--- title: "Complete Book 0" book: "MA Pol.Sc 202 Final" category: "MA" publisher: "Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd." type: "Educational Material" ---  According to Latest Syllabus Read For Sure SuccessIn University Examination RATAN TEXT BOOK COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS : CONCEPTS AND RECENT THEORIES M.A.Political Science (Sem-II) Dr. Gauri Tripathi 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 :978-81-69604-58-1 Price 328.00 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-1 POLITICAL CULTURE: MEANING AND CONCEPT Structure 1.1    Introduction 1.2   Learning Objectives 1.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Culture Self Check Exercise-1 1.4    Components of Political Culture 1.4.1    Cognitive Orientation 1.4.2    Affective Orientation 1.4.3    Evaluative Orientations Self Check Exercise-2 1.5   Summary 1.6   Glossary 1.7   Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 1.8   Suggested Readings 1.9    Terminal Questions 1.1    Introduction Politics is an integral aspect of human existence, influencing individuals in various ways within different political systems. People's engagement in politics is shaped by their values, beliefs, attitudes, and perspectives toward political matters. In other words, the sociological and psychological environment plays a crucial role in shaping the functioning of any political system. To understand political behavior, it is essential to analyze this environment, leading to the development of the concept of Political Culture. Every political system operates within a framework of societal values, beliefs, and orientations—collectively known as political culture. As Davies and Lewis suggest, "Political systems function within a structure of meanings and objectives, which define the political culture of a society." A comprehensive study of politics must consider its connection with political culture. This realization has led to efforts in defining and conceptualizing political culture, with Gabriel Almond being a key contributor in introducing this concept. In this unit, we will explore the meaning, definitions, and components of Political Culture. 1.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to : •    Understand the concept of Political culture. •    Know the conponents of Political Culture. •    Explain the types of Political Culture. 1.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Culture •    Explaining the meaning of the term, Rose and Dogan have observed : “The concept of Political Culture is a convenient shorthand way of referring to the values, beliefs and emotions that give meaning to political life.” The sum total of individual beliefs, values and emotions constitutes the political culture of a country. •    In the words of Almond and Powell, “Political Culture is the pattern of Individual altitudes and orientations towards politics among the members of a Polilical system.” Political Culture consists of those attitudes, values and skills, which are current in an entire population as well as those special propensities and patterns which may be formed within separable parts of the population. •    Roy Macridis observes, “Political Culture means commonly shared goals and commonly accepted rules.” •    According to A.R. Ball, “Political Culture is composed of the attitudes, beliefs, emotions and values of society related to Political System and to political issues.” •    Pye and Sidney Verba observe, “Political Culture consists of the system of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols and values which define the situation in which political action takes place.” •  According to Samuel Beer, “The components of Political Culture are values, beliefs and emotional altitudes about how government ought to be conducted and what should it do.” •    According to Dennis Kawanagh, “Political Culture is an expression to denote the emotional and attitudinal environment within which the political system works.” •    Eric Row observes, “A Political Culture is a pattern of individual values, beliefs and emotional attitudes.” •    R. Rose offers a comprehensive definition when he writes. “The Political Culture of a nation consists of the characteristic altitudes of its population towards basic features of the political system - the community to be included within its boundaries, the nature of the regime, the definition of what government is expected to do and refrain from doing and the role of individuals as participants and passive subjects of grvernment.” From these definitions, it becomes clear that just as culture is an accumulation of thoughts, values and objects - the social heritage acquired by us from preceding generations through informal as well as formal learning; likewise, Political Culture is the sum total of values, beliefs, orientations and attitudes of the people which they learn or acquire from the system and which influences their behaviour as actors of the political system. It is the psychological environment that surrounds the political system and affects its working. Self- Check Exercise-1 Q. what is political culture? a)    The study of political systems. b)    The beliefs, values, and attitudes about politics shared by a society. c)    The analysis of political ideologies. d)    The examination of political institutions. 1.4    Components of Political Culture For analysing the political culture of a political system, we can adopt the conceptualization of Almond. He observes, “Political Culture can be analysed and measured in terms of its two components - orientations and political objects, because political culture is basically a sum total of the orientations of the people towards political objects.” This acceptance gives rise to the need for defining these two terms : Orientation and Political Object. (A) What is Orientation? Wasby offers a very simple and comprehensive definition of orientation. He defines it as “an outlook, either general in nature or focussed on a limited aspect of one’s surroundings. These outlooks, which cover more than Individual altitudes or opinions, help the individual sort out, emphasize and evaluate the stimuli coming from the would around him. A particular pattern or aggregate of political orientations becomes a political culture.” Orientations have three dimensions or components :-1.4.1 Cognitive Orientation These refer to the orientations resulting from the knowledge and beliefs about political objects, e.g., knowledge about how the whole political system works, who are the leaders and what are the current problems of polity? 1.4.2 Affective Orientation These involve orientations resulting from feelings of attachment, involvement, rejection, and the like, about political objects, e.g., feelings of alienation or rejection towards the political system or positive identification with the system as a whole, etc. 1.4.3 Evaluative Orientation These include judgements and opinions about political objects, which usually involve applying of value standards to political objects and events. These three dimensions of orientations are inter-related and may be combined in a variety of ways, even within the same individual as he considers various aspects of political system. These significantly influence the working of the political system. The demands and supports which flow into the Political System, and consequently the authoritative values made by the political system, are greatly determined by the orientations of the people. In order to establish the nature of general orientation of the people towards politics, information must be gathered about the three dimensions of orientations – Cognitive (Knowledege of), Affective (Feelings for) and Evaluative (Judgement about) political objects. Self-Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Which component of political culture emphasizes the importance of individuals’ beliefs and values in shaping political behavior? A)    Cognitive dimension B)    Affective dimension C)    Evaluative dimension D)    Behavioral dimension (B) What is Political Object? Orientations of the people are directed towards political objects. A political objects is an object which acts as a stimulus for generating orientations. Explaining objects of political orientation. Almond and Powell observe, “Objects of political orientation included the political system as a whole, particular political roles or structures (politicl parties, Interest groups, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, Rights, etc.) individual or group incumbents of such roles (president, Prime Minister, Cabinet, Ministry, etc.) and specific public policies and issues. They also include other political actors and the self as political actors. 1.5    Summary In conclusion, political culture encompasses the shared beliefs, values, and behaviors that shape a society’s political life. It comprises cognitive, affective, and evaluative components, influencing citizens’ attitudes towards government, authority, and civic engagement. Understanding its definition and components illuminates the intricate dynamics of a nation’s political landscape. 1.6    Glossary •    Regime: A regime is a system or government, often with connotations of authority or control, governing a country or organization. •    Cognitive: “Cognitive” refers to mental processes like perception, reasoning, memory, and problem-solving, central to understanding human intelligence and behavior. 1.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. B Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. A 1.8    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 2. 1.9    Terminal Questions 1.    What is Political Culture? How we can analyse Political Culture? 2.    What is Political Culture? Discuss its Component? ***** Unit-2 TYPES OF POLITICAL CULTURE Structure 2.1    Introduction 2.2    Learning objectives 2.3    Types of Political 2.3.1    Parochial Political Culture 2.3.2    Subject Political Culture 2.3.3    Participant Political Culture 2.3.4    Mixed Political Culture Self Check Exercise-1 2.4    Determinants of Political Culture Self Check Exercise-2 2.5    Utility of the Concept of Political Culture Self Check Exercise-3 2.6    Summary 2.7    Glossary 2.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 2.9    Suggested Readings 2.10    Terminal Questions 2.1    Introduction This Unit examines the diverse forms, influences, and practical applications of political culture. By analyzing its types, determinants, and utility, we unravel how shared beliefs, values, and attitudes shape political behavior, institutions, and policies in societies around the globe. 2.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Explain the Various types of Political Culture •    Know the importance of Political Culture 2.3    Types of Political Culture By relating orientations of the people towards the four categories of political objects, Almond specifies three distinct types of Political Cultures-Parochial, Subject and Participant Political Cultures. These are as under : 2.3.1    Parochial Political CuIture It characterises traditional societies in which the people are backward and ignorant about their political systems. In such systems, there is very little specialisation of functions and there is combination of economic, political and religious roles. Individual orientations towards the four categories of political objects is negatives. He is ignorant of the agencies at government. He is aware of only his local community. He is not oriented to political action. 2.3.2    Subject Political Culture Such political culture is found in a society where people are oriented to the system as a whole and to its specifically output aspects. Orientations towards the other two objects, i.e., inputs and the self as political actor are absent individual accept the system and its outputs passively, even negatively. They accept the values created by the system uncritically and passively. They do not attempt to participate and change the system. This type of Political Culture is found in developing societies. 2.3.3    Participant Political Culture In this kind of political culture, the individuals are fully aware of the four objects. They are active members of the polity, are conscious of their rights and duties, and are aware of the things which are happening as well as of the ways in which these are happening. Individuals have knowledge of, feelings for and judgement about the four categories of political objects. They participate in the activities of the political system and are continuously engaged in evaluation and criticism of the system. This type of political culture is found in developed societies. Mixed Political Cultures However, these three types of political cultures are extreme types. No society is characterised by a single variety of political culture. In tact, as Almond himself states that all political systems are of culturally mixed character. The decision about the type of political culture is made on the basis of predominant patterns of orientation to political action within that society. No political culture exists in a pure form. In every society, a mixture of these varieties is found. Almond refers to four mixed types of political cultures. These are : (1) The Parochial-Subject Culture, (3) The Subject-Participant Culture. (3) The Parochial-Participant Culture, and (4) The Civic Culture, which combines ail characteristics of all three ‘pure’ types-Parochial-Subject-Participant Political Cultures. Political Cultures have been classified by several other political scientists-into several other kinds or types : (1)    Civic Culture : It characterises developed societies like the American society, in which people, though governed through their elected representatives, keep on taking active part in various processes ot politics. (2)    Secular Political Culture : It characterises a society in which people are secular in their outlook and all of them participate in decision-making process, which is worked as a rational process. The traditional and oriental altitudes are voluntarily changed through dynamic decisions. (3)    Ideological Political Culture : In this type of political culture, people are guided and controlled in favour of political orientalions which are determined, encouraged and based on a particular ideology. Through controlled political socialization, propaganda and educational system, the desired orientations are sought to be developed among the people of the political system. (4)    Homogeneous Political Culture : Such a political culture exists where people have been living under a political system which has been continuously characterised by the same set of values, beliefs, orientations and altitudes towards political action. There are different political parties and groups but they share common long-cherished values, ideas and ideologies. (5)    Fragmented Political Culture : It characterises a political system in which different people and their groups share different types of values or ideologies. In this type, different sections of society have different patterns of cultural development. The political systems operating in different societies of the globe can be classified in terms of their political cultures. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Which type of political culture is characterized by low levels of political participation and a sense of powerlessness among citizens? a) Participant political culture b) Subject political culture c) Parochial political culture              d) Traditional political culture Q.2 Which type of political culture often characterizes newly formed democracies? A)    Traditional                            B) Post-materialist C) Modern                     D) Subject Q.3 Which of the following countries is commonly associated with a traditional political culture? A) Sweden                   B) Japan C) Canada                   D) France 2.4 Determinants of Political Culture/Factors responsible for development of Political Culture. The following can be described as the key determinants or factors of Political Culture:- 1.    The Historical Factor : History plays an important role in the making and evolution of Political Culture. Historical events always influence the shaping of political culture in a big way. French political culture bears a deep impact on the French Revolution and the “Declaration of Rights of Man and of Citizen.” Likewise, the American Declaration of independence, the War of Independence and the Civil War of mid – 19th century exercised a big influence upon the American Political Culture. In the case of British Political Culture, the signing of the Magna Carta 1215, Petition of Rights 1628, the 17th century struggle between the King and the Parliament over the issue of supremacy, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, etc. have all played a deterministic role. Soviet Political Culture (1917-1991) was determined by the Socialist Revolution of 1917. The Indian Political Culture bears Ihe influence of events of lhe freedom Struggle and the contact with western civilization and culture. As such, the Political Culture of each society is greatly influenced by the Historical events. 2.    Political Continuity or Discontinuity : The continuity or discontinuity of a political system determine the nature of its political culture. Continuity of political process helps the evolution of a participant political culture and secures the linkage between the Past and the present. “The importance of political continuity in a country like Britain, “ writes A.R. Ball, “lies in the fact that their older values have been allowed to merge with modern attitudes undisturbed by violent internal strife or domination by foreign power.” British Monarchy stands merged with Democracy. Conservatism stands supplemented by liberalism. In the U.S.A., too, the continuity of political tradition has helped the evolution of a developed and participant political culiure. Pakistan’s stunts with democracy between two long periods of military dictatorships have hindered the process of development of a uniform and clear political culture. People of Pakistan struggle for democracy while living under a military dictatorship but fail to manage the political system when it becomes democratic. As aganist this, continuity of political development in a uniform democratic way is gradually helping India to develop a democratic political culture. 3.    Geographical Factor : Geography plays a big role in determining the political culture of the society. Favourable location has helped Britain to meet successfully foreign invasions. Small size has helped Britain to maintain the continuity of its political traditions. The vast size and diversities have helped the Americans to accept the values of equality and freedom for all. Geography did play a role in the spread of socialism to Eastern European countries. The Swiss political culture clearly reflects the impact of the geographical features, of Switzerland. Acceptance of ‘Neurality’ as a national value has burn secured, and it stands determined by the geographical location of Switzerland as a small country surrounded by four big neighbours. 4.    Socio-Economic Factors : Socio-economic factors always plays a deterministic role in laying down the foundations of the political culture and in securing a change in the orientations of the people towards political objects and actions. Levels of poverty, employment, urbanization, literacy, etc..play a leading role in shaping the political culture of a society. In this age of science and technology, the development of agriculture and industry always influences the political culture. The development developments in the field of science and technology have their Impact on the process of transportation and communication, migrations and immigrations, imports and exports, revolutions and warfares. All these factors, in turn, lead to changes in political values and beliefs of the people. Increasing urbanisatiion and the rise of big metropolis cities always lead to a mixing of the peopleswith different values and orientations. These mixtures always play a big role in introducing changes in the political culture. 5.    Ethnic Factor : The existence ot ethnic differences and ethnic conflicts among several ethnic groups or minorities which live in the society always determine the nature of political culture. Ethnic pluralism as manifested in linguistic, cultural, religious and social diversities play a deterministic role in the evolution of the political culture and the regional sub-political cultures. Ethnic diflerences and conflicts give rise to the emergence of strong subpolitical cultures within the national political culture. 6.    Ideological Factor : The concept of political culture refers to orientations -cognitive, affective and evaluative, towards political objects and actions. These orientations are greatly influenced by the ideology or ideologies that are popular with the people. As a set of principles offering an explanation of a given phenomenon or even life in society, an ideology plays an important role in forming and changing people’s values, commitments and orientations. It influences the cognitive, affective and evaluative orientations of the people towards political objects and actions. Ideology of Marxism determined the nature of political cultures ol’several states which later on adopted socialism as the value. Influence of ideology of Liberalism has now been instrumental in changing the orientations of the people of socialist slates towards their polilical system. Indian Political Culture bears the impact of the ideology of Liberal Democratic Socialism. All these factors are the determinants of political culture. Together, these provide the foundations to political culture. A study of the political culture of a political system must involve a study of these determinants. Self Check Exercise-2 Q.1 How do historical events shape political culture? A) They have no impact on political culture. B)    They influence societal values, norms, and attitudes towards authority. C)    They solely determine the economic status of a nation. D)    They are unrelated to the formation of political beliefs. Q.2 What role does education play in shaping political culture? A)    It has no impact on political beliefs. B)    It tends to increase political apathy. C)    It fosters civic engagement and political awareness. D)    It solely determines one’s political ideology. Q.3 Which of the following is not considered a determinant of political culture? A) Climate               B) Technology C) Historical events        D) Ethnicity 2.5 Utility of the Concept of Political Culture The concept of Political Culture has definitely enhanced the ability of the political scientists to analyse the psychological environment of the political system comprehensively and systematically. It has codified and synthesised into a style, a well-developed concept, all that was studied in an abstract and crude fashion through such traditional concept as National Morale, National Character, National Psychology and the like. The Concept of Political Culture has been instrumental in helping realistic and actual behaviour comparative studies, both micro and macro, in respect of the political systems working in different societies. Accepting the value of this concept, Lucian Pye observe ; ‘The concept of political culture can-be of great value in helping the political analyst relate the psychological dimensions of cultural change to the larger issues of political development. Political Culture provides a means of linking micro analysis and macro analysis.” Political Culture Approach to the study of politics has made several important contributions to politics and comparative politics studies, which can be described as under:- 1.    Political Culture Approach has helped political scientists to systematically and comprehensively analyse the social and psychological environment of the political system. 2.    Political Culture has helped the political scientists to conduct both micro and macro studies of political systems as well as to explain the gap between micro macro politics. 3.    With the help of this concept, political scientists can systematically explain the differences in the behaviour of various political systems, particularly the differences in the behaviour of similar political institutions working in different societies. 4.    Political Culture Approach has encouraged political scientist to conduct studies in the process through which the political culture of a society passes from one generation to the next generation, i.e., the process of political socialization. 5.    Political Culture Approach can be used for analysing the path of political development of a political system. 6.    This concept has been used by several political scientists to analyse the nature of possible political changes, violent changes- revolutions and coups, in various political systems. 7.    Political Culture offers a good basis for classifying political systems. 8.    Political Culture enables us to study the rational as well as irrational factors of politics. 9.    It has helped the conducting of empirical studies into the working of political systems.” Self Check Exercise-3 Q.1 In what way does political culture influence public policy? A)    It dictates specific policies to be implemented. B)    It shapes the preferences and priorities of policymakers. C)    It has no impact on public policy decisions. D)    It determines the length of political terms. Q.2 How does a strong political culture benefit democracy? A)    It leads to authoritarian rule. B)    It fosters civic engagement and participation. C)    It promotes political apathy. D)    It encourages political instability. 2.6    Summary We can conclude that the concept of Political Culture has definitely enriched the study of political science, It has enhanced the ability of political scientists to empirically analyse, explain and compare the phenomena of politics. It has helped the attainment of the goals of comprehensiveness and realism in comparative politics. However, despite the above listed merits it has to be stated that it is just one concept which can enable us to analyse and explain some aspects of politics and not the whole of it, and that this concept has yet to be developed further. It has to be used carefully because it contains the germs of inducing conservatism and reaction. It can be used as one of the tools or approaches and not as the only tool or the approach to the study of politics. The realisation of the distinction between cultural and political cultural factors of politics is bound to be a problematic exercise. Finally the collection of objective data regarding orientations towards political actions is bound to be problematic and this imposes a serious limitation upon the utility of this concept as a tool of political analysis. 2.7    Glossary •    Culture: Culture encompasses the customs, beliefs, arts, and social institutions of a particular group or society. •    Ethnic: It pertains to cultural, racial, or national characteristics, defining a group’s identity and heritage. 2.8    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    B,          2. D,3. B Self Check Exercise-2 1.    B,          2. C,3. B Self Check Exercise-3 1.    B,2. B 2.9    Suggested Readings •    Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi) Atlantic Publishers, 1997. •    N. Jayapalan, Comparative Government, (New Delhi : Atlantic Publishers), 2000. •    Tapan Biswal eds., Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Triaty Press), 2016. •    J.C. Johari, New Comparative Government (New Delhi: Locus Press), 2011. •    U.R. Ghai, Comparative Politics and Government (Jalandhar: New Academic Publishing Co.), 2016. •    Dr. Bhawana Jharta, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis, M.A. IInd Sem., Course-VII, Political Science, Study Material ICDEOL. 2.10    Terminal Questions 1.    What is Political Culture ? Discuss its kinds. Explain its importance. 2.    Define Political Culture? Explain its importance. 3.    Explain the concept of Political culture? Discuss the utility of this concept in the study of Politics. ***** Unit-3 MEANING AND NATURE OF POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION Structure 3.1    Introduction 3.2   Learning Objectives 3.3    Meaning and Definitions of the Political Socialization 3.3.1    What is Political Socialization? 3.3.2    Definitions of Political Socialization Self Check Exercise-1 3.4    Features of Political Socialization Self Check Exercise-2 3.5    Kinds of Political Socialization Self Check Exercise-3 3.6   Summary 3.7   Glossary 3.8    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 3.9   Suggested Readings 3.10    Terminal Questions 3.1    Introduction Like Political Culture the term ‘political Socialization is also one of the key concept in contemporary Political analysis. It is primarily a psychological concept which deals with orientation of Individuals towards political objectives. Political Socialisation is the process by which the people as a political system learn their values, beliefs and orientations to open to politics and political’ objects. The people of a state get inducted into their po!itical culture through this process. It is a universal process and is al work in each political system. According to Almond it is the first function of a political system. 3.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit you will be able to : •    know the meaning and definitions of Political Socialization. •    Understand the nature of Political Socialization. •    Explain the forms and utility of Political Socialization 3.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Socialization The concept of Political Socialisation is very closely related to the concept of Political Culture. The sum tolal of orientations of the people to political objects and actions constitutes the Political Culture. The process by which people get their orientations toward political objects, i.e., their Political Culiure is called PoliticaI Socialization. The study of political socialisation involves the study of the process by which people acquire political values, not simply during active political participation, but also in the period before they engage in any explicitly political participation. It is through this process that political culture passes from one generation to the next. It is through the perfonnance of this function, as Almond and Powell observe, : “Individuals are inducted into their Political Culture; their orientations towards polilical objects are formed. Changes in the patterns of political culture also come about through political socialization. Formulation of the Concept of Political Socialisation:- The credit for introducing this concept belongs to Herbert H. Hyman. Following Hyman, several poiitical scientists, prominent among them being Lasswell, Easton, Hass, Almond and Verba, came forward to use this concept for studying various phenomena of politics. In contemporary’ political studies, it is increasingly being used for studying such phenomena as polilical change, political development, political modernisation and changes in Political Culture. 3.3.1    What is Political Socialisation ? By socialisation, we mean, the process by which people of a society learn values, beliefs, norms and goals of their culture. lt is the process by which the people are inducted into their culture. Likewise, Political Socialisaiion means the process by which the people of a political system learn or pick up their orientation towards political objects and actions. It is the process by which the political culture gets transmitted from the generation to the next. Almond has rightly described it as the process by which political cultures are maintained and changed. Political Socialisation is a part of socialisation in general. It represents the political dimension of the socialisation process. If we use Almond’s approach to the political system, we can describe it as the first input process from where the political system actually begins. 3.3.2    Definitions •    According to Herbert H. Hyman, the Godfather of this concept. Political Socialism is “a continuous learning process involving both emotional learning and manifest political indoctrination and as being mediated by all of the participations and experiences of the individual and not simply by early family experiences. It is the process of induction into political culture,” •    Robert Lenin defines Political Socialisation as “the means by which individuals acquire motives, habits and values relevant to participation in a political system.” •    David Easton Political Socialisation as “those developmental proccsses through which persons acquire political orientations and patters of behaviour.” •    According to Almond and Powell, “Political Socialisation is the process by which political cultures are maintained and changed.” •    Dennis Kavanagh defines “the term Political Socialisation used to describe the process whereby individual Iearns and develops orientations to politics.” •    In the words of Allan R. Ball, ‘’Political Socialisation is “the establishment and development of attitudes and beliefs about the political system.” •    Geofrey K. Roberts says “Political Socialisation is the process whereby, on the one hand, an individual acquires attitudes and orientations towards political phenomena and on the other hand, the society transmits political norms and beliefs from one generation to the next.” •    Eric Rowe writes Political Socialisation “as the process by which the values, beliefs and emotions of a political culture are passed on to the succeeding generations.” We can say, socialisation is basically a learning process the process of learning political values, beliefs, symbols and orientations. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 What is political socialization? A)    The process of becoming politically radicalized. B)    The process of learning and internalizing political values, beliefs, and behaviors. C)    The act of organizing political protests. D)    The study of political systems around the world. 3.4 Features of Political Socialisation Political Socialisation is the process of learning through which people of a political system learn their values, beliefs, orientations and altitudes towards politics. The following can be described as the features of political socialisation : (1)    Political Socialisation is a process of learning. (2)    It involves both formal as well as informal and both deliberate and unplanned learning. (3)    It is through Political Socialisation that an individual is inducted into the political culture. (4)    It involves the transmission of values and beliefs of the political culture by one generation to the next. (5)    Political Culture is maintained and changed through political socialisation. The values, beliefs and orientations towards political objects and actions are transmitted as well as changed by this process. (6)    Political Socialisation is a life long learning process but us pace and role keeps on changing from time to time. The process goes on continuously throughout the life of the individual. (7)    Political Socialisation is a source, both of Stability and change. (8)    Political Socialisation provides the necessary knowledge and incentive for individual’s participation in politics. Politically socialised individuals come forward to accept different roles in the political system. (9)    In nature, Political Socialisation is similar to, in fact, a part of the process of socialisation which is always at work in every society. (10)    Finally, Political Socialisation is an extremely important process by which individuals become involved in the activities of the political system. The nature and level of political participation of the individuals depend to a Iarge extent upon the nature and ifficiency of the process of political socialisaiion. Jobrol B. Manheim lists four fundamentals of Political Socialisation : (1)    Political Socialisation is basically a sub-set of general teaching-learning process and as such, abstracts from that process only those eIements which have relevance in politics; (2)    the fruits of political Socialisation are aggregation and interaction and it is an on-going process; (3)    the process of Political Socialisation is comprehensive, it encompasses all phenomena which are even remotely associated with political learning; and (4)    every individual represents a more or less unique combination of socializing experiences. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. 1 Which stage of life is characterized by the most significant political socialization? a) Childhood       b) Adolescence c) Adulthood       d) Elderly Q.2 Which of the following is not a feature of political socialization in modern societies? a)    Influence of traditional norms and values. b)    Impact of globalization. c)    Technological advancements. d)    Limited access to information. 3.5 KINDS OF POLITICAL SOCIALISATION Political Scientists make a distinction between Manifest Political Socialisation and Latent Political Socialisation and also between Homogeneous and Hetrogeneous Polilical Socialisation. (1)    Manifest Political Socialisation Manifest Political Socialisation involves the explicit communication of information, values or feelings towards political objects. Direct teaching of civics or political science in schools and colleges constitutes an example of this type of political socialisation. We can also call it Direct Political Socialisation. (2)    Latent Political Socialisation Latent Political Socialisation is the transmission of non-political attitudes which affect attitudes towards political roles, objects and the political system. “It involves,” as Almond and Powell observe, “many of the fundamental characteristics of the general culture which may, in turn, have great effect on the political sphere.” Such latent political socialization may occur wilh particular force in early experiences. For example, the general altitudes acquired by a child - accommodation or aggression, are bound to affect his altitude towards other citizens and leaders. Such a political socialization can also be termed as indirect political socialisation. On the basis of nature of the process of political socialisation in terms of continuity and discontinuity, political socialisation can be further classified into two types : Homogeneous Political Socialisation and Heterogeneous Political Socialization. (1)    Homogeneous Political Socialisation When the process of political socialization is continuous and consistent, it is called Homogeneous Political Socialisation. In such a process, all the agents provide and maintain a given type of political orientation and “the elements influencing the individual do not seriously conflict either with one another or with his adult political activities and expectations.” People support one another and their political institutions and values. (2)    Heterogeneous Political Socialisation It is the opposite of Homogeneous Political Socialisation. Here, the process is discontinuous. The people are subjected to different political orientations at different times. Such discontinuity creates an important potential for dissatisfaction and conflict and high potential for system change. For example, people of Pakistan have been experiencing Heterogeneous political socialisation. Sometimes, they find themselves living with a democratic process of politics, at other times, they are forced to live with military dictatorship. Such a political socialisation hinders the development of a political culture and constitutes a danger to the stability of the political system. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Explain any two kinds of Political Socialization? 3.6    Summary In conclusion, political socialization is a fundamental process through which individuals acquire their political beliefs, values, and behaviors. Its features include the influence of various agents such as family, education, media, and peer groups. Understanding its different kinds, including primary, secondary, and anticipatory socialization, provides insight into how individuals form their political identities and engage in the democratic process. Overall, the study of political socialization illuminates the intricate ways in which society shapes our understanding and participation in politics. 3.7    Glossary •    Socialization: Socialization refers to the process through which individuals learn and internalize the norms, values, and behaviors of their society or culture. It’s essentially how we learn to fit into and function within our social environment. •    Homogeneous: Homogeneous refers to something that is uniform or consistent in nature, composition, or structure, lacking diversity or variation. 3.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    B Self Check Exercise-2 2.    D Self Check Exercise-2 For answer, see section 3.5 3.9    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 2. 3.10    Terminal Questions Q.1 What is Political Socialization? Explain its Nature. Q.2 Define Political Socialization? Discuss its features. Q.3 Briefly explain the forms of Political Socialization? Q.4 What do you understand by Political Socialization? Discuss its salient feature and kinds? ***** Unit-4 AGENCIES OF POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION Structure 4.1    Introduction 4.2    Learning Objectives 4.3    Agencies of Political Socialization 4.3.1    Family 4.3.2    Educational Structure 4.3.3    Peer Groups 4.3.4    Work Experience 4.3.5    Means of Mass Media 4.3.6    Direct contact with Political System 4.3.7    Other Agents of Political Socialization 4.3.7.1    Religion 4.3.7.2    Caste 4.3.7.3    Politics Self Check Excrcisc-1 4.4 . Importance of Political Socialization Self Check Exercise-2 4.5    Summary 4.6    Glossary 4.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercisc-1 Self Check Exercise-2 4.8    Suggested Readings 4.9    Terminal Questions 4.1    Introduction Agencies are the vital conduits through which political socialization occurs, shaping individuals’ understanding, attitudes, and behaviors towards the political system. From family and education to media and peer groups, these agencies play a pivotal role in instilling values, beliefs, and knowledge about politics. Understanding their significance is essential for comprehending how societies cultivate citizens’ political identities and engagement. 4.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to. •    Explain various agencies of Political Socialization. •    Understand the importance of Political Socialization. 4.3    AGENCIES AGENTS OF POLITICAL SOCIALISATION In the process of Political Socialisation, several agencies or institutions play an important part. These are called agencies or agents of political socialisation. Some, like family, school, college, work (employment) institutions are sometimes called primary agencies because they are the first to provide/guide orientations to the people in the initial years of their lives. Such Socialisation resulting from the activities of primary agencies is also called primary socialisation. The orientations influenced or determined by some agencies, like mass media, peer groups. etc. are a source of secondary political socialisation. However, the difference between the primary and the secondary socialization is not organic. The role of the following main agents of Political Socialisation deserve a social description : 4.3.1    Family as a Primary Agency of political Socialism The family has been considered by Almond and Powell as the first socialisation structure countered by an individual. The latent and manifest influence inculcated at the early stages in life have a powerful and lasting influence. Almond and Verba write that “an early experience in participation and decision-making can increase the child’s sense of political competence, provide him with skills tor political interactions and thus enhance the probability of his active participation in the political system when he becomes an adult.” The child tends to identify with his parents and to adopt their outlook towards the political system, “The family”, as Davies and Lewis say, “provides the major means of transforming the mentally naked, infant organism into adult, fully clothed in its own personality.” And most of the individual’s political personality - his tendencies to think and act politically in particular ways – gets determined at home, several years before he can take part in politics as an ordinary adult citizen. Man’s political socialisation by the family has an enduring and very important effect. General attitudes towards the political system usually make a great impression on children and thereby affect their subsequent behaviour in politics. Robert Lane has suggested that there are three ways in which the foundations of political beliefs may be laid through the family : (i) by overt and covert indoctrination, (ii) by placing the child in a particular social context, and (iii) by moulding the child’s personality. Among the many important latent influences perhaps the most distinctive is the shaping of attitudes towards authority. 4.3.2    The Educational Structures The educational structure constitute the second powerful agent of political socialization. Allen R. Barce says that the educational system has important effects on the process of socialisation. The values imparted by schools and universities may not be the result of direct political indoctrination, but are nonetheless important. The five national Studies conducted by Almond and Verba found, without exception, that “the educated persons were more aware of the impact of government on their lives, paid more attention to polities, had more information about political processes and manifested a higher degree of political competence.” Almond and Powell say, “Schools can also play an important role in shaping attitudes about the unwritten rules of the political game.” They can bring an awareness of values and circumstances, providing a basis for new political aspirations. Like family, educational structures also the initial lessons of authoritative decision-making to the students. This experience influences the subsequent attitudes towards, authorities and roles. 4.3.3    Reference Groups or Peer Groups Reference groups or Peer groups, like family and educational structures, act as important sources of attitude formation. The relatively decreased role of family in the contemporary industrial society has tended to increase the role of peer groups -friendship associations and the like, in the process of political socialisation. Austin Ranney says that in addition to parents and teachers, most people spend a great deal of their lives in the company of peer groups of people outside their families who are approximately of the same age and share similar statuses, problems and concerns. School-mates are one obvious peer group, work associates another, and friendship, “cliques” yet another. James S. Coleman writes that in developed societies like the Untied States and Sweden, the socializing influence of parents and teachers begins to wane in early adolescence and from then on peer groups become increasincly important influenccs on political attitudes and behaviour. 4.3.4 Work or Employment Experience Experience in employment also shapes political orientations. The Job and the formal and non-formal organizations built around it, viz., the union, the social club and the like, may be channels for the explicit communication of political information and beliefs. Participation in trade unions, bargaining with the employers, organising and participating in strikes can exercise powerful socialization experience both for the employers and the exployees. The role in the activities of interest groups can affect political participation. 4.3.5    S. Mass Media The role of mass media”, as Almond and Powell observe, “in political socialization must not be overlooked. In fact, after the communication revolution of the 20th century, means of mass media, particularly Press, T.V… Radio and Internet, have started acting as very powerful agents of manitest political socialisation.” A controlled system of mass media is a powerful force in shaping political beliefs of the people. It is particularly so used in authoritarian, totalitarian or dictatorial systems. In addition to providing information about specific and immediate political events, the mass media act, in the long-run to shape the individual’s basic “congnitive map.” 4.3.6    Direct Contact with the Political System Direct formal and informal relationship with specific elites a political system are, according to Almond and Powell, “a powerful force” in shaping orientations of individuals to the system. In this connection, the direct contacts between the individual and government as well as political parties play a significant role. Political parties are the most important agents of political socialization. Through political propaganda, electioneering; presenting the views in written and spoken political language, by recruiting people and by articulating and and aggregating their political inierest, political parties become the direct agents of political socialization. 4.3.7    OTHER AGENTS OF POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION 4.3.7.1    RELIGION Some of the writers are of the view that religion is also an agent of political socialization. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, has been influential in imparting certain political attitudes to its followers especially to women. 4.3.7.2    CASTE The role of caste as an agent of socialization is also regarded as potent particularly in the third world nations. Voters are seen to vote on caste lines and the candidates also reflect caste allegiance in their political behaviour. The ideology underlying the system of reservation for scheduled castes and tribes is that their members are so socialized as to be sympathetic to the cause of these disadvaniaged communities. 4.3.7.3    POLITICS PoIitics itself is a powerful agent of political socialization. The ways in which the politics of a country is conducted is a deep learning experience for the citizens. Citizens are exposed to the method of selection of candidates in elections, mode of election campaign, behavior of political activists, nature of electoral competition gives the most significant political experiences to the individuals. That is why peter H. Merki rightly observed “One of the most immediate and effective agents of the political socialization of children and adults is the spectacle of politics itself. As the group and sports help to socialize, so the game of politics, especially its competition, may get adolescents and adults involved. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. 1 What is the role of agencies in political socialization? a)    To discourage political engagement. b)    To promote neutrality in political views. c)    To shape individuals’ attitudes towards politics. d)    To enforce strict adherence to political ideologies. Q.2 In many countries, which agency of political socialization is often the first and most influential in shaping individuals’ political orientations? A) Family                         B) Religious institutions C) Educational institutions       D) Peer groups Q.3 Which of the following is not considered an agency of political socialization? A) Family                     B) Mass media C) Religious institutions           D) Political parties E) None of the above 4.4    Importance of the Concept of Political Socialisation The study of the process by which people acquire political values not simply during active political participation, but also in the period before they engage in any explicity political activity, constitutes the subject-matter of political socialisation studies. It also involves the study of the process by which political values, not only political party preferences, but also such other items as political interests and opinions were transfered from one generation to the next. In other words, it seeks to focus attention on the process by which the political culture of a society is maintained, transmitted to the new generation and changed. A researcher conducting research in the area of political socialisation seeks to analyse the nature of the role played by such institutions as family, education, peer groups, religion, etc., in determining the orientations of the people towards authority and to various aspects of the political system. Almond identifies political socialisation as the first input of the political system which forms the primary process of transmission of values to the new generation and which serves as the foundation for the process of political recruitment. The study of the concept of political socialization constitutes an important area of study in comparative poliilcs. Almond and Powell have rightly observed that the study of political socialisation “seems to be one of the most promising approaches to understand political stability and development.” It can be of great help in the study of the psychological and sociological roots of politics. The above discussion clearly brings out that : (1)    Political Socialisation is basically a sub-set of a general teaching-learning process and it involves abstracting from the general process of socialisation only those elements which have relevance with political objects, values and activities; (2)    The fruits of political socialisation are aggregative and interactive. It is continuous learning process. lt is an on-going process ; (3)    The process of political socialisation is comprehensive. It encompasses all phenomena which are directly or indirectly or even remotely associated with political learning; (4)    Every individual represents a more or less unique combination of socializing experience; (5)    It is through Political Socialisation that Political Cultures are maintained & changed; and (6)    The concept of Political Socialisation is very useful in the study of Political Change or Development; and (7)    Changes in Political Socialisation always act as a source of change in the behavior of the people in politics. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Write a short note on the importance of Political Socialization? 4.5    Summary In conclusion, agencies of political socialization play a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ political beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. From family and education to media and peer groups, these agencies serve as influential channels through which people acquire their understanding of politics and develop their civic engagement. Recognizing their significance underscores the importance of fostering informed, participatory citizens in a vibrant democracy. 4.6    Glossary •    Adult: Adult refers to a person who has reached the legal age of maturity and is typically considered fully grown and responsible. •    Peer Groups: Peer groups refer to social groups composed of individuals who are similar in age, status, interests, and backgrounds. These groups often influence individuals’ attitudes, behaviors, and socialization processes. 4.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    C, 2. A, 3 E. Self Check Exercise-2 For answer, see section 4.4. 4.8    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 2. 4.9    Terminal Questions 1.    What is Political Socialization ? Describe the agencies of Political Socialization ? 2.    Briefly explain the forms of Political Socialization and discuss its utility ? ***** Unit-5 MEANING AND ESSENTIALS OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT Structure 5.1    Introduction 5.2    Learning Objectives 5.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Development Self Check Exercise-1 5.4    Lucian W. Pye Views on Political Development Self Check Exercise-2 5.5    Essentials of Political Development 5.2.1    Equality 5.2.2    Capacity 5.3.3    Differentiations and Specialization Self Check Exercise-3 5.6    Rigg’s Concept of Development Self Check Exercise-4 5.7    Samuel P. Huntington’s Views on Political Development Self Check Exercise-5 5.8    Summary 5.9    Glossary 5.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 Self Check Exercise-5 5.11    Suggested Readings 5.12    Terminal Questions 5.1    Introduction Each Political System is subject to political development. In order to analyse this process, we have to understand the meaning of Political Development, Thus is the object of this chapter. Davis and Lewis have rightly observed that “Political Institutions change and political values change.” In some societies, big changes take place through revolutions, while in others these come through evolutionary processes. “Between these two extremes lie many gradations of political and social stability and instability. To measure such gradations is a major goal of social and political research. “For analysing the nature of changes that inevitably come in various political systems, the concept of Political Development has been formulated and operationalised by a large number of political scientists. The names of Lucian W, Pye, G.A. Almond James C. Coleman, Edward A. Shills. Myron Weiner, David Apler, S.P. Huntington, Robert T. Hold, S.M. Lipsel. S.N. Eisensdat, Harold Lasswell, Karl Deutsch, A. Rustow, Sidney Verba and Daniel Lerner are worth mentioning. All of them have done pioneering work in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of the concept of Political Development in Politics and Comparative Politics.’ 5.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, the student will be able to : •    understand the meaning and definitions of Political Development. •    know about the Political Development. •    understand how for can Political Development be useful in the study of Politics. 5.3    Meaning and Definition of Political Development It is indeed quite a problematic task to select and offer a single universally accepted definition of Political Development. As S.P. Nettle has observed, “There is still considerable ambiguity and imprecision in the use of this term.” There persist several differences among political scientists regarding the nature of change that can be identified as political development and the variables of political development. There is no standard or an agreed list of elements which can guide our way in determining the nature and levels of political development in various societies. However, despite the presence of difficulties and ambiguities several political scientists have tried to define Political Development. In the words of Coleman, “Political Development means acquisition by a political system or a consciously sought and a qualitative new and enhanced political capacity as manifested in the successful institutionalisation of (1) new pattern of integration and penetration regulating and containing the tensions and conflict produced by increased differentiation, and (2) new patterns of participation and distribution adequately responsive to the demands generated by the imperatives of equality. The acquisition of such a performance capacity is, in turn, a decisive factor in the resolution of the problems of identity and legitimacy. This definition, however, is regarded by many as a definition of political modernisation and not of political development. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Define Political Development? 5.4    SEVERAL DIFFERENT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT Lucian W. Pye views : Lucian W. Pye’s was, however, among the first batch of scholars who has made an depth analysis of the concept Political Development. In his work ‘Aspects of Political Development Lucian Pye has very systematically explained the different ways in which Political Development has been defined by various political scientists. (1)    Political Development as the Political Pre-requisite of Economic Development This view of political development seeks to conceptualise it in terms of economic growth. Political development is regarded as “that state of the polity which might facilitate economic growth”. Paul A. Baron. Norman S. Buchanan, Howard S. Ellis, Benzamin Higgins, Albert Hirschinan, Barbaran Ward and several other social scientists have advocated this view of Political Development. Lucian Pye, however, notes several limitations of this view. Firstly, it is a negative view because, in practice, we can study better the hindrances which a political system can pose to economic growth than the facilities that it can provide. Secondly, since economics. growths in different societies have been registered under different set of public policies this approach to political development cannot offer an agreed and acceptable theoretical framework. Thirdly, in several societies, political development has come at a more rapid pace than the pace of economic growth. Finally, in most underdeveloped countries, people clearly are concerned with tar more than just material development, they are anxious about political development quite independent of effect on the rate of economic growth. Thus, it is not a fully acceptable view of Political Development. (2)    Political Development as the Politics Typical of Industrial Societies This view of development is based on the assumption that industrial life produces a more or less common and generic type of political life which any society can seek to approximate whether it is in fact Industrialised or not. Industrial societies set certain standards of political behaviour and performance that constitute the state of political development as social scientists like Walt W. Rustow opine and represent the appropriate goals of development for all other systems. This view, as such, holds that political development involves certain patterns of presumably “rational “and “responsible” governmental behaviour, an avoidance of reckless action, some sense of limitations on politics, a appreciation of the values of orderly administrative and legal procedures, an acknowledgement that politics is rightly a mechanism for solving problems and not an end in itself, a stress on welfare programmes, and finally, an acceptance of some form of mass participation. (3)    Political Development as Political Modernisation Social scientists like James S. Coleman. Karl Dewsch. S.M. Lipset and some others regard political development as the typical or idealised politics of industrial societies and that political development is synonymous with political modernisation. Just as advanced nations are Pace-setters for others, likewise, modernisation is the pace-setter for political development. Political development takes the form of Westernisation in politics. It is again a parochial view of development which cannot be operationalised because almost all political institutions of the world bear the influence of Western institutions and consequently, it becomes difficult, on the basis of this view, to classify political system on the basis of the nature and levels of their political development. (4)    Political Development as the Operation of the Nation State This approach, as Pye observes, has been followed by K.B. Silver, Edward Shills and William McCord. This view holds that political development consists of the organization of political life and the performance of political functions in accordance with the standards expected of a modern nation-state. The emergence of nationstate has brought into existence a specific set of requirements, which together constitute political development. It involves the transformation of nation-state in theory into a nation-state in reality - which requires the development of a capacity to maintain a certain level of public order, to mobilize resources for a specific range of collective enterprises and to make and effectively uphold international commitments. The test of political development is, first the establishment of a particular set of public institutions that constitute the necessary infrastructure of nation-state and, secondly, the controlled expression in political life of the phenomenon of nationalism, Political Development, according to this view is : “the politics of nationalism within the context of state institutions”, or that “political development is nation-building.” (5)    Political Development as Administrative and Legal Development The fifth view of political development, as discussed by Lucian Pye, is the view which interprets political development as the process of institution-building and citizenship development. This view has amongst its supporters such scholars as Max Weber and Joseph La Palombara. This view associates political development, with the development of a legal order followed by an administrative order. In this view, administrative development is associated with the spread of rationally the strengthening of secular, legal concepts and the elevation of technical and specialised knowledge in the direction of human affairs. No one can deny that political development involves legal and administrative development, however, no one can equate the former with me latter. (6)    Political Development as Mass Mobilisation and Participation This view links political development with political awakening of the people. The bigger the mass mobilisation and participation in politics, the greater is the degree of political development of the political system. This is again a narrow and even dangerous view of political development because it can lead to the acceptance of a political system characterised by many demonstrations, mass responses to elite manipulation, populist movements, etc., as a politically developed system. (7)    Political Development as the Building of Democracy This view places political development as synonymous with the establishment of democratic institutions and practices. Building of democracy is the process political development. According to this view, development has meaning only in terms of the strengthening of some set of values. “It, thus, presents an ideological and value-laden view of political development. Development is fundamentally different from democracy and that the very attempt to introduce democracy can be a positive liability to development.” (8)    Political Development as Stability and Orderly Change This view seeks to define political development in terms of the ability of the political system to remain stable and possess the capacity for purposeful and orderly change. A political system which can refrain from becoming a helpless victim of social and economic forces and which, on the other hard regulates the process of social change by making it purposeful and orderly, is a politically developed system. However, a major weakness of this approach is its failure to define the level of stability and capacity for orderly change that may be regarded as the Standard tor analysing political development. (9)    Political Development as Mobilisation and Power This view links political development with the capabilities of a political system, i.e., the ability of the political system to mobilise the resources, exercise power and to use the resources to the fullest advantage. Colemun, Powell and Talcot Parsons have analysed political development in terms of these variables. This view involves the concept that political system can be evaluated in terms of the level or degree of absolute power which the system is able to mobilise. “It is a useful premise, however, it cannot be regarded as the standard for measuring political development. It fails to lake into account the fact that some political systems deliberately avoid full mobilisation of resources and exercise of power.” (10)    Political Development as one aspect of a Multi-dimensional Process of Social Change This view of political development holds that all forms of development are related. Development is much the same as modenisation and it lakes place within a historical context in which influences from outside the society impinge on the processes of social change just as changes in different aspects of a society - the economy, the polity and the social order- all impinge on one another. This approach has been advocated by Mar F. Millikan and Donald L.M. Biackmer. They advocate that political development is somehow intimately associated with other aspects of social and economic change. This view merits attention, but it again fails to identify what really is the nature of political development which comes as pan of the allembracing process or social change. Besides these ten different approaches to the conceptualisation of political development there are other possible interpretations. As Lucian Pye holds, it can be taken to mean commonly a sense of national self-respect and dignity in international affairs or the view that political development should refer to a post-nationalism era when nation-state will no longer be the basic unit of political life. All these views of political development highlight fully the difficulty in offering a definition of this concept. The way out lies in analysing the common characteristics of political development on the basis of an analysis of all these views. This task has been successfully undertaken by Lucian Pye. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Write a short note on Pye’s views on Political Development? 5.5    ESSENTIALS OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT After analysing all the above views, Lucian Pye isolates the following characteristics of political development, which seem to be most widely held features of political development - the Development Syndrome. 5.5.1    Equality Various approaches accept that spirit or attitude of equalities is an aspect of political development. Equal and popular participation in politics, active citizenship and popular rule constitute the variables of political development. It also involves the concept of equal and objective application of laws to all the citizens - i.e., rule of law involving application of all laws to all the citizens, rich and poor, strong and weak. It also includes the concept of political recruitment based on merit and performance, and not on ascriptive consideration. 5.5.2    Capacity Capacity of a political system is again a theme held by most of the above approaches and it refers to the capacity of a political system to affect the social and economic life of the society through its outputs. This aspect of development includes the idea of political development analysed in terms of governmental capacity and the conditions that affect such performance. It also means political development in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in the execution of public policy, rationality in administration and a secular orientation towards policy. 5.5.3    Differentiation and Specialisation This theme conceptualises political development in terms of structural differentiation and specialization. “This aspect of development involves, first of all, the differentiation and specialisation of structures. Offices and agencies tend to have their distinct and limited functions, and there is an equivalent of a division of labour within the realm of government.’’ Along with differentiation, there is increased functional specialisation of various roles within the system and it also involves the integration of complex structures and processes. The last aspect is very important because it clarifies that differentiation is not fragmentation, on the other hand. It means specialization based on an ultimate sense of integration, Besides these three dimensions of equality, capacity and differentiation, the analysis of Political Development requires the study of three other related factors. As Pye observes, “the problems of equality are generally related to the political culture and sentiments about legitimacy and commitment to the system, the problems of capacity are generally related to the performance of the authoritative structures of government, and the question of differentiation touches mainly on the performance of non-authoritative structures and the general process in the society at large.” “All this suggests that in the last analysis, the problems of development revolve around the relationships between the political culture, the authoritative structures of government, and the general political process.” Self Check Exercise-3 Q.1 Explain in short Luician Pye’s Development Syndrome? 5.6    RIGG’S CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENTAL TRAP Fred W. Riggs in his essay ‘Contemporary Political Analysis’ has given his doctrine of his ‘Development Trap’. While discussing it he points out that many scholars believe that the three dimensions of equality, capacity and differentiation given by Pye may not necessarily fit easily together. In fact there have been great differences between the demands for equality, the requirements for capacity and the process of greater differentiation. The demand for greater equality may challenge the capacity of the system. Similarly greater differentiation shall affect equality. Riggs, therefore, points out that a balance must be secured between equality, capacity and differentiation. If balance is not secured, there will occur a developmental Trap. He further adds that when a Political system gets caught in a developmental Trap, it will fall into the condition of Political decay or break down. He does not agree with Samuel P. Hunlington’s that institutionalisation could serve as a safe guard against his trap. On the other hand he held that institutionalisation itself could serve as a developmental trap. Greek, Chinese, Indian models of Political system, where there were too much of institution building, have broken down. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. Explain in short Rigg’s views on Political Development? 5.7    SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON’S VIEWS Samuel P. Huntington’s paper on “Political Development And Political Decay” published in World Politics XVlI ‘Oct. 1965 has been further landmark in the field of Political Development. He regarded Political Development process independent of although affected by modernisation. He defined Political Development as “the institutionalisation of Political organisation and Procedures.” He further adds that Political Development can occur only if Political Procedures and organisations are given the shape of institutions According to him the Political Development of a Society can be measured only by the degree of institutionalisation. He then defines the term institutionalizaiion as the process by which organisation and procedures acquire value and stability. The level of institutionalisation of any Political system can be defined by the adaptability, flexibility and coherence of its organization and procedures. In other words the level of institutionalisation of any particular organisation or procedures can be measured by its adaptiability, complexity, autonomy and coherence. Complexity here means differentiations, adaptability means flexibility and capacity of institutions is to cope with the changing circumstances. He argues that what is going on in the Third world today is not Political Development but Political Decay. It is because of the fact that the speed of modernisation in these countries is so fast that the process of institutionalising of values Lags far behind. That is the modernization brings about social and economic mobilisation. Social mobilization and Political participation are rapidly increasing in Asia, Africa and Latin America. These processes are in turn directly responsible for the deterioration of Political institutions in these nations. Because the institutions for the operation of their relationship are not established. He further argues that mobilisation refers to change of residence of occupation, of social setting, of face of face association, of institutions role and way of acting of experiences and expectations and personal memories, habits and needs. Thus, there occurs a direct conflict between mobilisation and institutionalisation. For example with the spread of education, revenues for employment should also be created. But it is not being done. Similarly if universal adult franchise is introduced there should also be creation of institutions for giving new elites a chance to participate in decision making process. Whereas there may be a few positions and roles which are already dominated by traditional elites. New positions are not created with the result that aspirations of the new enfranchised people are not Fulfilled, In many developing stales even the decline of Party organisations is reflected with the emergence of charismatic leaders who personalized power and weaken institutions which might limit that power. In Turkey, Pakistan and Burma, the Republican People’s Party, Muslim League and AFPFL respectively deteriorated and military intervention eventually ensured. In party organisations and bureaucracies, marked increases in corruptions often accompanied significant declines in effectiveness of government services. Particularistic groups — Tribal, ethnic- religions — frequently reassessed themselves and further undermined the authority and coherence of Political institutions.” The Political system, therefore, loses its legitimacy. The newly mobilised, educated and enfranchised people when lose their trust in the impartibility of the institutions and justice of the system, they try to regulate the system in their own way. All this led to the emergence of mass politics. Moreover, a Political System whose level of institutionalisation is low, cannot survive in the face of growing urge for the political participation. This also results in Political instability the around frustration of the people ultimately paves the way to military coup. Coups d’etat and military interventions in politics are one index of low level of political inslitutionalization. They occur where Political institutions lack autonomy and coherence. Huntington pointed out that eleven of twelve modernizing states outside Latin America which became independent before World War II experienced Coups d’etat or attempted Coups after World War II, Of twenty states which got independence between World War II and 1959, Fourteen had Coups or Coup attempts by 1963, Of twenty-four states which became independent between 1960 and 1963, seven experienced coups or attempted coups before the end of 1963. In short the developing nations which do not allow institutions to grow proportionately with the pace of modernisation are not going for Political development but for Political decay. He further argues that even the increase of literacy rate and education do bring more Political instability. For example Burma, Cylone. Republic of Korea etc., are highly literate but no one of them is a model of Political stability. Although literacy stimulates democracy yet with 75% literacy rate, Cuba was the first Country in Latin America to establish Communist government. Same was the case in Kerala state of India. Institutional decay has, therefore, become a common phenomenon of the modernizing or developing Countries. In some developing nations like Pakistan and the Sudan, institutional evolution has been unbalanced. The Civil and military bureaucracies are more highly developed than the political parties and the military has strong incentives to move into the institutional vacuum on the input side of the political system and to attempt lo perform interest aggregations functions. This pattern is also common in Latin America.’ In short Huntington is of the view that the third world countries are heading towards Political Decay. Self Check Exercise-5 Q. Write a short note on Huntington views on Political Development? 5.8    Summary In conclusion, Lucian Pye, Rigg, and Huntington collectively emphasize the multifaceted nature of political development, highlighting its socio-cultural, economic, and institutional dimensions. Their works underscore the dynamic interplay between state capacity, societal factors, and governance structures in shaping the trajectory of political evolution in diverse contexts globally. 5.9    Glossary •    Development: Development typically refers to the process of positive change or growth, often in economic, social, political, or technological aspects. It encompasses improvements in living standards, infrastructure, education, healthcare, governance, and overall well-being within a society or a nation. •    Mobilization: In short, mobilization means organizing resources or people for a specific purpose or goal. 5.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 See Section 5.3 Self Check Cxcrcisc-2 See Section 5.4 Self Check Exercise-3 See Section 5.4 & 5.5 Self Check Exercise-4 See Section 5.6 Self Check Exercise-5 See Section 5.7 5.11    Suggested Readings • For details, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 6. 5.12    Terminal Questions Q.1 What is Political Development? Discuss Lucian Pye’s analysis of the concept of Political Development. Q.2 Define Political Development? Explain Samual P. Huntington’s views about Political Development. Q.3 What do you mean by Political Development? Give salient feature of Political Development? ***** UNIT-6POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT AND POLITICAL DECAY Structure 6.1    Introduction 6.2    Learning objectives 6.3    David E. Apter’s Views on Political Development Self Check Exercise-1 6.4    J.P. Netil’s views on Political Development Self Check Exercise-2 6.5    Leonard Binder’s views on Political Development Self Check Exercise-3 6.6    Alferd Views on Political Development Self Check Exercise-4 6.7    lllcliman Views on Political Development Self Check Exercise-5 6.8    Marxist views on Political Development Self Check Exercise-6 6.9    Indicators of Political Development 6.9.1    Positive Indicator of Development 6.9.2    Negative Indicator of Development Self Check Exercise-7 6.10    Political Decay Self Check Exercise-8 6.11    Summary 6.12    Glossary 6.13    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 Self Check Exercise-5 Self Check Exercise-6 Self Check Exercise-7 6.14    Suggested Readings 6.15    Terminal Questions 6.1    Introduction Political development and decay are dynamic forces shaping the evolution of societies worldwide. From the rise of new political systems to the erosion of established structures, this unit delves into the intricate interplay of factors driving progress and regression in governance. 6.2    Learning objectives Alter going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Explain thinker’s views on Political Development. •    Know the indicators of Political Development. •    Understand the concept Political Decay. 6.3    DAVID E. APTER’S VIEWS ON POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT Political Development has several stages and needs and problem of each stage are unique. The nature and degree of Political control naturally vary. Following Apter’s view we can broadly distinguish between two stages of developmental process. These are Pre-industrial and Post-industrial stages. In a developing society, where a broad-based industrial infrastructure does not exists the political problem of controlling and integrating the process becomes increasingly crucial. The passage to industrialisation, therefore, needs an extraordinarily organised Political system with in-built capacity of maintaining a high-degree control and cohesion. Apter, therefore, suggests the adoption of high control system for a successful transition to industrialization. Once the industrial phase of development is completed, the perspective is bound to change. In the industrialised societies there is need of increasing generation and use of new knowledge. Moreover the need in post-industrial societies is for wider devolution of authority, great decentralisation of high-control systems, reducing direct government control, a noncoersive, and high information situation and a government playing a mediating and coordinating role.’ Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Write a short note on Apter’s views on Political Development. 6.4    J.P. NETIL’S VIEWS ON POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT J.P. Netil is one of the view that Political Development has four implications such as set of definitional priorities, a set of values, interconnection between developed and developing countries, recognition of an implicit rank order of development. Set of definitional priorities constituted development as a process and in the concept of political development. There is hesitant and discordant division of political theories into social, economic and Political Priorities and the see saw battle between historical analogy and abstract models of utilitarian or rational emphasis. So far as set of values he says that in political development so many value loaded terms had been used that utter confusion being created. But Political Development should be made as value free. He pointed out that whole concept and all terms used in Political Development referred to the Western type of development. But the weaknesses in the Western systems have also been fell. This has some time created hatred in the minds of the people of developing countries against that of American. He is also of the view that there should also be interconnection between developed and developing Countries. The Concept of Political Development should be such that it should suit both the developed and developing nations. The recognition of an implicit rank order of Political Development means that in Political Development due stress should be laid on capabilities of Political system. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Write a short note on Netil’s views on Political Development. 6.5    LEONARD BINDER’S CRISES AND SEQUENCES IN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT Leonard Binder in his book ‘Crises and Sequences in Political Development’ has referred to ‘Political Development’ as “Changes” in the type and style of politics. He also regards the three concepts of equality, capacity and differentiation as a shorthand description of the syndrome of modernity. He gives the following five characteristics” of’ Political Development :- 1.    Change of identity from the religious to the ethnic and from the parochial to the social. 2.    Change in legitimacy from transcendental to immanent sources. 3.    Change in Political participation from elite to mass and from family to group. 4.    Change of distribution from status and privilege to achievement. 5.    Change in the degree of administrative and legal penetration into social structure and out of the remote regions of Country. The difficulty is that even the recent writers have not succeeded in freeing themselves from the earlier conceptual framework, The Political realities of the developing societies still continue to elude the western scholarships. As a result the Concept of Political Development continued to be vague, faint, foggy and fuzzy.” But one should not forget that development is a total concept and Political development is to be viewed as but a part of the more encompassing process such as economic development, social development etc. Thus, economic development, social development and political development are closely interrelated, characterised by constant buying and selling” between them. As everywhere in developing society the system comes face to face with the politics of scarcity, it happens to embody and reflect the deeper economic pressures Political Development, there emerges as a dependent variable in the social system.” Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Explain in short Binder’s view, on Development. 6.6    ALFRED DIAMENTS’S VIEWS ON POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT He defines ‘Political development’ as a process by which a political system acquires an increasing capacity to sustain successfully and continuously, new types of goals and demands and the creation of new types of organisation. The definition emphasis that Political Development is a process and whatever characteristics may appear to be acceptable must refer to the viability of a political system in effectively responding to the tensions, challenges and demands of its own framework as well as the environment.” Self Check Exercise-4 Q. Write a note on Diaments’s views of Political Development? 6.7    ILLCHMAN AND UPHOFF’S VIEW ON POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IlIchman and Uphoffs view in their book “The Political Economy of Change” pointed out that the new approach of Political economy has permitted a number of definitions of the term “Political Development.” It may be defined as : (a)    Increasing level of political solvency; (b)    Increasing capacity to meet and induce changing and expanding demands; (c)    Increasing capacity of both generating and processing demands of (d)    increasing capacity to cover an increase in the number of Political entrepreneurs. They maintain that political development is a function of Political and administrative infrastructure. Political infrastructure consists of Political parties, elections, ideologies and development plans and is used in the mobilization of support and resources for acquiring and maintaining authority. Its primary functions are, therefore, to provide inputs for policy allocations. Whereas administrative infrastructure is necessary for the exercise of authority. It is responsible for the implementation of policy allocations that is for handling regime’s outputs.” Self Check Exercise-5 Q. Explain in short the Illchman view on Political Development? 6.8    MARXIST VIEWS ON POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT There is, however, an altogether different view point that can be inferred from Marxist social thought. From this perspective Political Development is an integral part of stages of social development.” Keeping in mind historical facts, Marx held that successive socio-economic formations emerged at different stages. Each formation is quantitatively different from its preceding one, Political Development ultimately would mean replacement of the exploitative state structure by a participative and equalitarian social formation of the highest order.” Self Check Exercise-6 Q. Explain Marxist view on Political Development? 6.9    INDICATORS OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT (POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE) The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators enumerates the following such indicators: (i) Age of national institutions, (ii) Education expenditure. (iii) Defence expenditure, (iv) Military power. (v) Internal security forces, (vi) Press freedom, (vii) Party factionalisalion, (viii) Voter turnout, (ix) Electoral irregularity, (x) Protest demonstrations, (xi) Riots, (xii) Armed attacks, (xiii) Deaths from domestic violence, (xiv) Governmental sanctions, (xv) External intervention, (xvi) Renewals of executive tenure, (xvii) Executive adjustments and (xviii) Irregular executive transfers. Dr. J.C, John gives a list of 22 positive indices which can help us to analyse political development and 15 negative indices which can be used to analyse political decay or hindrances limitations to political development. 6.9.1    POSITIVE INDICES OF DEVELOPMENT The tentative indicators are as under : (1)   State-building or territorial Integration. (2)   Nation-building or national integration. (3)    Increasing franchise and free and fair elections with large voter turn-out. (4)    Politicisation or participation of more and more people in political process. (5)    Popular participation in decision-making. (6)    Growing interest articulation by autonomous bodies. (7)    Growing interest aggregation by stable and democratic political parties. (8)    Freedom of press and growth of mass media agencies. (9)    Political and administrative decentralization. (10)    Autonomy of the units of local government. (11)    Expansion of educational facilities, (12)    Effective role of legislative bodies and constituency service by the representative. (13)    Effective role of quasi-governmental agencies like public undertakings, (14)    Role of powerful organisations to oversee the working of public servants (like ombudsman) and redressal of public grievances. (15)    Tolerance of dissent and control over Atomic movements. (16)    Broadening of the social base of political elites, (17)    Oppenness in the working of government and accountability of the rulers to the ruled. (18)    Independence of judiciary and existence of rule of law. (19)    A political character of armed forces. (20)    Consensual politics implying use of constitutional methods. (21)    Neutrality and independence of public services, (22)    Secularisation of political culture. 6.9.2    NEGATIVE INDICATORS OF DEVELOPMENT — Some negative indicators of Political development are as under : (1)    Election Rigging and irregularities. (2)    Violent protest demonstrations, (3)    Anomic disturbances, underground activities and armed attacks. (4)    Political defections for selfish gains, (5)    Fragmentation of political parties. (6)    Suppression of dissent, (7)    Idolisation of the rulers. (8)    Glorification of the official ideology. (9)    Political assassinations. (10)    Politicisation or armed forces. (11)    Commitment of public -services to the line of ruling party. (12)    Widespread corruption and mal-administration. (13)    Concentration of powers. (14)    Mass arrests. (15)    Foreign interference in domestic matters. Self Check Exercise-7 Q. Explain any four positive indicators of Political Development? 6.10    Political Decay Political decay refers to the gradual deterioration of political institutions and systems over time Several factors contribute to political decay, including: 1.    Corruption:- When political leaders and institutions become corrupt, it undermines the trust of the citizens and weakens the effectiveness of governance. Corruption can lead to the misallocation of resources, favoritism, and a lack of accountability. 2.    Institutional rigidities:- Political institutions that fail to adapt to changing societal needs and dynamics can become stagnant and ineffective Bureaucratic red tape, outdated laws, and overly centralized power structures can impede progress and innovation. 3.    Elite Capture:- When a small group of powerful individuals or elites controls political processes and institutions for their own benefit, it can lead to the margmalization of other groups and the entrenchment of inequality. 4.    Erosion of the rule of law:- When governments fail to uphold the rule of law and respect for basic rights and freedoms, it can lead to lawlessness, impunity, and a breakdown of social order. 5.    Polarization and gridlock:- Political polarization and gridlock occur when there is an inability or unwillingness among political actors to compromise and work together. This can result in paralysis in decision-making and the inability to address pressing issues. 6.    Weak civil society:- A vibrant civil society is essential for holding governments accountable and advocating for the interests of citizens. When civil society organizations are weak or suppressed, it can contribute to political decay by reducing checks and balances on government power. 7.    Economic decline:- Economic downturns and stagnation can undermine the legitimacy of political institutions and leaders, leading to social unrest and instability Economic crises can also exacerbate corruption and elite capture as leaders prioritize then own interests over the common good. 8.    Demographic shifts:- Rapid population growth, urbanization, and demographic changes can strain political systems and institutions, leading to social tensions and instability if not properly managed. Addressing political decay requires comprehensive reforms aimed at strengthening institutions, promoting transparency and accountability, fostering inclusive governance, and addressing underlying social and economic inequalities It also requires active citizen engagement and participation to hold leaders accountable and demand responsive and effective governance Self Check Exercise-8 Q.1 Write a short note on Political Decay? 6.11    Summary Political development and decay are constant companions in the trajectory of societies. While development heralds progress, decay warns of complacency and erosion of democratic values. Both serve as mirrors reflecting the efficacy of governance and the resilience of institutions. Thus, fostering development demands vigilant stewardship to navigate away from decay’s grip, ensuring a legacy of prosperity and democratic vitality for generations to come. 6.12    Glossary •    Elite: Elite refers to a small, privileged group possessing superior power, wealth, or status within a society, often exerting significant influence over decision-making processes and societal outcomes. •    Nationalism: Nationalism is a strong sense of identification, loyalty, and pride toward one’s nation, often manifesting in support for its interests, culture, and sovereignty. •    Resilience: Resilience is the ability to bounce back and adapt positively in the face of adversity, challenges, or setbacks, demonstrating strength, flexibility, and perseverance. 6.13    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For details, see section 6.3 Self Check Exercise-2 For details, see section 6.4 Self Check Exercise-3 For details, see section 6.5 Self Check Exercise-4 For details, see section 6.6 Self Check Exercise-5 For details, see section 6.7 Self Check Exercise-6 For details, see section 6.8 Self Check Exercise-7 For details, see section 6.9 Self Check Exercise-8 For details, see section 6.10 6.14    Suggested Readings •    GA. Almond and Coleman, Politics of Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960). •    S.P. Huntington, “Political development and Political Decay”, World Politics, XVIL, April 1965. •    Hartmut Elsenhans, Development and Underdevelopment (New Delhi: Sage Publication, 1991). •    James S. Coleman, Crisis and Sequences in Political Development (Princeton: Princeton Union, 1971). •    S.P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, Conn : Yale Univ. Press, 1969). •    Lucian W. Pye, Aspects of Political Development (Boston; Little Brown, 1966). •    S.N. Eisenstadt, Modernization: Protest and Change (New Delhi, 1969). •    GA. Almond and GB. Powell, Comparative Politics : A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little Brown, 1966). •    S.P. Verma, Modern Political Theory (Delhi: Vikas, 1975). •    Bhawana Jharta, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis ICDEOL Pol. Science Study Material, M.A. 2nd Semester, Course-VII. •    U.R. Ghai, Comparative Politics and Government. •    Bidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics. 6.15    Terminal Questions Q.1 What is Political Development? What are the Indicators of Political Development? Q.2 What is Political Development? How far can this concept be useful in the study of Politics? Q.3 What do you mean by Political Decay? What are the factors responsible for it. ***** Unit-7 POLITICAL MODERNIZATION Structure 7.1    Introduction 7.2   Learning Objectives 7.3   Meaning and Definition of Political Modernisation Self Check Exercise-1 7.4    S.P. Huntington’s View on Political Modernisation Self Check Exercise-2 7.5    Nature of Political Modernisation Self Check Exercise-3 7.6    Relation Between Political Modernisation and Political Development 7.6.1    Close Relations between Political Modernisation and Political Development 7.6.2    Points of Difference between Modernisation and Development Self Check Exercise-4 7.7    Problems of Modernizing Societies Self Check Exercise-5 7.8   Summary 7.9   Glossary 7.10    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 Self Check Exercise-5 7.11  Suggested Readings 7.12    Terminal Questions 7.1    Introduction The concept of Political Modernisation is intimately related to the concept of Political Development. Many scholars conceptualise political development as synonymous with political modernization. This view is not fully correct because there exists a subtle difference between the two. Political modernization is an aspect of political development; we can also admit that it constitutes the initial stage of political development in which a nation tries to become industrialized, urbanized and technologically developed. As such, the two (Political Development and Political Modernisation) are related but have different aspects. We will first try to define Political Modernisation and then differentiating it from Political Development. 7.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit you will be able to : •    Understand the concept of Political Modernisation. •    Discuss S.P. Huntington’s view on Political Modernisation. •    Explain the Relation between Political Modernisation and Political Development. 7.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Modernisation It is indeed a problematic exercise to attempt a selection of a precise definition of Political Modernisation. Different scholars have defined it differently. Some conceptualise it as the process by which non-industrialised nations (New and underdeveloped nations) try to become industrialized, whereas others define it as a process by which new Nations try to become “Westernised”, and there are still others who define it as a general process of change by which various societies respond to changes in social and physical environments. However, all the scholars accept that political modernization involve “changes” from old to modern. Definitions of Political Modernisation •    Clauden E. Welch Jr. defines Political Modernisation as, “the process based upon the rational utilisation of resources and aimed at the establishment of a modern society.” •    Karl Deutsch has sought to define it in terms of participation or mobilisation. It is the process by which there emerges mass political participation by the people and increased political decentralisation. •    Benjamin Schwartz describes Political Modernisation as, “the systematic, sustained and powerful application of human energies to the rational control of man’s physical and social environment for various human purposes.” •    Edward Shills, while defining the view of the developing nations towards modernisation, writes, “It postulates a desire to be free of dependence on the West.” As Davies and Lewis explain more positively, “the goal is to be modern, that is dynamic, concerned with the people, democratic and equalitarian, scientific, economically advanced, sovereign and influential.” The model of modernity adopted by newly emerged states is that of ‘the West detached in some way from its geographical origins and locus’. In other words, when underdeveloped nations try to be industrialized, urbanized and economically developed, the process is called modernization. In the context of political process. it involves the attempt to transform the political culture, as Dr. J.C. Johri writes, “in response to the changes in social and physical environments in view of the essential fact that political change is intricately related to a wide spectrum of social and economic factors.” •    Robert Ward has defined Political Modernisation as the movement towards a modern society characterized by its far-reaching ability to control or influence the physical and social circumstances of its environment and by a value system which is fundamentally optimistic about the desirability and consequences of this ability. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 What does political modernization primarily refer to? A)    The adoption of traditional political structures. B)    The process of transforming political systems to adapt to contemporary needs. C)    The preservation of ancient political customs. D)    The rejection of technological advancements in politics. 7.4 S.P. Huntington’s Views on Political Modernisation S.P. Huntington has made a pioneering contribution towards the development of the concepts of Political Modernisation and Political Development. He describes political modernization as “a multi-faceted process involving change in all areas of human thought and activity.” Political Modernisation postulates changes in five key aspects of human activity and relations : (1)    At the psychological level, modernization involves a fundamental shift in values, attitudes and expectations. (2)    At the intellectual level, it involves tremendous expansion of man’s knowledge about his environment and the diffusion of knowledge through increase in literacy, mass communication and education. (3)    Demographically, it implies a change in the pattern of life, a marked increase in health and life expectancy, greater occupational and geographical mobility and a shift of population from rural to urban areas. (4)    At the social level, modernization has a tendency to replace the focus of individual’s loyalty from family and other primary groups to voluntarily organized secondary associations. (5)    Finally, in the sphere of economics, substances agriculture is replaced by market agriculture, agriculture itself declines in comparison to commerce, industry and other non-agricultural activities, and the scope of economic activity is widered as this activity gets more and more centralized at the national level. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Write a short note on S.P. Huntington’s views on Political Modernization? 7.5    NATURE OF POLITICAL MODERNISATION After analysing the views of these scholars, it becomes possible for us to define the nature of political modernisation “as the process by which traditional societies try to become modem, i.e., industrialised, urbanised, educated and actively participating societies. It involves the transformation of their political cultures in response to the changes in physical and social environments.” Dr. S.P. Verma, quoting S.P Humington, has well summarised modernisation as “a comprehensive phenomenon which brings about radical changes in the field of economic development, mainly in the direction of industrialization and material advancement, changes in the nature and content of the political systems and also changes in the social and psychological spheres of life.” Political modernization results from (1) social mobilization, (2) economic development, (3) rationalization of authority, (4) differentiation of structures, and (5) the expansion of political participation. In fact, these are the five key features of political modernization. It is the process by which a traditional society seeks to become a modem society. A modern society is as, I.R. Sinai observes, “A society based on advanced technology and the spirit of science, on a rational view of life, a secular approach to social relations, a feeling for justice in public affairs, and all else, on the acceptance in the political realm of the belief that the prime unit of the policy should be the nation-state.” The nature of Political Modernisation can be analysed more clearly by understanding its relation with Political Development. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Which of the following is not a feature of political modernization? a)    Democratization. b)    Centralization of power. c)    Bureaucratization. d)    Decentralization. 7.6    RELATION BETWEEN POLITICAL MODERNISATION AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT 7.6.1    Close Relations between Political Modernisation and Political Development Political Modernization and Political Development are closely connected processes that together form the political aspect of social change, which is a continuous feature of every society. While many scholars consider them identical, they are, in fact, distinct yet closely related. Political modernization occurs within the framework of political development, as understood and accepted by the members of a political system. Samuel P. Huntington clarifies their relationship by suggesting that political development is an independent process, though influenced by modernization. According to him, political development refers to the institutionalization of political structures and procedures, whereas political modernization involves aspects such as social mobilization, economic growth, rationalization of authority, structural differentiation, and increased political participation. While modernization contributes to development, political development also shapes the course of modernization. 7.6.2    Points of Difference between Modernisation and Development We can specify the following points of difference between Political Modernisation and Political Development : (1)    Political Development refers to upward change in the political system, where as Political Modernisation refers to every type of change, upward or downward, development or decay, in the political system. (2)    Political Modernisation is open-ended and value free. It stands for all changes involving the march from tradition to modernity. Political Development involves changes based on accepted values and goals. (3)    Political Modernisation is a factor of Political Development, the latter conditions the former. (4)    Political Modernisation refers to the acquisition of developed tools and technologies, political development refers to the planned and systematic change in the political system. (5)    Whereas Political Modernization involves the attempts to change, Political Development refers to the changes that result in the system. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. Write in brief note on the relations between political modernization and political development? 7.7 PROBLEMS OF MODERNIZING SOCIETIES C.E, Black has identified the following four critical problems that all modernizing societies must face:- (a)    A challenge to modernity; (b)    The consolidation of modernising leadership; (c)    Economic and social transformation; and (d)    Integration of society. Barington Moose has, on the other hand suggested the following three different patterns taken by societies on the road of modernity : (a)    A bourgeois revolution resulting in Western democracy. (b)    A conservative reaction leading to fascism. (c)    A peasant revolution leading to Communism. As a result the models of Political Modernisation are Liberal, Democratic, Communistic and authoritarian-particularly military regimes. Self Check Exercise-5 Q. Which factor often leads to social inequality in modernizing societies? a)    Equal distribution of resources. b)    Emphasis on community welfare. c)    Gender discrimination. d)    Strong government intervention 7.8    Summary There are several nuanced distinctions between political modernization and political development. However, despite these differences, it is essential to highlight that these processes are complementary and mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory. They function simultaneously and play a crucial role in political analysis. Both concepts hold significant value in modern political science and have been widely utilized by scholars to examine, classify, and compare political systems based on their functioning and the changes they undergo over time. 7.9    Glossary •    Modernisation - It is the process of updating something or making it work in a contemporary setting. •    Individualism – The quality of being different form other people and doing any times in your own way. •    Civilization – A society which has its own highly developed culture and way of life. 7.10    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 1.    B Self Check Exercise-2 For Answer, See section 7.4 Self Check Exercise-3 1.    B Self Check Exercise-4 For Answer, See section 7.6 Self Check Exercise-5 1.    C 7.11    Suggested Readings • For details, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 6. 7.12    Terminal Questions 1.    What do you understand by the term of Political Modernisation ? How does it differ from Political Development ? 2.    What do you mean by Modernisation ? Briefly discuss its basic Characteristics ? 3.    Define Political Modernisation ? Describe the differences between Political Modernisation and Political Development. 4.    Explain Modernization? What are the various aspects of modernization? ***** Unit-8 MEANING AND NATURE OF POLITICAL ELITE Structure 8.1    Introduction 8.2   Learning Objectives 8.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Elite Self Check Exercise-1 8.4    Difference between Elite Rule, Oligarchy and Aristocracy Self Check Exercise-2 8.5    Feature of Political Elites Self Check Exercise-3 8.6    Kinds of Political Elites 8.6.1    Traditional Elites 8.6.2    Aristocratic Elites 8.6.3    The New Elite / Modern Elites Self Check Exercise-4 8.7    Summary 8.8    Glossary 8.9    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 8.10    Suggested Reading 8.11    Terminal Questions 8.1    Introduction In every state, whether democratic or not, political power is always concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals—the leaders or "ruling minorities." In a representative democracy, this power is exercised by a select group of elected leaders from the majority party or coalition. Similarly, in a totalitarian regime, authority remains with a small group of individuals. Regardless of the system, the true power holders are always a minority, governing on behalf of the majority. The key distinction between democracy and totalitarianism lies in how these leaders attain power. In a democracy, the governing elite is chosen by the people, whereas in a totalitarian system, leadership is imposed through force. Across all societies, from the least developed to the most advanced, there exist two classes: those who govern and those who are governed. The ruling class, always a minority, holds political authority, enjoys the benefits of power, and dictates the direction of governance. Meanwhile, the larger, subordinate class is controlled by the ruling elite, whether through legal frameworks or coercion, and provides the necessary resources and labor for the functioning of the state. Scholars use various terms to describe this group of power holders, including the Elite, Political Class, Ruling Elite, Governing Elite, Power Elite, and Top Leadership. While the ruling elite exists in every political system, its structure, mode of operation, and governance style vary depending on the system in place. 8.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit you will be able to: •    Explain the meaning of Political elite. •    Discuss the kinds of Political Elites. •    Know the features of Elite Theory. 8.3    Meaning and Definitions of Political Elite The term "Elite" is defined in the dictionary as "the chosen element in the population." This term refers to select groups within society that hold influence and authority. Though elites make up a small fraction of the population, they are at the core of power structures. These chosen individuals occupy top positions in various fields, such as intellectuals, city elites, or legal professionals. In the political realm, elites are known as political elites—those who hold and exercise political power within a system. Despite being a minority, they dominate key centers of political influence and decision-making. Definitions • Vilferdo Pareto, to whom goes the credit of popularizing the concept of the elite, gives two definitions of the elite, a broad one that covers the whole social elite and a narrow one that refers to the governing elite: (i)    In the broad sense, he defines elite as “a small number of individuals who in each sphere of activity have succeeded and arrived at a higher echelon in the professional hierarchy.” (ii)    In the narrow sense, Pareto defines the ruling elite or the governing elite as that “small number of individuals who have succeeded and who exercise ruling functions politically and socially.” •    According to Suzanne Kellar, “Elites are those minorities which are set apart from the rest of society by their pre-eminence in one or more of these various distributions.” •    C. Wright Mills uses the term ‘power elite” for “elite” and defines it as “those who occupy the command posts.” •    Presthus defines elites as “minorities of specialised leaders who enjoy disproportionate amounts of power in community affairs”. •    Lass-well is of the-view that, “the political elite comprises the power holders of a body politic. The power-holders include the leadership and the social formations, from which leaders typically come, and to which accountability is maintained during a given period. On the basis of these definitions, we can say that political elite is the minority group which exercises power in a society. It enjoys different names in different societies - Power Elite, Political Elite, Governing Elite, Ruling Elite, etc. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Define the word Elite? 8.4    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELITE RULE, OLIGARCHY AND ARISTOCRACY In order to be clear about the nature of contemporary Political Elites, we must distinguish between the rule of the Elite, the rule of the ‘Oligarchs’ and the rule of the Aristocracy’. All the three terms refer to the rule of a minority over the society. In each of them, the rulers are conceptualised as superior elements or chosen elements. However, along with these similarities, there are fundamental differences between the rule of the elite on the one hand and rule of the oligarchs on the other. “The point of similarity is the rule of the few’, while the element of difference lies in the way in which the few come to hold and exercise power. The Elite rule depends upon the appreciation of the masses, while the rule of the oligarchs depends upon the apathy, ignorance or weak and meek altitude of ihc down-trodden people.” Analysing the difference between Elite rule, Oligarchy and Aristocracy, Doughlas V. Verney observes, “An elite appear to combine some of the characteristics of both an Oligarchy and an Aristocracy but it is not to be confused with either. It is a minority, like an oligarchy, and consists of superior people, like an aristocracy, but there is neither the sense of self-perpetuation and selfishness which surrounds the former nor the pomp and grandeur which often is associated with the latter.” In other words, elite rule is the rule of the minority but it is neither self-perpetuating nor selfish. Nevertheless, it, like Oligarchy and Aristocracy, does involve the promotion of vested interests. Further, a political elite in modern democratic systems emerges out of the masses. It rule with the tacit and general approval of the masses. The masses, in fact, elect their ruling elites and recognise their power and ability to rule over them. In Oligarchy and Aristocracy, the elite rule is based on kinship or family superiority or the thesis of ‘celebrities and royal family.’ Oligarchs rule by establishing their right to govern either because of their inherent right or family status or even physical ability to rule. In an aristocracy, the few rule because they are regarded as ‘the persons fit to rule.’ In Oligarchy and Aristocracy, the rule of the few over the masses is imposed and it always tries to perpetuate itself. In the elite rule, the chosen minority rules with the consent of the masses and is accountable for its rule. The concept of Elite rule in a democracy is, as such, different from the traditional concepts of Oligarchy and Aristocracy. Elite rule is a minority rule, backed by the tacit and general consent of the masses. Oligarchy and Aristocracy involve the rule of the minority which thrives either on the interest of the masses in their doings, or on the apathy, ignorance, weaknesses and meekness of the masses. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Define the term Aristocracy? 8.5    Features of Political Elite The key characteristics of political elite can be outlined as follows: 1.    Political elites represent a small fraction of society, forming a select group of individuals. 2.    In democratic systems, political elites gain legitimacy through public support and consent. 3.    Their authority and influence are typically secured through elections, which serve as a means of validating their leadership. 4.    These elites hold significant positions and play a crucial role in decisionmaking processes. 5.    Their power and influence stem from various attributes, such as intellectual acumen, administrative expertise, high-ranking status, military strength, public trust, and moral credibility. 6.    Societies comprise different types of elites, including governing elites, power elites, national elites, and elites distinguished by status. Additionally, elites can exist across various domains such as politics, economy, and society, each excelling in their respective fields. 7.    In democratic frameworks, there is a constant shift and rotation among elites. 8.    Political elites in democracies are individuals elected by the public, exercising power on behalf of the people. In practice, democracy operates as an elitist system. 9.    The elite theory suggests that despite the ideal of equality, inequality persists in reality. The elites govern the masses, wielding authority under the guise of "popular will," "general will," and "consent of the governed." 10.    Elites emerge and evolve in every society, continuously vying for power. 11.    In democratic systems, political elite membership is open to all citizens, ensuring a continuous process of circulation and change within the elite class. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Discuss any two features of political elites? 8.6    Kinds/Types of Political Elites Elites can be classified on the basis of the areas of their operation, viz, political elites, social elites, economic elites, intellectual elite- etc. The political elites are popularly classified into three forms:-8.6.1 Traditional Elites The elites who enjoy power, influence and authority on the basis of traditions and traditional values are called Traditional Elites. Customs, religion, land, and family were the bases of their power and authority in the past. Wealth, property and family status are usually the important sources of power of the traditional elites in the modem times as well. Princes, Zamindars, religious leaders are examples of traditional elites. Even in contemporary times, when secularism has come to be universally accepted as a value, religious leaders continue to act as elite groups in almost all the societies., e.g., Buddhist monks have been playing a key role in the ethnic crises of Sri Lanka, ruling crises in Myanmar and demand for autonomy for Tibet. In Islamic States, the religious leaders, ‘Mullahs’, ‘Ayoatullas’, Shia Leaders and Sunni Leaders have been playing an important role in the political process. The constitution and working of such religious groups in a theocratic state are similar to the organisation and working of traditional elites. 8.6 .2 Aristocratic or Noble Elites In almost all such societies as were in the past governed by kings, aristocratic elites or royal elites continue to wield power and influence even alter the transformation of monarchical regimes into democratic regimes. The House of Lords in England is an example of an aristocratic elite house within a democratic political system. British Royal Family is also a ruling elite family. This is also true of some European States, Japan, Malaysia and many other such states. Even in our own country, the ex-maharajas, their sons and daughters, continue to be influential in the Indian politics. The former maharajas do not wear the ‘Taaj’ but they do try to sit on ‘power chairs’ and influence the corridors of power. After the loss of their ‘kingdoms and privy purses’, most of them have willingly replenished these with social prestige carved through the support of the masses. As such, even in this age of democracy, aristocratic or noble elites continue to be actively present in almost all the states. 8.6 .3 The New Elite or Modern Elite The new elite or the modem elite is a product of the industrial society and represents the forces of modernisation and development. The progress of the industrial revolution has been accompanied by the rise of big business houses and industrial concerns. The owners of such concerns, by virtue of being very rich, have started acting as elite groups capable of exercising a big influence, sometimes deterministic influence on the political process. The transformation of the police state into a welfare state has resulted into a manifold increase in the functions of the state. It has come to be the biggest instrument for the promotion of socio-economic welfare through the formulation, adoption and implementation of welfare policies. This has tremendously increased the role and importance of public administration. The bureaucracy as the main instruments of public administration has come to be a very powerful group - an elite group - in all the states. Bureaucracy is new elite, a powerful elite at work in every state. Likewise, with the rise of the democracy and systems, new elites have come to wield and exercise power in every society. The leaders of the political parties are the modern or new elites. In fact, the technological revolution of the professional machine age as well as the developments in the field of research have brought into existence such elites, new elites as Engineers, Doctors, Scientists and Intellectuals. All such elites play a vigorous and important role in the political systems. In Marxist and other totalitarian political systems, the lop party leaders- the custodians of party ideology, have been working as new elite committed to secure modernization and development in their social system. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. Write any two kinds of Political elites? 8.7 Summary In conclusion, the theory of political elites underscores the significant influence wielded by a select few in shaping societal structures and policies. Understanding their power dynamics is crucial for promoting democracy, accountability, and equitable representation. Effective governance demands continual scrutiny and engagement to ensure the interests of all citizens are served. 8.8 Glossary •    Ruling Class: The ruling class typically refers to a social group that holds significant power, often politically and economically, exerting influence over society’s structures and decisions. •    General Will: The concept of the “general will” refers to the collective desires and interests of a community or society as a whole, rather than the preferences of individuals or specific groups within that society. It’s often associated with the idea of common good or the greater welfare of the entire community. 8.9    Answer to Self Check Exercise 8.9.1    Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See Section 8.3 8.9.2    Self Check Exercise-2 For Answer, See Section 8.4 8.9.3    Self Check Exercise-3 For Answer, See Section 8.5 8.9.4    Self Check Exercise-4 For Answer, See Section 8.6 8.10    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 10. 8.11    Terminal Questions Q.1 Discuss the meaning and nature of Political Elite? Q.2 Define Political Elite? Discuss the kinds of Elite. Q.3 Write an essay on the concept of Political Elites? ***** Unit-9 THEORIES OF POLITICAL ELITE Structure 9.1    Introduction 9.2    Learning Objectives 9.3    Theories of Political Elites 9.3.1    Elite Theory of Vilferdo Pareto 9.3.2    Elite Theory of Mosca 9.3.3    Elite Theory of Robert Michels 9.3.4    Elite Theory of Y. Gasset 9.3.5    Elite Theory of Burnham 9.3.6    Elite Theory of C. Wright Mill 9.3.7    Elite Theory of Schumpeter Self Check Exercise-1 9.4    Central Themes of Elites Theories 9.5    Summary 9.6    Glossary 9.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 9.8    Suggested Readings 9.9    Terminal Questions 9.1    Introduction The theory of political elites, advanced by diverse thinkers like Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels, explores the role of privileged individuals or groups in shaping political systems. Their perspectives shed light on how elites wield power, control resources, and maintain influence, offering crucial insights into governance dynamics. 9.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to- •    Explain the theory of pareto. •    Understand the elite theory of Mosca. 9.3    THEORIES OF POLITICAL ELITES Theories of political elites focus on understanding the role of small, influential groups or individuals who hold power and shape political decisions, often independently of the general population's preferences. The elites are typically seen as being more educated, resourceful, and socially privileged compared to the broader public. Those who get on the top are always the best. They are known as the elite. The elites consist of those successful persons who rise to the top in every occupation and startum of society ; there is an elite of lawyers, and elite of machines, and even an elite of thieves and an elite of prostitutes. Let us briefly discuss the ideas of leading elite theorists in the light of the central theme of their contributions. 9.3.1    THE ELITE THEORY OF VILFERDO PARETO (1848-1923) Pareto’s Elite Theory is based on the view that individuals invariably differ from one another in their basic abilities thus making inequality inevitable in the society. In every society, there is a minority which effectively rules and exercises power and influence. It does so because it posseses some extraordinary characteristics - intellectual ability, administrative acumen, military power or moral authority. It. therefore, forms the elite of a given society. Analysing his concept of the elite- Pareto observes, “Let us assume that in every branch of human activity, each individual is given an index, which stands as a sign of his capacity, very much the way grades are given in the various subjects of examinations in schools. The highest type of lawyer, for instance, will be given 10 and the man who does not get a client will be given 1, reserving zero for the man who is out and out an idiot. Or to the man who has made his millions - honestly or dishonestly as the case may be we will give 10 to the man who has earned his thousands we will give 6; to such as just manage to keep out of the poor house 1, keeping zero for those who get nil, and so on for all the branches of activity, and to that class, which is at the top, the name of elite.” In other words, Pareto advocates that some persons are superior in their attributes while others possess inferior abilities. The class having superior ability constitutes the elite. (a)    Social Elite and Governing Elite Pareto categories elites into the Social Elite and the Governing Elite. The Social Elite is broadly the class of persons with superior abilities. He, in this broad sense, defines the elite as ; “a small number of individuals, who in each sphere of activity have succeeded and arrived at a higher echelon in the professional hierarchy.” Social Elites include successful businessmen, artists, Politicians, lawyers, engineers, and so on. The Governing Elite is that small number of individuals who have succeeded and who exercise ruling functions politically and socially. (b)    Pareto’s Division of Society into Two Stratums Pareto maintains that the population of a society stands divided into two stratums : (1) the lower stratum (the masses and the non-elite), and (2) the higher stratum - the elite of the ruling elite. He further sub-divides the higher stratum into two parts : (i) the governing elite’ and (ii) the non-governing elite, the former wields power and latter is the group of all able successful persons. (c)    Attributes of the Governing Elite The governing elite has ideal qualities of head and muscles - an ideal combination of the qualities of a lion and a fox. They use force to rule and reason to justify their rule. Force over the lower stratum and propaganda for winning support are together employed by the governing elite to rule their societies. (d)    Pareto’s Concept of the Circulation of the Elite “History”, observed Pareto, “is a graveyard of aristocracies.” Old elites always give place to new elites. Elites are always in a flux. They are dynamic and not static. In every society, there is an unceasing movement of individuals and elites from higher to lower levels and from lower to higher levels resulting in a “considerable increase of the degenerate elements in the Classes which still hold power, and on the other hand, in an increase of elements of superior quality in the subject classes.” This leads to the ultimate extinction of every elite group in society. The dissolution of the elite group makes the social equilibrium unstable. Pareto goes on to discuss various kinds of circulation among the elite : of circulation (i) between different categories of the governing elite itself, and (ii) between the elite and the rest of the population. The latter may involve, (a) individuals in the lower strata entering the existing elite, and/or (b) individuals in the lower strata forming new elite groups and entering into a struggle for power with the existing elite. Pareto further explains the degeneration of the governing elite in terms of changes taking place in the characteristics of the different categories of the elite. Pareto’s Concept of Residues He develops his concept of “residues” by drawing a distinction between the logical (rational) and non-logical (non-rational) actions of the individuals in social life; logical actions are termed as those actions winch are directed to attainable ends the reverse type of actions are called non-logical actions. By ‘residues’, Pareto means the superior qualities through which a person can rise in life. He discusses six types of residues but gives primary importance to two residues : the residue of combination (cleverness) and the residue of aggregates (Force). Accordingly, ruling elites are of two types : One which rules by “virtue of the residue of combination”, and the second that rules by “virtue of residue of aggregates.” A governing elite which has both these “virtues’ is the best. The governing elites use “derivations” (Myths) for maintaining themselves in power. Elite Circulation - A source of Social Mobility and Change The circulation of the Elite, believes Pareto, is very helpful in preventing revolutions and in maintaining social mobility and change. “Revolutions come about through accumulations in higher strata of society - either because of a slowing down in a class circulation or from other causes of decadent elements no longer possessing the residue suitable for keeping them in power, or shrinking from the use of force; while in the mean time, in the lower strata of society, elements of superior quality are coming to the force, possessing residues suitable for exercising the functions of governing and willing enough to use Force,’’ Pareto, thus, parents a theory of the elite - the natural division based upon the unequal abilities of the members of society. He conceives of elites in terms of social elites and governing elites as well as explains the process of changes in the elites on the basis of his concept of ‘circulation of elites’. 9.3.2    THE ELITE THEORY OF GAETANO MOSCA (1856-1941) Gaetano Mosca like Pareto, also offers a theory of elite and circulation of elite. His analysis is, in several important ways, similar to the one given by Pareto. He begins his theory by rejecting the Aristotelian thesis of three-fold typology of governments Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. He asserts that there was only one kind of government Oligarchy. Universality of Elite Rule :- Mosca declares, “in all societies, from meagerly developed to fully developed, two classes of people appear - a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolises power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first in a manner that is now more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent and supplies the first, in appearance at least, with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism.” “The larger the political community.” Mosca Further observes, “the smaller will be the proportion of the governing minority to the majority to be governed by and the more difficult it will be for the majority to organise for reaction against the minority.” Elite - an Able Minority:- In other words, Mosca clearly advocates the belief that the domination of an organised minority over the unorganised majority is inevitable. He is of the view that the majority of human beings, in a condition of eternal tutelage, are predestined by tragic necessity to submit to the domination of a small minority, and must be content to constitute the pedestal of an oligarchy. An active and organised minority (elite) governs the passive and unorganised majority (the masses). The most distinguishing characteristic of the elite is “the aptitude to command and to exercise political control.” Mosca’s concept of Circulation of Elites:- Like Pareto, Mosca also believes in the Circulation of the Elite. The elite is not a static closed group. It is dynamic in nature and is subject to the principle of the “circulation of elites.” New members keep on coming into it as old members keep on going out of it. Sometimes, the whole set gets replaced by another through a revolution. The give and take between elites and non-elites goes on. When the ruling elite loses its aptitude to command and to exercise political control, and the people outside the ruling class cultivate it in large numbers, there is every possibility that the old ruling class will be deposed and replaced by the new one. Mosca believes that circulation of the elite is an eternal law. The governing elite, in course of time, becomes incapable of providing the necessary and valuable services to the masses and thus gets replaced by another elite. Sometimes, the changes in the social system, like the birth of a new religion, also make it inevitable for the governing elite to yield place to another new organised and active elite. Thus, Mosca, like Pareto, believes in the circulation of the elite as an inevitable process. In this connection, he gives his concept of ‘Political Formula ‘which is similar to Pareto’s concept of ‘Derivations’. 9.3.3    ELITE THEORY OF ROBERT MICHELS (1876-1936) Advocacy of Iron Law or Oligarchy :- Michels also believes in the principle of the “Iron law of oligarchy” according to which every society is ruled by a minority, i.ev by an elite group. This law is “one of the iron laws of history, from which the most democratic modern societies and within those societies, the most advanced parties, have been unable to escape.” In each Democracy, Party Rule is really an Elite Rule:- According to Michels, every democratic system in actuality is a party system. In it, a party-rules and the party organisation is controlled by a group of leaders who, because of the organisational and psychological factors, in reality do not remain accountable to the electorate or the people who elect them. The leaders are together the ruling elite, and their rule is, as such an oligarchy. What is true of party organisation is also true of all other organisations. “No organisation can be anything except being an ‘oligarchy”. The machinery of the organization completely inverts the position of the leader in respect to the masses. Thus, in every society, the active minority (the elite) governs the passive majority - (the masses) and democracy, in fact is a competition between oligarchies. The rule of Law is basically the rule of the leaders. If laws are passed to control the dominion of leaders, it is the laws which gradually weaken and not the leaders. To sum up, we can say that Michel also advocates the view that the rule of minority (governing elite) over the masses is a natural phenomenon in all societies. All systems of government are oligarchic in the ultimate reality. 9.3.4    ELITE THEORY OF ORTEGA Y. GASSET (1883-1955) Theory of Masses and Theory of Elite : Ortega Y. Gasset places his theory of the elite upon his theory of the masses. According to him, “a nation’s greatness depends on the capacity of the ‘people’, ‘the public’, ‘the crowds’, ‘the masses’ to find their ‘symbol’ in certain chosen people, on whom it pours out the vast store of its vital enthusiasm.” A nation is an organised human heap, given structure by a minority of’ select individuals - the Elite. “The legal form which a nation may adopt can be as democratic or as communistic as you choose, but its living and extra-legal constitution will always consist in the dynamic influence of the minority acting on the mass. This is a natural law and as important in the biology of social bodies as the law of densities in physics.” Division of Each Society into Chosen People and Ruled Masses:- “The primary social fact is the organisation of the human heap in the leaders and the led. This supposes in some a certain capacity to lead; in others a certain capacity to be led.” The leaders are the “selected people” or “the chosen people”. They are the chosen people by virtue of the fact of their being ‘outstanding people’, with the ability (derived from the masses) to lead the masses who are not chosen. “A man is effective in society as a whole”, writes Ortega, “not so much because of his individual qualities as because of his social energies which have been reposed in him by the mass.” The rise of the chosen people in a society is a natural and universal phenomenon “Where there is not a minority acting over a collective mass, and a mass that knows how to accept the influx of a minority, there is no society, or very nearly so.” As such, a society is really a society only when it is given structure by a group of chosen people (the elite). A nation without such a group always suffers a decline. 9.3.5    ELITE THEORY OF BURUHAM Buruham’s Elite-theory constitutes an attempt to combine the theory of Elitism with the principles of Marxism. He advocates the view that the present capitalist system would ultimately be replaced by a society in which the income and political institutions will be controlled by a few persons only. He designates these persons as the Managerial Elite. In a capitalist society whole business is controlled by the professional managers, the basis of elite power is control over production, i.e.. income. “The easiest way to discover the ruling elite in any society is usually to see what group gets the biggest income.” Buruham – accepts like Marx, the importance of the means of production in a society. However, the similarity between his views and Marxism ends here. Whereas Marxism believes that after the revolution, the means of production wil come into the hands of the proletariat. Buruham advocates that the means of production are destined to be in the hands of the elite, the group of persons controlling the means of production and the income of the society. 9.3.6    ELITE THEORY OF C. WRIGHT MILLS C. Wright Mills uses the term “Power Elite’ instead of the term ‘Elite’ or Ruling Class. He uses the term ‘Power Elite’ to refer to all those persons in a society who occupy command posts. The basis of the power of the elite is socio-economic. In contemporary societies, power is with those institutions which occupy the pivotal position in the society. In turn, each such institution is controlled by a small group of people at the top - the power elite. To quote C. Wright Mills, “The elite is the product of the ‘institutional landscape’ of the society. Power in modern society is institutionalised with the result that certain institutions constitute the strategic command posts of the social structure. Power is an attribute of the institutions. The power elite consists of those in position to make decisions having major consequences...in command of the major hierarchies and organisations of modem society.” An important feature of C. Wight Mills’ concept of the power elite is his advocacy that it is endowed with the central quality of cohesiveness because of the similarity of background, attitudes, skills etc.. that, “the history-making power of the elite is sufficient to overturn the status-quo, call into question the existing social relationship and establish a new structure. The inner core of the elite is the ability, potentially, to determine the role both it and the others will play in society.” 9.3.7 THE CONCEPT OF ELITES IN SCHUMPETER’S THEORY Schumpeter's discussion of elites is rooted in his broader critique of democratic ideals and his emphasis on the role of leadership and innovation. For Schumpeter, societies are not governed by the masses or purely democratic processes; rather, they are led by a select group of individuals-the elite-who possess the necessary qualities to lead, innovate, or administer. These elites are not necessarily hereditary aristocrats but are individuals who rise due to their exceptional abilities, ambitions, and capacity for leadership. Elites and Innovation Schumpeter is best known for his concept of Creative destruction, which describes the process through which innovation disrupts and transforms economic system. He identified entrepreneurs as key members of the economic elite, driving progress through innovation and taking risks to challenge established norms. Entrepreneurs, in Schumpeter's view, are a form of elite class in the economic sphere because they possess unique traits-vision, determination, and the capacity to foresee and implement change. This entrepreneurial elite plays a pivotal role in capitalism's dynamism, but their success often leads to their eventual demise. Once their innovations become mainstream, large bureaucratic organizations tend to take over, and the individual entrepreneur loses their unique status. Schumpeter warned that this bureaucratization of the innovative process could stifle the very dynamism that fuels capitalism. Elite in Democracy Schumpeter's analysis of democracy in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy challenges the traditional notion or rule by the people. He argued that democracy is, in practice, a competition among elites for the support of the masses. Schumpeter viewed democratic governance as a process where leaders-members of the political elite-present themselves to voters, who then choose among competing elites. For Schumpeter, this elite dominance in democracy reflects the inherent limitations of the masses in governing themselves. He was skeptical of the capacity of average citizens to make informed decisions on complex political issues. In his model, the masses play a passive role, with elites shaping policy and providing direction. This perspective has been criticized for its cynicism toward democratic ideals but remains influential in political science and sociology. Elite Persistence and Challenges Schumpeter also recognized that the persistence of elites in various domains-political, economic, or social-can lead to resistance to change. While elites are initially the agents of progress, they may later become obstacles to innovation as they seek to preserve their own positions of power. This cyclical dynamic between elite creation, consolidation, and eventual stagnation underscores Schumpeter's nuanced understanding of their role in society. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 According to the theory of political elites, who are the individuals or groups that hold significant power and influence within a society? a) Working class          b) Middle class c) Political elites            d) Intellectuals Q.2 Which sociologist introduced the concept of the “power elite” in his book “The Power Elite”? a)    Karl Marx            b) Max Weber c)    C. Wright Mills          d) Emile Durkheim Q.3 Who among the following theorists proposed the concept of “iron law of oligarchy”? a) Robert Michels        b) Max Weber c)    Vilfredo Pareto         d) Emile Durkheim 9.4    Central Themes of Elites Theories Let us briefly discuss the ideas of leading elite theorists in the light of the central theme of their contributions : Political Elite Theorists | Theorists | Approaches | Contentions | |---|---|---| | Gaetano Mosca | Organisational | In every society two classes of people exist— the rulers and the ruled-the former always less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys advantages that follow, tries to find out a legal and moral basis for | | | | being in the citadels of powers. | |---|---|---| | Robert Michels | “ | Who says organization, say oligarchy, the fact of technical indispensability of leadership is always at work. | | Wilfredo Pareto | “ | History is the graveyard of aristocracies, elites remain in circulation, they rise and fall in spite of having special qualities (residues) which help a powerful position. | | James Buruham | Economic | The power of elites has its source in the ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, the privileged few manage to receive preferential treatment from the society and thereby prevent others from being in power. | | C.W. Mills | Institutional | The elites are a product of the institutional landscape of society, power is an attribute, not of classes but of institutions, all elites cannot be of equal significance as few may have access to the seats of power. | 9.5    Summary In conclusion, the theory of political elites, as articulated by various thinkers, underscores the critical role of a select group in shaping and controlling political processes and power dynamics within societies. Whether through Pareto’s emphasis on the persistence of elite rule, Michels’ iron law of oligarchy, or Mills’ analysis of the power elite, these perspectives highlight the concentration of influence and decisionmaking authority among a privileged few. Recognizing the complexities of elite interactions and their impact on governance is essential for understanding the dynamics of political systems and avenues for promoting democratic accountability and social justice. 9.6    Glossary • Ruling Class: The ruling class refers to the segment of society that holds significant power, wealth, and influence, often controlling key institutions and decision-making processes within a given political or social system. 9.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. 1. C Ans. 2. C Ans. 3. A 9.8    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 10. 9.9    Terminal Questions Q.1 Discuss briefly the theories of Political Elites as discussed by Pareto, Mosca, C. Wright Mill? Q.2 What are the various theories of Elite? Explain the relationship between Elite and Democracy? ***** Unit-10 FEATURES AND LIMITATIONS OF ELITE THEORY Structure 10.1    Introduction 10.2    Learning objectives 10.3    Features of Elite Theories Self Check Exercise-1 10.4    Limitations of Elite Theory Self Check Exercise-2 10.5    Summary 10.6    Glossary 10.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 10.8    Suggested Readings 10.9    Terminal Questions 10.1    Introduction Elite theories analyze power distribution in society, positing that a small, privileged group dominates decision-making. They spotlight how elites perpetuate their status through institutions. However, these theories often overlook societal complexities and dynamics, neglecting the agency of non-elite groups and the influence of changing social structures. 10.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Explain the features of Elite theory. •    Understand the limitations of Elite theory. 10.3    Features of Elite Theories On the basis of the description of the views of elite theorists as discussed in the previous unit, we can specify the following as the common features of the elitist theory : 1.    In every society, power is really enjoyed by a small group of persons who have high prestige and widespread influence. This group is called the governing elite or the power elite. 2.    The member of the governing elite occupies key positions and controls the decision making mechanism. 3.    Almost all the elite theorists agree that the elite are subject to change in every society. This has been described by many as the “Circulation of the Elite.” 4.    The Elite theory advocates the view that democracy is, in the ultimate form, an ‘Oligarchy’. 5.    Every segment of social relationship is dominated by an elite. 6.    The elite theory is based on the realities of the actual working of the political systems. 7.    The Elite Theory is based on the factors of ability, character, capacity, experience and wealth. 8.    The elite theory postulates a division of society into two groups: the Elite and the Masses, the former governs and the latter is governed. 9.    The elite theory regards “will of the people”, “sovereignty of the people”. “Government by the people” and other such characterizations created and adopted by the elites to cover, legitimatize and make successful their rule over the masses. 10.    Elections are regarded by the elite theorists as mechanisms for bringing out the elite. 11.    The elite theory maintains that the responsibility of the governing elite to the public is a mere myth, because experts and able persons (Elite) cannot be responsible to the ignorant. 12.    The elite theory further holds what we call the majority rule is in reality a minority rule. 13.    The elite theory rejects the thesis that public opinion is supreme in a democratic system. It holds that public opinion is a creation of the Elite. 14.    It believes that the rule of the elite is a natural and Just condition without which no political system, not even a democratic system, can be successful. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 Elite theories often emphasize the concept of ________ in society. A) Equality                      B) Meritocracy C) Pluralism                      D) Stratification Q.2 Elite theories suggest that power in society is primarily held by: A) Middle class                 B) Working class C) Political and economic elites D) Religious institutions 10.4 Limitations of Elite Theory The following are the major limitations of the Elite Theory : 1.    Wrongly builds a case in favour of Inequality : Firstly, the Elite theory wrongly assumes inequality as the basis of society. Fundamentally, all are equal in the sense that all are capable of developing their faculties and through these occupy any or every public office. No one is inherently abler and wiser than the others. The difference in intelligence and qualities is that of degree and not of kind. As such the division between the elite and the masses is not organic. 2.    Non-Recognition of the ability of Masses : The theory wrongly reposes all faith in the ability of the elite to the total exclusion of the ability of the masses. 3.    Justifies authoritarian rule in the name of Elite Rule: The elite theory involves an inherent and in-built thesis in favour of totalitarian political Systems. 4.    Ignores the fact of Mass Participation in Politics : It is definitely opposed to the contemporary values of mass political participation in the political process. 5.    Reflects Conservatism : The Elitist Theory is a conservative theory because it gives a theory of democracy to justify the prevailing socioeconomic-political inequalities in several societies. It builds up a strong thesis, though partial and subjective, in favour of the traditionally existing malpractices. 6.    Fails to recognize the virtue of Mass Democracy : It fails to suggest remedies for the prevailing defects of the democratic political systems. On the contrary, it builds up a defence of some of the evil practices charactering the contemporary political systems. 7.    Iron law of Oligarchy is unacceptable : This theory is based on the institutional and not the ideological aspect of democracy. It is mainly descriptive in nature. It believes in the ‘end of ideology’ theory and maintains that ideologies are meaningless because every political system is bound to be governed by the iron law of oligarchy. 8.    Wrongly praises the virtue of Aristocracy : The elite theory wrongly advocates the view that the object of democracy is not the welfare and development of the people. It excludes the people (as masses) from the ruling functions and talks of the elite rule as the ideal condition of rule involving subjugation of the masses to the leaders. 9.    People are Sovereign not Elites : The elite theory can be further criticized for its failure to recognize due importance of the people in democratic systems, the importance of the democratic system and the key role played by public opinion in the determination of the rules, policies, programmes and decisions of the government of a state. 10.    Modern Elites are democratic, responsible and not autocratic Elites : The elite theory wrongly rejects the principle of social, political and legal equality of the people. It is wrong in so far as it rejects the principle of responsibility and accountability of the rulers to the masses. All these limitations of the Elite Theory have to be taken into consideration while conducting its critical evaluation. However, despite these limitations, it cannot be denied that it focuses attention upon the real working of political systems and the actual behaviour of the leaders of a political system. No one can question the view that in every society, power is enjoyed and exercised by a minority, but no one can, at the same time, accept the view that this minority is inherently superior to the masses; that it has the inherent right to govern the masses; and that every system is an oligarchy. Elite structure in a democratic society implies the existence of several ideal conditions and no one can accept that a democratic society is ruled by an oligarchy or democracy. Self Check Exercise-2 Q.1 Elite theories often focus on: A) Economic factors                    B) Political power structures C) Social welfare programs D) Religious institutions Q.2 Which of the following is a criticism of elite theories? A)    They overlook the role of ordinary citizens in shaping politics. B)    They provide a comprehensive understanding of power dynamics. C)    They emphasize the importance of grassroots movements. D)    They focus solely on the economic factors of power. 10.5 Summary It is on the basis of these principles that the Elite theory can be and should be applied to democratic political systems. The contemporary era is an era of elected elites, and not of the traditional oligarchic elites. In the contemporary democratic system, there is a continuous circulation of the elites as well as the interlocking of the elites from the bottom to top. The gap between Elites and Masses is neither organic nor permanent. Elite and present in each society and these also continuously participate in all dimensions of social life. Political power is always in the hands of popularly elected members, who can be identified as political elite or power elite. 10.6 Glossary •    Circulation of Elite: The “Circulation of Elite” refers to the process where members of a society’s elite class move within and between various positions of power and influence, whether it’s in politics, business, academia, or other spheres. •    Autocratic: Autocratic describes a style of leadership where a single individual or entity holds absolute power and makes decisions without input from others. It’s characterized by centralized control, limited freedom for citizens, and little to no accountability to a wider group or system. 10.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. 1. D, Ans. 2. C Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. 1. B Ans. 2. A 10.8    Suggested Readings •    Comparative Politics, Course-3, Lesson International Centre for Distance Education Learning) PP. 36-50. •    A.H. Birch, The British System of Government, (London : George Align 1970). •    C. Wright Mills. Power Elites, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957). •    Dawryl Bakshi, American Pluralist Society, New York: Von Noatrant, 1971. •    GA. 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, comparative 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, !996). •    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. Bonomore, Elites & Society: (Penguin, 1971). •    Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics, (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 1997). 10.9    Terminal Questions Q.1 Critically examine the features of the Elite Theory? Q.2 Define Political Elite? Critically examine the features and limitations of the Elite Theory. ***** Block-II Unit-11 THEORIES OF MODERNIZATION STRUCTURE 11.1    Introduction 11.2    Learning Objectives 11.3    Modernization : A Process of change Self Check Exercise-1 11.4    Schools of Modernization Self Check Exercise-2 11.5    Theories and Approaches of Modernization Self Check Exercise-3 11.6    Indicators of Modernization Self Check Exercise-4 11.7    Summary 11.8    Glossary 11.9    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 11.10    Suggested Readings 11.11    Terminal Questions 11.1    Introduction The twentieth century has witnessed tremendous changes in the field of politics, economic, science and technology. The various theories and approaches were thrown up into the political literature. The political scientists made rigorous efforts to find out the explanatory frame work of political changes. Obviously, in the task of theory building, the location of unit for political analysis become first and foremost endeavor. After second-world war, modernization became the main focus of scholars of Political Science. Many scholars like Daniel Lerner, David Apter, Louis Horowitz, Cemerson, Samuel P. Huntington, Edward Shills, Hanry Bienen, Mariam J. Levy, Yogendra Singh, Myron Weiner, Almond, Clifford Geertz etc., believed that the process of modernization is desirable and inevitable. The modernization is a universal phenomena. And it can be witnessed all over the world in social, political and economic fields. Modernization envisages both conceivable and inconceivable aspects. Therefore, it is a multi-dimensional process. 11.2    Learning Objectives After reading this unit, the students will be able to : •    Understand the concepts of Modernization. •    Know the indicators of Modernization, and •    Describe the relationship between Political Modernization and Social Change. 11.3    Modernazation: A process of change Dear students, change is the law of nature and change is taking place all over the world in social, political and economic fields. And Modernization is, in fact, “the current term for an old process-the process of social change whereby less developed societies acquire the characteristics common to more developed societies”. The hard core of modernization, it must be pointed out, is economic and the growth of “output per head of population” is the yard stick to measure the extent of modernization. Modernization, therefore may be looked upon, as the process of social change in which economic component is of utmost importance. However, it should be noted that there is continuous and increasing interaction between economic and non-economic factors. The rising output per head and its effective incorporation in the society not only brings about a transformation in perceiving and achieving Wealth oriented behaviour, but it also brings about the ultimate reshaping and resharing of all Social values such as power, status, respect, affection and skill. As such, apart from the economic development variables, such as industrialization, urbanization, national, income and per capita income, that affects the rising output per head, other components of modernization have also been identified. There are ‘enlightenment variable’ measured in terms of schooling, literacy and media exposure ; ‘power variable’ measured in terms of participation, party membership and voting; ‘personality variable’ measured in terms of authoritarianism, and ‘localtemporal variable’ to account for those ‘diverse cultures’ which shape the behavioural variations underlying our common humanity. Modernization has thus, economic social and political aspects. However, our main interest is in clarifying the concept of political modernization because essentially it is political modernization, especially in developing areas, which is the prime mover of modernization in other spheres. In fact, in such areas political leaders (modernizers) and centralized political organization (Government) have been the dominant and casual rather than derivative. Political modernization or development refers to “those processes of differentiation of political structure and secularization of political culture which enhances the capability—the effectiveness and efficiency of performance—of a society’s political system” Coleman. From this definition it is clear that dynamic aspect of modernization for the study of politics can be expressed in the general proposition that it is a process of increasing complexity in human affairs within which the policy must act. As already pointed out in the preceding paragraph, political modernization is the cause of further change. Political Modernization can be viewed from three different perspectives. Looked at from historical perspective, political modernization refers to the totality of changes in political structure and culture which have affected or have been affected by certain major transformative processes of modernization. Typological perspective of political modernization refers to the process of transformation of a pre-modem, “traditional” polity into a post-traditional “modem” polity. The evolutionary perspective of political modernization refers to that open ended increase in the capacity of political man to develop structures to cope with or resolve problems, to absorb and adopt to continuous change, and to strive purposely and creatively for the attainment of new social goals. Thus, from the historical and typological perspectives, political modernization is a process of development towards some image of modem polity and from the evolutionary perspective, the growth process is interminable and the state of affairs in terminate. The first manifestation of the political modernization was formation of modem nation-state. In modem nation-state is by product of emerging contradiction within the socio-economic forces or classes which resulted into various revolutions. For instance, glorious revolution of England, French revolution and American civil war of 1863. Thus, parliamentary Democracy, freedom of speech and expression gave the \normative connotation to the modernization. As the new nations had been under imperial rule, after independence they started stressing on modernization, using the term inter-changeable with their term Westernization (though modernization and westernization are distinct). Yet modernization was the process of change where by the less developed societies acquire the characteristics common to the developed societies. For developing nations more pointedly modernization referred to the process by which Western Societies had reached economic, political and social development and by which under developed third world nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America to do likewise. So the whole emphasise was on economic, social and political aspirations of the third world nations to catch up with the industrially advanced nations. Thus for Daniel Lerner, modernization is the process by which colonial people were influenced by the process of colonialization by western industrial power as, “the country that is more developed industrially only shows to the less developed the images of its own future”. Many other scholars put Modernization only on capitalist or socialist line, while Apter and Horowitz hope that modernization is a special case or a sub unit of development. Smelsher regard modernization as more comprehensive in scope and development as its economic component’. It is true for the colonial people that the images of their failure were reflected in the transformation of their traditional social, economic and political order. Stagnat subsistence agriculture was replaced by the production of cash crops for international market, limited local industrialization created specialized labour forces and urban groupings, but most of all, the introduction of western education catalyed radical social change. It promoted social mobility and total restructuring of values in the hitherto ascriptive social order; and traditional hereditary systems of authority. After coming out of the Yolk of colonialism, most of the States of South, South-eastAsia and Africa adopted democratic constitutions for speedy development. The franchise was widely extended, political parties came into being and general elections determine the fact of governments. The affirmation to democratic principles by the nationalist leaders were repeated and continuous. Most of the third World nations began their life as independent states with adoption of the very institution that embodied the modem world-rule of law and constitution, parliamentary structures and norms, in short, all the paraphernalia of republican government coupled with former verbal pledge of commitment to the democratic form of government. Yet within the very first decade, within these independent nation it became apparent while the formal system of these countries were republican in character, their real system were nearly always authoritarian. Even the nations traditionally identified with the Western Values of democracy and liberal, parliamentary norms were forma! than real with a single party and its dynamic leaders retaining a virtual monopoly of the political apparatus. Hence, westernization and modernization may have close link, but these line concepts are distinct. Thus, the structure is the only one aspect of the modernization process. Many social evils have erupted in Western societies. The increasing mental disorder added new dimension to the process of modernization in Western State. Therefore, modernization process is never ending, ongoing multidimensional process. The modernization means a process of change of tradition. The emphasis is more on “processes”. Thus, modernization and tradition are not dichotomous. They are not poles apart. Modernity and tradition are the two bases of same coin. Thus tradition adopts some modem features whereas the modernity adopts some traditional characteristics. The western societies had not discarded all traditionalities and traditional third world has imbibed many modem features. Putting in different words, secularization or rationalization became the base of processes of modernization. The modernization process is a complex phenomena. There is no clear cut concise definition of modernization. Even the concept of political development, and modernization are being used inter changeably. Though the concepts are inter-related. Yet they are distinct. There cannot be modernization without political development. Some scholars of modernization do not differentiate between the two. They believe in integrated approach. All the most they will prefer to will political modernization than political development. Those who subscribe to theory of political development assume that phenomena is the determining factor for all other sectors. They assume autonomous role to politics. On the other hand, the scholars of modernization do or do not subscribe to this view. For them modernization is not only a conceivable but also an inconceivable phenomena. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Define Modernization? 11.4    Schools of Modernization Broadly there are four schools of modernization:- 1.    Psychological School : The propagator of this school believed that modernization is a state of mind. Daniel Lemer is the main spokesman of this psychological school. Psychic mobility, empathy and initiative of men are the main features of the modem mind. Lemer gives importance to other school also, but accord priority to the psychology. 2.    Structural School : Almond, Pye, Verba, Talcot Parson are the main propounders of this school. This school gives priority to structural aspect of the modernization. 3.    Normative School : According to this school, there are certain norms which are modern itself. These norms are democracy, rationalization, secularization and freedom of speech and expression. 4.    Technologic School : According to this school, technology or means of production are the main instruments of modernization process. For instance, handmill gave rise to feudalism and machine gave rise to capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is modern man feudalism. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Discuss any two main schools of modernization? 11.5    Theories and Approaches of Modernization Social scientists have yet to reach a consensus on the definitions and evaluative criteria of modernization, as different perspectives often carry underlying ideological biases. Marxist sociologists, for instance, may criticize the concept of "breakdown" used by scholars from capitalist societies, viewing it as a distorted substitute for revolution—an essential condition for modernization in their framework. Broadly, modernization theories in social sciences can be categorized into two main approaches. One approach analyzes modernization by examining specific social and normative variables, such as social mobility, media exposure, democratic institutions, values, morals, technological and economic resources, and the structural and cultural autonomy within a society. The combination of these factors determines the extent and nature of modernization in a given context. The evolutionary approach to modernization, on the other hand, is grounded in systematic theoretical assumptions, treating modernization as a natural stage in human societal development. However, scholars differ in their views on how evolution occurs and in which direction it progresses. The methodological framework may follow either a structural-functional or dialectical model, with evolution proceeding in a unilinear or multilinear fashion. A key distinction between dialectical (Marxist) and structural-functional evolutionary theories is that the Marxist perspective sees "breakdown" of the existing political, economic, and social framework as an inevitable step toward modernization. In this view, class struggles— both within nations and on a global scale—are essential to evolutionary progress. Moreover, modernization is conceptualized differently within this approach, focusing on changes in property ownership, stratification systems, and economic structures, rather than on psychological or normative variables like achievement orientation and rational hedonism, which are often emphasized in other social science analyses. Individual characteristics are seen as secondary effects of broader institutional changes in power and property relations. The structural-functional evolutionary perspective, influenced by an organic analogy, views modernization as a continuous process extending from pre-human to human societies. Talcott Parsons, in his essay on modernization as an "evolutionary universal," argues that all human societies, regardless of their cultural distinctions, undergo similar evolutionary transformations. He asserts that the transition from subhuman to human societies is merely one phase in a long evolutionary continuum. Modernization progresses through a sequence of "evolutionary universals," which are recurring organizational developments essential for further progress. For instance, in the biological realm, vision is a key evolutionary universal, while in human society, the development of hand and brain is fundamental. Social evolution follows a sequence beginning with basic universals—language, religion, kinshipbased organization, and technology—which form the foundation for more complex institutions such as stratification, cultural legitimization, bureaucratic structures, market systems, universalistic norms, and democratic associations. The final four of these (bureaucracy, market systems, universalistic norms, and democracy) define the structural-normative characteristics of a modern society. According to Parsons, structural breakdown in modernization occurs when historical or cultural factors disrupt the evolutionary sequence, making it inconsistent or rigid. Buck and Jacobson’s study suggests that many Asian nations, particularly former colonies, exhibit such structural disruptions. Countries like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and several in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East have inherited bureaucratic institutions, democratic associations, and universalistic norms from colonial rule without simultaneously developing foundational elements such as communication networks, technology, stratification mechanisms, and legitimacy principles. In India, for example, bureaucracy and universalistic norms are relatively advanced, but key factors like communication infrastructure, kinship structures, and market systems remain underdeveloped, creating obstacles to modernization. The wholesale adoption of Western institutions without corresponding foundational changes exacerbates these challenges. Parsons’ theory of modernization is not universally accepted among sociologists. His claim that democratic associations represent the highest stage of modernization is contested by both Marxist and non-Marxist scholars. For instance, Gunnar Myrdal, in his study on Asia’s development prospects, questions whether political democracy— with its emphasis on free elections, civil liberties, and freedom of assembly and press—should be considered an essential component of modernization. He argues that modernization ideals are shaped by subjective value judgments rather than objective necessities. Despite these critiques, Parsons’ theoretical model remains influential in explaining structural and cultural contradictions in modernization, particularly in underdeveloped nations. The rigidity of stratification systems in India, for example, poses significant obstacles to rapid modernization. Parsons’ model outlines a hypothetical path for modernization that minimizes societal conflict during transitional phases. Similar modernization frameworks have been proposed by scholars like Marion J. Levy, S.N. Eisenstadt, and Gunnar Myrdal, who emphasize the role of structural and normative conditions in shaping the modernization process. Levy, for instance, compares Japan’s successful modernization with China’s structural breakdown, attributing the differences to variations in their initial conditions despite shared cultural characteristics such as a strong familistic ethos, merchant-class placement at the bottom of the social hierarchy, and similar religious values. In China, family authority extended to political and administrative structures, leading to a collapse of state authority when modernization disrupted the traditional family system. Moreover, China’s open class system allowed merchants to invest in land to attain nobility status, whereas in Japan, restrictions on such social mobility led to investment in industrial enterprises. Eisenstadt attributes China’s breakdown to its lack of institutional autonomy, particularly in its political, value, and stratification systems. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Write a short note on the theories/approaches of Modernization? 11.6    Indicators of Modernization Political scientists studying the phenomenon of modernization have treated political development as dependent variable, using other factors of modernization as independent variable. According to Wasby, “broad-gauged changes occurring in the political development are usually regarded as subordinate to the general processes of industrialization, urbanization, spread of education and literacy, increasing exposure to mass media and the expansion of secular culture.” He says that these independent factors are social to account for a variety of political changes or developments such as (i) the growth of modern bureaucracies (ii) the development of a sense of nationhood (iii) the advent of political participation (iv) the expansion of popular political participation (v) increased capacity of the political system to mobilize resources for the accomplishment of its ends and in the most modem politics (vi) the decline in the missionary favour political movements. In brief, the indicators of modernization are (a) urban-rural ratio (b) Per-capita income (c) Gross National Product (d) Literary Ratio (e) Political Participation (f) secularization i.e. rational consideration of things (g) Ascription to achievement (h) increase in the scope and range of political authority (i) Differentiation of roles and structures in society (j) Subsystem autonomy (k) Ratio between industrial non-industrial labour (L) share of industry towards the budgetary income. Modernization is a multi-dimensional process having social, psychological, political and economic aspects. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. What any three indicators of Modernization? 11.7    Summary The whole discussion thus reveals that political modernization is a process of change in political structures and culture which have been affected by certain major transformative processes of modernization. It refers to those processes of differentiation of political structures and secularization of political culture which enhance the capability, the effectiveness and efficiency of the performance of a political system. There are different schools and theories of modernization. Various norms are recorded in modernization process of various countries. As a companion of the concept of political development, the concept of political modernization has provided better tools for the political scientists to make a taxonomic study of the modern political systems. 11.8    Glossary •    Parochial : Having a limited or narrow outlook or scope. •    Rationalization : attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasoning. •    Unilinear: consistently developing in a single, steady path of development. •    Multiliner : multiple paths to societal change or development. •    Legitimization : the process whereby an act, process, or ideology becomes legitimate by its attachment to norms and values within a given society. 11.9    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See Section 11.3 Self Check Exercise-2 For Answer, See Section 11.4 Self Check Exercise-3 For Answer, See Section 11.5 Self Check Exercise-5 For Answer, See Section 11.6 11.10    Suggested Readings 1.    David E. Apter, The Politics of Modernization (Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1965). 2.    James S. Coleman, ‘’Modernization: Political Aspects”, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (New York : Macmillan, 1968). 3.    Chander Morse, etal., Modernization by Design (Cornel Univ. Press, 1969). 4.    E.A. Shills; “Political Modernization” in Morton R. Davies and Yaughan A. Lewis Ed:, Models of Political System (Delhi, Vikas Publication, 1971). 5.    S.P. Verma, Modern Political Theory (Delhi Vikas, 1975). 6.    S.N. Eisenstadt, Modernization : Protest and Change (New Delhi, 1969). 7.    Bhawana Jharta; Comparative Politics and Political Analysis, M.A. Political Science, 2nd Sem. Study Material, Course-VII. 11.11    Terminal Questions 1.    What do you understand by Political Modernization? Describe the various theories and approaches of Modernization? 2.    “Political Modernization is a process of Change”, explain how? ***** Unit-12 THEORY OF DEPENDENCY Structure 12.1    Introduction 12.2    Learning Objectives 12.3    Theory of Dependency Self Check Exercise-1 12.4    Underdevelopment Defined as Dependency of the Underdeveloped Self Check Exercise-2 12.5    Dependency as the Product of Expansion of World Capitalism Self Check Exercise-3 12.6    Views of A.G. Frank and Wallerstein 12.6.1    Views of A.G. Frak 12.6.2    Views of Wallerstein : World System Analysis Self Check Exercise-4 12.7    History of the Capitalist World System 12.7.1    Stage 1, and Stage 2 12.7.2    Stage 3 and Stage 4 Self Check Exercise-5 12.8    Summary 12.9    Glossary 12.10    Answer to Check Your Progress Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 Self Check Exercise-5 12.11    Suggested Reading 12.12    Terminal Questions 12.1    Introduction Dependency Theory seeks to analyse politics by concerning itself with the existing asymmetrical relationship among nation-states. It rejects the Structural-Functional as well as Classical Marxist models of analysing politics in the Third World countries. In fact, the origin of Dependency Theory came as an alternative to the theories of modernisation and development as formulated and supported by the Western and Marxist scholars Naturally, it involves a strong criticism nay a rejection of these theories. In particular, It refuses to accept the continuum theory and the diffusion theory of development which explain under-development as a transitory ‘low stage’ of the process of development which the developed countries have already completed, and which highlight the important and positive role of foreign aid and Investment in the development of the Third World countries, i.e. the underdeveloped countries. Dependency Theory constitutes both an attempt to overcome the Eurocentric bias and the limited explanatory capabilities of both modernisation and imperialism theories as well as to provide an alternative approach to the study of politics in the underdeveloped countries by analysing the very process of underdevelopment. The Theory of Dependency begins with a study of the colonial impact on the indigenous socio-economic and political structures, then seeks to analyse the characteristics of the new socio-economic structure, and finally seeks to face its evolution in relations to both the internal changes and developments in the World Capitalist System. It, as such, implies a re-interpretation of history. 12.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, the student will be able to : •    Understand about the Dependency Theory ? •    Examine the views of A.G. Frank and Wallerstein. 12.3    THEORY OF DEPENDENCY Dependency is the concept used by the scholars of comparative politics in their analysis of the third world of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It has its evolution in Latin America in the 1960s. The theory became popular in the writings about Africa and Asia later on. Lenin, white elaborating the theory of imperialism provided reference to the concept of dependency. Lenin understood capitalist imperialism as a struggle among the colonial powers for economic and political division of the world. Apart from the colonies and the colonial power, Lenin identified formally independent and yet dependent countries. These were the countries enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependency. Coming to the perspectives after Lenin, it holds that there are contrasting forms of dependence and dominance among the nations of the capitalist world which have been identified by various scholars. Dependent nations are manifestations of the expansion of the dominant states and they remain underdeveloped due to their dependent or subjective relationship with the dominant nations. Theotonio Dos Santos while writing on dependency speaks of quality. He says that dependence means a situation in which the economy of a certain nation is dependent on the development and expansion of another economy. The relationship of interdependence between the two or more economies or these economies and world trade, assumes the form of dependence in which the dominant countries do this as a reflection of their expansion which either has a positive or a negative impact on the immediate development of the dependent nation. ‘Dependency analysis of development or underdevelopment focuses on foreign penetration into the economy and the political system of the ‘third world” — a term which indicated socially and politically the construction of the notion, which is marked by as much heterogeneity is homogeneity. However, the fundamental similarity among the third world countries lies in the fact that must of their citizens lack the basics of essential health and longevity, which is seen by most of the first world us basic needs. The fundamental problem taken by the scholars of dependency school studying the third world emphasize that the foreign penetration into these countries effects the local development within these nations. This set-up only but reinforces the ruling classes at the expense of” the marginalised classes. On a similar line, Osvaldo Sunkel forwarded that the foreign factors become intrinsic to the system of a dependent nation with various and sometimes implicit or subtle political, cultural, financial, economic, and technical impact within the underdeveloped countries. Adding further, he says, “the concept of dependencia” is linked to the post war evolution of capitalism internationally to the discriminatory nature of the local process of development. Access to means and benefits of development is selective; instead of spreading them, the process ensures a self reinforcing amassing of privileges for special group with continued existence of the marginalized class”. As a solution to eliminate the mechanism of dependence which is identified as agricultural stagnation, commodity concentration of exports, foreign ownership of industries, and foreign public debt, he stressed on the need for national development. Following are the points put forth by him for the national development purpose: (i) regional economic integration and domestic investment in heavy industries like steel and petrochemical, (ii) redistribution of land and income to the agriculturally employed population, (iii) state regulation and nationalization of the traditional exports sectors. (iv) joint national and multinational plan for the introduction of foreign technology and at the same time encouraging of national technology, (v) formation of large and specialized units under join and multinational control. Giving reference to the mechanism of dependency, he incorporated them on the global view of the economic process, which is characterized by external dependency. He suggested that there should be changes in the structures of internal production to eliminate the mechanism of dependency which should be followed by changes in the structures of institution like that of multinationals which fosters the mechanism of dependency. However, it is to be noted that there exists no single unified theory of dependency due to lack of consensus over its nature, characteristic features, and overlapping theoretical tendencies. It moves in many directions and critics set forth a multitude of positions. Some critique attack the nationalist proclivity of some advocates of dependency who oppose outside influence. Many argue that too much attention to foreign Influence in the economy of the dependent nations ignores the internal class struggle. Lastly, it is also posed against the theory of dependency that it obscures the analysis of imperialism. After having explained dependency theory it would not be justified if one does not mention the world system analysis of Emmanuel Wallerstein which is said to be an alternative approach as a result of certain deficiencies in the developmental writings which emphasized underdevelopment and dependency. These writings mainly had deficiencies such as ignoring mainstream theories of political economy including Marxism. It overlooked questions of class and role of State in a planned economy and market mechanism. It put too much emphasis on circulation, trade, and exchange rather than production and relation of production. It stresses on capitalist accumulation and its consequences and therefore, projected idealist and inevitable outcomes without concrete analysis. World system analysis of Wallentein (1974) is a model considered to be filling the gap. It suggested that the world is in transition from capitalism to socialism which he saw as a process that would evolve over the next hundred years. Wallerstein identified three basic strategies for this which are, ‘state intervention, enticement of capital on the promise of low wage levels, and other investment advantages and self reliance. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. What is dependency theory? a)    A theory that states countries become interdependent through trade. b)    A theory that explains how underdevelopment in certain countries is a result of their dependence on more developed nations. c)    A theory that argues for self-sufficiency as the solution to global economic disparities. d)    A theory that advocates for the expansion of capitalism to alleviate poverty worldwide. 12.4    Underdevelopment Defined as Dependency of the Underdeveloped The dependency theory analysis the internal dynamics of underdeveloped countries and relates their underdevelopments to their positions in the international economic system. It also examines the relation between the internal and external structures. The underdevelopment of the Third World countries is explained by it in terms of the socio-economic-politico-cultural processes which link these countries to the developed countries. The under-developed countries are regarded as the peripheries and the developed countries as the centres, and It is held that the nature of social phenomena in the periphery can be understood and analysed with reference to the world capitalist system which stands dominated by the developed centres. The central point in the Dependency Theory is that the nature of social phenomena in the Third World community is determined by the process of underdevelopment which characterises these countries and which is the result of the expansion of World Capitalism. Further, this process of underdevelopment is Intimately and inseparably related to their external dependence. In fact, almost all the dependency theorists generally agree that underdevelopment is caused by external dependence. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. According to dependency theory, underdevelopment is often a result of: A)    Isolation from global trade networks. B)    Domination by more developed countries. C)    Lack of natural resources. D)    Absence of education 12.5    Dependency as the Product of Expansion of World Capitalism The Dependency Theory presents a macro-history and structural perspective and involves a rejection of the continuum and the Marxist explanation of development and underdevelopment. Underdevelopment Is explained by it as a product of capitalist expansion, which is accompanied by an unequal exchange and in which the Centre/Core/Metropolis exploits the resources and labour of the periphery for its advantage. The periphery lives in a state of dependency and is characterized by underdevelopment. Dependence is conceptualised, as dos Santos observed, as “A situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which ‘he former is subjected. The relation of interdependence between two or more economies, and between these and the world trade, assumes the form of dependence when some countries (the dominant ones) can expand and can be self-starting) while other countries (the dependent ones) can do this only as reflection of that expansion which can have either a positive or a negative effect on their immediate development.” Thus, dependence is the relationship between the dependent countries and the developed, it is a situation which conditions the ability or the underdeveloped to develop it is limited by the expansion of capitalism Its traditional form was imperialism, or colonialism while its contemporary form happens to be Neo-colonialism, i.e., a state of dependency of the underdeveloped periphery—the new states upon the developed (the former imperialist-colonialists). Most of the dependency theorists use center-periphery paradigm for analysing the nature and scope of international relations as well as the nature of underdevelopment which characterises the political systems of the underdeveloped. The main advocates of Dependency Theory are Andre Gunder Frank, Wallerstein, dos Santoa, Osvaldo Sunkel, Celso Furtado. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Euzo Falleto and Frantz Fanon. All of them agree that underdevelopment of the Third World countries, (the wretched of the Earth, as Frantz Fanon describe them) is directly related to their neo-colonial existence i.e. external dependence upon the developed countries. Dependency Diagram Self Check Exercise-3 Q. According to dependency theory, what is the primary cause of underdevelopment in peripheral countries? a)    Lack of natural resources b)    Political instability c)    Dependence on core countries for capital, technology, and markets d)    Cultural factors 12.6    VIEWS OF A.G. FRANK AND WALLERSTEIN In the development of the Dependency Theory, a pioneering contribution was made by Andre Guilder Frank and Wallerstein Both of them strongly advocated that the underdevelopment of the Third World (Periphery) was conditioned by the development and expansion of a developed economy upon which the former was dependent. They further held that the development of the periphery was not possible at all within the World Capitalist System, which continued to be pro-centre to the complete disadvantage of the periphery. The underdeveloped countries began living as satellites of the metropolis developed countries. The import-substitution industrialisation thesis, as advocated by the development theorists failed to click with the Third World countries. Their economies instead became stagnant and increasingly dependent upon the economies of the developed countries. The only way open for the underdeveloped countries, believed the dependency theorists, to become developed was to overthrow the existing system. White some of the dependency theorists favoured a socialist revolution for achieving this goal the other favoured liberal reforms involving the maintenance of a balance in trade, increasing the capacity to bargain through regional cooperation and assimilation of new techniques through macro-economic adjustments. 12.6.1    Views of A.G. Frank A.G. Frack, like dos Santos, holds that the theorists of ‘he ECLA structuralist approach wrongly attributed Latin America’s underdevelopment to the ‘mistaken choice of an outward-oriented development path.’ They rightly pointed out the asymmetical nature of the existing economic relations, but they unfortunately ignored the monopolistic colonial structure and the increasing role of foreign Investment within it as well as the internal colonial structure of the underdeveloped countries. Frank seeks to explain the phenomenon of underdevelopment in terms of the development of capitalism in the west. He holds that underdevelopment of the periphery stands conditioned by the development and expansion of the developed West. He agrees with dos Santos that dependency is a conditioning situation which limits the possibility of development within the periphery. A.G. Frank advocates the view that underdevelopment is largely a historical product of the relations between the underdeveloped satellites (Peripheries) and the developed Metropolis (Centres) At the moment the world consists of a handful of ‘metropolitan’ economies which govern, hinder and distort the development of a rather large number of ‘satellite’ countries. He gives the examples of several Latin American countries to prove his point. Frank made an in-depth analysis of the economies of Latin American countries and pointed out three contradictions of capitalism which were mainly responsible for creating underdevelopment. In the first place, Frank refers to the contradiction of expropriation/appropriation of the economic surplus. The monopoly structure of the World Capitalist System appropriates surplus which in chain-like fashion extends the capitalist link between the capitalist world and the national metropolises to the regional centres and from these to the local centres and so on......This contradiction reflects the exploitive nature’ and scope of World Capitalist System. The second contradiction of capitalism is ‘Metropolis-satellite polarisation’. It means, as AG. Frank observes, that ‘the economic development and underdevelopment are relational and qualitative in that each is structurally different from, yet caused by its relation with the other.” The third and final contradiction which produces underdevelopment, observes Frank, relates to ‘continuity In change’. The expansion and development of capitalist system has maintained Its essential structure and contradictions intact and in the process It has been a source of continued underdevelopment of the underdeveloped countries. While analysing the underdevelopment of the underdeveloped, Frank holds that their satellite status VISa-vis the developed is a source of their limited development. With the passage of time their relation with the metropolis gets weakened and it leads to further underdevelopment. The economic recovery of the developed countries also limits the development process of their satellites The history reveals that the regions which happen to be most underdeveloped now were in the past most tightly linked to the metropolis. While suggesting the possible way in which the underdeveloped countries can get rid of the chronic problem of underdevelopment, A. G. Frank suggests that first the real enemy must be identified. He believes that though strategically imperialism was the principle enemy, the enemy which is to be tackled immediately is the bourgeoisie living and acting within every dependent country. It has been acting as an agent of Imperialism (now neo-colonialism) Such social classes have to be taken care of at the domestic level. Further, Frank holds that economic measures like Industrialisation, import substitution, etc. do not have the potential to break the cycle of underdevelopment and dependency. He advocates the overthrow of existing structure of Metropolis-Satellite relations both at the domestic and international levels through a socialist revolution. While not accepting fully the Marxist view of capitalism and socialism, Frank accepts the need for a socialist revolution for overthrowing the prevailing system. He believes that within the context of a Capitalist World System, as it prevails now there could be no alternative to underdevelopment. Only a socialist revolution can eliminate underdevelopment. Frank is, as such, a neo-Marxist—a dependency theorist and not a revolutionary Marxist. 12.6.2    VIEWS OF WALLERSTEIN In 1976, Immanuel Wallerstein published The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. This book significantly influenced both sociological and historical thought and was well-received, particularly in developing nations. Wallerstein defined a world system as a structured social framework with distinct boundaries, regulations, and coherence, where different groups interact, often in conflict, to reshape it for their benefit. He likened it to an organism with a lifespan, undergoing changes in some aspects while maintaining stability in others. According to Goldfrank (2000), Wallerstein described a world system as a world economy connected through market relations rather than a centralized political authority. This system involved multiple interdependent regions, exchanging essential resources like food, fuel, and security while engaging in competition for dominance without a single permanent ruling center. Wallerstein argued that no society exists in isolation, as all are embedded within the larger world system. He categorized social systems into three main types: 1.    Mini-systems – Small, self-sufficient societies with simple pastoral and horticultural economies. 2.    World-empires – Societies where political rulers extracted surplus resources from peripheral regions to strengthen their military and administrative control. 3.    World-economies – Lacking centralized political control, these economies relied on surplus extraction from peripheral areas through economic mechanisms rather than military dominance. In The Modern World System, Wallerstein examined the historical transformations leading to the rise of the modern capitalist world. He attributed its emergence to the decline of feudalism and the economic crisis that prompted Western Europe’s expansion between 1450 and 1670. Before the sixteenth century, feudalism was dominant in Western Europe, characterized by economic and population growth. To sustain continued development, Europe transitioned towards a capitalist economy, which required geographic expansion and diverse labor systems. This led to the creation of powerful state structures in Western Europe, facilitating the emergence of a global economic system that extended beyond political borders. Unlike earlier empire-based economies, which relied on centralized government control and military enforcement, capitalism allowed the world economy to expand beyond fixed political boundaries. This shift resulted in an international division of labor, influencing political structures and labor conditions across regions. Wallerstein categorized regions within the world economy into four groups based on their economic and political characteristics: 1.    Core Regions – These were the primary beneficiaries of the capitalist system, with strong central governments, bureaucracies, and military forces. Northwestern Europe, including England, France, and Holland, became the first core region. These states gained control over global trade, enabling local elites to accumulate wealth and expand industrial and agricultural production. 2.    Peripheral Regions – These areas lacked strong central governments and were often dominated by core states. They specialized in exporting raw materials and relied on coercive labor practices. Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) and Latin America exemplify peripheral regions. Poland’s aristocracy controlled cheap labor through serfdom, while Spanish and Portuguese rule in Latin America dismantled indigenous structures, leading to exploitative labor systems like forced mining. These regions supplied inexpensive raw materials to Europe while remaining economically dependent on the core. 3.    Semi-Peripheral Regions – Positioned between the core and periphery, these regions were either declining core economies or developing peripheries. Examples include Spain, Portugal, Italy, southern Germany, and southern France. Though involved in global trade, they struggled to compete with core nations. Some semi-peripheral states, such as Spain, extracted wealth from their colonies but spent it on manufactured goods from core countries instead of building strong domestic industries. 4.    External Areas – These regions maintained their own economic structures and remained outside the capitalist world economy for a significant period. Russia serves as an example, as its economy prioritized internal trade over international commerce. Unlike Poland, Russia retained control over its wheat production and engaged in trade with both Asia and Europe, while also limiting foreign commercial influence through state regulation. Wallerstein’s world-systems theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the evolution of the modern global economy, highlighting the unequal relationships between regions and the mechanisms that sustain economic dominance. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. Examine in short the views of Wallerstein on dependency theory? 12.7 History of the Capitalist World System Wallerstein argued that the formation of the modern global economy spanned several centuries, during which different regions shifted in their economic roles within the global system. He categorized the history of the capitalist world system into four stages, which can be broadly condensed into two primary phases. 12.7.1    Stages 1 and 2 (1450-1670): During this period, the modern world system began to take shape, particularly as the Habsburg Empire was unable to consolidate the emerging global economy into a singular world empire. Western European states sought to establish their positions within this new economic order. To achieve this, they integrated their political, economic, and social structures in several key ways: 1.    Bureaucratic Expansion: The growing influence of monarchs was reinforced by an expanding state apparatus, which allowed for more efficient tax collection. This, in turn, increased the state’s borrowing capacity, enabling further bureaucratic growth. By the end of this phase, absolute monarchy had emerged, granting rulers supreme authority. 2.    Population Homogenization: Many core states excluded minority groups to strengthen their economic and political stability. Independent capitalist groups, often without deep local affiliations, were perceived as threats to state power. For example, Jewish communities in England, Spain, and France were expelled as absolute monarchies took hold. Similarly, Protestant merchants in Catholic nations were targeted due to the Catholic Church’s opposition to capitalism and the growing strength of centralized states. 3.    Military Expansion: Armies were strengthened to support centralized monarchies and protect emerging states from external threats. 4.    Rise of Absolutism: Monarchs gained independence from previously established feudal laws, allowing them greater freedom in governance. 5.    Economic Diversification: The expansion of various economic activities boosted profits and solidified the power of the local bourgeoisie. By 1640, northwestern European states had established themselves as the core economies of the emerging global system. Meanwhile, Spain and northern Italy were relegated to semi-peripheral status, while northeastern Europe and Iberian America became peripheral regions. England progressively moved toward becoming a core state. A significant characteristic of this period was the steep decline in workers' wages across most European capitalist centers, with the exception of northern and central Italy and Flanders. These regions, as older trade hubs, maintained a strong workingclass influence, preventing employers from accumulating large surpluses. In contrast, other parts of Europe adopted low-wage strategies that enabled employers to amass substantial capital for reinvestment in economic expansion. Additionally, long-distance trade with the Americas and the East generated immense profits for small merchant elites. The lucrative Trans-Atlantic trade strengthened merchants’ influence over agriculture and industry in Europe. By purchasing goods before they were produced and strategically determining production costs, merchants expanded their profit margins. Their financial dominance over internal markets provided the capital necessary for the industrial development of European core states. 12.7.2    Stages 3 and 4 (Eighteenth Century and Beyond) Industrial rather than agricultural capitalism characterized this era. With the shift of emphasis from agriculture to industrial production, the following reactions characterized this period : •    European states participated in active discovery of regions for the exploitation of new markets. •    Competitive world systems such as the Indian Ocean system were immersed into the growing European world, system. With the independence of the Latin American countries and areas previously isolated zones lying within the interiors of the American continent entered as peripheral zones in the world economy. Asia and Africa entered the system in the nineteenth century as peripheral zones. •    The inclusion of Africa and the Asian continents as peripheral zones made it possible for the core states to avail more surpluses, allowing other areas such as the US and Germany to improve their core status. •    During this phase, there arose a shift from the combination of the agriculture and industrial interest to purely industrial concerns in the core region. By 1700, England was Europe’s leading industrial and agricultural producer. •    By the 1900s, the world witnessed a shift towards manufacturing in the peripheral zones. Core areas encouraged the rise of industries in the periphery and semi-periphery zones so that they could sell machines to these regions. Thus, we see a dynamic nature of the world system theory characterized by Wallerstein. This theory became the benchmark for socio-historical analysis of various societies and is still guiding many researches. There have been many recent developments in the world system theory. The next section is devoted to some of such recent developments in this theory. Self Check Exercise-5 Q. Which of the following events contributed significantly to the emergence of the capitalist world system? a) The fall of the Roman Empire b) The Age of Exploration c) The Crusades                 d) The Renaissance Q. How did globalization influence the capitalist world system? a)    By isolating economies from international trade. b)    By promoting self-sufficiency. c)    By increasing interconnectedness and trade between nations. d)    By encouraging protectionist policies. 12.8    Summary In summary, dependency theory provides important perspectives on global inequality, highlighting the structural limitations created by power imbalances between dominant and less-developed nations. By examining historical influences, unequal trade relationships, and the impact of multinational corporations, this theory emphasizes the necessity of transformative policies that promote fair development and tackle the underlying causes of dependency. 12.9    Glossary •    Dependency: Dependency refers to the state of being reliant or dependent on something or someone else for support, resources, or sustenance. It involves a relationship where one entity relies on another for various needs or assistance. •    Eurocentric: Eurocentric refers to a perspective, approach, or system that focuses on or prioritizes European culture, history, values, and viewpoints to the exclusion or neglect of other cultures, histories, and perspectives. 12.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. B Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. B Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. C Self Check Exercise-4 For answer, See Section 12.6.2 Self Check Exercise-5 Ans. B, Ans. C 12.11    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 13. 12.12    Terminal Questions Q.1 What is Dependency Theory? Critically examine the views of A.G. Frank and Wallerstein? Q.2 Discuss the Centre-Periphery model with special reference to the views of Samir Amin and Wallerstein? Q.3 Discuss the Western concepts of Development of Underdevelopment? ***** Unit-13 THEORY OF UNEQUAL EXCHANGE Structure 13.1    Introduction 13.2    Learning objectives 13.3    Developments in the World System Theory Self Check Exercise-1 13.4    Theory of Unequal Development Self Check Exercise-2 13.5    Centre V/S Periphery Self Check Exercise-3 13.6    Development of Underdevelopment Self Check Exercise-4 13.7    Critical Appraisal Self Check Exercise-5 13.8    Contribution of Dependency Theory Self Check Exercise-6 13.9    Summary 13.10    Glossary 13.11    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 Self Check Exercise-5 Self Check Exercise-6 13.12    Suggested Readings 13.13    Terminal Questions 13.1    Introduction World System theory proposes that the global economy is structured by core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral nations, perpetuating inequality. Unequal Exchange theory extends this, arguing that unequal power dynamics lead to unbalanced trade relations, disadvantaging peripheral nations. Both theories highlight systemic disparities in the global economic order. 13.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Explain the World system theory. •    Discuss the model of Centre V/S Periphery. 13.3    Developments in the World System Theory Over a period of time Wallerstein’s theory of world system has become the base of various studies. Many scholars have built upon the framework given by him; an example of it can be cited in the work of Christopher Chase Dunn. Dunn’s emphasis lies more on the inter-state system and argues that there is one logic behind the capitalist mode of production in which both politico-military and exploitative economic relations plays a key role. He tried to bridge a gap between Neo-Marxist and Wallerstein work in which he emphasized the production in the world economy. Another scholar Janet Abu Lugod challenged Wallerstein’s claim of the emergence of the world system in the sixteenth century. According to her, during the medieval period. Europe was the peripheral region to the world economy and the core was that of middle-east. Another line of argument was forwarded by Andre Gunder Frank. Frank held that the source of the capitalist world economy was not located in Europe, in fact, the rise of Europe occurred within the existing world economy which had its origin in Asia. Thus, Frank criticizes western social theory including Marxism in general and world system theory in particular, which according him, tries to examine ‘western exceptionalism’. Finally, the theory has also been criticized for ignoring cultural factors and for being too core-centric and state-centric. Apart from the dominant theories of development and underdevelopment including dependency theory, there are ways in which post-colonial scholars have attempted to see development. Let us see what arguments they have put forth while dealing with the most complex phenomenon called development. Self Check Exercise- 1 Q. Which scholar is often credited with developing the world-systems theory? a) Karl Marx              b) Immanuel Wallerstein c) Max Weber           d) Michel Foucault 13.4    Theory of Unequal Development The theory of unequal development identifies different patterns of transition that occurred in peripheral capitalism and central capitalism. Its argument is similar to the theory of underdevelopment which focuses on the question of unequal exchange. Argiri Emmanuel (1972), necessitates the analysis of the problem of class struggle in order to analyse the unequal relationship between the centre and the periphery. Criticizing this view, Amin says that one cannot think of class struggle occurring within different national contents, but it should be thought of as occurring within the context of world system. In his work Unequal Development (1976), he writes about unequal development and acknowledges the fact that there are different patterns of transition to peripheral capitalism as well as to central capitalism due to the impact of the capitalist mode of production and its mechanism of trade on the pre-capitalist formations. This led to destruction of crafts within the pre-capitalist formations without being replaced by the local industrial production. The unequal exchange is manifested by distortion in the export activities, bureaucracy, and light industries of the periphery. However, given this set up in the international market, the industries in the periphery lack economic means and therefore, are unable to challenge the foreign monopolies. However, one point that Amin emphasizes is that this stage of underdeveloped nation should not be confused with the earlier stage of development experienced by the advanced capitalist nations. The difference lies in the fact that there is extreme unevenness in the underdeveloped areas in the distribution of production, which basically serves the need of the center. Growth is blocked and underdevelopment is accentuated and therefore hinders autonomous development in the periphery. Therefore, it makes capitalist mode of production exclusive to the centre and not in periphery. However, national capitalism in periphery may be operational depending upon the activities of the state. Emmanuel and Frank emphasized on the market and exchange of inequalities. However, we see that Amin emphasized on the mode of production to move beyond the market categories while focusing on the world system-centre and periphery. He followed the Marxist line and acknowledges both the productive as well as the crisis generated by the capitalist mode of production which leads to change. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. What does the theory of unequal exchange primarily focus on? A) Economic growth            B) International trade C) Fiscal policy           D) Monetary policy 13.5    Centre Versus Periphery The idea of ‘centre’ versus ‘periphery’ has been developed by Samir Amin in his hook, ‘Unequal Exchange.’ It in fact is an extension of the idea of Andre Gunder Frank winch restates the distinction between ‘Metropolis’ and ‘satellite’ while giving it an explicit twist. The ‘centre’ includes not only the developed capitalist counties but also the socialist countries which he thinks are developed. The ‘Periphery includes all Other countries - not only those underdeveloped nations attempting to follow the capitalist path, but also those such as China which have adopted the socialist path. The whole view point is based on the technology based theories of ‘convergence’ between the socialist and capitalist countries. For Amin the ‘centre’ includes the countries of North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa on the one hand, Russia and Eastern Europe on the other (when they were socialist. Of course now since 1991 they too have converted into capitalist states). The periphery includes the three continents of Africa, Asia and South America. In one of his articles ‘Accumulation on a World Scale’ summed up the centre versus periphery idea thus.” Our world is made up of ‘developed countries’ and under developed one’s. It is also made up of countries that style themselves as ‘socialist’ and others that are ‘capitalist’ and all these countries are integrated, though in varying degrees, in a worldwide network of commercial, financial and other relations such that none of them can be thought of in isolation. Again—”There are not two -world markets. One ‘capitalist’ and the other ‘socialist’ but only one in capitalist world market in which East Europe marginally participates the relationship between the formation of the developed or the advanced world (the centre) and those of the under-developed (the periphery) are affected by transfers of value; and these constitute the essence of the problem of accumulation on a world scale. Amin has further developed the ‘dependency theory’ Frank who as we have seen treats the history of the internal last four centuries as one of undifferentiated capitalism from the beginning to the end. Their internal structures being capitalist regardless of the basis on which production is carried on (slave, serf, Petty tenancy or whatever) merely by virtue of the fact that they produce for the ‘capitalist world market’. But Amin Suggests that capitalism dominates in the ‘periphery’ by integrating the precapitalist formations without becoming exclusive as in the centre. He says that at the centre, it tends to be exclusive because of the fact that its growth is based on the expansion of the internal market. The socio-economic formations of the periphery between however bear the distinctive feature that although the capitalist mode of production does indeed predominate, this domination does not lead to a tendency for it to become exclusive, because the spread of capitalism is here based on the external market. It follows the pre-capitalist modes of production, are not destroyed but are transformed and subjected to that mode of production which predominates on a world scale as well as locally - the capitalist mode of production. Thus the Dependency Theory and the centre periphery model is based on the idea that historically during the colonial period an international division of labour was established between the colonial counties and the developed capitalist countries. It created a form of ‘unequal exchange’ between the ‘centre’ and the periphery. This continues even after the attainment of political independence by the colonial countries in an altered form. The social, economic, cultural, political and military dependence of the periphery continues to exist because of the monopoly of the centre that reflects itself in unequal exchange. This manifests itself in many ways: the monopoly of trade exercised over the colony, the monopoly of certain branches of production, the monopoly of sovereignty in land. It is believed that the monopoly of production and the international division of labour has placed the capitalist countries of the periphery in a dependent relationship vis. a vis. the capitalist countries of the centre. The world capitalist system thus established creates structures of dependency within itself. In this, each constituent country or regime are regarded as specializing in a particular branch of production and exchanging its products through trade. It is believed that in the case of external trade between nations the commodities exchanged contain unequal quantities of labour, which reflect an uneven levels of productivity. The real wages between countries even if the organize composition of capital remains the same can lead to difference in price and value of a commodity. These constitute the basis of unequal exchange among nations in the neo-colonial period under monopoly conditions. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. What does the theory of center vs periphery primarily focus on? a)    Economic development b)    Cultural exchanges c)    Political ideologies d)    Environmental sustainability 13.6    Development of Underdevelopment The dependency theory as developed around the centre periphery model believes that the development of capitalism among the countries of the periphery is rather impossible, and perpetual underdevelopment seems to be their fate. Since in the period of monopoly capitalism, the development of capitalism in periphery would remain extra versted, based on the external market. As regards the theory of peripheral capitalist economy the following nine theses put forward by Samir Amin in his book; Unequal Development sums up the centre periphery model:- 1)    Economic theory interests itself occasionally in the “transition from a subsistence economy to a money economy”. In reality, however, the pattern of transition to peripheral capitalism is fundamentally different from that of transition to central capitalism. The onslaught from without by means of trade-carved out by the capitalist mode of production upon the pre-capitalist formations causes certain crucial retrogressions to take place, such as the ruin of the crafts without their being replaced by local industrial production. The agrarian crises of the third world of today are largely the results of these setbacks. The subsequent investment of foreign capital does not have the effect of correcting these retrogressive change, owing to the extravert orientation of the industries that this capital establishes in the periphery. 2)    Unequal international specialization is manifested in three kinds of distortion in the direction taken by the development of the periphery. The distortion toward export activities (extraversion) which is the decisive one, does not result from “inadequacy of the home market” but from the superior productivity of the centre in all fields, which compels the periphery to confine itself to the role of complementary supplier of products for the production of which it possesses a natural advantage; exotic agricultural produce and minerals. When, as a result of this distortion the level of wages in the periphery has become lower, for the same productivity, than at the centre, a limited development of industries focused on the home market of the periphery will have become possible, while at the same time exchange will have become unequal. 3)    This initial distortion brings another in its train: The hypertrophy of the tertiary sector in the periphery, which neither the evolution of the structure of demand nor that of the production can explain. At the centre, hypertrophy of the tertiary sector reflects the difficulties in realizing surplus value that are inherent in the advanced monopoly phase, whereas in the periphery it is from the beginning result of the limitations and contradiction characteristic of peripheral development, inadequate industrialization and increasing unemployment strengthening of the position of ground nut etc. A fetter on accumulation this hypertrophy of unproductive activities, expressed especially in the excessive grown-administrative expenditure, is manifested in the Third World of today by the quasi permanent crises of government finance. 4)    Unequal international specialization also underlies the distortion in the periphery toward light branches of activity, together with the employment of modem production techniques in these branches. This distortion is the source of special problems that are different from those on which the development of the West was based. 5)    The theory of the multiplier effects of investment cannot be extended in a mechanical way to the periphery. The significance of the Keynesian multiplier does indeed correspond to the situation at the centre in the phase of advanced monopoly characterized by difficulties in realizing the surplus. Neither hoarding nor Imports constitutes, in the periphery “leaks” that reduce the multiplier effect. Furthermore, unequal specialisation, and the marked propensity to import that follows from this, have the effect of transferring the effects of the multiplier mechanisms connected with the phenomenon known as the “Accelerator” from the periphery to the centre; 6)    Analysis of the strategies of foreign monopolies in the underdeveloped countries shows that, so long as the dogma of the periphery’s integration in the world market is not challenged, the periphery is without economic means of action in relation to the monopolies. 7)    Underdevelopment is manifested not in the level of production per head, but in certain characteristic structural features that oblige us not confuse the under developed countries with the now-advanced countries as they were at an earlier stage of their development. These features are: (1) the extreme uneveness that is typical of the distribution of productivities in the periphery, and in the system of prices transmitted to it from the centre, which result from the distinctive nature of the peripheral formations and largely dictates structure of the distribution of income in these formations (2) the disarticulation due to the adjustment of the orientation of production in the periphery to the needs of the centre, which prevents the transmission of benefits of the economic progress from the poles of development to the economy as a whole; (3) Economic domination by the centre, which is expressed in the forms of international specialization (the structure of world trade in which the centre shapes the periphery in accordance with its own needs) and in the dependence of the structures whereby growth in the periphery is financed (the dynamic of the accumulation of foreign capital). 8.    The accentuation of the features of under-development in proportion as the economic growth of the periphery proceeds, necessarily results in the blocking of growth, in other words, the impossibility, whatever the level of production per head that may be obtained of going to auto centric and auto dynamic growth, 9.    While at the centre, the capitalist mode of production tends to become exclusive, the same is not true of the periphery. Consequently, the peripheral formations are fundamentally different from those of the centre. The forms assumed by those peripheral formation depend, on the one hand, upon the nature of the pre-capitalist formations and, on the other, upon the forms and epochs in which they were integrated into the world system. This analysis enables us to grasp the essential difference that contrasts the peripheral formations to the young central formations... the latter based. On the predominance of the simple commodity mode of production, possessing for this reason a capacity for independent evolution towards a fully developed capitalist mode of production. Whatever their differences of origin, the peripheral formation all tend to converge upon a typical model, characterized by the dominance of agrarian capital and ancillary (comprodose) commercial capital. The domination by central capital over the system as a whole and the vital mechanisms of primitive accumulation for its benefit which express this domination, subject the development of national capitalism to strict limitations, which are ultimately dependent upon political relations. The mutilated nature of the national community in the periphery confers an apparent relative weight and special function upon the local bureaucracy that are not the same as those of the bureaucratic and technocratic groups in the centre. The contradictions typical of the development of underdevelopment, and the rise of the development ofunderdevelopment, and the rise of petty bourgeois strata reflecting these contradictions explain the present tendency of state capitalism. This new path of development for capitalism in the periphery does not constitute a mode of Transition to socialism but rather expresses the future form in which new relations will be organized between centre and periphery. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. Which of the following concepts is central to the theory of development of underdevelopment? A) Dependency          B) Globalization C) Neoliberalism           D) Industrialization 13.7    Critical Appraisal The Dependency Theory offers a very interesting and penetrating analysis of politics in the underdeveloped countries and also of the nature and scope of relations between them and the developed countries Most of the dependency theorists use the centre-periphery paradigm for this purpose. They describe the condition of the underdeveloped as a situation of dependency which has resulted from the expansion of world capitalism Most of them believe that within the context of a capitalist world, there could be no alternative to underdevelopment. Many of them, therefore, favour socialism either through a socialist revolution, or through other liberal reformist measures/movements, as the remedy against dependency and underdevelopment. The critics of the Dependence Theory, however, point out its several limitations:- 1.    Lack of Unity among Dependency Theorists :- In the first instance, it is held by the critics that there is a lack of consensus among the dependency theorists, about the exact nature of dependence and underdevelopment. the mechanism involved in dependency relations and the possible remedies. Dependency Theory is not a theory but a collection of several. 2.    Advocacy of Radicalism and Socialism :- The dependency theorists do not constitute a coherent group. Some of them are socialistic nationalists (Furtado and Sunkel) others are radicalists (dos Santos), still others are revolutionary socialists (A.G. Frank) or socialists (Wallerstein). White some of them advocate a complete transformation, either by a revolution or by other radical reformist means, of the capital’s system, others favour structural reforms and new forms of cooperation between the centres and peripheries, as the means for ending the stale of dependency of the peripheries. 3.    No Clear Definition of Dependency :- The dependency theorists fail to clearly and categorically define and explain dependence and underdevelopment. They offer no acceptable standard for distinguishing between dependent and non-dependent countries. 4.    Negative Approach :- S.K. Sahu observes, “The authors of the dependency theory have concerned themselves with attacking the desirability of the capitalist system in the periphery rather than the ‘dependent’ status.” 5.    Failure to encompass different factors of Underdevelopment :- When we analyse the nature of underdevelopment of several Third World countries, we find that’s differs from country to country and continent to continent had dependency been the product only of the expansion of the World Capitalist System, it would have been uniform in nature and scope. The nature of underdevelopment in Latin America has been different from the underdevelopment of Asia and Africa. 6.    Failure to define this concept of Unequal Exchange :- The critics argue that the concept of ‘unequal exchange’ which is being used by the dependency theorists, fails to objectively analyse the reasons behind the underdevelopment of the Third World countries. Further there is, and there can by, no universally agreed principle for measuring the nature and scope of ‘unequal exchange’ that is supposed to be the; cause of the dependency of the underdeveloped upon the developed. 7.    Limitations of the concept of Surplus Value :- The dependency theory wrongly depends upon Marxian concept of Surplus Value for defining underdevelopment in terms of capitalistic exploitation. The concept of Surplus Value has its own in-built limitations and, hence, cannot be accepted as a valid principle under development is also the product of some wrong decisions and policies of several underdeveloped countries. The underdevelopment of the Third World has been due largely to its partial industrialisation and failure of the underdeveloped countries to formulate and follow properly conceived and coordinated industrial policies. The underdeveloped countries have themselves failed to exploit fully their resources, both material and manpower. The very fact that some of the countries like India, Brazil and even Mexico have been successful to a large extent in making rapid industrial-technological development while others have failed to do so, tends to prove the point that the underdeveloped countries themselves and not only in world capitalist countries have been responsible for their status of dependency. 8.    Limitations of Centre-Periphery Model :- The division of world into the centre and the periphery, the metropolis and the satellite, the developed and the underdeveloped, as has been done by the dependency theorists is quite arbitrary and even misleading It is indeed difficult to accept that all the underdeveloped countries, including the local leviathans like India, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, etc. are equally dependent upon the developed. 9.    Failure of Socialist Solutions and Systems :- The failure of the socialist system of development in the erstwhile Soviet Union and the Eastern European states lends to demonstrate that dependency cannot be overthrown by a socialist revolution or socialism. The near-universal acceptance of the possible potentialities of such principles as free trade, marvel economy, open corn petition, decentralisation, democratisalion, international integration, regional cooperation for development and functlonalism in contemporary year’s of international relations reflect a rejection of all the theories which indict World Capitalist System as the system responsible for the emergence of the evil of dependency of the Third World upon the developed world. In fact, even the Marxists, the revolutionary socialists, and the communists reject most of the ideas of the dependency theorists, particularly their conceptualisation of capitalism not as mode of production but as a social system characterised by a particular sort of exchange relationship. Self Check Exercise-5 Q. Write any two important criticism of Dependency theory? 13.8    Contribution of Dependence Theory An important contribution of the dependence theory and die centre-periphery model to comparative politics has been to provide a historical basis to the process of social change in the post and second World war period. It challenged the basis and theorize the obstacles to development among the third world countries, in the internal structure of these societies to the paradoxical neglect of the phenomenon of imperialism. Its major contribution has been to work out the social change in the third world countries, as a consequence of the various forms of imperialism and colonialism. The central insight of the dependence theorists therefore has been to establish the fact that it was of limited value to study the development of societies of the third world in isolation from the development of the advanced societies. It was therefore necessary to treat the world as one single system. With this as the starting point, the problem was to discover the manner in which the under developed countries were inserted into this world system, and how this differentiated them from the historical pattern of development of the advanced nations. In this, of course these theories were influenced by the writings of Marx but also deviated from Marxism while working out this relationship. These theories have therefore been called by some theorists as neo-Marxist theories of imperialism. Self Check Exercise-6 Q. Write a short note on the contribution of dependency theory? 13.9    Summary At the outset, you studied the dependency theory of development. It covers the meaning and centre v/s periphery views of A G. Flank, Wallerstein and Samir Amin regarding the theory of Dependency. Finally we discussed the contribution and criticisms of dependency theory of development. 13.10    Glossary •    Nationality : The state of being legally a citizen of a particular nation or country. •    Polarisation : The act of dividing something, especially something that contains different people or opinions, into two completely opposing groups. 13.11    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. B Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. B Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. A Self Check Exercise-4 Ans. A Self Check Exercise-5 For Answer, See Section 13.7 Self Check Exercise-6 For Answer, See Section 13.8 13.12    Suggested Readings •    Hartmut Etsenhas, Development and under development (New Delhi: Sage Publication, 1981) •    Samir Amin, Unequal Development (Haddocks : Harvestar Press, 1976). •    Gunnar Myrdal, The Challenge of Poverty. •    Tapan Biswal eds., Comparative Politics Institutions and Processes (New Delhi’s Trity Press), 2016. •    J.C. Johari, New Comparative Government (New Delhi: Lotus Press), 2011. •    Bhawana Jharta, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis, M.A. 2nd Sem., Course VII, ICDEOL Study Material. 13.13    Terminal Questions 1.    Define the Dependency Theory? Discuss the criticism of Dependency theory? 2.    Examine the contributions of dependency theory in comparative politics? ***** Unit-14 DEMOCRATIZATION Structure 14.1    Introduction 14.2    Learning Objectives 14.3    Understanding Democracy Self Check Exercise-1 14.4    Waves of Democratization Self Check Exercise-2 14.5    Democratization in Post-Communist Countries Self Check Exercise-3 14.6    Democratization in Central Europe Self Check Exercise-4 14.7    Summary 14.8    Glossary 14.9    Answers to Self Check Your Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 14.10    Suggested Readings 14.11    Terminal Questions 14.1    Introduction We live in an increasingly democratic world. In 1989 the number of democracies exceeded the number of autocracies for the first time in history, apart from a brief period after World War I. Between 1975 and 2000 the number of democracies more than doubled: as a result most people in the world now live under tolerably democratic rule. In its current upsurge, democracy has expanded beyond its core west Europe and former colonies in North America, Australia, and New Zealand, Democracy now embraces South Europe (for example. Span), East Europe (for example, Poland). Latin America (for example, Argentina), more of Asia (for example, Taiwan), and parts of Africa (for example. South Africa). This dramatic development constituted a global wave of democracy. For the First lime in human history, a majority of the world population lives under freely chosen governments. Samuel Huntington calls it the ‘third wave of democratization’ and characterizes it as one of the most important developments in the history of humankind’. As democracy has spread, it has become more varied in its operation. Understanding the forms taken by democracy in today’s world is therefore a central task. 14.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, you will be able to : •    Understand Democracy •    Explain the process of Democretization in Central Europe 14.3    Understanding Democracy Democracy is a contested concept. No political terms have been subject to contradictory definitions as ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’, since it has become fashionable and profitable for every and every state to style itself in this way. The erstwhile Soviet Union and Communist states of Eastern Europe, the Chinese People’s Republic, North Korea, and North Vietnam all call themselves democracies. So does General Stroesser’s Paraguay; so did-Sukarno’s Indonesia and Nasser’s Egypt a few months ago. Democracy can be used as a noun or as an adjective. When it is used as a noun, it is an abstraction, an idea of how a country ought to be governed. More than that, it is a highly valued symbol. However, abstractions are often vague. To make the idea of democracy concrete it must be related to the political institutions of the state. So what then, is the core principal of democracy? The basic idea is self-rule. The word itself comes from the Greek demokratia, meaning rule (kratos I by (he people (demos). Thus, democracy in its literal and richest sense refers not to the elections of the rulers by the ruled but to the denial of any separation between the two. The ‘model’ democracy is a direct democracy, a form of self-government in which all adult citizens participate in shaping collective decisions, in context of equally and open deliberation. The birth place of democracy is ancient Athens between 461 and 322 b.c. Athens was the leading polis (city-state) of ancient Greece. The Athenian polis operated on the democratic principle summarized by Aristotle as ‘each to rule and be ruled in turn. This principle applied across all the institutions of government within the city-state. All citizen could attend meetings of the assembly, serve on the governing council, and sit on citizen’s juries. In contrast to the classical democracy of ancient Athens modem democracies are representative rather than direct. The principle is no longer self-government but elected government. In a democratic state today, as Joseph Schumpeter argues, “there is free competition tor a free vote’. Instead of people decisive what government does, the popular role is to decide who governs. The first condition of democracy today is that all adult citizens have the right to vote-Second, elections are competitive, free, and fair. Third, voters decide who holds the principal officials in government. The rule of law is needed to ensure that governors are held accountable through elections that are free and fair. Individuals must be free to exercise their right to voice criticisms of government, organize political parties, and compete for office in free and fair elections. There is widespread consensus today that entitlement to participation in elections should extend to all adult citizens. But what if people who are legally entitled to vote fall to do so because poverty or ignorance discourage them from realizing their democratic rights? And what does it say about a democracy if some citizen’s political involvement is restricted to casting a vole at an election every few years, while others socialize with politic leaders on a regular basis? Answers to this questions range from Joseph A, Schumpeter’s minimalist position, according to which the role of citizens is largely restricted to electing representatives, to richer ones involving the active participation of citizens in decision making, including the local level and the workplace or by way of referendums or deliberation in citizen juries or interactive polling. A distinction between minimalist and broader perspective can also be made regarding the question of how far a concern with political equality should go. Minimalists lend to let formal voting equality suffice, insisting that even citizens should have either exactly one vote or when the electoral voting system provides for a plurality of voles, that all citizens have an equal amount of voles to cast. Yet one might go further and need to extend political equality beyond its formal provision, taking account how differences in peoples income, education, and occupation affect the extent to which they have are effective say in political processes and participation (Verba. Scholzman, and Brady.1995). Lastly, the idea of equating democracy with competitive multi-party elections have been heavily criticized. Terry Karl argued that military domination and human rights abuses rendered many Latin American regimes of the 1980s and early 1990s less than democratic despite their holding regular and overall fair elections. To classify these countries as democratic would mean falling prey to the “fallacy of electoralism”. Considering the above, democracy thus, could be explained as a multi-dimension phenomenon. Robert Dehre identified two dimensions of democratic government: citizen’s participation in the political process, and competition among political groups for office. He subsequently fleshed these out further to arrive at his five criteria of the demographic process: effective participation voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion. It these criteria are to be satisfied, Dahl argues the following seven institutional guarantees must be in place : (i)    Elected political officials (ii)    Free and fair elections (iii)    Inclusive suffrage (the right to vote for virtually all adults) (iv)    The right to run for public office (v)    Freedom of expression (vi)    Alternative source of information (vii)    Associational autonomy (the freedom to form organization) Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Define Democracy? 14.4 Waves of Democratization Processes of worldwide democratization have been analysed and described with a great number of approaches and metaphors. Most common among the latter has been the concept of ‘waves’. Samuel Huntington (1991) distinguishes three major ones. The first modern democracies emerged in the ‘first long wave of democratization’ between 1828 and 1926. During this first wave nearly thirty countries established at least minimally democratic national institutions including Argentina, Austria, Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands. New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and the Unites States. Many of these democracies were later overthrown by fascist, communist, or military dictatorships during Huntington’s ‘First reverse wave’ from 1922 to 1942. However, democracies did consolidate in the earliest nineteenth century democratizations, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Huntington’s second wave of democratization began during the Second World War and continued until the 1960s. Like the first wave, some of the new democracies created at this time did not consolidate. For example, elected governments in several Latin American countries were quickly overthrown by the military. But established democracies did emerge after 1945 from the ashes of defeated dictatorships, not just in West Germany but also in Austria, Japan, and Italy. The third wave finally began in 1974. It was characterized by (i) the end of right wing dictatorships in South Europe (Greece. Portugal, and Spain) in the 1970s, in) the retreat of the generals, in much of Latin America in the 1980s and, (iii) the collapse of communizing at the Soviet Union and East Europe at the end of the 1980s. Renske Doorenspleet challenges Hungington’s periodization and instead, speaks of a distinct ‘Fourth wave’ beginning in the 1989/90 with the fall of Berlin wall and concurrent and subsequent events in central and Eastern Europe leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Block, the end of cold war and its repercussions in many parts of the world. Others like Green (1999) speak of significant ‘moments’ or “pulses of isomorphic change. At the turn of the twenty-first century a great wave of democracy has touched every continent. Much of Latin America had recently shaken off authoritarian regimes that had become a symbol of Ibero-American despotism, with their abysmal human rights records. In some countries in East and South-East Asia a similar trend was evident, with military-backed regimes that had appeared impregnable submitting to popular movements. The very symbol of robust twentieth century despotism, the Soviet Union, as well as authoritarian Yugoslavia, had disintegrated. The ten states that formed the Soviet or Eastern bloc became twenty eight separate stales, many of which were racing head long towards political freedom. Many new democracies came into being in the form of newly independent states in the post World War period II (From 1940-48), In Asia, India and Pakistan (now-separated) become independent in 1947, Indonesia in 1963. In sub-Saharan Africa. Ghana and Sudan were the first countries to become independent in the mid 1950s, followed by a great wave of independence in the 1960s. Initially in most of the newly independent states demographic constitutions were adopted, usually crafted after the mode; of the previous colonial power, that is a ‘Westminster type parliamentary system for the former British territories and. A presidential system in the Francophone states’. Only a few of these however, became consolidated. This was most notably the case in India, still today the world’s largest democracy, but neighbouring Pakistan and later, after another separations Bangladesh soon succumbed to military regimes. In Africa, only Botswana and tiny Mauritius remained continuously democratic. Most of the other African states showed a mixed picture of military dictatorships and authoritarian single party regimes. In Latin-America, in the early years after the war a number of countries such as Argentina. Brazil. Bolivia, etc., redemocractized and suffrage was extended to women in most of them. Here too- however, the situation remained precarious and many returned to (often quite bloody) military regimes in the 1960s and 1970s, most spectacularly in Brazil in 1964 and Chile in 1973. Only Costa Rica after 1948, and Venezuela after 1958, consistently continued with their democratic constitutions. Elsewhere, in Turkey the first multi-party elections were found in the Philippines, which turned into an authoritarian regime under President Macros after 1966, and Greece, following a military coup in 1968, The entire North American and Middle Eastern regime had remained untouched by democratic movements and maintained either as in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Morocco traditional monarchies or had turned into military dictatorships, as in Iraq or Syria, or authoritarian single, or authoritarian single-party systems, as in Egypt or Tunisia. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Explain the term Democratization? 14.5    DEMOCRATIZATION IN POST-COMMUNIST COUNTRIES This section describes and explains the analysis of democratic transition which occurred between 1989 and 2008 in post-communist countries. The process of democratic change in the former communist Europe and Eurasia forms an important sub-wave which has not ended yet. The complex transformations from communist regimes toward; alternative democratic and autocratic forms of government and political order look place during the nineteen years between 1989 and 2008, and has not been concluded as a historic process. In terms of contemporary European history, democratization in central and eastern Europe and Eurasia is still a work in progress and we are still far away from the final victory of democracy. The process of democratization in post-communist Europe and Eurasia can be Structured along a series of subsequent stages of political transformation. The first stage of democratization in central Eastern Europe consists of long stagnation and steady decline of the old communist regime in the course of the 1980s and 1990s. Some innovative communist leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, or Janes Kadar in Hungary attempted to reform the political and economic system of communist rule to ensure its survival, but failed to rescue the faltering communist empire in the long run. The second stage is related to the period of revolutionary regime change from communist regimes to democratic or autocratic regimes. The next period is characterized by the collapse of communist systems between Warsaw and Vladivostok and took place’ between November 1989 and December 1991. The third stage of democratization is constituted by the creation of a new political regime out of the ashes of communism, in most cases a new democracy. The specific characteristics of post-communist change in comparison with other forms of democratozation like those in Southern Europe is that it witnessed a tri-fold revolution, a political revolution from a communist one-party state, a economic revolution from a centrally planned command economy, to a free market economy, and finally a social revolution from a communist society with a small political upper class to a modern society with a broad middle class. The fourth stage within the overall process of democratization is opening the dynamics of regime change and democratization in the direction of three different paths of political transformations. The first path relates to those new democracies which achieved the transition to a consolidated democracy. The second part of democratization is dealing with those new democracies which achieve the status of electoral democracy. Finally, the third part path of regime dynamics is characterized by mainly the post-soviet system which transformed into some form of autocracy and cannot be considered part of the group of new democracies in central Eastern Europe of Eurasia. Self Check Exercise-3 Q.1 Post-communist countries transitioned from ____________ to 14.6    DEMOCRATIZATION IN CENTRAL EUROPE In the history of the communist political systems four attempts of political and economic reform have been made in central Europe. The first partial attempt for political reform look place in 1953 in the German Democratic Republic, and the second full attempt happened in Hungary in 1956. .Both reforms failed completely, the Hungarian uprising added with violence and bloodshed. In 1968, the Czechoslovakia concept of ‘Socialism’ with a human face was destroyed with the military power of the Warsaw Pact crimes in autumn 1968. The last revolt against soviet communist rule happened in Poland in 1980, when the Catholic Trade Union solidarity under the leadership of Lech Walesa tried to challenge the Polish Communist Regime. During the 1980s the Hungarian communist state introduced small scale capitalist reforms in agriculture and business, which facilitated the economic transformation from a planned economy to a free market economy after 1989. In Yugoslavia and Poland, a form of protocapitalism developed within a common economy, mainly in agriculture and industry. In Soviet Union between (1985-91) Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform the Soviet political and economic system by introducing an extremely ambitious programme of reform that had three main pillars, perestroika (restructuring of society and politics), Glasnost (open and transparency), and uskorenie (acceleration). Its failure triggered the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and end of communism in Europe and Eurasia. The first collapse of the communist regime occurred in November 1989 in many central eastern European countries. One critical factor for the fall of communism in central and eastern Europe was that the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who was concentrating in his ambitious domestic reform programme perestroika within the Soviet Union, decided to exclude voluntarily the military option of Open intervention by the Warsaw Pact army in other communist states as a strategic political option to stabilize the Communist Umpire. This lack of military option and of direct political paralysis with the national communist political elites, have been used to obey the central power in Moscow since 1946. The regime change from communist one-party State to new democracies occurred in most countries without physical violence and in a peaceful manner. A strong dissident movement and previously suppressed civil society achieved a ‘Velvet revolution’ in Czechoslovakia, the communist leadership left their offices of power and government in Prague silently and without open resistance. Another form of regime change and regime transition took place in the form of so-called round table agreements especially in Hungary and Poland. In stark contrast to Soviet leader Gorbachev the president of Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milosevic decided to keep the military option as a political opinion in order to preserve communism and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This use of military power by the central government in Belgrade caused a prolonged, bloody, and bitter war between Serbia and Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia - Herzegovina. The process of decentralization and national independence for Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia -Herzegovina was extremely violent and cost thousands of lives in the former Yugoslavia. In August 1991, an attempted coup by orthodoxy communist forces was smashed by Boris Yeltsin, who later became the First President of the Russian Federation. That violent suppression of an attempted communist restoration by Boris Yeltsin involved casualties and deaths, but the final collapse of the Soviet Union in general was not violent. This second Russian revolution began on 8 December, 1991 when the leaders of Russia (Boris Yeltsin), the Ukraine (Leonid Kravchuk), and Belarus (Shuskenvich) signed a declaration which officially dissolved this Soviet Union (USSR). Self Check Exercise-4 Q. Eastern European countries transitioned from ___________ to 14.7    Summary In conclusion, the process of democratization is a complex journey toward fairness and inclusion. Through transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, involving societal engagement and institutional reforms, it fosters greater accountability and respect for human rights. Despite challenges, democratization paves the way for a more equitable and participatory society. 14.8    Glossary •    Democracy: Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the hands of the people, either directly or through elected representatives. •    Authoritarian: Authoritarianism refers to a form of government characterized by strong central control, limited political freedoms, and little to no opposition. 14.9    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See Section 14.3 Self Check Exercise-2 For Answer, See Section 14.4 Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. Authoritarianism, Democracy Self Check Exercise-4 Ans. Communism, Democracy 14.10    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 15. 14.11    Terminal Question Q1. What is Democratization? Discuss the factors which affect the process of democratization. ***** Unit-15 PROCESS AND WAVE OF DEMOCRATIZATION Structure 15.1    Introduction 15.2    Learning objectives 15.3    Transition to Democracy in Africa Self Check Exercise-1 15.4    Africa’s Democratic Transition Self Check Exercise-2 15.5    Features of Transition Self Check Exercise-3 15.6    Guided Democratization Self Check Exercise-4 15.7    Process of Democratization in East Asia Self Check Exercise-5 15.8    The Arab Revolutions Self Check Exercise-6 15.9    Summary 15.10    Glossary 15.11    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 Self Check Exercise-5 Self Check Exercise-6 15.12    Suggested Readings 15.13    Terminal Questions 15.1    Introduction Democratization, the transition toward democratic governance, is a complex process reshaping societies globally. Waves of democratization mark periods of rapid expansion of democratic systems. Understanding these phenomena illuminates the dynamics of political change and the pursuit of participatory governance in diverse contexts worldwide. 15.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Understand the process of democratization. •    Discuss the process of democratization in East Asia. 15.3    AUTHORITARIAN RULE AND TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA There is an awakening of interest in democratic theory and politics in Africa. Military and one-party regimes are faced with serious problem of legitimation, stemming from the crisis of the social contract that under-pined their post-colonial models of development. A variety of social groups are seeking protection against state repression and calling for alternatives to the structural adjustment programmes launched in the 1980s. Yet, until very recently, following the democratic uprisings in Eastern Europe, very few countries had followed the Latin American and Asian examples of establishing frameworks for transition to democratic rule. The struggle for democracy in Africa has a complex and tortuous history. Democratization triumphed at certain historical conjunctures, but it was blocked and suppressed in other phases. Three stages can be identified in the contemporary struggles for democracy : (i)    the decolonization period of guided democratization, (ii)    the post-colonial period of state capitalism expansion and authoritarian rule, and (iii)    the period of economic crisis which generated pressures for redemocratization. The character of the democratic project differs in each period, being structurally related to the underlying forms of accumulation, the level of development of the corresponding civil societies, and the nature of social contract, and public welfare. Decolonization in much of Africa occurred within the context of guided democratization. After many prevarications, the colonial authorities are forced to embrace democracy as a strategy for maintaining core residual interests. It was envisaged that plural forms of politics would sharpen local differences and dilute the militancy of the anti-colonial oppositions. Furthermore, the values of individual selfinterest were expected to permeate the social milieu of the leading nationalists. The emerging elites, on the other hand saw democracy as a strategy to end their subordinate positions in the colonial economy. Democratization provided an institutional framework for reconciling the conflicting interests thrown up by the authoritarian colonial economy. It checked the absolutism of colonial rule by opening up spaces for popular participation in government and the rise of independent organizations. But the authoritarian character of the colonial economy prevented the growth of liberal democracy. The colonial state forcibly restructured pre-existing economies ami subsequently regulated peasant production through monopolistic trading companies and marketing boards. The trading monopolies and the state failed to transform the petty commodity sector and rural society in general. There was hardly any major form of urban industrialization. Underdevelopment and dependency theory has adequately described the enclave dynamics and rural-urban socio-economic disarticulation that informed this type of development. What is more, public welfare occupied very low priority in the governance of those societies as very conservative fiscal and monetary policies were pursued. Public welfare did not become a major issue in state policy until the structures of decolonisation were put in place in the 1940s. Colonial rule was maintained through the use of force and the clientelist structures of indirect rule. Democratization and decolonization took place against the background of poorly developed civil society. Intense struggles had to be waged over the question of making the modem elites and their political partied the vanguard and pathways to self-government, rather than the traditional structures of authority which were dominated by the state. Democratization also strengthened the alliance between the emerging elites and the colonial authorities. This facilitated the growth of a nascent local bourgeoisie. It gave the anti-colonial alliance a deadly class character and blunted the popular orientation of the democratic project. Rather than democratize die colonial economy the nationalist elites ruled through the state monopolies and the colonial patronage networks to consolidate and expand their economic and political power. Decolonization did not fully establish democratic rule, even though the period stands out as a major landmark in democratic experiments in Africa. Representative governments were introduced in controlled stages the right to free expression and association was coloured with proscriptions, the banning of radical literature and the arrest of activists considered to be militants for the transition period. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Discuss the authoritarian rule in Africa? 15.4 AFRICA’S DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION The 1990s was a decade of democrat; nation in Sub-Saharan Africa. A wave of transition to multiply rule began with Namibia’s decolonization in 1990 and subsided only after Nigeria returned to Civilian government in 1999. At the crest of the wave the world witnessed a landmark transition from racial oligarchy to multinational democracy in South Africa in 1994. By 1990 some forty-three countries had introduced competitive multi-party elections. The transition to democracy was in account of many factors. Democratization occurred mainly because ordinary Africans began to demand greater accountability from their political leaders. At the time of independence, the nationalist founding father had promised their followers not only liberty from colonial rule but also higher standards of living. But neither of these promises were kept. Instead, after thirty years of post-colonial rule. Africans found themselves worse off economically and short of basic liberties of speech, association, and assembly. As a consequence, they took to the streets to demand the ouster of corrupt and irresponsible leaders. Other factors apart from mass political action were at play in Africa’s democratic wave. There were rare historical conjunctures in which international and economic conditions arranged to create the conditions which protest could momentarily succeed. A pervasive economic crisis undercut African leaders’ ability to distribute patronage rewards to their supporters and the end of cold war meant that petty dictators, except those in the Arab world would no longer rely on superpower patrons to prop them up. Thus protesters faced severely weakened governments that were ripe for overthrow. Under these circumstances, a handful of fragile new democracies emerged on the African continent during the 1990s. In 2006. Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, and Senegal graduated into the ranks of free regimes. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. What are the main obstacles hindering democratic transitions in Africa? 15.5 Features of Transition Several features distinguish recent regime transitions in Africa. First, the continent has enjoyed meager previous experience with democracy. In the pre- colonial era (before 1885), Africans governed themselves through patrimonial customs that concentrated power in the hands of hereditary chiefs, headman, and eiders. These systems had some democratic features: communal discussion was allowed and a group consensus was achieved, but the oldest males held office until they died. The colonial experience (1885-1960) did little to offset these less than democratic precedents. The European overlords were openly authoritarian, being more concerned with effective administration than political representation. Either they ruled directly through coercion (army, police, and courts) or they devised indirect control by piggy backing western laws on existing system of traditional authority. Only in belated reaction to mass African nationalism did the departing colonial authorities try to install instructions of British (Parliamentary) on French (presidential) democracy . In this respect newly independent African nations briefly partook in the second global wave of democratization that accompanied the breakup of European empires in the middle of the twentieth century. Not surprisingly, however, western institutions hastily transplanted from abroad did not readily taken root in Africa. Within a decade of independence, indigenous leaders either replaced multi-party systems with one party regimes or the military. Africa’s top leaders deployed the regulations and resources of the state to bolster their own political power. In this regard, a neo-patrimonial from of rue charactrerised the pose-colonial period in Africa (1960-89) in which leaders co-opted the formal institutions of the state to serve their personal needs. A key feature of neo-patrimonial rule was that citizens found it impossible to remove the big man at the top, who for all practical purposes, was a president for life. In short, legacies of authoritarian rule, precolonial, colonial, and post-colonial condemned Africans to embark on a quest for democracy from a low starting point and with little previous acquaintance with democratic forms of life. Second, the African regime transitions of the 1990s were rapid. The length of any political transition can be measured from the date of the first demand for a new political order to the installation of a regime that is observably different to the one that went before. For the African countries that first experienced regime change, the median Interval between the onset of political protest and the accession to office of a government was only thirty-five months, and just nine months in Cote d’lvoire compared with trajectories of Poland, where trade union protests began a decade before the Berlin Wall came down or Brazil where the military gradually introduced reforms at a leisurely pace, the African regime change seemed frantically hurried. Some later African transitions were protracted, as in Nigeria where the military repeatedly hesitated to surrender control or in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the death of strong Mobuttu Sese Seko was followed by a period of armed conflict that delayed elections. But insofar as democratization requires the institutional ration of popular government, precious little time was available in African transitions for people to practice operating new political procedures. One implication was that the consolidation of democratic institutions in Africa would be problematic in years to come. Third, regime transitions had diverse and not always democratic outcomes. African countries were scored as ‘Free’ democracies by 2006. Thus, by Freedom House Criteria, less than one quarter of continent’s forty-seven countries actually consummated a democratic transition (Criteria, the newest and forty-eight) SubSaharan country gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993). Moreover, because democratic transitions were disproportionately concentrated in countries with small populations, fewer than 15 percent of all African people could he counted as politically free in 2006 (less than 10 per cent in South African excluded). More commonly, many African transitions fell short of democracy as either competitive elections were never held, or elections were less than free and fair, or the losers of elections refused to accept the election results. Regime transitions in African countries most often led to ‘electoral democracy”, a type of political regime in which rulers adhere the forms of elections but manipulase the rules to ensure that opposition forces have little or no chance of winning. Africa’s electoral autocracies are somewhat more liberal than one-party or military regimes they replaced, not because opposition parties are now allowed to operate. But political continuities under African regime transitions for example, the continent has been relatively little electoral alternatives of ruling parties just twenty turnovers in ninety-six post-transition elections through 2006. While the frequency of such peaceful turnovers increased compared to the period before 1989, they still only occurred in one out of five ost-transitions elections. Rather than being displaced at the polls, dominant political parties in Africa have often been able to secure reelection in a multi-party setting, when they failed to deliver on promises of economic development. Finally, the attainment of democracy was short lived in certain African countries. In 1994 a military coup ejected the democratic regime in Gambia, which at the time was one of the only five African countries along with Botswana, Mauritius, Senegal, and Zimbabwe to have returned to a multi-party system since independence. In 1997, the former dictator in the republic of Congo was reinstalled by the military following factional competition that escalated into civil war. In the following year, in Lesotho, the opposition rejected the results of national elections that had denied than a share of parliamentary seats. In 2000, Malawi Slipped back from a ‘free’ to ‘party free’ due to degener ation in the management of elections and rising official corruption and by 2002. Zimbabwe had regressed from ‘party free’ to ‘not free’ as the dominant parry embarked on a violent campaign to seize farmland and control elections. Self Check Exercise-3 Q.1 Write in short the key features of transition? 15.6    GUIDED DEMOCRATIZATION The Ghanaian military regime of Jerry Rawlings provided a clear cut example of the process of guided democratization. The model of guided democratization is one in which an authoritarian regime that is committed to democratization maintains tight control over the transition period. Assuming power in a military coup defeat in December 1981 Rawlings implemented his vision to economically restructure the country. Rawlings oversaw a deliberately slow and measured liberalization of the Ghanaian political system that ultimately included the writing of new constitution, the legalization of opposition parties, the emergence of private press, and the creation of independent national human rights organization. In a multi-party presidential elections held in November 1992, Rawlings emerged victorious with 58,3 per cent of the popular vote. The election was however declared flawed and charges of rigging were raised by the opposition political parties who boycotted the subsequent legislative elections held one month later. Thus, Rawlings saw his National Democratic Congress (NDC) sweep almost all seals without contest. By 1996, however, the oppositions joined the next regularly scheduled electoral campaigns. Rawlings and NDC won again, but with a lowered shared of 57 per cent of the presidential vote and with less than two-thirds of the parliamentary seats. With the introduction of a meaningless degree of political competition in elections, broadly accepted by all parties. Ghana made a transition to democracy. Competitive multi-party elections have become an established norm of African politics. But to deepen democracy, the fundamental challenge is in establish institutions of political accountability, which in Africa mainly means imposing checks on the power of ‘big man” executive presidents. A strong competitive party system and effective civil society in the long run can strengthen the hope of building a vibrant democratic culture in Africa. Self Check Exercise-4 Q.1 Write in short about guided democratization? 15.7    PROCESS OF DEMOCRATIZATION IN EAST ASIA Due to its rich diversity and largeness, it is difficult to ascertain general patterns of democratization in Asia. This section thus. focuses on the few regimes that have undergone democratic transition since the 1970s in East Asia. Economically, East Asia is vastly different from the rest of the democrating world. Unlike their peers in other regimes, a number of countries in this region achieved unprecedented economic growth and social modernization under authoritarian rule. Prior to their transitions to democracy. Fast Asian countries, with a few exceptions such as Mongolia and the Philippines, experienced rapid and sustained economic growth for decades and freed millions of people from poverty and illiteracy. The global wave of democratization reached the shores of East Asia in 1986 with the removal of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos through the bloodless people power movement in the Philippines, One year later. South Korea ended military rule and elected a new president in a free and competitive election for the first time in nearly three decades of the Kuomintang's one-party rule. Taiwan lifted martial law and ushered in an era of highly competitive multi-party democracy. In 1990, Mongolia became a third wave democracy by abandoning its sixty-year-old communist one-party system and holding competitive multi-party democracy. The October 1991 Paris Accord made it possible for Cambodia to begin its transition to democracy, in 1992. Thailand re-established democratic rule after massive protests ousted the military-backed government. In 1999, Indonesia ended three decades of Suharto’s personal dictatorship and thereafter held democratic elections to become the largest democracy in the region. By the end of the 1990s the global wave had brought about seven new democracies in East Asia. Self Check Exercise-5 Q. Successful democratization in East Asia often involved ......., including....... and......... 15.8    RECENT DEMOCRATIC UPSURGE: THE ARAB REVOLUTIONS The world witnessed a major breakthrough in its quest for democracy in the year 2011. In Tunisia, President Zine-al-Abidine Ben, all resigned last January after weeks of demonstrations against a quarter of a century of corrupt authoritarianism. In Egypt, a combination of popular protest brought down the autocratic Hosni Mubarak. Libya’s cruel Gaddafi was out thrown by his people and sections of his armed forces. Syria’s Bashar-al-Assad has submitted to the widespread demand for decent democratic governance from people. In some authoritarian Arab slates, people ousted tyrants. 2011 will undoubtedly be remembered as the year of the Arab Revolution. We have seen an explosion of democratic aspiration and courageous struggle as revolutions spread in a few weeks from Tunisia and Egypt to Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and Syria. Like all such movements, which challenge and topple leaders and systems that had once appeared to be fixed features of the global order, the world was taken by surprise by the speed, scale, and energy of the mobilised masses who sensed an opportunity to dislodge their rulers. Movements also broke out in Algeria. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco but were either quickly repressed or contained by economic concessions and promises of reform by the regimes. Self Check Exercise-6 Q. Which countries were most affected by the Arab Revolutions? 15.9    Summary This unit refers to three phases of democratization that have taken state in the world with focus on the Phases of democratic transformations/transitions that took place in the Post-Colonial countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. 15.10    Glossary •    Democracy : A system in which the government of a country of elected by the people. •    Government : The group of people who rule or control a country. •    Communism : The Political System in which the state owns and controls all factories, farms, services etc. aims to treat everyone equally. 15.11    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. Political instability, colonial legacy, and power struggles among elites were the key factors. Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. Challenges such as corruption, weak institutions, ethnic tensions, and political instability often impede smooth democratic transitions. Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. Transition features encompass changes in social, economic, and environmental aspects. Self Check Exercise-4 Ans. Guided democratization refers to a process where a country transitions towards democracy with substantial influence or guidance from external actors, domestic elites, or institutions. Self Check Exercise-5 Ans. Political reforms, free elections, civil liberties. Self Check Exercise-6 Ans. Some countries most affected by the Arab Revolutions include Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain. 15.12    Suggested Readings •    Tapan Biswal eds. Comparative Politics institutions and Processes, (New Delhi & Trinty Press), 2016. •    Bratton Michael and Van De Walle Nicholas, Democratic Experiments in Africa, Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective (Combridge : Cambridge University Press) 1997. •    J.S. Fishmen, Democracy and Deliberation : New Directons of Democratic Reforms (New HavenYale University Press), P. 1991. •    S.P. Huntington, The Third Wave, University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. •    S.P. Huntington, The Third Wave : Democratisation in the Late 20th Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), 1991. 15.13    Terminal Questions Q.1 What is Democratization? Q.2 Discuss in details the waves of the process of democratization? ***** Unit-16 DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT Structure 16.1    Introduction 16.2    Learning objectives 16.3    Democracy Self Check Exercise-1 16.4    Development Self Check Exercise-2 16.5    Democracy and Development Self Check Exercise-3 16.6    Summary 16.7    Glossary 16.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 16.9    Suggested Readings 16.10    Terminal Questions 16.1    Introduction In this Unit, we explore the intricate relationship between democracy and development. Delving into how political systems impact economic progress, we analyze the role of democratic governance in fostering societal well-being and economic growth. 16.2    Learning Objectives After completing this unit, you will be able to : •    Explain the concept of Democracy. •    Understand the Principles of Development. •    Explain the relationship between Democracy and development. 16.3    Democracy in India After gaining independence, India adopted a democratic system of governance. However, the foundations of institutional democracy were already taking shape during British colonial rule. These democratic institutions evolved through various acts introduced by the British Indian government, influenced by demands from both India and England. Key democratic principles were embedded in the Government of India Acts of 1909, 1919, and 1935. After extensive deliberations within the Constituent Assembly, democracy was formally established in India in 1950 with the adoption of the Republican Constitution. India chose a parliamentary system to uphold modern governance based on universal adult suffrage and periodic elections. Additionally, governance at the village level was structured in line with Gandhian ideals. The evaluation of democracy is generally based on two models: one focuses on minimal or procedural democracy, while the other emphasizes substantive or effective democracy. The procedural approach defines democracy through institutions such as political parties, periodic elections, universal suffrage, and leadership. On the other hand, the substantive model argues that electoral democracy alone does not fully capture the essence of democracy. The procedural system is often seen as minimalist and does not necessarily ensure democratic values beyond elections. In contrast, substantive democracy takes a broader perspective by considering factors like social inclusion, redistribution of resources, human rights, governance, transparency, accountability, and civil society participation. It highlights the interconnectedness of democracy and development, with each reinforcing the other. In India, the discourse on democracy has primarily revolved around three aspects: transition, consolidation, and deepening of democracy. While the initial decades after independence focused on the first two aspects, recent discussions emphasize the need for deepening democracy. The emergence of new social movements and the assertion of diverse identities have played a crucial role in democratization. However, the success of deepening democracy depends on the active participation of communities across different social divisions. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Define Democracy? 16.4    Development Development is a recurring subject in discussions about democracy and social transformation. Sociologists and political scientists often associate it with modernization, a concept that gained popularity in examining political and social changes in post-colonial developing nations. These transformations were regarded as steps toward development and modernization, reflecting the process of nation-building or the establishment of a nationstate. This included the formation of political institutions such as political parties and interest groups, the implementation of universal adult suffrage and periodic elections, the existence of written or unwritten constitutions, and the level of urbanization. Modernization and development theories, influenced by behavioralism, primarily focused on how a system sustains itself by integrating different components. These theories largely ignored the potential for internal challenges that could disrupt or alter the system. Economists, on the other hand, have traditionally defined development in terms of per capita income and Gross National Product (GNP). The modernization theory of development considers these economic indicators alongside other social and political factors. However, Amartya Sen proposed an alternative perspective on development. While he acknowledged the importance of per capita income and GNP, he argued that they are insufficient as sole measures of development. True development, according to Sen, involves enhancing human capabilities and ensuring access to essential resources such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and personal freedoms. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. What do you understand by the term Development? 16.5    Democracy and Development The discussion surrounding the relationship between democracy and development primarily revolves around two key questions: Are they compatible, or do they hinder each other? Niraja Javal argues that this debate in India has been somewhat misinterpreted, as it has been largely shaped by economists. Deepak Nayyar contends that India has experienced tension between political democracy and economic development. While democratic processes have allowed for the inclusion of the poor, they remain largely excluded from market participation, which continues to be dominated by the elite. The state has primarily focused on managing the interests and conflicts of the elite rather than ensuring equitable economic participation. Since India’s independence, the role of the state in managing societal conflicts and addressing the needs of the poor has evolved through three distinct phases: from 1947 to 1966, 1967 to 1990, and from 1990 onward. The initial phase was characterized by strong state intervention, successfully balancing various interests through consensus. However, the second phase saw a decline in state effectiveness and the consensus model. During this time, the state sought to appease wealthy farmers and relied on populism and patronage to manage different social groups. Despite these challenges, poverty levels declined to some extent. The third phase, often associated with liberalization, witnessed a weakening of state credibility and an increasing influence of the market. According to Nayyar, for the first time in India’s history, economic liberalization and political empowerment appear to be moving in opposite directions. While people have political rights, their inability to engage in market activities due to a lack of resources and capabilities remains a significant concern. In the absence of an effective mediating role by the state, Nayyar suggests that civil society can step in to address these gaps. Pranab Bardhan takes the position that democracy and development are fundamentally difficult to reconcile. He identifies three dominant proprietary classes in India: the industrial capitalist class, wealthy farmers, and professionals in the public sector. These groups have conflicting interests, and while the state plays a role in mediating these conflicts, there is also pressure from marginalized sections of society demanding greater inclusion. This tension between disadvantaged groups and the propertied classes creates resistance to economic reforms, further complicating the development process. Critics of democracy’s compatibility with development often cite the rapid economic progress of undemocratic regimes in Southeast Asia as evidence. Contrastingly, Amartya Sen presents a clear argument that democracy and development are not only compatible but also mutually reinforcing. He asserts that democracy can thrive when individuals possess entitlements and capabilities that enable them to actively participate in governance. Moreover, democracy—by fostering freedom—enhances development by expanding people’s entitlements and capabilities. In this view, development is not only possible alongside democracy but also largely dependent on it. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Discuss the relationship between Democracy and Development? 16.6    Summary This unit presents two opposing perspectives on democracy and development in India—one arguing for their success and the other for their failure. The evaluation of democracy and development depends on how these concepts are defined. In the context of India, democracy is analyzed through two models: procedural and substantive. The procedural model focuses on institutions and processes, while the substantive model considers these elements within a broader societal framework, including civil rights. Scholars who emphasize procedural democracy generally view Indian democracy as successful, whereas those who focus on substantive democracy often perceive it as a failure. Similarly, development is interpreted in two ways: one based on the establishment of modern political institutions and the other on people's access to resources and their capabilities. There are also conflicting views on whether democracy and development are compatible with each other. 16.7    Glossary •    Adult Franchise : Refers that all citizens who are 18 year and above irrespective of their cast Education, Religion, Color, Perce and Economic Constitions are free to it is based on the idea of Equality. •    Decentralization : A form of an organizational Structure where there is the Deligation of Authority by the top Management to the middle and lower levels of Managementation organization. 16.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See Section 16.3 Self Check Exercise-2 For Answer, See Section 16.4 Self Check Exercise-3 For Answer, See Section 16.5 16.9    Suggested Readings •    Tapan Biswal eds, Comparative Politics : Institutiona and Processes (New Delhi: Trinty Press), 2016. •    J.C. Johari, New Comparative Government, (New Delhi : Lotus Press), 2011. •    Egyankash, Dbate on Democrcy and Development accessed on dated 15 May, 2023. 16.10    Terminal Questions 1)    Explain the evolution and growth of democracy in India. 2)    Discuss various conceptions of democracy. 3)    Evaluate the on-going debate on democracy and development. ***** Block-IIIUnit-17 MEANING AND EVOLUTION OF CONSTITUTIONALISM Structure 17.1    Introduction 17.2    Learning Objectives 17.3    What is Constitutionalism 17.3.1    Nature of Constitutionalism Self Check Exercise-1 17.4    Evolution of Constitutionalism 17.4.1    Greek Constitutionalism 17.4.2    Roman Constitutionalism 17.4.3    Constitutionalism in the Middle Ages 17.4.4    Constitutionalism of the Renaissance and Reformation Periods 17.4.5    Constitutionalism in England 17.4.6    Constitutionalism under the influence of the American and French Revolutions 17.4.7    Constitutionalism of the 19th Century 17.4.8    Constitutionalism of the 20th Century Self Check Exercise-2 17.5    Summary 17.6    Glossary 17.7    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 17.8    Suggested Readings 17.9    Terminal Questions 17.1    Introduction Constitutionalism is a concept which stands for the exercise of sovereign power of the state by its government in accordance with several fundamental rules, laws and principles. The government exercises powers within limits and in accordance with the means defined and prescribed by the fundamental law of the land, i.e., the constructional law. It is a modern concept which holds that what is essential for a state, in order to be a modem welfare democratic state, is not the existence of a constitution but the acceptance of constitutional-a system of politics governed by laws and regulations. Constitutionalism means the supremacy of law and not of the individuals, and the principle of limited as against autocratic or unrestrained government. It includes within its ambit the principles of democracy, liberalism, limited government, decentralization and nationalism. It has no place for arbitrary or despotic government. 17.2    Learning Objectives After through this unit, you will be able to: •    Understand the concept of constitutionalism. •    Explain the Historical background of constitutionalism. 17.3    WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONALISM ? The concept of constitutionalism means the exercise of power by the powerholders under several accepted and definite restraints which are designed to ensure a limited and restrained exercise of power. It also stands both for the exercise of powers under the supremacy of laws and for the sharing and decentralization of power. In the words of Carl J. Fredrich. “Constitutionalism, by dividing power, provides a system of effective restraints upon governmental action. Through a network of fundamental rules, regulations and principles enshrined in the constitution of the state, constitutionalism ensures a system of government working under restraints and in a responsible manner. By several methods and techniques, it provides for restraints on the powers of the government and ensures fair and responsible exercise of power on the people. In simple words, constitutionalism stands for the existence of : (1)    constitutional limits and restraints on the power of the government: (2)    limitations on the government with a view to prevent arbitrary action on its part; (3)    definite rules regarding the exercise of sovereign power: and (4)    guarantee of the rights and freedom of the governed. C.F. Strong opines that constitutionalism stands for that constitutional state in which “the powers of the government, the rights of the governed and the relations between the two are adjusted.” Pennock and Smith observe, ‘Constitutionalism is not simply a matter of procedure and substances, bus also the effective control of large blocks of political power and intangible and diffused values of representatives, symbolism, past traditions and future aspirations.” According to Carter and Hen, “Decentralisation of power is the most essential element of modern constitutionalism.” Fundamental rights and independence of the Judiciary are its two general and essential features. It involves the guarantee of opportunities to the people for change of rulers after regular intervals through peaceful and constitutional means.” Aristotle’s description of “constitutional rule” can be quoted as a description of the constitutionalism of modern times. He conceptualised a constitutional rule, as Sabine writes, in terms of its three fundamental elements: First, it is rule in the public or general interest as distinguished from factional or tyrannical rule in the interest of a single class or individual. Second, it is a lawful rule in the sense that the government is earned on by general regulations and not by arbitrary decrees and also in the vague sense that the government does not flout standing customs and conventions of the constitution. Third, constitutional government means the government of willing subjects as distinguished from despotism that is supported merely by force.” Constitutionalism is, as such, the principle or concept of a state governed by a limited and responsible government which exercises power under certain restraints imposed by law and which is founded on the principle of the supremacy of law and not of any person, or group. 17.3.1    NATURE OF CONSTITUTION : CONSTITUTIONALISM DOES NOT MEAN JUST THE PRESENCE OF A CONSTITUTION There exists a subtle difference between constitution and constitutionalism. Modern political scientists advocate that the two are not the same. They reject the traditional view which held that constitutionalism means the concept of a state governed by a constitution. They argue that there may be a state with a constitution but there may not be constitutionalism in that state. Constitutionalism stands for the concept of a state governed by a government limited by laws, a government which exerciscs power under restraints and which is accountable before the governed. In other words, it stands for a democratic government. “Constitutionalism” write Carter and Herz, “is possible only in non-totalitarian states. In a totalitarian state, there may exist a constitution. In it, the rulers exercises unrestrained power at will. The governed have little control over their policies. The change of the rulers is always accompanied by sudden and usually violent changes. In a state characterised by constitutionalism, there is always a provision for orderly change,” Friedrich holds, “Constitutionalism is a complex system of providing for orderly change.’’ The Constitution of a slate is a set of rules, the constitutional law of the state which lays dawn the organisation, powers and functions of the government. It sets forth the principles which govern its organisation and functions. It may provide for a division of powers or conticentration of powers, centraIisation or decentralization, rule of law or rule of the rulers and separation of powers or not. It may or may not enumerate the rights and freedoms of the citizens. It may provide for only certain broad laws and vest the authority to rule by customs or traditions in the rulers, K. C. Wheare defines it as a selection of the legal rules which govern the government organised in accordance with a constitution. It stands for a government which is limited and responsible. It stands for a constitutional state or a constitutional government, i.e.. as Wheare says “a government according to rule as opposed to an arbitrary government, it means a government limited by the terms of the constitution and not a government limited only by the desire and capacities of those who exercise power.” Constitutionalism means an exercise of power in accordance with laws and under limitations imposed by these laws. It involves a political system in which the powers of the government are limited. “It is another name,” writes J. C. Johri, “for the concept of a limited, and for this reason, a civilised government.” Under it, the real justification of the constitution, writes wheare, finds place in having a “limited government” and in requiring those who govern “to conform to laws and rules.” A totalitarian state, an authoritarian and dictatorial state can have a constitution but is not characterised by constitutionalism. Carter and Harz remark, “Constitutionalism is possible only in a non-totalitarian state.” A totalitarian state can have a constitution but only as a showpiece, or as a smoke screen for projecting its legitimacy and increasing the credibility of the refers and their actions. It cannot be characterised by constitutionalism as there is an all-powerful government run by the power holders in accordance with their wishes and desires. Constitutionalism necessarily involves the concept of limited government. Separation of powers, restraint of law upon the persons running the government, absence of arbitrary actions and presence of peaceful and constitutional means for the change of rulers after regular intervals or whenever the people may so desire. Constitutionalism is a fundamental feature of a really liberal democratic state. It does not characterise an authoritarian State. For example, in Pakistan, there is a constitution but no constitutionalism whereas in India, there is both a constitution and constitutionalism. A large number of scholars advocate the view that in a communist political system, the constitution is present but constitutionalism is absent. The government is organized according to the constitution but it functions according to the wishes of the leaders or the leaders of the Communist Party. The constitution is an instrument in the hands of the rulers which they can change at will or very easily In stales not characterised by constitutionalism, the relations of the government with the people depend upon the rulers and are not adjusted on the basis of the laws of the land and public opinion. Making clear the distinction between a constitution and a constitutional slate or government, C.F. Strong writes that a constitution is a frame of political society organized through and by law, in which the law has established permanent institutions with recognized functions and definite rights,’ while the constitutional slate (i.e., a state characterised by constitutionalism) is one in which the powers of the government, the rights of the governed, and the relations between the two are adjusted.” Thus, according to several political scientists, there exist subtle distinctions between constitutional ism and constitution. The former is a concept of democratic rule in accordance with the laws, the latter may or may not provide for a democratic system of government. A constitutional government, in the real sense of the term, should mean a government whose working is restrained by law and not a government organised in accordance with written laws but working in an unrestrained and autocratic manner. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. What is Constitutionalism? 17.4 THE EVOLUTION OF CONSTITUTIONALISM The emergence of constitutionalism, i.e. a constitutional state, in the real sense has been a product of slow and steady historical evolution which can be studied and analysed as the history of the growth of political institutions. This exercise can, in turn, be accomplished by a review of great political thinkers. C.F. Strong has traced the evolution of constitutionalism by dividing the process into several stages. We shall also follow C.F. Strong in tracing the history of constitutionalism from the Greek times to the present. 17.4.1    GREEK CONSTITUTIONALISM The beginning of constitutionalism can be traced back to the times of Greek city-states. The Greeks stood for political separatism and considered the existence of small city-states ideal. They accepted the principle of autonomy or the liberty of the group. The state was conceived in terms of an economically self-sufficing unit and small enough to permit all the citizens to meet together at one place. The state was regarded as an organic spiritual union and not a mere piece of governmental machinery, it meant to them an individual writ large. It comprehended within it all that we today denote by the terms state, society economic organisation and even political. It existed for the sake of life as well as to make life good. Good life was possible only within a state. The citizens as good citizens observed the laws, acted as legislators, magistrates, and jurors. It was their duty. Ideal Royalty was considered to be ideally the best form. On the average, Polity was considered to be the best Democracy was interpreted as monocracy or unbridled and degenerated liberty. All were not citizens of the state, A slave had no right to participate in the state. He was to exist as a piece ‘of property of the master. Aristotle classified states on the basis of the number of rulers and the ends that the Stales served. His analysis can be described as his description of the constitutional rule as opposed to the selfish and perverted rule of the ruler. Greek constitutionalism revolved around the idea of an ideal state. Both Plato and Aristotle were involved in picturising an ideal state and a sub-Ideal state. Whereas Plato offered a utopia in the form of ‘Republic’ and a working state in the form of “the laws” Aristotle offered an ideal state governed by an ideal monarch and a sub-ideal state incorporating the rule of all or the majority for the good of all, and named it Polity. Greek Constitutionalism had an in-built idealism and conservatism. It did not include a system capable of changing with the changing times and meeting new needs as they manifest themselves. Analysing the contribution of Greek Constitutionalism, C.F. Strong observes, “Although the political constitutionalism of the Greeks thus (as a result of civil war and subjection to Macedonian invasions) passed away, their political idealism remained, and it is difficult to see how our present political organization could have become what it is without the inspiration afforded by this classical example.” 17.4.2 ROMAN CONSTITUTIONALISM The next stage in the evolution of constitutionalism came during the era of the World Roman Empire and that is why we call it Roman Constitutionalism. Rome too was a city-state in the beginning. But later on, due to the policy of expansionism pursued by its rulers, it became a World Empire. The Roman Constitutionalism began us a happy blend of monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements and ended as an irresponsible autocracy. The Republican Constitutionalism as practiced after 510 B.C. which rested on four principles - divided authority, a short tenure of office for magistrates, the people being the final authority on all important matters, and the military authority of all magistrates being limited was rejected as it was round incongruous with the administrative needs of the big Empire. In Rome itself, a demolish was established. The Emperor became all powerful and his word became the law. The popular assemblies ceased to function and the Divine Origin Theory, which accepted the divine rights of the King to rule as the deputy of God on the earth, came to be accepted. Thus, the Republican Roman city-state got replaced by a centralised autocratic authority. The distant parts of the Roman Empire were governed by Roman Governors who enjoyed wide discretionary powers and were virtually free from the control of the Home Government. The only check upon them was the threat of impeachment at home on retirement. But it was just a check on paper and not in reality. The Greek ideals of liberty, democracy and local independence got replaced by the Roman ideals of unity, order, universal law and cosmopolitanism. The Greeks pursued their ideals of “liberty and equal law.” but ignored the importance of authority and discipline. The Romans held fast to authority in the family and in the state. At the same time, they accepted the idea of the natural rights of all Roman citizens and subjects. They took steps towards the development of a common law - Natural Law.’ - system for all. The Greeks’ conception of Law of Nature was applied by them to their legal system. “The Romans studied the institutions and customs of the heterogeneous people over whom their authority extended and found a common clement of equity and convenience for all. This Law of Nations, as they called it, was a great step forward which widened the notions of lawyers and statesmen.” Analysing the influence of Roman Constitutionalism. C.F. Strong observes : (1)    The Roman law has had a great effect upon the legal history of continental Europe. The customs and laws brought in by the Teutonic invaders of the empire in the West fused with and merged into the Roman code which they found, and this fusion has produced the legal system which prevails in Western Continental Europe today. (2)    The Roman love of order and unity was so strong that the men of the Middle Ages were obsessed with the notion of the political unity of the world in the face of the forces of disintegration. To the Romans, passion for unity and its continuity as an ideal in the Middle Ages may be traced to the prevailing dream of liberal minds in the modem world that at last, there may be established an international or supra-national authority for the prevention of war. (3)    The double-sided conception of the Emperor’s legal sovereignty on the one hand that his pleasure had the force of law, and, on the other, that his powers were ultimately derived from the people-persisted for many centuries and was responsible for two distinct medieval views of the relations of government and the governed. At the beginning of the Middle Age, it led to blind acceptance of authority by the people and towards their close to the doctrine that the people, having originally delegated the sovereign power to the Emperor, might rightfully resume it. This argument has, in fact, been the source of the philosophical basis of the modem democracy. 17.4.3    CONSTITUTIONALISM IN THE MIDDLE AGES With the invasion of the Barbarians into the western half of Europe, the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries and the Roman political machine broke down. In the eastern half, the Roman Empire could persist till it fell to the Turks in 1453. In the West, actual unity was impossible after the Barbarians had broken the universality of the Roman Law. However, the theory of Empire gave rise to the Holy Roman Empire which was founded by Charles the Great in 800 A.D. However, under it, Roman Constitutionalism disappeared. The old notion of Roman centralism was abandoned in favour of decentralism. The threat posed by the Church to the temporal power gave rise to a new type of constitutionalism. In the middle ages, there developed the phenomenon of feudalism all over Europe. lt gave rise to the idea that the Kings were the vassals of the Emperor who, in his sum, was the vassal of God. They received their dominions as fields to be held on the condition of loyally to their lord. Each King, then, divided his dominion into sufficiently large parts and granted each part to a noble called Tenant-in-chief, on the condition of loyalty and service to the king. He held land so long as he fulfilled the obligations. After his death, the rights and duties of vassalage passed on to the heirs of the lord. The Tenants-in-chief divided their lands into small units and gave them to their vassals on similar conditions. The process of division and transference continued too many levels. At all levels, the vassals owed to then lords full loyally and rendered certain services to them. The lends had the duty to protect their vassals. The main feature of constitutionalism in this era of feudalism was the dispersal of the governing power among hundreds of petty authorities both lay and ecclesiastical, all confined to small areas. It was characterised neither by common citizenship nor common law. There was almost no central authority in the state and the loyally of the people was divided at every step. Its main evil was that it gave inordinate power to the great barons and this prevented the growth of a united state power. The Kings of the middle ages, however, soon became aware of this limitation. Consequently, many of them particularly in the Western European state, made moves towards centralisation. In England and France and to a less extent in Spain, the policy of the Kings from the 11th century onwards was to concentrate power in their own hands and to control and finally destroy the great feudal fiefs. Both England and France also realised the limitations that the Roman Church had placed on their powers and the two took steps to establish their national Churches. In order to enlist the support of the people, the Kings started the practice of summering representative assemblies. In 1265 a parliament consisting of the representatives of Knights of the State and the representatives of Towns was summoned in England and the process led to the calling of the Model Parliament representing all the three classes of the realm Ecclesiastical, Nobility and Commonality in 1295. In France, a similar development took place in 1302. Along with it, the Hundred-Year War (1337-1453) strengthened the sense of nationalism among the people. These developments in England and France gave rise to the ideas of “nationalism” and “representative democracy” . In other parts of Europe, particularly in Germany and Italy, feudal anarchy continued to remain at work till a much later date than in England, France and Spam. The situation further degenerated into chaos as a result of perpetual conflicts between the Imperial and Papal authorities which grew in intensity from the middle of the 11th century. The conflict weakened both the church and the monarchy. It was only after the emergence of the Councilor Movement that “Popism” became some what weak. The Councilor Movement was, however, in itself a failure. But it had two significant impacts on the constitutionalism of the medieval ages. First, the organization and procedure of the councils acknowledged the national divisions into which Europe was now falling. Secondly, it gave rise to much speculation regarding the means of creating a constitutional government in the Church and led to significant writings on political philosophy in the 15th century, in the writings of such men as Marsiglio of Padua, Willian of Ockham, John Gerson and Nicholas of Sues, there were explored such political problems as sovereignty, nationalism, representation and the limitation of monarchy which foreshadowed the constitutional developments of the modem epoch. 17.4.4    CONSTITUTIONALISM OF THE RENAISSANCE AND REFORMATION PERIODS The breakup of medieval institutions received a big impetus in the Renaissance period. The Greek ideas were found to be opposed to medieval conceptions, which were already becoming discredited by the facts. The general effect was at once of atomization and one of integration : it atomized the medieval world but integrated individual states. The rise of nation-states started taking shape in England, France and Spain. However, the state of the Renaissance period did not uphold the medieval idea of a constitutional state. It emerged as a centralized authoritarian state pursuing vigorously external sovereignty. The statement failed to accept the Greek ideas of the autonomy and rights of the individual. The Renaissance monarchs were concerned with politics and not in the least with ethics. Machiavelli’s Prince (1513) epitomized fully the idea of complete separation of politics from ethics. Centralism came to be the favourite idea. The Reformation of the 16th century gave a divine sanction to the Renaissance state, Luther’s ideas supported the concept of religious toteration and state Churches. His attack on Papacy strengthened the process of atomizing of the world and added to the Renaissance monarchy the control over the religious practices of his subjects because it emerged as the head of the Church. The rise of strong centralized monarchy in the Renaissance and Reformation periods effectively delayed the progress of constitutionalism whose seeds had been sown in Western Europe towards the end of the Middle Ages. The Tudors’ Benevolent Despotism in England and the rise of strong centralized monarities in France, Spain and some other European Countries led to the emergence of the Nation-state. The two great features that came to be developed were the institutions of professional army ad professional bureaucracy drawn generally from the middle class or bourgeoisie. Analysing the impact of these developments on constitutionalism. C.F. Strong observes. “Thus, as feudalism decayed, the only unifying force was the Crown which sought no aid from any representative body, and so the organs of a properly constituted body politics, instead of thriving by activity, atrophied through lack of use.” That is the reason why the full development of constitutionalism was delayed until the 19th century. In England alone, Renaissance monarchy was not allowed to become an unchecked despotism and constitutionalism maintained its progress. 17.4.5    CONSTITUTIONALISM IN ENGLAND In England, the age of the Benevolent Despotism of the Monarchy could last only till 1603. The rise of the Stuart dynasty came with the attempts of Kings James-I and Charles I to justify their “despotism” as “the Right Divine” of the king to rule as a deputy of God on earth” received a reaction from the parliament and the people. The ensuing Civil War (1642-49), the Commonwealth experiment (1649-61), the Restoration of Monarchy (1660), the attempts of Charles-I and James-II to keep powers centralised in their hands and the attempts of James-II to bring back Catholicism produced die Glorious Revolution of 16S8. This Revolution transformed the control of the King into the control of the King-in Parliament and established the sovereignty of the Parliament. The passing of the Bill of Rights gave a solid legal foundation to constitutionalism. Along with it, the principle of Parliamentary control over the Executive, the system of the Rule of Law the concept of constitutional and limited monarchy became popular. The Mutiny Act gave the Parliaments control over the army. In the 18th century, the cabinet system had its birth and gradual development. The emergence of the concepts of the responsibility of the Executive to the Parliament, and ‘accountable government’ took place in England. By the second half of the 18th century. England had become a constitutional, though not a democratic suite. By conventional growth and by a series of statutes, her three organs of government got properly constituted and related in such a manner as to ensure the absence of tyanay. “The principle of representation was”, writes C.F. Strong, “deeply rooted in the system, but no ideas of franchise extension had yet come to be accepted as practical politics.” For this the country had to wait for the combined effect of the French, American and Industrial Revolutions “Nevertheless, in the middle of the 18th century, Britain was the only constructional state in the world and it naturally became a model for the later constitutional development of other states. The constitutionalism which emerged in England through an evolutionary process influenced other states to use, adopt and incorporate it through legal actions and in their own ways.” 17.4.6    CONSTITUTIONALISM UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTIONS The British Constitutionalism had its influence on its North American colonies, where the people started thinking in terms of constitutionalism and in terms of an end to the system of bearing the laws and tables passed by a foreign representative body and not by their own representatives, in France, die centralism affected by the Kings and non-availability of rights and freedoms to the French made them think of the reasons behind such a system which was opposed to British Constitutionalism. The French writer Montesquieu, after visiting England, published his work. ‘The Spirit of Laws’ in 1748. In this, he lined to explain as to why the British enjoyed rights and freedoms and why these were not available to the French. The difference between the British and French systems was attributed by him to the existence in England and absence in France of separation of powers. The publication of this book and the discussion and debates that it gave rise in clearly demonstrated the existence of awakened political consciousness in favour of constitutionalism and against despotic and autocratic regimes. In fact, in the I7th century itself, the political tyranny which the Renaissance had produced and the persistence of religious intolerance which the Reformation had done nothing to allay gave rise to the Social Contract Theory, developed in England by Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651) and John Locke in the Treatises of Civil Government (1690). Locke justified the spirit of the Glorious Revolution and advocated the concept of a limited government resting upon the consent of the governed with the governed having the right to overthrow the government or any of its organs if it failed to remain in Its allotted sphere of activity. Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’ was published in 1762 and attempted to reconcile the twin principles of sovereignty and democracy. He advocated the concept of ‘popular sovereignty’ and popularised the case for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity of the people social Contract theory gave a big popularity to the ideas of constitutionalism-the rulers should rule in accordance with the terms of “the Social Contract” which gave rise to the state and the system of government. After the publication of Rousseau’s “Social Contract,” two very big events took place - one in America and the other in France, In America, the Declaration of Independence was made by the Colonies in 1776 which led to the War of Independence and resulted in the rising of 13 sovereign American states committed to the idea of constitutionalism. In France, the French Revolution (1789) took place and opened the era of constitutionalism. The American Declaration of independence read “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.” That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, delving their just power from the consent of the governed that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends. it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government.” This historic document and the constitution that the independent American states made for themselves greatly strengthened constitutionalism not only in America but also in France and other states of the world. “The French Declaration of Rights of Man and of Citizen” 1789 also declared “Men are born free and equally in righls. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the practical and imprescriptibly rights of man .... Law is the expression of the general will. No one ought to be disturbed on account of his opinion.” The French Revolution and this Declaration of Rights gave birth to the era of constitutionalism. Constitutionalism in America, and France formed the true beginning of modem documentary constitutionalism. Unfortunately, this era was short lived in France and gave way to the anarchy of the Reign of Terror, which was followed by the despotic regime of Napoleon. However, despite its short life, it lighted a fire of constitutionalism which could not be kept under control forever. 17.4.7    CONSTITUTIONALISM OF THE 19TH CENTURY: NATIONALISM AND LIBERAL REFORMS The Napoleonic regime and its consequences gave rise to the development of nationalism and liberal reform movements in the first half of the 19th century. Napolconic wars in Europe gave rise to strong nationalism in European states and this nationalism was a “strong fire” and not a weak and vague consciousness which developed in the Renaissance period. It found concrete manifestation in the constitutions which were made and adopted by the European state – France, Italy, Denmark, Austria, Hungary, Germany, Switzerland and others. All these constitutions, in one way or the other, followed the British parliamentary system of government and included features of a democratic state. However, still they were not strong enough to satisfy the growing demands for democratic and liberal reforms. The stage got set under the impact of the Industrial Revolution, which gave rise to the process of urbanisation and the rise of a new industrial middle class highly conscious of its right to have a share in political power and in respect of several liberal democratic reforms. This led to the passing of the First Reform Act (1832) and to the opening of the age of democratic reforms in England. Through several acts, the British were in a position to extend the franchise and to incorporate a number of social, political and legal reforms in the system. This great movement inevitably spread to the Continent and produced similar reforms and constructional changes. Constitutionalism gained a tremendous momentum. The constructional state, government by representatives and responsible government, respecting the rights of its people and acting as an instrument of reforms, came to be the accepted model of constitutionalism. By the first decade of the twentieth century, acting under the influence of Western Liberalism, even the south-east corner of Europe, so long oppressed by the oriental despotism of the Turks, adopted political constitutionalism. However, Karl Marx and Engels in their works came forward to advocate a different type of constitutionalism, which the Western thinkers rejected as a thesis for proletarian dictatorship, but which found favour with Soviet Russia in the early years of the 20th century (1917) and resulted in Socialist Constitutionalism in that country. 17.4.8    CONSTITUTIONALISM OF THE 20TH CENTURY (a)    Constitutionalism and the First World War:- On the eve of the First World War in 1914,” writes C.F. Strong. “the national constitutional experiment was, in one form or another, being tried in every state of Europe, it had spread into South America, Japan. China and India. The European imperialism over Asia helped this process. Constitutionalism modelled mainly on British Constitutionalism had got a foothold in some of the Asian and African status. However, in the Inter-War period (1919-1938), the process received a setback when several dictatorial and authoritarian regimes emerged in several states at the cost of representative institutions. The rise of fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany, Militarism in Japan came as anti-climaxes to the movement for constitutionalism. A single-party dominant political dictatorships and totalitarian systems came to be popular. Use of power for dominating the social, economic, political, cultural and even religious life of the people became the order of the day. However, a silver lining amidst these dark clouds was the establishment of the first ever global international organization - the League of Nations and internationalism came to be an aspect of constitutionalism. (b)    Constitutionalism after the Second World War:- The Second World War was fought by the Allied powers as a war for safeguarding democracy. Their victory came to be regarded as the victory of democracy and constitutionalism. The defeat of the Axis powers destroyed the dictatorial totalitarian systems of Germany, Italy and Japan. The rise of several new states in Asia followed by a similar development in Africa, gave rise to a new opportunity for the development of constitutionalism. Countries like India came forward to adopt western constitutionalism with several modifications suited to their environments. The new states of Asia and Africa and the reawakened states of South America strengthened constitutionalism by making several interesting experiments with constitution-making in order to have constitutional states. Japan emerged as a democratic state with a parliamentary system of government and accepted the concept of constitutionalism. The establishment of the United Nations and the acceptance of internationalism by the sovereign states further came as a welcome development. In several communist states like China, constitutionalism similar to the one adopted by Soviet Russia came to be accepted. The communist States came to accept constitutionalism as defined by Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao... In the last decade of the 20th century, the socialist constitutionalism suffered a big stroke and liberal constitutionalism – the real constitutionalism - received a big boost….It has received universal recognition and is taken to mean a system of governance characterised by a representative responsive, responsible and accountable system of governance. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Explain in short the historical background of Roman Constitutionism? 17.5    Summary In conclusion, constitutionalism’s meaning and evolution reveal a dynamic interplay between tradition and adaptation, reflecting societal values and political exigencies. From its historical roots to contemporary manifestations, constitutionalism embodies the enduring pursuit of balanced governance, individual rights, and the rule of law, shaping the foundations of modern democracy. 17.6    Glossary •    Constitutionalism: Constitutionalism refers to the act that defines that a country or state should be governed by specific rules or the ruling document, i.e., the Constitution. •    Monarchy: A system of government in which one person reigns, usually a king or queen. The authority, or crown, in a monarchy is generally inherited. 17.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See Section 17.3 Self Check Exercise-2 For Answer, See Section and Sub-Section 17.4 17.8    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 2. 17.9    Terminal Questions Q.1 What is Constitutionalism? Briefly describe the history of Constitutionalism in Europe? Q.2 Briefly discuss the history of the growth of Constitutionalism from Greek period to the modern period? Q.3 Write an essay on the evolution of Constitutionalism? Q.4 Define Constitutionalism? Discuss its main characteristic? ***** Unit-18 FEATURE AND PROBLEMS CONSTITUTIONALISM Structure 18.1    Introduction 18.2    Learning objectives 18.3    Features of Constitutionalism Self Check Exercise-1 18.4    Problems of Constitutionalism 18.4.1    How can these problems be Overcome? Self Check Exercise-2 18.5    Summary 18.6    Glossary 18.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 18.8    Suggested Readings 18.9    Terminal Questions 18.1    Introduction In this unit, we’ll explore the basic features of constitutional governance and the challenges it faces. From understanding its principles to tackling modern issues, join us on a journey to grasp the essence of constitutional governance. 18.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to- •    Know the Features of Constitutionalism. •    Explain the problems of modern Constitutionalism 18.3    FEATURES OF CONSTITUTIONALISM IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES The concept of Constitutionalism in contemporary times has the following features : (1)    lt is a concept of a constitutional state in which the exercise of power takes place in accordance with and restrained by laws. Rule of Law is the basis of the governmental authority. (2)    It involves the concept of a limited government, i.e., a government exercising power within the alloted spheres and in accordance with the procedures laid down. (3)    Constitutionalism stands for the rule of law as against the rule of the rulers in accordance with their wishes. (4)    It postulates decentralization of powers and responsibility of the powerholders towads the governed. (5)    It stands for a well-adjusted system of rules in which the powers of the movement and the rights of the governed stand duly recognised, protective and balanced. (6)    Modern Constitutionalism stands for peaceful and orderly change of government after regular intervals and in accordance with the wishes and decisions of the governed. (7)    Constitutionalism upholds separation of powers, decentralisation of powers, limited government, rule of law and absence of a violent struggle for power. (8)    Constitutionalism, advocate the western political scientists, characterises only non-totalitanan democratic states. (9)    There is a subtle distinction between the constitution of the state and the constitutional state constitutionalism stands for a constitutional state. (10)    It stands for the grant and guarantee of the rights and freedoms of the people against any misuse of power by their governors. (11)    Constitutionalism believes that the distinction between the governors and the governed is not organic. The governors are elected by and responsible to the governed. A “governed” can become the “governor” through free and fair elections. (12)    A constitutional state is one which regularly provides opportunities for a change of government through peaceful and constitutional means, i.e., by free, fair and regular elections, i.e.. change of government by the free will of the people. (13)    A state with a constitution may or may not be a state characterised by constitutionalism. Constitutionalism stands for a constitutional state in which political power is exercised by a limited, representative and responsible government in accordance with laws. It does not characterise a state which has a constitution but which does not provide for a limited and accountable government. An authoritarian system run under a constitution involves a rejection of Modem constitutionalism. (14)    Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes lack constitutionalism. In fact, these do not have genuine constitutions. The rules that exist are “forever, provisional, changeable, revocable,” and they do not have the nature of generality, reliability and thus credibility which the rules or laws elsewhere (in liberal democratic states) posses.” (15)    Constitutionalism stands for a general consensus among all the people of the state in respect to the form of political institutions and procedures. (16)    Constitutionalism advocates the conception of a state characterised by rule of law and not by the personal rule of the persons who wield power. (17)    Constitutionalism postulates the existence of general agreement among all the people of the state in respect of the values and goals that they want to secure through the exercise of power by their organised government. (18)    Constitutionalism is opposed to the idea of frequent and rapid changes in the constitution of the states. It rejects rapid constitutional amendments particularly for giving place to the ideas of the rulers, particularly the new rulers. Carter and Hen remark, “Genuine constitutionalism is likewise absent when constitutions are forever made and remade, changed and abolished so as to fit the political needs of the respective holders.” When a constitution is in flux, there may not be constitutionalism, but the constitution is there. (19)    Modem Constitutionalism stands for liberalism and liberalisation of economy and politics, democracy, free enterprise, liberty, equality, justice, rule of law and limited government. (20)    Modern Constitutionalism stand for a government which works as a modem constitutionalism postulates a liberal democratic government as well as the presence of an alert and active civil society. Free Press and Freely organised alert and active, popular, representative, transparent, responsible and accountable government. Thus, constitutionalism is a concept of a constitutional state characterised by all the above-mentioned features. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. Discuss any three features of modern Constitutionalism? 18.4 PROBLEMS OF MODERN CONSTITUTIONALISM There were several problems which modern constitutionalism began to face. These were:- (1)    The threat of war limited the progress of constitutionalism because it made it essential for the states to keep ready for transformation into centralised systems of government, which were considered essential for meeting the exigencies of war. (2)    The existence of totalitarianism in some states also constituted a problem. The threat of totalitarian regimes continued in act as a pressure against constitutional states. (3)    The emergence or positive welfare administrative state increased tremendously the functions of the state. Law-making increased in number and volume. The representative assemblies did not have either the time or technical knowledge to handle fully this demand for increased law making. Consequently, concentration of some legislative power into the hands of the executive became inevitable. This came as a major limitation of modem constitutionalism. (4)    The necessity to take special care of the weaker sections of society, particularly, in the developing states, made it essential for the state to pursue protective discrimination in policies. (5)    The existence of revolutionary and separatist sub-national ethnic violence and wars in several new states also kept on hindering me successful operation of constitutionalism in them. (6)    Another problem faced by modem constitutionalism was that it had to be derailed at times for meeting an emergency created by external aggression or internal revolt. Thereafter, it used so become very difficult to retail it. The centralisation of power affected for meeting the emergency was sought to be perpetualised by the rulers. (7)    The existence of parochial and subject political cultures in most of the pew states hindered the successful operation of constitutionalism in them. (8)    The confrontation between democratic and authoritarian systems is the sphere of international relations (1945-90) also constituted a problem for modem constitutionalism. (9)    Ever-Increasing economic demands which were continuously made on the state, also constituted a limitation on modem constitutionalism. (10)    Presence of several sham or faced democracies in the grab of guided democracy, basic democracy, peoples republic, theocratic democracy and the like. Because of these problems, national democratic constitutionalism in the 20th century remained on trial. In order to successfully survive, it had to be prepared to adapt itself to the changing times and circumstances. It remained dynamic in approach. The last decade of the 20th century saw the emergence of a strong and universally held Faith in constitutionalism. The 21st century is still in its infancy. It continues to live with the legacy of the past. Nevertheless, constitutionalism in the 21st century stands for Liberalism, Liberaisation. Democracy, Human Rights, Globalisation and Development. 18.4.1    HOW CAN THE PROBLEMS BEFORE MODERN CONSTITUTIONALISM BE OVERCOME ? C.F. Strong suggests the following remedies for overcoming, the problems of constitutionalism and for strengthening it further:- (1)    The state may satisfy the mass of the community whose best interests it intends to safeguard, and the machinery through which the state functions- that is its constitution must be so adjusted as to secure this end. (2)    In order that the sovereign state may prove acceptable to the mass of citizens in are educated community, it must satisfy them that they ultimately control their political destiny. (3)    The sovereignty of the state must be so exercised and poised that individual rights are not unwarrantally injured by it. The state must take all such steps as can lead to real enjoyment of rights and freedoms by its people. (4)    The basis of representation must be kept broad so as to involve a large majority in the working of the government. (5)    As far as possible, power should be decentralised. Federation and democracy at the grass roots are good means for this purpose. (6)    In unitary states, effective devolution of economic power and resources to local areas must be affected through suitable devices. (7)    A well organised system of local government can help the state both to train its people in the art of democratic rule and to secure their participation in satisfying local needs locally with the help of local resources. (8)    Through several constitutional devices, the danger of bureaucratic rule should be kept limited and under control. (9)    The representatives must maintain continuous and active contacts with their electors. (10)    The sovereign nation states of contemporary times must realise the reality of ever increasing global interdependence and must accept internationalism and respect international law and older as a part of their living as members of the international community. (11)    The role of international organisation, the United Nations in preserving international peace and security by limiting and controlling international disorders, disputes and conflicts in international relations must be strengthened. (12)    Civil society must continuously act in the interest of limited government rights and freedom of the people. By all these means, the dangers faced by constitutionalism can be considerably kept limited. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Discuss any two problems faced by Constitutionalism? 18.5    Summary In the end, it may also be said at the concept of constitutionalism should change in response to the changes in urges and aspirations and social and economic conditions of the people. Mere adherence to the views of great constitutionalists would not do. It calls for the revision of old values and systems in the light of new hopes and requirements of the people. The concept of constitutionalism took a change from a theological to a secular side in the early phase of the modern age, it took another change from an aristocratic to a democratic side in the later part of the modem ape, and from an individualistic to a socialistic side in the last century. In other words, it signifies that the meaning of constitutionalism should not be given a rigid or a fixed form; it should be treated as a dynamic affair that changes with the emergence of new conditions, new challenges, new problems; and new issues. And change “is not something to be feared and avoided, as Aristotle thought, but it is the very warp and weft of modem constitutionalism. 18.6    Glossary •    Liberalism : It is political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, content of the government, political equality and equality before the law. •    Republic : A country that has an elected government and an elected lender (President). 18.7    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See Section 18.3 Self Check Exercise-2 For Answer, See Section 18.4 18.8    Suggested Readings • For Suggested Readings, see the list given at the end of the unit No. 2. 18.9    Terminal Questions Q.1 Discuss the nature of modern Constitutionalism? Q.2 Define Constitutionalism? Explain the features of Constitutionalism? Q.3 What is Constitutionalism? Discuss the various problems of Constitutionalism in modern democratic State? Q.4 Define Constitutionalism? Describe the major problems faced by the Constitutionalism? ***** BLOCK-IVUNIT-19CONCEPT OF STATE Structure 19.1    Introduction 19.2    Learning objectives 19.3    Meaning and Definitions of State Self Check Exercise-1 19.4    Elements of the State Self Check Exercise-2 19.5    Nature of the State Self Check Exercise-3 19.6    Summary 19.7    Glossary 19.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 19.9    Suggested Readings 19.10    Terminal Questions 19.1    Introduction The concept of the state is central to political science, though its definition and origins are subjects of debate. In ancient Greece, city-states followed distinct political structures, and for Greek thinkers, political science was largely focused on municipal governance. The modern notion of a nation-state was unfamiliar to them. Aristotle’s idea of the 'Polis' referred more to a city-based community than a structured state. These city-states blurred the distinction between the state, community, and other associations. Greek societies prioritized the exercise of rights over authority and obedience, whereas Roman citizens were part of a political system that thrived on slave exploitation. The term 'state' is relatively modern and was not fully developed during the Greco-Roman era. Niccolò Machiavelli is often credited as the first political thinker to introduce the concept of the state in political science. In contemporary political studies, the state is examined scientifically, not as a theoretical construct but as a dynamic political entity. Thinkers like Hegel even revered the state as a divine manifestation in human affairs. Despite variations across history, states share fundamental characteristics. Essential elements of a state include population, a defined territory, government, and sovereignty. The state operates through established institutions responsible for lawmaking and enforcement, such as the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Additionally, bureaucratic institutions play a crucial role in supporting the executive functions of governance. 19.2    Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Understand the Concept of State. •    Explain the Elements of the State. •    Know the nature of the State. 19.3    Definitions of State The term ‘State’ has been defined by a number of political thinkers who tried their best to let us know what they meant by the term “State”. A few popular definitions are given below : According to Burges, The state is a “particular portion of mankind viewed as an organised unit”. According to Bluntschli, “The state is politically organised people of a definite territory.” Woodrow Wilson, “The state is people organised for law within a definite territory.” Holland, The “State ‘ is a numerous assemblage of human beings generally occupying a certain territory amongst whom the will of the majority or class is made to prevail against any or their number who oppose it. Bodin (1576), State is “an association of families and their common possessions, governed by supreme power and by reason.” Cicero, The state is “a numerous society united by a common sense of right and mutual participation in advan-tages.” Aristotle, The State is “a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and self-sufficing life by which we mean a happy and honourable life.” Phillimore, A State for all purposes of international laws is “a people prominently occupying a fixed territory, bound together by common laws, habits and customs into one body political, exercising through the, medium of an organised government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into all international relations with the communities of the globe.” Laski, State is “a territorial society divided into government and subjects claiming within its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other institutions.” Hall, “State primarily is a concept of international law.” The marks of an independent state are that the community constituting it, is permanently established for apolitical end, that it possesses a defined territory and that it is independent of external control.” Gilchrist, “The State is a concept of political science and a moral reality which exists where a number of people living on a definite territory, are unified under a Government which in internal matters is the organ for expressing their sovereignty and in external matters is independent of other Governments.” R.M. MacIver, The State is “an association which acting through law as promulgated by a government endowed to this end with coercive power maintains within a community territorially demarcated the universal external conditions of social order.” Oppenhelm, “The state exists when a people is settled in a country under its own sovereign government.” G.D.H. Cole, The state “is whole community of its members regarded as organised social unit.” Garner, “State as a concept of political science public law, is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory independent or nearly so, of external control and possessing an organised Government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.” Marxists, “The state arose as a result the division of society into antagonistic classes for the purpose of curbing the exploited majority in the interest of minority. The State is the political organisation of the ruling class which uses it for the purpose of suppressing the resistance of its class enemies. It is an organisation for the maintenance of the rule of one class over the other classes. To achieve this the state possesses such instruments of power as an army, the courts, a police force, etc.” Modern Conception of the State, Views of Gabriel Almond and Robert Dahl, Gabriel Almond uses the term “political system”, instead of the State. According to him political system is the system of interactions to be found in all independent societies which perform the functions of integration and adaptation” (both internally and vis-a-vis other societies) by means of the employment, or threat of employment, of more or less legitimate physical compulsion.” The Political system”, he explains, “is the legitimate, order maintaining or transforming system in the society.” According to Pennock and Smith, The State is a political system comprising all the people in a defined territory and possessing an organisation (government) with the power and authority to enforce its will upon its members, by resort, if necessary, to physical sanctions, and not subject in the like manner to the power and authority of another polity. Rober A. Dahl says, “The political system made up of the residents of the territorial area is a State”. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. The term city-state is generally associated with: a) Ancient-Egypt         b) Ancient-Greece c) Ancient China         d) None of the above 19.4    Elements of the State The concept of the State is central to political studies and is often used interchangeably with terms such as nation, society, and government. The term "State" typically refers to the collective actions of a community, carried out through its governing authority. A community cannot exist without people to form it, nor can there be a shared existence without a defined geographical area. The State is an inherent, essential, and universal institution, as it emerges naturally from human nature. Individuals require the State to fulfill their needs and realize their aspirations. Without it, they cannot develop to their fullest potential. The existence of the State has been evident wherever humans have organized themselves into structured societies, though its form has evolved over time. A State must possess four key elements: 1.    Population 2.    Territory 3.    Government 4.    Sovereignty 1.    Population A State is fundamentally a human institution, making its population a crucial element. A single family does not constitute a State; rather, it must consist of multiple families forming a structured community. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle set specific population limits for an ideal State, advocating for the Greek city-states like Athens and Sparta. Plato suggested a population of 5,040 citizens, while Aristotle believed that neither ten individuals nor a hundred thousand could form an ideal State. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a proponent of direct democracy, considered 10,000 to be the optimal number. In modern times, States tend to have large populations. Countries like Russia have encouraged population growth, whereas nations like India and China have implemented measures to control their expanding populations. However, the size of the population alone does not determine statehood. While no fixed limit can be set, the population must be adequate to sustain the State and maintain its organizational structure. 2.    Territory A defined geographical area is essential for a State’s existence. According to legal scholar Duguit, a State cannot exist without a fixed territory. Just as individuals belong to a State, every piece of land falls within the jurisdiction of some State. The significance of territorial boundaries extends to international relations, as a well-defined territory is necessary for diplomatic and defense purposes. International law widely recognizes that a fixed geographical area is a fundamental condition for statehood. A State’s territory includes its land, water, and airspace. The size and resources of a State’s landmass influence its economic stability and self-sufficiency. Larger territories with abundant resources facilitate industrial and economic growth, strengthening the State’s position in global affairs. In contrast, smaller States may face challenges in maintaining economic viability and political stability. However, the proportion between a State’s population and its territory must be balanced to ensure sustainability. 3.    Government Government serves as the structural authority of the State, ensuring order and governance. Although people may coexist in a particular territory, they do not form a State unless they are organized under a governing system with established laws. The government acts as the instrument for implementing policies, regulating common affairs, and maintaining law and order. Without a governing body, society would descend into disorder, with groups forming rival factions, leading to chaos and potential conflict. Every State requires some form of government, regardless of its specific political system or structure. 4.    Sovereignty Sovereignty is the defining characteristic of a State, distinguishing it from other political entities. Merely having a population, territory, and government is insufficient; a State must also possess supreme authority within its jurisdiction and maintain independence from external control. Sovereignty has two dimensions: internal and external. Internal sovereignty refers to the State's exclusive power within its own borders, preventing interference from other States or authorities. External sovereignty ensures that the State operates independently in global affairs, without being subjected to foreign rule. A State lacking sovereignty cannot be recognized as a fully independent entity. While some regions may have autonomy in governance, the absence of absolute sovereignty prevents them from attaining full statehood. In conclusion, for an entity to be recognized as a State, it must have a defined population, a specific territory, an established government, and full sovereignty. The absence of any of these components disqualifies an entity from being considered a State in the political sense. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. The State Consists of: a) Four elements b) Five elements c) Three elements d) Eight elements 19.5 Nature of the State There are many speculations regarding the nature of the State and the relation between the state and the individual Six important theories deserve special mention. The first is the monistic theory. The advocates of the monistic theory argue that individuals who compose the State have no independent existence “but are mere atomistic units in the whole mass, each dependent on the other and upon the whole for its continued existence.” They have no independent individuality of their own and all that they are, they owe to the society of which they are apart. This is really the Idealist or the Absolutist theory of the State. Opposed to the monistic theory is the monadnistic or purely individualistic theory that conceives of society as a mere aggregation of individuals each in large measure living in isolation and independent of his associates, capable of surviving and even flourishing without the aid of the State beyond a mere minimum of collective restraint for the protection of the weak against the aggression of the strong. Every individual is, thus, a selfcontained unity and there is no interdependence of one on the other. He can survive and even flourish without the aid of the State. The necessity of the State is found in giving protection to the weak against the aggression of the strong. The State is a Police State and it exists to protect and restrain not to roster and promote. Then, there is the dualistic theory, a compromise between the monistic theory and the monadnistic theory. According to this theory, every individual leads a life of his own, but each is, in a way, dependent upon others for his welfare. His existence is neither merged in that of the whole, nor is he entirely isolated from and independent of his social surroundings. Then, we have the organic theory which considers the State as a unity similar to that which characterises a biological organism. The Juristic theory and the Marxist theory are the other two. (i)    The Organic Nature of the State: Just as the body has natural unity, so has a social group. An arm lives and moves only as a part of an organic whole. Amputated from the body, it dies. The Organic Theory is a biological conception which describes the State in terms of natural science, views the individuals which compose it as analogous to the cells of a plant or animal, and postulates a relation of interdependence between them and society such as exists between the organs and parts of biological organism and the whole structure. In other words, as the animal body is composed of cells, sols the State composed of several individuals, as is the relation of the hand to the body, or the leaf to the tree, so is the relation of man to society. He exists in it and it in him. The State is an organic unity— a living spiritual being”. The Organic Theory is as old as political thought itself. Plato compared the State to a man of great stature, and conceived a resemblance in their functions. In the early part of the nineteenth century, the theory of the organic nature of the State found a new and vigorous expression. The ancient and medieval writers had merely drawn an analogy between the State and an organism. They held that the State resembled an organism. But writers of the nineteenth century regarded the State as an organism. Even fanciful and very often vain elaborations of the organ conception, attributing, for instance to the State an alimentary system, a nervous system, circulatory system became the theme of the time. Indeed the fascination of the theory with its biological analogies and parallelisms became so widespread that political science, for a time, seemed in danger of being swallowed up by natural science. The new theory, that the State is an organism, took root in German soil but the culmination of the theory was reached in the writings of Bluntschli. He says that the State is the very image or human organism”, as “an oil painting,” as a combination of marble particles, as a man is something more than a mere quantity of cells or blood corpuscles, so the nation is something more than a mere aggregation of citizens, and the State’ something more than a mere collection of external regulations.” The theory that the State is an organism received a most scientific treatment at the hands of Herbert Spencer, the English philosopher. Spencer believed that social life is a part of an ever evolving nature and starting from the idea of an universal evolution, he afterwards included bio-logical evolution in his analysis He asserted that society is an organism and it differs in no essential principle from other biological organisms. The attributes of an organism and society, he maintained, are similar and the permanent relations existing between their various parts are also the same. In either case there is a mutual dependence of part. Just as the hand depends, on the arm and the arm on the body and head, so do the parts of the social organism depend on each other. Every organism depends for its life and full performance of its functions on the proper co-ordination and interrelation of the units. There is so much dependence of one on the other. Spencer gives some structural analogies between society and organism. He says, society has three systems corresponding to the sustaining system, the distributaries system and the regulating system in an organism. The regulating system is the nerve motor mechanism which regulates the whole body. Government in the body politic, regulates, and controls the activities of the individuals and it is analogous to the regulating system. On these points of agreement Spencer concludes that the State is an organism. Society is an organism”, whose protoplasm or unit is man, the State or government in the one corresponding to the brain in the other.” Among others who have emphatically defended the organic theory are the French writers who described human society as the highest state in organic evolution, “embodying the completes development of that natural harmony or organisation and action.” (ii)    Juristic Theory :- The Juristic Theory of the State embodies the point of view of the jurists who seek to explain the nature of the State in terms of legal concepts. They endow the State with a fictitious legal personality as they look upon the State as a legal “person” possessing, like a natural physical person and individuality, self-consciousness and a will of its own. They view the State as an organ for the creation, interpretation and enforcement of law, and for the protection of all legal rights. Others reject the opinion that State is the sole and exclusive creator of law and maintain that a large body of law in the past was never enacted or created by the State. The State, like other corporations, has a legal personality and it can sue and be sued. It may own property, and States do, direct and undertake economic enterprises and perform other functions as the custodian of the interests of the present and future generations. The State is a permanent legal entity and it suffers from no telescopic defects. It endures and represents the collective will and collective interests of all the citizens rather than individual interests represented by individual will. The Juristic Theory of the States is to be accepted only to the extent of attributing to the State a ficticious legal personality for certain specified purposes. (iii)    Marxian Theory of the State: The Marxian or Communist theory of the State finds its full expression in the philosophy of Karl Marx. The basis of his doctrine is a philosophy of history, supplemented by a theory of the State and body of economic theory. Briefly stated, the State, according to this theory, is a “superstructure. Its form is determined by the exigencies of class struggle and the demands of the underlying material situation. Defined as an instrument of exploitation and coercion, the State is regarded as the product and manifestation of the irreconcilable class antagonism. At every stage of its development, a single class dominant and this dominant class controls the State and uses its machinery to further its exploitation of the exploited class, which is the non-possessing class. Under Capitalism, the State is in essence a committee of the bourgeoisie for the oppression and exploitation of the working class, the proletariat. The Marxist Theory rejects the very basis of the State, that it is a natural and necessary institution. It asserts that the State is an artificial vehicle of coercion; and is a product of society at a certain stage of its economic development. There have been societies that did without it, that had no conception of the state and power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the State became a necessity The State has no moral stature and useful purpose to serve. It is an organ of class rule, “an organ for the oppression of one class by another. The ancient and the feudal states were organs for the exploitation of the slaves and the serfs and “the contemporary representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage-labour by capital.” The revolution of the past was that of the slaves and serfs against feudalism and it found its expression the French Revolution. The one in the future, Marx predicted, will be the revolution of the wage-earners against the bourgeoisie in their bid to establish the socialist Commonwealth. When the revolution comes, the capitalist class will disappear and a classless society headed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat takes its place. Marx says the workers invest the State with a revolutionary spirit. The capitalist system removed, the necessity of the State will cease to exist. The State will “wither away”. The Marxist Theory of the State ignores human nature altogether and the development of historical events and processes. The entire historical-economic thesis of Marx is untenable. The influence of non-economic interests, such as religious and historical, cannot be brushed aside with contempt. These influences, inter alia, have played a significant role in the historical growth of society and the State. Then, the State is not the result of exploitation pure and simple, as the Marxist theory claims. Exploitation may have played a vital role in the formation of the State. Marx’s entire emphasis on the origin and development of the state is on force. He considers the State as a vehicle of oppression and maintains that the capitalist class has arisen to power, has consolidated its position and authority and retains its preeminence through the use of force. The Communists capture the capitalist state by force and consolidate the dictatorship of the Proletariat by force. Force is the essence of the Proletarian State., too. Self Check Exercise-3 Q.1 Which of the following is NOT considered a function of the state? A.    Providing public goods. B.    Protecting property rights. C.    Facilitating economic transactions. D.    Promoting individual anarchy. Q.2 Which theory views the state as an instrument of the ruling class to maintain its economic dominance? A. Pluralist Theory B. Elite Theory C.    Marxist Theory        D. Social Contract Theory 19.6    Summary In summary, the state is a complex and multifaceted entity that serves as the fundamental unit of political organization. Its meaning encompasses sovereignty, governance, and authority over a defined territory and population. Key elements of the state include a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The nature of the state is characterized by its role in maintaining order, providing public services, ensuring security, and upholding the rule of law. Understanding these aspects is crucial for comprehending how states function and interact within the global arena. 19.7    Glossary •    Sovereignty: Supreme authority of a state to govern itself independently. •    Territory: A defined geographic area under the jurisdiction of a state. 19.8    Answer to Self-Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans. B Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. A Self Check Exercise-3 Ans. 1. D, 2. C 19.9    Suggested Readings •    S.S. Nanda, V.K. Puri, Introduction to Political Theory. •    K.K. Kothari, J.K. Chopra, Ashok Chanda, Political Science, Unique Publisher, 1994. 19.10    Terminal Questions 1.    Define State? Explain the various elements of the state? 2.    Explain the meaning and elements of the state. Which elements of the state is most important and why? 3.    Discuss the Marxian Theory of the State? ***** UNIT-20ADVANCED CAPITALIST AND SOCIALIST STATE Structure 20.1    Introduction 20.2    Learning objectives 20.3    Definitions Self Check Exercise-1 20.4    Key Features of the Capitalist State Self Check Exercise-2 20.5    Features of the Socialist State Self Check Exercise-3 20.6    Summary 20.7    Glossary 20.8    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 20.9    Suggested Readings 20.10    Terminal Questions 20.1    Introduction The advanced capitalist state thrives on market-driven economies, emphasizing private ownership, competitive markets, and minimal government intervention. In contrast, the socialist state advocates for collective ownership, equitable distribution of resources, and significant government control to ensure social welfare. Both systems offer distinct approaches to managing economic resources and addressing societal needs, reflecting their underlying ideological foundations. 20.2    Learning objectives Alter going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Understand the term Advanced Capitalist State and the Socialist State. •    Know the key principles of the Capitalist state and the Socialist state. 20.3    Definition of Advanced Capitalist State An advanced capitalist state is characterized by a highly developed industrial and post-industrial economy, a significant level of technological innovation, sophisticated financial markets, and complex social and political institutions. These states typically exhibit high levels of GDP per capita, extensive welfare systems, and robust regulatory frameworks that manage the interactions between capital and labor. Self Check Exercise-1 Q. What is an advanced capitalist state? 20.4    Key Features and Principles of the Capitalist State 1.    Economic Structure (i)    Private Ownership of Means of Production: The cornerstone of an advanced capitalist state is the predominance of private ownership over the means of production. In this system, individuals and corporations own and control land, factories, machinery, and intellectual property. This private ownership incentivizes individuals and companies to maximize productivity and efficiency to increase profits. (ii)    Market Economy: The advanced capitalist state relies on a market economy where prices, production, and distribution of goods and services are determined by supply and demand. Market mechanisms drive innovation, competition, and economic growth. The price system serves as a signal for resource allocation, guiding producers to meet consumer needs efficiently. Some key features of market economy are as under: (i)    Competition: A key feature of market economies is competition, which drives innovation and efficiency. Companies compete to offer better products and services at lower prices, fostering a dynamic and adaptive economic environment. (ii)    Innovation: The profit motive encourages innovation. Businesses invest in research and development to create new products and improve existing ones, leading to technological advancement and economic growth. 2.    Financial System An advanced capitalist state has a highly developed financial system comprising banks, stock markets, insurance companies, and other financial institutions. This system mobilizes savings and allocates capital to productive uses, facilitating investment and economic expansion. Financial markets enable companies to raise funds for expansion and innovation by issuing stocks and bonds. Some features are as under: (i)    Banks and Financial Institutions: Banks provide essential services like savings, loans, and investment products. They play a crucial role in the economy by lending money to businesses and consumers, thus stimulating economic activity. (ii)    Stock Markets: Stock markets enable companies to raise capital by selling shares to the public. Investors can buy and sell these shares, providing liquidity and enabling companies to grow and innovate. 3.    Political System (A)    Liberal Democracy Most advanced capitalist states operate under a liberal democratic political system, characterized by regular, free, and fair elections, the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms. (i)    Elections and Political Parties: Regular elections ensure that governments are accountable to the people. Multiple political parties provide citizens with choices, representing different ideologies and policy preferences. (ii)    Rule of Law: The rule of law is fundamental in a liberal democracy. It ensures that all individuals and institutions are subject to the law, which is applied equally and fairly. Independent judiciary systems enforce laws and protect rights. (iii)    Rights and Freedoms: Liberal democracies prioritize the protection of individual rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and the press. These rights enable citizens to participate fully in political and social life. (B)    Separation of Powers The political system of an advanced capitalist state typically features a separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. This division prevents the concentration of power and ensures a system of checks and balances. (i)    Executive Branch: The executive branch, headed by the president or prime minister, implements and enforces laws. It includes various government departments and agencies responsible for public administration. (ii)    Legislative Branch: The legislative branch, makes laws. It represents the will of the people and provides oversight of the executive branch. (iii)    Judicial Branch: The judicial branch interprets laws and ensures they are applied fairly. Independent courts protect individual rights and resolve disputes. (C)    Civil Society An active civil society is a hallmark of advanced capitalist states. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), interest groups, and other civil society organizations play a vital role in shaping public policy, advocating for social change, and holding governments accountable. (i)    NGOs and Advocacy Groups: NGOs and advocacy groups represent various interests and causes, from environmental protection to human rights. They influence policy through lobbying, public campaigns, and grassroots mobilization. (ii)    Media and Press: A free and independent media is essential for a functioning democracy. It informs the public, scrutinizes government actions, and facilitates public debate. 4.    Social Policies (A)    Welfare State While advanced capitalist states are characterized by market economies, they also typically feature extensive welfare systems designed to mitigate the inequalities and insecurities that capitalism can produce. (i)    Social Safety Nets: Advanced capitalist states provide social safety nets, including unemployment insurance, social security, and disability benefits, to protect individuals from economic hardships. (ii)    Healthcare: Many advanced capitalist states offer universal or nearuniversal healthcare coverage. Public health systems ensure that all citizens have access to medical care, regardless of their financial situation. (iii)    Education: Public education systems in advanced capitalist states provide free or subsidized education from primary through tertiary levels. Education is seen as essential for individual opportunity and economic competitiveness. (B)    Progressive Taxation To fund welfare programs and reduce income inequality, advanced capitalist states often implement progressive taxation systems. Higher-income individuals and corporations pay a larger share of their income in taxes, which are then redistributed through public services and social programs. (i)    Income Tax: Progressive income tax rates ensure that wealthier individuals contribute more to the public coffers, helping to fund social programs and public services. (ii)    Corporate Tax: Corporations are taxed on their profits, with revenues used to support infrastructure, education, and other public goods. (C)    Labor Rights and Protections Advanced capitalist states enforce labor rights and protections to ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and the right to unionize. (i)    Minimum Wage Laws: Minimum wage laws set the lowest hourly wage that employers can legally pay their workers, protecting employees from exploitation. (ii)    Occupational Safety and Health Regulations: These regulations ensure that workplaces are safe and healthy, preventing accidents and injuries. (iii)    Labor Unions: Labor unions advocate for workers’ rights, negotiate collective bargaining agreements, and provide support for workers in disputes with employers. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. What any three characteristics of an advanced capitalist state? 20.5 Features and Principles the Socialist State 1.    Public Ownership of Means of Production In a socialist state, the means of production such as factories, land, and resources—are owned collectively, often managed by the state or cooperatives. This collective ownership is intended to ensure that the benefits of production are distributed equitably among the population, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few private owners. (i)    State Ownership: The state typically owns and controls major industries, including utilities, transportation, and large-scale manufacturing. This allows for centralized planning and coordination of the economy. (ii)    Cooperatives: In some socialist models, cooperatives play a significant role, where workers collectively own and manage enterprises, sharing profits and decision-making responsibilities. 2.    Planned Economy A socialist state usually operates a planned economy, where the government sets economic goals and allocates resources to achieve them. This contrasts with market economies, where supply and demand determine production and prices. (i)    Central Planning: A central authority, often a planning commission, sets production targets, allocates resources, and coordinates economic activities to meet the needs of the population. (ii)    Resource Allocation: Resources are distributed based on planned priorities, aiming to ensure that essential goods and services are available to all citizens, reducing wastage and inefficiencies. 3.    Social Welfare and Equality Socialist states prioritize social welfare and aim to reduce economic and social inequalities. This focus is reflected in policies designed to provide comprehensive social services and promote economic equality. (i)    Universal Healthcare: Healthcare is provided as a public service, ensuring that all citizens have access to medical care without financial barriers. (ii)    Education: Education is typically free and accessible to all, from primary to tertiary levels, aiming to equalize opportunities for personal and professional development. (iii)    Housing and Employment: The state often guarantees housing and employment for all citizens, seeking to eliminate homelessness and unemployment. 4.    Political System The political structure of a socialist state can vary, but it often involves a single-party system where the ruling party represents the working class and controls the state apparatus. (i ) Single-Party Rule: In many socialist states, a single party—usually guided by Marxist-Leninist principles—dominates the political landscape, aiming to prevent the influence of bourgeois interests. ii)    Democratic Centralism: This principle involves internal democracy within the ruling party, where members discuss and debate policies, but once a decision is made, it is upheld and implemented by all members. 5.    Economic Structure The economic system in a socialist state is characterized by centralized planning, where economic decisions are made by a central authority rather than through market mechanisms. (i)    Five Year Plans: Many socialist states implement multi-year economic plans that outline production targets, investment priorities, and development goals. These plans aim to coordinate economic activities and allocate resources efficiently. (ii)    Sectoral Allocation: Resources are allocated to different sectors based on planned priorities, such as heavy industry, agriculture, and public services. The goal is to achieve balanced and sustainable development. 6.    Social Policies Socialist states aim to provide universal access to essential services, ensuring that all citizens have their basic needs met. (i)    Healthcare: Public healthcare systems provide free or low-cost medical services to all citizens, focusing on preventive care and public health. (ii)    Education: Education is free and accessible, with the state investing in schools, universities, and vocational training programs to develop human capital. (iii)    Housing: The state often builds and allocates housing to citizens, seeking to eliminate homelessness and provide affordable living conditions. 7.    Social Security Comprehensive social security systems are designed to protect citizens from economic uncertainties and provide support in times of need. (i)    Pensions: The state provides pensions to retirees, ensuring financial security in old age. (ii)    Unemployment Benefits: Unemployment benefits support those who are temporarily out of work, helping to stabilize their income and encourage reemployment. (iii)    Disability Support: Social programs assist individuals with disabilities, providing financial aid, healthcare, and opportunities for social inclusion. 8.    Labor Rights Labor rights are a central focus in socialist states, with policies aimed at protecting workers and promoting fair labor practices. (i)    Job Security: The state often guarantees employment, reducing the risk of job loss and economic instability for workers. (ii)    Working Conditions: Labor laws regulate working hours, safety standards, and conditions to ensure a safe and healthy work environment. (iii)    Unions: Trade unions play a significant role in representing workers’ interests and negotiating with employers and the state for better wages and conditions. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. What is the main goal of economic planning in a socialist state? 20.6    Summary In summary, the advanced capitalist state and socialist state offer different paths to economic organization and governance, each with its own set of advantages and challenges. The capitalist state emphasizes market-driven growth, individual freedoms, and private ownership, while the socialist state focuses on economic equality, public ownership, and centralized planning. The success and viability of each system depend on various factors, including historical context, cultural values, and implementation strategies. 20.6    Glossary •    NGO : Non-governmental organizations. •    Stock Market: The stock market is where shares of companies are traded. 20.8 Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 For Answer, See Section 20.3 Self Check Exercise-2 For Answer, See Section 20.4 Self Check Exercise-3 For Answer, See Section 20.5 20.19 Suggested Readings •    N. Jayapalan, Comparative Governments, Atlantic Publishers, 2000. •    Jossep. Bob, Recent theories of Capitalist State, Cambridge; Journal of Economics, 1977. •    Tapan Biswal ed. Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes, New Delhi, 2016. •    Den L. Clark and Michael Dear, The Problematic of Capitalist State, London, 1984. 20.10 Terminal Questions 1.    Briefly discuss the formation of Advanced Capitalist State? 2.    Discuss the emergence of Socialist State and Critical describe their working? ***** Unit-21 GLOBALISATION AND THE STATE Structure 21.1    Introduction 21.2    Learning Objectives 21.3    Definitions of Globalization Self Check Exercise-1 21.4    Dimensions of Globalization 21.4.1    Socio-Cultural-Dimensions 21.4.2    Economic Dimension 21.4.3    Political Dimension Self Check Exercise-2 21.5    Characteristics of Globalization Self Check Exercise-3 21.6    Arguments for and against Globalization 21.6.1    Arguments of Critics against Globalization 21.6.2    Arguments of the Supporters of Globalization Self Check Exercise-4 21.7    Globalization and its impact on the state Self Check Exercise-5 21.8    Summary 21.9    Glossary 21.10    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Self Check Exercise-2 Self Check Exercise-3 Self Check Exercise-4 Self Check Exercise-5 21.11    Suggested Readings 21.12    Terminal Questions 21.1    Introduction Globalization refers to the process of increasing interconnectedness and interdependence among countries, economies, cultures, and societies worldwide. It is driven by advancements in technology, communication, transportation, and international trade, which facilitate the exchange of goods, services, information, ideas, and people across borders. Globalization has profound effects on various aspects of human life, including economics, politics, culture, and the environment. It has both proponents who argue that it promotes economic growth, cultural exchange, and cooperation among nations, and critics who point out its potential to exacerbate inequality, exploit labor, and undermine local cultures and environments. 21.2 Learning objectives After going through this Unit, You will be able to: •    Define and explain the concept of Globalization. •    Discuss the various dimensions of globalization. •    Understand the globalization and its impact on the state. 21.3    Definitions of Globalization Here are a few definitions of globalization from different perspectives: •    Economic Perspective, Globalization is the process of increased integration and interdependence of national economies through trade, investment, capital flows, and the exchange of technology and information. •    Cultural Perspectives, Globalization refers to the worldwide exchange and integration of cultures, ideas, values, and traditions facilitated by advancements in communication, transportation, and technology. •    Political Perspective, Globalization is the phenomenon of increased interconnectedness and interdependence among nations, governments, and international organizations, leading to the emergence of global governance structures and the erosion of traditional notions of sovereignty. •    Social Perspectives, Globalization involves the interconnectedness and interdependence of individuals, communities, and societies across the globe, leading to the sharing of lifestyles, norms, beliefs, and practices. •    Environmental Perspective, Globalization encompasses the worldwide impact of human activities on the environment, including resource depletion, pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss, resulting from increased global trade, consumption, and production. Self Check Exercise-1 Q.1 what is globalization? Q.2 Globalization is the ...................... process of interaction and integration among people, companies and governments worldwide. 21.4    Dimensions of Globalization Three dimensions of globalization may be taken note of – socio- cultural, economic and political. 21.4.1    Socio-Cultural Aspects of Globalization Globalization significantly influences the social and cultural lives of people. Traditional institutions are weakening, while new identities are emerging that are not confined to any specific community or nation. Advances in information technology have reshaped cultural habits, introducing people to American clothing, Chinese cuisine, French whisky, and English pop music. This shift suggests the rise of a global society based on shared values and ideals, presenting a challenge to those who advocate for indigenous traditions. 21.4.2    Economic Aspects of Globalization Globalization is prominently evident in the realms of markets, trade, commodities, and financial investments. It also encompasses the movement of services, technology, information, and ideas across international borders. Being closely linked to liberalization, globalization facilitates the flow of capital and the expansion of multinational corporations (MNCs) across different countries. As a result, terms like Disneyfication, McDonaldisation, and Coca-Colonisation have emerged. Foreign direct investment has become a global trend, with MNCs leveraging open markets and lower transportation costs to control significant assets and generate massive profits—sometimes even surpassing the GDP of the nations in which they operate. 21.4.3    Political Aspects of Globalization The political dimension of globalization holds significant importance as it impacts the nation-state system, which has been in place since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It has influenced the concept of sovereignty, particularly its external aspects, and contributed to the decline of the welfare state. A new state model is emerging, where governments collaborate with various non-state actors. Additionally, national borders are becoming increasingly irrelevant due to advancements in information technology. Television networks have played a crucial role in dismantling barriers such as the ‘iron curtain’ and the ‘bamboo curtain.’ Political globalization has the potential to promote a more peaceful global order by limiting the autonomy and capacity of states to engage in violent conflicts. Self Check Exercise-2 Q. Which of the following best describes the economic aspect of globalization? A)    Increasing interconnectedness of financial markets. B)    Preservation of national economic boundaries. C)    Decrease in international trade and investment. D)    Limited access to foreign goods and services. 21.5    Characteristics of Globalisation The concept of Globalisation involves within its ambit the following features :- 1.    Liberalisation :- It stands for the freedom to the entrepreneurs to establish any Industry or trade or business venture, within their own countries or abroad. 2.    Free trade :- It stands for free flow of trade relations among all the nations Each state grants MFN (most favoured nation) status to ether states and keeps its business and trade away from excessive and hard, regulatory and protective regimes. 3.    Globalisation of Economic Activity :- Economic activities are governed both by the domestic market and also the world market. It stands for the process of integrating the domestic economy with world economics. 4.    Liberalisation of import-export System :- It Stands for liberating the import-export activity and securing of tree flow of goods and services across borders. 5.    Privatisation :- Keeping the state away from ownership of means of production and distribution and letting the tree flow of industrial, trade and economic activity across holders. 6.    Increased Collaborations :- Encouraging the process of collaboration among the entrepreneurs with a view to secure rapid modernisation, development and technological advancement. 7.    Economic Reforms :- Encouraging fiscal and financial reforms with a view to give strength to free world trade, free enterprise and market forces. Globalisation accepts and advocates the value of free world trade, freedom of access to world markets and free flow of investments across borders. It stands for integration and democratisation of the world’s culture, economy and infrastructure through global investments. Self Check Exercise-3 Q. Write any two features of globalization? 21.6    ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST GLOBALISATION 21.6.1    Arguments of Critics against Globalisation Proponents of globalization claim that it is the key to worldwide development and a pathway to achieving sustainable progress for all. However, critics view globalization as primarily serving corporate interests, benefiting large businesses, and advancing the agenda of developed nations. They argue that it enables these powerful countries to exert greater control over the global economic system in a more pervasive, subtle, and intensified manner. 1.    Gains of Globalisation for Rich at the Cost of the Poor: - Under the process of Globalisation, big business has done well despite the slackened productivity growth. Globalisation has helped the corporate elites to keep wages down, to skim off a large faction of the reduced productivity gains, thereby permitting elite incomes and stock market values to rise rapidly. As against it for the majority of countries, globalisation has not been productive of good and beneficial results. Income inequality has been rising markedly both within and between countries. The gap in incomes between the 20 per cent of the world’s population in the richest and the poorest countries grew from 30 in 1960 and the Third World countries suffered deterioration in several aspects Per capita incomes fell in more than 70 countries over the past 20 years; some 3 billion people— half of the world population, continued to live on under two dollars a day, and 800 million continued to suffer from malnutrition. In the Third World unemployment and underemployment remain rampant, massive poverty exists side-by-side with growing elite affluence, and 75 million people a year or more have been seeking asylum or employment in the North, as the Third World governments allow virtually unrestricted capital flight and seek no options but to attract foreign investment. 2.    Source of Economic Crises: - The new global order has been experiencing increased financial volatility, and from the Third World debt crisis of the early 1980s to the Mexican breakdown of 1994-95 to the South East Asian debacle of the 1990s, financial crises have becorne more and more threatening and extensive. With increasing privatisation and deregulation, the discrepancy between the power of unregulated financial forces and that of governments and regulatory bodies lias been Increasing and the potential for a global breakdown has been steadily enlarging. 3.    Globalization as an Imposed Decision by the Wealthy:- Critics argue that globalization is not a democratic choice made by the people but rather an imposed decision driven by business interests. The process is primarily influenced by corporate strategies and objectives, with governments facilitating it through policy decisions—many of which are made in secrecy, without public debate on its longterm impact. Major steps in advancing globalization, such as the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the formation of the European Monetary Union (EMU), were heavily promoted through propaganda by business and media elites. In the United States, public opinion polls indicated opposition to NAFTA even after extensive media efforts, yet it was still enacted. Similarly, in Europe, despite consistent public resistance to the introduction of the Euro, influential elites pushed the policy forward. 4.    Unequal distribution of Benefits:- This undemocratic process, carried out within a democratic facade, has been inconsistent with the distribution of benefits and costs of globalisation. The fact has been that globalisation has been working as a tool designed to serve elite interests Globalisation has also steadily weakened democracy, partly as a result of unplanned effects, and partly because of the containment of labour costs and scaling down of the welfare state which enabled the business minority to establish firm control of the state and reduce its capacity to respond to the demands of the majority. 5.    Strengthened Role of MNCs:- Under the goals of globalisation the business community, particularly the MNC brotherhood, has also mounted a powerful effort to dominate governments, either by capture or by limiting their ability to serve ordinary citizens. By enlarging business profits and weakening labour, globalisation has shifted the balance of power further towards business. The political parties in all countries have been getting decisively influenced by business money in elections. 6.    Private Profits at the cost of Social Security:- The efforts of the corporate elite as aided and validated by international financial institutions and bv media support, have been regularly causing social democrats and social activists to retreat to policies acceptable to the dominant business elite. Thus, in almost all the countries even the democratic parties, more particularly the social democratic parties, have been accepting neo-liberalism despite the opposed preferences of great majorities of their voting constituencies. Democracy is no longer able to serve ordinary citizens, making elections meaningless and democracy empty of substance. The fall in voter turnouts in various democracies reflects the growing alienation of the masses from the political process. 7.    Increased Protectionism and Neo-colonialism :- The business elites of various states have also been trying to push for such international agreements, and policy actions by the IMF and the World Bank, that can enhance the ability of democratic politics to act on their behalf for securing their interests in place of traditional protection on the part of the rich and developed countries, globalization has been giving birth to new system of MNC protectionism, which is doubly injurious to the economic of all the countries, particularly of the Third World countries. 8.    The Excessive Influence of Large Corporations:- International financial institutions often shape their agreements and policies to align with the interests of corporate elites. Their conditions typically prioritize budget constraints and inflation control, reflecting a neoliberal and corporate-driven agenda. Organizations like GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA place significant emphasis on corporate investors and intellectual property rights, often overshadowing other concerns. In the early 1980s, during the Third World debt crisis, the IMF and the World Bank leveraged their influence over financially struggling countries, compelling them to prioritize external debt repayment—both private and governmental. These institutions imposed austerity measures, including budget cuts and restrictive monetary policies, which disproportionately impacted social programs for the poor. Additionally, they promoted export-driven growth to generate foreign exchange for debt repayment, further integrating these economies into the global market. Privatization was also emphasized, purportedly for efficiency, but it primarily aimed at balancing budgets without tax hikes while creating new investment opportunities in struggling economies. The IMF has continued similar strategies in Asia. 9.    Working against Democratic Rights of the Ordinary Citizens:- Further, the IMF-World Bank actions are often a source of denial of democratic rights to noncorporate citizens and elected governments. These are mostly subordinated to the rights of corporate investors— the superior class of global Citizens with priority over all others and Beneficiaries of the new MNC Protectionism. In the NAFTA agreement, governments were denied, in advance, the right to take on new functions, any not asserted functions left to the private sector and to the superior class of citizens. In these agreements also, and even more aggressively in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the global MNCs have little responsibilities and virtually no responsibility can be imposed on them. They can fire people, abandon communities, fatally damage Ihe environment, push local companies out of business, and purvey cultural trash at their full discretion. They can sue governments, and disagreements are to be settled by unelected panels outside the control of democratic governments. 10.    Globalization has so far resulted in decreased productivity, social turmoil, and increased instability:- Supporters often argue that no country has achieved sustained economic growth or transitioned from economic underdevelopment to modernity without significant government intervention. Historical examples such as Great Britain, the United States, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Taiwan demonstrate that protectionist policies, subsidies for emerging industries, and insulation from dominant foreign powers were essential in their early development stages. However, institutions representing multinational corporations, such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and NAFTA, have systematically dismantled these protective measures in less developed nations. This has left them vulnerable to foreign takeovers, deep economic integration into external markets as "branch plant economies," prolonged dependence, and an inability to shield their populations from the adverse effects of top-down neoliberal policies. Based on these concerns, critics present a strong case against globalization. 21.6.2    Arguments in Support of Globalisation The supporters of Globalisation, even while admitting some of its current and possible bad effects, argue that it is an imperative necessity. It is, a natural extension of the prevailing and continuously increasing global interdependence. 1.    The problems being faced today are due to infant stage of Globalisation:- Presently, Globalisation appears to be threatening global independence. It appears to be threatening the sovereign nation-state system, acting as a source of such crisis as the currency crisis of South East Asian states in 1997, and as a process involving” steep social costs having the potential to threaten the economies of various countries. During the past two decades, division of economic growth, particularly created through globalisation, has been a source of increasing inequalities between the rich and low income countries. Nevertheless, these have resulted due to the developing nature of the process of globalisation. Once the process becomes really global and extensive, it will be a source of sustainable development for the world at large. 2.    Inevitability of Globalisation:- Globalisation, the supporters argue is inevitable. It is the only way and it alone has the potential to attain sustainable development. It is governable and it can be made more and more effective through an increase in global level understanding and efforts. 3.    Globalisation is essential under WTO:- Even before World War-II, several institutions and supra-national organisations were created for guiding and regulating international economic relations. Later on, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) were designed to act as structures to manage the finances in a new international political economy, and were part of a new international order together with the regimes of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the United Nations. GATT promoted standards for tariffs and then tariff cuts, and then turned into the World Trade Organisation (WTD) at the Uruguay Round in 1995, thereby also taking a broader role in shaping much of the international trade agenda. The WTO can, therefore, be seen as an instrument of globalisation, as it surely pushes for free trade and discourages protectionism. 4.    Defects of Globaiisation products of selfishness of some States:- The problems resulting from the WTO and Globalisation have been the result of certain lapses and attempts being made by some developed countries to hijack WTO and Globalisation in their favour. The new global economic regime is still in its childhood. When it becomes mature and fully developed, It would become a real source of prosperity and development for all. 5.    Globalisation is Governable and Dependable:- What is needed is to check parochial designs and efforts of vested interests through concerted global level campaigns. Globalisation is governable, either through direct conduction and promotion of free trade policies and deregulation or through pressure on the majority world from economically powerful hegemony and supra-national organizations and institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD. Although the creation of regimes of international cooperation is an inevitable consequence of natural disasters, need lor economic growth for regionalisation, formal and informal structures to exist at various levels for globalisation to develop—Globalisation is already on. It is to be recognised as a natural and helpful part of contemporary international relations. However, globalisation has certain potential dangers as through it the corporate elite, the MNCs and the Developed West can attempt to strength, further their current domination of the international system. The need is to check these and not to eliminate Globalisation. The need is *o be prepared to create new structures of global governance, a new international economic regime for regulating globalization and for reversing some of its fatal social, environmental, economic and cultural effects on the states, organisations and individuals. What Is needed is not to end globalisation but to amend it for making it enduringly productive of desired results. The emergence of Global Economic Recession has brought into focus the problems of unbriddled globalization. The world now realises the need for effective state control over their respective economies, banking and insurance institutions. On 19th May 2010, the US Senate passed a comprehenisive bill for regulation the US Banking System. World Economic recession has definitely dampened the march of Globalisation. Self Check Exercise-4 Q. What is one of the primary benefits of globalization? A)    Increased cultural homogenization. B)    Access to a wider variety of goods and services. C)    Decreased competition in the global market. D)    Limited access to information and technology. 21.7 Globalization and its impact on the State Globalization, defined as the process of increased interconnectedness and interdependence among countries, has multifaceted impacts on states. These impacts span economic, political, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions. Here is a detailed exploration of how globalization affects states: 1.    Economic Impacts Growth and Development:- (i)    Market Expansion: States benefit from access to larger international markets, which can lead to increased exports, higher economic growth, and the attraction of foreign direct investment (FDI). For example, China’s integration into the global economy has significantly boosted its GDP. (ii)    Innovation and Technology Transfer: Globalization facilitates the flow of technology and innovation. Developing countries can adopt advanced technologies from developed nations, improving productivity and efficiency. Economic Disparities (i)    Inequality: Globalization can widen the gap between rich and poor within and between countries. Developed regions and skilled workers tend to benefit more from global opportunities compared to underdeveloped areas and unskilled workers. For instance, income inequality in the United States has increased in part due to globalization. (ii)    Job Displacement: Industries exposed to international competition might suffer, leading to job losses. Manufacturing jobs in many Western countries have declined as companies move production to countries with lower labor costs. Financial Volatility Capital Flows: Globalization has led to increased capital mobility. While this can boost investment, it also makes states more susceptible to financial crises. The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis is an example of how rapid capital outflows can destabilize economies. 2.    Political Impacts Sovereignty and Autonomy (i)    Policy Constraints: States are often bound by international agreements and institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). These entities can limit the ability of states to independently set economic policies. For example, austerity measures imposed by the IMF have sparked debates about sovereignty in countries like Greece. (ii)    Global Governance: Participation in global institutions requires states to cede some decision-making powers. The European Union (EU) is a prime example, where member states have pooled sovereignty in many areas. Domestic Policy Changes Regulatory Competition: States may engage in a “race to the bottom” by lowering regulatory standards to attract investment. This includes reducing corporate tax rates and weakening labor and environmental regulations. 3.    Social and Cultural Impacts Cultural Exchange and Homogenization (i)    Cultural Diversity: Globalization promotes cultural exchange and diversity. People are exposed to new ideas, cuisines, music, and lifestyles, fostering greater cultural understanding. (ii)    Cultural Homogenization: Conversely, globalization can lead to the dominance of certain cultures, particularly Western culture, overshadowing local traditions and identities. This is evident in the global spread of brands like McDonald’s and Hollywood movies. Migration Labor Mobility: Increased movement of people across borders can address labor shortages and contribute to cultural diversity. However, it can also lead to social tensions and strain public services in host countries. 4.    Environmental Impacts Resource Exploitation (i)    Environmental Degradation: Global demand for resources can lead to over-exploitation and environmental damage. Deforestation in the Amazon, driven by global demand for soy and beef, is a case in point. (ii)    Pollution and Climate Change: Industrial activities driven by globalization contribute to pollution and climate change. Countries face the challenge of balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability. Global Environmental Governance International Cooperation: Addressing global environmental issues requires cooperation among states. Agreements like the Paris Agreement on climate change involve states committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, necessitating national policy adjustments. 5.    Security and Governance Transnational Threats (i)    Terrorism and Crime: Globalization has facilitated the spread of transnational threats such as terrorism and organized crime. States must collaborate on intelligence sharing and law enforcement to combat these issues. (ii)    Health Pandemics: The rapid spread of diseases, as seen with COVID-19, highlights the need for global health governance and cooperation. Governance Challenges Policy Coordination: States must navigate complex international governance structures to address global issues. This often involves balancing national interests with global priorities, as seen in international trade negotiations. Case Studies and Examples China: China’s economic rise due to globalization has transformed it into a global powerhouse. However, it faces challenges such as environmental pollution, regional inequalities, and tensions with other global powers. European Union: The EU’s model of regional integration illustrates the benefits and challenges of pooled sovereignty. While it has facilitated economic growth and political stability, it also faces challenges related to national identity and policy harmonization, exemplified by Brexit. Self Check Exercise-5 Q. Which of the following is a common economic impact of globalization on states? A)    Increase in tariffs and trade barriers. B)    Decrease in foreign direct investment (FDI). C)    Growth in international trade and investment. D)    Reduction in technological advancements. 21.8    Summary Globalization has a profound influence on nations, offering both advantages and challenges. It fosters economic expansion, technological progress, and cultural interaction, yet it also brings risks such as economic instability, threats to political sovereignty, social inequality, and environmental concerns. To maximize the benefits while minimizing the drawbacks, countries must adopt strategic approaches. This involves implementing flexible policies, strengthening international collaboration, and maintaining a balance between national priorities and global obligations. 21.9    Glossary •    Globalization: Worldwide integration and interaction across economic, cultural, and political domains. •    IMF: International Monetary Fund. •   WTO : World Trade Organization. 21.10    Answer to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1 Ans.1. Globalization refers to the increasing interconnectedness and interdependence of countries and people worldwide through trade, finance, communication, and culture. Ans.2. Ongoing Self Check Exercise-2 Ans. A Self Check Exercise-3 For Answer, See Section 21.5 Self Check Exercise-4 Ans. B Self Check Exercise-5 Ans. C 21.11    Suggested Readings •    Tapan Biswal, ed., Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes, New Delhi, 2016. •    Appadorai, Arjun, Modernity at Large : Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation, Minnesolta, 1996. •    Giddens, Anthony, Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge, Polity, 1990. •    Hirst, P. and G. Thompson, Globalisation in Question, Cambridge, Polity, 1996. •    Kennedy Paul, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Economic Change and Military Conflict 1500 to 2000, New York, 1987. •    Petras, James and H. Veltmeyer, Globalisation Unmasked: Imperialism in the Madhyam Books, Noida, 2001. •    Sassen, Saskia, Globalisation and its Discontinent: Essays on the New Mobility Money, New York, The New Press, 1998. 21.12    Terminal Questions 1.    Define Globalisation? Discuss its features ? 2.    What is Globalisation? Examine the arguments for and against globalization ? ***** 164