Unit 1: Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics

Notes
Unit 1: Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics

CONTENTS
Objectives
Introduction
1.1 Definition, Meaning, Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
1.2 Development of Comparative Politics
1.3 Comparative Politics and Comparative Government
1.4 Summary
1.5 Key-Words
1.6 Review Questions
1.7 Further Readings

Objectives
After studying this unit students will be able to:
• Explain the definition of Comparative Politics.
• Understand the development of Comparative Politics.
• Discuss the Comparative Politics and Comparative Government.

Introduction
The subject of comparative politics virtually constitutes a study in the direction of the ‘expanding
horizon of political science’ wherein we seem to have emerged from the ‘plains of doubts and
darkness’ to a ‘higher plateau’ to see what our passionate endeavours, particularly of the skeptical
decade of the 1950’s and the ‘determined decade’ of the 1960’s, “have produced, in which the
earlier high points of the discipline have lost some of their erstwhile importance or at least are
now seen in a new light, and those whose significance suffered by neglect, have emerged in our
perspective and awareness in the vale of political knowledge, which contains both rushing torrents
(i.e., political process as a whole) as well as limped pools (i.e., speculative political thought)”.
What has played the role of a motivating force in this important direction is the quest to study
‘political reality’ by means of new techniques and approaches in a way so that the entire area of
‘politics’ may be covered. As a result, not a study of the ‘government’ but of the ‘governments’
has become the central concern that implies the taking of ‘decision’ whether “in the United
Nations, or in a parish council, in a trade union or in a papal conclave, in a board room or in a
tribe.” Comparative politics has appeared as a subject of momentous significance on account of
this vital reason that a great deal of experimentation “is now going on with new approaches, new
definitions, new research tools. Perhaps the main reason for the present intellectual ferment is a
widespread feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction with the traditional descriptive approach
to the subject.”

1.1 Definition, Meaning, Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics

The term ’comparative politics’ is of recent origin and came into vogue in the fifties of the present
century and is indicative of the expanding horizon of political science. The political scientists
made a bid to study the political reality through a new techniques and approaches. The old
concepts were also seen in new light. One of the main reason which encouraged the development
of new approach for the study of politics was dissatisfaction with the traditional descriptive
approach to the subject. The scholars laid greater emphasis on informal political process rather

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 1

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes than political institutions and state. They borrowed a number of ideas and concepts from other
social sciences and provided the political studies a new empirical orientation.
Before we proceed further to draw a distinction between comparative government and comparative
politics, it shall be desirable to define comparative politics. According to Freeman “Comparative
politics is comparative analysis of the various forms of government and diverse political
institutions.” Braibante says comparative politics is “identification and interpretation of factors
in the whole social order which appears to affect whatever political functions and their institutions
which have been identified and listed for comparison.”
Distinction between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics: Scholars have tended
to use the terms ‘comparative government’ and ‘comparative politics’ for each other without
realising the difference between the two. For example Prof. S. E. Finer does not consider the two
as different when he argues that “politics is neither the same thing as government nor is it
necessarily connected only with those great territorial associations which have a government and
which are known as ‘State’. For if we use government in the sense of ‘governance’ or the ‘activity
of governing’ we shall find that government exists at three levels (1) by for the vastest area of
human conduct and activity in society proceeds quite unregulated by the public authorities. It
forms a coherent set of patterns and regulates itself. (2) The second chief mode by which society
forms its own patterns and regulates itself is the process of so-called ‘socialisation’ of the individual,
with which is associated the concept of ‘social control’. Most societies in the modern world,
however, are equipped with governments.
However, Edward Freeman is conscious of the fact that these two terms are not identical and
tries to draw a distinction between them.

“By comparative government I mean the comparative study of political institutions

or forms of government, And, under, the name of comparative politics I wish to
point out and bring together many analogies which are to be seen between the
political institutions of times and countries most remote from one another. We
are concerned with the essential likeness of institutions to keep us from seeing
essential likeness.”

The main differences between ‘comparative politics’ and ‘comparative government’ are as follows:
1. Firstly, while comparative government is concerned with the study of formal political
institutions like legislature, executive, judiciary and bureaucracy alone in comparative politics
the other factors which influence the working of the political institutions are taken into account.
In other words ‘comparative politics’ makes a study of the formal as well as informal political
institutions. This point has been summed up by a scholar thus: “The scope of comparative
politics is wider than that of comparative government despite search for making comparisons
which is central to the study of both. The concern of a student of comparative politics does not
end with the study of rule making, rule implementation and rule adjudicating organs of
various political systems or even with that study of some extra constitutional agencies (like
political and pressure groups) having their immediate connection, visible or invisible with the
departments of state activity. In addition to all this, he goes ahead to deal with...even those
subjects hitherto considered as falling within the range of Economics, Sociology and
Anthropology.”
2. Secondly, comparative government was chiefly confined to the study of the political institutions
of western democratic countries. On the other hand comparative politics concentrates on the
study of political institutions of all the countries of the world. It has laid special emphasis on
the study of political institutions of the states which have emerged in the twentieth century.
3. Thirdly, comparative government involves only descriptive study of the political institutions
and makes only formal study of the political institutions provided by the constitution. On the

2 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY

 Unit 1: Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics

other hand comparative politics concentrates on analytical study of the various political Notes
institutions. Investigation and experimentation constitute prominent features of comparative
politics.
4. Finally, comparative government concerns itself only with the political activities of the political
institutions, while comparative politics also takes into account the economic, cultural and
social factors. In other words it tries to examine the political institutions through inter-
disciplinary approach.
Politics is a continuous, timeless, ever-changing and universal activity having its key manifestation
in the making of a decision to face and solve a ‘predicament’. It “flows from a special kind of
activity, a form of human behaviour.” It refers to the making or taking of a decision in which
some political action is involved. It is a different thing that political scientists define and interpret
the term ‘political action’ in their own ways that ascribes to them the title of being a conservative,
or a traditionalist, or a modernist. It is for this reason that while Oakeshott defines political
activity as “an activity in which human beings, related to one another as members of a civil
association, think and speak about the arrangements and the conditions of their association from
the point of view of their desirability, make proposals about changes in these arrangements and
conditions, try to persuade others of the desirability of the proposed changes and act in such a
manner as to promote the changes”; David Easton treats it as an action for the ‘authoritative
allocation of values’; Harold Lasswell and Robert Dahl describe it as ‘a special case in the exercise
of power’; and Jean Blondel lays emphasis on the point of ‘decision taking’. However, a fine
interpretation of the term ‘political activity’ is thus given by Oakeshott who says: “In political
activity, then, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor
floor for anchorage; neither starting place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep
afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy.”
In the field of comparative politics, the term ‘politics’ has three connotations—political activity,
political process and political power. As already pointed out, political activity consists of the
efforts by which conditions of conflicts are created and resolved in a way pertaining to the
interests of the people, as far as possible, who play their part in the ‘struggle for power’. The
reduction of tensions or the resolution of conflicts naturally takes place through the operation
of permanent mechanisms of tension reduction as well as, from time to time, by the introduction
of further ‘reserve’ mechanisms designed to reduce the amount of tensions and conflicts in
emergencies. If politics means the authoritative allocation of ‘values’, some measure of conflict is
bound to arise between ‘values’ as desired by the people and ‘values’ as held by the men in
power. Thus arise conflicts that demand their solution and what leads to efforts in this regard
constitutes political activity. It is the government that “has to solve these conflicts by whatever
means are at its disposal, the only limitation being that in so doing it must prevent the break-up
of the polity. Politics ceases where secession, and indeed civil war begins, as, at that point, there
is no longer an authoritative allocation of values, but two sides allocating their values differently”.
It should, however, not be inferred from this statement that there is nothing like political activity
during the days of civil war or some revolutionary upheaval, it simply means that as such an
eventuality “constitutes a high point of tension in the life of a community, the role of political
action must consist of preventing the community from reaching such a point.
Political activity emanates from a situation of ‘predicament’—a form of human behaviour in
which the interests of persons, more than one, clash or interact for the purpose of having an
allocation of binding values in their respective favours. The moment a voice is raised in a group
or a community of people for a common rule or policy on any issue whatsoever, a predicament
is created in the sense that even to decide against the demand requires to take a decision. The
matter does not stop here. Further problem arises when the members of a group or a community
advocate mutually exclusive policies. The result is clash of interests and the stage of resolution of
conflicts can be achieved either by peaceful means of reasoning, persuasion, adjustments,
diplomacy or compromise or by the violent means of force and coercion. While, in the former
case, competing agents may come piecemeal to abandon a part of their demands in order to have
a mutually acceptable solution, in the latter case, the policy of one section may, wholly or largely,

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 3

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes prevail over the desires of another. The former position may be called the state of ‘spontaneous
unanimity’, the latter as imposed consensus. The common point is that political activity stops at
the point of ‘political rest.’ “So, just as a situation of political rest does not start up any political
activity, it also closes down a cycle of political activity.”

Politics not only connotes ‘political activity’, it also implies a ‘train of activities’, i.e.,
efforts directed towards creating the conditions of tension and having their resolution
until the point of ‘spontaneous unanimity’ is achieved.

Political process is an extension of the sense of political activity. Here the case of all those agencies
figures in which have their role in the decision-making process. The study of politics is thus
broadened so as to include even ‘non-state’ agencies. A study of the way groups and associations
operate shows that they are not free from the trends of struggle for power; they have their internal’
governments’ to deal with their internal conflicts and tensions. What is particularly important for
our purpose is that these ‘non-state’ associations influence the government of the country for the
sake of protecting and promoting their specific interests. Thus, there occurs a very sharp process of
interaction between the groups inter se and between the groups and the government of the country.
Finer is right in saying that clearly a private association’s hope of success in its competition with
other groups is maximised if the full power of the state, as mediated through the government, is
put behind it. And so it is that, once such competition takes place within the framework of the state,
what would otherwise have to be a private and intermittent struggle of one group against another
now becomes a public competition with other groups, either to get the government to espouse its
policy and enforce it, or else to go forward and become the government. And the set of procedures
whereby the private associations existing in a state seek to influence the government, or participate
in policy formation by the government or become the government, is the ‘political process’.
Since comparative politics includes all that comes within the scope of political activity and
political process, it is said to ‘drown’ the national governments “among the whole universe of
‘partial governments’ which exist in any community.” It is needed that the study of the government
(as an element of the state) should be made vis-a-vis the ‘governments’ of non-state associations
that operate in a way so as to influence the government of the country and also be influenced by
it in some way or another. As Blondel says: “Government is the machinery by which values are
allocated, if necessary by using compulsion: what is, therefore, important is to examine the three
stages of the operation by which these values are allocated. Firstly, we must see the way in which
the values come to be formulated and government is made aware of them. Secondly, we must see
how the machinery of government ‘digests’ and transforms these values into decisions applicable
to the whole community. Thirdly, we must see how these decisions come to be implemented
down the level of governmental command. The whole operation of government thus takes the
form of a two-way operation, or, perhaps more appropriately, of a machine which receives
signals and transforms these signals into others.”
Finally, the scope of comparative politics includes the subject of ‘political power’. The term ‘power’
has been defined by different writers in different ways. For instance, while. Carl J. Friedrich describes
it as ‘a certain kind of human relationship’, Tawney regards it as ‘the capacity of an individual, or
a group of individuals, to modify the conduct of other individuals or groups in the manner in
which he desires. Referring to the role of power in the matter of decision-making, Lasswell says:
“The making of decision is an interpersonal process: the policies which other persons are to pursue
are what is decided upon. Power as participation in the making of decisions is an interpersonal
relation.” Politics thus connotes a special case in the exercise of power—an exercise in the attempt
to change the conduct of others in one’s own direction. To define the term precisely, one can say
that power “is taken to denote the whole spectrum of those external influences that, by being
brought to bear upon an individual, can make him move in a required direction.”

4 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY

 Unit 1: Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics

It is the study of the subject of politics from the standpoint of ‘power’ that has widened the scope Notes
of comparative politics so as to include a study of the infra-structure of the political systems. It
is on account of this that politics “cannot be studied properly without identifying the ruling class,
or the governing and non-governing elites, and measuring their respective roles. Politics also
functions, by and large, within groups, though as we have seen earlier, however important in
themselves the group may be, neither the individual nor the society can be left out.” The subject
of ‘authority’ becomes the handmaid of power. The rulers in a democratic system try to justify
their authority by means of having the title of ‘consensus’, those of a totalitarian system resort to
the naked use of power for achieving the superficial title of legitimacy. Thus, it becomes a
celebrated principle of comparative politics: “Where consensus is weak, coercion tends to be
strong, and vice versa.”
It is on account of these important connotations that the term ‘politics’ has come to have its
peculiar definition in the realm of comparative politics. Here politics has been made free from
the shackles of normative dimensions and restated in empirical terms. The result is that it is not
merely a study of the state and government, it is a study of the ‘exercise of power’. As Curtis
says: “Politics is organised dispute about power and its use, involving choice among competing
values, ideas, persons, interests and demands. The study of politics is concerned with the
description and analysis of the manner in which power is obtained, exercised, and controlled, the
purpose for which it is used, the manner in which decisions are made, the factors which influence
the making of those decisions, and the context in which those decisions, and the context in which
those decisions take place.”

1.2 Development of Comparative Politics

The study of comparative politics became highly significant in the 1950’s when a good number
of leading American political scientists sought to ‘transform the field of politics’ by taking the
study of this subject ‘from foreign to comparative political phenomenon’ and ‘from the study of
the governments to the study of the political systems’. In broad terms, the transformation which
“has taken place has been from a field which would most appropriately be labelled ‘foreign
governments’ to one which might most adequately be called comparative political systems.”
However, the historical development of this subject may be roughly put into three phases —
unsophisticated, sophisticated, and increasingly sophisticated.
The contributions made to the study of politics by great figures like Aristotle, Machiavelli, de
Tocqueville, Bryce, Ostrogorski and Weber belong to the first phase who simply utilised the
comparative method for the primary purpose of understanding better the working of the political
organisations. These writers employed, what was called, the comparative method that “aimed
through the study of existing politics or those which had existed in the past to assemble a definite
body of material from which the investigator by selection, comparison, and elimination may
discover the ideal types and progressive forces of political history.” John Stuart Mill undertook
to show that the comparative method “may assume several forms, the ‘most perfect’ of which is
the process of difference by which two politics, identical in every particular except one, are
compared with a view to discovering the effect of the differing factor.” Lord James Bryce preferred
comparative method and designated it as scientific by adding: “That which entitles it to be called
scientific is that it reaches general conclusions by tracing similar results to similar causes,
eliminating those disturbing influences which, present in one country and absent in another,
make the results in the examined cases different in some points while similar in others.”
The contributions of some important recent writers like Samuel H. Beer, M. Hass, Bernard Ulam
and Roy C. Macridis may be included in the second phase who made use of the comparative
method with a good amount of self-consciousness and also with a deliberate mood to present a
more useful study of different political institutions. As a matter of fact, the writers belonging to
this category, unlike political thinkers and writers belonging to the first, applied the instruments
of institutional comparisons in a quite rigorous manner to present a better (in the sense of
realistic) study of the governments what they desired to address as ‘political systems’. This may

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 5