblies. 9.3.4.2    Demerits of Single Transferable Vote System This system has following demerits. (i)    No relation continues between the electors and the elected : Due to multimember constituencies and election of several representatives from one constituency, no relation is established between the electors and the elected. It is often seen that representatives are not aware of the problem of the voter. (ii)    Expenditure on election is increased : Due to large constituencies the expenditure on election is increased very much and the candidates have to seek help of some party or other. (iii)    System of counting of votes is very complicated: This system of election is very complex and it is all the more difficult to count the votes. An ordinary citizen cannot follow it. (iv)    It tends to increase minority mania : Various sorts of minorities get representation in this system; therefore it encourages the tendency for the fulfillment of minorities interests in the legislative assemblies. This is an obstacle in the way of national integration. (v)    Useless for by-elections: Occasional by elections show which way the wind blows; but this system is not followed in by-elections? 9.3.5    Mixed System The mixed system contains both candidate-based and party-based votes, thus corresponding to both microcosm and principal-agent models. This system is adopted by Germany, in which 50 per cent of the members are elected through single-member constituencies and the rest by the list system on a party basis. The system has introduced two votes for each voter - one for the candidate and the other for the party lists. The first vote is cast for a constituency candidate and, as with plurality system, the candidate with a simple majority of votes wins the seat. 50 per cent of the Bundestag seats are allocated on this basis. The second vote is a closed party list vote, and the voter casts an independent vote, either for the party list of their chosen candidate on the first vote, or a split-ticket vote, that is, for one of the other party lists. Any party which wins at least 5 per cent of the second votes cast is then entitled to a share of the remaining 50 per cent of the seats, based upon what share it has won of the list vote. The list seats are allocated to ‘remedy’ any disproportionality produced in the constituency seats. Although a hybrid electoral system, it has adopted a splinter partyavoiding clause so that the conventional bane of the proportional representation system could be avoided. In representative terms, this allows the voter the possibility of looking for constituency representation, while at the same time supporting smaller parties whose programmes they support, but with no chance of winning a constituency. In terms of the electoral system, the allocation of the list votes allows for high proportionality while retaining the constituency link. The imposition of the threshold can be seen as a rational act to determine outcomes — to exclude smaller extremist parties, for instance. 9.3.6    Right to Recall The recent debate in India specially after Anna Hazare’s movement for strong Jan Lokpal Bill to be introduced in the parliament, has thrown light on right to recall option be available to people. Many countries, such as the US, the UK, Canada, Switzerland, Venezuela among others, have the practice of right to recall. But the question is if it can be applicable to an electoral system like ours (first-past-the-post system) in which a candidate needs to get just one vote more than his nearest rival to win the election irrespective of whether he gets 50 per cent of the votes cast plus one vote or not. Applying the right to recall to the current Lok Sabha members on the condition of a minimum requirement of 50 per cent plus one vote would imply that almost all the MPs will end up being recalled at any point of time, because when votes are cast to recall a candidate, the ballot paper will offer only two options ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The option of recall has already been tried out at panchayat levels in the states of Punjab (1994), Bihar (2010), Madhya Pradesh (2000), Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh (2004), but it has not produced good results. On the contrary it has been primarily misused as a tool in the hands of the dominant castes against candidates belonging to the weaker sections and women. If Anna’s suggestion to include the right to recall in electoral reforms is accepted. It can lead to instability of government, by empowering not those who win elections, but those who lose. With a society so deeply embedded in castes, sub castes, religion, and sects, the idea of not waiting for five years for the next election and bringing recall at the drop of the hat would eventually amount to undermining the very essence of Indian democracy. We have grown up with first past the post (FPTP) system and despite its limitations, many parties of the weaker sections like BSP and RJD have come to power. Hence using the right to recall to remove them from power will be a betrayal of our electoral system. 9.3.7    Right to Reject The Anna Hazare Movement also aroused the debate that voters should have the right to reject all the candidates in a constituency, if they do not find any of them suitable. For this one more option will be added after the name of the last candidate in the ballot paper or electronic voting' machine ‘None of the above’. The Election Commission (EC) first made this proposal in 2001. The idea was to check criminalization of politics and to improve transparency with regard to the antecedents of candidates via affidavits filed by them while filing nominations. The Election Commission also favoured giving the voters the right to negative or neutral voting. When conventional ballot paper is used in elections, the voter can drop the ballot paper into the ballot box without marking his vote. However, no such provision is there in electronic voting machines. Under Rule 49 (O) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, a voter has the right to refuse to vote after he has been identified, his presence is marked in the register of electors and he is issued a ballot paper. However his decision not to vote does not remain secret and polling officials and polling agents become aware of the voter’s decision. The EC therefore recommended that the law be amended to specifically provide for negative or neutral voting. This can be done by amending Rules 22 and 49 B of the conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and adding a column ‘None of the above’ after the name of the last candidate in the ballot paper. This will enable a voter to reject all the candidates in the fray. 9.3.8 Compulsory Voting Compulsory voting requires citizens to register to vote and go to their polling place or vote on election day. With secret ballots, it is not possible to prove who has or has not voted so this process can be better named ‘compulsory turnout’ because voters are required to show up at their polling place on election day. Over twenty countries have some form of compulsory voting systems. Australia is well-known for compulsory voting laws. There are both merits and demerits of this system. Some merits of the system are: Parliament reflects more accurately ‘the will of the electorate’, candidates can concentrate their focus on issues rather encouraging voters to attend the poll, voting is secret so voters cannot be compelled to vote for anyone. Demerits of the system can also be cited like it is undemocratic to force people to vote, ignorant and those with little interest in politics are forced to go to the polls, it may increase the number of informal votes (ballot papers which are not marked according to voting rules), etc. Should there be a compulsory voting system in India? This has been debated in, some political quarters. L.K. Advani opined that India should go for compulsory voting while unfurling the tricolour on his residence on 26 January, 2012. In 2009, the Narendra Modi government endorsed a law making voting compulsory in Gujarat assembly and added that non-voting will attract penalty. Jayanti Natrajan, a congress MP said, ‘Out of thirty-two countries which have law of compulsory voting, only nineteen enforce the law, and of these only Belgium has a punitive section. The apex court of the country rejected a private member bill in 2005 that sought to make voting compulsory. The Election Commission of India disapproves the idea of compulsory voting in the country. Election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi believes that ‘For India, it is full of difficulties. We also consider that democracy and compulsion cannot go hand in hand’. With the demand for compulsory voting comes the necessity of other issues as well like proper voter ID cards should be issued to all the citizens who are eligible to vote. Many people do not go vote as they think it is a tiresome job to attain the ID cards. There is huge migrant population. If we make voting compulsory and pass laws to penalize those who do not vote, then separate laws or some methods will have to be arranged to ensure this population can vote. Self-check exercise-1 Q.1 When the election process, voters themselves elect their representatives, the system is known as: a) Representative democracy b) Direct elections c) Adult Franchise d) Direct democracy Q.2 The single transferable Vote system requires: a)    Single member constituencies b)    Multi-member constituencies c)    Neither Single member nor multi-member constituencies Q 3 Single transferable vote system is also called: a) Hair system             b) Hare system c) Anna system            d) none of the above 9.4    Majoritarian Democracy It refers to democracy based upon majority rule of a society’s citizens. Majoritarian democracy is the conventional form of democracy used as-a political system in many countries. Though common, majoritarian democracy is not universally accepted. It was famously criticized as having the inherent danger of becoming a ‘tyranny of the majority’ which can lead to violence and civil war. In contrast to majoritarian democracy and the perceived danger of a tyranny of the majority, consensus democracy was development in response that emphasises rule by as many people as possible to make government inclusive, with a majority of support from society merely being a minimal threshold. Fascism rejects majoritarian democracy because the latter assumes equality of citizens and fascists claim that it is a form of authoritarian democracy that represents the views of a dynamic organised minority of a nation rather than the disorganised majority. Self-check exercise-2 Q. What is a majoritarian democracy? a)    A system where decisions are made by a majority vote of the population b)    A system where decisions are made by a small elite group c)    A system where decisions are made by consensus d)    A system where decisions are made by random selection. 9.5    Participatory Democracy The exact opposite of an authoritarian democracy is the participatory form of democracy. There are different types of participatory democracy, but all of them yearn to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to the decision-making process. Values of Participatory Democracy It empowers the dis-empowered by breaking up the state into small networks and prefers to empower community-based grassroots politics. It values deliberation and discussion, rather than merely voting. Current Perspective of Participatory Democracy No country actively practices this form of democracy. Although the theories behind it are sound, the real life application of this approach is fraught with complications However, many social movements, like the international occupy movement, the Bolivarian movement in Venezuela and the Narmada Bachao Andolan in India organise themselves around a participatory’ model of democracy. Self-check exercise-3 Q. What is participatory democracy? a)    A system where only a few elected representatives make decisions on behalf of the people. b)    A system where citizens directly participate in decision-making processes. c)    A system where decisions are made solely by the government without citizen involvement. d)    A system where decisions are made by corporations and businesses. 9.6    Summary The study of electoral behavior and its impact on Political development are considerable significance for a country committed to caring out planned social change through democracy. The Indian political system has reached a critical stage because of the development in respect of governmental stability since 1967. There is evidence of a new alignment performance of the system. 9.7    Glossary •    FPTPS : First-Past-the-Post-System. •    PRS : Proportional Representation System. •    STV : Single Transferable Vote. •    Majoritarian : The government ought to do what the majority of the citizens want. 9.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    A 2.    B 3.    B Self Check Exercise-2 1.    A Self Check Exercise-3 1.    B 9.9    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 9.10    Terminal Questions: 1.    Explain the types of Electoral System? 2.    Write a short note on Proportional Representation? 3.    Explain the Merits and Demerits of Single Transferable vote System? 4.    Write a brief note on the list system? ***** Unit-10Non-Democratic Political System (Part-I) Structure 10.1    Introduction 10.2    Learning Objectives 10.3    Meaning of Totalitarian Political System Self Check Exercise-1 10.4    Totalitarian State Self Check Exercise-2 10.5    Features of totalitarian Political System Self Check Exercise-3 10.6    What is an Authoritarian Political System? Self Check Exercise-4 10.7    Feature of an Authoritarian State Self Check Exercise-5 10.8    Summary 10.9    Glossary 10.10    Answers to Self Check Exercise 10.11    Suggested Readings 10.12    Terminal Questions 10.1    Introduction A non-democratic political system is a form of governance where political power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or a small group, often without the free and fair election processes characteristic of democracies. These systems may include authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, and monarchies, where the rulers maintain control through various means such as political repression, limited political freedoms, and restricted civil liberties. Such systems often prioritize stability, order, and control over individual freedoms and public participation in political processes. 10.2    Leaning Objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to:- •    Know the meaning of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political System. •    Discuss the features of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political System. •    Understand the difference between Liberal, Totalitarian and Authoritarian State. 10.3    Meaning and Definitions of Totalitarian Political System A totalitarian political system is one where the state exercises complete control over every aspect of an individual's life, leaving no area beyond its authority. Finer describes it as "the absolute opposite of a liberal democratic government, where governmental power is not limited but, on the contrary, is absolute." Asirvatham explains that in contemporary political discourse, the term "totalitarian state" is contrasted with "liberal democratic state." A totalitarian state asserts dominance over all aspects of human life, ensuring that no part of an individual's existence remains beyond its supervision. If religious teachings suggest that humans "live, move, and have their being in God," totalitarianism asserts that individuals "live, move, and have their being in the State." Under such a system, an individual's life is not their own but is considered a trust bestowed by the state, to be used in its service. The state is perceived as a divine force on Earth, governed by an authoritative ruler who embodies the state itself. The state is omnipotent and infallible, which, in practice, translates to the absolute power and unquestionable authority of the ruler. The Foreign Policy Association of America defines a totalitarian state as one that "encompasses all activities of individuals and subordinates them to the objectives of national leaders." Such a state wields absolute sovereign power, exerting complete control over all aspects of society. It fosters a culture of state worship, where governmental authority is boundless, and individuals must align their thoughts, actions, and way of life with the dictates of the state. Professor Neumann identifies five key characteristics of a totalitarian state: 1.    It replaces the rule of law with the rule of state police. 2.    It consolidates all power in the hands of a single ruler. 3.    It permits only one political party—the ruler's own. 4.    It rejects a pluralistic society, enforcing total social control over individuals. 5.    It relies on force and coercion to ensure obedience from the population. In essence, a totalitarian state dominates every facet of society, where rulers wield unchecked power and are not accountable to the people. The foundation of governance rests on state worship, force, and fear. The hallmark of such a system is the total concentration of power in the hands of the ruler and his political party. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 What is a totalitarian political system? a)    A system where power is divided among multiple branches of government. b)    A system where power is concentrated in a single party or ruler, controlling all aspects of society. c)    A system where power is shared equally among citizens. d)    A system where power is vested in the military. Q.2 In a totalitarian political system, who typically holds the most power? a) Elected representatives b) Religious leaders c) The military                      d) The ruling party or leader 10.4 Totalitarian State Totalitarian states are characterized by their strong resistance to any division of institutional power. Examples include Bonapartism in France, Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany, and, as some argue, Communism in China and other communist nations. According to Western political scientists, totalitarian states can be categorized into two types: 1.    Radical Totalitarian States – Represented by communist political systems. 2.    Conservative Totalitarian Governments – Encompassing Fascist and Nazi-style political systems. Self-Check Exercise -2 Q.1What is another term often used interchangeably with "totalitarian state"? a) Democratic state          b) Oligarchic state c) Autocratic state           d) Dictatorship Q.2 Which term refers to a system in which the government exercises absolute control over all aspects of "society? a) Democratic state          b) Authoritarian state c) Totalitarian state           d) Libertarian state 10.5 Features of Totalitarian Political System The following are the features of Totalitarian Political System: (1)    A Totalitarian system is totally opposed to a liberal democratic political-system. (2)    It is based on the concept of total centralization of powers in the hands of the ruler and his party. (3)    The-State is regarded as an end and the individual is regarded as means. (4)    The ideology of the ruler is the ideology of the state and all the people of the state have to accept it. (5)    The people have no role in decision-making. Decisions are made by the rulers and imposed upon the people. (6)    The basis of all state actions is force. Force is used to command obedience and instill fear among the people. (7)    No part of individual’s life is outside the control of the state. (8)    The rights of the people depend upon the wishes of the rulers. Only those rights are given which are considered good for the health of the state. (9)    The struggle for power is kept confined to the ruling group. No dissent or opposition is tolerated. (10)    The ruler or his party is the government. The power of the government is exercised by the leaders of the ruling party irrespective of the fact whether they hold any position in the government or not. (11)    The Totalitarian state stands for a monolithic, society with one leader, one party, one ideology, one government and one rule. (12)    Through propaganda and officially sponsored mass movements, the rulers try to show their popularity and representativeness. (13)    The Totalitarian state has no faith in internationalism. It regards war as an instrument of central importance and a means of progress and power. (14)    The press and other means of mass media are owned and run by the state. Only that part of public opinion is projected which suits the rulers. (15)    Change of rulers is sudden and is characterized by big changes in all policies. (16)    The totalitarian state is a repudiation of reason and a glorification of instinct and impulses. (17)    In it, the state is dictatorial and is opposed to liberalism and democratic government. (18)    Totalitarianism glorifies the nation and emphasises the ideas of the state as a power system. (19)    The totalitarian state is exclusive. It does not believe in liberalism, humanitarianism and sharing of power. (20)    There is absence of independent judiciary and rule of law in it. (21)    The Totalitarian state embodies the cult of state worship. The rulers rule as the state. No difference is made between the state, the government, the society and the party. Out of all these features, A.R. Ball in his book “Modem Politics and Government” specifies five salient-features of a Totalitarian state. These are :- (1)    All aspects of individual and social activity are theoretically the political concern of the government. (2)    One party is politically and legally dominant. All political activity is channeled through this party, and the party provides the only institutionalized basis for competition, recruitment and opposition. (3)    There is an elaborate ideology which, in theory, regulates all political activity within the system; (4)    The judiciary and the mass media are rigidly controlled by the government and civil liberties, as defined in a liberal democracy, are seriously curtailed. (5)    Totalitarian regimes emphasise consent mobilization of the population to win mass support for the regime, to provide it with a democratic basis. The regime is legitimized by the secured consent and participation (unreal) of the people. All these characteristic features make it clear that the case of a totalitarian state presents an anti-thesis of a liberal-democratic model. While the process of decision-making is dispersed in a liberal-democratic model, it is concentrated in a totalitarian state; while the former strives for the maximization of political participation in a sincere way to secure legitimacy, the latter wants minimization of the same for the sake of consolidating its foundations by all possible means. Self-Check Exercise -3 Q.1 Which of the following is a characteristic of a totalitarian political system? a)    Free and fair elections. b)    Limited government control over citizens’ lives. c)    Centralized authority with absolute power. d)    Respect for individual rights. Q.2 In a totalitarian system, what is the primary role of the state? a)    To ensure individual freedoms. b)    To promote economic equality. c)    To maintain control over all aspects of society. d)    To encourage political diversity. 10.6 What is an Authoritarian Political System? This type of Political system is very near to a totalitarian and far away from a liberal democratic political system. The states, writes A.R. Ball, which do not fall in the two categories - Liberal Democracy and Totalitarian state - belong to the category of the Authoritarian state. C.H. Dillon defines an authoritarian state as one in which “all authority and power are concentrated in the hands of a few, i.e., the government, whose rule is essentially not responsible. The people participate in few of their decisions but are subject to all of them.” E.B. Schulz writes : “An Authoritarian government is characterized by the possession of supreme authority either by one person or by a minority group which is in no way accountable to the people over whom control is exercised.” Self-Check Exercise -4 Q.l In an authoritarian regime, how are political decisions typically made? A)    Through free and fair elections. B)    By consulting with a diverse range of advisors. C)    Based on the will of the majority. D)    By the ruling elite without significant public input. Q.2 How do authoritarian leaders typically maintain power? A)    By fostering a strong culture of democracy. B)    Through regular and transparent elections. C)    By controlling the media and suppressing dissent. D)    By promoting checks and balances within government. 10.7 Features of an Authoritarian State This type of political system is very near to the totalitarian state. The difference between the two is one of degree and not of kind. In it the state control over the people is not total but excessive. Limited openness is permitted. Centralization is considered ideal but along with it, some limited devolution of authority is also tolerated. In such states, the power is in the hands of a military dictator or a civilian junta. Manipulative politics is practiced. Either Modernisation or Traditionalism is eulogized to win popular support and maintain credibility. Religion or an ideology is often used to secure support and serve the ends of the rulers. A.R. Ball uses the term Autocratic state for an authoritarian state and specifies its following seven features : (1)    Important limitations are imposed on open political competition, i.e., political parties and elections. (2)    There is absence of a dominating political ideology such as communism or fascism, although racialism and nationalism often provide some basis for attempted political uniformity. (3)    The definition of what is “political” is more restricted in a totalitarian system than in an authoritarian system. (4)    The political rulers mostly use force and coercion to command political uniformity and obedience. (5)    Civil liberties enjoy low priority and governmental control over the judiciary and the mass media is direct and considered justified in the interest of public good. (6)    The basis for the rule is found either in a traditional political elite or in a new modernizing elite often the army, which has seized power by a coup (as in Pakistan in October 1999) or as the result of a colonial war of independence. Manipulation and suppression are the bases of the power of the rulers. (7)    It is usually one group that monopolises political control in contrast to the pluralism of the liberal democracies. The Authoritarian Political Systems are further sub-classified by Almond and Powell into two catagories:- (1) Stabilization Conservative Authoritarian Governments, and (2) Modernizing Authoritarian Governments. A.R. Ball classifies these into two parts. Traditional Authoritarian Governments and Modernizing Authoritarian Governments. The latter are further sub-divided into Military Authoritarian Governments and Civilian Authoritarian Governments. With these features, an authoritarian political system is quite near to a totalitarian state. Frequently, authoritarian states get transformed into totalitarian when it is excessive, permitting limited liberty and political participation to the people, the system is authoritarian. Ideology is used by a totalitarian state to acquire, justify and exercise power upon the people. In authoritarian regimes, power is maintained with the help of several ideological principles or even otherwise through the exercise of coercion camouflaged as constitutionalism. Such a system may have the under-pinning of an ideology that takes it very close to fascism and communism. However, the essential point is that in such a system politics is driven entirely by the whims of those in power. Naked and unabashed use of violence is used to suppress dissidence of any kind. The sanctity of rules and norms is mercilessly discarded so much so that the supreme leader himself becomes the regime. All decisions flow from the ruler, unfettered by political institutions of any sort. Cases of Kim Jong II of North Korea, Castro of Cuba and Gaddafi of Libya may be referred to in this regard. The fact stands out that “a small group of individuals exercises power over the state without being constitutionally responsible to the people. The public does not play a significant role in selecting or removing leaders from office and so they have much greater leeway to develop policies that they ‘dictate’ to the people. Self-Check Exercise -5 Q.1 In authoritarian regimes, political opposition is typically: A)    Encouraged and supported. B)    Allowed but closely monitored. C)    Completely suppressed. D)    Given equal representation in government. Q.2 Which of the following is a characteristic of an authoritarian political system? A)    Separation of powers. B)    Free and fair elections. C)    Centralized control by a single leader or party. D)    Pluralistic society. 10.8 Summary In conclusion, while both totalitarian and authoritarian political systems concentrate power in the hands of few, totalitarianism exerts complete control over all aspects of society, with severe restrictions on individual freedoms. Authoritarianism, though also repressive, may allow for some limited dissent and varied political structures, albeit under tight control. 10.9 Glossary •    Democracy: Rule by the people •    Totalitarian: It refers to a political system in which the government has total control over all aspects of public and private life. This includes political, economic, social, and cultural spheres, often enforced through extensive surveillance, propaganda, and suppression of dissent. 10.10 Answer to Self-check exercise Self-Check Exercise-1 1.    B 2. D Self-Check Exercise-2 1.    D 2. C Self-Check Exercise-3 1.    C 2. C Self-Check Exercise-4 1.    D 2. C Self-Check Exercise-5 1.    C 2. C 10. 11 Suggested Readings • For suggested readings see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.1. 10.12 Terminal Questions 1.    Explain the features of Totalitarian Political System? 2.    What is Authoritarian Political System? Explain the features of Authoritarian Political System? ***** Unit-11Non-Democratic Political System (Part-II) Structure 11.1    Introduction 11.2    Learning Objectives 11.3    Evaluation of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political System Self Check Exercise-1 11.4    Difference between Democratic, Totalitarian and Authoritarian State Self Check Exercise-2 11.5    Dictatorship Self Check Exercise-3 11.6    Feature of Dictatorship Self Check Exercise-4 11.7    Evaluation of Dictatorship Self Check Exercise-5 11.8    Summary 11.9    Glossary 11.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise 11.11    Suggested Readings 11.12    Terminal Questions 11.1    Introduction Welcome to part-2 of our exploration into non-democratic political system. In this unit we will discuss the concept of dictatorship and evaluate the Authoritarian, Democracy and Totalitarian Political System. 11.2    Learning objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to: •    Explain the concept of Dictatorship. •    Know the about the difference between Authoritarian, Democracy and Totalitarian System. 11.3    Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political Systems The totalitarian an authoritarian system are adopted by the rulers because they are a source of several advantages; strong government, stability and efficiency, rapid modernization and development through forced mobilization of resources, helpfulness in meeting emergencies, inexpensiveness, possibility of strong action in favour of eradication of social evils and others. However, for the people at large, these systems are highly exploitive and coercive systems which in no stay help them to develop their personalities and act in accordance with the dictates of position of cogs in the wheels of the state. Force and fear, violence and coercion, manipulation and suppression characterize their living. These regimes almost always involve violent political changes in the form of coups and revolutions. There is always the problem of finding successors. The changes in leadership are always accompanied by big and revolutionary changes. The international community also has to bear the brunt of anti-internationalism and war oriented aggressive policies pursued by the totalitarian/authoritarian rulers. Totalitarianism in the form of Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany and the emergence of several dictatorial and authoritarian regimes during the inter-war years (1919-1939), were responsible for throwing the world into the pit of a very destructive war, the Second World War (1939-45). No doubt, through forced mobilisation of resources and use of coercion for getting things done, these regimes are often in a position to achieve some developmental goals. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Evaluate the Totalitarian Political System? Q.2 Write a short note an Authoritarian Political System? 11.4    Difference between Liberal Democracy, Totalitarian and Authoritarian State | Liberal Democracy | Totalitarianism | Authoritarianism | |---|---|---| | 1. Based on formal, usually legal rules. | 1. An official ideology | 1. A small group of individuals exercises power over the state. | | 2. Guarantee of civil liberties and individual rights. | 2. A one-party state usually led by an all-powerful leader. | 2. Government is not constitutionally responsible to the public. | | 3. Institutionalized fragmentation and a system of checks and balances. | 3. A System of terroristic policing. | 3. Public has little or no role in selecting leaders. | | 4. Regular elections that respect the principle of ‘one person, one vote’ and ‘one vote one value’ | 4. A monopoly of the means of mass communication. | 4. Individual freedom is restricted. | | 5. Party competition and political pluralism. | 5. A monopoly of the means of armed combat. | 5. Authoritarian regimes may be institutionalized and legitimate. | | 6.     Independence       of | 6.       Stale control over all | | | organised group and interests from government. | aspects of economic life. | | Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Explain any two difference between Totalitarian and Authoritarian State? 11.5    Dictatorship Dictatorship is a form of government in which one ruler exercises unlimited or excessive authority. Its alternative name is Autocracy. In it, a person comes to power, either through a legal means as Hitler did, or by illegal means or a revolution and begins exercising power in an 'illegal' and unlimited way. He rules by his will and is limited only by his own will. He is responsible to himself and not to the people. In other words, 'Dictatorship means absolute rule of a single person who usurps power and exercises it in an autocratic way.' He is neither responsible nor accountable to the people or any other popular institution. He may or may not wear a crown, he may or may not proclaim himself as the president or the ruler, the fact remains that he exercises his power ill a way as he deems fit. He can use any ideology or an ideological principle to justify his rule. Sometimes, he gets himself elected as the President/Head of the state just as General Zia-ul-Haq and General Musharraf of Pakistan did after usurping power by force. This was done for projecting their rule as rule based on wide-spread popular consent. A dictator uses 'election' as a means to camouflage his illegally captured authority as legitimate authority. He often uses an ideology or ideological principle to rule and project the 'legitimacy' of his rule which is in reality illegitimate. However, in reality, his power to rule, i.e. his ability to unleash the use of force for maintaining himself in power as well as in running the administration rests upon force. We can define Dictatorship as has been done by Alfred Cobban. It is a government of one man who has not obtained his position by inheritance but by either force or consent (manipulated consent), or a combination of both (coming into power by force and then securing popular consent through manipulated elections often by projecting himself as the only candidate for the office of the Head of the State or coming to power through legal means but establishing an autocratic rule by trampling the opponents and establishing of personal autocratic rule). A dictator exercises an absolute power of governance and dominates all decision making. In fact, laws reflect his will and they are made and enforced arbitrarily. All political authority emanates from his will and is unlimited in scope. His authority is unrestrained by law and is exercised for a very long time, i.e., so long as he lives or so long as he is not overthrown by another dictator or by a revolution or a coup. Arbitrary exercise of unlimited power is the main property of Dictatorship. General Franco of Spam was a dictator and so were Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar, Idi Amin, Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq. Pervez Musharraf is also a military dictator of Pakistan. Self-Check Exercise-3 Q.1 What do you mean by Dictatorship? 11.6    Features of Dictatorship The following can be identified as the key features of Dictatorship :- 1.    Dictatorship involves the rule of one person or one small group led by one person. 2.    The ruler come to power either by force or through manipulation, i.e., by illegal means. However, when a duly elected person also begins using his powers arbitrarily by dominating and controlling all other centres of power, the system takes the form of autocracy. 3.    The ruler rules by his will. His will is the law. 4.    The rule of a dictator is neither transparent, nor responsible, nor even accountable to the people or popular institutions. 5.    Usually, Dictatorship is the product of militarism, directly or indirectly. 6.    Rule by force and domination is the eternal law of dictatorship. 7.    The ruler identifies the interests of the people with his own interests but describes his interests as national interests. 8.    The ideology of nationalism is used as a means for securing credibility for the interests of the ruler. In the name of the unity of the nation, the ruler exercises his power for putting his view of the social order into actual operation. 9.    Dictatorship does not make a distinction between state and government. 10.    Dictatorship as the rule of one person is totally opposed to democracy which stands for the rule of the people. 11.    The ruler tries to organise a group of his loyalists or 'the Junta and often rules the state with its help. 12.    Dictatorship pays little attention to the rights of the people but always places emphasis upon the duties of the, people towards the state. 13.    The ruler exercises power for life or for as much time as he can. The change of rulership is mostly, almost always, affected through force or through a revolution or through a 'coup' against the ruler. 14.    Dictatorship may have a number of governmental organisations for exercising power but each such organisation works under the authority and control of the ruler. 15.    The ruler uses war and aggression as means for diverting the attention of the people away from their domestic problems. He undertakes to put down domestic discord with a firm hand and uses force in the name of the nation or any other such abstraction. In simple words, it can be said that Dictatorship is the veritable opposite of Democracy. Whereas Democracy stands for popular sovereignty, a representative and responsible government, and for the grant and guarantee of rights and freedom to the people. Dictatorship stands for one-man rule or junta rule characterised by the personal and authoritarian rule of the ruler who assumes and claims all powers of the state and rules the people. Self-Check Exercise-4 Q.1 Explain any three features of Dictatorship? 11.7    Critical Evaluation of Dictatorship As a form or govemment. Dictatorship has little to commend itself. It can claim that under it, strong decisions can be taken and strongly implemented for securing reforms and the goals of socio-economic development. Further, that it alone can effectively meet emergencies which always require prompt decision-making and implementation. Because of centralisation of all authority in the hands of the ruler, he can act decisively to meet emergencies. However, its critics, and their number is very large, strongly criticize dictatorship as an anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and anti-human system of rule. It is anti-liberal because it gives little place to the rights and freedom of the people. It is anti-democratic because it stands for centralisation of all authority into a single hand and has no faith in the equality of all the people. It is based on force, suppression and domination. The ruler and 'his group' enjoy an all important superior position and rule the people. It is anti-human because it is based on force and domination and regards individuals as means and the regime as the end. 1.    Dictatorship destroys individual rights and freedoms. 2.    It wrongly upholds that the state is the end and the individual is the means. 3.    It glorifies force, war and aggression and pursues aggressive nationalism. 4.    Dictatorship always thinks in terms of expansionism, aggrandizement, war and imperialism in international relations. 5.    Dictatorship is in the long ran always a source of instability and chaos. There is no system of peaceful change of the ruler. It is always characterised by a fear of revolution and has to live with periodic coups/revolutions and counter-revolutions. 6.    It is opposed to the currently held and cherished values of democracy, sustainable development, human rights, peace and security. 7.    History gives ample evidence of the weaknesses and dangers of dictatorships. It has not only been guilty of raining the people of the states in which it 'flourished' in the past, but also of giving a big blow to international peace and security. Self-Check Exercise-5 Q.1 Write a short note on Dictatorship? 11.8    Summary Dictatorship as a form of government is despised by all. The people never really register progress and development under dictatorship rule. Their immediate gains, if any, always lay the foundations of a fractured future. The case of Pakistan is known to us. So has been the case with other dictatorship ruled states. 11.9    Glossary •    Totalitarian: A dictatorial form of Centralized government that regulates evey aspect of state and private behaviour. •    Authoritarian: A style of government in which the rulers demand unquestioning obedience from the ruled. •    Dictatorship : It is a form of government in which one ruler exercises unlimited authority. 11.10    Self Check Exercise Self-Check Exercise-1 1.    & 2. For Detail See Section 10.3 Self-Check Exercise-2 For detail see Section 10.4 Self-Check Exercise-3 For detail see Section 10.5 Self-Check Exercise-4 See Section 11.6 Self-Check Exercise-5 See Section 11.7 11.11    Suggested Readings • For suggested readings see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.1. 11.12    Terminal Questions 1.    Totalitarian Political System are not the modern nation states. Comment? 2.    What is Dictatorship? Critically evaluate its features? 3.    Differentiate, Totalitarian and Authoritarian State? ***** Block-IIIUnit-12Meaning, Nature and Origin of Political Parties Structure 12.1    Introduction 12.2    Learning Objectives 12.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Parties Self-Check Exercise-1 12.4    Nature of Political Parties Self-Check Exercise-2 12.5    Origin of Political Parties Self-Check Exercise-3 12.6    Structure and Organization of Political Parties Self-Check Exercise-4 12.7    Summary 12.8    Glossary 12.9    Answer to Self Check Exercise 12.10    Suggested Reading 12.11    Terminal Questions 12.1    Introduction Political parties are essential pillars of democratic governance, acting as intermediaries between the public and the government. They organize and mobilize voters, articulate political preferences, and provide a structured framework for political debate and policy-making. By nominating candidates for public office, political parties facilitate electoral processes and ensure representation in legislative bodies. Additionally, they help in forming governments, developing policies, and holding the ruling administration accountable, thereby fostering political stability and continuity. 12.2    Learning Objectives After reading this unit, Students will be able to •    Know the meaning of Political Parties. •    Explain the Nature of Political Parties. •    Understand the functions of Political Parties. 12.3    Definitions of Political Parties The following are a few definitions of political party:— Leacock: “By a political party we mean more or less organised group of citizens who act together as a political unity. They share or profess to share the same opinions on public questions and by exercising their voting power towards a common end, seek to obtain control of the Government”. Gettell: “ A political party consists of a group of citizens more or less organised who act as a political unity and who by the use of their voting power aim to control the Government and carry out their general policies.” Gilchrist: “A political party is an association organised group of citizens who prefer to share the same political views and who by acting as a political unit try to control the government.” Maclver : “A political party is an association organised in support of some principle or policy which by constitutional means endeavors to make the determinant of government.” Edmund Burk : “A political party is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some political principle in which they agreed.” According to Asirvatham : “By a political party we mean an organised body of people who stand for certain principles and policies in the political life of the country by whose operation they seek to promote the interests of the country as a whole.” From these above definitions we come to the conclusion that four things are essential for the formation of political party. First the people should be organized’. Secondly, there should be similarity of principles. Thirdly, the aim of a political party should be to attain political power. Fourthly, a political party should use peaceful means for attaining political power. Self-check exercise- 1 Q. what is the definition of a political party? a)    A group of friends sharing political ideologies. b)    An organization seeking to influence government policy by nominating candidates for office. c)    A group of lobbyists advocating for specific laws. d)    A coalition of government officials. 12.4    Nature of Political Party A political party is a group operating to secure the control of a government. Obviously, the first important point about political parties is that they are groups with some degree of organisation and permanency. Here, they may well be contrasted with the temporary political organisations such as the Food Price Increase and Famine Resistance Committee, that are formed for the single purpose of supporting or opposing a particular temporary issue. Political parties, on the other hand, have some degree of permanence. They live by the strength of their organisations, without which dissemination of their ideas is not possible. Secondly, parties must have definite aims and objectives. The objectives are often a mixture of ultimate and immediate purposes. Party programmes contain ideas about law and government, ideas about the shape of political things to come and each party seeks to focus its own brand of political ideas. Besides, a recognition of material advantages that go with the securing of the power of government, forms a part of party programme. In some cases, as in the United States, the concern for material interests rules the roost; for, on their much advertised ideal principles the contending parties appear to be holding, in the last analysis, almost identical views. According to Julius Hatschek, a party with a definite programme, at first, comes to power. In course of time, portions of its programme appear impossible to achieve and some parts of it are opposed by a section of the party members. Such disintegrating forces lead to the formation of another party, irrespective of whether it has evolved a definite programme of its own or not. Again, the newly formed party, too, is subject to, in course of time, the same process of disintegration. It appears, therefore, that with the growth and development of political parties, programmes and principles become almost a side issue. What is more important is a realistic recognition of material interests. In a formal democracy parties are organised around constitutional questions. Operating as a part of the functioning process of the constitution, they act as a system of effective restraints. To attain political power by constitutional means is their aim. Sometimes organisations that aim at seizing power by violence and suppressing all other opposition groups were wrongly called ‘parties’. Parties in a democracy facilitate peaceful change of government by substituting “the conflict of ideas” for “the clash of arms”. Here, they differ essentially from parties like the Communist party in Russia. The latter constitute the organised, monoidea groups whose monopoly of political power does not allow the formation of alternative parties. Our discussion about the nature of parties has made it clear that they must have a wellknit organisation and a philosophy, or a combination of ideal and material objects; also, they will aim at constituting and controlling government by constitutional means. It has further been pointed out that monocratic or oligarchic leadership is inherent in party organisation. Parties, it is said, strive to secure power not for themselves, but for their leaders. Preponderance of leaders is an inseparable part of the party system. Parties are fighting groups. They are constantly engaged in retaining or capturing governmental power. Hence, they are compelled by circumstances to obey the rules of successful warfare. The monocratic or at least hierarchical leadership follows naturally from circumstantial pressures. It may further be observed that parties, in spite of their differences, possess, generally speaking, a unity of outlook on fundamental matters. The legal pattern of political authority is delineated by the constitution. To the fundamental laws of the land as enshrined in the constitution parties show general respect. In the absence of this fundamental unity, parties, degenerate into factions engaged in a struggle for the achievement of sectional, rather than national interests. Here the implication is that parties transcend class-barriers and sectional interests by mutual recognition of rights. Different socio-economic classes are associated with different political parties. In fact, it is the idea of a common interest and national unity which sustains the constitutional appeal of the polls. Thus the logic of party system rejects the Marxian doctrine of class and the class struggle. The upshot of these arguments is that in spite of their differences, political parties do not disagree on everything. On the basic features of the system to which they belong there must be a consensus. Combining the different aspects of the nature of political parties, we may now, by slightly altering Friedrich’s definition, define a party, as a group consisting of cross-sections of human beings, more or less stably organised, with the objective, in accordance with the constitution, of securing or maintaining for its leaders the control of a government, and of giving to members of the party, through such control, ideal and material benefits and advantages. Self-check exercise-2 Q. What is the primary purpose of political parties? a)    To ensure equal representation of all citizens. b)    To promote political ideologies and agendas. c)    To maintain social order and stability. d)    To enforce governmental regulations. 12.5    Origin of Political Parties Certain factors explain the origin of political parties:- (i)    Human Nature : Human nature itself explains the origin and growth of parties. All people by nature do not have the same views; some do not wish to have changes, but desire to hang on to the same old institutions; on the other hand, there are others who desire to have changes for better. The former may be called conservatives, and the latter progressives. Thus two parties are formed on the basis of these two attitudes. In European countries, parties which wanted to leave things as they were came to be called rightists. The terms rightist and leftist originated towards the end of the eighteenth century. In France, for instance, the progressive members who sat to the left of the President came to be called leftists, and the others who sat to his right were called rightists. (ii)    Inspiration by a great leader: A political party owes its origin to the inspiration of a great leader, who is able to attract a large number of people towards him and make them scruple under his guidance for realizing certain political aims. (iii)    Different economic views and aims: Political parties are also formed on the basis of different views and aims in the economic field. For instance, rich people and property holders wish to have the status quo, whereas those having no property desire to have changes, which are likely to do them good. Obviously the two groups of people belong to different political parties. (iv)    Environment: Political environments are bound to have effect on the political views of a person. The domestic environment goes far in making a man the member of a particular party; the political views of a youngster are sure to be influenced by those of his father. Very often, the son joins the political party of the father. Political movements are bound to influence the people of the area concerned. (v)    Religious and communal feelings: Religious and communal feelings in some cases provide a basis for the formation of political parties. While in western countries, generally parties are not formed on religious and communal considerations, in India religious and communal feelings drove a wedge between groups of people, and communal parties were formed. Even now, certain parties in India have religious and communal bias, and they are against secular ideas. Self-check exercise-3 Q.1 What historical event is often credited with laying the groundwork for the development of modern political parties? 12.6    Structure and organization of Political Parties Political parties have hierarchical structure. Broadly speaking, a well organized party has a constitution according to which the party structure is built up. At the top there may be a periodically elected president assisted by secretaries and treasurers. A working committee may be set up to meet from time to time for holding discussion and taking decisions, Once in six months or a year, a conference on a large scale may be organized to enable the rank and file in the party to attend the broad deliberations and discussions. The party conferences, if properly convened and organized, can be very impressive in the show of the party strength and solidarity and can exert a great impact on the public mind. Parties held together by ideology and organization: If a party is to be strong and well-knit, it should have absolutely clear aims and objectives, principles and ideologies, a well organised machinery, and ample funds. “The party is held together by its ideology and organization. An ideology is indispensable in the life of a political movement; it is a mechanism essential to the survival and development of a movement. Without an ideology, a movement would grope along in an uncertain fashion and could scarcely survive in the face of pointed opposition from outside groups.” If a political party functions well, it will be able to attract huge funds. Well organized party, a State within a State : A well- organised party with all is elaborate paraphernalia is almost like a state within a state. All over the world, political parties have become very powerful organizations, whose impact is felt by all the people. They have a very large membership, very influential, enterprising and powerful leaders, and huge funds. These parties make use of all the agencies of public opinion to win the support of the people and capture votes. Self-check exercise-4 Q.1 What is the primary purpose of the organization of political parties? a) To win elections          b) To promote social welfare c) To enforce laws          d) To maintain cultural heritage Q.2 In a democratic society, how are political parties typically organized? a) Based on hereditary lineage. b) According to religious affiliations. c) Reflecting ideological differences.               d) Following military ranks. 12.7    Summary In conclusion, Political parties play a crucial role in modern democracies, serving as vehicles for representing diverse interests and shaping public policy. Their nature encompasses ideologies, platforms, and structures that mobilize support and compete for power. The functioning of political parties involves processes such as recruitment, campaigning, and policymaking, all aimed at advancing their agendas and securing electoral success. Ultimately, political parties are essential components of democratic governance, providing avenues for citizen participation and shaping the direction of society. 12.8    Glossary •    Organisation: The term “organization” refers to a structured group of individuals working together towards common goals or objectives. Organizations typically have defined roles, responsibilities, and systems in place to facilitate coordination and achieve their purposes efficiently. They can vary widely in scale, from small community groups to large multinational corporations, and encompass diverse sectors such as business, government, non-profits, and more. •    Oligarchy: Oligarchy refers to a form of government or societal structure in which power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals or entities 12.9    Answer to Self check Exercise Self-Check Exercise-1 1.B Self-Check Exercise-2 1.    B Self-Check Exercise-3 1.    The French Revolution, particularly its aftermath, spurred the formation of political factions and ideologies that eventually evolved into organized political parties. Self-Check Exercise-4 1.    A 2.    C 12.10    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 12.11    Terminal Questions Q1. Define Political Party? What are the main basis of Political Parties? Q2. Discuss the role of Political Parties in a democratic Political System? Q.3 What do you understand by the terms Political Party? Discuss the characteristic of a Political Party? ***** Unit-13Functioning of Political Parties Structure 13.1    Introduction 13.2    Learning Objectives 13.3    Functions of Political Parties Self Check Exercise-1 13.4    Formation of Political Parties Self Check Exercise-2 13.5    Kinds of Political Parties 13.5.1    Mono Party System 13.5.2    Bi-Party System 13.5.3    Multi Party System Self Check Exercise-3 13.6    Defects of Party System Self Check Exercise-4 13.7    Opposition Parties in a democracy Self Check Exercise-5 13.8    Summary 13.9    Glossary 13.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise 13.11    Suggested Readings 13.12    Terminal Questions 13.1    Introduction In the second part of this unit, we delve into the intricate mechanisms and vital roles that political parties play in shaping democratic systems worldwide. From mobilizing citizens to articulating ideologies, political parties serve as the cornerstone of modern governance. By understanding the functioning of political parties, we gain valuable insights into the dynamics that drive political processes and shape the future of societies 13.2 Learning Objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to: •    Understand the functions of political parties. •    Discuss the kinds of political parties. •    Know the defects of party system. 13.3 Functions of Political Parties Political Parties are an essential part of democracy. They are the backbone of democracy. According to Munro, “Government by free political parties is merely another name for democratic government”. The following are the main functions of Political Parties:- (i)    To formulate and mould public opinion: Political Parties select various issues and present their manifestoes before the people. These policies are expounded, explained and discussed. For this purpose the canvassing is done, public meetings are held, pamphlets are distributed and posters are displayed. The issues are clarified by criticism and counter criticism. All these activities of the parties help in formulation and moulding of public opinion. (ii)    To form the government: The party which wields majority in the National Parliament forms the government. In the Parliamentary form of government, the majority party wields the whole power of the government. The majority party implements those policies which it formulated at the time of elections. (iii)    To criticise the government: In a democratic state, the main function of political parties is to keep a watch over the activities of the government. The minority parties form an opposition. Opposition parties severely criticise the defective policies of the government. The opposition parties are always searching loop-holes in the administration of the government. It keeps the government alert. (iv)    Mediation between the individual and the government: The political parties act as a link between the people and the government. According to Merriam, “it is the buffer, the adjuster between society and individual”. Political parties explain the governmental policies to the people and take the public grievances to the government. (v)    To co-ordinate between the governmental organs: In those countries where there is separation of powers, the political parties bring about co-ordination among the executive, legislature and judiciary. For example, in U.S.A., the political parties play an important role in coordinating the work between executive and legislature. vi)    To control the parliamentary party members : Political parties bring organisation and discipline in the parliament. The representatives belonging to one party have the same voice. The Parliamentary members have to follow the rules of rigid party discipline. It brings discipline and organisation in the parliament. vii) Economic and social reforms: Political parties also serve as an instrument of social change. In order to win the favour of public opinion, the parties try to bring about the social and economic reforms in the society as the Congress party is doing in India. (vii)    Political Education: Another important function of political parties is to provide political education to the people. The propaganda process is highly informative for an average voter. The activities of political parties keep the masses wide awake. The parties’ advocacy of personalities and policies Involves elaborate instruction which is carried on through press, forum and personal contacts. (ix)    To contest elections: Every political party has to select its best candidates and contest election. Competing type of candidates are sifted by the party bodies and the choice is finally made. Every party has to spend a lot of money for winning elections. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q 1 which one of the following functions is performed by political parties: a) They render help to poor people b) They run hospitals c) They manage newspaper         d) They assist candidates in contesting elections. Q.2 what is the primary function of political parties? a) To organize elections             b) To promote political stability c) To ensure fair representation      d) All of the above 13.4 Formation of Political Parties Certain conditions are essential for the formation of political parties. These are the following: (i)    Democracy: The foremost essential condition for the formation of political parties is a democratic form of government, which believes in the principle of liberty of thought and action. Political parties presuppose the existence of various kinds of rights, one of which is to form associations. Parties cannot be established, and even if they are formed, they cannot function meaningfully under an autocratic government or dictatorship. (ii)    Keen Interest in Politics: Political parties can be formed only when large groups of people are roused by political consciousness and have a keen desire to take part in political activities. In the absence of a highly conscious and intelligent electorate, no political party can function effectively. (iii)    Common Objectives: A large group of individuals in a state should have common political aims and objectives, and there should be common agreement on the basic political principles. In the absence of well-agreed fundamental principles, a political party cannot be organised. (iv)    National Interest: Individuals thinking of political parties should have national interests at heart, and they should accept unreservedly the principle of protecting and promoting national interests. Under no circumstances should political parties think of entertaining extra-territorial loyalties. (v)    Common agreement to play the game of Politics decently: When large groups of individuals think of forming political parties, they should agree to follow scrupulously the rules of the game of politics. For instance, all individuals should bind themselves to the principle of settling all issues peacefully and in a constitutional manner. (iv) Ultimate aim of capturing power: Individuals planning to form a political party should have the ultimate aim of capturing power by peaceful, legal and constitutional means. All other aims are to be subservient to this basic aim. Self Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Political parties often emerge due to: a) Need for governance                    b) Desire for unity c) Dissatisfaction with the existing system d) All of the above Q.2 which of the following is not a reason for the formation of political parties? a) Ideological differences                   b) Economic interests c) Cultural homogeneity                   d) Personal ambitions 13.5    Kinds of Political Parties Following the main kinds of political parties:- 13.5.1    Mono (One) party system In countries which have Mono Party, the liberty of the individual is lost, because there the people are deprived of the liberty of electing their representatives. There is only one candidate in whose favour all the citizens have to vote. This cannot be called an election in the real sense of the word. The ruling party rules on the basis of dictatorship. In countries of the world where communist parties are in power, they do not allow any other to exist and establish dictatorship of the party. Sometimes they declare themselves as extremely democratic but in the absence of opposition parties the form of the government is no more democratic but dictatorship. There the change of government is effected not as a result of elections, but by revolutions. The capturing of powers by Kosygin and Brezhnev by removing Khrushchev is a clear proof of it. In the modem world one party system is current in Russia, China, Spain, East Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland and Bulgaria etc. 13.5.2    Bi-Party System In countries where there are only bi - or two parties, one of them forms the government, and the other in the form of opposition party, checks the government from following the path of dictatorship. These countries have two party system. That does not mean that there are only two parties in those countries; there may be other parties besides them, and there is also complete freedom for forming new parties and influencing politics; but the importance of such parties in the politics of the country is negligible; England, Canada and U.S.A. have two party system. In England, there are two main parties; the Labour Party and Conservative Party. The Liberal and Communist Parties have no partic-ular importance. 13.5.3    Multiple Party System There are many parties in the country in this system and every one represents the Parliament. Consequently there are many small groups in the Parliament. France has been very famous for multiple party system. Multiple party system was in vogue in Italy before Mussolini and in Germany before Hitler. In India too about a dozen and a half parties had taken part in election but gradually the number of these parties has diminished. These days there are only four or five All India Parties. In the near future the parties will have clearer forms in India. But it is hoped that there will exist more than two parties in India. Self-Check Exercise-3 Q. 1 One party system is generally found in: a) Democratic Countries     b) Countries with constitutional Monarchy c) Totalitarian state          d) Can exit in any country Q 2 what do you mean by two part system? 13.6    Defects of Party System: No doubt, the political parties are indispensable for the successful working of the democracy, yet they suffer from serious defects. Some of the prominent defects of the party system are as follows: 1.    In the first place, the political parties try to divide the people into opposing groups and thereby vitiate the atmosphere. The whole country is divided into two hostile camps pitched against each other, which poses a serious threat to the unity of the country. 2.    Second, party system gives rise to political nepotism and favouritism. All the important government offices are offered to the leaders or supporters of the party, and the talented people belonging to the opposition parties are excluded from such positions. Thus, the country is deprived of the services of such talented persons. 3.    Third, party system encourages sectional interests at the cost of national interests. The parties view all the issues purely from party angles. The animosity and rivalry of the election continues even after the elections. The opposition tries to oppose all the policies of the government unmindful of the national interests. Likewise the ruling party tries to promote the interests of those sections of society which are known to be its supporters, unmindful of the interests of the other sections. In this way, the national and public interests suffer. 4.    The party system curbs the individuality of members. The members of party are expected to blindly toe the line indicated by the party leaders and are not permitted to express independent views. The individual members become mere cogs in the party machinery. The defects of the party system, should not lead on us to the conclusion that the political parties should be done away with. In fact, the modern democratic system cannot be imagined without political parties. The remedy does not lie in ending the party system, but in mending the same. Effort should be made to remove the various defects of the party system. Above all people should develop a high moral standard so that the political parties are not able to exercise any corruption influence. Self-Check Exercise-4 Q.1 What is a common defect of a two-party system? a) Lack of political stability b) Limited choice for voters c) Excessive bureaucracy d) Fragmentation of power Q.2 Which defect is associated with a multi-party system? a) Authoritarian rule                 b) Political polarization c) Lack of governmental efficiency d) Homogeneous policy-making 13.7 Opposition Parties in a Democracy We have seen in the discussion so far that political parties provide opportunities to the people to choose between alternatives. The existence of a number of parties is now generally accepted as essential to the working of a democracy on a large scale, so also is the existence of opposition considered necessary in a democracy. Power has the tendency to corrupt those who exercise it and there is always the danger that those in power may misuse it for their own ‘ends. Opposition acts as a check on those in power. It exposes their faults of omission and commission and tries to convince the citizens that the trust they have placed in the elected representatives is being misused. The government is also kept under vigilant watch where opposition exists. In Great Britain, the parties are fairly balanced and the opposition party is always prepared to replace the government in power with their own party men. The leaders of opposition form a shadow cabinet. Even in the Presidential system where the government does not depend on the support of the majority in the legislature, the opposition performs the function of keeping the government on the right track. It prevents the government from getting complacent and therefore, indifferent to the people’s problems and aspirations. Opposition can perform these functions only if it is organised and sufficiently strong to make its influence felt. Parties which remain weak and un-organised, fail to discharge their duties in a democracy. Especially in a parliamentary democracy, responsible opposition is very crucial. It is not only in the interest of the public that a responsible opposition party should exist, but it is in the interest of the ruling party as well, for that alone can ensure an efficient and effective government which would be responsible to the people’s wishes. If the opposition is not strong, it cannot develop a sense of responsibility and it tends to get frustrated, leading to extra-constitutional tactics. Bandhs, gheraos, demonstrations, stunts, etc., are tactics of this nature largely born out of defeatism. Self-Check Exercise-5 Q.1 In a democracy, what is the significance of a strong opposition party? a)    It weakens the democratic process. b)    It enhances checks and balances in governance. c)    It promotes authontananism. d)    It promotes one-party rule. Q.2 What is the primary role of an opposition party in a democracy? a)    To support the ruling party. b)    To criticize and hold the ruling party accountable. c)    To collaborate with the ruling party. d)    To ignore the actions of the ruling party. 13.8    Summary Finally, we can say that parties are essential for every political system whether democratic or dictatorial, comparative or non-comparative, parliamentary or presidential, federal or unitary. These play a key role in the process of politics. 13.9    Glossary •    USA : United States of America. •    Mono Party : One Party. 13.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    D 2. D Self Check Exercise-2 1.    D 2. C Self Check Exercise-3 1.    C 2.    There are only two major political parties which share powers. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    B 2. C Self Check Exercise-5 1.    B 2. B 13.11    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 13.12    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss briefly the functions of Political Parties in a Democratic Political System? 2.    Examine the role of the Political Parties in Modern Political System? ***** Unit-14Political Parties in U.K. and U.S.A. Structure 14.1    Introduction 14.2    Learning Objectives 14.3    Features of British Party System Self Check Exercise-1 14.4    British Political Parties 14.4.1    Labour Party 14.4.2    Conservative Party 14.4.3    Other Political Parties Self Check Exercise-2 14.5    Political Parties in U.S.A. Self Check Exercise-3 14.6    Features of US Party System Self Check Exercise-4 14.7    Comparative study of British and American Political Parties Self Check Exercise-5 14.8    Summary 14.9    Glossary 14.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise 14.11    Suggested Readings 14.12    Terminal Questions 14.1    Introduction In the UK, the major political parties include the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party. In the USA, the dominant parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Both countries have diverse political landscapes, with additional smaller parties contributing to a vibrant democratic process. 14.2    Learning Objectives:- After reading this unit, you will be able to:- •    Understand the role of Political Parties in U.K. •    Explain the role of Political Parties in U. S.A. •    Analyze the main difference between political parties in U.K. and U.S.A. 14.3    Features of British Party System The features of the British Party System can be discussed as under: 1.    Two Party System :- Britain has a two party system. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party are the two main parties, each of which has been periodically getting the opportunity to rule. Since 1923, other parties, namely, the Liberal Party, the Communist Party, the Social Democrates are active but only in a minor way. The Liberal Party has been suffering a gradual decline in popularity and power ever since the birth and rise of the Labour Party in 1906. Today it has come to be a minor party, content to play a limited role, that too only at times. The electoral battle for securing political powers is, to all intents and purposes between the Labour Party and the Conservatives. The two party system, which has evolved naturally as a child of both accidents and designs, has become deeply embedded in British Political System. 2.    Moderate Approach of the Political Parties:- The British political parties are, in general, moderate in approach. The Labour Party is not committed to socialism or rule of the proletariat. It, while accepting and advocating the important place and role of the labour unions in society, also accepts the due importance of other social groups. Likewise, the Conservative Party is not really conservative, it is liberal in policies. It is not opposed to change and reforms tooth and nail. It is due to the moderate approach of the parties that little difference takes place when one party is replaced by an another. 3.    A High Degree of Centralism in Party Organisation:- The third salient feature of the British Party System can be described as high centralistion in party organisations. Each of the major parties has a strong well-knit organisation right from the bottom to the top, with real power in the hands of the top level party organs. There is a direct chain of connections and command relations between the headquarters and the local units. Members of each party are bound by party discipline as enforced and maintained by the party leaders. There is firm, vigilant and continuous control of the party over its members. Even this principle is applied to the elected representatives of the people in the Parliament. ‘Chief Whip’ and other ‘whips’ of the party play a key role in maintaining and implementing party discipline among the members of the Parliament. The members have to vote strictly in accordance with the directives, decisions and whips issued by their party. 4.    Organised Opposition:- The system of organized opposition, with ‘Shadow Cabinet as an instrument of control over the policies of the government’ is another important salient feature of the British Party System. The majority party forms the Cabinet, runs the administration and tries to implement its policies and programmes as enumerated in its election manifesto - The Mandate of the People. The minority party - the opposition party, also forms a ‘Shadow Cabinet’ which keeps a watch over the activities and policies of the cabinet with a view to bring to light the acts of omission and commission on the part of the government. In this way it tries to secure a swing of public opinion against the ruling majority party and in its own favour. The leader of the opposition enjoys a constitutional recognition, gets a salary from the treasury and runs his office as the leader of the shadow cabinet. He is always respected as the ‘Alternative Prime Minister’. The right of the opposition to present organised dissent is respected by the ruling majority. 5.    Continuity in Operations:- The British parties are continuously and actively involved in the struggle for power. After one general election is over, they start preparing for the next. Any time can be an election time, the majority patty can at any time go in for elections with a view to seek a fresh mandate from the people on any particular issue or otherwise. The opposition too can force the majority party to seek a fresh mandate the people. Public opinion, as represented by free press, radio and television network, can also force at any time a decision in favour of new elections. The political parties have no time to rest and sleep between elections. Both of the major patties are always active and there is continuous constitutional and political activity present in the British Patty System. Self-Check Exercise-1 Q.1 What are the two main political parties in the UK? 14.4    Major British Political Parties In Britain, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are, in reality, the two major parties and it is because of their role in the political system that the party system is regarded as a bi-party system. Besides these two, the Liberal Patty, the Communist Party and SDP are also at work, though in a minor way, in the political system. A brief description these four parties are presented as under: 14.4.1    Labour Party The need to check and reform and growing evils of the factory system and capitalism in general brought into existence in England tire Social Democratic Federation, the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society towards the end of the Nineteenth century. But these parties lacked funds. They approached the Trade Union Congress in 1906 which had money and formed a new organisation which came to be known as Labour Party. The Party got a general support from the industrial areas of the manufacturing towns, the areas, the social reformers, the minorities like the Jews, the Roman Catholics and the dissenters. The radicals among the Liberals also swelled the ranks of the Labour Party. Its members have been showing dogged devotion to the cause of the Party for about 100 years. It has an appeal to the intellectuals and the middle classes also. The rich People hardly vote for Labour Party and the poor hardly for the Conservative Party. (A)    Organisation Structure of the labour Party:- The Labour Party, at present, is composed of four organisations ; socialist and semi-socialist societies, intellectuals and professional men; trade unions and co-operatives; the local organisations of the party. The first group is small in number, the second provides the bulk of members and money, the third group is a half-hearted ally, and the fourth group provides enthusiastic workers. 1.    Membership:- There are two ways of becoming a member of the Labour Party namely, either by membership of an affiliated organisation, or by direct membership and subscribing to a local constituency organisation. Some members enjoy both types of membership at once; “a fact”, writes Finer, “that complicates the true reckoning of total membership.” 2.    Party Conference:- The Labour Party is organised on the basis of the Constitution that was drafted in 1918. At the top is Party Conference also called Annual Party Conference for it meets every year. It lays down the policy and issues instructions to be carried out by the National Executive Committee to the Party, the affiliated organisations, its representatives in the Parliament and the local authorities. It consists on an average of about 1100 delegates and in addition approximately 200 ex-officio members who attend its meeting but have no right to vote. The basis of representation at the Conference is (1) Each Trade Union or other affiliated organisation may send one delegate for each 5,000 members, (2) Constituency parties also send one delegate after 5,000 members. (3) Each central labour party or Federation of labour parties may nominate one delegate, (4) Ex- officio members include the members of the National Executive Committee, members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, prospective labour candidates. The Patty Conference meets for five days and most of its time is taken by Parliamentary Party and the National Executive Committee. 3.    National Executive Committee (NEC):- This committee is subject to the control and directions of the Party Conference. It is the administrative organisation of the party. It has 27-28 members. The leader and deputy leader of the Party are its ex-officio members.’ The treasurer of the party is the third member and is elected by the vote of the whole Party Conference. Of the rest 24 members, 12 are nominated and voted for by the Trade Unions Socialist professional and cooperative delegations put together, 7 by constituency party organisations and 5 women members elected by the Party Conference. Most of the members of NEC are elected time and again and hence are senior and experienced party members. The committee meets once a month under a chairman chosen by seniority for one year. NEC manages the central office of the Party and in reality it manages the affairs of the party during the interval between the two meetings of the Party Conference. It plays a key role in policy formulation. The central office organises and coordinates the working of the party organisations and conducts election campaigns. It works under the control of the NEC. The NEC decides party candidates for different constituencies. It has the authority to expel any member or disaffiliate any organisation considered guilty of anti-party activities. 4.    Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP):- It consists of the members of the Labour Party who are elected to the House of Commons. When the Labour Party is in opposition, it elects three officers at the beginning of each parliamentary session - the chairman and the leader of the party, the vice-chairman and the deputy leader, and the chief whip of the party. At present, Golden Brown is the leader of the Labour Party. He became the leader of the Labour Party when Mr. Tony Blaire resigned from the office of the Prime Minister and his membership of House of Commons. In addition to these three, the PLP elects 12 members forming a total of 15 which constitute the Parliamentary Committee of the Labour Party. The Labour Peers are also members of this Parliamentary Committee but they do not vote on matters or special concern to the Commons. The leader of the PLP organized his “Shadow Cabinet” which acts as party’s main instrument of opposition to the ruling cabinet. Whips ensure party discipline. When the Labour Party enjoys majority in the House of Commons, its leader becomes the Prime Minister and forms the ministry. The party leaders enjoy greater independence becomes and the ministry works independent of undue control of the NEC. However, special care is taken to consult party members outside the cabinet and PLP meets once in two weeks for policy discussions. Chief Whip and 10 other party whips help in the maintenance of discipline among the PLP members. (5 ) National Council of Labour:- Besides the above three organizational structures there is a coordinating agency known as the National Council of Labour. It is composed of 24 members - 7 represent the Trade Union Congress, 5 are from National Executives composed Committee of the Labour Party, four from Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and five from the cooperative Union. It holds monthly meetings and coordinates the activities and policies of the party in various fields of participation. (B)    Ideology of the Labour Party:- Between 1900 to 1997, the Labour Party remained opposed to capitalism and wanted to secure for every worker, a larger share in the output of industry. It stood for securing socialistic objectives through a democratic polity and an increased protection of the interest of the labour. The Party wanted a much bigger share of the national cake for the workers. It wanted to raise their standard of living, by providing them with better education facilities, better health services, better houses and economic security. It was out to fight the five ‘Giants’ which stood in the way of freedom with security as pointed out by Sir William Beveridge in his report in 1942: “ want, ignorance, idleness, squalor and disease.” It wanted to secure its objective through state planning, nationalization and more equitable distribution of wealth. When the Labour Party for the first time came into power in 1945, it nationalized the Bank of England, the coal mines, telecommunications, electric power supply and transmission, the railways, road transport, docks and inland waterways, gas supply and some part of the iron and steel industry. The Labour Government also introduced a national health service, a comprehensive system of national insurance, government supported housing, town and country planning. It was opposed to rank colonialism and imperialism. The Labour Party in a way stood for Democratic Socialism. It was essentially a Trade Union Party with a leftist or left of the centre ideology. But it should not be taken to mean that it was fully dominated by Trade Unions and was out to secure socialism in democratic ways. In several ways it accepted some of the virtues of the competitive economic system and private enterprise. However, since late 1990s, the Labour Party has been pursuing the ideology of liberalisation of economy. It virtually left behind its love for democratic socialism and came forward to be a new Labour Party with strong advocacy of liberalization, liberalism. 14.4.2    Conservative Party The Conservative Party draws its members and support from the big industrialists, the wealthy gentry, business people and big farmers. It has some members from the middle classes as well as from working classes and all those who believe in the King, Church and Empire with the zeal of a fanatic. It has been described as the party of, as Finer writes, “the possessing and patriotic, of the wealthy, of the aristocratic and sub-aristocrats, the gentry, the upper and middle classes. The Conservative Party has been a key player in British Political System ever since its birth first as Tories in the 18th century and then as the conservatives since the early years of the 19th century. Initially it always competed with the Liberal Party for gaining political power and since 1940s, it has been competing with the Labour Party. In the late 20th century it created a sort of history when it remained in power continuously for eighteen years, (1979-1997). (A)    Organisation Structure of the Conservative Party 1.    Membership:- Conservatives become party members by joining a local association and paying a weekly subscription. In this way, all the party members are individual members. 2.    Three Organisational Units:- The party has three organisational units which look after the party work. These are National Union of Conservatives and Unionist Association, The Parliamentary Party, and the Central Office. (a)    The National Union of Conservatives and Unionist Association:- Its popular name is National Union. It is a federal organisation to which constituency associations are affiliated. The nominal head of the Union is its President who has ceremonial and chairman type functions to perform. Its functions are primarily, deliberative and advisory. Its views are conveyed to the leader of the party or the Chairman of the party organisation as may be necessary and convenient. (b)    Central Office or Central Council of the National Union:- The Central Office is a governing body of the National Union and is composed of 15 categories of units such as constituency associations, provincial areas and university graduates. It selects the President and an executive committee. It organises party’s annual conference whose total membership is around 6000. It is an institution for demonstrating the unity and solidarity of the party because all decisions are taken unanimously. Twice a year it provides opportunity to the constituent associations to express their opinions and hear the reports of the leaders. Central Office is controlled by the party leader. He appoints the Chairman of the Central Office as well as Vice-Chairman and Treasures. This Central Office organises local party groups, conducts publicity campaigns, raises party funds and performs several other functions. (c)    The Executive Committee of the National Union:- This committee looks after the affairs of the party during the intervals between the meetings of the Central Office. It meets once a month to consider resolutions and reports which are sent by various subordinate bodies. It implements the decisions of the Central Office. 3.    The Parliamentary Party:- This wing is the policy-making unit of the Conservative Party. It consists of such party members as are members of the House of Commons. The leader of the party is elected by it and when the conservatives are in majority, he becomes the Prime Minister and when it is in minority, he takes up the role of the leader of opposition. The leader looks after the affairs and interests of the party and the parliamentary business is helped by whips of the party. Meetings of Parliamentary Party are held quite regularly for discussing various issues and problems being faced by the party in the Parliament. 4.    The Leader of the Conservative Party: A salient feature of the organisation of the Conservative Party is the dominant position enjoyed by the leader of the Party. He may consult whom he .wishes and he may attend to various organs of the party or not, but he remains the main foundation and main interpreter of the policy of the party. He works through the central office. The Central Office works as a personal machine of the leader and guides, inspires, coordinates and controls the work of the party throughout the country. (B)    Ideology of the Conservative Party:- The Conservative Party proclaims itself to be a ‘National’ and ‘nationalistic’ party representing the entire nation and not any one or few sections. National unity is its central piece of ideology. It rejects class-struggle in favour of capital-labour cooperation and a property owning democracy. It proclaims the need for free competition in industry and the end of restrictive trade practices both between employers and employees. It is the party of social mobility and its two slogans are ‘Quality and not Equality’ and “Opportunity rather than security”. The party stands for private enterprise, vested interests, established institutions, empire, and is opposed to nationalisation, control of prices to prevent profiteering and control of monopolies and cartels. The Conservative Party agrees with the Labour Party in supporting the United Nations, upholding the Commonwealth, cooperation with the United States and Western Europe. Both favour the development of colonies. Both believe in maintaining a high and stable level of employment and provision for social security. The only difference regarding the similar objectives is that the Labour Party believes in drastic steps whereas the Conservatives believe in gradualness. The leftwing Conservatives would like to move with the times while the right-wing to maintain the status quo organisation of the Conservative Party. The Party is, however, not dogmatic in its approach and ideology. It tries to be realistic and empirical in actual practice. It accepts the concept of welfare state and is not dogmatically attached to capitalistic laissez faire. It is not always opposed to public ownership and control over industries. 14.4.3 Other Political Parties 1.    The Liberal Democratic Party:- The Liberal Party, which is now known as the Liberal Democratic Party was originally one of the two principal parties of Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, it could continue to remain popular only up to the first quarter of the twentieth century. It is now considered as the third party after the Conservatives and the Labour. It got 53 seats in the House of Commons in June 2001 elections and 62 seats in May 2005 elections. It has still men of great calibre among its leaders and a sizeable vote in the country, but is has been and an unfortunate victim of the British electoral system under which the voting strength is not always reflected in the number of candidates elected. The principal cause of its debacle has been its lukewarm programme of reforms which has an appeal neither for the workers nor for the employers. In the early years of the present century, the Liberal Democratic Party carried out a programme of help to the lower-income groups and successfully curtailed the power of the House of Lords. Ideologically, the party is nearer to the Labour Party than the Conservative Party. It accepts the concepts of “Protection of the interest of the workers” and “a social welfare state”. It is committed to work for the socio-economic development of all sections of the society, particularly the youth and the workers. It upholds the right to freedom, workers’ participation in management and adoption of the middle path. 2.    The Communist Party:- The Communist Party, though numerically weak, has some very ardent and enthusiastic supporters. Its membership has never gone beyond 50,000. The party ran 21 candidates in 1945 elections and two were successful. None was successful in the 1950 and 1951 elections. The Labour Party has consistently rejected its over tunes for an affiliation. Its support has never been welcome. The Party has a journal of its own, The Daily Worker. The party used to follow the footsteps of the erstwhile U.S.S.R, After the demise of Socialism in Russia, the Communist Party of Britain continues to live in wilderness. 3.    The Social Democratic Party (SDP):- The British Party System registered tin important development in the 1980s with the rise of the Social Democratic Party and its alliance with the Liberals. The SDP was founded by a breakaway group a neo rightist group of the Labour Party. The precipitating factor, however, was the decision of the Labour Party to give greater share to trade unions. The Social Democratic Party affirmed faith in mixed economy. It had little connection with trade unions. Its membership was thrown open to all individuals as it did not believe in class conflict. It stood for the development of society through democratic means and believed that equality could be achieved without wholesale public-ownership. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Write a short note on Labor party in U.K? Q.2 Explain in short the organizational structure of Labor party in U.K.? 14.5 Political Parties in U.S.A. Americans have a slightly different view of a political party than the one which prevails in other countries like Britain and India. We, in India, conceptualize a party as a homogeneous ideologically harmonious group of people. The American, however view a political party as confederation or ever federation of interest groups. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Which of the following is one of the two major political parties in the United States? a) Democratic Party b) Green Party c) Libertarian Party d) Socialist Party 14.6 Features of the US party system The study of political parties in America throws light on the prominent features mentioned below: 1.    Almost similar Types of Memberships:- At present, the two important political parties, i.e.. Republican and Democratic, have no marked differences in their nature. Previously the Republican Party was of the industrialists whereas Democratic party was of the agriculturists. Now no line can be drawn between them. Both the major parties have no procedure or ceremony for recruiting members. They have no general rolls of members. They get no signatures of their programmes or policies. They collect no dues. They enforce no rules. They have no means of disciplining a member or expelling him. 2.    Lack of Fundamental Differences in the Programmes and Policies of Parties:-Once Lord Bryce humorously remarked, “The great parties were like bottles. Each bore a label denoting the kind of liquor it contained but both were empty.” It is time to say that “America has only one party, of the Republican-cum-Democratic, divided into two nearly equal halves by habits, they contest for office - the Republican being one half and the Democratic the other half of the party. 3.    Bi-party System:- The American political system,” writes Schatt Schneider is “a classical example of two party system. When we say that we have a two-party system in the United States, we do not mean that we have only two parties. Usually about a dozen parties nominate presidential candidates. We call it a two-party system because we have two large parties and a number of small parties, and the large parties are so large that we often forget about the rest.” Usually the small parties collectively poll less than 5 per cent of the votes cast in national elections. Both the Republicans and Democrats get the opportunity to wield power from time to time. Hence, the USA has a real and active BiParty System. 4.    Most of the Elected Officials are from the two Political Parties:- According to E.E. Schatt-Schneider, “as a consequence of the dominance of the major parties, most of the elected officials are either Republicans or Democrats, including all presidents and nearly all senators and national representatives, all state governors, nearly all local officials. Attempts to break up this old system have been made in every presidential election during the, past one hundred years, but the system has survived all assaults.” 5.    Two-Party System is strongly rooted in American Political System:- In the United States, unlike countries with a parliamentary system of governments, the people of America elect not only the President, but also a host of other executives, about 8,00,000 of them. They also elect Congressmen from single member districts. For example, they elect 435 members of the House of Representatives from 435 districts (there are a few exceptions), one member for each district. Statistically, this kind of election favours the major parties. The system of elections makes it easy for the major parties to maintain their dominant position, because they are apt to win more than the share of the offices. 6.    Existence of Strong Interest Groups within each Political Party:- For a period of several months, in every election year, people of America are likely to hear more about contests within the parties than about contests between the parties. Later, when the nominations have been made, in the election campaign, the contest between the parties begins. An American election is a two-stage affair. At the end of the first stage they compete for votes in the election itself. According to Young, “Interest groups seek to influence the policies and personnel or political parties as well as the state.” Claims on behalf of those groups are frequently urged upon party platforms, upon committees at all levels of government and on individual members of important party committees and conventions. 7.    Parties are not always guided by their General Statements and Public Promises:-When a party chooses a presidential candidate, it says to the country, in fact, “Trust us under the leadership of this man to cope with the visual and the unknown problems that are going to come up for decision in the next four years.” A party platform is not a contract between the party and the public but a declaration of its attitudes and tendencies. Sometimes this declaration is specific, but more often it is general and the public probably does not want more. 8.    Absence of Political Parties based on Race or Religion:- The American society is a society of diverse races, cultures and religions. It is almost as much characterised by diversities as has been the case with the Indian society. However, in the United States, there is a near total absence of parties based on race and religion. There are local parties. There are several national level parties besides the Republicans and the Democrats and yet no party stands organised on narrow biotic lines. This really reflects high level of political maturity, objectivity and cultural integration of the Americans. 9.    Local Domination:- Local level organisations always play a dominant role in the activities of both the Republicans and the Democrats. The national level party organisations become active only during the periods of Presidential elections. The local leaders and organisations remain active continuously at all the times’. With all these features, American Party System has been successfully functioning as an extra-constitutional, nevertheless, as an integral part of the Political System. These have come to be major players in the working of the American Political System. Q. How many major political parties are there in the United States? a) One                    b) Three c) Two                    d) Five 14.7    Comparative Study of British and American Political Parties The American and British Party systems are similar so far as both are bi-party systems and both are at work in developed and liberal and democratic and political systems. Both have been the products of an evolutionary process and both bear the impacts of their socioeconomic-cultural environments. However, the similarities are only in respect of certain features, particularly in respect of their functions within their respective political systems. A comparative analysis of all their features brings out several sharp differences between the British and American Party Systems. 1.    Ideological Difference:- Traditionally, several scholars have been pointing out that ideologically the two American parties have much more in common than in those of die British political parties. In America, both the Republicans and Democrats stand committed to a competitive economic system or private capitalism, free enterprise, the supremacy and sacredness of the US Constitution, and the American democratic political institutions. The two seldom differ in respect of issues of US Foreign policy. The ideological difference between the two is more of degree and less of kind. In other words, American parties are not “ideologically divided” political parties. What divide them are their ‘interests’ and not ideologies. In England, the two major political parties adhere to two different sets of ideologies. The Conservatives are rightists and favour the interests of the rich, the landlords, the capitalists and the industrialists, whereas the Labour favours democratic socialism (Now of course liberalisation and Democracy) and the interests of the workers and their trade unions. However, in the changed circumstances of the contemporary age, neither British political parties stand rigidly separated by ideological differences nor the American political parties stand very closely united because of similar ideological perceptions. Both the political parties in England now believe in market economy, British Constitution, democratic institutions, commonwealth of nations and several other principles of foreign and domestic policies. But despite these similarities, class conflict is still represented by the two political parties and hence both continue to be rival competitors in struggle for power. Likewise, in America, the two political parties have their respective strongholds and committed voters. Similarities in ideological perceptions have not helped them to cut across the class lines and sections represented by each of the two. The Republicans continue to be a party of the AngloSaxon Protestants, Whites, of big business and the upper middle class. The Democratic Party stands identified as the party of the poor, the lower middle class, the negro and other racial and religious minorities. 2.    Organisational Differences:-A real difference between die American and British political parties happens to be in the sphere of organisational structure. The American parties have similar political organisations and are hierarchically organised. However, the organisation of each party, in its working, is dominated by the local/state level units. The national organisation of the political parties in the United States is almost a confederation of local and state party units. There is a lot of decentralisation of political authority. Even the authority to select personnel and public policies is not in the hands of permanent organisations of the party. Popular participation of the members in the affairs of their party is very low. The personality of the leaders or the President, the Senators and the Representatives, as the case may be, dominates the party organisation. As against this, the political parties of England are very strongly organised parties in which the national level units exercise full control over the local level party units. Authority flows from the higher to the lower level. In the Conservative Party, the leader enjoys a pre-eminent position in the party organisation. The Labour Party is also a very strongly organised Party. 3.    Differences in respect of Discipline:- The British political parties are highly disciplined parties. Rigid party discipline and control is a feature of this party system. The members are under the political control of the parties. They can contest elections only when adopted by their party as candidates. In the Parliament, the members have to go by party whips and orders. The majority party members have always to support the policies of their leaders, who constitute the Cabinet. Voting against the policies of the cabinet, or criticizing its policies always involves party action against the erring members. Termination of party membership can terminate the political career of the member. The British political parties are characterised by high degree of coherence and discipline, a feature which the American political parties lack. 4.    Difference in respect of relation between organisational and legislative wings of the Parties:- In the United States, the organisational wing of the party has no control or even influence over the legislative wing of the party. On the other hand, in the British Political system, the party organisation has an important control over the legislative wing. 5.    Difference due to the difference in systems of Government:- In the United States, there is a Presidential system of Government. The Congress has a lesser role vis-a-vis the ‘President. Consequently, the Congressional elections draw less vigorous struggle among parties. This is particularly so in respect of elections to the House of Representatives. The Presidential election involves acute and keen political struggle and, as such, involves bigger and vigorous struggle for power between the two major political parties. But this happens only in the year of Presidential election. As against this, there is a parliamentary form of government in Britain. The government is formed by that political party which gets majority of seats in the elections and the other party becomes the opposition party. The struggle for power and influence goes on continuously between the ruling party and the opposition. In Britain, the two-party system and the rigid party discipline enforced by the two parties have together led to a big increase in the powers of the British Cabinet. This development has, in turn, strengthened the hold of the party leader over the party organisations. The working of the two-party system in Britain has become different from that of its counterpart in America because of the difference in their systems of government. In the United States, one often hears a demand for making the political parties stronger, more integrated and responsible parties. As against this, in Britain, one often hears a complaint against the rigidities of the party organisations and the discipline enforced by the two political parties over their respective members. Self-Check Exercise-5 Q. Define any two comparison of political parties between U.K and U.S.A? 14.8    Summary In conclusion, the party systems in both the UK and USA play integral roles in shaping their respective political landscapes. While the UK operates under a multi-party system dominated by the Conservative and Labour parties, the USA’s two-party system is defined by the Republican and Democratic parties. Despite their differences in structure and electoral dynamics, both systems face challenges such as polarization, party cohesion, and representation. Understanding these intricacies is crucial for grasping the dynamics of democracy in these nations. 14.9    Glossary •    Moderate: The term “moderate” refers to a person, position, or ideology that falls between two extremes. In politics, a moderate stance typically involves adopting policies or viewpoints that are neither excessively liberal nor excessively conservative. Moderates often prioritize compromise, pragmatic solutions, and incremental changes rather than advocating for radical or extreme measures. They may seek to balance competing interests and find common ground to address societal issues effectively. •    NEC: National Executive Committee. •    PLP: Parliamentary Labour Party. 14.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. For Details, see section 14.3 Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. 1 For Details see section 14.4.1 Ans.2 For Details see section 14.4.1 (A) Self Check Exercise-3 1. A Self Check Exercise-4 1. C Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. For Details see, section 14.7 14.11    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 14.12    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss the silent features of British Party System? Explain Briefly the nature of major Political Parties in U.K. 2.    What are the main features of American Party System? Why has America a two party system? 3.    Make a Comparative study of a political system of U.K. and U.S.A.? ***** Unit-15Political Parties in India Structure 15.1    Introduction 15.2    Learning Objectives 15.3    Indian Party System Self Check Exercise-1 15.4    Features of Indian Party System Self Check Exercise-2 15.5    Problems of Political Parties in India Self Check Exercise-3 15.6    Emerging trends in Indian Party System Self Check Exercise-4 15.7    Summary 15.8    Glossary 15.9    Answer to Self Check Exercise 15.10    Suggested Readings 15.11    Terminal Questions 15.1    Introduction India’s political spectrum is rich and varied, reflecting its immense cultural and regional diversity. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC) are the two largest national parties, often dominating the political discourse. Alongside these giants, numerous regional parties wield substantial influence, such as the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal, the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu. These regional parties often champion local issues and wield significant sway in their respective states. Moreover, India’s political landscape is further colored by smaller parties representing specific communities, ideologies, or interests. This multiplicity of parties creates a complex yet vibrant democracy, where coalition-building and consensus-building are crucial for governance at both the national and state levels. 15.2    Learning Objectives: After going through this unit, you will be able to: •    Understand the party system in India •    Discuss the features of Indian party system. •    Know the problems of political parties in India. 15.3    Indian Party System As a liberal democratic system and with a parliamentary form of government, Indian Political System has been living with several political parties which are continuously and actively engaged in all aspects of the political process. It was in the second half of the 19th century that several politically active groups began emerging in India. This process got substantiated in 1885, when the Indian National Congress was formed. In 1906, the Muslim League, in 1916, the Hindu Mahasabha and in 1924, the Communist Party were formed. After independence, the adoption of a full-fledged democratic system set the stage for the emergence of more political parties. In 1951-52, as many as 14 national and 50 state level political parties participated in the First General Elections. Since then, the number of political parties, both national and regional, has been increasing. The nature of the party system has been changing continuously because of the splits in the existing parties and the emergence of new parties. BJP, Congress, BSP, CPM, CPI, PSP, FB, KC, AGP, SAD, TDP, DMK, AIADMK, SP, Janata Dal (S), Janata Dal (K), JMM, ML, National Conference, Shiv Sena, Trinamool Congress, PMK, BJD, RJD and SP besides several others, have all been active political factors in the Indian Politics. Self check exercise-1 Q. Write a short note on Indian Party system? 15.4    Features of Indian Party System The following can be described as the main features of the Indian Party System :- 1.    A Multi-party System:- As a land of social pluralism, India has been a natural home for a multi-party system. Even before the dawn of independence, there had appeared four major political parties-Congress, Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha and the Communist Party. After the dawn of independence and because of the adoption of parliamentary democracy the stage was set for the birth of new political parties. Besides the above four, Jan Sangha, PSP, SSP, DMK, and National Conference came into being and gradually the number of political parties began increasing. Republican Party, Janata Party, Janata Dal, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Assom Gana Parishad and several other Parties came to be organised. Presently there are, in active presence several major parties both national and regional—Congress, BJP, BSP, CPI, CPM, NCP, AGP, Janata Dal (U), Janata Dal (S), AIADMK, DMK, PMK Telugu Desham, SAD, BJD, RLD, RJD, SF, JDS, PDP, TCM, ML, and several other Parties. We can legitimately say that there are almost 50 active political parties, national as well as regional, working in the Indian Political System. Six stand recognised as national level political parties (BJP, Congress, CPI, CPM, BSP, NCP) while 30 parties are active state level (Regional) Political Parties. In addition to these there are about 400 other registered parties. 2.    Dominant Position of the Congress during 1947-89:- The Indian multi party system initially worked as one party dominant multi-party systems. Between 1947-67, the Congress dominanted fully the Indian political scene at the national and state levels. It got 354, 371, 361 seats in 1952, 1957 and 1962 General Elections respectively. In 1967 it got 283 seats in the Lok Sabha. A split then came into its way which forced it to depend upon the support of CPI and DMK. Non-Congress governments came to power in several states. But it proved to be a short-lived change as in 1971 elections, the Congress again got 352 seats in the Lok Sabha. Between 1971-74, the Congress retrieved its formidable position both at the Union and State levels. However, the emergency rule imposed by it during June 1975 to March 1977, considerably reduced its popularity. In March 1977 elections, a united opposition (Janata Party) defeated it. However, the internal factionalism in the opposition parties set a stage for the re-emergence of the Congress as the dominant party of Indian Political System. It successfully reasserted its dominant position in January 1980 elections. In 1984, the Congress scored a very spectacular victory when it got 411 seats in the Lok Sabha. However, around 1987, the Congress began suffering a decline in its popularity. In 1989 elections it could get only 193 seats and in 1991 it got 224 seats. In both these elections, it failed to secure a majority. In 1989, it decided to sit in the opposition. But in 1991, it decided to form the government at the Centre. At the state level also though it improved its position as compared to its position in 1989, yet it failed to regain full strength. 3.    Special Status for the Leader of Opposition:- “Under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act 1977, the leader of opposition in each House of the Parliament enjoys a special status. His status is equal to that of a Cabinet minister and he draws the same salary and allowances as are drawn by a Cabinet minister. An opposition party in India gets its status recognised only when its secures a minimum of 1/10th of the total seats of a House. Since 1989, there has been present a recognised opposition in the Indian Political System. 4.    System of Registration of Political Parties with the Election Commissions:-Since December 1988, there has been in existence a provision for the registration of political parties with the Election Commission of India. By amending the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951, it has been laid down that it was essential for each political party to get itself registered with the Election Commission. A party which fails to get registered is not accepted as a political party. Each new party has to apply for registration within 30 days of its inception. In 1988, the parties which were already in existence were asked to get registered within 60 days of the passing of the Act. A political party has to attach a copy of its constitution or governing rules along with the application for registration. Further, it has to declare its loyalty towards the Constitution, socialism, secularism, democracy and sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Such an application has to be filed by the executive head of the party within 30 days of the formation of party. The right to grant registration lies with the Election Commission and in this respect its decision is always final. After getting registration, a political party has to intimate to the Election Commission any change in its name or place of activity, or office bearers or any other major change in its structure and organisation. The Election Commission has been also according recognition to the parties as National level or State/Regional level parties. However, it can do so only when the parties satisfy the stipulated conditions. The provisions for registration have been incorporated for ensuring a democratic organisation and working of political parties. At times, the Election Commission orders the political parties to complete internal party elections. Such an order is binding on all political parties. 5.    Large number of Regional and Local Political Parties:- The existence of a large number of regional political parties along with some national level political parties has been a reality of Indian Political System. Such a feature is quite natural for a country like India which is characterised by social pluralism. A regional party is one which enjoys its popularity in one or two States and is committed to secure the interests of these vis-a-vis the Union. DMK, AIADMK, National Conference, Shiromani Akali Dal, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Assom Gana Parishad, Biju Janata Dal, PMK, TRS, UP, RLD, RPI, RSP, MNF, Telugu Desham, Vishal Haryana Party, Bangla Congress, Utkal Congress, Forward Bloc, IUML, Kerala Congress, Manipur National Front and several are some of the more prominent regional parties. Several States of Indian Union are being ruled by the regional parties either individually or as coalitions. 6.    Power-sharing between National and Regional Political Parties:- A development in the Indian Political System has been the emergence of a process of powersharing between National and Regional parties. Since June 1996, a coalition, consisting of several regional parties and some national level parties, has been ruling at the Centre. The CPM has been ruling West Bengal in a similar fashion for more than 30 years. During 1997-Feb 2002, the BJP and the SAD remained in power in Punjab. Congress is sharing power with NCP in Maharashtra and with PDP in J&K, with DMK in Pondicherry. BJD and the BJP are in an alliance in Orissa. Now JD(S) and BJP alliance is in power in Karnataka. The leaders of regional parties have started playing an active and even deterministic role in the organisation of the central government. 7.    Lack of Rigid Ideological Divisions among Political Parties:- Almost all political parties have similar Ideologies. In fact, the parties are not very rigid about their ideological commitments. All the parties are committed to uphold democracy, secularism, socialism and decentralisation, and most of them now favour liberalisation and privatisation. All of these are willing to use the caste factor, linguistic factor and regionalism for expanding their support bases. In fact all of them have been doing this. 8.    Existence of Communal Parties:- A communal party is one which draws its support from amongst the members of a particular community. In this way several of the Indian Political Parties can be called communal parties. Muslim League, Shiv Sena, Republican Party, Hindu Maha Sabha, Majlise Shura, Akali Dal, lUML, AIMIM are all in a way communal parties. Many persons hold that even BJP is a communal party because it enjoys the support of mainly (95%) of the Hindus and it uses such terms as Hindu, Hindutav and Hindi. Even DMK and AIADMK are anti-Brahmin communal parties. 9.    Inner Groupism and Factionalism:- Factionalism and groupings are present in most of the political parties. Internal groupism in the Congress has been a recognised feature. The existence of ‘Leftists’, ‘Rightists’, ‘Young Turks’, ‘Dissidents’, and ‘Inner circles’ within the Congress has been a historical fact. It is also true of all other political parties. This feature has been mainly responsible for political splits and defections. Groups owing loyalties to different leaders are present in almost every party. Each leader has had a group of loyalists. 10.    Personality-Cult Politics:- Personality-cult dominates party politics in India. Several political parties stand organised around a leader. The existence of such political parties like Congress (Indira), Congress (Jagjiwan Ram), Congress (Urs), Janata Party (JP), AD (Mann), AD (Badal), AD (Longowal), AD (Tohra), Jana Sangha (Madhok), Janata Dal (A), Lok Dal (A), Biju Janata Dal and other splinter parties reflect the presence of politics of personality-cult in Indian political parties. It has been a standard practice with the political leaders of India to float their political parties. Often the political scene witnesses the rise of groups loyal to different leaders and ‘loyalty towards the leader’ enjoys precedence over ‘loyalty towards the party or the ideology’. The leader of the party behaves like a ‘queen bee’. 11.    Lack of Internal Democratic Organisations:- Most of the parties in India do not have good democratically organised structures. Theoretically or legally most of the political parties stand organised in a democratic way but in practice the ‘top leaders’ or the ‘party elites’ dominate the set up. Party elections are rarely held. Political parties hold their state level and national-level conventions and conferences but in these also the ‘leaders’ or the ‘caucus’ dominate the proceedings. The principle of ‘One leader One Office’ is advocated but rarely followed. Even the political parties which are active actors in the democratic process are undemocratic in their internal workings. This is as much time of the Congress Party as of the CPM, the CPI, the BJP and the BSP. Now, the Election Commission has made it mandatory for the political parties to hold organisational elections. At times, the Chief Election Commissioner directs the political parties to complete their organisational elections by a stipulated date. 12.    Lack of Party Discipline:- Lack of discipline among the party members is again a sad reality of Indian party system. The party members do not hesitate to become rebels whenever they find a decision unacceptable. In elections ‘the dissidents’ or ‘the rebels’ even oppose’ and contest elections against the officially sponsored party candidates. The party discipline is, at times, enforced and it takes the form of suspension or removal from membership of the rebels or dissidents for a period of six years or so. But, such rebels/ dissidents are often in a position, either to return to the party or in causing a split in the party or in joining another party which is even opposed to their parent party. Lack of party discipline has been a source of defections, splits, factionalism, groupism and political turn coatism in Indian Politics. 13.    Large Number of Independent Candidates in Elections:- Another feature, which has a bearing on the working of Indian Party System, can be described as the presence of a large number of independent candidates in the elections. The political parties have to meet the challenge posed by locally popular independent candidates who are contesting elections from various constituencies. The Constitution grants to the citizens the right to contest elections and in actual practice, a large number of candidates come forward to utilise this right. 14.    Politics of Populism:- Almost all the political parties adopt and follow populistic policies and raise populistic slogans for securing their votes. The party in power uses its power of policy-making for attracting votes. ‘Rozgar Yojnas’, ‘Waiving of Loans’, ‘Power to the People’, ‘Increased Reservations’, ‘Vote for Mandir ‘Protection of Panth’, ‘Protection of interests of Minorities’, ‘Garibi Hatao’, ‘Free water, Free-electricity’, sabka sath, sabka vikas etc. are used as election-year slogans and ploys for securing votes. 15.    Politics of Opportunistic Alliances. Political parties often resort to unprincipled electoral alliances and coalitions for securing short-term gains. During elections, almost all the political parties enter into unprincipled alliances. These do not hesitate to enter into electoral alliances with communal parties. Self check exercise-2 Q. Explain any four features of Indian Party system? 15.5    The problems of Political Parties in India The political parties in India face many problems. The major problems are organisational problems, the problem of indiscipline and the problem of finances. 1.    Organisational Problems- The inherent nature of social order in the country increases the problems of political parties. India presents a traditional, stratified social order. Religion, caste and many other cultural factors dominate the minds of the people and purely ideological politics is something difficult in the given context. To run purely secular organisations is much more difficult and hence the parties resort to informal tactics in increasing their appeal. Factionalism, which is a pervasive feature of the Indian political system, poses another major hurdle in the way of effective organisation of parties. The Congress party itself has witnessed for major splits in five decades. There are three communist parties—the C.P.I., the C.P.I. (M), and the C.P.I. (M.L.)—which arose out of factional politics in the Communist Party of India. Regional parties like DMK, ADMK and Akali Dal have also witnessed splits. The parties are there-fore riven with factions. The country saw in 1982, 3 Congress parties, 3 Communist parties, 2 Janata parties, 2 Lok Dal, 2 Muslim Leagues and countless small state parties Except the two Communist parties which arc cadre-based and to an extent BJP, no other political party has had a strong organizational structure. Factionalism is thus a problem in all political parties and mere personal differences lead to splinter parties. This destroys the chances for any long term perspectives in the organisation of political parties. 2.    Defections:- The weakness of central leadership in the case of almost all parties is symptomatic of the erosion of party discipline and party loyalty. This erosion is highlighted by a disturbing feature of our democracy viz., the phenomenon of defection. The Fourth General Elections in 1967 witnessed an alarming increase in the number of defections in the country. These defections were responsible for the fall of no less than 16 governments in the period between 1967 and 1968. Of the 3,500 and odd members of the Legislative Assemblies, more than 500 changed their political affiliations, which came to one out of each seven. Defections erode political stability in the country and disturbs the evolution of viable party system. 3.    Absence of Inner Party Democracy:- Over the last fifty years of Inde-pendence, no political party has been able to observe the basic norms of inner party democracy. The authority in organizational matters has always been from the top to the bottom through successive layers of party structures. Leaders of political parties in Independent India have not always emerged through a process of democratic elections and promotion from the lower levels to the higher and the top. Thus leadership in most political parties in India may be democratic in ap-pearance but highly oligarchic in reality. Frequent rifts between the National and State party organizations in almost all national parties suggest that highly integrated party structures may soon no longer be appropriate and we may be led to the realisation that a national party should not be over-centralized, still less personalized. Fear of party disintegration has led many political leaders to worry about preventing it from being reduced to the status of a State or regional party. Strong leaders with support from their States have been by-passed in favour of loyalists. Instances are galore when the party presidents have appointed party chiefs in the States just before the organizational elections were to take place despite the protests of the central election authority chairmen. Even when the elections to State party chiefs were to take place after a gap of almost two decades, the President of the party was “authorized” to nominate a majority of the State party chiefs. These trends are likely to boomerang on the party’s strength and capability. A modern party is a public institu-tion, not a personal fief without intra-party elections, without ministers who enjoy strong regional support, and without the encourage-ment of a variety of opinions, political parties are like to witheraway. Undemocratic parties cannot contribute to constitutional and democratic government. 4.    Representation of Women:- Political parties cannot remain in different towards women who constitute nearly 50% of the electorate. Although almost all parties have attempted to build women organizations to secure their support and make their organization more broad-based, but in practice they have fielded much less proportion of women candidates in the elections giving them proportionately much less representation in the legislative bodies than their actual population strength. In recent times this has been a matter of crucial concern in view of the controversy over reservation of 30% or so of the seats in these bodies. 5.    Training of Members:- Training and orientation of new members is one of the important functions of political parties. The parties which are organized on the model of cadre party systematically develop appropriate agencies of training for members. But most Indian parties, except for the Communist parties and the BJP have not followed this model. Parties in India do not have a permanent system of training of their members and whatever arrangements for training are done on adhoc basis by national or state level organization. 6.    Need for Funds:- To perform various functions and contest elections in an effective manner, every political party requires huge funds. Apart from expenditure of office establishment, full time- workers, agitations, propaganda and travel, parties have to organize election campaigns. But the financial matters of party are kept secret while other aspects of organization are known to people. Very little is known about finances of political parties. In fact, secrecy is maintained even within a party. Only a few leaders at the higher level know the truth about the total funds and expenditure. Parties do not publish statements of accounts, income and expenditure, though financial matters are discussed at conventions and conferences or in meetings of higher bodies like working committee or the executive com-mittee. Many political parties and candidates have been found to be using dubious methods in raising funds, like kickbacks, funds from foreign countries and even from donations by mafia gangs and other non-desirable elements. How to let the parties get honest funding from legitimate sources for their basic and continuing political activities has emerged as one of the most crucial contemporary concerns of the reform agenda in respect of the functioning of political parties in India. 7.    Lack of Ideology and Values in Politics:- There has been a very sharp erosion in the ideological orientation of political parties. Party dynamics in India has led to the emergence of valueless politics much against the ideals of the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, who suggested that the Congress party should be disbanded after the achievement of Independence and its members should engage themselves in the service of the people. While Gandhi ji taught us tremendous selflessness, self-sacrifice and service to the people, such inspirational values, the democratic norms and institutions have been destroyed systematically over the last fifty years of the working of the Constitution. In the process, both the politicians and political parties have lost their credibility, the ultimate value that should bind them with the masses. There seems to be a crisis of character amongst the politicians, as the system does not encourage the honest leader. Because of the falling moral standards both in the public and among the leaders, criminalization of politics and politicization of criminals has become the norm. Due to degeneration of leadership, parties have been entangled in power struggle for the sake of personal ends. 8.    Leadership Quality:- The older political leadership had risen from the ranks. The rise was neither sudden nor irrational, and their adherence and commitment to party ideals and ideology was unflinching. They respected party discipline. The present day political leadership seems to be in a tremendous hurry to reach up to the top, and is not averse to use short cuts, dubious methods, money or muscle power to achieve their objective. The entry of the toughs and persons with criminal back-ground to the portals of the legislature is a very serious consequence of these trends. Self check exercise-3 Q. Discuss in short any three problems faced by Indian political parties? 15.6    Emerging Trends in Indian Party System India has a continuously changing and developing multi-party system. It has been a developing multi-party system. We can identify some of the emerging trends as follows : 1.    No national level political party except BJP (Congress, BJP, BSP, NCP, CPI or CPM, AAP) has now the potential to emerge as a single majority party. Each one of these now finds it essential to have an alliance or an understanding with some regional or local level parties. 2.    The regional and local parties now feel their importance as active players in Indian elections and politics. These regional parties always try to secure desired benefits (offices or exploits) from major parties in lieu of extending their support to them. 3.    Political parties have been adjusting, in fact, well-adjusting with the new realities of coalition politics. 4.    There have been emerging two contending alliances : Congress-led UPA Alliance and BJP- led NDA alliance. 5.    Coalition politics has come to be a stable feature of Indian Party Politics. It operates both national as well as state level politics. 6.    Coalition politics has helped and encouraged the multi-party system to remain a part and parcel of Indian Political System. 7.    Indian Federalism has started getting influenced by the nature and functioning of party-alliances which involve cooperation between some national and several regional parties. Indian federalism has started developing an orientation towards competitiveness and thus a bargaining approach. 8.    Two types of party alliances have been emerging—pre-poll party alliances and post election power sharing alliances. 9.    Politics of unprincipled alliances among several political parties has emerged to satisfy the need for government-making after elections. This has become inevitable because elections have started producing Hung Houses. 10.    Entry of criminals in the ranks of all the political parties has been becoming an unfortunate reality. 11.    Persons with criminal background have started occupying party positions, both inside and outside the legislature. 12.    Women participation in the party organisation continues to remain limited. Political parties continue to field a very small number of women candidates in elections. 13.    Politics of populism, caste politics, reservations politics and politics of unprincipled party alliances continue to charaterise the functioning of Indian Party System. Self check exercise-4 Q. Explain in short the emerging trends in Indian party system? 15.7    Summary Finally, we can say that parties are essential for every political system whether democratic or dictatorial, comparative or non comparative, Parliamentary or presidential, federal or unitary. Political parties play a key role in the process of politics. 15.8    Glossary •    Checks and Balances : A principle of system of government whereby each branch of the government can check the actions of the others. •    Parliamentary System : Representative Democracy where political power invested in an elected legislature. 15.9    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For details, See Section 15.3 Self Check Exercise-2 For details, See Section 15.4 Self Check Exercise-3 For details, See Section 15.5 Self Check Exercise-4 For details, See Section 15.6 15.10    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 15.11    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss the main features of Indian Party System? 2.    Explain the main problems faced by Indian Party System? 3.    Explain the major emerging trends in Indian Party System? ***** Unit-16Meaning, Nature and Function of Pressure Groups Structure 16.1    Introduction 16.2    Learning Objectives 16.3    Meaning and Definitions of Pressure Groups Self Check Exercise-1 16.4    Nature of Pressure Groups Self Check Exercise-2 10.5    Kinds of Pressure Groups 16.5.1    Special Interest Groups 16.5.2    Associations based on religion or Community 16.5.3    Associations based on caste or region 16.5.4    Groups based on Gandhian Principles Self Check Exercise-3 16.6    Functions of Pressure Groups Self Check Exercise-4 16.7    Summary 16.8    Glossary 16.9    Answer to Self Check Exercise 16.10    Suggested Readings 16.11    Terminal Questions 16.1    Introduction Those interest groups which seek to influence the decision-making process in a state through pressure are called pressure groups. All pressure groups are interest groups but not all interest groups are pressure groups. The pressure used by these groups may be either economic, social or political. But unless an interest group participates in bringing some kind of pressure to influence public policy, it does not become a pressure group. Thus, various associations of social or cultural bodies are interest groups, but not pressure groups. The Medical Council of India is a professional association concerned with the promotion and maintenance of standards in medical education. It is an interest group, but it may not be a pressure group unless it participates in the political process by seeking to influence policymaking with regard to medical education. Interest groups usually try to bring pressure upon public officials such as legislators, executives, administrators and members of the Judiciary. 16.2 Learning Objectives By the end of this unit, you will be able to:- •    Know the meaning of Pressure Groups. •    Understand the kinds of Pressure Groups. •    Explain the nature of Pressure Groups. 16.3    Meaning and Definitions of Pressure Groups The pressure groups have assumed unusual importance in the politics of 20th century. ‘Demands’ have an important place in a constitutional system. The demands make the government responsible. Sources and demands go side by side. In a democratic set-up, the pressure groups get the demands fulfilled. According to Roche and Stedman, modem democracy is everywhere characterized by presence of numerous groups and associations”. However, Mackenzie names them as ‘Interest Groups’. J.D. Reynand while distinguishing between the pressure groups and the interest groups said, when the interest groups act at the political level, they are called pressure groups”. Edgar Lane calls them ‘Lobby’ whereas Gross calls them ‘Private Organizations’. Definitions of Pressure Groups Watson:- A pressure group has been defined as an organised aggregate which seek to influence the content of governmental decision without attempting to place its members in formal governmental capacities.” Leiserson:- “A pressure group declares itself to be a nonpartisan organisation of persons united for the achievement of a certain end, for the protection or promotion of nationalities and ideal causes deemed vital to the group’s existence or survival.” Bale :- “Pressure groups are firmly part of the political process and they attempt to reinforce or change the direction of government policy, but do not wish, as pressure groups, to become the government.” Turner:- “By definition, pressure groups are non-partisan organisations which attempt to influence some phase of public policy. They do not themselves draft party programmes.” Hitchner and Harbold:- “It is employed to describe any collection of persons with common objectives to seek realisation through political action to influence public policy.” F.C. Castles:- “Pressure Group may be defined as any group attempting to bring about political change whether through government activity or not”. The above definitions are indicative of the following features of the pressure groups :- (i)    Every pressure group is based on some specific interest. (ii)    Pressure groups are organised structures. (iii)    These groups aim to influence the politics of the government. (iv)    They do not directly participate in politics. (v)    They have neither political aims nor aspirations. (vi)    They work for class interests and have a smaller membership than political parties. Self check exercise- 1 Q Pressure groups means: a)    A small group within a party which fights for the interests of members, of its own categories. b)    Any small group which contests elections, with the sole objective of protecting interests of its members. c)    A group of people who with the help of money try to secure control over government. d)    A group of people with common objectives which tries to influence the course of public affairs with a view to promote the interests of its members. Q.2 who defined Pressure groups as “Non-partisan organisation which attempt to influence some phase of public policy”? a) Reynand         b) Roche and Stedman c) Turner           d) Maclever 16.4 Nature of Pressure Groups Pressure groups play a vital role in every democratic state. Individuals having common interests come close together and form a group for protection and promotion of their interests. The following points indicate the nature of pressure groups. (i)    Indirect participation in election. (ii)    Propaganda methods by posters, newspapers, meetings and procession are adopted. (iii)    Strikes, demonstrations, bandhs and gheraos are encouraged. (iv)    Pressure groups serve as a strong weapon of the opposition parties. (v)    Pressure groups indulge in lobbying at various levels. (vi)    Pressure groups sometimes adopt violent methods. Self check exercise-2 Q Pressure groups adopt: a) Peaceful methods only                 b) Violent methods only c) Peaceful as well as violent methods d) none of the above 16.5 Kinds of Pressure Groups There are many types of pressure groups and it is not easy to classify them. One way of classifying them is according to the subject they handle. The general subjects attracting pressure groups are, agri-culture, Industry, Labour, Professions, Consumers, and so on. Even religious groups have their own lobbies. The classification of the Pressure and Interest Groups can be made in the Indian context in the following way: 16.5.1    Special Interest Groups: These can be further classified into (1) Trade Guilds; (2) Trade Unions; (3) Peasant Unions and (4) Teachers’ or Students’ Unions. (1)    Trade Guild Trade Guilds are three types. (i)    Family Centered Guilds There are families like the Dalmia house, Birla house etc. which act as pressure groups. These families donate liberally for their interests. They donate to party funds according to the importance of the parties. They offer top posts to the relatives of political leaders and administrators. These merchant families run religious institutions temples, educational institutions etc. This increases their influence. (ii)    Some Castes There are certain castes which are mainly merchant classes like the Marwaris, Jains, Parsees etc., These castes try to influence public policy in different ways. (iii)    Some commercial organisations There are various commercial organisations which aim at safeguarding their interests. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry is such an organisation with its head quarters in Delhi Employer’s Federation of India and Bombay Millowners’ Association are also important organizations. Muslim or Marwari Chambers of Commerce are based on religion caste. The main function of these commercial organizations is to influence public policy. They control newspapers. They own the press and various monthly, fortnightly, weekly or daily journals and newspapers. The Bipin Bose Report and the Dr. Hazari Report exposed the honeymoon of these commercial organizations with the government. (2)    Trade Unions There are many Trade Unions in India which fail to exert pressure because of their mutual bickering and rivalry. Workers do not have unity, because political parties try to destroy the unity of the workers. These trade unions cannot grow, because of their link with political parties which never look to the interests of the workers, but to their political gains. Often these political parties are influenced by capitalist pressure groups through money and other allurements to bluff and befool the workers through subtle policies and demagogy and thus act against the interests of the workers. Trade Unions are mentioned below: (i)    All India Trade Union Congress (ATTUC)— linked with the communists. (ii)    Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC)—Linked with the Congress. (iii)    Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS)— It is the organ-isation of the socialists. (iv)    Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)— It is the trade union of the former Jana Sangh. Morris David said, “Trade Unions in India act neither as pressure groups, nor as political parties as such. Rather they have been organised by middle class leadership of the various political parties as arms of those parties.” (3)    Farmers Association India is an agricultural country, and agriculture is the main livelihood of the people. Farmers have many problems. Not only this, votes are influenced by political parties by using the symbols of farmers, cow or bullock. But the problems of farmers have not been solved during last sixty years. The main problem is that Indian farmers are illiterate and unorganised. Their organisations have no influence and no strength. They cannot influence the policy of the government. All India Farmers Organisation of the communists and the Hind Kissan Panchayat of the Socialists exist, but they have little influence. Some work has been done by the Bhoodan Movement. (4)    Teachers and Students’ organisations Teachers have their unions which work in various ways to safeguard the interests of teachers by influencing the government and the administration. These unions are of different kinds. Primary teachers have local, regional and national organizations. Similarly, secondary teachers have local, regional and national organizations. University teachers have different unions. The government recognizes these associations, and consult the union leaders on problems. Students have their unions but they lack unity. The main unions are A.B.V.P. or Akhil Bhartya Vidyarthi Parishad, AISF or All India Student Federation S.F.I., NSUI etc. 16.5.2    Associations based on religion or community There are various associations of this type. They have much influence and no political party can ignore them. These associations do not have direct link with politics, but they are close to political parties. According to Dr. Palmer the Republican Party, Akali Party, Hindu Maha Sabha etc. can be grouped this way. The Christians have different religious associations. The Arys Samaj, Jamaiyat-e-Islami, Sanatan Dharma Sabha etc. are other such groups. 16.5.3    Associations based on caste or region In India pressure groups based on caste or regions are very influential. They cannot be ignored by any political party. While the Cabinet is formed, the representation of a region or caste is kept in mind. Again, members of a caste try to safeguard their interests in various ways by opening schools, hostels etc. Members of their own caste are given priority in these institutions. Members of a particular caste placed in high posts try to safeguard the interests of their own castes. Regional groups are also very influential pressure groups: Conditions of various regions cannot be ignored. The tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh, Telengana or Naxalites in Andhra, Jharkhand in Bihar, Muslim areas in Kerala, etc. influence the politics of the state. 16.5.4 Groups based on Gandhian Principles Gandhiji influenced various aspects of the life of the people. Even today his influence is felt everywhere. Various associations uphold and propagate his ideas. These are influential and powerful associations spread far and wide. Gandhian principles are respected in villages, tribal areas, among the Harijans and other classes. These groups do not act directly as pressure groups, but they influence the government through Gandhian ideology. Sarvodaya idea and Vinoba’s Bhoodan idea are important. Further, Sarva Seva Sangh Village Industries Corporation, Gandhi Peace Foundation etc. have exerted great influence on government. Self check exercise-3 Q. All Pressure Groups are: a)    Temporarily b)    Permanent c)    Some are temporary while others are permanent d)    Formed for a fixed terms 16.6    Functions of Pressure Groups It is generally thought that these pressure groups adopt wrong means to influence the government. But it is seen that with the expansion of the activities of a democratic government these groups are adopting right and stable means to influence the government. They are applying constitutional means more and more. Generally these pressure groups have the following functions:- (1)    Create public opinion:- They not only influence government but also public opinion in their favour. For this purpose they publish newspapers, pamphlets and posters, send letters to editors, and give publicity through radio, TV and Cinema. (2)    They provide literature to students:- Many groups try to form the opinion of the youth who are the future citizens. They provide such literature to ‘these young people which can orient their mind in favour of the interests of the groups. These young people would be the champions of the interests of the groups. (3)    Pay subscription:- Money is very essential for meeting the worldly needs. Various interest groups pay subscription to different associations linked with legislators and administrators. By this subscription they try to influence the government. (4)    They support during elections:- In America, these groups do not look for the candidate, but for the party and its programme that will safeguard the interests of the groups. So the candidates of both the Republicans and Democrats are supported by different interest groups according to their expectations. When the candidates are elected on the basis of the support of the groups, then these legislators try to safeguard the interests of these groups by appropriate legislation. In parliamentary system of government these groups support those parties and their candidates who can favour their group interests. But in a parliamentary form of government party discipline is strong. So pressure groups find it difficult to influence legislators. (5)  Influencing legislators and administrators:- Legislators have very little time and means. These pressure groups provide the means and all information and data. Not only these pressure groups form a kind of social relationships and influence these administrators and legislators. (6)    They educate the legislative committees:- Committees have important roles in the passing of Bills. So these pressure groups influence the committees through various means, and try to draw the members of the committees in their favour. They try to influence public opinion in their favour and, if necessary, try to amend the Bill. (7)    Correspond with the legislators:- These groups try to influence the legislators to safeguard their interests. So they send petitions signed by large number of people, or send telegrams or memoranda from the constituency of the legislator so that the legislator might support or oppose the Bill according to the desire of the groups. (8)    They approach the court:- When the Interest Groups feel that the government has adopted certain unconstitutional or illegal method and thereby harmed their interests, then they approach the court to safeguard their interests. (9)    They organise strikes and demonstrations:- These Pressure Groups try to pressurise the government by organising strikes and demonstrations so that their interests are safeguarded. (10)    They exert their influence in the appointment of the ministers of their choice :-The Pressure Groups try to influence the government and put then pressure so that the ministers of their choice who can safeguard their interests are given place in the cabinet. (11)    They offer high posts :- These Interest Groups and Pressure Groups try to pressurise the government by organ friends of these legislators or administrators, and thus try to keep close contact with them. This method is followed in all democratic countries. (12)    Try to control newspapers:- Newspapers have great importance m democracy. So Interest Groups try to control and influence newspapers to create public opinion in their favour. There are two ways; first, they bring out newspapers favouring their interest. Second, these Interest Groups try to influence the editors and writers of these newspapers and thus try to influence public opinion in their favour. Self check exercise-4 Q. Which of the following functions of the pressure groups given below has been wrongly listed? a)    Pressure groups influence the enactment of Law. b)    Pressure groups help the administrative department in the formulation of policy. c)    Pressure groups provide funds to their members to contests elections. d)    Pressure groups play an important role in bringing about political social and economic reforms. 16.7    Summary In essence, pressure groups epitomize the essence of democratic participation, offering diverse avenues for citizens to advocate for their interests. From grassroots movements to established organizations, their multifaceted nature underscores their vital role in shaping policy agendas and fostering inclusive governance, reflecting the dynamism of democratic societies. 16.8    Glossary •    AITUC: All India Trade Union Congress •    HMS:   Hind Majdoor Sabha •    BMS:   Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh 16.9    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise- 1 Ans. 1. D 2. C Self Check Exercise- 2 Ans. C Self Check Exercise- 3 Ans. C Self Check Exercise- 4 Ans. C 16.10    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 16.11    Terminal Questions Q.1 Define Pressure Groups? Q.2 Define Pressure Groups? Explain their Characteristics? What is the difference between a Pressure groups and a political party? ***** Unit-17Pressure Groups In India Structure 17.1    Introduction 17.2    Learning objectives 17.3    Types of Political Parties in India Self Check Exercise-1 1    7.4 Techniques of Pressure Groups Self Check Exercise-2 17.5    Features of Indian Model of Pressure Groups Self Check Exercise-3 17.6    Difference between Political Parties and Pressure Groups Self Check Exercise-4 17.7    Summary 17.8    Glossary 1    7.9 Answer to Self Check Exercise 17.    10 Suggested Readings 17.11    Terminal Questions 17.1    Introduction Pressure groups employ various strategies to influence government decisions. This Unit delves into the diverse types and techniques they utilize, from lobbying and advocacy to protests and grassroots organizing. Understanding these methods is crucial for comprehending their impact on policy formulation and democratic process 17.2    Learning objectives Alter going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Understand the various types of pressure groups in India •    Know the techniques of pressure Groups. •    Discuss the difference between Political Parties and Pressure Groups. 17.3    Types of Pressure Groups in India The following are the important and active Pressure Groups in India :- 1.    Big Business Groups:- This category of groups comprise commercial, industrial and linancial interests and its rise and growth stands linked up with the expansion of commercial, industrial and financial interests. Business Groups/associations are among the largest and the most powerful of all Indian Pressure Groups. These include a large number of business associations, industrial associations, regional associations and All Indian Organisations connected with trade and commerce. Most important of these are the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ASSOCHAM), All Indian Manufacturers Organisation, All India Exporters Organisations. FICCI has been in existence since 1927 and its aims have been the protection and promotion of indigenous Indian interests in trade and industry. Assocham initially emerged as a body of British industrial and commercial interests in India. However, since 1986, when several FICCI members joined it, and the Indian Merchants Chamber merged with it, the ASSOCHAM has become more a broad-based and active organisation of big-business in India. For securing their interests, these groups lobby with legislators, ministers, bureaucrats and various economic institutions like the Planning Commission. The big business Interest Groups also use their money power in politics for securing their interests. Over the years, the big business has emerged as a major force in Indian economy and politics. Their influence often outweighs the influence of the labour unions. 2.    Trade Unions:- There are about 37000 plus Trade Unions in India. Some of these have been sponsored by the political parties, while others have come to develop naturally out of the necessity for protecting the interests of the workers vis-a-vis the capitalists. Active among these are : All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), the United Trade Union Congress (UTUC), the Hind Mazdoor Parishad (HMP), the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), the All India Bank Employees Association, the National Federation of Railway men, and the National Federation of Post and Telegraph Workers. These trade unions are very conscious of their rights and these try to protect the interests of their members. Almost all the trade unions, particularly their federations have links with political parties. INTUC is pro-Congress, AITUC is pro-Communists, UTUC is backed by CPM, HMS is pro- Socialist and HMP is pro-BJP. The existence of so many trade union organisations cuts at the root of unity of the working class in India. 3.    Peasant Organisations: With nearly 75 per cent of available Indian work force engaged in agriculture, it is but natural for the agricultural groups, associations, unions and organisations to play an important role in the process of politics. All India Kisan Sabha, Hind Kisan Panchayat, United Kisan Sabha, Workers and Peasants Party, Kshetkari Sangathan, Bhartiya Kisan Union and Bhartiya Kisan and Kamgar Union are the important peasant organisations which are active in the Indian Political System. These organisations are active in different regions of the country but these try to put pressure on the Central Government because important agricultural policies and decisions are annually fixed by the Central Government. These organisations are now trying to become more active actors. These have begun resisting the dominance of policy-making in India by the urban big. In the recent past, these successfully compelled the Central Government to withdraw cuts on several subsidies which have been available to the agriculturists. 4.    Caste Groups: Of all the groups based upon the traditional structure of Indian society, the caste groups are the most politically significant groups. “Caste continues to be the most important political force in India.” Caste continues to be a determinant of political behaviour of the Indians. In particular it is a major determinant of electoral behaviour and voting behaviour. The Caste organisations like Scheduled Castes Federations, Vanniyakul Kshatriya Sangam, Jat Sabha, Aggrawal Sabha, Gujjar Sabha, Gujarat Kshatriya Sabha, etc., are active actors in the Indian politics. Caste associations play a useful role in providing channels of communication and basis of leadership and organisation to all such people who continue to follow the traditional way of life. 5.    Religious Groups: India is a land of several religions. The multi-religious character of the society has been instrumental in giving rise to several religious Pressure Groups and organisations. Anglo-India Christian Association, Jamaat-e-Islami, Arya Samaj, Brahmin Sabhas. Catholic Bishops Association, Hindu Maha Sabha, Shiv Sena, SGPC, the Chief Khalsa Diwan, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Hindu Suraksha Samiti and others are religious Pressure Groups. These have always tried to influence the government policy. ‘These have become highly self-conscious and politically conscious groups and some of these have even staned fielding their candidates in elections. 6.    Student Associations:- Since 1928 when a student organisation was formed in Punjab by Lala Lajpat Rai, several student groups and organisations have been active in India. In contemporary times several such organisations - National Students Union of India, Students Federation, Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Progressive Students Union, Janata Yuva Morcha, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Youth Congress, All India Sikh Students Federation, Jamaat-e-Tulba, and several others, are actively involved in the political process. The lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 years has further encouraged them to play a more active role. Most of the student organisations have committed links with the political parties, e.g., Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad is a supporter of BJP, Bhartiya Janata Yuva Morcha is also a BJP sponsored Yuvak group. The Youth Congress supports the Congress, and All India Sikh Students Federation has links with the Akali Dal. A political party, when in power, usually tries to convince its youth organisation to avoid party politics. However, when in opposition it tries to capture power by troubling the politics. However, when in opposition it tries to capture power by troubling the ruling party through its youth organisation or to increase its influence through the activities of its ‘youth organisation’. 7.    Linguistic Pressure Groups:- Several Pressure Groups in India have been organised mainly for furthering the development of a particular language, the Tamil Sangh, the Aiijuman Urdu Taraqqi, the Hindi Protection Parishad, the Punjabi Sahit Shabhas, the Sahitya Sammelan etc. are Linguistic Pressure Groups. 8.    Women Organisations:- The need to secure the emancipation of women in India has given rise to the organisation of several women conferences, and sabhas. The AntiDowry Council, Women Welfare Sabhas, Nari Sudhar Sabhas, Mahila Mandals, Council for the Protection of Rights of the Women, Women Liberation Organisations, Sathins etc., can be characterised as women pressure Interest Groups that are engaged in the process of securing the due rights and liberties of the women as well as for creating a healthy environment committed to encourage the process of women uplift in India. 9.    Professional Groups:- Several professional Interest Groups, like All India Bar Association, All India Medical Council, All India Federation of University and College Teachers Organisations etc., are also active in India. These professional groups put forward their problems and needs before the government and try to secure favourable governmental policies as can help them to protect and develop their professional interests. 10.    Tribal/Regional Groups:- With a view to secure the development of their regions and the satisfaction of their regional interests several tribal Interest Groups have been active in the Indian Political System. United Mizo Federal Organisation, Tribal Sangh of Assam, Tribal League of Assam, Naga National Council, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, GNLF. All Bodo Students Union etc. are examples of tribal/regional Pressure Groups in India. 11.    Interest Groups based on Gandhian Ideology:- Gandhism has been a popular ideology in India. Several Interest Groups committed to secure the realisation of several ideas put forward by Gandhijee are actively pursuing the Gandhian objectives. For this purpose, these often compel the government to allocate them funds and other facilities. The Sarvodya Samaj, the Seva Sangh, Khadi Ashrams, Prohibition Councils, Gandhi Peace Foundation and several other groups are Interest Groups based on the Gandhian Ideology. In addition to the above listed eleven categories of Pressure Groups there are hundreds of other Interest Groups in India. The organisation of adhoc Interest Groups-Anomic Interest Groups, e.g., Actioncommittees, Strike groups, Rasta Roko groups, Anti-repression groups etc., is a standard practice in India. These are organised spontaneously for fulfilling a particular need or interest. These get dissolved either after getting their demands fulfilled or when these fail to secure their demands and get diluted and dissolved. Along with these organisations like Citizen Council, Nagrik Sabhas, Citizens for Democracy, Nehru Yuvak Kendra, etc., are acting like Pressure Groups. Now NonResident Indian Associations NRI Sabhas, are being established for protecting their interests in India. Thus a large number of Pressure Groups are present in India. These always try to influence government policy and action in favour of their interests. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Which type of pressure group represents specific economic sectors or industries and aims to advance the interests of its members? A) Insider groups           B) Outsider groups C) Economic groups D) Public interest groups Q.2 Which type of pressure group aims to promote a particular political ideology or belief system? a)    Social pressure groups. b)    Ideological pressure groups. c)    Interest groups. d)    Lobbying groups. 17.4    Techniques of Pressure Groups Pressure groups make use of different techniques and methods to achieve their objectives. Some of the most common techniques are as follows :- Lobbying is a favourite technique of pressure groups operating in every political system. This is a political technique which means influencing the government. In other words, interested persons making representations to the legislature or other departments of governments in order to influence public policy in favour of themselves may be called lobbying. In fact, the lobbying is the key intermediary between pressure groups and the government. The lobbist actually performs at least three functions vitally important to legislators and executives. He communicates information; he defends the interest of his employers and he defines the political implications of legislative matters. Secondly, pressure groups endeavour to secure the nomination and election of sympathetic legislators, who may later be used in the enactment of favourable laws. In modern democracies, in fact legislators often find themselves virtually in the pockets of pressure groups. How and why this happens is rather very simple. The legislators, above all, want to maximise the possibilities of their elections; and the election campaign needs money. So, the member is always on the look-out for money, which is available with private association, thus he goes to the associations. In return, he has to support the demands of the association. Thirdly, pressure groups influence policy-makers by supplying them accurate data and information. Most of the modern pressure groups now maintain a research cell and come out with effective measures and cures. Thus policies are framed with the help of the information supplied by pressure groups. Fourthly , sometimes drafts of bills are framed by pressure groups themselves and submitted to legislatures. They possess skill and expert knowledge in the domain of their own field and have links with Civil Servants. They are conversant with the administrative process and they know how the work can be done. Fifthly, pressure groups create a favourable climate for their particular cause by appealing to public opinion through speeches, books, pamphlets, special articles, news releases, radios and motion pictures. Sixthly, pressure groups propagate their viewpoint through the press. They usually try to get the support of the newspapers and even publish their own newspapers. This method is to given the wide publicity to their own views and contrary views are not expressed in a way that they dislike. Seventhly, pressure groups align themselves with one or the other political party and act as a powerful clique in the party. If the party is the ruling party, their objectives are achieved without much difficulty. Eighthly, the mass media constitutes one of the effective channels of access used by pressure groups. In an open society the use of the mass media to convey political demands is a major means of appealing to political decision-makers. Ninthly, one obvious means of articulating demand is through physical demonstrations and violence. These methods are employed by anomic pressure groups. The use of riots, assassinations and demonstrations by other pressure groups is not an uncommon phenomenon. Tenthly, elite representation on behalf of an interest group constitutes a channel of access which can be utilised with great effect by some pressure groups. It may take the form of the presence of a group member in the rule making structure. The agents of interest groups are usually given ample representation on legislative committees in various countries. Finally, sometimes pressure groups thrive on bribery and corruption. They utilise effectively the entire paraphernalia which democracy and science have given to modern age. It is also alleged that pressure groups are using wine and women vehemently. Thus, there is a degree of outright corruption or back-stage intrigue. The techniques and functions of pressure groups vary from country to country and system to system. It must be stated that the actual influence of pressure groups in a political system will depend upon the range of activities entrusted to the government. If a government keeps off the economic arena, pressure groups will have little to do, in spite of their skilful techniques. But if the range of activities is wide and the State is a welfare state, committed to socialism and planning, pressure groups will be very active. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Which technique involves pressure groups influencing policymakers through providing information, arguments, and expertise? A) Boycotting       B) Direct action C) Lobbying        D) Protest marches Q.2 Which technique involves pressure groups attempting to sway public opinion in favor of their cause through media campaigns and public outreach? A) Lobbying               B) Direct action C) Grassroots mobilization D) Public relations 17.5    Features of the Indian Model of Pressure Groups The specific features of the Indian model of pressure group can be summed up as follows :- Firstly, the traditional pressure groups like caste community, religion and regional are the determinants of politics in India. Evidence has been cited from the behaviour of political parties, all of which invoke primordial sentiments and organise their support on the basis of caste and communal identities. The caste groups in India may still be called ‘sovereigns without crowns’. Secondly, most of the associational groups like trade unions, student organisations, peasant organisations, etc., are dominated and controlled by political parties. They may be called ‘parties behind the parties’. It is a noteworthy feature that major business associations are free from party control. Thirdly, in the beginning organised pressure groups had little impact on the for-mation of public policy. In other words, their influence was almost negative. The reasons were mainly two: (1) charismatic leadership at the Centre and the States; and (2) monopoly of the Congress Party in the governmental structure. As the influence of the leadership declined and the Congress monopoly was broken, the role of pressure groups greatly increased. In the early years of Independence, their influence had been directed towards preventing the Government from pursuing some course of action. For example, organised lobbies prevented nationalisation of rice trade and opposed nationalisation of other food grains, including wheat. At the State level, the farmer lobby within the ruling party prevented an increase in land taxes. Now it is observed that some of the major groups are assisting the Government in framing the rules and regulations for their concern. Fourthly, the Constitution under Articles 262 and 263 makes provision for the Central Parliament to settle border disputes and inter-state water disputes wherein the members of interested States get an opportunity of playing the role of pressure groups effectively. It must also be remembered in this connection that almost all the States maintain liaison officers in Delhi to maintain contacts with the representatives in Parliament for the purpose of intensive lobbying whenever such questions come up for discussion. Fifthly, in the period of coalition and non-Congress Governments in the Indian States in the late 1960s, a few State Governments encouraged organized groups to enlist their support against the Centre. Demands like establishment of more universities, greater investment by the Centre in the States, location of steel plants and refineries are always supported by these groups when-ever such a situation arises. Sixthly, institutional pressure groups in the political parties have created a chaos in the Indian party system as a whole. The existing groups in the ruling party, as well as those in the opposition parties have threatened the very stability of the existing majority governments. The Groups in the parties are struggling for power for their narrow interests. Seventhly, India heavily depends on foreign aid and technical skill. Consequently, foreign lobbies are in a position to influence the nation’s domestic and foreign policies. Eighthly, mass movements, rallies, strikes and sometimes even violence are the instruments used by anomic or associational groups to press their demands in India. Ninthly, organized groups largely influence the administrators at level of policy implementation. Administrators at the state and national levels respond easily to such kinds of pressures. They have, however, often been unresponsive to other types of pressures. The local officials often ignore the demands made by people whose position in the local power structure is weak. They tend to respond more favorably to those who have greater wealth and status. Sometimes local organised groups bribe local officials to seek favourable access on a caste basis. Tenthly, the general outlook in India towards pressure groups is a critical one. It is considered improper that interests should guide policy formulation because it is felt that once the Government succumbs to the pressure of such organised groups then no decision will be taken in the public interest. Finally, after the Fourth General Elections of 1967, most groups, however, adopted a neutral attitude towards the political parties. They realised that if they identify themselves more with the Congress Party, they may lose their influence on the Government if the other party comes to power. Even among the committed groups the tendency now is to rely less on party connection and more on governmental consultations, no matter which party is in power in order to safeguard their interests. Thus, the trade unions and business groups rely more on confidential consultations with the Government now than in their connections with the Congress and other political parties. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Which of the following is not a characteristic of pressure groups? a) Formal structure           b) Political activity c) Financial independence d) Participation in elections 17.6    Difference between Political Parties and Pressure Groups In a technical sense, a political party may be distinguished from a pressure group on these grounds; 1.    A party is a very big unit having a membership in thousands, even millions, but a group is a comparatively very small entity having its membership in hundreds and thousands. It is possible that a political party may be a small organisation having a few hundred or thousand members (as Sokka Gakkai of the Buddhists in Japan) and there the line of distinction between a political party and a pressure group may be blurred. 2.    A group is always based on some specific interest. It fights for the protection and promotion of that interest. The interest may be like enhancement of wages and allowances, or the increase of price of agricultural commodities, or conservation of a particular language and culture. So a pressure group is described as an instrument of interest articulation. But a party is a federation or an alliance of many interests. It includes persons belonging to various walks of life like businessmen, workers, farmers, lawyers, and the like. So a party is regarded as an instrument of ‘interest aggregation.’ 3.    But the most important point of distinction between the two is that while a political party plays its part in the political process of the country ‘openly’, pressure groups do so by involving themselves in, the game of ‘hide and seek’. A party has its registered offices,’ constitution, flag, membership records, list of office bearers, and it frankly and proudly owns responsibility for certain actions in the field of politics, a pressure group pretends to remain politically neutral while being very much involved in the game of simple for power. It is for this reason that most of the pressure groups prefer to operate in the field of politics through the medium of some political parties. We may also take note of the fact that while some pressure groups have open and permanent links with a political party (as British business interests with Conservative Party and labour unions with the Labour Party), others have their shifting links as per the exigencies of the situation. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. What distinguishes political parties from pressure groups? a) Membership structure           b) Funding sources c) Goals and objectives             d) Geographic scope 17.7    Summary In India, interest groups are formed on the basis of caste, religion, language and region. They fan the basic loyalty of individuals and lead to the formation of rigid groups. With the varied culture of the Indian society and with the federal constitution of the country giving wide autonomy to different communities, languages and regions, interest groups should get fall scope for their operation in India. The system of party discipline and group identification with the parties may act as a check on the working of interest groups. But conditions in India are generally favorable for the flourishing of interest groups. 17.8    Glossary •    Legislature : The part of government primarily responsible for making laws. •    Government: The establishment form of rule and ultimate authority within a society or a nation. The institution that has authority and that make decisions to resolve conflicts or allocate benefits and privileges. 17.9    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    C 2.    B Self Check Exercise-2 1.    C 2.    D Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. D Self Check Exercise-4 Ans. C 17.10    Suggested Readings • For details see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.6. 17.11    Terminal Questions 1.    What is the difference between Pressure Groups and a Political Party? 2.    Describe the major Pressure Groups in India? 3.    Discuss the methods and techniques of Pressure Groups. 4.    Briefly Explain the features of Pressure Groups in India. ***** Block-IVUnit-18Political Participation Structure 18.1    Introduction 18.2    Learning Objectives 18.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Participation Self Check Exercise-1 18.4    Activities which came under Political Participation Self Check Exercise-2 18.5    Forms of Political Participation Self Check Exercise-3 18.6    Classification of citizens on the Basis of Political Participation Self Check Exercise-4 18.7    Determinants of Political Participation Self Check Exercise-5 18.8    Why is Political Participation Important Self Check Exercise-6 18.9    Significance of Political Participation Self Check Exercise-7 18.10    Summery 18.11    Glossary 18.12    Answer to Self Check Exercise 18.13    Suggested Readings 18.14    Terminal Questions 18.1    Introduction No political system, particularly a democratic political system, can operate without the active participation of the people in the political process. Each liberal democratic political system has at its roots, the desire and the will to secure participation of as many people as possible in politics. In it an attempt is always made to secure increased and willing popular participation in the political process. High level of political participation of the people in the political process reflects the consent of the people behind the authority and power of the power- holders at a particular time. In contemporary times, political participation is deemed to be feature of every political system whether democratic or totalitarian, modern or traditional and developed or developing. No political system can work without securing the performance of political roles by the people. The process by which people participate in the political process is referred to as political participation. 18.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to: •   Understand the meaning of Political Participation. •    Discuss the determinants of Political Participation. •    Explain the significance of Political Participation. 18.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Participation The term political participation covers all kinds of political activities which involve the people in shaping and influencing the political decision-making process, and the exercise of power, people take part in the selection of their rulers, casting of votes in elections, making of organised demands on the political system, involvement in party politics, participation in political movements, conferences, discussions, strikes and demonstrations, communication with the representatives and other political leaders, involvement in political communication etc., all are parts of political participation. Definitions •    In the words of Heinz Eulau, “Political Participation is the involvement of masses in the decision-making process or policy formulation." •    According to Almond and Pawell “Political Participation can be defined as the involvement of the members of society in the decision-making process.” •   Michael Rush and Philip Alihoff define “Political participation as the movement of the individual at various levels in the political system.” •    In the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Herbert McClosky defines political participation as “those voluntary activities by which members of a society share in the selection of rulers and, directly or indirectly, in the formation of public policy.” In simple words, we can say that political participation refers to the involvement of the people in the decision-making, policy-formulation, electoral process, and in the struggle for power in society. It includes all activities through which the people get involved in the political process. It does not mean merely the exercise of right to vote by the people. It refers to their active involvement in the decision-making process of the political system. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Write a short note on Political participation? 18.4    Activities which came under Political Participation J.L. Woodward and Elmo Roper hold that the following five activities form part of political participation : (1) Voting at polls. (2) Supporting possible pressure groups by being members of them. (3) Personally communicating directly with legislators. (4) Participating in political party activity and thus acquiring claim over legislators. (5) Engaging in habitual dissemination of political opinions through word of mouth/communication to other citizens. ‘The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies’ has identified the following kinds of activities which form part of political participation : (1)    voting. (2)    canvassing for candidates. (3)    getting out voters. (4)    organisation of meetings and rallies. (5)    distribution of pamphlets and campaign literature. (6)    other campaign activities. (7)    campaign through associations and groups. (8)    attending public meetings and rallies. (9)    membership of political parties. (10)    conducting party leaders in-resolving problems, and (11)    conducting government officials in solving problems. Thus, political participation refers to the active and willed participation of the people in the political process, particularly in the decision-making and policy-formulation processes. It is not confined to the casting of votes in elections. It means the willing involvement of the people in various activities involved in Politics. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. What is the main purpose of political mobilization? a)    To encourage citizens to participate in politics b)    To suppress political dissent c)    To promote a specific political ideology d)    To increase government control over the population 18.5    Forms of Political Participation Scholars studying political participation generally classify it into several distinct forms. The primary types include: 1.    Direct Political Participation: This occurs when individuals take an active role in electing their leaders and influencing decision-making or policy formulation. It is common in political systems with direct elections and legislation, where citizens have a direct say in governance. 2.    Indirect Political Participation: In representative democracies, citizens participate in governance by electing representatives who make decisions on their behalf. These representatives are accountable to the people and serve as their voice in policymaking. 3.    Active Political Participation: This form involves direct engagement in political activities such as leadership recruitment, elections, party politics, political communication, and pressure group actions. It is a key feature of liberal democratic systems, both in developed and developing nations. 4.    Low or Passive Political Participation: This occurs when individuals show minimal interest in politics and remain disengaged from the political system and its processes, leading to political apathy. 5.    Instrumental Political Participation: Defined by Davies and Milbrath, this form occurs when individuals engage in politics with specific objectives in mind. For instance, people may participate to secure a majority for their political party. 6.    Expressive Political Participation: In this case, individuals engage in politics not to achieve a concrete goal, but to express emotions, sentiments, or personal beliefs. 7.    Political Participation through Legitimate Means: This involves engagement in politics through legal and constitutional methods, such as participating in party campaigns, attending political meetings, and organizing demonstrations. 8.    Political Participation through Illegitimate Means: This refers to involvement in politics through unlawful or unconstitutional actions, including riots, violent protests, destruction of public property, electoral fraud, and other forms of political violence. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. 1 Which form of political participation is protected as a fundamental right in democratic societies? A) Civil disobedience              B) Protest C) Lobbying              D) Voting Q.2    Which form of political participation involves actively seeking to inform and engage the public on political issues? A) Lobbying               B) Electoral participation C) Political education       D) Civil disobedience 18.6    Classification of Citizens on the Basis of Political Participation Politics is one of the unavoidable facts of human existence. Human beings are social animals and they always develop political relations which form a system of politics. Everyone is involved in some fashion, at some time; in some kind of a political system. Whatever be his values and concerns everyone is inevitably enmeshed in a political system -whether or not one likes or even notices the fact. However, nature and level of participation in politics differs from person to person and place to place. All are not equally concerned with politics. Some are indifferent to politics while some others are deeply involved. Even among those who are deeply involved in politics, only some actively seek power, and among the power-seekers some gain more power than others. On the basis of the levels of political participation, Woodword and Roper identify four classes of people i.e. 1.    Very Active Participation: Involves consistent, direct involvement in political, such as running for office, leading campaigns, organizing protests, or being a vocal activist. These participants dedicated significant time and resources to influence political decisions. 2.    Active Participation: Includes voting in elections, attending rallies, engaging in political discussions, and occasionally volunteering for campaigns or advocacy groups, These participants stay informed and contribute when possible. 3.    Inactive Participation: Represents minimal involvement, such as voting occasionally or expressing opinions in private conversations. These individuals show limited interest in broader political activities. 4.    Very Inactive Participation: Characterized by complete disengagement, with no voting, discussions, or awareness of political issues. This group often feels apathetic, disillusioned, or disconnected from politics. Each level impacts democracy differently, with active and very active participants driving change, while inactivity limits representation and accountability. The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies has suggested a five-fold classification of citizens on the basis of the level of participation in politics. (1) Apathetic (2) Peripherals (3) Spectators, (4) Auxiliaries and (5) Politists. (1)    Apathetic are those who remain away from politics. They are psychologically drawn away from politics. (2)    Peripherals are those who participate in voting and have a limited interest in politics. (3)    Spectators are those who vote, who have an interest in politics and who participate in lower levels of politics. (4)    Auxiliaries are those who have a medium level interests in politics and who participate in some activities of the political process. (5)    Politists are those who are fully oriented towards politics and who participate in the struggle for power. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. Which of the following is not a form of political participation? A) Voting in elections                            B) Organizing a protest march C) Writing a letter to a government official D) Purchasing a new car 18.7    Determinants of Political Participation The extent to which individuals engage in the political process, particularly in decisionmaking and policy formulation, is shaped by various psychological, social, economic, political, environmental, and situational factors. These are collectively known as the determinants of political participation. The level and nature of political involvement in any system depend on these factors, which can be categorized into six main groups: 1.    Psychological Factors: Psychological influences play a crucial role in political participation. Many individuals engage in politics to fulfill personal psychological needs, such as the pursuit of power or influence. Some see political involvement as a way to assert control over others or alleviate personal stress. However, personality traits also affect participation—introverts are generally less inclined to seek political power, while those averse to competition may avoid political engagement. Additionally, low voter turnout in elections is often linked to psychological factors, as people's attitudes toward politics shape their level of involvement. 2.    Social Factors: Social structures and characteristics significantly impact political participation. Factors such as education, social class, gender, age, caste, religion, language, geographical location, and urban-rural differences all contribute to varying levels of political engagement. Societies with high literacy rates tend to have different patterns of political participation compared to those with lower educational levels. In countries like India, caste, religion, gender, and language play dominant roles in shaping political behavior. Caste-based politics, elections, and government formation are key features of Indian political dynamics. 3.    Political Factors: The political environment itself is a primary determinant of political participation. Elements such as the nature of the political system, the state constitution, government structure, political party organization, media presence, and the extent of political freedoms influence citizen involvement. In democratic systems, people are encouraged to participate freely in decision-making processes. They enjoy rights such as voting, contesting elections, holding public office, and expressing political opinions. Additionally, democratic decentralization fosters greater participation. Political parties play a crucial role by acting as agents of political socialization, recruitment, interest representation, and communication. They mobilize citizens through campaigns, movements, and election-related activities, thus increasing political participation. Likewise, the mass media serve as a significant determinant by shaping public opinion and political awareness. In contrast, totalitarian regimes control participation through strict regulations, aiming to secure public compliance with government policies. 4.    Economic Factors: Economic conditions also influence political engagement. People often participate in politics with the expectation of financial or material benefits. The wealthy tend to engage in politics to protect and expand their economic interests, while the poor may struggle to participate due to financial constraints. In some cases, economic hardship can drive political activism out of frustration. The high costs of running for office can act as a barrier, limiting political participation to those with financial resources. In developing countries like India, money power plays a major role in politics. 5.    Environmental Factors: Geographic and environmental conditions can affect political participation. Climate, industrialization, technological development, and demographic patterns all play a role. For instance, people living in extremely hot climates may avoid political campaigns, rallies, and elections during summer months. Similarly, individuals in remote or hilly regions may be less politically active due to geographical challenges. Environmental factors shape the temperament and lifestyle of individuals, indirectly influencing their level of political engagement. 6.    Situational Factors: Specific historical and political circumstances also impact political participation. Major events, government policies, or national movements often serve as catalysts for increased engagement. For example, British colonial rule in India motivated mass participation in the independence movement. Similarly, the Emergency period in India (1975-77) triggered heightened political activism as a response to repressive policies. Government actions and policies frequently serve as stimuli for public participation in politics. The above factors demonstrate that political participation is influenced by multiple determinants, each varying in significance based on context. Together, these psychological, social, economic, political, environmental, and situational factors shape the level and nature of public involvement in the political process. Self Check Exercise-5 Q.1 What factors influence voter turnout in local elections? Q.2 What role do political parties play in mobilizing citizens to participate in the political process? 18.8    Why is Political Participation Important Political participation is one of the best ways for ordinary people to make a substantial change to their community. If people are engaged with the politics of their country, they will better understand where the government is going wrong. Once they have an understanding of the political problems, they will be better equipped to combat them. If this political understanding then becomes political action, the government will have a clearer understanding of why people are unhappy. If everyone in a country participates in politics, it will become much harder for a government to ignore the problems of the people. Therefore, an increase in political participation should mean more will be done to address political and social problems. Self Check Exercise-6 Q. Why is political participation important in a democracy? a)    It ensures authoritarian rule. b)    It allows citizens to have a say in decision-making. c)    It promotes inequality. d)    It restricts individual freedoms. 18.9    Significance of Political Participation These are as under:- 1.    Stability in Political System 2.    Origin of Moral Virturs 3.    Law and Order 4.    No fear of Revolution 5.    Spirit of Patriotism 6.    Spirit of Equality 7.    Development of Citizen 8.    Knowledge about the Role of People Self Check Exercise-7 Q. Write a short note on the Importance of political participation in a democratic Country? 18.10    Summary The above factors clearly shows that there are several determinants of political participation. All these factors influence, in varying degrees, popular participation in politics. These have to be analysed together for analysing peoples and their groups, their role in the political process. No single factor is, individually and continuously, a determinant of political participation. All these factors together determine the level and nature of political participation. However, out of these, social, economic and political factors are the major determinants and these exercise a continuous influence on the process of involvement of the masses in the process of decision-making or policy formulation, i.e., in political participation. 18.11 Glossary •    System: A set of ideas or rules for organizing something; a particular way of doing something. •    Participation: The fact that you take part of become involved in something. For example your participation in this investigation is vital. •    Communication: The act of sharing or exchanging information, ideas or feelings. 18.12 Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See section 18.3 Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. A Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. D 2. C Self Check Exercise-4 Ans. D Self Check Exercise-5 For Answer 1 and 2, See Section 18.7 Self Check Exercise-6 Ans. 1. B Self Check Exercise-7 For Answer, See Section 18.9 18.13    Suggested Readings • For suggested readings see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.1. 18.14    Terminal Questions 1.    What is Political Participation? Explain the Classification of Citizens on the basis of levels of participation. 2.    Explain the meaning and features of Political Participation? 3.    Explain the factors which determine the nature and level of political participation? ***** Unit-19Political Participation in UK, USA and India Structure 19.1    Introduction 19.2    Learning Objectives 19.3    Political Participation in UK Self Check Exercise -1 19.4    Political Participation in USA Self Check Exercise -2 19.5    Political Participation in India Self Check Exercise -3 19.6    Summary 19.7    Glossary 19.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise 19.9    Suggested Readings 19.10    Terminal Questions 19.1    Introduction Political participation in the U.K., U.S.A., and India underscores the essence of democracy within diverse frameworks. The U.K. embodies a parliamentary democracy, fostering citizen engagement through elections and advocacy. In the U.S.A., a federal republic, political participation encompasses voting, activism, and diverse forms of civic engagement. India, the world’s largest democracy, showcases vibrant political participation through elections, grassroots movements, and civil society initiatives, reflecting a rich tapestry of voices and interests. Despite differing systems and contexts, each nation’s political landscape thrives on the active involvement of its citizens in shaping governance and policy. 19.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to : •    Explain about the Political Participation in UK and USA. •    Know about the Political Participate in India. 19.3    Political Participation in UK Constitutional democracy is firmly enterached in the U.K. It provides the power-holders, apparent and latent, to carry on their struggle for power which is at the root of the political process within the constitutional framework. Evidently, the power-holders may be categorized as constitutional and extra-constitutional. To the former belongs the cabinet, the parliament and the bureaucracy, and to the latter, the political parties, pressure groups, etc. so far as the British political system is concerned. Such a distinction is of no consequence for the obvious reason that the constitution is unwritten and no power-holder has any constitutional basis, except that some institutions have been given a statutory basis. In theory, the government of the UK is verted in the crow-in-Parliament which consist of the sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of commons. The Sovereign is nominal. The titular character of the British monarch is testified by two adages : ‘The King (Queen) can do no wrong”, and “the king (Queen) is dead, long live the kind (Queen).” In other words, constitutional monarchy prevails in the UK. The House of Lords, which was once the repository of political power, has now abdicated it in favour of marginal influence, to the House of Commons. Today, the House of commons has also become more formal and nominal in view of the ascendency of the cabinet. In recent times, there is a controversy regarding whether the term ‘cabinet government’ is a mishomer and ‘prime ministerial government’ not a more appropriate description of the British System. Without entering into a discussion on this subject, it would be worthwhile to note that the prime minister, in many respects, has become the ‘first among equals’ in place of ‘first among equals’. But if it is meant that the prime minister can always get his way on any matter then the thesis is false. For instance, in 1967 Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brown wished to take a strong line against Egypt’s closure of the straits of Tiran but failed owing to the resistance of the other cabinet members. On the other hand if he is taken as the most important individual in the cabinet, the statement is true. With this important provision regarding the prime minister’s role, the cabinet is the lower house of the governmental system in the U.K. Blackstone once wrote about “Omnipotence of Parliament”, which resides in the lower house, the House of Commons. It is a big body consisting of 635 elected members, organized on party lines. The bulk of its business, and surely, important business, is carried on through cabinet proposal. The cabinet need not comprise all ministers; actually, it consists of some twenty one members who form the policy making circle. The Prime Minister leads this body of policy maker and as such his position is preeminent in the governmental process. Although the overriding authority of cabinet is an axiomatic fact in the cabinet system, cabinet rule is regulated by certain working conventions. These conventions that government outvoted on a matter of confidence must resign, that with the resignation of the prime minister, the entire cabinet must resign and that the parliament would act as a channel of communication to the government-are devices for effecting inter-organ control of parliament over government. No doubt in the process the opposition cannot but emerge as a power-holder. The opposition is led by the ‘Shadow Cabinet’ with which the cabinet negotiates in hours of crisis. In actuality, inter-organ control by the legislature over the executive in the U.K. is exercised by the ‘Shadow Cabinet’ of the opposition. Normally the opposition’s sphere of action in the decision making is circumscribed for the reasons: First it is excluded from any share in the formulation of governmental policy prior to its presentation in the parliament. Second, when the government presents the policy before the House, it is a minority there. Thus, in the policy-making process, which is an important part of the overall political process, the opposition has a share, however limited in scope. A brief exposition of the non-legitimate power-holders in the system would not be out of place here. Government, in the extended sense, includes the entire leadership apparent and potential. The prime ministers, especially Harold Wilson, recognized the fact that potential power-holders should be kept under control. That is why the government, including the parliamentary private secretaries, constituted a third of the total Labour members of parliament. These parliamentary private secretaries are not salaried personnel; they are trainees for ministerial jobs. They struggle for office, to designate themselves as legitimate power-holders. Political parties in the UK constitute the working hypothesis in governmental operations. But strangely enough, it has no constitutional basis. Political parties and pressure groups are essentially power-holders in the political process. In a parliamentary system, the party and the government are inextricably interwoven. In spite of the existence of multiple groups and interests in a British Society, Britain is one of the few countries where a two-party system has persisted in spite of occasional and temporary interruptions. This is mainly due to the political ethos, as well as the role actually played by the parties in the British political process. The British government is a party government and the British system requires political parties and party discipline. There is broad national consensus about constitutionalism. The parties have generally with a sense of responsibility and with respect for the constitutional foundations of the political system and have provided channels of communications, interaction and cooperation among the various groups. The two- party system has helped to create a system of political responsibility for the prime minister and the cabinet system down to the electorate,’ that makes electoral choice meaningful and significant. It is therefore, by and large admitted that the key to the understanding of British Cabinet government, and for that matter of the British political process, lies in the British party system, especially, party discipline. Party discipline has secured the smooth operation of the system and has provided for effective governmental leadership, effective legislative performance and effective democratic control which respects the rights of the opposition and guarantees fair play between the alternating parties. The existence of two competing and alternating parties, with the electorate holding the balance between them, has ensured one of the most successful patterns of government and political processes of our time. The essence of constitutional democracy is supposed to be the unfettered participation of the most diversified plural groups in the political process. The pressure groups, which have been defined as organized aggregates which seek to influence the content of governmental decisions without attempting to place their members in formal governmental capacities, have an overriding importance for the reality of the British political process, although they still lack legal institutionalization or constituionalization. They arc the non-legitimate power holders in Britain, and the British government is as dependent on pressure groups as it is a party system. Under the British electoral system, the party as a power-holder may occupy political power for a term of five years. The cabinet cannot pursue a coherent policy of action without a disciplined party majority. The necessity of pressure groups becomes urgent to make the polity representative and well conceived. Pressure groups are thus an auxiliary circuit of representation. Pressure groups in the UK may be classified into three catteries interest groups such as trade unions, churches and universities, promotional groups like the society for the protection of wild Birds and Animals, and a hybrid group which is established and finance by interest groups but is propagandist in character. British Society is a mosaic of all these three types of pressure groups. To achieve their objective of influencing the decision-making process, they would surely aim at three targets the executive, the Parliament and the general public. The choice of target is largely a matter of expediency. The operation of pressure groups is no doubt conditioned by political institutions, the party system and the political culture. In Britain, organized groups focus their activities primarily upon the executive. In the face of strict party discipline and the supremacy of the cabinet, legislators are left with little scope for independent decision-making. Only broad questions of legislation are decided by Parliament, leaving the details and their implementation to the executive agencies. Even then, many groups try to influence executive policies through their parliamentary activities. They also play a significance role in representing the interests and objectives of individuals. A tradition has been built up for consultation of pressure groups by appropriate departments. More often than not, these groups are invited to record their opinions in various departmental committees. Members of Parliament are the target of pressure group activity. It is quite customary for members of Parliament to receive both a regular salary and assistance in their campaign expenses in return for representing the view point of an interest group. According to Harry Eckstein, more than a hundred members of Parliament received such payments from labour unions. In 1969, trade union sponsored members of Parliament held 127 to 384 Labour seats in the House of Commons. The interaction between Pressure groups and government hinges on four variables: Formal interest groups, deputations and negotiating committees, formal semi-social contacts, representation on government committee concerned with their affairs, and helping not only to determine government policy, but actually to administer it. While adaptation, stability and general durability of political institutions have been the hallmarks of British politics and political process, with an over whelming majority of the people not favoring any radical, revolutionary or violent changes, there have been signs of unrest, tension, instability and disorder in recent years, as evident from the conflict in Northern Ireland, growing racial tensions, urban crime, human rights abuses, growing fluidity in the party system and electoral politics, decline in leadership qualities, recurring crisis in the institution of monarchy whose future is now questioned and debated, and problems arising out of Britian’s entry into the European community involving loss of identity and further decline in her world status. The future does not augur very well. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 What is the legal voting age in the UK? a) 16         b)18 c) 21          d) 25 Q.2 How often are general elections typically held in the UK? a) Every 3 years     b) Every 4 years c) Every 5 years     d) Every 7 years 19.4    Political Participation in USA Any meaningful analysis of the American political process must move simultaneously on two levels. The premises of policy must be set forth in relation to the precise institutional developments, and second, the analyst must concentrate on the nexus between ideological shadow and operational substance. The logical starting point would, of course, be the constitution of the US, but the puzzling phenomenon is that although the document is clear on structure, the power relationships have never been delineated with any precision. One can, indeed, isolate a number of different political forces and institutions on the American Scene—State governments parties, pressure groups, courts, congressmen, presidents and administrators—which are visible and identifiable entities but in the face of constantly shifting equilibrium and changing coalitions, such institutional forces of themselves cannot provide an insight into the intricacies of the political process. The constitution provided the framework within which power-holders, as the framers of the constitution hoped, should operate. For instance, the President would be obligated to discharge his functions within the constitution, the congress would legislate for the American nation, and the Judiciary would examine the application of law in individual cases. Thus there were these constitutionally designated power-holders in the political process. The underlying assumption of the government organization in the United States was the quoted formation of the separation of powers. This was all the more needed to erect the structure of a constitutional state which means sharing of political power among the power-holders. All the roles cast in the constitution for power- holders have undergone radical changes, mainly because of the enormous upsurge of American industrial power, and the USA’s control role in world politics. The reality of American politics does not permit a neat division of roles of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary into rule making, rule-enforcement and role-adjustication. These formal dements are obviously involved in the resolution of political conflict in the US. All imported decisions are made in the congress, the executive and the judiciary, but -these formal institutions are influenced by the demands and supports from the informal elements and by the nature of the constitution consensus. They are also constant interaction with each other. Richard Neustadt has correctly, observed that constitutional convention created a government of separated institutions sharing power, rather than a government of ‘separated power’. In the pluralist democracy of the United State, the environmental variables continuously work to minimize conflict in politics — such Actors as a common political culture, economic, social and ethnic homogeneity of the people etc. The chief executive, i.e. the President, who combines in him the titular head of state and the actual head of government, has been the centre of gravity in the American constitutional system. His most important function is to provide policy-making leadership to the government. The national government has now the regulate the economy and the social conditions in keeping with the expectations of the people. The role President Rossevelt arrogated to himself emergency powers during the l930’s has now become the duty of the presidency. He is also the main architect of foreign policy. He shoulders tremendous, responsibility and is the prime power- holder in the American political system. S.E. Finer has beautifully expressed this role in the following words: The President is the one focus. The one centre of coherence in the bewieldering variety, profusion, and confusion which mark American society and its government expression. Or more justly, one must say the cure possible focus, the one possible centre of coherence.” The former President Richard Nixon also expressed his concept of the presidency in these very appropriate words: ‘‘He today cannot stand aside form crisis, he cannot ignore division, he cannot simply paper-over disunity. He must lead ... only through an open candid dialogue with the people can a president maintain his trust and leadership. The President cannot isolate himself from the great intellectual ferments of his time... while the President is a leader of thought, he is also a user of thought, and he must be a catalyst of thought... The President’s chief function is to lead, not to administer. The presidency is a place where priorities are set and goals determined.” The constitutionally designated power-holder in the legislative field is the American Congress consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Of the two, the senate shares power with the American President in regard to appointments and foreign relations. The House and the senate has different ways of working. The former is larger, more impersonal and formal in its proceedings, and more hierarchically organized. Its rules are rigid, but it can act quickly, and power is unevenly distribute. The Senate is less hierarchical, more personal and informal, its rules more flexible, but it acts slowly. Power is more evenly distributed. With longer terms and smaller membership, the senate is a-more prestigious institution then the House Taken as a whole. Congress appears to be slow in its operation and, conservative and compromising in domestic matters. Owing to several forces and factors, the past century has witnessed an interesting reversal in the original and intended role of the congress. While the presidency has become the major and dominating focus in policy making, congress has assumed largely a negative role—vetoing proposals of the President, investigating activities of the executive and sometimes reducing appropriations requested by the President. It has become, so to say, a kind of continuing and permanent opposition to the President. It has failed to act promptly, during times of crisis. It lacks effective, responsible leadership. As a result of these, and some other factors like dispersion of power among the committee, weak party discipline and dilatory procedures, congress has failed satisfy critical analyst of the American political analysts, of the American political process. Recently with the Watergate episode, the senate’s stubborn assertion has thrown political and constitutional challenges to the American presidency which is the propeller of the political process but which has now been brought into disrepute by the indiscreet actions of former President Nixon. In the struggle for political power between these two major power-holders, the presidency has in the last few years, yielded the initiative and position to the legislative branch. The American System is undoubtedly one of checks and balances among three coordinate branches of government, but these are not sufficiently reciprocal to achieve a balance among the three power-holders, namely the President, the congress, and the court. The balance of power is constantly changing one branch or the other is exercising leadership at any one point of time. But, except during the 1920, and 1930, when the count was supreme, the role of the American judiciary has been, by and large negative, protective, and controlling rather than steering, propelling, and leading. The power of judicial review of legislation and executive action has several major consequences for the American political system and process. First the judiciary has efficiently and effectively discharged the conflict-resolving function within the American political system. Second it has been one of the chief instruments of balance by exercising interogan control over the other branches of government, by protecting individuals and minorities, and by maintaining the soundness and democratic character of the American political process. Third, by representing some of the more enduring values and long-term points of view, the judiciary sometimes slows down conderable change until it becomes acceptable to a large majority of the people. Fourth, on occasion, the courts themselves have been important instruments of change when other branches have failed to respond to the demands of changing times, as in the segregation cases. Finally, the courts offer an additional channel of communication between the people and their government, and a long -term feedback circuit through which the’ American political system can steer itself. All this said and done, however, the function of the judiciary is not to determine what decisions can be made by political processes, but to prevent the mechanism from breaking down. Thus the courts have performed most creditably and earned an enduring place in the American political life and experience. The American liberal democratic system is characterized by more than one political party, open competition for political power based on established and accepted forms of procedure, and operation of lobbies and pressure groups to influence governmental decisions. An indistinct two-party system obtains in the US, indistinct, because the Democrats and the Republicans differ on different issues but arc not too for apart in ideologies. The US government is not a party government, unlike the UK. The loose federated character of the national party organizations, coupled with the presidential type of government, the vast extent and sectional diversity of the country, and the irrational fear of party machines have resulted in only partisanships, not responsible government. The parties monopolization of national elective office—the Presidency and Congress—gives rise to bipartisanship in the American political system. It is interesting to note that the President’s party may not have control of the congress as during Ronald Reagan’s presidency and also during George Bush’s term. For six of the eight years of Eisenhower’s presidency, the Democrats controlled the congress. Interogan control of the congress over the executive is thus exercised through the parties which are non-legitimate power-holders. The importance of political parties can hardly be exaggerated as an effective instrumentality for gaining access to the policy-making function by infiltration into the legitimate power-holders. The open-ended nature of American parties and the congressional system of working invite the attention of interest groups. Political patties in the US are now subject to a high degree of legislative control resulting in their formal integration into the political process and have been accorded the status of a recognized instrumentality of the political process. They have contributed very effectively to the American political process. In a system of separated powers, the parties have played the role of governmental unifiers and thereby contributed to policy-making. They have served to bridge the divisions of power in American politics, have fostered democracy and encouraged political stability. The role of pressure groups in the political process is perhaps one of the most conspicuous and persistent features of the American political system. In the US, where separation of functions affords considerable scope for independent decision-making by legislators, the pressure groups focus much of their activity on the legislative branch. The impact of these groups is one of the most important external inputs in the American legislative process. Features like the constitutional separation of powers, existence of two separate but equal legislative bodies, the great importance of the committees and their control over the budgetary process, and the lack of party discipline which makes most senators and representatives not only open to individual persuation but concerned about aspring themselves of the widest possible support at the next election and responsible for the interest groups tending to focus attention on the congress. Powerful situational interest groups like the AFL-CIO, and the AMA and attitudinal bodies like the American Legion and various religious groups are able to exert very powerful leverage. Lobbyists also frequently turn to the officials of the executive branch who make many vital decisions almost daily. There is a degree of cooperation and mutual dependence for information, services and support. The powerful groups may even advance or retard the careers of individual administrators and executives. The attention of the groups is sometimes directed even towards the President or his departmental leads in the long run. The President cannot, in fact, extricate himself from lobbying activities. Although generally speaking, the judges are largely insulted from political pressures, the pressure groups may even intervene and affect judicial decisions to some extent. They may influence the selection of judges; and they may file briefs or present oral arguments before a court. Civil Rights groups have also used test cases to dramatize their cause and promote a different interpretation of law or the constitution. Thus, the interest groups play a very decisive part in the American political process by making demands upon the prominent participants of the political system by providing-creative energy to it, by supporting it, and by sharing a legitimate place in the policy-making process. The main criticism against the American model of pluralist democracy in which interest groups with their policy interests try to influence congressional committees and administrative agencies has been that it carries with it the inevitable consequence of highly unequal power and influence of certain classes or grant corporations which stand behind these interest groups. The pluralist competition, according to E.E. Schattschneiderr, is not open to groups other than certain well-organized or powerful interests. Writers like C. Wright Mills have described this process as .elitist and based on unequal power and resources of interest groups. It is apparently hard to reconcile the fact that the world’s largest liberal democratic system has been putting up with a political process that is mostly manipulated by a few extrenched interest, and also that these giant corporations even enjoy considerable political and public support. This political process has also generated large-scale corruption in high places justified in some quarters by the capitalist correct of social utility of greed. There is a virtual neglect of public interest as opposed to private gain that has dominated political discourse in the United States. The penetrative thrust of the powerful interest groups indicates how porous and fragile the system has become. The operation of the political parties has failed to find a way out and the concept of equal opportunity does not sound genuine and realistic either. Urgent reform must be a top priority on the American national agenda. Whether the 1990’s would herald a turning point in history, as compared wife with the earlier Bush Reagan era, would be observed wife keen interest by scholars and students of American and comparative politics in the coming years. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. What is the minimum age requirement for voting in federal elections in the United States? a) 16         b) 18 c) 21          d) 25 19.5    Political Participation in India To understand the operation of the Indian political system or the nature of the political process, we need to find answers to some questions, namely, what are the groups which operate in the system, how they recruit people, how they communicate their interest and how they are aggregated. It is also necessary to find out the extent, to borrow Almond’s model, to which the rule-making, rule-application and rule adjudication functions are being carried out within or outside of the formal structures or institutions. In an industrialized society, the groups are organised mainly around economic interests, over and above the normal patterns of social, cultural and ideological associations. These groups articulate the claims and interests, and make demands upon the government. These claims are fed into the state mechanism and reconciled in the form of policy decisions. Pressure groups in these political systems play an important role in the decision-making process. In the political process of the west. One generally comes across more formally and explicitly organized interests but in the non-western systems, one find a far greater informality and many interests are unrepresented by concrete associations. In general, two lands of interests are expressed and organized in India—functionally specific economic interests such as those of landlords, peasants, trade unions, businessmen, refugees, etc., and interest organised around traditional loyalties to caste, tribe and community. Of these interests, the economic interests are more highly organized than other. The associations representing tire business in India are far more efficient and there are also community interests and institutional interest groups in India. The army and the administrative services are potential political forces, but not as prominent as in other South Africa or Middle-East countries. The Chambers of commerce may have some influence on industrial policy and taxation measures, and trade unions have some effect on industrial relation legislation and wage-policy, but there is not much direct involvement of interest lobbies in the making of public policy, and the major development programmes are conceived almost independently of the interest groups. It is left primarily to the political parties to adopt or reject the major interest pleadings and aggregate them into party policy. There is a general political domination over interest groups. From the point of view of the party system, the most obvious fact about the Indian political process is the continued dominance of the Congress Party up to 1977, and from 1980 till the coming of the National Front Government, and finally from the end of 1991 to 1996. It has been the main channel of political activity in India for nearly a century. It has provided governmental stability from 1947, and has generally been an integrating force. Though primarily “one-party dominant” in character, up to march 1977, the Indian political system embraced a multitude of national, regional and local parties, only a few of which have so far succeeded in retaining their organizational identities. The opposition parties lacked leadership and firm policy, although some of them had ousted the congress from power and formed independent or coalition government in some states. The congress party itself was a sprawling coalition of many diverse groups, including right-wing conservatives, rnoderate socialists, left-wing socialists, orthodox Hindus, large land-owners and landless labourers. In the context of the Indian political process, the congress party only ‘aggregated diverse interests, but also served as an important communication network in the political system. As for the governmental structures and the output functions, in terms of the constitution, the central government is headed by a President who is the ceremonial head of state in a parliamentary form of government. The parliament, headed formally by the President, is controlled by the council of minister with the prime minister at its head. The prime minister is the effective, de facto source of executive power, the chief policy-maker. The cabinet, made up of senior ministers, is responsible collectively to the parliament. The bureaucracy is subject to the control of the executive, i.e., the prime minister. Rule-making functions are in the hands of the prime minister and the cabinet. Parliament had the functions of articulating interests and of ratifying government decisions. On many occasions in the past, Parliament had been able to modify government policies. The functions of rule- application and ruleadjudication are performed by a highly centralized administrative and judicial system. In general therefore, it can be said that functions of rule-making, rule-application, and ruleadjudication are in reality performed by those institutions of government specified in the constitution as having responsibility for the performance of these functions. Thus, these modem political structure perform their functions against tire peculiar ways of functioning of foe communication, articulation and aggregation processes in a country which had no democratic tradition, but which is committed to new values of economic development, national unity, and the democratic process. From the point of view of the political process, the most important casualty has been the party system and for a variety of reasons the integrating force of the congress Party has been totally lost. The party has degenerated into a motley group of assorted self-seeking power hungry and opportunistic individuals and factions without any ideological foundation or organization cohesion and sense of purpose or mission. No less a person than the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had made an angry but pathetic confession that the party consisted only of cliques which followed the path of self-aggrandizement, corrupt ways, linkage with vested interests and their sanctimonious posturing. Corruption was not only tolerated, but was ever regarded as a hallmark of leadership. There is genuine and general disillusionment with the leadership. For the last couple of years, there has been a general weakening of credibility of the democratic institutions. This is evident from the increasing social and political violence. The political system shows signs of disintegration. Whether there is a growing crisis of ‘governability; arising, out of a highly interventionist but ineffectual national government and weak and fragmented politic parties, or the roots of this crisis lie mainly in India’s political structure and process, is a matter of debate. There is a growing organizational vacuum at the core of India’s political space. The political process stands fragmented and few mechanisms are available for resolving the power conflicts. Parliament has not been functioning as a significant and effective political body. There is an all round decay in India’s authority structures. There is also a growing doubt about the state’s capacity to simultaneously accommodate disparate interests and promote development. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. What is the minimum age requirement for voting in India? a) 16 years b) 18 years c) 21 years d) 25 years 19.6    Summary In examining political participation across the UK, USA, and India, it’s evident that while each country possesses unique democratic structures, fostering inclusive engagement remains vital. By addressing systemic barriers and promoting civic education, these nations can enhance democratic vitality and citizen empowerment. 19.7    Glossary •    U.K : United Kingdom •    U.S.A: United States of America 19.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. 1. B            Ans.2. C Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. B Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. B 19.9    Suggested Readings • For suggested readings see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.1. 19.10    Terminal Questions 1.    Define Political Participation? Explain the factors which determine it. 2.    Write a brief note on Political Participation in UK and USA? ***** Unit-20Voting Behaviour Structure 20.1    Introduction 20    .2 Learning objectives 20.    3 Voting Behaviour Self Check Exercise-1 20.4    Determinants of Voting Behaviour in India Self Check Exercise-2 20.5    Summary 20.6    Glossary 20.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise 20.8    Suggested Readings 20.9    Terminal Questions 20.1    Introduction Voting behavior, a dynamic field in political science, examines the psychological, sociological, and economic factors influencing electoral choices. It delves into how individuals make decisions at the ballot box, considering party loyalty, candidate charisma, issue salience, and demographic trends. Understanding these complexities is crucial for shaping effective political strategies. 20.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Understand the meaning of Voting Behaviour. •    Understand the determinants of voting behaviour. 20.3    Voting Behaviour In the previous unit, you explored political parties and pressure groups. This unit delves into the meaning, evolution, and factors influencing voting behavior. According to Riggs, "Voting behavior is a field of study that examines how individuals vote in public elections and the reasons behind their choices." It involves analyzing human political behavior in the context of elections. The study of voting behavior provides insight into the minds of millions of voters engaged in the political process. This area of political science allows for the systematic and qualitative measurement and testing of theories. In simple terms, voting behavior refers to the patterns and influences that shape how individuals cast their votes. It seeks to understand the factors that determine or influence voter decisions. The study of voting behavior goes beyond analyzing voting records and electoral data; it also considers psychological factors and institutional frameworks. Ultimately, voting behavior reflects how people vote in public elections and the underlying reasons for their choices, including their preferences, ideologies, concerns, and available alternatives. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Define Voting Behaviour? 20.4    Determinants of Voting Behaviour in India India is the world's largest functioning parliamentary democracy. Every citizen aged 18 and above has the right to vote in Indian elections. The following factors influence voting behavior in India: 1.    Caste: Caste remains a significant factor influencing voting behavior in India. Deeply embedded in society, it plays a crucial role in shaping social relationships at all levels. Despite constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination based on caste, it continues to affect political behavior. The politicization of caste and the prevalence of caste-based politics are well-established aspects of the Indian political system. Political parties, without exception, take caste into account when formulating policies, programs, and election strategies. Caste plays a key role in candidate selection for elections, and votes are often solicited based on caste identity. Slogans like "Thakur Ki Vote Thakur Ko," "Jat Ki Vote Jat Ko," and caste-based vote calculations, such as Brahmin votes versus Jat votes, are commonly used in election strategies. The formation of political parties to protect or promote caste interests has been a recurring feature in Indian politics. For example, Tamil Nadu's DMK and AIADMK are known for their anti-Brahmin stance, while castebased political representation is evident in states like Andhra Pradesh, where communities like Kammas, Reddys, and Nairs have their own political influence. Caste remains the dominant factor in voter preferences, especially in rural areas. Despite the adoption of democratic principles that promote a caste-free society, caste continues to define Indian politics. The implementation of the Mandal Commission's recommendations for job reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and the political reactions it provoked highlight caste’s enduring role in Indian politics. However, there are signs of change, particularly in urban areas, where issue-based political discourse is gradually emerging. Nevertheless, the situation remains paradoxical, as caste continues to exert a strong influence over voting patterns. 2.    Religion: Although India is a secular state that guarantees freedom of religion, treats all religions equally, and does not endorse any religion as the state religion, religion still plays a significant role in political behavior, including voting patterns. The presence of religionbased political parties and groups, such as the Muslim League, Akali Dal, Hindu Mahasabha, and Shiv Sena, contributes to the continued impact of religion on electoral decisions. Religious diversity in India greatly influences political competition. Candidates are often selected based on the religious composition of a constituency, and politicians frequently use religious rhetoric to appeal to voters from their own faith while adopting a secular stance with others. The use of religious sites for political purposes, particularly during elections, is a common practice. Political parties also tend to frame socio-political issues through a religious lens. The Punjab conflict has had a strong religious dimension, and religiously driven politics—whether Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or Christian—remains a part of India's political landscape. Many voters continue to base their electoral choices on religious considerations. 3.    Language: India is a linguistically diverse country, with 22 official languages and hundreds of other languages and dialects. Language plays a crucial role in shaping political behavior, and linguistic identity often influences voting patterns. The reorganization of Indian states along linguistic lines underscores the significance of language in politics. Language-related disputes frequently arise in various states, often concerning the status of a particular language. For instance, in Haryana, there has been a demand to recognize Punjabi as the second official language, while in Karnataka, some groups advocate for Kannada to be the sole medium of instruction in schools, a move opposed by other linguistic communities. Similar linguistic issues exist across different states, as people have strong emotional attachments to their native languages. Whenever language-related issues emerge, they tend to sway voters, as linguistic identity remains an influential factor in Indian elections. 4.    Personality Factor: Personality is another factor which influences voting behaviour in India. There have been leaders in India like Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Man Mohan Singh, Narender Modi whose personalities have played a key role in determining a voter's attitude apart from his feelings about issues and his party affiliation. The organisation of political parties around the personalities of charismatic or popular leaders is a standard practice. The personality of the leader at the top of the party has always been a remarkable factor of popular support. Some political parties and state political systems are dominated by several popular leaders. The role of personality as a factor of voting behaviour becomes clear if we see that despite some wave-elections in India, some opposition leaders have always won elections only because of their honesty, integrity and personality. The Indian voters, in general, prefer to vote for an honest or charismatic candidate. 5.    Money Factor: India is a poor Country with a large number of people living below the poverty line. Money, as such, plays a vital role in determining the voting behaviour of the people in India. A rich candidate or party always has better chances of winning the elections. But it is to be pointed out here that it happens only in normal circumstances and not during a wave election or when other key issues are involved. 6.    Education: It is often seen that the educated people take more interest in casting their vote as compared to the illiterates because they know the importance of their right to vote and consider the use of this right a national duty. They know that they can elect the government of their choice by executing their right to vote. Thus, education affects the voting behaviour of person and with the spread of education. 7.    Political Slogans: Sometimes different political parties raise the populist slogans according to the need of the time and affect the thinking of the voters. For example, congress raised the slogan of, 'garibi hatao' in 1971. During the 16th Lok sabha election the slogans like 'Aabki bar Modi sarkar. Other slogans like shining India, “ Abki baar Modi Sarkaar, Sabka Sath Sabka Vikaas or Sabka Pryas”etc. 8.    Personal contacts: Personal contacts of the candidate and voters also affect the voting behaviour of the voters. Most of the voters get influenced by personal visits of the candidate and they cast their vote in their favour. Besides this, the relatives and friends of the candidate also cast their votes in favour of them because of their personal relationship. 9.    Sub-nationalism: India's societal fabric is deeply influenced by ethnic pluralism, communalism, regionalism, and sub-nationalism. In recent times, sub-nationalism has played a significant role in shaping voter behavior. On certain occasions, separatist groups call for election boycotts and exert pressure to either discourage voting or sway votes in favor of specific parties. Regional political entities such as certain factions of the Akali Dal, Naga Nationalist Organisation, Gorkha League, Jharkhand Party, AASU, and AAGSP in Assam have, at times, propagated narrow regional interests, disrupting the emotional unity of their respective states. These actions have occasionally led sections of the population to align themselves along narrow, parochial lines. 10.    Performance of the Party in Power: Political parties contest elections based on their manifestos, outlining their promises to the electorate. Once in power, they are expected to fulfill these commitments. The success or failure of the ruling party in delivering on these promises significantly influences voter behavior. People assess the party's performance based on the pledges it made and how many were actually fulfilled. 11.    Mass Illiteracy: Illiteracy remains a crucial factor affecting voting patterns in India. Due to a lack of education, political parties, communal organizations, and extremist groups often manipulate public sentiments along caste, religious, and regional lines. Since illiterate voters constitute a significant portion of the electorate, they play a major role in determining election outcomes. However, despite this challenge, common sense and past experiences have helped shape voters’ decisions to some extent. 12.    Factionalism: Factionalism is a defining characteristic of Indian political life, from local governance to national politics. No party, including cadre-based parties like the BJP and the Communist parties, is entirely free from internal divisions. As political analyst Rajni Kothari observed, factionalism is prevalent across all levels of the Congress Party, weakening its organizational strength despite its historical significance. Other parties also struggle with internal divisions, leading to voter disillusionment. Consequently, many voters turn to smaller regional parties, which, due to their limited scope, tend to experience fewer factional disputes. 13.    Party Affiliations: In well-established political systems like those in the U.S. and U.K., parties have loyal, long-term supporters whose affiliations strongly influence their voting choices. These party loyalties often determine individuals' perspectives on national and international matters. Similarly, in India, each party has a dedicated base of committed voters. Even in its weakest electoral phase in 1977, the Congress Party still secured 34.5% of the popular vote. Although non-Congress parties have historically received a majority of the vote share, their inability to form a united front has often prevented them from securing a parliamentary majority. Notably, in 1977, their unity under the Janata Party led to Congress’s defeat, and in 1989, strategic alliances and electoral adjustments yielded significant gains. However, political affiliations in India remain fluid, with a large portion of voters willing to switch parties. This volatility in voter behavior plays a crucial role in determining election outcomes. 14.    Public Image of the Candidate: A candidate's reputation, personal rapport with constituents, and past contributions significantly influence voter preferences. While party loyalty and policy positions matter, voters often consider their personal interactions and experiences with the candidate. A well-regarded candidate can boost a party’s electoral chances, as people tend to support approachable leaders who can address their concerns. Even during strong electoral waves favoring a particular party, individual candidates from rival parties can still secure victories if they have a strong personal following. The presence of successful independent candidates in elections underscores the importance of a candidate’s public image in shaping voting behavior. 15.    Impact of Current Events: Ongoing social, political, and economic developments play a decisive role in shaping voter behavior. Events occurring close to election periods can significantly influence electoral outcomes. For example, economic hardships, price hikes, and shortages during 1966-67 weakened public support for the Congress Party. In contrast, the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984 triggered a massive sympathy wave that bolstered Congress (I) and Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership. Similarly, Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in 1991 mitigated an electoral shift away from Congress, securing a favorable swing for the party. Public reactions to government decisions, such as the violent protests following the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990, also impacted the ruling party’s popularity. Events like the Kargil conflict and the Bofors scandal further demonstrate how current issues influence voter decisions. 16.    Election Campaigns:- Each party launches a vigorous election campaign for influencing the voters in its favour. Use of such means as mass meetings, street meetings, personal contacts posters, poster war speeches by film stars, T.V. and Radio broadcasts, newspaper advertisements, hand bills processions and propaganda is made to win votes, particularly the floating votes. The Election campaign is designed to make a voter believe that his interest can be best served by the party/the candidate of the voters. A party which is in a position to create an impression through its election campaign that it has a chance to wm, can earn some additional votes as several voters try to side with the side which they perceive to be the winning side. 17.    Local Issues:- Local issues always influence the choice of the voters. A regional or a local party tries to identify itself with local issues and thereby secures for itself popular local success of the Jhaikliand Mukti Morcha in the Jharkhand region of Bihar is a classic example which highlights the role of local issues as a determinant of voting behaviour. All regional parties try to win elections on local issues. Even contest the Lok Sabha elections, the projections are made for securing local goals through a role in politics. 18.    Mass Media, Opinion Poll, Protest Movements, Agitations and Political Movements:- Like every other democratic political system, the means of mass media and public movements and agitations always act as a determinant of voting behaviour. In fact, all agencies of public opinion always act as determinants of voting behaviour. 19.    Agenda for Development:- Recently a positive change has started coming in Indian politics. In their respective election manifestoes, the political parties have been giving important place to a development agenda. All political parties have faith in the principles of liberalisation, privatization and market economy and all of them accept the objective of securing socialistic goals through democratic means. However, each tries to project its own development agenda. At the time of 16th Lok Sabha elections, the BJP, particularly its priministrial candidate Narender Modi demanded votes from the people in the name of securing rapid all round socio-economic growth, and sustainable development. He promised that if voted to power, the BJP would pursue this objective as its first priority. Similar agenda was also projected by the Congress. The Left Parties also promised to work for securing comprehensive and rapid socio-economic development thorough a socialist agenda. The development agenda offered by etch political party is hotly debated by the people, particularly their interest groups and Indian media. In fact, Development agenda offered by each party acted as a major determinant of the voting behaviour of the people during the run up to the election of the 16th Lok Sabha. Other Factor: In addition to the above factors, there are also various other factors, which determine the voting behavior of the Indian electorate. These are mentioned below: (i)    Political events preceding an election like war, murder of a leader, corruption, scandal etc. (ii)    Economic conditions at the time of election like inflation, food shortage, unemployment etc. (iii)    Age-old or young (iv)    Sex-men or women (v)    Education- education or uneducated (vi)    Habitation- rural or urban (vii)    Class (income)-rich or poor (viii)    Family and Kinship (ix)    Candidate orientation (x)    Election campaign (xi)    Political family background Self Check Exercise-2 Q. 1 What is a common demographic factor influencing voting behavior? A) Age                   B) Eye color C) Food            D) cloths Q.2 What is the role of education in voting behavior? A) No role          B) Minor role C) Significant role   D) Negative role Q.3 How does the media influence voting behavior? A)    It has no influence. B)    It shapes opinions and perceptions. C)    It only provides entertainment. D)    It confuses voters. 20.5    Summary We can say, Voting Behaviour in India is influenced by factors like caste, religion, language, region, class, education, money, slogans etc. Traditional loyalties often shape voter choices, but growing awareness, education, and media exposure are encouraging issue based voting. Democracy in India thrives on this dynamic and evolving electoral engagement. 20.6    Glossary: •    Monarchy: Monarchy Originally meant the 'rule of one' but the word has now come to be attached to the constitution of Kingship, and queenship that is usually conceived as hereditary, though many posts which we would consider as monarch. •    Separation of Power: The division of governmental functions and powers among different branches of government, so that the various self-interests of each group would moderate those of others. •    USSR: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 20.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See Section 20.3 Self Check Exercise-2 1. A          2. C 3. B 20.8    Suggested Readings • For suggested readings see, the list given at the end of the Unit No.1. 20.9    Terminal Questions 1.    What is meant by Voting Behaviour? Discuss the determinants of voting behavior in India? 2.    What do you mean by voting Behaviour? Discuss the various determinants of voting Behaviour in U.K. and USA? ***** 163