ALL PPT VIDEOS

Political Processes and Institutions in Comparative

Perspective
4TH SEM CBCS
POLITICAL CULTURE
Approaches to Comparative Politics
BA HONS. POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 Analysis of previously asked questions

Political Culture: Meaning, Definitions,

Features, Types
WHAT IS
Political Cultural Approach to Comparative
IN Politics
STORE? Pros & Cons

Sum Up
 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS

Syllabus: Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics : Political Culture

2015. What do you understand by political culture? Examine the political culture
approach in understanding political institutions.

2016: Critically examine political system and political culture approach to

comparative politics.

2017. How does political culture affect the functioning of political institution?
Evaluate

2018: “Political Culture” is an approach in comparative politics with limitations.

Comment.
Political Culture : Meaning
• Norm, value, belief, attitude, and orientation of people towards politics
and political system
• How people make meaning of ‘the political’, identify themselves and others
politically
• patterns of political behaviors that result from the political beliefs, values,
and attitudes of individuals.
• political culture is to the political system what culture is to the social
system
• Political culture help organize meanings & meaning making, defining social
and political identity, structuring collective actions, and imposing order on
political and social life
• political ideologies, popular attitudes, conception of political arena, public
opinion, rule of the games, the ethos, orientation and attitudes of various
interests in a society
So in a Nutshell Political Culture is
• How much people are aware about Political system, processes-
Motives, interests & power, Identities, and Institutions (Cognitive
aspect)

• What are their feelings and attachments towards politics and Political
Processes (Affective Aspect)

• And How they evaluate or assess the outcomes( policies/decisions) of

political system (Evaluative Aspect)
Definitions:
• Set of values, beliefs, and attitudes within which a political system operates.
(Kavanagh)
• A structure of value and belief in the political system (Macridis)
• Pattern of orientations to political objects among the members of the nation
(Almond & Verba)
• political objects: both tangible political aspects- Institutions, political parties and intangible
aspects- authority, legitimacy, conventions, etc

• Set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments that give order and meaning to
a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that
govern behavior in the political system(International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences)
• The activity through which individuals and groups in any society articulate,
negotiate, implement, and enforce competing claims they make upon one
another and upon the whole. Political culture is, in this sense, are the set of
discourses or symbolic practices by which these claims are made” (Baker 1990)
Political Culture: Features
• Component of overall Culture of the nation/community
• Gained momentum as an approach to comparative politics on the wake of
Behavioural movement in political science- 1950s
• Competes with rational choice and Institutional approaches
• Since political culture is specific to a nation/community, it opposes
universalization of political theories based on Interests and interest
aggregation
• Idea of cultural pluralism, cultural relativism, and multiculturism
• Socialization is the process by which an individual is inducted into a political
culture
• Categorized as matured, developed, low, minimal, homogeneous,
fragmented, secular, mass, elite, rural, urban, etc.
Types of Political Culture (Almond & Verba)
• Parochial
• General ignorance about political objects and a consequent lack of involvement in political
activities
• Ex: Political culture in poorly developed states in Africa- Somalia, Sierra Leone
• Subject
• Widespread knowledge about political objects/processes but a disinclination to participate in
political activities, often because of feeling of powerlessness
• Ex: Political culture in rural India during Mughal and British time (कोउ नप
ृ होय,हमै का हानी।
चेरि छााँड़ि न त ,होबै िानी ।।)
• Participative
• People have both knowledge about politics and willingness to participate in the political
process
• Ex: Political Culture in USA
• None of the 3 ideal types are suitable for stable democratic political system
• Civic Culture: suitable combination of subject & participative political culture, in
which aware people have trust in elite leadership to govern, and make policies for
good of the nation
Cultural approach to understand politics
• Culture provides the context in which politics occur
• Define Interest & Power, and how interests are to be pursued
• Culture form and links individual and collective identities
• Defines group boundaries and organizes actions within and between
them
• Provides a framework for interpreting the actions & motives of others
• Provides resources for political organizations and political
mobilizations
• Ex: RSS
• Help study problem of stability and change of political system
Political Culture Approach to Comparative
Politics
• Political Culture approach to comparative politics help study politics in
different settings/context

• Help understand political behaviour and motives

• Help explain political phenomenon, political system and Institutions

• Make comparison more meaningful

• Help generalization and prediction- hypothesis & Theory building

Political Culture and Political Institutions
• Representative Democracy, Parliament, Executive, Judiciary, Electoral system,
Political party, etc are examples of political Institutions
• Political Institutions (endogenic) reflect and represent prevalent political culture
• Pattern of political relation and interaction reflect political culture
• Ex: ‘Civic culture’ support & represent stable democratic Institutions ; Our political Institutions
reflect political culture of national movement
• Political culture provide the overarching framework within which political
institutions function
• Ex: Formalization of political Institutions in Prismatic society (Riggs)
• Political culture provide stability and legitimacy to political institutions
• Ex: Difference in political culture of India and Pakistan and resulting instability in latter
• Provides resources for political organizations and social mobilizations, both affect
political institutions
• Ex: RSS , popularity BJP and resulting affect on political Institutions ; student’s movement; Anna
Hazare protest
• Political Institution and their functioning affect political culture
• Ex: Disillusionment of people from Bureaucracy and Politicians because of imperfect
functioning of Institutions
Limitations of Cultural Analysis in Comparative Politics
• Unit of analysis problem
• Cultural units have not clear and distinct border(delimitations)
• Culture not a homogeneous unit- sub-culture, cultural pluralism
• Vague definition of culture- diffused concept of culture- and clash with other
similar concepts
• Culture as unchanging stable pattern of behavior vs dynamic nature of politics
• Cultural explanations require supporting social mechanisms (social phenomenon)
to have any explanatory value
• Cultural explanations are ‘ just-so’ stories and not rigorous causal accounts
making empirical analysis difficult
• political culture was being used as a residual category for all that cannot be
explained by other theories, and thus has no theoretically defensible conceptual
ground of its own.
 Gabriel Almond (1911 – 2002) and Sidney Verba (1932 –2019) compared the
political culture of 5 nations and wrote in 1963 The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes
and Democracy in Five Nations

Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) was an American sociologist. He

explained social order in terms of institutions that inculcated
individuals with coherent sets of norms, values, and attitudes—
what he called culture—which in turn sustained those
institutions through time. He Influenced Almond & Verba

Prominent Contributors

Samuel Edward Finer ( 1915 – 1993) was a political scientist and

historian’ from UK; he categorized political culture as matured, developed,
low, and minimal
W. H. Morris-Jones(1918): wrote extensively on politics and political culture of India
The Governments and Politics in India(1971), Politics mainly India(1978)
RAJNI KOTHARI (1928-2015) : Politics in India (1970), Caste in Indian Politics (1973),
and Rethinking Democracy (2005)

Rousseau,-Durkheim ,Montesquieu, -Weber also deeply influenced Cultural discourse on socio-political organization
Sum Up
• People’s belief, values, attitude, and orientation towards politics and political system form the
political culture of the nation/community

• Almond & Verba in their book Civic Culture categorised it into 3 ideal types: Parochial, Subject,
and Participative

• It provides the Context, define political identities, provide framework and stability to political
system/institutions, help making meaning of motives and behaviours

• Political Culture approach to comparative politics help study politics in different settings/context,
make comparison more meaningful, help explain political phenomenon, help generalization and
prediction- hypothesis

• Cultural approach to comparative politics has some limitations- unit of analysis, non-
homogeneity, abstractness, its stable nature vs dynamic politics, overlapping conceptual
boundaries, and non rigorous and non Causal explanations making empirical analysis difficult
References
• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic
• M. Howard, (2009) ‘Culture in Comparative Political Analysis’, in M. Lichback and A. Zuckerman, pp. 134- S.
(eds.) Comparative Political: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• B. Rosamond, (2005) ‘Political Culture’, in B. Axford, et al. Politics, London: Routledge, pp. 57-81..
• Materials available on WWW
• political culture, political structure and underdevelopment in india by Thomas Pantham: JSTOR article ;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41855040?read-
now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A46110846133ba9bfcdd6e4f6e6943f9b&seq=25#page_scan_tab_contents
• Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change by Carole Pateman : JSTOR article ;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/193390?read-
now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A21ecdfb739d0be438a23c29b60914653&seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents
• The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics by Young C. Kim : JSTOR article ;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2127599?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
• https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-
and-concepts/political-culture
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Almond
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talcott_Parsons
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
PLZ POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH COMMENTS!
Email: dupolschelp2018@gmail.com

GOOD LUCK !
NEW INSTITUTIONALISM
Introduction
Meaning, Types, Old vs New
BA HONS. POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 Analysis of previously asked questions

Meaning & Definitions of Institution and

Institutionalism
WHAT IS
New Institutionalism: Meaning
IN
STORE? New Vs Old Institutionalism

3 variants of New Institutionalism

 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS

Syllabus: Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics : ‘New Institutionalism’

2015. What do you understand by New Institutionalism? Discuss any one school of
thought of New Institutionalism.

2016: Critically analyse ‘New Institutionalism’ approach to comparative politics.

2017. What is New Institutionalism? Write an essay on new Institutionalism with

special focus on historical new Institutionalism

2018: how is new Institutionalism different from old Institutionalism? Briefly

discuss sociological Institutionalism.
What is Institution?
• Formal or informal rules, codes, conventions, norms, established practices
that shape individual behavior and structure the relationship between
individuals in various units in the polity and economy
• ‘Established law, custom or practice’. ‘A rule that has been institutionalized’
(Lane & Ersson)
• ‘Humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social
interactions’(Douglass North)
• ‘hard’ vs ‘soft’ Institutions
• ‘hard’: formal rules backed by formal law of the political system, Ex: FPTP electoral
process, parliamentary form of Govt., federalism, party system, parliaments,
constitutions, the judicial system, state, etc
• ‘soft’: Informal rules, norms, practices, conventions backed informal social sanctions;
Ex: dress code, family, marriage, accepted norms of political behaviours
• ‘the most effective institutional arrangements incorporate a normative system of
informal and internalized rules’(Levi ) ; most significant institutional factors are often
informal(North)
Why & How Institutions Matter?
• Politics is constructed in form of Institutional structure; Institutions are the
vehicles through which the practice of politics is transmitted.

• Institutions matters because they constrain and shape behavious of

Individuals

• Institutions provide the environment or field within which Individuals

organize themselves for purposeful activities

• Institutions mediate between the socio-economic structure ( class & caste

system), socio-political culture ( laws, customs, norms) and individuals
 INSTITUTIONS, STRUCTURE,
SUPERSTRUCTURE, AND INDIVIDUAL

Capitalism.
Caste system
Socio-economic World of ideas,
belief, values,
Nation-state structure norms, traditions,
practices
(SUPERSTRUCTURE)

Election system
parliament. Family.
Marriage, Dress code
Institutions

PM, President.
Leaders, citizen Individual actors
Institution vs Organization
• Institutions can be defined as anything from formal organizational arrangements to
forms of patterned behaviour operating through roles, rules, norms, conventions
• Institutions are broader in scope and have more wider sets of institutional arrangements
than those of organisations- Institutions as field or environment in which organization
function
• Organizations are best seen as nested within and shaped by wider institutional
arrangements
• ’Organisations are a response to the institutional structure of societies’.(North)
• Both organization & Institutions affect and change each other
• Ex: ‘competitive electoral systems’, Institutions, and specific organisations such as the
Congress party, BJP, etc.
• Ex: ‘Monitory policy system’ an Institution and RBI organization ; ‘Patriarchy’ as
Institution and a particular family following norms of Patriarchy as organisation
What is Institutionalism?
• Studying, observing, and analyzing politics from the institutional
perspective

• Assumption that Institution matters because it shapes political

behavior and hence political process and outcomes

• Studying origin, maintenance, and changes in the Institutions

• Comparing Institutions and Institutional arrangements in different

nations, regions, cultures to understand ‘the political’
Old vs New Institutionalism
• ‘OLD’ INSTITUTIONALISM
• Old Institutionalism :formal-legal and administrative arrangements of state and
governments, constitutions, Legislatures, and Judicial systems ; thus focused on ‘hard’
Institutions
• Describing and mapping the formal institutions of government and the modern state,
their constitutions, both within specific countries and on a comparative basis
• It was descriptive, not analytical and hence no explanatory/causal theory building
• Normative approach: an evaluative framework which attempted to assess how well
certain institutions measured up to democratic norms or the principals of responsible
government
• ‘NEW’ INSTITUTIONALISM
• Focused on both ‘hard’ and ‘Soft’ Institutions; Linked Institutions to macro socio-
economic structure on one hand and individual behavior on other hand
• Gave new meaning and role to Institutions in Post Behavioural phase, bringing
Institutions back into focus– synthesis of Institutionalism to Behaviouralism- how
institution shape individual behaviour and therefore political process and outcomes
• Instead of description or normative evaluation, the focus of new institutionalism is more
oriented towards explanation, analysis, and explicit theory building
• New Institutionalism raises central theme of agency/structure debate.
 Old Vs New Institutionalism
OLD NEW
• Studying Institutions as distinct autonomous • study Institutions in relation to individual behavior
political entities and (micro) societal structures(macro), and other
institutions
• Formal, legal, descriptive, Normative,
philosophical, historical • Analytical, explanatory & Empirical
• Less focus on explanatory theory/hypothesis • focus more oriented towards explanation and
explicit theory building
• Focus was more on ‘hard’ rules and formal
organizations • Much wider definition of institution, include ‘soft’
rules and informal organizations
• Confined mostly to studying liberal democratic
institutions of ‘West’- Ethnocentric • Much wider geographical spread, attempt to study
institutions in its own socio-cultural contexts.
• Considered as traditional approach to
comparative politics • Much more inter-disciplinary- economics,
psychology, cultural anthropology, sociology, and
• Drew concepts from Philosophy, law, history history
• No systematic cross-country or cross-culture • Much more comparative focus- comparing
comparison institutional settings in different countries and
cultures and how they shape political behavior,
process, and outcomes
3 Strands(Types) of New Institutionalism

• Rational Choice New Institutionalism

• Institutions are creation of rational Individuals who decides on the basis of
calculation of cost-benefits associated with alternatives.
• Institutions provide the incentive structure which affect the cost-benefits and hence
shape behavior and decisions of the rational individuals.
• Cultural New Institutionalism
• Institutions are embodiment of cultural belief, norms, values, conventions, practices.
• Individuals behave according to the norm of appropriate social behavior in given
Institutional roles (identity) and situations
• Structural New Institutionalism
• Socio-economic structure, such as modes of production, technology, demography,
etc, determine the Institutional structure which in turn determine the Individual’s
identity, behavior, and actions.
New Institutionalism and Comparative Politics
• Institutionalism has been the major subject matter and approach to comparative politics
• Plato’s theory of ideal state, Aristotle’s comparison of constitutions of 150 states and his types of States in his
‘Politics’, Montesquieu’s legal-constitutional Institutional frameworks, Tocqueville’s 'theory and practice' of
governments, and foundations of comparative governments and politics by Bryce, Lowell and Ostrogorski

• But starting 1950s, Institutionalism almost became dead as an approach to comparative politics on
the wake of behavioural movement. Institutionalism was branded as descriptive, normative,
speculative, and incapable of scientific analysis and theory-building.

• New Institutionalism brought back the state and Institutions back into focus. It synthesised
Intuitionalism to Behaviouralism and studied Institutions in relation to Macro structure, Socio-
cultural Superstructure, and individual political actor.

• New Institutionalism help understand ‘politics’ by comparing Institutional eco systems and their
impact on political behaviour, process, and outcomes in different countries, regions, and cultures.

• Its different strands has brought insights from Economics, Sociology, cultural Anthropology,
Psychology, and History to understand political behaviour and political phenomenon.
 James March (1928-2018) & Johan Olsen( 1939): May be called founders of New
Institutionalism. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life”
(1984), followed by a book, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of
Politics (1989). Democratic Governance (1995). They gave ‘Garbage Can model’ of
decision making theory

Douglous C North( 1920 – 2015) American Economist; Rational Choice Institutionalism

: “Institutions are created by utility maximizing individuals with clear intention” ; how institutions reduces
transaction costs in market economy.

Prominent Contributors
William Scott (1932) American sociologist; relation
between organizations and their institutional environments.

Paul DiMaggio (1951) and Walter W. Powell (1951): Both American Sociologists;
Cultural or sociological Institutionalism; “belief systems and cultural frames are
imposed on and adapted by individual actors and organisations. Thus, roles are for a
large part determined by larger structures.”gave theory of Institutional isomorphism
Sum Up
• Institutions are rules, norms, conventions, traditions, practices that structure human organization, shape
individual behavior and affect political process and outcomes

• Institutionalism is understanding politics from institutional perspectives

• Institutionalism has been most important approach to comparative politics since beginning- Aristotle’s
comparison of constitutions of 150 states; Plato’s theory of the ideal state

• However, the old legal, formal, normative, descriptive Institutionalism became almost dead on the wake of
Behavioural Movement in 1950s and 1960s

• New Institutionalism was a response to Behaviouralism to bring back the state and Institutions back into focus
in 1980s.

• New Institutionalism situate Institutions between Macro Societal Structure, Socio-cultural superstructure and
Individual political actor whose behaviours and actions are shaped by the institutions in which individuals are
embedded.

• New Institutionalism, in comparison to the ‘Old’, is more analytical, explanatory, and empirical. It is less
ethnocentric more comparative, and contextual.

• 3 distinct strands of New Institutionalism are: Rational Choice, Cultural, and Structural Institutionalism
References
• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic
• M. Pennington, (2009) ‘Theory, Institutional and Comparative Politics’, in J. Bara and
Pennington. (eds.) Comparative Politics: Explaining Democratic System. Sage
Publications, New Delhi, pp. 13-40..

• P. Hall, Taylor and C. Rosemary, (1996) ‘Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalism’, Political Studies. XLIV, pp. 936-957.

•Materials available on WWW

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Richard_Scott
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_institutionalism
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_North
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_W._Powell
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_DiMaggio
• http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/20905/1/Unit-3.pdf
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
PLZ POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH COMMENTS!
Email: dupolschelp2018@gmail.com

GOOD LUCK !
3 NEW INSTITUTIONALISM
Rational Choice, Cultural, Structural
BA HONS. POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 Analysis of previously asked questions

Rational Choice Institutionalism

WHAT IS
Cultural Institutionalism
IN
STORE? Structural Institutionalism

Pros & Cons of New Institutionalism

 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS

Syllabus: Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics : ‘New Institutionalism’

2015. What do you understand by New Institutionalism? Discuss any one school of
thought of New Institutionalism.

2016: Critically analyse ‘New Institutionalism’ approach to comparative politics.

2017. What is New Institutionalism? Write an essay on new Institutionalism with

special focus on historical new Institutionalism

2018: how is new Institutionalism different from old Institutionalism? Briefly

discuss sociological Institutionalism.
Let us recall
• In Institution is stable, recurring pattern of behaviour, often referred to as ‘rules of the game’
• Institutions matter because they shape individual behavior and affect political process and
outcomes
• Institutionalism is understanding politics from institutional perspectives
• Institutionalism has been most important approach to comparative politics since beginning-
Aristotle’s comparison of constitutions of 150 states; Plato’s theory of the ideal state

• However, the old legal, formal, normative, descriptive Institutionalism became almost dead on the
wake of Behavioural Movement in 1950s and 1960s

• New Institutionalism was a response to Behaviouralism to bring back the state and Institutions back
into focus in 1980s.

• New Institutionalism situate Institutions between Macro Societal Structure, Socio-cultural

superstructure and Individual political actor whose behaviours and actions are shaped by the
institutions in which individuals are embedded.

• New Institutionalism, in comparison to the ‘Old’, focusses less on organizational structures and
more on rules, norms, and practices . It is more analytical, explanatory, and empirical. It is less
ethnocentric more comparative, and contextual.
 INSTITUTIONALIS LYING BETWEEN
STRUCTURE & INDIVIDUAL

Capitalism.
Caste system
Socio-economic World of ideas,
belief, values,
Nation-state structure norms, traditions,
practices
(SUPERSTRUCTURE)

Election system
parliament. Family.
Marriage, Dress code
Institutions

PM, President.
Leaders, citizen Individual actors
Rational Choice Institutionalism
• Political actors are rational and self-interested and act strategically to maximize their preferences,
or utility which are fixed & stable and are formed independent of Institutional context
• Rational Individual takes decisions by calculating cost-benefit of all possible alternatives and his
expectations about how others are likely to react to his decisions.
• institutions are created, used, and changed by rational individuals actors to suit their
goals/interests.
• Institutions affect choice/decisions of rational actor by presenting different incentive structure
which increases/decreases cost-benefits of alternatives and structuring/regulating interactions
with others
• Institutions structure the choices, range of options, and information available to its members-
bounded rationality
• Institutions solve many of the ‘collective action problems’- Free Rider, Transaction cost, ‘tragedy
of the commons’ and Principal-agent
• Thus, decisions and acts of political actors are constrained by the institutions in which the actor is
embedded
• Hence, Institution matters because it affect individual’s political behavior
• Proponents: Douglous C North, Herbert Simon, Adam Smith
 PROS and CONS of Rational Choice New Institutionalism
PLUSES MINUSES
• Straightforward and simple explanation • Idealistic conception of utility-maximising and
rational actors
• Increasing realization that rationality in social
• Can be applied across all cultures behavior is a myth
• Undermine Embeddedness of Individuals in so
• Helped minimize collective Action Problems many social, economic and political relationships
beyond their control and cognition
• Balance between individual (agency) and • use of deductive methodology and the tendency
towards relatively narrow, even mechanical
Institution( structure)
specification of actor motives, preferences and
institutional contexts.
• Quantitative and empirical research possible • universal assumptions about actors and which
‘specifies the preferences or goals of the actors
• Compelling reasons for origin of Institutions exogenously to the Institutional context
• Its believe in universal human nature and hence
universal application of its theories across culture
• Based on sound theoretical base of Economics
• Excessive focus on Individual motives and actions
undermining social and community life
• Seems closer to reality Intuitively • Ethnocentrisms- favouring western culture
Cultural Institutionalism
• Institutions embody/represent prevailing culture of community
• They provide behavioural template & cognitive scripts or frame of
reference which shape identity, self-image, preference, behavior, and
actions of Individuals
• Institutions influence behavior and action not only by specifying what one
should do in a given role and situation but also by specifying what one can
imagine oneself doing in a given context
• ‘logic of social appropriateness’ in contrast to a ‘logic of instrumentality’.
• organizations often adopt a new institutional practice because it enhances
the social legitimacy of the organization or its participants- Institutional
isomorphism
• Proponents: March & Olsen, William Scott , Paul DiMaggio and Walter W.
Powell
Structural Institutionalism
• Individuals are merely bearer of functional role and political beliefs in an overarching socio-
economic structure- capitalism, class, caste system- that operate according to its own law & logic
• Institutional reflect the logic of Macro structures and shape Individual’s interests ,belief,
behaviour, and actions
• Individuals or Society do not choose institutions rather they are chosen for them by the prevailing
structural forces
• Structural variables, and not choices exercised by rational individuals & cultural groups,
determine political process and outcomes
• Thus, structure, not rationality or culture, determine individual’s preference and behaviour
• Ex: Capitalist mode of production determined interest/prefeences, ideas/belief, behavior/actions
of capitalist and labour class; capitalism gave specific institutional structure- liberal democracy,
private property, rule of law, Liberty.
• Ex: Caste system shaped behaviours and actions of individuals- rituals, belief, identity, self-image;
Caste system gave institutions of ascriptions, purity, rules of legitimate marriage, Patriarchy,caste
Panchayat, etc
Two strands of structural Institutionalism
• Marxist: Economic structure or ‘Base’ determine the law, polity, culture-idea,
belief, norms (superstructure); institutions are part of superstructure
• Not rationality of the individuals or their subjective belief but their functional
relation to the prevailing economic structure determine their idea, interests,
preferences.
• Ex: Capitalist structure is determined by mode of productions which shapes
interests and beliefs of individuals and their socio-economic relations depending
upon whether they relate as owner or non-owner of mode of production
• Non-Marxist : How macro structures- class structure, demography, technology,
geographical conditions interact to produce political outcomes
• Synthesis of Culture and structure by Gramsci’s idea of cultural Hegemony
• Proponents: Karl Mrax, Skocpol ( structural factors that led to large scale political
changes in France, Russia, and China),Goldstone (breakdown of state structure
because of worsening demographic conditions)
 3 NEW INSTITUTIONALISM: COMPARISON AT A GLANCE
Basis of Comparison RATIONAL CHOICE CULTURAL STRUCTURAL
What is it? Institution is purposeful reflection Institution as relatively Macro structure affect the
of the preferences and interests of enduring set of rules and institutional settings which
rational actors. organized practices. It shape in turn determine individual
Institution represents rules & behavior and actions by behavior and actions
incentives that constrain and providing cognitive script
enable individual choice and and behavioural template(
actions. rules of appropriate social
behavior)
Primary focus is on Individual rationality Social behavior in group Structural determinism
following cultural norms
Origin and change of Rational individuals form them to Result of cultural norms & Structural changes brings
Institutions serve their interests practices evolved through new institutions
historical process

Institution matters Bound the rationality by limiting Institutions embody socio- Institution mediate between
because range of options, information, and cultural norms and practices macro structures and
cost-benefits which shape behavior and individual’s idea, belief,
action. behavior, action
Primary logic Logic of instrumentality Logic of appropriateness logic of Macro structures
Academic base Economics Sociology History
 PROS and CONS of New Institutionalism
PLUSES MINUSES
• Balance between Agency and Structure • Internal ambiguity- multiple strands
• Include both formal/hard and Informal/soft • Complexity: not easy to explain/understand
Institutions • Not able to provide adequate explanations for
origin & change in Institutions
• Much more focus on true comparative study
• Over emphasizing on role of Institutions in
• Middle range theory linking Individuals to shaping Individual behavior and actions
Structures • Still the focus is more on formal institutions
• Its multiple strands denote its wide range, • Unable to provide universal explanatory
comprehensiveness, and applicability theories
• Helped democratization through appropriate • Empirical analysis not easy, particularly in its
institutional designs in 3rd world nations cultural and structural strands
• Also helped building International Institutional • Ethnocentrism: transporting Institutional
regime in IR design to developing countries
• Most enduring approach to understand
politics
References
• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic
• M. Pennington, (2009) ‘Theory, Institutional and Comparative Politics’, in J. Bara and Pennington.
(eds.) Comparative Politics: Explaining Democratic System. Sage Publications, New Delhi, pp. 13-
40..
• P. Hall, Taylor and C. Rosemary, (1996) ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalism’,
Political Studies. XLIV, pp. 936-957.
• L. Rakner, and R. Vicky, (2011) ‘Institutional Perspectives’, in P. Burnell, et .al. (eds.) Political in the
Developing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53-70.

•Materials available on WWW

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Richard_Scott
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_institutionalism
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_North
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_W._Powell
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_DiMaggio
• http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/20905/1/Unit-3.pdf
• http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/org_theory/Scott_articles/dimag_powel.html
• https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
PLZ POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH COMMENTS!
Email: dupolschelp2018@gmail.com

GOOD LUCK !
ELECTORAL
SYSTEM
FPTP Vs. PR Vs. Mixed
POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS
Syllabus: Electoral System : Definition and procedures: Types of election system
(First Past the Post, Proportional Representation, Mixed Representation) .

Q1: What is an electoral System? Discuss the First Past the Post( FPTP) system with
an example of any one state.
Q2: Define electoral System. discuss merits & demerits of Proportional
Representation system
Q3: “Electoral system are the outcome of practices and belief in a society” In light of
this statement discuss merits & demerits of different electoral systems
Q4: Define electoral System. Distinguish between the ‘First Past the Post( FPTP)
system and Proportional Representation system with suitable example.

Notes: Mixed representation, Proportional Representation, First Past the Post( FPTP)
system
Meaning & Definitions
• Electoral System: set of rules that structure how votes are cast at election
and how these votes are then converted into seats ( Gallagher,2014)
• Electoral Rules
• Who are eligible to vote( franchise rule), voting rules, who are eligible to run for
election, Party funding & spending rule, party registration and symbol rule, election
periodicity, campaign rules, etc
• Electoral Formula
• How votes are converted into seats- winning rule
• Majoritarian (First Past the Post), Proportional Representation, Mixed Representation
• District(Constituency) Magnitude
• Numbers of seats per constituency
• Single Member District(SMD) or Multiple member District(MMD)
• Ballot Structure
• how voters cast their votes- secrete/open ballot, Ballot boxes, tick marking, stamping,
writing Electronic voting machines(EVM)
Factors determining Electoral System
• Size &Socio-cultural diversity
• Literacy- Democratic and political
• Political Culture
• Nature of the party system
• Socio-economic Context
• Power politics, consensus and compromise among ruling elites
• Historical events, traditions, practices, lesson learnt
 MAJOR TYPES OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
Majoritarian system Proportional Representation(PR) System Mixed Representation System
Also called Plurality System Seats allotted to parties in proportion of votes Total seats divided in 2 parts
obtained using complex formula
Seats allotted on getting more than Direct relationship between the seats won by a One part allotted as per single
50% votes or more votes than any party and the votes obtained by them. Pure PR: member plurality(SMP) another
other candidate 45% vote= 45 % seats part Party List PR system
Seats won by parties are not in But proportionality also depends upon seats in a Voters cast 2 votes- one for
proportion of votes obtained by constituency, voting threshold, Formula used for candidate for their constituency
them seat conversion, variants of PR system, etc and 2nd for party
Generally single member district Multi-member districts/constituency Mixed- single and multiple
member districts
Variants Variants: Disproportionality of SMP are
• Single member Simple Plurality Party List PR : balanced by party list PR
system( FPTP) Single-Transferable-Vote( STV) system
• Alternate Vote(AV) Ex: about 9 nations: Germany,
• Supplementary Vote( SV) Ex: more than 90 countries- Most of the Italy, New Zealand, Scotland and
• 2nd Ballot system European nations except UK, France, Germany, Wale
Ex: about 47 countries- USA, UK, Italy, Latin American nations: Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, India, Pakistan and other and others -South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka
Commonwealth nations
Types of Majoritarian System
• Single member Simple Plurality system( FPTP)
• Absolute majority system
• Seats allotted to candidate getting more than 50% votes
• Variants:
• Alternate Vote(AV) : preferential voting: voters ranking candidates as 1st, 2nd, 3rd ;
• candidate getting more than 50% 1st preference wins; if no one gets 50% of 1st
preference the bottom candidate is eliminated and his or her votes are redistributed
according to the second (or subsequent) preferences. This continues until one
candidate has a majority.

• Supplementary Vote( SV) : all others except top 2 candidates are eliminated and their
preferences are distributed to the top 2 candidate; either of them getting more than
50% wins

• 2nd Ballot system: twice voting; 1st round normal single member district voting;
candidate getting more than 50% wins; if no one gets majority, second voting
between top two candidates
Types of PR system
• Party List PR :
• Voters vote for party who declares list of party candidates who are allotted party seats
• Generally entire nation in one constituency
• Open party list vs Closed Party list: open list: Party declares list of candidates in order of
preference; closed: voters choose party and then give their choice of candidate
• Ex: Israel, most of European nations
• Single-Transferable-Vote( STV) system
• Multi member constituency; 3-8 seats ; for winning fixed quota of votes must be obtained
• Only single vote with preference; Preferences of bottom most candidates transferred to others till
all seats are filled
• EX: Republic of Ireland and Malta
• mixed-member proportional (MMP) system
• A proportion of seats (50 per cent in Germany, but more in Italy, Scotland and Wales) are filled by
the Single Member Plurality (SMP) system and reaming by Party List PR system
• Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate in the constituency election, and the other for a party
• Ex: Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales
 SINGLE TRANSFEREABLE VOTE(STV) PR SYSTEM EXPLAINED
Suppose 5000 voters in a constituency, 01 seat, and 4 candidates- A, B,C,D
Candidate Preference
Ballot Quota= (total votes/(seats+1))
A 2
Paper
B 1 +1
C 4 =( 5000/ 2) +1=2501
D 3

STAGE 1 2500
1958
2000
1544
1500

1st preference of A,B,C,D counted 1000 766

732
500

A B C D
 STAGE 2
Candidate Preference C’s votes are then checked again to look for the
2nd preference on the ballot paper, dividing them
A 4
between the remaining candidates.
B 3

C 1

D 2 2500

Of the 732 1st preference votes of 2000

examined, 13 voters indicated a

2nd preference for ‘B’ taking the total to 779, 1500

429 voters indicated a 2nd preference for ‘D’ 2152

and 194 voters indicated a 2nd preference
1000 1973
for’ A’. 96 voters only indicated a 500
1st preference for ‘C’ and made no other 779
mark on the ballot paper so their papers 0 0
became ‘non-transferable’ at this stage. A B C D
 STAGE 3
Candidate Preference
If the next available preference is for a
A 3 candidate that has already been excluded, i.e.
in this example ‘C’ then we look for the next
B 1 preference after that on that ballot paper.
C 2
D 4 3000

2500
2583
Of the 779 1st preference votes of B, 431 2000
voters indicated a 3rd preference for’ A’
1500
taking the total to 2583, 278 voters
indicated a 3rd preference for ‘D’ taking the 1000 2251
total to 2251 and 70 voters had indicated no
500
further preferences so their papers became
‘non-transferable’ at this stage. 0
0B 0C
A A B C D D
Pros and Cons of FPTP Minuses
• Unfairness: highly disproportionate: no correlation
between votes obtained and seats won
Pluses • Punishes smaller issue based parties
• Simple, straight-forward, easy to
understand • Favours large parties and strong regional parties
• Quick vote counts and result declaration and Punishes small parties and ones with
geographically evenly distributed support (the
• clear link between voter and ‘third-party effect’).
representatives
• offers the electorate a clear choice of • Wastage of votes
potential parties of government • Encourage Strategic voting
• Stability/strength: Generally, strong stable • It offers only limited choice because of its
Govt having clear decisive mandate
duopolistic (two-major-parties) tendencies.
• Encourages broad based centrist parties
• It undermines the legitimacy of government, in that
• keeps extremism at bay by making it
more difficult for small radical parties to governments often enjoy only minority support
gain seats • It creates instability because a change in
• Directly Responsible & Accountable government can lead to a radical shift of policies
govt. and direction.
• It discourages the selection of a socially broad
spread of candidates in favour of those who are
attractive to a large body of voters.
Pros and Cons of PR System Minuses
• Complex formula, tough for masses
Pluses to understand, time consuming
counting
• Fairness: Seats are proportional to
votes obtained • Strong and stable single-party
government is unlikely
• more diverse, representation-
mirroring society • Encourages extremism- smaller, single
issue based party may dictate
• Smaller parties and parties having
widely spread votes are not • Proportionality depends on other
punished factors (DM, mixed, voting
threshold, etc)
• Votes are not wasted
• In many of its variant( party list
• More inter-party co-ordination and system) no clear link between voter
co-operation- less confrontationist and representatives
politics
• In multi member Districts and open
• Offer more choices to voters- cutting party list system, intra-party
across party line competition- less unified and
• Balance of inter and intra-party disciplined party structure
competition • Fragmentation of Party system
Political Effects of Electoral System
• Voter- representative relation
• SMD simple majority: direct voter-representative connect
• Open party list system: No direct link between voter and their representatives
• Govt formation
• Multi-party coalition govt in PR system
• Strong single party govt in majoritarian(FPTP) system
• Party System format
• Duverger’s Law: Majoritarian system- two party system and PR system: multi-party system
• Ideological effects : FPTP: less polarization ; PR : multi-polar party system
• More political and societal consensus in PR system
• Under representation of marginalized communities( minorities, women,
indigenous people) in majoritarian(FPTP) system
Sum Up
• Electoral system are institutional rules, norms, and structure by which representation are
decided in democratic political system
• Most important of those rules for conversion of votes into seats
• Majoritarian (Plurality- FPTP), Proportional, and mixed representations are main types of
Electoral Rules
• FPTP is most simple, straight-forward but unfair to smaller and widely spread evenly
voted parties
• PR system, especially party list system, are more popular in matured democracies. PR is
more fair and encourage consensual politics but is complex, confusing, and time
consuming
• Country choses its electoral system based on its size, diversity, political culture, socio-
political context, and power politics, consensus, compromise among its ruling Elites
• Electoral system, in turn, affects party system, govt. formation, political ideologies and
practices, and representation issues
References
• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic
• A. Heywood, (2002) ‘Representation, Electoral and Voting’, in Politics. New York:
Palgrave, pp. 223-245.
• A. Evans, (2009) ‘Elections Systems’, in J. Bara and M. Pennington, (eds.) Comparative
politics. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 93-119.
• Additional Reading:
• R. Moser, and S. Ethan, (2004) ‘Mixed Electoral Systems and Electoral System Effects:
Controlled Comparison and Cross-national Analysis’, in Electoral Studies. 23, pp. 575-
599.
• Web Portals, You Tube, online resources:
• http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_68268.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcmJA3LhtAU
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_vote
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951%E2%80%9352_Indian_general_electi
on
• https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/electoral-system
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
YOU CAN POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH EMAIL
DUPOLSCHELP2018@GMAIL.COM

GOOD WISHES !
 COMPARATIVE
PARTY POLITICS
Part One
Political Party: Types, Functions,
Evolution
POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS
Syllabus: Party System :Historical contexts of emergence of the
party system and types of parties

2019. Differentiate party from party system in comparative politics.

2018: Discuss party system in contemporary times in the context of developing

countries.

2017: What are the major party systems? Discuss the merits and demerits of a two
party system compared to a multi-party system

2016: Differentiate party from party system. Explain the evolution & growth of party
system in the modern world.
Political Party: Meaning & Definition
• Group of people who sufficiently like minded to work together to acquire Govt power
to further policies which promote their interests.
• An organized group, often with common ideologies, political aims and opinions, which
aims to acquire and exercise political power to influence public policy
• A group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power. A group that
“seeks to elect governmental officeholders under a given label” (Leon D. Epstein,
1967)
• Different from any other interest group by able to directly influence Public Policies by
acquiring power
• Representative Govt in modern democracy means govt by political parties-
Government Party (Ex: BJP Govt, Congress Govt)
• Hence, political party and party politics have become essential feature of political
system anywhere in world.
Party Organisation at 3 level: Richard Katz and Peter Mair(1993)

Party on the Voters, supportsers at

Ground constituency level

Party in the
Central office, high
Central office
command of the Party

Party in public
Representatives of party
office
in Legislature and Govt
 LEFT Vs RIGHT
Basis of comparison LEFT RIGHT
Social Views: change vs Liberty ,Equality ,Fraternity Authority , Hierarchy , Order
continuity Rights ,Progress, Duties , Tradition, continuity,
Reform/change Nationalism
Cosmopolitanism

Economic views : market vs Statist- State intervention, Minimal State, free Market
State Welfare State Economy

Right
• On the basis of ideology or ‘ideological family’
Types of Parties
• Left parties
Communist, Socialist, Social Democrats( center-left), Green, Liberals(center-left on Social
issues)
• Right Parties
Conservatives, Liberals(economy),fascist, Christian Democrats(center-Right), Nationalist
• On the basis of organization and target voters :Cadre, Mass, Catch-all Party
• Ideological attachment ( by Hitchner & Levine)
• Pragmatic parties, Doctrinal parties and Interest parties.

• Constitutional vs. Revolutionary parties

• Representative and Integrative parties (by Sigmund Neumann (1956))
Representative: reflect, represent, and channelize public opinion- Catch all parties
Integrative: shape public opinion by political mobilization- Socialist Parties
• Party of Government vs Party of opposition
Liberals, Conservatives, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats- habitually governing parties
Communist, Regionalists, Environmentalists and Nationalists - habitually opposing parties
Types of Parties
• On the basis of ideology or ‘ideological family’
– Left parties
• Communist, Socialist, Social Democrats( center-left), Green, Liberals(center-left on Social issues)
– Right Parties
• Conservatives, Liberals(economy),fascist, Christian Democrats(centre-Right), Nationalist
• On the basis of organization and target voters
– Cadre, Mass, Catch-all
• Ideological attachment ( by Hitchner & Levine)
– pragmatic parties, doctrinal parties and interest parties.
• Constitutional vs. revolutionary parties
• Representative and integrative parties (by Sigmund Neumann (1956))
– Representative: reflect, represent, and channelize public opinion- Catch all parties
– Integrative: shape public opinion by political mobilization- Socialist Parties
• Party of Government vs Party of Opposition
– Liberals, Conservatives, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats- habitually governing
parties
– Communist, Regionalists, Environmentalists and Nationalists - habitually opposing parties
Cadre Party Mass Party Catchall Party
Elite Party, small size of membership membership to masses and The term was coined by Otto
limited to few- property, social status, constructing a wide electoral base Kirchheimer (1966) to denote modern
personality governing parties which try to get
votes from all class/sections/ interests
Such parties developed in initial Generally, caters to particular All modern parties fall into this
phases of representative democracy class/section – workers/labour class category.
when franchise was limited Such parties are loosely bound to one
Ex: Whigs, Tories in England in 18th Ex: Socialist Parties in 20th century ideology – de-ideologized
Century Europe- German Social Democratic
Party (SPD) and the UK Labour Party They would appeal to the median
voter in society as opposed to a
specific section of the electorate
• Now Cadre denote trained and • place heavier stress on recruitment • Unlike mass party, they don’t rely
professional party members who and organization than on ideology on personal contact/mobilization
exhibit a high level of political and political conviction of voter- they use mass media,
commitment and doctrinal • Raise national issues, win at leader’s charisma
discipline- communist party national level • Main aim is to win elections.
• Party at ground and public office- • Party in central office and at • Strong party in central office and
weak or non-existent central office ground more important than party party in public office
at public office
Functions of Political party
• Govt formation
– Nominating candidates, providing support, election campaign, win elections
• Link between people and govt; as opposition people’s watchdog
• Provide clear choice
– Political branding/label, ideological & policy choice
• Representation
– Represent public opinion, policy demands, larger societal interests
• Provide leaders, recruitment and training in politics
• Policy and goal formulation
• Interest articulation and aggregation
• Political Socialization and mobilization
 Party System
• A relatively stable network of relationships between parties that is structured by their
number, size and ideological orientation (Heywood)

• Party systems are described by the number of parties within a political system during a
given time, along with their internal structures, their ideologies, their respective sizes,
alliances, and types of opposition (Duverger, 1972)

• A system of interaction between political parties in a political system (Sartori, 1976).

• Thus, party system denotes:

• Number of political parties
• Types of Parties: their ideologies, relative Sizes, electoral prospects, ideological distance,
• Nature of interactions among parties- alliances & oppositions
• Relationship between Party, Government, State and its institutions
 Political Party Vs Party System
Basis of comparison Political Party Party System
Meaning An organized group, often with common Number, nature of their structure and
ideologies, political aims and opinions, which ideological make up, and interactions
aims to acquire and exercise political power to among political parties in political system
influence public policy at a given time denotes party system
Relationship Number and nature of parties determine party Nature of party system affect emergence,
system growth & decline of political parties
Relation to Govt Party form Govt, they oppose Govt Party system affect Govt formation

Relation to State Institution of the State, but sometime represent Always an Institution of the State
State
Endurance Party come and go, merge with others, grow & Party system remains for ever- permanent
shrink feature
Individual agency vs Individuals may affect party- charismatic leader, Denote Institution, structure of political
structure Leader party system
Examples BJP, Congress, Democrats, Republican, Single party, two party, multi-party system
Conservatives, Liberals
 Evolution of Parties: Social Cleavage Theory
(by Stein Rokkan & Martin Lipset, 1967)

• divisions, within societies that gave rise to

political groupings

• Societal fault lines around which voters

are mobilized in electoral politics

• Western society: church vs state, owner

vs worker, rural vs urban, centre vs
periphery

• In post-colonial States: caste, religion,

language, Ethnicity, regional aspirations,
etc.
• Cleavages themselves may also change,or
even lose relevance Conflict Cleavage Political
grouping
 Evolution of Political Parties-1/2
• 18th century: Liberal parties( based on liberalism) appeared in in England in the 1700s and in
France after 1830; it represented Bourgeois Elites
– Conservative parties (based on conservatism), representing landed and feudal elites, emerged as a response
to liberal parties. The conservative ideal -preservation of historical continuity, with a belief in the divine,
valuation of traditional forms of life, and recognition of private property and freedom
– Both these parties, Whigs & Tories, were like small cadre party, were first to engage into electoral
competition for representation; later they emerged as mass parties called Conservatives(Tories) and
Liberal(Whigs +others)
• In USA, Federalist and Republican Democratic parties emerged, both guided by liberalism,
during late 18th Century; they finally stabilized as Republican and Democrats by 1860
• Beginning of 20th Century: Socialist( based on Socialism) Parties emerged in Europe with
franchise extension to working class. Later they rechristened as Social democratic Parties.
• After Bolshevik revolution in 1917, communist (based on communism) Party came out of
Socialist parties.
• Christian democratic parties, Catholic in inspiration, emerged in Europe after WWII in a
rearguard actions from Vatican to balance religion and politics. More state intervention(
statist), social welfare, cut class conflict, conservative socially, and free market economy.
• Inter-war period: Fascist Parties( based on fascism) emerged in Italy, Germany, France, Spain
and many other European nations. Extreme militant nationalism, racial supremacy, and
totalitarian State were its main feature.
 Evolution of political parties-2/2
• During 1960s, Regional, or sub-state nationalist parties, representing distinct territorial or
cultural entities, appeared in Europe; Ex: Scottish national party, Basque party

• During 1970s: Environmental/Green parties developed with support drawn from young,
educated, middle-class voters anxious over ecological degradation, gender discrimination,
human rights, nuclear power, and animal rights

• Greens were labeled as ‘ New Left’; in reaction to them emerged ‘ New Right’- law and
order, patriotism, and personal morality issues.

• Last decades of 20th Century: Nationalist Parties- national pride, cultural continuity, social
conservativism, Statism, free market economy- emerged in Europe in reaction to Elitism,
Entitlements, and cosmopolitanism

• During de-colonisation (1946-65) political parties emerged in post-colonial nations. Most of

them were parties which led national independence movements. Later on, other parties
emerged to represent social cleavages and socio-political contexts.
 Giovanni Sartori (1924 – 2017) was an Italian political
scientist specialized in the study of democracy and comparative politics.
He gave the most widely used classification method for party systems ;
Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (1976)

Maurice Duverger (1917 – 2014) was a

French jurist, sociologist, political scientist. He gave Duverger law-
FPTP favours two party system. Also, types of Party System
PROMINENT CONTRIBUTORS
Stein Rokkan (1921 – 1979): was a Norwegian political
scientist and sociologist. He was a professor in comparative
politics at the University of Bergen. With Seymour Martin
Lipset he postulated the theory of social cleavages - Party
Systems and Voter Alignments(1967)

Seymour Martin Lipset(1922 – 2006 was an American sociologist; gave cleavage

theory (developed in the 1960s) with Rokken
 References
• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic
• JA. Cole, (2011) ‘Comparative Political Parties: Systems and Organizations’, in J. Ishiyama, and
• M. Breuning, (eds) 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Book. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, pp. 150-158.
• A. Heywood, (2002) ‘Parties and Party System’, in Politics. New York : Palgrave, pp. 247-268.
• B. Criddle, (2003) ‘Parties and Party System’, in R. Axtmann, (ed.) Understanding Democratic Politics: An Introduction.
London: Sage Publications, pp. 134-142.
• Material available on You Tube, and World Wide Web on this topic
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_System
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_System
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)
– https://www.britannica.com/topic/Whig-Party-England
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state

• Jstor article : Party Systems in the Making: The Emergence and Success of New Parties in New Democracies by Margit Tavits :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27568335?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

• IGNOU Study material on this topic : http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/43956/1/Unit-

23.pdf
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
YOU CAN POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH EMAIL
DUPOLSCHELP2018@GMAIL.COM

GOOD WISHES !
COMPARATIVE PARTY
POLITICS
TYPES & EVOLUTION OF PARTY SYSTEM
 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS
Syllabus: Party System :Historical contexts of emergence of
the party system and types of parties

2019. Differentiate party from party system in comparative politics.

2018: Discuss party system in contemporary times in the context of developing countries.

2017: What are the major party systems? Discuss the merits and demerits of a two party system
compared to a multi-party system

2016: Differentiate party from party system. Explain the evolution & growth of party system in the
modern world.
TYPES OF PARTY SYSTEM

SINGLE, TWO PARTY, MULTI- PARTY

by
Duverger (1954)
Two Party System
• Distinguishing features :
• Not more than 2 parties at any given time have a genuine chance of gaining power
• One of these is able to form Govt of its own without help of 3rd party, other provide strong opposition- party
in waiting
• Over a period of time power alternate between two parties
• Such a system is often referred to as majority parliamentarianism
• Types: (James Jupp)
• Indistinct (not very clear) bi-partisan ( two party) system; Ex: USA
• Distinct bi-partisan system ; Ex: UK
• Variations: 3rd party may grow and challenge two party- 3 party system( Ex: Liberals in UK 1918-31) or
one party may rule for several years( National Party in New Zeeland 1975-1999)- dominant party
system
• In Bipartisan opinions are bipolarized, but the parties are not 'poles apart'. Both converge towards
center.(why?)
• Reflect maturity of democratic political system; UK( Conservative vs Labour), USA( Democrats vs
Republican) being best examples
• In matured democracies in Western Europe: Socialist vs non-socialist party based on liberal ideology
• Other examples: Canada(Liberal vs Conservative) , Australia( Liberal vs Labour), and New Zealand(
before 1993)(National vs Labour), Germany (Christian Democratic Union vs Social Democratic Party)
Pros and Cons of two party system

Pluses Minuses
• Responsiveness with order • Limited choice,
• Stable political system • Ideological convergence
• Strong, stable, accountable, and • Status Quo
effective government • Majoritarianism
• Clear accountability and Choice • Adversarial bi-partisan politics
• Faster Govt. formation • Populism (large public spending
• Fair competition between the and rising inflation)
ruling and opposition parties • Irresponsible party government-
impossible promises in election
manifesto
Single party System
• Single party rule without any competition, either by statute(rule), by manipulation, or by prolonged
electoral dominance
• Pseudo Party System- actually not a party system( why?)
• Features:
• Party represent Govt and State; Party develops entrenched relationship with the state machinery
• ‘one-party states’ and fused ‘party–state’ apparatus.
• Totalitarian State
• Party guided by strong ideology, cadre members, strict discipline, and sometimes recourse to violence
• Variations( Types):
• Single Party Rule in USSR, China and other communist States- ‘vanguard’ party
• Single Party Rule in fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, ‘Falange; in Spain
• Non-ideological single Party Dictatorship in post colonial States; Viz: Convention People's Party of Kwame
Nkrumah in Ghana, National Liberation Front in Liberia, CCM of Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, African National
Union of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, General Ershad’s People’s Party in Bangladesh, President Mobutu’s
Popular Movement of the Revolution in Zaire
• Party emerging from national movement and led by Charismatic leader became vehicle for
dictatorship in the grab of overriding need for nation-building and economic development.
• Weekly organized, loose discipline, peripheral role in policy making
• Single Party Dominance: prolonged dominance of single party despite open electoral competition : VIZ Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan from 1955-2009, Congress party in India from 1951-77, African National
Congress (ANC) in South Africa since 1993, Social Democratic Labour Party (SAP) in Sweden post war till 2006.
Christian Democratic Party (DC) in post war Italy till 1994
• Intra-party competition between factions- Congress System
Pros and cons of single party system

Pluses Minuses
• Destroy separation of power between party
• Stable and strong Government and Govt, Party and State Machineries
• Predictability • Lead to Dictatorship and totalitarianism
• Fear & intimidation in political system
• Sometime faster economic • No democracy, no individual freedom,
growth guaranteed rights (totalitarian State)
• complacency, arrogance and corruption in the
• Bureaucracy in check, better dominant party
public service delivery • weak and ineffective opposition (dominant
party system)
• Dilute democratic spirit- electorate play safer
by choosing ‘natural’ party of government
Multi-Party System
• Consistent and electorally significant presence of more than 3 parties may be termed as multi-
party system
• Coalition Govt are defining features of Multi-party system ; Such systems may be referred to as
non-majority parliamentarianism.
• Types (depending upon ideological separation, nature of interaction)- . (Sartori, 1976)
• Moderate Pluralism
• Ideological differences between major parties are slight, and where there is a general inclination to form
coalitions and move towards the center.
• Ex: Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway
• Polarized Pluralism
• more marked ideological differences separate major parties, some of which adopt an anti-system stance
• Ex: France, Italy and Spain until the 1990s
• Segmented Multi-polarism
• Existence of Deep cleavages, and many parties to represent these cleavages. Viz: Netherlands
• Other variations/types
• Two and half party system: Viz: Germany two large- CDU and SDP and 3rd competing party- Free Democrat
Party
• Fragmented Party System or Atomized party system: Large numbers of parties with large ideological distance,
centrifugal tendencies, and presence of ant-system parties ; no party has chance to gain majority of its own.
(Sartori, 1976)
• Predominant party system: One large party and many smaller parties, some of them represented in Govt. Viz:
Japan in the postwar era
Pros and Cons of Multi-party system

Pluses Minuses
• Internal checks and balances within government • Difficulty in Govt formation
• post-election negotiations and horse-trading
• Favours debate, conciliation and compromise • pitfalls and difficulties of running coalition Govt
• Party fragmentation
• Avoid pitfalls of majoritarianism • Disproportionate importance of smaller parties
• moderation and compromise, all moving to centre
offer little ideological choice
• Broad responsiveness on part of Govt which take
account of competing views and contending • Pragmatism preferred over ideology and principles
interests.
• over-representation of centrist parties and centrist
interests
• Consensual political system
EVOLUTION OF
PARTY SYSTEM
 Evolution of Parties: Social Cleavage Theory
(by Stein Rokkan & Martin Lipset, 1967)

• divisions, within societies that gave rise to

political groupings

• Societal fault lines around which voters

are mobilized in electoral politics

• Western society: church vs state, owner

vs worker, rural vs urban, centre vs
periphery

• In post-colonial States: caste, religion,

language, Ethnicity, regional aspirations,
etc.
• Cleavages themselves may also change,or
even lose relevance Conflict Cleavage Political
grouping
Evolution of political parties and party system- Europe-1/2
• 17th – 18th Century England: Tories & Whigs from factions/clique
around nobles and wealth merchants/Bankers ; later Tories became
Conservative and Whigs Liberal party

• 18-19th Century mainland Europe: Liberal (Bourgeois Elites) vs

Conservatives (Landed aristocrats); they were elite or cadre parties
• 20th Century: Socialist party emerged as mass party to articulate
workers/loburers interests. Agrarian parties emerged in Nordic
Countries during this time.
• Post 1917 Bolsheviks revolution- Communist party came out of Socialist
parties as cadre based ideological party
• Inter war period: 1918-39: Fascist Parties( based on fascism) emerged
in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and many other European nations
Evolution of political parties and party system-
Europe-2/2
• Post WWII: Christian democratic parties, Catholic in inspiration, combinations of
social conservatism and economic liberalism emerged
• During 1960s, Regional, or sub-state nationalist parties, representing distinct
territorial or cultural entities, appeared in Europe; Ex: Scottish national party,
Basque party
• During 1970s: Environmental/Green parties emerged with support drawn from
young, educated, middle-class voters anxious over ecological degradation, gender
discrimination, human rights, nuclear power, and animal rights
• Greens were labeled as ‘ New Left’; in reaction to them emerged ‘ New Right’-
law and order, patriotism, and personal morality issues.
• Last decades of 20th Century: Nationalist Parties- national pride, cultural
continuity, social conservativism, Statism, free market economy- emerged in
Europe in reaction to Elitism, Entitlements, and cosmopolitanism
Features of party system in Europe
• Two and Half party system:
• UK: Conservatives vs Labour and Liberal Democrats as 3rd party
• Germany: CDU and SDP and 3rd party- Free Democrat Party

• In most of Western Europe Christian Democratic parties( liberalism) vs Social Democrats(Socialism)

plus many other smaller parties- Green, agrarian, nationalists, extremists, etc

• Multi-party system is more prevalent: France, Italy, Spain, Netherland, Switzerland, Nordic nations

• Tighter party organization and discipline in parties under parliamentary system- UK

• Coalition and consensual politics in most of European nations having PR system

• 2 types of Coalition- bipolar vs centrist
• Bipolar: Centre-left plus many smaller parties on left vs Centre-Right plus smaller Right parties
• Centrist- Centre-right and Centre-Left leaving left and right parties- Germany during the Weimar Republic
Evolution of political parties and party system- USA
• 1790s -1820: 1ST Party System: Federalist Vs. anti- Federalist
(Democratic-Republican) party
• 1830s-1860- 2nd Party System: Whigs (break up faction of Democratic-
Republican, some federalists, and other groups) vs Democratic-
Republican party
• 1860s-1890s: 3rd party system: Republican (Whigs) vs Democrats
(Democratic- Republican)
• Republican, led by Abraham Lincoln, won civil war, unified USA,
abolished Slavery, and protected minority rights
• Interest and voter re-alignment happened during 4th (progressive era)
and 5th (New deal party system)
• Currently, Republican have support in south, rural and sub-urban areas, among
white lower-middle class, and wealthy businessmen; Democrats gets support from
African-Americans, Latinos, other immigrants and white urban progressives- urban
liberal middle class
Unique Features of USA Party System
• Very little ideological difference between two main parties- both
based on liberalism
• Very loose party organization, and party discipline
• Issue based broad coalition of between members of these parties
• Socialist parties never could became main challenger to two liberal
parties
• 3rd Party never could become significant.
Evolution of party and party system in Post-colonial States
• During de-colonisation (1946-65) political parties emerged in post-colonial nations. Most of them
were parties which led national independence movements. Later on, other parties emerged to
represent social cleavages and socio-political contexts.

• Social Mechanisms and cleavages which created political parties and party systems
were different in post-colonial nations than those in developed/matured
democracies. Caste( India), Language, Ethnicity( Africa), etc were other Cleavages
around with party politics grew.
• However, in late 1950s and 60s, in many post-colonial African and Asian nations, single party
dictatorship started.
• Ex: Convention People's Party of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, National Liberation Front in Liberia, CCM of Julius
Nyerere in Tanzania, African National Union of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, General Ershad’s People’s Party in
Bangladesh, President Mobutu’s Popular Movement of the Revolution in Zaire,, Institutional Revolutionary Party in
Mexico, etc

• In some countries, such as Japan, India, Malaysia ,South Africa , single party
dominated despite open electoral competition.
• In 3rd wave of democracy, post cold war era, many of these countries , such as Ghana, Malaysia,
Mexico, Pakistan etc are returning to multi-party democratic system
Features of Party System in post-colonial states
• Party system is still emerging – new parties are formed, merger and
extinction of parties from election to election

• Most of the ruling parties emerged from national movements

• Dominant party system till 3rd wave of democratization

• Party of popular charismatic leader- as medium for authoritarianism

• Socialism was declared ideology of majority of parties but pragmatic in

practice
NATION-STATE
Meaning, Evolution, Debates
POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS
Syllabus: What is nation–state? Historical evolution in Western Europe and postcolonial contexts
‘Nation’ vs ‘State’: debates
Q1: Define nation-state. Identify the processes of evolution and nature of nation-
state in post colonial societies.

Q2. illustrate with examples major phases of historical evolution of nation-state in

western Europe.

Q3: What do you mean by nation-state? Explain the changes it has undergone in
contemporary times.

Q4: what is distinction between state and nation? Discuss with a reference to
western Europe.

Q5: What is a nation? Discuss the evolution of nationalism in post colonial states.
State: Meaning & Definitions
• Political institution having sovereignty over a fixed territory, and population
residing within that territory, having an effective government, and capacity to
enter into relations with other states as equal.
• Political community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of
physical force(violence or coercion) within a given territory (Weber)
• Kind of political subdivision of globe
• Highest political institution of a fixed territory and population residing therein
• Represent political independence & autonomy of people residing in a territory
• Denote the ‘body politic’, politics, or ‘the political’- politics is what pertains to State
• Thus State is defined as having:
• a defined territory and boarder
• a permanent population
• Sovereignty: both internal & external
• an effective government
• the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Historical Evolution of state: Processes
• Transformation
• gradual transformation of existing independent political units – Britain & France
• Unification
• unification of independent .-but dispersed political units- Germany, Italy, USSR,
Yugoslavia
• Secession or Break up:
• secession or break-up of independent political units - mostly empires or large
heterogeneous states - into one or more states – 15 states from USSR, 5 from
Yugoslavia, many from Ottoman and Habsburg Empire
• De-colonization
• Erstwhile Colonies of great powers upon de-colonization became State- India, Ghana
Catalysts of state formation:
• Warfare

• Capitalism
Features of state
• Sovereignty: It exercises absolute and unrestricted power, in that it
stands above all other associations and groups in society
• State institutions are recognizably ‘Public’
• The state is an exercise in legitimation: represent General Will of
people, Common Good. Hence, solicit political obligation
• The state is an instrument of domination: monopoly over legitimate
use of violence
• The state is a territorial political association
• States are recognized as equal & sovereign by other states in the
International state system- Diplomatic recognition
Forms (Types) of States
• Minimal State
• Liberal or neo-liberal state; maintain order, enforce contract, and protect
• UK & USA in early period of Indoctrination in 19th Century
• Developmental states
• State that intervenes in economic life with the specific purpose of promoting industrial growth
and economic development. Ex: Japan
• Competition state in globalization era
• Social-democratic states
• State intervene to ensure fairness, equality and social justice; Ex: Nordic states
• Welfare State: Ensure education, health care, social security, general well being of citizen
• Collectivized states
• State controls all aspects of Economy; little role for private sector; Ex: USSR, Communist states
• Totalitarian states
• State control all aspects of its citizen’s life ; Ex: Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s Germany, Mao Zedong’s
China
• Religious states
• Islamic state in Iran, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Taliban in Afghanistan
State: Ideological Perspectives
• Liberal perspective:
• Minimal state: State as necessary evil (leviathan) required to maintain order and
protect rights of Individuals
• Pluralist State: State as Umpire or Referee amongst the competing interest groups
consensus builder, correcting market failures
• State as outcome of imagined Social Contract
• Marxist view:
• state as an instrument of class domination and as a forum to further the interests of
capitalist class
• state as an agent or instrument of the ruling class or Elites
• State as revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat during the transition phase
• fully communist society would be stateless
• Feminist Perspective:
• State representing male domination and maintenance of Patriarchy
• Bases of state: Force, Coercion, Violence, autonomy, command and control denote
masculinity and making female subordinate and invisible in state affairs.
Nation: Meaning & Definitions
• Large groups of people claiming common bonds like Descent(ethnicity).
language, religion, culture and historical identity inhabiting a particular
country or territory.
• "Psychological bond that ‘define’ a people and differentiate them from
others- subconscious conviction of belonging to one community-imagined
communities.“(Benedict Anderson)
• "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed
on the basis of conman language, territory, economic life and psychological
make-up manifested in a common culture".(Joseph Stalin)
• Nation is not same as race or ethnicity; nation are abstract and imagined
community, not real; nation may be multi-ethnic, malit-racial, multi-cultural
• Nations not having their state: East Timorese, Kurds, Tibetans, Chechnyans
and Palestinians
• Nations may be spread into more than one state: The "Arab nation"
embraces more than a dozen states, while the nation of the Kurds takes in
large chunks of four states.
• Multi-national states: USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia
Nationalism
• Nationalism: identification with one's own nation (national consciousness )
and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as
opposed to those of other nations
• Nationalism is a phenomenon which emerged in the eighteenth century in
western Europe and-then spread during the 19th and 20th centuries to
other parts of the world.
• Nationalism has been the most potent ideology in modern times for
human Collectivity, more than religion, cosmopolitanism, race, and
ethnicity
• But Nationalism acquired negative connotation in Europe due to its
association with Fascism and cause for two World wars
• Copying the ideology of European nationalism in post colonial states
created problems of building stable Nation-State
State vs Nation
State Nation
• Political conception • Cultural Conception
• Sovereign political institution • Group of people claiming common
representing people residing in a territory Descent, language, religion, culture and
• More tangible entity- territory, history
population, govt, army, institutions • Intangible concept- imagined or abstract
• State may be multi-national community
• Nation may have multiple states
• ‘hard’ part of Nation-State • ‘Soft’ part of Nation-state
• Older concept, existed since ancient • Newer concept, emerged in modern times
Greek times • Nationalism: Ideology of affection and
• Statism: Doctrine that state intervention support to one’s nation
is the most appropriate means of
resolving political problems, or bringing
about economic and social development.
State representing ‘General Will’ of the
people and popular Soveriegnty
Nation-State
• A state whose population considers themselves as a nation
• When territorial boundaries of a nation is same as that of the state
• When a nation has its own state
• All modern states which are members of UN are considered as
Nation-state
• Emerged first in 19th & 20th Century Europe, when Linguistic and
Ethnic nations got their own state
• De-colonized states of Latin-America, Asia, and Africa were also called
nation-states
• In true sense, very few countries can be defined as Nation-State
Evolution of nation-state in Europe
• The Greek city-state system, the Roman Empire, and the Empires in Middle Ages are key
developments in the evolution of Nation-state in 17th Century
• In the ancient world there existed small city states in Greece and Italy
• Thereafter sprawling dynastic empires- Roman Empire; Roman res
publica, or commonwealth, is more similar to the modern concept of the state. The res
publica was a legal system whose jurisdiction extended to all Roman citizens, securing
their rights and determining their responsibilities.
• Medieval period saw feudal system in Europe, and Multi-national empires - Holy Roman
Empire and later on Habsburg and Ottoman Empire in Europe
• Empires had layered and divided authority- Emperor- kings- lords/baron-Nights-- serfs;
church vs state
• No concept of sovereign states, national self-determination, and secular state
• However, they had diplomatic relationship, trade & economic interactions, and some sort
of balance of Power
Emergence of nation-states in Europe
• First phase: 17-18 Century : evolution of British and French nation-states
• Processes: Transformation: Capitalism, Reformation, Enlightenment, Revolution
• Westphalian treaty 1648: Beginning of International state system
• Second phase: 19th Century: Emergence of German and Italian nation-state
by process of Unification ; Serbia, and Greece from Ottoman Empire
• Process: Unification, Cessation
• Third phase: Post World war I: Disintegration of Habsburg and Ottoman
Empire and coming up of Austria, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Turkey.
• Process: Disintegration of multi-national Empire by defeat in wars
• Fourth phase- post cold war: Disintegration of USSR, Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia: New nation-states of Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova,
Estonia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Czech and Slovak
Republics etc
• Process: Disintegration of multi-national state or federation
Basis of nationalism in Europe

• Language- Linguistic Nationalism: German, French, English, Polish,

Serbian, Croatian, Spanish nations

• Race and Ethnicity: Slavs (eastern, Western, Southern), Greeks

,German, Anglo-Saxon, Russian, Magyar, Poles Nations
Evolution of nation-state in post-colonial era
• Philippines became nation-state by becoming independent from the USA in 1946.
Next, India and Pakistan became Independent nation-states in 1947
• This led to accelerated de-colonisation process first in Asia, then west Africa, and
East Africa
• Between 1945 and 1960, three dozen new states emerged in Asia and Africa after
getting independence from their European colonial rulers.
• New Nation-states in Africa:
• British Colonies: Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, Ghana, and Malawi
• French Colonies: Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo,
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon,
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia
• Belgian Colonies: Congo, Rwanda ; Portuguese colonies: Angola and Mozambique
• New Nation-states in Asia:
• China became nation-state in 1949 after the Communist Revolution
• Two Koreas became nation-state in 1945 after getting independence from Japan
• Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia became nation-state after decolonisation of French Indo China
• Indonesia became nation-state in 1945 after end of Dutch rule and then Japanese occupation
• Malaysia became independent nation-state from Britain in 1963
Process of evolution of nation-state in post
colonisation era
• National consciousness grew by education, mass media, and anti-colonial struggle
• Led by western educated urban Elites, Great leaders successful in mass mobilization,
unified resistance for political and cultural sovereignty, nation building, political process
and institution building on the pattern of European nation-states
• Nationalist Elites invoked historical nation, ancient civilization, Emancipatory vision, anti-
colonial sentiments, homogenization overlaid on highly heterogenous( multi-lingual and
multi-ethnic) society
• Most of them first became state and then by nation-building, became ‘state- nation’
• Inclusion of these new states into UN and acceptance as part of Westphalian state
system helped them gain legitimacy and build nation
• However, European Template of nationalism and nation-state is not easily replicable in
post colonial states
• Only few could became strong unified nation-state; most of them are struggling and
many such as Somalia, Sudan, Syria- became failed state
References

• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic

• W. O’Conner, (1994) ‘A Nation is a Nation, is a Sate, is a Ethnic Group, is a …’, in J. Hutchinson and A. Smith,
(eds.) Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 36-46.
• K. Newton, and J. Deth, (2010) ‘The Development of the Modern State ‘, in Foundations of Comparative
Politics: Democracies of the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-33.
• A. Heywood, (2002), ‘The State’, in Politics. New York: Palgrave, pp. 85-102
• Material available on You Tube, and World Wide Web on this topic
• Wikipedia Articles:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_nationalism_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

• J STOR article :
• The Construction of Europe and the Concept of the Nation-State by Bernard Bruneteau
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20081745?seq=1
• The Past, Present, and the Future of the Nation-State by John Hutchinson https://www.jstor.org/stable/43134436?read-
now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
YOU CAN POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH EMAIL
DUPOLSCHELP2018@GMAIL.COM

GOOD WISHES !
DEMOCRATISATION
Part-1
Meaning, Pattern, Factors
POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS
Syllabus: Democratization : Process of democratization in postcolonial, post-
authoritarian and post-communist countries ) .
2019: Democratization is a complex process in post-authoritarian states. Discuss
with the help of one example.
2018: What are the post-authoritarian states? Analyze the transition to Democracy
with any one example.
2017: Discuss the transition from communism to Democracy in post communist
states.
2016: What is “ third wave of democratization”(Huntington)? Discuss the role
of political parties in a mature democratic system.
2015: Do you think economic prosperity is a necessary condition for growth of
democracy in any society? Give Reasons.

Notes: post-communist States , Democracy & Democratization, Process of

democratic transition, wave of Democratization
Democratization: Meaning & Questions
• Transition (change) of previously non-democratic political system
towards democracy
• Thus, it is process of Transitions towards Democracy
• May also denote continual process towards consolidation or
deepening of democracy
• 4 questions?
• What changes denote Democratization?
• What types of Regimes/political system gave way to Democracy?
• How, by whom, by which processes or factors the transition to democracy
were brought about?
• Does Democratization has a pattern? Does it happen in waves?
What is meant by Democratic Political
System?
• Rulers are chosen by free fair, and periodic election – legitimate Govt
having mandate to rule
• Universal voting rights (Franchise)
• Rule of Law
• Civil and Political Liberties: Rights & Freedom to Citizens protected by
constitution and courts
• Presence of strong & autonomous Civil Society( NGOs, interest
groups, social movements, opinion leaders)
• Free participation of citizens in political processes
• Autonomous Institutional arrangement based on rule of Law
What types of Regimes/Political system
gave way to Democracy?
• Authoritarian
• Powers in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not responsible and accountable to the people.
Rulers are not chosen by people who have limited political freedoms
• Personalistic: Headed by supreme leader wielding great amount of individual power- Hitler in Nazi
Germany, Francisco Franco Spain, Saddam Hussein- Iraq, Zia-ul-Haq- Pakistan, Mobutu in Zaire
• Military Regime: In early 1990s, about half of 3rd world countries were ruled by Military Regime
• Totalitarian
• Rule by single party following distinct ideology, TOTAL control of state/govt of almost all aspects of
public and private life, minimal civil/political freedom
• Ex: Stalin’s USSR, Mao Zedong’s China and other communist regimes
• Post-totalitarian
• Regime still trying to control all aspects of public and private life, follow official ideology, and
charismatic leader despite collapse of foundations of totalitarianism
• Ex: Putin’s Russia, capitalist China, other communist and post communist regimes
• Monarchical and sultanistic
• Ex: Nepal in 2006, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia
• Colonial regimes- post colonial states
• India, Sri-Lanka, Ghana, Myanmar, Philippines, Congo, Nigeria, etc
How, by whom, by which processes the transition
to democracy were brought about?
• Mainly by mass movement led by civil society, labour, middle, and
professional class(Bourgeois Elites)
• Regime collapse: De-colonization and dis-integration of USSR gave way to
most numbers of new democracies
• External pressure, defeat in war – Iraq, and Afghanistan
• Factors supporting democratization process
• Economic Development- Modernisation
• Culture, especially political culture
• Presence of middle class and civil society
• Internal Crisis and External Influence
• consensus , pact, among ruling elites
• Time and chance to develop institutions supporting democracy
• Globalization and role of USA as ideological Hegemon
 3 WAVES OF DEMOCRATIZATION (Samuel P. Huntington, 1991)
• Gradual emergence of liberal democracies in 1st world
• Industrial revolution, modernization and rise of nation-state in North America, UK, and western
Europe; 29 democracies
First wave
• Ended with rise of fascism in 1920s
1828–1926 • Reverse wave: Fascism, great depression, WWII- only 12 remained by 1942

• Post war era, restoration of democracies in West Germany, Japan, Italy, in many countries of Europe
by Allied powers led by USA
• De-colonization produced many democracies – India, Sri-Lanka, Ghana, Indonesia
Second wave
• ended during 1960s - many nations revered to authoritarian rule (Greece and several countries in Latin
1943–1962 America- Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Mexico)

Started in 1974 in Portugal, followed in Greece and Spain, south, spread to Eastern Europe, then to
•
Latin America, Africa and Asia
• Disintegration of USSR added fuel to the democratization process
Third wave • strongest in Latin America, then in Asia, and least in sub Saharan Africa and Middle East
1974–2000 • 28 % (1974) to 61% (1998) nations adopted democracy
• Reverse Trend? In a different way

4th Wave? Arab Spring?

Economic Development and Democratization
• Closely linked to modernization or Developmental theory
• Economic development produces a complex society and new networks cutting across existing social
cleavages
• Industrialization, Urbanization, social and geographical mobility, education, mass media, and
material culture gave rise to middle class (Bourgeois), and new social norms & values based on
Liberty, equality, and rights
• 3rd world countries will travel the same path of economic development, modernization, free market
economy, and liberal democracy as earlier travelled by 1st world countries.
• Crises produced by either rapid growth or economic recession weakened authoritarianism
• Seymour Martin Lipset (1922–2006): wealthier the nation, more chance of it being
democratic.
• But Renske Doorenspleet (2005) found no link between economic dev and democracy. To
her, authoritarian regimes in more developed countries are not any more likely to
democratize than those in poor countries; Ex: Oil rich middle east nation vs India
• Dependency Theory( Gunder Frank, Samir Amin): Democracy is impossible in nations
linked to world economic system as satellite to developed nations
• Empirical evidences, however, do not support Dependency Theory. To Renske
Doorenspleet authoritarian countries with greater economic links to core countries are
more likely to democratize
Culture and Democratization
• Diamond(1993) asserts that democratization is the result of the ‘gradual
emergence of democratic culture, first at elite level’
• Huntignton(1991) claims that Christian, especially protestants, tend to be
democratic; Hindu and Shinto-influenced culture are not anti-democracy; and
Islamic, Confucian and Buddhist culture are anti-democracy
• Weber claimed that Protestant spirit/culture drive capitalism and liberal
democracy
• Almond & Verba (1963): ‘Civic Culture’ supports democracy
• Most of these views suffer from Eurocentrism and Ethnocentrism
• Empirical evidences do not provide direct link between culture and democracy.
• Muslim Jordon, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, and Lebanon; Hindu/Buddhist/Mixed
Nepal, India, Sri-Lanka, Thailand, and Confucian/Buddhist/Christian South Korea
are all functioning democracies
Other factors supporting Democratization
• Presence of middle class and civil society
• Most of the democratic movements are led by leaders from middle class and civil society-
Gandhi, Nehru in India
• Civil society is must to check power of the State and facilitate political participation- necessary
conditions for democracy
• Internal Crisis and External Influence
• Argentina in 1983 after Falkland war, USSR and eastern Europe after economic crisis
• Important influence of USA, UN, IMF/WB; earlier UK in post-colonial states
• Demonstration and Neighbourhood effect
• Consensus , pact, among ruling elites
• Rational Institutional approach
• Ruling elites may visualize democracy as better option to maintain their hegemony
• Time and chance to develop institutions supporting democracy
• India and other colonial nations got political institutions and democratic experiences before
independence
• Globalization and only one remaining ideology of capitalism with liberal democracy
• Role USA as ideological Hegemon
 *SPREAD OF DEMOCRACIES ACROSS GLOBE

*https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/14/more-than-half-of-countries-are-democratic/
*DEMOCRATIC INDEX : BY THE ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT (EIU)

Full :22
Flawed: 55
Hybrid: 36
Authoritarian :53

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Sum Up
• Democratization denotes change or transition of previously non-democratic
regime towards democracy
• Democratization happened in waves, in bunch. Huntington identified 3 such
waves- 1st-1828-1926; 2nd- 1942-1962; 3rd-1974-2000
• Regimes which saw democratization- Authoritarian, Post-Colonial, and Totalitarian
Communist and post-communist states
• Most of Democratizations were led by Bourgeois leaders and civil society
movement; some were result of war and revolution
• Factors supporting democratization- economic development(modernization),
political culture, emergence of strong middle class and civil society, Internal Crisis,
External influence, Globalization and USA as ideological Hegemon, and Time and
chance to develop institutions supporting democracy
• Currently more than 60 % of countries have adopted democratic political order of
varying intensities.
References
• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic
• T. Landman, (2003) ‘Transition to Democracy’, in Issues and Methods of Comparative
Methods: An Introduction. London: Routledge, pp. 185-215.
• K. Newton, and J. Deth, (2010) ‘Democratic Change and Persistence’, in Foundations of
Comparative Politics: Democracies of the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 53-67.
• J. Haynes, (1999) ‘State and Society’, in The Democratization. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 20-38; 39-
63.
• B. Smith, (2003) ‘Democratization in the Third World’, in Understanding Third World Politics:
Theories of Political Change and Development. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.250-274.

• Materials available on WWW

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratization
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_of_democracy#First_wave
• http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/lcs/kiyou/pdf_23-4/RitsIILCS_23.4pp.31-
48Peijuan.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Authoritarianism_and_totalitarianism
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pms2AAJUtDk
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
PLZ POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH COMMENTS!
Email: dupolschelp2018@gmail.com

GOOD LUCK !
DEMOCRATISATION
Part-2
In Post-colonial, Post-communist
and Post-authoritarian states
POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS
Syllabus: Democratization : Process of democratization in postcolonial, post-
authoritarian and post-communist countries ) .
2019: Democratization is a complex process in post-authoritarian states. Discuss
with the help of one example.
2018: What are the post-authoritarian states? Analyze the transition to Democracy
with any one example.
2017: Discuss the transition from communism to Democracy in post communist
states.
2016: What is “ third wave of democratization”(Huntington)? Discuss the role of
political parties in a mature democratic system.
2015: Do you think economic prosperity is a necessary condition for growth of
democracy in any society? Give Reasons.

Notes: post-communist States , Democracy & Democratization, Process of

democratic transition, wave of Democratization
Democratization: Meaning & Questions
• Transition (change) of previously non-democratic political system towards democracy
• Thus, it is process of Transitions towards Democracy
• The process involves putting in place democratic political institutions such as multi-party electoral
system, separation of power, independent Judiciary, democratic Constitution, etc
• May also denote continual process towards consolidation or deepening of democracy

• What is meant by Democratic Political System?

• Rulers are chosen by free fair, and periodic election – legitimate Govt having
mandate to rule, peaceful transfer of power
• Universal voting rights (Franchise)
• Rule of Law
• Civil and Political Liberties: Rights & Freedom to Citizens protected by constitution
and courts
• Presence of strong & autonomous Civil Society( NGOs, interest groups, social
movements, opinion leaders)
• Free participation of citizens in political processes
• Autonomous Institutional arrangement based on rule of Law
 Post Authoritarian vs Post Communist Vs Post Colonial States
Post Authoritarian Post Communist Post Colonial
Erstwhile Authoritarian state: Erstwhile Communist States Erstwhile Colonial States
• Powers in the hands of a leader or a small Totalitarian State: Rule by single party Emerging new Nation-states
elite that is not responsible and following distinct ideology, TOTAL control of as outcome of De-
accountable to the people. Rulers are not state/govt of almost all aspects of public colonization
chosen by people who have and private life, minimal civil/political
limited political freedoms freedom • Most of them adopted
• Personalistic: Headed by supreme leader Ex: Stalin’s USSR, Mao Zedong’s China and Westminster form of
wielding great amount of individual other communist regimes Parliamentary Democracy
power- Hitler in Nazi Germany, Francisco Post-Totalitarian sate: • But many of them could
Franco Spain, Saddam Hussein- Iraq, Zia- • Regime still trying to control all aspects not hold on to Democracy
ul-Haq- Pakistan, Mobutu in Zaire of public and private life, follow official and became Authoritarian
• Military Regime: In early 1990s, about ideology, and strong leader despite states
half of 3rd world countries were ruled by collapse of foundations of totalitarianism Example:
Military Regime • Ex: Putin’s Russia, capitalist China, other Asia: India, Sri-Lanka,
• Absolute monarchies and dictatorships communist and post communist regimes Pakistan, Myanmar,
Examples: 29 states Philippines, Korea, Indonesia
• Africa: Apartheid regime in South Africa, 16 free republics from USSR, 6 from break Africa: Ghana, Nigeria,
many sub-Saharan nations up of Yugoslavia, 2 from Czechoslovakia, Algeria, Congo, Kenya,
• Asia: Taiwan under KMT rule, South Korea and eastern block nations- Poland, Hungary, Zimbabwe, Namibia
under military rule till 1987 Romania, Bulgaria, Albania Latin America: post colonial
since 1820s
 Democratization in Post-colonial states
• Closely linked to de-colonization of erstwhile colonial states
• Most of them adopted Democratic political structure under new independent constitution
• Multi-party election, civil & political rights to citizen, putting in place democratic institutions- parliament,
courts, Bureaucracy- , Parliamentary form of Govt, popular mass leader from Bourgeois class taking reign
winning popular election were the common features
• Common factors supporting democratization:
• Ideological force of anti-colonial & anti-imperial movement
• External Influence: USA &UK, allied power after WWII supported Democracy in post-colonial
nations
• Demonstration and Neighborhood effect: part of the 2nd wave
• Time and chance to develop institutions supporting democracy: more in Indian subcontinent,
very less in Africa due to sudden de-colonization
• Present Index of democratization
• none features in 22 full democracies; Botswana ranked top at 29, Malaysia at 40, India at 51,
Tunisia 53, Philippines, Ghana, Indonesia, Namibia, Sri-Lanka, etc were categorized as Flawed
democracy(score between 8-6)
• Bangladesh, Malawi, Liberia, Kenya, Tanzania, Morocco, Benin, Zambia, Uganda, Pakistan,
Nigeria, etc are termed Hybrid regime
• Mauritania, Angola, Mozambique, Gabon, Myanmar, Cambodia, Ethiopian, Niger, Rwanda,
Zimbabwe, Congo, Cameroon, Sudan, etc are categorized as Authoritarian

*an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a UK-based company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Democratization in post-colonial states- case of Ghana
• 1957, Ghana, a country in west Africa, became the first African country south of the Sahara to attain
independence.
• Like many other post-colonial state it adopted democratic political order based on multi-party election
• Kwame Nkrumah led the popularly elected Govt. Nkrumah was one of the founding member of NAM
• But soon Nkrumah regime turned into single party(Convention Peoples Party (CPP)) authoritarian govt
• In 1966, Nkrumah regime was overthrown by armed forces & Police
• For next 25 years, Ghana saw multiple authoritarian rules, military coup, and in between fledgling
democratic Govt
• Re-democratization succeeded in 1993 with new constitution(4th Republic) and popularly elected Govt
winning multi-party election
• Factors supporting democratization: Civil Society movement, External influence especially from IMF/WB
• Since then, 7 general elections are held, latest in 2016 and 3 times peaceful transfer of power happened
• Pluses- Largely free & fair election, stable functioning institutions of Parliament, political parties,
Election Commission, Courts, etc
• Minuses- Rule by small minority of Elites, Ruling Party led terror/violence, Corruption, Formalism (lip
service to rule of law), low economic development, high unemployment
Democratization in post-Communist states
• Was the outcome of disintegration of USSR and Yugoslavia and demise of Communist rules regimes
in eastern Block nations
• Common pattern of Democratization:
• Started in 1989, largely bloodless except in Romania, and sudden except in Czechoslovakia
• Banning of Communist Party, many also banned ex communist regime office bearers
• Elections to head of the State/Govt through multi-party Election
• Adoption of free market economy imposed by capitalist powers and IMF/WB- shock Therapy
• Majorities of them adopted parliamentary form of popular Govt
• Major supporting factors: Economic crisis, social unrest, civil society movements, Reforms by Gorbachev, Active
influence of USA and western Europe
• Divergence in democratization process
• the Baltics and other Eastern European countries moved swiftly to democracy, Lithuania and Slovenia being the most
democratic
• while most of the former Yugoslav republics had a slow drive toward democracy
• The countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia( Georgia being the exception) have not made much headway
toward democracy since the early 1990s, central Asian republics- Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan- being most autocratic
• Democracy Index:
• Consolidation of Democracy is still a big challenge; majority of the previous USSR republic are either Authoritative or
hybrid kind of democracy
• Russia at 134, Kazakhstan at 139, Azerbaijan at 146, Belarus at 150, Uzbekistan at 157, Tajikistan at 159, Turkmenistan at
162 , all are categorized as Authoritarian
• Whereas Georgia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Moldova, Albania, and Macedonia rated as Hybrid Regime
• Serbia, Romania, Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Estonia as
Flawed Democracy
Democratization in Post-Communist States- Case of Russia
• 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev takes charge of USSR ; He Initiate ‘Glasnost’- Openness and ‘perestroika’-
Restructuring
• 1989:first openly-contested elections for new Congress of People's Deputies in Russia.
• 1991:
• Open, democratic election to Presidency: Boris Yeltsin Russian president of Russian Republic
• August 1991 : Coup by hardliner communist leaders; failed by street protest led by Boris
Yeltsin
• November 1991: Communist party was banned in Russia
• December 25, 1991 : Gorbachev Resigned, USSR dissolved ; Russia adopted multi-party
electoral democracy of presidential type
• 1991-93: Boris Yeltsin as strong president led a ‘ phony democracy’ with new constitution giving
wide ranging powers to President; violent confrontation between President and Parliament ;
flawed referendum, free but not fair elections
• Dec, 1999: Vladimir Putin, ex Colonel of KGB( security agency of USSR) became President
• Under Putin, Russia saw less civil & political rights, severe restrictions on mass media, muzzling of
opposition voices, constitutional changes to further centralisation of powers, and flawed elections
• Factors which didn’t help consolidation of Democracy: Soviet Legacy( trauma of USSR
disintegration),Economic turmoil, weak institutional mechanism, political culture, ‘path
dependency’, Continued Oligarchy, Oil economy( windfall rent cutting popular accountability)
• Democracy Index: Russia at 134, along with Congo, is rated as Authoritative
Democratization in post-Authoritarian states
• Many of these were post-colonial states which reverted back from democracy in 1960s,
such as Ghana, Pakistan or South east Asian states-Taiwan, south Korea, Indonesia,
Thailand, etc
• Common pattern of Democratization:
• Many of these states are post-colonial states which could not hold on to democratic rule for long
• Most of them were led by strong charismatic leader who headed a single party authoritarian govt
• The authoritarian Govt was run by small minority of Elites supported by Military and Bureaucracy
• Many of them did well on economic and social welfare fronts, prolonging their regimes
• During 3rd wave of democracy, growing middle class, civil society, and opposition leaders increased
pressure with the help of International communities, INGO to bring back democracy
• Globalization also helped the democratization process
• Divergence in democratization process
• Fast face of economic development created suitable conditions in South East Authoritarian states
• Whereas social unrest, internal crisis, external influence, etc supported democratization in post-colonial
authoritarian states
• Democracy Index:
• Consolidation of Democracy is most likely in south eastern Asian countries but still a big challenge in post
colonial states
• South Korea is at 23 (higher than USA!), Taiwan at 31, Malaysia at 43, (India at 45), Philippines at 54,
Indonesia at 64 are categorized as Flawed Democracy
• Whereas Ghana and most of sub-Sharan democracies are rated lower as either flawed or Hybrid Regime
Democratization in Post-authoritarian States- Case of South Korea
• 1948, South Korea, south of Korea Peninsula, gained independence from Japanese rule
• 1950 the Korean War broke out. After much destruction, the war ended in 1953 with stabilization of two
Korea- Communist North and Capitalist South
• The country adopted democracy in its 1st republic constitution but became increasingly autocratic until
its collapse in 1960
• Second Republic was strongly democratic, but was overthrown in less than a year and replaced by an
autocratic military regime. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Republics were regarded as the continuation of
military rule.
• However, the authoritarian govt did land reforms, invested agricultural surpluses in Industry, invested
heavily in Infrastructure, education, technology, and skill development.
• GNP increased by more than 52 times from 1950 to 1995!
• Such impressive economic development created strong middle and working class, which increased
pressure for democratization
• This led to weakening of ‘ Pact of domination’ between ruling elites, undermining the social bases of
authoritative regime
• Due to export led growth, its economy was integrated to global capital market. Hence, international
pressure from USA led capitalist power further supported domestic pressure for democratization
• Finally, 3rd wave of democracy in 1980s caused demonstration effect
• In 1987, South Korea adopted new 6th Republic Constitution, establishing liberal democracy of
Presidential type on the pattern of USA
Sum Up
• Democratization denotes change or transition of previously non-democratic
regime towards democracy
• Democratization happened in waves, in bunch. Huntington identified 3 such
waves- 1st-1828-1926; 2nd- 1942-1962; 3rd-1974-2000
• Regimes which saw democratization- Authoritarian, Post-Colonial, and Totalitarian
Communist and post-communist states
• Many of post-colonial states which adopted democracy reverted back to autocracy
in 1960s- 2nd reverse wave; many of them were re0democratized during 3rd wave
• Democratization in post-communist states has been divergent. Central and Eastern
European nations swiftly democratized, but erstwhile USSR republics are slow in
adopting democracy, many of them especially central Asian republics continue to
be authoritative
• Authoritative states of SE Asia moved to democracy leading the path of impressive
economic growth whereas other authoritarian states of sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia are still struggling to consolidate the re-acquired democratic status.
References
• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic
• T. Landman, (2003) ‘Transition to Democracy’, in Issues and Methods of Comparative Methods: An
Introduction. London: Routledge, pp. 185-215.
• K. Newton, and J. Deth, (2010) ‘Democratic Change and Persistence’, in Foundations of Comparative Politics:
Democracies of the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53-67.
• J. Haynes, (1999) ‘State and Society’, in The Democratization. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 20-38; 39-63.
• B. Smith, (2003) ‘Democratization in the Third World’, in Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of
Political Change and Development. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.250-274.

• Materials available on WWW

• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sixth-Republic
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
• file:///C:/Users/pankaj%20kumar/Downloads/Botchway542018ARJASS39713.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia#International_recognition_of_the_breakup
• http://www.lse.ac.uk/fmg/assets/documents/papers/discussion-papers/DP758.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-communism
• http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/lcs/kiyou/pdf_23-4/RitsIILCS_23.4pp.31-48Peijuan.pdf
• J STOR article : The Future of Russian Democracy by Richard Sakwa:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44482210?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
PLZ POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH COMMENTS!
Email: dupolschelp2018@gmail.com

GOOD LUCK !
FEDERALISM
Meaning, Models, Debates
POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAM HELP
 PAST YEAR’S QUESTIONS
Syllabus: Federalism: Historical context Federation and Confederation:
debates around territorial division of power.

Q1: What do you understand by Federal System? Examine the significance of

federalism in the context of territorial division of power.

Q2: Define Federalism. Discuss various models of Federalism.

Q3: Survival of Federalism becomes a concern in the presence of strong local and
International forces” In light of this statement discuss challenges faced by Federal
systems in our times

Q4: How is federalism different from a confederation? Compare nature of Indian

federalism different from American Federalism.
Meaning of Federalism
• Political idea or device marked by combination of shared rule and self-rule within a unified political
system
• ‘self-rule plus shared rule’ : Shared rule through a federal/central govt for common purposes and self rule
for constituent units (Regional or State Govt.). (Daniel Elazar)
• Political system within a State in which there are at least two layers of government, both drawing
power & autonomy from a written constitution that is subject to specific amendment procedures
and judicial review
• A political device through which social cleavages and social diversities are managed and articulated
• Political arrangement to balance nationalism and regionalism, when people want unity or union but
only to certain extent for some common purposes, preserving their local identity, culture, interests,
and autonomy.
• Based on the presumed value and validity of combining unity in diversity, i.e. accommodating,
preserving, and promoting distinct local identities within a larger unified political system.
• A incomplete state formation wherein an emerging nation-state the strong are not strong enough
to vanquish the weak and the weak are not strong enough to go their own way (L.Rubin & M
Freeley)
• Denoting divided sovereignty and divided territoriality in contrast to classical Westphalian Nation-
State having unified sovereignty and unified territoriality
• A federation is one species adopting federal principles; other species are unions, confederations,
leagues and decentralized unions—and hybrids such as the present European Union (Elazar 1987,
Watts 1998).
Features
• Based upon federal principles of territorial divisions of power between at least two layers of Govt,
each Govt drawing power & autonomy from Constitution and directly rule citizen
• Citizens thus have political obligations to, or have their rights secured by, two govts.
• Separation of powers: clearly written in constitution which is not easy to amend, especially the
clauses related to federal structure
• Supremacy of Constitution representing General Will and Popular Sovereignty- ‘Living
Constitutions’
• Independent and strong Judiciary to interpret constitution, review constitutional amendments,
and adjudicate dispute between constituent units(states) and federal Govt(Centre)
• Based of principles of federalism, each federal political system(Federation) is unique in the way
how federalism is institutionalized and practiced
• Amount of federalism vary across federations. Generally, More diverse the Society, more ‘federal’
the federation
• Federalism is reflected in federal party system, federal political economy, and federal social
structure- federal society
CONFEDERATION
• Confederation is a political order with a weaker center than a federation, often
dependent on the constituent units.
• Typical Features of Confederations:
• Member units may legally exit the confederation - Brexit
• The center or common government only exercises authority delegated by member units
• The center is subject to member unit veto on many issues
• Center decisions bind member units but not citizens directly
• The center lacks an independent fiscal or electoral base
• The member units do not cede authority permanently to the center.
• Confederations are often based on agreements between nation-states for specific tasks, and
the common government may be managed by delegates of the member unit governments.
• Ex: the North American states during 1776–1787, Switzerland 1291–1847, and
the present European Union.
Federation Vs Confederations
Federations Confederations
• A kind of political system and govt structure • Union or association of sovereign nation-
within a nation-state states, for some common purposes.
• Strong Federal govt over and above the • Weak central authority: No confederal govt
regional govt
• Constituent units are sovereign and may leave
• Constituent units are not sovereign and may at will
not leave at will • Organs of Confederation have no power over
• uniting not only member units, but also the citizens of member states
citizenry directly. • Decisions are not law binding on constituent
• Decisions are binding on constituent units units
• Vertical inter-governmental arrangement • Horizontal Inter-governmental arrangement
• Federation- nation state not the Constituent • Constituent units- nation –state, not the
units confederation
• Decisions by Majority • Decisions by Consensus
• Ex: USA, India, Canada, Brazil • Ex: EU, ASEAN, SAARC, NAFTA
Historical Evolution of Federalism
• Ancient Times
• About 3200 years ago, first documented federal system among Israelis tribes
• Vajji confederacy in Ancient India. Confederation of Bedouin tribes and native north American tribes
• League of Hellenic City-states in ancient Greece
• Roman Republic was a kind of federal system, city-states- constituent units

• Medieval Times
• Loose confederations of Self-governing cities in Germany & Northern Italy and Cantons in Switzerland (1291 AD)
• Late 16th Century: confederation in Netherland; Confederation of Deccan Sultans of Bijapur, Golkunda, Berar,
Bidar, Ahmednagar
• Reformation movement validated ideas of federalism on which reconstructed Holy Roman Empire was based
• British settlement in New England in North America had sort of federal system

• Modern Times
• 1789: USA first modern federal state ;1848: Swiss federation; 1867: Canada became 3rd modern federation
• 1871: German federation ; 1901: Australia became federation;
• 19th Century: Latin American nations- Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela adopted federalism upon gaining
independences adopting USA model
• 2nd Half of 20th Century: Emergence of post-colonial federal states: India(1950), Burma(1948), Indonesia(1949),
Malaysia(1963), Nigeria(1954), Ethiopia(1952), Congo(1960), Cameroon(1961), United Arab Emirate(1971)
• In Europe, too, many new federations came into being: Czechoslovakia(1970), Yugoslavia(1946), Austria(1945),
Germany(1949)
Models of Federalism
• On the basis of type of government system
• Parliamentary model- Canada, Australia, India
• Presidential model- USA, Switzerland, Brazil
• Hybrid Model-Spain, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Pakistan
• On the basis of Power division & relation between Federal and Regional govt
• Dual Federalism
• Cooperative Federalism
• Competitive Federalism
• Creative Federalism
• Fiscal Federalism
• On the basis of evolution/formation
• Coming-together federation :USA, Canada, Australia, Switzerland
• Holding-together federation: India, Belgium and Spain
• On the basis of Power divisions among constituent units
• Symmetric : same power to all constituent units
• Asymmetric federalism: special powers to some constituent units
 Presidential Vs Parliamentary Models of Federalism
Presidential Model - USA Parliamentary Model- India
• Best represented by USA, Switzerland– • Best Represented by Canada, India ;
Coming together federations kinds of holding together Federation
• Dual sovereignty and Dual citizenship – • Were British colonies , adopted
much more powers to States Westminster model of Parliamentary
• Separate flag and constitution of States System
• Directly elected powerful Senate having • Single Citizenship, Single Flag, residual
equal representation of States powers to Federal Govt (except Australia)
• Residual powers vest in States • More centralization and powers to Federal
• Strict separation of Power, Affinity for Govt.
Direct Democracy(Initiation, recall, • Overlap between Executive and
referendum), Executive Presidency, Legislature- No strict separation of Powers
Judicial review ; Executives dominating the Parliament
• Survival of Govt not dependent upon • Representative Democracy, Supremacy of
majority of ruling party in Parliament, Parliament, Less of Direct Democracy
hence less disciplined unified Party system • Indirectly elected and less powerful
• Other federations on this model : Brazil, federal second of parliament representing
Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria States (Except Australia)
• Other federations on this model:
Australia, Malaysia, South Africa
Types of Federalism on the basis of Power division &
relation between Federal and Regional govt

• Dual Federalism- layer-cake model

• Equal and separate powers to Federal and State Govt;
• No interference by either Govt in others affairs
• Creative Federalism- Pocket Fence model
• More power to and responsibility of Federal Govt, which works as Welfare State
• State Govt virtually working as decentralized unit of federal Govt
• Cooperative Federalism- marble cake model
• Federal and State Govt work together to solve common problems
• Federal Govt makes plan, policies, provide fiscal grant, technical support, etc
• Competitive Federalism
• Competition between State Govt and between Federal & State Govt in Policy initiatives,
Implementation, social welfare schemes, Economic Development, etc
• Fiscal Federalism
• Levy, division and spending of Tax revenue between Federal and State Govt.
Pros and Cons of Federalism
Pluses Minuses
• Help maintain Unity in Diversity • Half way house –neither strong centre nor regions
• More innovative policies and their diffusion • Sub-national feeling, son of the soil,
• learning from ‘experiments in living'. parochialization, identity politics
• Multiple Policy arenas for civil society/social • centralised responses difficult
movements • Difficult to take quick decisions on issues of
• Better Checks and Balances national importance
• Federations can promote economic prosperity • Regional disparity in socio-economic development
• 13 of top 20 economies are federations- better • Race- to-the- Bottom syndrome
results on socio-economic fronts
• Challenges from both ‘local’ and ‘Global’ forces
• Flexible, adaptable, and dynamic political system
• Confrontation/competition between national and
• Federations may foster peace regional govt
• protect individuals against political authorities • Holding together or Stability difficult- breaking up
• offer more choices and political participation to of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, USSR, Pakistan
citizen
• Better protect minorirt rights
Challenges to Federalism
• Sub-nationalism, especially ethnic and Linguistic
• Security Threat of external aggression/war/terrorism- lead to centralization
• Regional Alliances of states, such as EU, or common market(NAFTA), and
globalization may strain federalism
• Deep entrenched and overlapping social cleavages such as religious or
ethnic minorities
• Constituent units on Boarder and Frontier
• Regional disparity in development- regionalism
• Party system : different parties ruling Center and States- more divergence,
confrontation, strain on federalism ; same party ruling- centralization
• Judicial Activism: may lead to centralizing tendencies
Sum Up
• Federalism is a political idea of having combination of shared and self-rule within a unified
political system
• Federations are nation-states adopting federalism; 25 nation-states representing 40 % of world’s
population are federations
• Confederations, also based on idea of federalism, are loose association of sovereign nation-states
for some common and specific purposes
• Federations adopted, institutionalized, and practiced federalism in many different ways resulting
into multiple models of Federalism
• Presidential vs parliamentary federalism, Dual, cooperative, creative, competitive, fiscal, coming
together vs holding together, symmetrical vs asymmetrical, etc are various models of federalism
• Pluses: unity in diversity, promote peace & prosperity, better checks & balance, protect minority
and individual’s rights, more choice and participation
• Minuses: half way house, stability a challenge, centralised responses difficult, Identity politics
• Challenges: stability, local and global forces, Deep entrenched and overlapping social cleavages,
regional disparity, fragmented party system, centralizing tendencies of unified judiciary
References
• Recommended reading list of DU on this topic
• M. Burgess, (2006) Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge,
pp. 135-161.
• R. Watts, (2008) ’Introduction’, in Comparing Federal Systems. Montreal and Kingston:
McGill Queen’s University Press, pp. 1-27
• R. Saxena, (2011) ‘Introduction’, in Saxena, R (eds.) Varieties of Federal Governance:
Major Contemporary Models. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, pp. xii-x1.

• Web Portals:
• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#State_ref
usals_to_assist_in_enforcement_of_federal_law
• file:///C:/Users/pankaj%20kumar/Downloads/federalism.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
YOU CAN POST YOUR QUERIES THROUGH EMAIL
DUPOLSCHELP2018@GMAIL.COM

GOOD WISHES !