Semester-I

Course Code: POLS 102

Comparative Politics: Approaches and processes

Objectives: The course aims to introduce students to various approaches of Comparative politics and building
up of their understanding in analyzing political systems and processes in a comparative manner. The course will throw
light on various political systems, working of political parties and pressure groups in a polity as well as on the
importance of political participation and determinants of voting behavior in different countries.
Outcome: The students are expected to develop better understanding about various approaches to study
different political systems and have a deeper view and capacity to analyze various political institutions and processes.
UNIT-I: COMPARATIVE POLITICS
1. Evolution, Meaning, Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
2. Comparative Methods and its Limitations
3. Approaches to Study Comparative Politics: (i) Traditional Approaches: Historical Approach, Constitutional
Legal Approach, Institutional Approach; (ii) Modem Approaches; Systems Approach, Structural Functional
Approach, Marxist Approach, Political Economy Approach, New Institutionalism
UNIT-II: TYPOLOGIES / CLASSIFICATION OF POLITICAL SYSTEM
1. Meaning of Political System and its Typologies
2. Democratic Political Systems: Liberal democratic. Electoral, Majoritarian , Participatory
3. Non- Democratic: Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Military Dictatorship
UNIT-III: POLITICAL PARTIES AND PRESSURE GROUPS
1. Evolution, Meaning, Nature and Functioning Strategies of Political Parties.
2. Comparative Study of support base of Political Parties of U.K, U.S.A. and India.
3. Meaning and role of Pressure groups in Political systems. Pressure Groups in India.
UNIT-IV: POLITICAL PROCESSES
1. Political Participation:- Its Meaning and Importance
2. Forms of Political Participation in U.K, USA, and India
3. Voting Behavior and its Determinants, Patterns of Voting Behavior in India, USA and UK
Suggested Readings:
• Bhushan, Vidya, Comparative Politics, New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 2000.
• Biswal, Tapan (ed.). Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes, Delhi: Macmillan Publishers, 2013.
• Blondel, Jean, Comparative Politics, New York: Free Press, 1963.
• Blum, W.T., Theories of Political Systems, New Delhi; Prentice Hall, 1981.
• Caramani, Daniele (ed.). Comparative Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
• Dahl, Roben A., Pluralist Democracy in the United States, Calcutta: Scientific Books, 1969.
• Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their origin and Activities in Modern State, London; John Yiley, 1954.
• Eckstine, H. and Apter, David, Comparative Politics: A Reader. New York: Free Press, 1963.
• Gena, C.B., Comparative Politics and Political Institutions, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 2014.
• Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, 5th Edition, New
York: Palgrave, 2001.
• Johari, J.C., Comparative Politics, Latest Revised edition, New Delhi; Sterling Publishers.
• Landman, Todd, Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, London: Routledge, 2000.
• Macridis, C R. and Ward, R.E., Major Political Systems, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963.
• Milbarth, Lester W. and Goel, M.L., Political Participation, Chicago: Rand Mcnally College, 1977.
• Mukherjee, Subarta and Ramaswamy, Sushila, Theoretical Foundations of comparative Politics, Delhi:Orient
Blackswan, 2017.
• Palekar, S.A., Comparative Politics and Government, Delhi: PHI Learning, 2009.
• Palombara, Joseph La and Weiner, Myron (eds.). Political Parties and Political Development, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966.
• Ray, S.N., Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues, New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
• Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis, Cambridge; Cambridge University
Press, 1976.
*****
1
 Unit-I
Lesson-1
Meaning, Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics

Structure
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Learning Objectives
1.2 Meaning and Definitions of Comparative Politics
1.3 Nature of Comparative Politics
1.4 Features of Comparative Politics
1.5 Difference between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics
1.6 Scope of Comparative Politics
1.7 Development of Comparative Politics
1.8. Difficulties in the way of comparative politics
1.9 Let us sum up
1.10 Glossary
1.11 Answer to Self Check Exercise
1.12 Suggested Readings
1.13 Terminal Questions
1.0 Introduction
Comparative Politics as a subject developed only in the 1950’s when the American political scientist took to the
study of Political systems in place of foreign governments. They took to the study of the political organizations or
political systems of different countries with a view to identify the similarities and dis-similarities. Comparative
politics helps the citizens to gain knowledge about the various political systems and develop their own institutions in
the light of experience of other countries. The study of comparative politics is also, important because it helps us to
classify and interpret the data at our disposal and to draw generalizations.
The study of comparative politic is often traced to the times of Plato and Aristotle. In fact it was Aristotle who
first of all adopted certain methods of comparative study which were identical to the present day political studies.
After Aristotle, philosophers like Cicero, Polybius, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, J.S, Mill, Laski etc also made
comparative study of governments and tries to classify and analyse the political institutions. But the credit for making
a systematic analysis of the political institutions goes to writers like Finer, Fredrich, Bryce etc. These writers shifted
emphasis from structure and power of government to comparative study of the present role and theoretical analysis
for the future. However, the most significant contribution to development of comparative politics was made by
scholars like David Easton, GA. Almond, Karl Deutsch, Harold Lasswell, Robert Dahal and Jean Blondel etc. They
developed new methods for the study of politics because they were disappointed and dissatisfied with the traditional
methods of the study of comparative politics.
Comparative Politics differs from comparative government in several aspects. The study of comparative politics
has great value. It helps us to understand the actual working of the political institutions of various countries and helps
us to comprehend why certain institutions work successfully in some countries and not in other countries.
Further it helps us to understand why political institutions of the same type do not work in identical manner in all
countries. This approach helps us to comprehend how the working of political institutions is influenced by the social,
economic and cultural factors. .
1.1 Learning Objectives
After going through this chapter you will be able to:-
• Understand the meaning and definition of Comparative Politics.
• Know the features and scope of Comparative Politics.
• Explain the difficulties in the way of Comparative Politics.

2
1.2 Meaning and Definitions of Comparative Politics
The study of Comparative Politics involves conscious comparisons in studying political experience, behaviour of
Political Structures and processes of the system of government in a comprehensive manners. It also includes the
study of extra-constitutional agencies having their immediate connection, open or tacit, with formal governmental
organs. It is, therefore, concerned with significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political
institutions and in the patterns of political behaviour.
Definition
Some popular definitions of Comparative Politics are as under:-
According to M.G Smith, “Comparative Politics is the study of the forms of political organisations, their
properties, correlations, variations and modes of change.”
According to Roy C. Macridis and Robert Ward, “Government is not the sole concern of students of comparative
politics. Comparative Politics, no doubt, has to be concerned with the government structure, but at the same time, it
has to take note of: (i) society, historical heritage and geographic and resources endowed, its social and economic
organizations, its ideologies and value systems, and its political style; and (ii) its parties, interests and leadership
structure.
According to M. Curtis. “Comparative Politics is concerned with significant regularities, similarities and
differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviour.”
According to Braibante, “Comparative Politics is the identification and the interpretation of factors in the
whole social order which appear to affect whatever political functions and their institutions which have been identified
and listed for comparison.”
On the basis of all these definitions, we can say that Comparative Politics, in its contemporary form, involves a
comparative study of not only the formal institutional and mechanistic arrangements but also analysis of non-
institutionalized and non-political determinants of politics, such as culture or the socio-economic arrangements
within which the political systems operate. Empirical study of political processes, structures and functions forms a
major feature of comparative politics studies. Comparative Politics seeks to build a scientific and valid theory of
politics capable of explaining all phenomena of politics in all parts of the world.
1.3 Nature of Comparative Politics
Comparative Politics seeks to analyse and compare the political systems operating in all societies. In doing so it
takes into account all the three connotations of politics - political activity, political process and political power.
Political activity consists of all the activities involved in conflict-resolution or in the struggle for power. Since
the basic means of conflict-resolution is the authoritative allocation of values, Politics involves an analysis of the
process by which the authoritative values are made and implemented. In this sense, politics stands for political process.
It involves the study of all formal as well as non-formal structures, the governmental and non-state structures’ through
which the political process gets operationalised. The political process receives information and signals from the
environment and then transforms these into authoritative values.
Finally, politics being a struggle for power and a process of conflict resolution through the use of legitimate
power, it involves a study of power or power relations in society. Lasswell describes politics as the process of
shaping and sharing of power. Robert Dahl holds that Politics involves power, rule and authority to a significant
extent. Hence the study of Politics naturally involves the study of power/power relations and interactions.
As such, Comparative Politics involves a comparative study of political activity, political process and struggle for
power in various political systems. The traditional focus on comparison of formal political institutions has come to
be transformed into a study of all structures and functions of politics. It seeks to analyse and compare political
systems as a whole as well as through their structures, functions and processes.
1.4 Features of Comparative Politics
(1) Analytical and Empirical Study of Politics: Contemporary Comparative Politics studies give more stress
on empirical research. It is no longer confined to descriptive studies. It seeks to analyse, empirically and analytically,
the actual activities of the governments and their structures and functions. It stands for scientific and empirical
studies of politics. Facts of human political behaviour are the objects of study.
2. Objectivity as a Goal: Comparative Politics involves as empirical study of the various processes of politics in
different environments. It advocates value-neutrality in study. Only those values are admitted whose validity can be
scientifically demonstrated. It concentrates on the study of what is and not what should be. It rejects the traditional
normative prescriptive approach of the traditional political science. Its aim is to develop an empirical and objective
theory of politics capable of explaining and comparing all phenomena of politics.
3
 3. Emphasis on the study of Infrastructure of Politics: Comparative Politics now seeks to analyse the actual
behaviour of individuals, groups, structures, sub-systems and systems in relation to the environment in which the
behaviour manifests. It is not confined to the study of formal structures of government in terms of their legal power
and functions. It seeks to analyse their behaviour in the environment. To study the dynamics of politics - its actual
operation in the environment - is regarded as the essential feature of comparative politics. It also studies all such non-
political structures which influence the operation of politics.
4. Inter-disciplinary Focus: Comparative Politics accepts the desirability and need for adopting inter-disciplinary
focus. It accepts the need to study politics in an interdisciplinary focus, i.e., the study of politics with the help of the
knowledge of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and other social sciences. Political behaviour is a
part of the general social behaviour and is intimately related to all other aspects of human behaviour. As such, it can be
systematically analysed only with reference to other social sciences.
5. Study of Political Processes in both Developed and Developing Countries: Whereas in its traditional
form, Comparative Politics involved only the study of the political systems of the developed societies, in contemporary
times, it lays great stress on the study of the political systems of developing societies as well. The biased and parochical
nature of traditional studies stands replaced by all-embracing studies of developing as well as developed societies.
Study of political systems of Asia, Africa and Latin America enjoys equal importance with American and European
political systems. Modem political scientists, like Almond, Coleman, Sidney Verba, David Easton, Powell and Edward
Shills, have given considerable, rather added, importance to the study of politics of the developing societies. It has
been accepted by all the political scientists that Comparative Politics must include all political systems of our times,
developed as well as developing, European as well as non-European, and major as well as minor. Each political system
is a laboratory which can provide us useful insights into the process of politics and provides information and data
which can provide valuable threads for knitting the theory of politics. Comparative Politics places due emphasis on
the study of such processes as policy-making, decision-making, election process, voting behaviour, political
participation and others.
6. Both Horizontal and Vertical Comparisons: Comparative Politics involves both a comparative study of the
political structures and functions of national political systems of various states and also a comparative study of the
political structures and sub-systems at work within a single state. The former exercise is called horizontal comparative
studies and the latter as vertical comparative studies. Traditionally, under comparative governments, emphasis was
placed only upon horizontal comparative studies. In Comparative Politics equal importance is given to both types of
comparisons.
7. Scientific Theory-Building as the Goal: The objective of the study of Comparative Politics is not only to
make comparative studies of the similarities and dissimilarities of different political systems but also to build a
theory of politics. Scientific theory building is its objective.
8. Conceptualization of Politics as a Political System: Comparative Politics has virtually adopted, and all
scholars studying Comparative Politics accept, the concept of system for the study of Politics. The concept of
Political system stands adopted as a new analytical tool which enables the political scientists to study politics
comprehensively, realistically and empirically. It is used both for macro and micro, and horizontal and vertical studies
of politics. It is a very useful tool for comparative studies of political systems, their structures, functions and processes.
The use of the concept of Political System has revolutionized comparative politics studies.
With all these features, Comparative Politics is almost a new science of politics. It rejects the non-comprehensive
scope, formal character, legal and institutional framework, normative and prescriptive approach and parochial nature
of the traditional comparative government. It involves a comprehensive, precise and realistic study of politics, capable
explaining and comparing all phenomena of politics in all parts of the globe.
1.5 Difference between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics
In order to be fully clear about the nature of Comparative Politics, it is essential that we should compare it with
Comparative Government and know the distinction between two. Comparative Politics has a wider scope, analytical-
empirical approach and scientific theory-building as its objective. It stands for analysing the Politics in all political
system-European, Asian, African and Latin American. As against this, Comparative Government involves the traditional
way of concentrating upon the study of legal powers and functions of political institutions. Its scope is narrow and
approach is normative descriptive.
The major differences between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics can be identified as:
1. Comparative Government is older than Comparative Politics, Comparative Government is the traditional
way of studying politics, whereas Comparative Politics is the modem way of studying it.
4
 2. Comparative Government is normative and prescriptive. Comparative Politics is analytical and largely
value free.
3. Comparative Government has a narrow scope. It involves the study of the state and formal political
institutions. Comparative Politics has a very wide and comprehensive scope. It involves the study of all
structures, functions and processes of politics at work in all parts of the globe.
4. Comparative Government depends upon historical, legal, institutional and philosophical approaches and
methods. Comparative Politics depends upon scientific empirical methods of study.
5. Comparative Government fails to give due place to the study of the environment of political institutions.
Comparative Politics gives due and big importance to the study of the environment and infra-structure of
politics.
6. Comparative Government ignores the importance of interdisciplinary focus. Comparative Politics accepts
fully the importance of interdisciplinary focus and in all its studies uses this focus.
7. While description has been the goal of Comparative Governments, explanation and prediction have been
the goals of Comparative Politics.
8. Comparative Government has been parochially oriented towards European political systems. Comparative
Politics accepts the need for the study of all political systems European and Non- European, Western and
Eastern, and developed as well as developing.
9. Comparative Government seeks to build a theory’ of ideal political institutions. Comparative Politics seeks
to build a scientific theory of politics.
Comparative Politics has a wider scope and follows empirical analytical approach whereas Comparative Government
stands for a normative, descriptive and legalistic study of formal political institutions.
We can say, Comparative Politics is concerned with the significant regularities, similarities and differences in the
working of political institutions and in political behaviour. It uses the scientific method of study. Comparative
Government on the other hand stands for descriptive and theoretical studies of political institutions of the state.
1.6 Scope of Comparative Politics
Today, comparative politics has secured a very wide scope. It, in fact, includes all that comes within the purview of
politics. It includes the study of all political processes, political activities and power relations found in every part of
the globe - comparative study of the regularities, similarities and differences among the structures and functions of
all political systems. The following topics form the subject-matter of Comparative Politics:—
1. Political Structures- The scope of Comparative Politics includes the study of all structures formal and informal,
governmental and extra-governmental, which are directly or indirectly involved in the struggle for power taking place
in all the states. It is not confined to the study of the three governmental organs - legislature, executive and judiciary’.
Along with these. Bureaucracy, Interest- Groups, Pressure Groups, Elites, Political Parties and other associations of
human beings form part of the scope of Comparative Politics.
2. Political Functions- Comparative Politics seeks to study politics less from the point of view of the legal
institutions in terms of their powers and more from the point of view of the functions which constitute the political
process and their actual operation in the environment. It studies the functions of interest articulation, interest
aggregation, political communication, rule-making, rule- application, rule adjudication, socialisation, decision -making,
policy-making, etc.
3. Study of Human Behaviour in Politics- Another important part of the scope of Comparative Politics is the
study of the scope of the actual behaviour of the people in the process of politics. Voting behaviour, political
participation, leadership recruitment, elite behaviour, mass politics, populism etc. form an integral part of the study
of comparative politics.
4. Study of Similarities and Differences in the behaviour of Political Institutions- Comparative Politics
also undertakes an analysis of the similarities and differences between various political processes and functions.
However, the approach is not descriptive, legalistic and formalistic. It is on the basis of actual functioning of political
structures and processes that the similarities and dissimilarities are explained, analysed and compared. The objective
is not to decide which is the best process or system. The objective is systematic explanation, understanding and
theory building.
5. Study of all Political Systems- Comparative Politics seeks to analyse the actual behaviour and performance
of political systems—Western as well as non-Western. The political systems are analysed and compared in terms of
their structures, functions, capabilities and performance. Here again, the objective is not to decide which political
system is the best, the objective is to understand the actual working of various political systems with a view to
gathering systematic knowledge for theory building.
5
 6. Study of the Infra-structure of Political System- The study of Politics demands a study of the psychological,
sociological, economic and anthropological factors, in fact, the social environment in which each political system
operates. For studying this, the political scientists have developed several concepts like political culture, political
socialization, political modernization etc. The study of the political culture of various political systems forms a very
popular focus in comparative politics. Study of the Infra-structure of politics forms a very important part of the scope
of Comparative Politics. This concept has definitely enhanced the ability of political scientists to explain and compare
the functioning of various political systems. It has further helped them to analyse the differences in the working of
similar political systems and the gaps between micro-politics and macro-politics in various states.
7. Study of Political Culture- Political Culture is composed of attitudes, beliefs, emotions and values of a
society that relate to the political system and to political issues. These beliefs and values influence the working of
each political system, its successes and failures. The study of Political Culture is an important part of the scope of
Comparative Politics. Political Culture constitutes the sociological environment of each political system and hence
deserves full attention.
8. Study of Political Socialisation- Political Socialisation is the process by which an Individual acquires his
Political Culture. The study of political socialisation is also included in the scope of comparative politics because
the success and failure of many political systems depend upon this process. It is the process by which Political
Cultured are maintained and changed.
9. Study of Political Participation and Voting Behaviour of the People- Political Participation is a universal
feature. The only difference is that in some states (Authoritarian States), it is limited while in others (Democratic
states) its scope is very vast. Political participation provides legitimacy to the administration and brings stability in it
because an administration which is based on the consent and will of the people and where the participation of the
people is wider is likely to be more legitimate and stable. The student of comparative politics seeks to know how
political participation influences the functional aspect of political systems in different states. Moreover, he also
tries to know the factors which determine political participation and their role.
10. Study of Political Pressure Groups and Political Elites- Several groups are found in every political
system. Some of them are formed voluntarily by individuals for fulfilling some special and common objectives, e.g.,
Political Parties, Interest Groups and Pressure Groups, and some other groups. Brides, there are some groups which
come into existence suddenly due to a particular event and remain in existence for a short period. These groups
reflect the wishes of the people through public meetings, symbols, programmes, demonstrations, etc. and influence
the working of the political system. Political Parties contest elections, form government, criticize government, etc.
There is a one-party system in some socialist countries like China and there is two-party or a multi-party system in
democratic countries. The nature of the party system in different states and activities of other groups vastly influences
their political system. Therefore, the student of Comparative Politics comprehensively study the structure, working
and policy-programmes of these groups.
11. Study of Power, Influence, Authority and Legitimacy- Modem political scientists lay special emphasis on
the study of ‘Power’. ‘Influence’ and ‘Authority’ and use these concepts for distinguishing political systems. Therefore,
the study of the concepts of Power, Influence, Legitimacy and Authority is also included in the subject-matter of
Comparative Politics.
12. Study of all Political Processes- Political processes like Decision-making, Policy-making, Judicial Process,
Leadership recruitment process and others are always at work in all political systems. The actual working of every
political system depends upon these processes. Therefore, comparative study of various political processes is also a
part of the scope of Comparative Politics.
Thus, the scope of Comparative Politics has become very broad. It includes everything that falls within the purview
of political activity and political process. It seeks to study all mechanisms of politics with a view to build a science of
politics capable of explaining and comparing all political activities, processes, and systems. It involves the study of
all structures and functions, which directly or indirectly, vigorously or passively, affect and characterise the political
processes in all the states. Political Behaviour, Political Culture, Political Socialisation, Decision-making, Power-
struggle, Interest Groups, Political Parties, Elites, Direct Action, Public Protests, violence, urbanization, modernisaion,
power etc, are all included in the scope of politics.
1.7 Development of Comparative Politics
As a field of study comparative politics is as old as politics. Ever since man became conscious of his environment
and felt interested in studying his environment and institutions. He also became interested in studying how other men
living in different societies were living and which way of living was better than the other. As a part of this exercise, the
6
students of politics naturally started studying and comparing the governments and political institutions of various
societies. Their endeavour came to be characterised as comparative governments which, with the passage of time,
came to be developed into a science of comparative politics.
Its importance has immensely increased in contemporary times because of the new opportunities provided by the
existence of more than 160 states managed by a variety of political structures and functions as well as due to the
development of several new concepts, tools and approaches for the conduct of comparative studies.
The study of comparative governments and politics can be traced back to the fourth century B.C. when Aristotle
made a study of 158 constitutions of Greek city-states and offered classification based on the principles of number
of people wielding power and the nature of government.
After Aristotle a number of other thinkers made valuable contributions to the study of comparative government
and politics. These include Polybius (201-120 B.C.), Cicero (106-43 B.C.), Machiavelli (1469-1527), Montesquieu
(1689-1755), J.S. Mill (1806-1873), Freeman (1823-1892), James Bryce (1838-1922), etc. In the present century
also a number of writers made significant contribution to the development of comparative government and politics.
Some of the prominent writers who made contributions in this regard include Herman Finer (Theory and Practice of
Governments); C.J. Friedrich (Constitutional Government and Democracy) and E.M. Sait (Political Institution: A
Preface).
A new phase in the development of comparative government and politics started after the Second World War when
a number of writers like Almond, Coleman, Beer, Ulam Eckstein, Apter etc., adopted various approaches and tried to
study the political reality through new techniques. One major factor which contributed to the development of these
approaches was the widespread feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction with the traditional descriptive approaches
to the subject.
In recent years the study of comparative governments has grown and become a major branch of study with the
political scientists working on its problems and attempting syntheses. There is, however, no magic in comparative
politics by which the great problems of our times can be made to disappear. It is not a bag of tricks. The reason for
studying the governments comparatively is the same as the reason for studying the government at all i.e., to gain an
understanding of the state in all its aspects and to clarify problems and aid the citizens and the rulers.
1.8 Difficulties in the way of Comparative Politics
In the study of comparative politics, we find various difficulties. It is here Worthwhile to discuss the same as
under:
1. Inter-connections between Norms, Institutions and Behaviour- In the first instance, there are -difficulties
arising from the inter-connection between norms, institutions and behaviour which stem from the fact that some
governments exist naturally and other are imposed. Traditionally, this question was examined through the opposition
between constitution and “real” political life, this opposition is important, as no constitution will ever be fully
implemented. But the problem is more general. Constitutions are only one type of normative arrangement under
which countries can be organized. Constitution makers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries attempted to modify
societies in a certain way, generally in order to increase the liberal content of the government. To that extent, they
tried to impose rules, and constitutional rule is therefore, a form of imposed system of government, in that the
system might naturally, have developed otherwise. But other types of imposition also occur, though by different
means and in the name of different principles. The distinction between natural and imposed arrangements is thus a
problem for all political systems.
2. Range of Variables- The analysis will become precise only when it is possible to list and weigh the numerous
variables which enter into the ‘definition’ of a political system. But the list is impressive and the task is impossible to
calculate as many of these variables lack quantitative formalization and still appear truly heterogeneous; economic
conditions, social conditions, the climate, physical geography all seem to be a part of the ‘explanation’ of political
system and all have been used atone period or another by political scientists anxious to “explain” the norms, institutions
and behaviour of nations.. Single-variable explanations have ‘explanatory value only at levels of generality which
make them truly unusable. But multi-variable analysis requires a degree of operationalisation which few “factors” can
easily achieve in the realm of comparative politics.
3. The Problems of using Scientific Method are also problems of Comparative Politics Studies-
Hindrances in the way of application of Scientific Methods to human relations in society are also hindrances in
the way of Comparative Politics.
(a) The complexity of social data.

7
 (b) The problem of using the empirical method in the study of human political relations and interactions.
(c) The problem of verification of the generalization mode.
(d) The issue of explanation and prediction in politics.
(e) The dynamic nature of social phenomena.
(f) The problem of applying the scientific methods to the highly complex and dynamic political phenomena.
All these hindrances combine to create a big hindrance in the use of the scientific method in Comparative Politics.
However, gradually, political scientists have been overcoming these difficulties. Comparative Politics studies are
now becoming quite well organised and systematic.
4. Limitations of Empirical Study- Comparative Politics stands for scientific and empirical study of all
phenomena of politics. It gives rise to the problems associated with the observation and collection of facts. In particular,
this problem becomes bigger when one is to collect facts about the operation of authoritarian and totalitarian political
systems.
5. Dynamic Nature of Politics- Politics is an aspect of human behaviour and like human behaviour, it is also a
dynamic process. Further, a big gap which is always present in the theory and practice of all political systems, acts as
a big hindrance in the way of a realistic study of politics and scientific theory-building.
6. The Problem of Objectivity- Scientific and empirical study of Politics demands objectivity in the observation,
collection and analysis of the facts of the processes under study. It demands an ability to keep ones values and biases
away from the universe of the study. For this, the researcher has to maintain a high level of alertness and commitment
to maintain, as far as possible, objectivity. This requirement acts as a source of big hindrance in the way of Comparative
Politics studies.
Thus, there are present several problems and hindrances in the way of Comparative Politics studies. However,
these are being gradually overcome through conscious efforts on the part of modem political scientists by the
development of new concepts, new tools, dew approaches, models and theories.
1.9 Let us Sum Up
To conclude, we may say as M. Curtis has observed that the study of Comparative Politics “is at the heart of
contemporary political science.” It has undergone several meaningful developments in recent years. Its nature has
been becoming more and more systematic and its scope has been becoming comprehensive. However, it is still
developing. The way to develop Comparative Politics is to make more and more horizontal as well as vertical
comparative studies of all political systems. Comprehensiveness, realism and precision must guide our efforts. The
modem view must not totally ignore the traditional view of Comparative Politics. No study of political behaviour and
functions can be accomplished without the study of formal governmental institutions and their legal powers. Hence
neither only comparative government nor only comparative politics but the study of Comparative Politics and
Government should be the focus.
1.10 Glossary
● Descriptive - Statements given empirical facts, delineating characteristics and attributes.
● Normative - The prescription of values and standards of conduct, dealing with questions pertaining to
‘what should be’ rather than what is’.
● Theory - A definitive and logical statement (or groups of statements) about how the world ‘works’. Known
collectively as empirical theory (as opposed to normative theory), these statements makes clams about
relationship between variables that can be tested using systematic comparative analysis.
1.11 Answer to Check you Progress Exercises
Note: use the space given below for your answer.
Check you Progress 1
1. What do you understand by Comparative Politics?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................

8
 Check you Progress-2
2. What are the features that determine the nature and scope of comparative politics?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
1.12 Suggested Readings
● Tapan Biswal (ed.), Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Trinity, 2015).
● O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.).
● Hari Hara Das, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: National Publishing House).
● J.C. Johari, Comparative Politics (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.).
● Parmatma Sharan, Comparative Government and Politics (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan).
● Eddy Asirvathan and K.K. Misra, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors).
● A.C. Kapoor, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● S.C. Singhal, Political Theory (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarawal).
● V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.)
● Sri Ram Maheshwari, Comparative Government and Politics (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Aggarwal, 1985).
● Manoj Kumar, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis (New Delhi: Anmol Publication, 2004).
● Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered
(West view Press, 1994).
● Howard J. Wiarda, ‘Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the field in the Post cold War Era’
Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19 No.5.
● See also, Comparative Politics, Lesson-1 Old Study Material of M.A. Pol. Science, ICDEOL, PP. 2-6.
1.13 Terminal Objectives
1. What is Comparative Politics?
2. Define Comparative Politics? What is the subject matter of Comparative Politics?
3. What do you understand by Comparative Politics? Explain its Nature.
4. Discuss the meaning and scope of Comparative Politics?
5. Discuss briefly the difficulties which characterized the contemporary studies of comparative politics?

*****

9
 Lesson-2
Comparative Method : Its Nature and Limitations

Structure
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Learning Objectives
2.2 Meaning of Comparative Method
2.3 Traditional Comparative Method
2.4 Modern Comparative Method
2.5 Nature of Modern Comparative Method
2.6 Essentials of the Modern Scientific Comparative Method
2.6.1 Meaning of Conceptual Units
2.6.2 Classification
2.6.3 Formulation and Testing of Hypothesis
2.7 How and where to use Comparative Method
2.8 Advantages of Modern Comparative Method
2.9 Let us Sum Up
2.10 Glossary
2.11 Answer to Self Check Exercise
2.12 Suggested Readings
2.13 Terminal Questions
2.0 Introduction
Comparative Politics studies can be systematically and fruitfully conducted through the use of the comparative
method of investigation. Further, it is only through the use of the Scientific method that scientific theory-building
can be pursued. Traditionally the method of Normative-Description and Legalistic institutionalism which involved a
dependence upon History, Law and Philosophy was used for comparative politics studies because this method could
not satisfy its goals of comprehensiveness, realism, precision and scientific theory-building. Modem political scientists
began using the scientific method of study. This modem method of Comparative Politics has become very popular.
However in respect of study of some dimensions of Politics, the traditional-method is still being used. Let us study
both Traditional and Modem Comparative Methods.
2.1 Learning Objectives
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:-
• Understand the meaning of Comparative Method.
• Discuss the nature of Modern Comparative Method.
• Explain how and where to use Comparative Method.
• Understand the advantages of Modern Comparative Method.
2.2 Meaning and Definitions of Comparative Method
Before taking up the discussion of the meaning and nature of the comparative method, it must be clearly stated
that the field of operation of this method is not confined only to comparative studies. It is a method which can be and
which has been used since very ancient times for the study of all aspects of politics.
Definition: The Comparative Method stands for analysing systematically various processes of politics with a
view to secure systematic knowledge capable of explaining their nature and working. It involves collection,
classification, correlation and analysis of the facts of politics in various states, it seeks to scientifically establish the
similarities anti dissimilarities among various political systems and their structures, functions, sub-systems and
processes. On the basis of such analysis, it also attempts at a classification of political systems.
The Comparative Method, as Arend Ligphart has observed, “is one of the basic methods of establishing general
empirical propositions.
According to V.V. Dyke, “The Comparative Method consists in identifying similarities and differences. The process
is pervasive in political enquiry as in all enquiry. Finding that various phenomena are similar enough, we may group
10
them together and give them a label, which means that the comparative method enters into the process of concept
formation. By the same token, the identification of comparisons and contrasts is basic to classification. Analysing
the meaning of the Comparative Method, David M. Wood has observe “The only reason for including the term
comparative’ in the designation of the field is to emphasize that the responsibility which the field has to the discipline
of political science is to treat the political systems existing in the world as units tor comparison in the general quest
of theory-building and testing in political science. The student of comparative political systems, in other words, is
doing at the ‘macro’ level what all other political scientists are doing when they are attempting to advance the science
of politics : he is taking a number of instances of a particular type of political unit (in this case the nation state as a
political system), formulating propositions pertaining to all the instance he is examining, testing the validity of the
propositions for each of the instances (national political systems), and refining or abandoning his propositions on the
basis of the results. Other political scientists deal with other units of analysis, such as individual voters, legislators,
pressure groups, administrative agencies, or units of local government to the extent that they are attempting to expand
the body of political science knowledge; they too are being comparative.”
2.3 Traditional Comparative Method
The Comparative Method used by Aristotle and followed and developed by a large number of political thinkers till
the beginning of the 20th century got the name Tradition Comparative Method.
In fact, Aristotle, the father of Political Science, was one of the earliest philosophers to use comparative method
systematically for arriving at conclusions about politics. He analysed and compared the working of as many as 158
Greek constitutions for analyse various aspects of their political life and for arriving at conclusions valid for explaining,
predicting and planning political activities in different states. After Aristotle, a large number of political scientists
used this method of drawing their conclusions about State, Government, Sovereignty, Rights, Legislature, Executive,
Judiciary, in fact for all political institution the first modern political scientist, ‘Machiavelli used this method for
arriving at his conclusions about politics and government.
In the 18th century, Montesquieu used the Comparative Method to formulate his political theory. Similarly De
Tocqueville, J.S. Mill, James Bryce, and many other politic scientists used the comparative method of study. J.S. Mill
even tried to define a sound comparative method. He observed, “A sound comparative method involves a comparison
of two political institutions which are identical in all but one element, in order to explore the consequences of the
variable element.”
However, the traditional comparative method was confined to the study of similarities and dissimilarities in the
organizations and powers of political institutions of various constitutions, mostly the European constitutions. Its
exercise was parochial, configuration and formalistic. Basically, formal political institutions of the European
constitutions we described and compared in terms of their peculiar or salient features. The discipline was designated
as Comparative Government and Comparative Method was used to describe the similarities and dissimilarities, of
various political institutions. Impressionistic crude empiricism based on facts drawn from library studies was used to
describe these similarities and dissimilarities. Quite often, an attempt was made to specify which institution was
better than the other and which political institutions were the best or more powerful and efficient than others. The use
was neither systematic nor scientific. According to Garner, “‘The comparative method aims through the study of
existing politics or of those who had existed in the past, at assembling a definite body of material from which the
investigator by selection, comparison, and elimination may discover the ideal types and progressive forces of political
history. Only those states which are contemporaneous in point of time and which have a common historical basis and
common historical, political and social institutions may be compared with advantage.” In the Second half of 20th
Century Modem Comparative Method had its birth and it became more popular than the Traditional Method.
2.4 Modern Comparative Method
In contemporary times, the revolutionary changes in the nature and scope of Comparative Politics have also
changed the nature and scope of the comparative method. Now it is used as a scientific method of data collection,
classification, correlation and analysis. It has been developed as a method of scientific investigation capable of
leading to scientific knowledge and theory building. It is now used tor analysing and comparing till processes of
politics, systems of politics, political activities, structure and functions for empirically and systematically analysing
and presenting significant realistic and precise similarities and dissimilarities in the working of two or more or all
political systems and their structures, functions, sub-systems and processes.
2.5 Nature of Modern Comparative Method
Modem Comparative Method has the following features:
1. It is a definite method of investigation into all phenomena of politics.
11
 2. In its contemporary form, it is a scientific method of research and theory-building.
3. By the use of modern comparative method, empirical relations among variables are established.
4. It is a broad gauge general method and not a narrow specialized technique.
5. It seeks to systematically analyse and compare the political systems and their structures, functions, sub-
systems and processes.
6. The Comparative Method involves an investigation of political as well as non- political factors which
affect the political behavior of the people in different societies.
7. The Comparative Method is the scientific method of investigation. It is a rigorously ordered formal method
of research. It emphasises empirical investigation of facts.
8. In the comparative method, values are kept separate from facts.
9. In contemporary times, the Comparative Method has undergone revolutionary development and it has
developed into a highly useful method of study.
2.6 Essentials of the Modern Scientific Comparative Method
As a systematic method of comparative politics, as David M. Wood observes, the comparative method involves
the following processes or characteristics:
1. Definition of Conceptual Units.
2. Classification.
3. Formulation of Hypotheses and Testing of Hypotheses.
2.6.1 Definition of Conceptual Units
According to David M. Wood, “One only compares those things which one conceives to be comparable.” The
things must have some identifiable similarities and only then can these be compared in terms of similarities as well
as dissimilarities. As such, while selecting the conceptual units for comparing their behaviour, the researcher has to
take into account the similarities. The focus of attention in comparison may be on differences and contrasts; but the
comparison itself is possible because some element of similarity, howsoever lonely, is postulated as existing. For
example, while comparing the political systems of the Soviet Union (now Russia) and the United States, it has to be
agreed that both are systems involving the authoritative allocation of values for their respective societies. Only then
can we analyse the differences in their actual operations.
“The units which we compare are conceptual units in the sense that they are the objects of definitions to which the
real phenomena we say we are comparing more or less conform.”
The field of comparative politics includes not only macro level comparisons between various political systems
each taken as a whole unit, but also micro level comparative studies e.g. comparative study of voting behaviours,
legislative processes, pressure groups, elites, political parties, municipalities, etc. The researcher has to select and
delimit his area of research.
2.6.2 Classification
As Wasby writes. “Whenever we compare units which are deemed similar, we do so in terms of the variation
among them with regard to certain criteria.’’ Such an exercise necessarily involves classification. “When we have
defined precisely the conceptual unit with which we are dealing, we have only begun the process of determining the
specific elements which will be manipulated in the eventual process of hypothesis testing. The hypothesis we will be
testing will specify that given characteristics of the units in question will be accompanied by other characteristics. In
order to test the hypothesis, it will be necessary to classify the units in terms of the characteristics to be considered.
Hence, classification is an integral part of the comparative method.
Classification, like die comparative method itself, has perhaps been more readily identified with the field of
comparative politics because of the necessity to make broad general judgements as to the characteristics of very
complex phenomena. In macro studies, classification of political systems as liberal, Democratic. Authoritarian,
Totalitarian, Parliamentary, Presidential, Dictatorships or Constitutional Systems is an imperative necessity. In micro
studies, classification of facts about the political processes, structures, functions alone can lead us to systematic
testing of hypotheses.
2.6.3 Formulation and Testing of Hypothesis
Formulation of hypotheses forms another essential feature of comparative method. Without Hypothesis
formulation, there can be no systematic research towards theory building in Comparative Politics. As J.C. Johri
writes, “The work of making comparison should be done in a way that hypotheses are formulated and verified. These

12
hypotheses can be formulated with the help of material drawn from the fields of political science and from Comparative
Political System. The Comparative method seeks to provide tested and valid generalizations and conclusions about
the behaviour of various political systems and their structure, functions, sub-systems and processes for theory building.
It can be systematically done only by formulating and testing various hypotheses. These hypotheses can be formulated
for analyzing the actual behaviour of political systems and their parts. The tested and validated generalization alone
can eventually lead to a self contained, internally consistent, but empirically sound body of knowledge.” Thus, the
comparative method is characterized by features which are in general the features, of the Scientific Method. The
Comparative Method is a scientific method of research through several formal and rigorously ordered steps.
2.7 How and where to use Comparative Method
According to Macridis, a comparative study should proceed in the following manner :
1. The collection and description of facts on the basis of carefully constructed and generally adhered to
classificatory schemes,
2. The discovery and description of uniformities and differences,
3. The formulation of interrelationships between the component elements of that political process and other
social phenomena in the form of tentative hypotheses,
4. The subsequent verification of the tentative hypotheses by rigorous empirical observation for the purpose
of amplifying the original hypotheses and ultimately verifying them, and finally
5. The slow cumulative process of the acceptance of certain basic propositions.
2.8 Advantages of Modern Comparative Method
The advantages of the analytical scheme are:
First, the study of a political system on the basis of the categories suggested enables a student to make comparison
with other systems on the basis of the same categories. In this sense, institutional arrangement and ideology also
become comparable. A common scheme of analysis illuminates tentatively common aspects of the political processes
of various systems and suggests comparisons.
Secondly, comparative study is likely to give us better knowledge of the particular instruments that can be used
for the achievement of certain broad goals on which there is agreement.
Thirdly, comparative study can indicate areas in which certain types of contemplated action may bring about
unanticipated consequences.
For the purpose of illustration, Macridis has developed a scheme composed of four basic analytical categories in
the light of which political systems can be studied and compared. They are as follows :-
1. the deliberative process and decision-making as a function of politics,
2. the power configuration and its social and political aspects,
3. ideology and its role in political motivation and institutional organization, and
4. the organization of political authority.
According to David Apter the new lines of enquiry in Comparative Politics include; (a) problem of social change
and political socialization, (b) consequences of economic development and changing technologies, (c) the roles of
voluntary organizations, and (d) the comparative study of mass media and social communications.
This conceptual framework, can give us relevant categories for the study of both political morphology and political
dynamics. These can be usefully used for comparing political systems in respect of their structures, functions,
processes, sub-systems, behaviours, regularities, similarities and dissimilarities.
Ray C. Macridis has very systematically explained the functions of the comparative studies of politics, the manner
in which a comparative study should proceed and finally the advantages of analytical research in comparative politics.
He writes : “Comparative analysis is an integral part of the study of Political. The Comparative study of politics
suggests immediately the laboratory of a scientist. It provides us with the opportunity to discuss specific phenomena
in the light of different historical and social backgrounds. It suggests variables of a rather complex order that can be
dissociated from the cultural background of uniformity, either actual or analytical for the purpose of discovering
factors that account for variations. It has three main functions:-
(1) to explain such variables in the light of analytical schemes and to develop a body of verified knowledge.
(2) to appraise policy measures and to identify problem areas and trends and
(3) to reach a stage where prediction of the institutional trends or processes is possible.

13
2.9 Let us Sum Up
In brief, comparative method is the life breath of the subject of comparative politics and a writer on this subject,
whether he likes it or not, “has to examine, account for and as many would want him to do, find recipes to redress the
structure and behavior of government. There may be different forms of comparisons, but for a student of comparative
politics it is required that he should move ahead in a way so that the conceptual units chosen by him are precisely
defined and the theories that he has evolved should be empirically verifiable and testable. He should keep it in mind
that an effort to discover general principles the diversity of conditions and circumstances, such as differences of the
temperament and genius of the people, economic and social conditions, moral and legal standards, political training
and experience, are not apt to be ignored or minimized.
2.10 Glossary
● Method: Method is ways of organizing theories for application to data, also called conceptual schemes.
● Precision: The attribute of being exact, definite or accurate.
● Hypothesis: This is a statement which holds something to be true under some conditions e.g. land holdings
would decreased continuously as population increased.
● Generalizations: A general statement made in a manner so that it can be seen as holding true in a number
of cases.
● Configurative: The term refers to a combination of favourable conditions or aspects of any observed
political phenomenon, e.g. the necessary and sufficient conditions for revolution, democratic participation
etc.
2.11 Answer to Check you Progress Exercises
Note: Use the space given below for your answer.
Check Your Progress - 1
1. What is method?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
Check you Progress – 2
2. Why do you think method is an important part of Research?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
2.12 Suggested Readings
● Tapan Biswal (ed.), Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Trinity, 2015).
● O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.).
● Hari Hara Das, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: National Publishing House).
● J.C. Johari, Comparative Politics (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.).
● Parmatma Sharan, Comparative Government and Politics (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan).
● Eddy Asirvathan and K.K. Misra, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors).
● A.C. Kapoor, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● S.C. Singhal, Political Theory (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarawal).
● V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.)
● Sri Ram Maheshwari, Comparative Government and Politics (Agra: Lakshmi Nurain Aggarwal, 1985).
● Manoj Kumar, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis (New Delhi: Anmol Publication, 2004).
14
 ● Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered
(Westview Press, 1994).
● See also, Comparative Politics, Lesson-2 Old Study Material of M.A. Pol. Science, ICDEOL, PP. 7-12.
● Alan R. Ball and B. Guy Peters, Modern Politics and Governments, New York : Palgrave MaCmillan,
2000).
2.13 Terminal Objectives
1. What is Comparative Method? Discuss its features.
2. Define Comparative Method? How and where can it be most fruitfully used?
3. Discuss the meaning and nature of Comparative Method?

*****

15
 Lesson-3
Approaches to the study of Comparative Politics

Structure
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Learning Objectives
3.2 Traditional Approach
3.2.1 Use of History, Law and Philosophy
3.2.2 Features of traditional Approach
3.3 Popular Traditional Approaches
3.3.1 Philosophical Approach
3.3.2 Historical Approach
3.3.3 Institutional Approach
3.3.4 Constitutional Legal Approach
3.4 Critical Appraisal
3.5 Modern Approaches: Emphasis on fact-laden study politics
3.5.1 Sociological Approach
3.5.2 Psychological Approach
3.5.3 Economic Approach
3.5.4 Quantitative Approach
3.5.5 System Approach
3.5.6 Structural-Function Approach
3.5.7 Simulation Approach
3.5.8 Behavioural Approach
3.5.9 Marxist Approach
3.5.10 Political Economy Approach
3.5.11 New Institutionalism Approach
3.6 Feature of Modern Approach and Difference between Modern and Traditional Approaches
3.7 Let us Sum up
3.8 Glossary
3.9 Answer to Self Check Exercise
3.10 Suggested Readings
3.11 Terminal Questions
3.0 Introduction
Approaches to the study of politics may be broadly classified into two categories — normative and empirical.
While the former is said to be value-laden, the latter is known for being value-neutral. In other words, while normativism
is the hallmark of the former, empiricism is that of the latter. Fact-value relationship is, therefore, the basis of our
classification in this regard. On this basis, we may say that while traditional approaches lean to the side of ‘values’, the
latter do the same for ‘facts’. The result is that ‘fact-value dichotomy’ becomes the determining factor. The traditional
approaches have a historical-descriptive and prescriptive character with a dominating place for values and goals.
Their different varieties may be discussed as under.
3.1 Learning Objectives
After going through this lesson you will be able to :
• Understand the meaning and features of Traditional Approach.
• Explain the nature of the Traditional Approach.
• Understand the Marxist Approach.

16
3.2 TRADITIONAL APPROACH
The Traditional Approach is a broad -term which refers to the normative, institutional, historical, legal and
ideological approaches to the study of comparative politics.
3.2.1 Use of History, Law and Philosophy
The traditional approach stands for using the knowledge of history, law and philosophy for describing and comparing
various political institutions. It regards politics as the activities of the political institutions of the States, particularly
the legislative, executive and judicial institutions. It is a value-laden approach i.e., a normative approach. It has a
historical, descriptive and prescriptive character with a dominant concern with values and goals. It regards the normative
question: What should be? What ought to be? What is the best? as essential and major pan of political studies.
3.2.2 Features of the Traditional Approach- The following are the salient features the Traditional Approach:-
(1) It emphasises the study of formal political institutions of the State and Government.
(2) Its approach is theoretical. Its main source of study is the library. Opinions, view and impressions of
various political scholars are studied and used for describe and comparing political institutions. Field
research is beyond its methodology.
(3) Its main objective is description. Theory-building through data collection and analysis is given little
importance.
(4) Till 1945, the traditional approach focused only on the study of Western Europe Constitutions.
(5) Country-by-country approach constitutes the major direction of comparative politics studies under the
traditional approach. Parallel descriptions of various institutions of different states forms the mainstay of
traditional comparative studies.
(6) The scope of study is limited. No attempt is made to relate the working of political institutions with the
socio-economic environment in which they work.
(7) Non-political and extra-constitutional elements of politics are given scant attention.
(8) In the traditional approach, normative-prescription, value studies and judgements form the core of all
comparative studies.
(9) It involves a study of politics with the help of law, history and philosophy.
With all these features, the traditional approach advocates a study of politic and comparative politics through the
study of the state and its political institutions. To reform political institutions is one of the main objectives.
3.3.1 Philosophical Approach
The oldest approach to study of politics is philosophical. It is also known by the name of ethical approach. Here
the study of state, government and man as a political being is inextricably mixed with the pursuit of certain goals,
morals, truths or high principles supposed to be underlying all knowledge and reality. A study of politics, in this field,
assumes a speculative character, because the very word ‘philosophical’ “refers to thought about thought; a philosophical
analysis is an effort to clarify thought about the nature of the subject and about ends and means in studying it. Put
more generally, a person who takes a philosophical approach to a subject aims to enhance linguistic clarity and to
reduce linguistic confusion: he assumes that tire language used in description reflects conceptions of reality, and he
wants to make conceptions of reality as clear, consistent, coherent, and helpful as possible. He seeks to influence and
guide thinking, and the expression of thought so as to maximise the prospect that the selected aspect of reality
(politics) will be made intelligible.
It is for this reason that thinkers and writers subscribing to the philosophical-ethical approach look like advising
the rulers and the members of a political community to pursue certain higher ends. Thus, great works of Plato, More,
Bacon, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Green, Bosanquet, Nettleship, Lindsay and Leo Strauss take the study of ‘politics to a
very high level of abstraction and also try to mix up the system of values with certain high norms of an ideal political
system. Here normativism dominates and empiricism as contained in certain classics like those of Aristotle,
Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke and Montesquieu looks like integrating the study of politics either with ethics, or
with history, or with psychology, or with law respectively just in an effort to present the picture of a best-ordered
political community.
The philosophical approach is criticized for being speculative and abstract. It is said that such an approach takes us
far away from the world of reality. For this reason, it is accused of being hypothetical. At the hands of Kant and Hegel,
it culminates in the exaltation of state to mystical heights. Politics, therefore, becomes like the handmaid of ethics or
metaphysics. The case of things as they ‘are’ is dominated by the case of things as they ‘ought to be.’ However, great

17
protagonists of such an approach like Leo Strauss and Berlin affirm that values are an indispensable part of political
philosophy and they cannot be excluded from the study of politics. He says: “If this directedness becomes explicit, if
men make their explicit goal to acquire knowledge of the good life and of the good society, political philosophy
emerges.”
3.3.2 Historical Approach
The distinguishing feature of this approach is focused on the past or on a selected period of time as well as on a
sequence of selected events within a particular phase so as to find out an explanation of what institutions are, and are
tending to be, more in the knowledge of what they have been and how they came to be, what they are than in the
analysis of them as they stand.” It may also be added that here a scholar treats history as a genetic process—as the
study of how man got to be, what man once was and now is.” A study of politics with such a point of view also informs
him “to look into the role of individual motives, actions, accomplishments; failures and contingencies in historical
continuity and change.
The historical approach stands on the assumption that the stock of political theory comes out of socio-economic
crises and the reactions they have on the minds of the great thinkers. Thus, historical evidence has an importance of
its own. The conditions of ancient Greece created Plato and Aristotle; likewise, the conditions of seventeenth century
England produced Hobbes and Locke; the capitalist system of the nineteenth century’ created Mill and Marx. Obviously,
in order to understand political theory, it is equally necessary to understand clearly the time, place and circumstances
in which it was evolved. The political philosopher “may not actually take part in the politics of his times, but he is
affected by it and, in his own turn, he tries vigorously to affect it.
It may, however, be added at this stage that the historical approach to burning political questions differs in many
ways depending upon the range of choice that a scholar adopts for his purpose. If Machiavelli could make use of
history for exalting the record of the Romans and thereby exhorting his people to restore the ‘glory of Rome’,
Oakeshott associates it with the trend of conservatism. It is contained in his treatment of politics as the “activity of
attending to the general arrangements of a collection of people who, in respect of their common recognition of a
manner of attending to its arrangements, compose a single community.” That is, a political activity mainly springs
neither from instant desires, nor from general principles, but from the existing traditions of behaviour themselves. As
he says: “In any generation, even the most revolutionary, the arrangements which are enjoyed always far exceed those
which are recognised to stand in need of attention, and those which are being prepared for enjoyment are few in
comparison with those which receive amendment: die new is an insignificant proportion of the whole.” Again: “What
we are learning to understand is a political tradition, a concrete manner of behaviour. And for this reason it is proper
that, at the academic level, the study of politics should be an historical study.”
The historical approach has certain weaknesses. For instance, as James Bryce says, it is often loaded with superficial
resemblances. As such, historical parallels may sometimes be illuminating, but they are also misleading in most of
the cases. Likewise, Prof. Ernest Barker holds: “There are many lines —some that suddenly stop, some that turn back,
some that cross one another; and one may think rather of the maze of tracks on a wide common than of any broad
king’s highway. That is, a scholar subscribing to this approach adheres to a particular path of his choice in making use
of historical data and then offering his explanation so much so that other important aspects are virtually ignored. It is
also possible that he may play with his emotions or prejudices while making use of this approach as we may find in the
cases of Machiavelli and Oakeshott.
Nevertheless, the value of the study of political theory in the context of its historical evolution and growth cannot
be so lightly dismissed. Works of G.H, Sabine, R.G. Gettell, W.A. ‘Dunning, C.C. Maxey, T.I. Cook, R.J. Carlyle,
G.E.G Catlin, C.E. Vaughan, etc. have an importance of their own. Such an approach has its own usefulness in
understanding the meaning of eminent political thinkers from Plato and-Aristotle in ancient to St. Augustine, St:
Thomas and Marsiglio in the middle and thereon to Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Mill, Marx
and Laski in the modem ages. If political theory has a universal and respectable character, its reason should be traced
in the affirmation that it is rooted in historical traditions.
3.3.3 Institutional Approach
There a student of politics lays stress on the study of the formal structures of a political organisation like legislature
executive and judiciary. This trend may be discovered in the writings of a very large number of political scientists
from Aristotle and Polybius in the ancient to Bryce and Finer in the modem periods. However, the peculiar thing
about modem writers is that they also include party system as the ‘fourth estate’ in the structures of a political
system, while contemporary writers like Bentley, Truman, Latham and V.O. Key, Jr. go a step Farther by including
numerous interest groups that constitute the infra-structure of a political system. ‘That is why, institutional approach
is’ also known by the name of structural approach.
18
 The institutional or structural approach may be visualized in the works of several English and American writers.
We may refer to the works of Walter Bagehot, F.A. Ogg, W.B. Munro, Herman Finer, H.J. Laski, Richard Neustadt,
C.F. Strong, Bernard Crick, James Bryce, Harold Zink, Maurice Duverger and Giovanni Sartori. The striking feature
of their works is that the study of politics has been confined to the formal, as well as informal, institutional structures
of a political system. Moreover, in order to substantiate conclusions, a comparative study of major governmental
systems of certain advanced countries of the West has also been made.
This approach has been criticized too narrow. It ignores the role of who individuals constitute and operate the
formal, as well as informal, structures and sub-structures of a political system. It is because of this that behavioural
approaches have overshadowed the significance of this approach. Another difficulty is that the meaning and range of
an institutional system vary with the view of the scholar. “Those who have concetive governmental institutions, offices
a agencies have been inclined to teach and write about government accordingly, organization charts being suggestive
of much of what they have done. Under this conception, the study of politics becomes, at the extreme, the study of
one narrow, specific fact about another,” Finally, the students of this approach “have also tended to ignore international
political. Since for long there were no institutions world analogous to the state or government, there seemed to be
nothing in this area for political scientists to talk about.”
3.3.4 Constitutional Legal Approach
Finally, in the realm of traditional approaches, we may refer to the legal or juridical approach. Here the study of
politics is mixed up with legal processes and institutions. Themes of law and justice are treated as not mere affairs of
jurisprudence, rather political scientists look at state as the maintainer of an effective and equitable system of law and
order. Matters relating to the organisation, jurisdiction and independence of judicial institutions, therefore, become
an essential concern of a political scientist. Analytical jurists from Cicero in the ancient to Dicey in the modem
periods have regarded state as primarily a corporation or a juridical person and, in this way, viewed political as a
science of legal norms having nothing in common with the science of the state as a social organism. Thus, this
approach “treats the state primarily as an organisation for the creation and enforcement of law.
In this context, we may refer to the works of Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes of the early modern
period who propounded the doctrine of sovereignty. In the system of Hobbes, the head of the state is the highest legal
authority and his command is law that must be obeyed either to avoid punishment following its infraction, or to keep
the dreadful state of nature away. The works of Bentham, John Austin, Savigny, Sir Henry Maine, and A.V. Dicey may
also be referred to in this connection. The result is that the study of politics is integrally bound up with the legal
processes of the country and the existence of a harmonious state of liberty and equality is earmarked by the glorious
name of the rule of law.
The legal approach, applied to the study of national as well as international politics, stands on the assumption that
law prescribes action to be taken in a given contingency and also forbids the same in certain other situations; it even
fixes the limits of permissible action. It also emphasises the fact that where the citizens are law-abiding, the knowledge
of law provides a very important basis for predictions relating to political behaviour of the people. A distinguished
student of this approach like Jellinek advises us to treat organised society not as a mere social or political phenomenon
but as an ensemble of public law rights and obligations founded on a system of pure logic or reason. It implies that the
state as an organism of growth and development cannot be understood without a consideration of those extra-legal
and social forces. It may, however, be pointed out that this approach has a very narrow perspective. Law embraces only
one aspect of a people’s life and, as such, it cannot cover the entire behaviour of the political actors. As the idealists
can be criticized for treating state as nothing else but a moral entity, so the analytical jurists commit the mistake of
reducing every aspect of a political system to a juridical entity. “Determination of the content of law through legislative
power is a political act, ordinarily to be explained on the basis of .something other than a legal approach.”
The traditional approaches may be said to have four main varieties as discussed above. Their outstanding feature is
that value-laden system dominates. Normativism assigns to them a peculiar and distinctive character. As a result of
this, political theory is said to have become abstract, hypothetical, speculative, and even metaphysical.
3.4 Critical Evaluation of the traditional Approach
The traditional approach has now undoubtedly suffered a decline in popularity. The origin and development of the
modem behavioral or scientific approach became instrumental in reducing its popularity. A large number of modem
political scientists, mostly Americans, point out several limitations of the traditional approach Almond and Powell
have criticized the traditional approach on the following three grounds :-
(1) The Traditional Approach has been guilty of Parochialism: The Traditional Approach has been a parochial
approach because of its near obsession and almost total concentration on the study of European states and governments.
19
It offers a political theory based on a study of governments and patterns of politics in major European states. It
accepts the British Constitution as the “mother constitution” and concentrates on the comparing of other European
constitutions with the “mother constitution”. Things which are found similar to the British Constitution are considered
good.
(2) Limited Descriptive and Configurative Focus- The main focus of Traditional Approach has been the -
description of the peculiar characteristics - the salient features - of individual constitutions. Too much emphasis is
placed on law and constitutions. As Almond and Powell have observed, “It was concerned with illuminating the peculiar
characteristics of individual political systems and comparative analysis was often little more than juxtaposition of
specific institutional patterns rather titan a way of introducing controls in the investigation of relations and causal
sequences among political and social phenomena.”
(3) Formalism and absence of Realism: The focus of life approach has been on the study of the formal institutions
and their legal norms, rules and regulations, or on political ideas and ideologies, rather than on performance, interaction
and-behaviour. Too much emphasis was placed on the study of law and the constitutions and too little attention is
given to the study of the general social framework of political institutions - that is, the context within which institutions
operate. No attempt is made to study the actual mechanisms and processes of politics. Almost total concentration is
placed on the study of constitutions and institutions.
Roy C. Macridis has pointed out the following seven major drawbacks of the tradition approach :
1. It focuses analysis on the formal institutions of government to the detriment a sophisticated awareness of the
informal arrangements of society and of their role in the formation of decisions and the exercise of power.
2. In neglecting such informal arrangements, it proves to be relatively insensitive the non-political determinants
of the political bases of governmental institutions.
3. Comparisons are made in terms of the formal constitutional aspects of Western systems, i.e., parliaments,
chief executives, civil service, administration, law, etc., which are not necessarily the most fruitful concepts of a
truly comparative study.
4. Except for some studies of proportional representation, legislation, and electoral systems, the field is insensitive
to hypotheses and verification.
5. Even as a purely descriptive approach to the political systems, it is relate, insensitive to the methods of cultural
anthology, in which descriptions are fruitfully made in terms of general concepts or integrating hypotheses.
6. This description in Comparative Government does not readily lend itself to testing of hypotheses, to the
compilation of significant data regarding a sir political phenomenon or class of such phenomenon in a large number
of societies.
7. Description without systematic orientation obstructs the discovery of hypotheses regarding uniformities in
political behaviour and prevents the formulation, on a comparative basis, of a theory of political dynamics (i.e.,
change, revolution, conditions or stability, etc.)
With all these limitations, the traditional approach failed to remain popular with political scientists. The wide
scope and the scientific nature of the contemporary studies of comparative politics made it essential for them to
adopt an approach. The Modern Approach as the Empirical - Scientific Approach, came to be adopted and soon it
became very popular.
Nevertheless, it should not be taken to mean that the traditional approach is dead or dying. It still continues to be
popular with a number of political scientists who advocate dependence on law, history and philosophy as the best way
to understand human political institutions.
3.5 Modern Approaches
From the above, it is evident that the study of political in the context of philosophical, ethical, institutional-
structural, historical and legal perspectives cannot assign to it the character of, what modern behaviouralists like
David Easton call, a ‘pure science’. Thus, normativism should be replaced by empiricism. Modern approaches are,
therefore, marked by empirical investigation of the relevant data. They have arisen from the realization that a search
for fuller integration was not thought of or even hinted at by the political scientists belonging to the old order and, for
the positivism of this science was not dream as posing a challenge to the already age-worn methods of study and
approach.” Hence, in this direction, we may refer to the following important approaches:
3.5.1 Sociological Approach
The sociological approach to the study of politics has become very popular now. Eminent writers like R.M.
Maclver, David Easton and G.A. Almond subscribing to this approach have taken into recognition the essential fact
20
that ample data is available in the realm of sociology so as to lay down certain empirical rules of political behaviour.
They have accepted the view of leading sociologists like Comte, Spencer, Ratzen-hofer, Weber, Parsons, Merton and
a host of others that state is more of a social than that of a political institution. That is, social context is necessary for
the understanding and explanation of political behaviour of the individuals. It is the social whole in which we may find
the individuals having a status and playing a role. The role is determined by certain traits acquired by the individuals.
This process of transmission of values from one generation to another is called ‘political socialization.
Another term which this approach has popularized is ‘political culture’ that “refers to the totality of what is learned
by individuals as members of a society; it is a way of life, a mode of thinking, acting, and feeling.” A scrutinized study
of the rise and fall of a political system shows that its causes may be traced in the domain of wrong political socialization
whose objective manifestation is the political culture of the people. Thus, sociological approach has - its own place
in the twin doctrines of political development and political decay. Besides, as society is a network of numerous
associations and groups which play their own part in the operation of the politics of a country, this approach
automatically suggests an investigation of the study of interest groups that constitute the infra-structure of a political
system. As such, sociological approach has many sub--varieties of its own and, for this reason, ‘some writers prefer
the term ‘sociological approaches’
3.5.2 Psychological Approach
Political Science has moved very close to the discipline of psychology in recent times particularly at the hands of
Graham Wallas, Charles Merriam, Harold D. Lasswell, R.A. Dahl and Eric Fromm. In early modern times, Machiavelli
and Hobbes stressed the point of security of life and material possessions as a motivating force and held that the
desire for it was inseparable from the desire for power. Recently a good number of political scientists have borrowed
material from the writings of eminent psychologists like Freud, Jang, Eyesenck and McDougall to lay down certain
valid rules of political behaviour. A “study of politics has, for this reason, been made so as to display the role of
emotions, habits, sentiments, instincts, ego etc. that are the constituent elements of human personality.
The concept of ‘power’ has, therefore, gained its own importance. A recent writer like Prof. W.A. Robson has
frankly treated political science as a study of power. ‘It is with power in society’ that political science is primarily
concerned—its nature, basis, premises, scope and results.... The ‘focus of interest’ of the political scientists is clear
and unambiguous; it centres on the struggle to gain or retain power, to- exercise power or influence over others, or to
resist that exercise.” Likewise, Fredrick M. Watkins says; “The proper scope of political science is not the study of
state, or of any other specific institutional complex, but the investigation of all associations in so far as they can be
known to exemplify the problem of power.” Its most succinct interpretation may be seen in the views of Harold
Lasswell who identifies the term power with ‘influence’ and then defines politics as the study of the “influence and
the influential.” It is, therefore, known by the name of ‘power approach’.
3.5.3 Economic Approach
Matters relating to the “production and distribution of goods have an economic character. But as their regulation
is done by the state, they are very’ much involved in the political process. The prominent schools of liberalism,
socialism and communism emerge because of the divergent interpretations of the role of the state in regulating
economic matters. Eminent political scientists like Mill, Marx, Mitchell, Schumpeter, Friedman and a host of others
have written volumes having a relevance of their own in the domain of political economy. However, in this regard the
most outstanding name is that of Karl Marx who has built his political theory on the basis of the criticism of the
prevailing capitalist system. It is contained in his well-known assumption: “The mode of production of the material
means of existence condition the whole process of social, political and intellectual life.” So says Engels: “The
ultimate cause of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought not in the minds of men—but in changes
in the mode of production and exchange; they are to be sought not in the philosophy but in the economics of the
period concerned.”
3.5.4 Quantitative Approach
Also known by the name of statistical approach, it stands for - the use of numerical data so as to impart exactitude
to the process of describing and analysing a political phenomenon. Mere descriptive or prescriptive analysis is not
enough. The subscribers to this approach demonstrate their conviction in an old saying that ‘there is safety in numbers’
and, as such, we may prove scientifically the validity of a proposition by making use of tables, charts, graphs, etc. For
instance, a study of electoral behaviour, questions asked by the members and answers given by the ministers in the
legislature, organisation, achievements and failures of a government department or of a public undertaking, voting
and cross-voting records of a public institution, constructive and destructive aspects of the politics of defection, rise
and fall of a political party and the like can be well analysed with the help of quantitative data.
21
 Several important writers and agencies have added to the stock of comparative politics by making use of this
approach that, in a real sense, is a methodology’. The names of Dr Gallup, Charles Merriam Harold Gosnell, Paul
Lazarsfieid and Samuell Lubell in the United States may be referred to in this connection. They have developed
sophisticated ways to study the electoral behaviour of the people. Similarly, in Britain the Nuffield College election
surveys have tried to show the votes shared by each party’ in a general election and its representation in the House of
Commons. Men like R.S. Milne and H.C. Mackenzie have produced works by making election surveys of different
constituencies. It may, however, be pointed out that this approach need not involve any special thematically expertise.
It requires the habit of exposing in numerical terms every generalization- to -simple tests relating to the number of
people and their way of doing in some political activity. The subscriber is not expected to rely exclusively or heavily
on the mathematical data, rather “a happy balance has to be struck between ignoring statistics and using them to
excess.
3.5.5. Systems Approach
This approach has become very popular in recent times. As the very name of this approach suggests, here the focus
is on systems that are defined as “bounded regions in space-time, involving energy’ inter-change among their parts,
which are associated in functional relationships, and with their environments.” Borrowing from the discipline of
biological sciences, the sociologists like Parsons thought in terms of a social system. From them the idea came to
new political scientists like David Easton and G.A. Almond who developed the idea of a political system. The purpose
of general systems theory’, as it is known, is to reduce multiplication of efforts by integrating all knowledge and
treating all systems as inter-related. Not only this, even parts of a system (called sub-systems) should be treated not
as separate and isolated units but organic parts of the same system. Thus, the intention is that the theory “should be
relevant to many or all kinds of systems, from the smallest subsystems of an atom to the systems composed of
galaxies.”
This approach envisages the stem as a sub-system of the larger social system which is constantly engaged in
communication with entities and systems outside its own boundaries. Scholars have viewed political systems in three
different contexts viz. as a guided missile, as a convertor of inputs into outputs, as a kind of structure performing
particular kinds of functions. Those who regard the political system as a 'guided missile' hold that the political system
operates in a particular way and automatically adjusts the course of the systems in the light of pressures, both internal
and external, towards a target. Those who treat the political system as a convertor hold that the political system
operates on the same principles as an automatic machine and converts the inputs into outputs. The input are made in
the nature of demands (viz. opening of educational institutes or hospitals) on the political system. These demands are
supported in the form of payment of taxes and obedience to the system. The demands and support culminates in the
form of out-puts (policies). As a result of these policies certain changes take place in the environments and new
demands emerge which are again fed into system and, given necessary support, which leads to new output. This
process of feedback continues. Finally, some scholars have viewed political system as a kind of structure which
performs particular kinds of functions which are vital for the survival of the system.
The systems approach despite its enormous popularity suffers from numerous defects. Firstly, it is not helpful in
the study of political aspects of such matters as a perception, exception, formation or cognition. Secondly, the
approach is defective because it is concerned only with the present and does not view the social reality in historical
terms. Thirdly; the approach is not helpful for the study of political systems of third world countries because the
models based on the western political systems are not applicable to them. However, despite these shortcomings, it
cannot be denied that the systems approach has opened up "new question and carved new dimensions for investigations
into the political processes and several of them can be used to great advantage by political scientists in their own
analysis of political phenomena".
3.5.6 Structural Functional Approach: The structural functional approach in political science developed in the
second decade of the present century. This approach started in Mathematics by Leibriz found its way into Political
Science through Sociology and Anthropology. The chief exponents of this structural functional approach were Marion
Levy, Robert Merton, Talcott Parson, Mitchel, Apter, Almond, David Easton etc. Under the structural - functional
approach the state or government are not treated as units, rather the political system is treated as a unit and an effort
is made to find out the centre of authoritative decisions. Accordingly this approach is helpful in making a systematic
study of the functions performed by the political system and their mutual relations. In short, this approach seeks to
make a study of the political systems and institutions and tries to impart knowledge about the similarities and
dissimilarities of the various systems.

22
 The structural-functional approach assumes that the political system is merely a sub-system of the main social
system, which performs distinctive function of making legitimate policy decisions or which works for 'goal attainment'
for the society of which it is apart. This approach is based on the following basic assumptions:
1. The society is a single inter-connected system in which each element performs a specific function. As a result
of the interaction of the various components of the system a sort of equilibrium is maintained. "The functional
analysis seeks to understand a behaviour pattern or a socio-cultural institution in term of the role it plays in keeping
the given system in proper working order and thus maintaining it as a going concern."
2. Secondly, the various parts of the main system (society) are interrelated and the social system has a built-in
tendency for stability. As a result, the deviations and tensions within the system are automatically resolved, in other
words 'the system undergoes constant and gradual adjustments.
3. Thirdly, there are certain broad aims and principles of the system which are observed by the members. In other
words value consensus and on-going usefulness of the system are important factors.
As the very title of this approach suggests, it revolves round two key concepts-structures and functions. To
understand this approach fully, it shall be desirable to understand these two concepts. Structure generally refers to
those arrangements within the system which perform the functions. For example, a political party is a structure which
performs important functions within the system. Similarly the pressure groups and other formal institutions of the
government also constitute the structure. The functions, on the other hand are "those observed consequences which
make for the adaptation or readjustment of a given system; and dys-functions those observed consequences, which
lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the system." According to Edwin Fogelman "In its widest usage functionalism
means simply that in analysing some phenomena the political scientists will be concerned with among other things,
their functions in the sense of purpose served by the phenomena." In short functionalism has three basic features viz.
(a) a fact or event which needs explanation; (b) events in which that fact is being reflected; and (c) the relation of that
fact with the whole event.
Some of the important works based on structural- functional approach include Almond and Coleman's 'The Politics
of Developing Areas' Almond and Powell's 'Comparative Politics; A Developmental Approach' Mitchell's 'The American
Polity' etc.
Merton made special contribution to the structural- functional approach. He draws a distinction between functions
and dys-functions. He also makes a distinction between manifest functions and latent functions. He says 'functions'
are those observed consequences which make tor the adaptation or adjustment of a given system, 'dysfunctions' are
those observed consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the same. Similarly he means by manifest
functions those functions whose purposes and consequences are both intended and recognized. The latent functions
are those whose purposes and consequences are covert, unintended and unrecognised. But probably the most important
contribution of Merton to the structural-functional approach was that he emphasized that the structural-functionalism
could throw considerable light on the process of political modernization in the name of conservatism. Merton also
emphasised that we should not confine to the study of the manifest alone but also pay attention to what is latent.
However, Merton's approach suffered from certain drawbacks. Firstly, he asserted that government and politics should
aim at achieving some social objectives, but did not explain those social objectives. Secondly he failed to establish a
clear link between the political and social methods and functions. Thirdly, though Merton drew a distinction between
governmental and political methods, he did not discuss their relations in detail. Fourthly, Merton took only government
and politics into account and neglected other elements of social system. He also failed to explain the relationship
between the social system and the government or administrative agencies.
Mitchell was another prominent American political writer who made valuable contributions to the structural
functional approach. He was greatly influenced by Talcott Parson, the great sociologist. Mitchell described the policy
as a sub-system which was primarily concerned with the mobilisation of the resources to meet the goals of the
system. He did not limit himself to the consideration of the mobilisation of resources to meet systems goals alone
bid also pointed out the ways in which political processes contribute to performance of all the functions.
After Mitchell, Apter gave a new direction to the structural functional approach. He made a study of the political
system in systematic terms and gave the classification and analysis of types of government. He also tried to bring
about a workable reconciliation between the normative and empirical dimensions of political theory. He paid special
attention to the study of the political system of the third world countries. He tried to study the political system in
three respects- nature and purpose of the government types and models of the government, and functions of the
government.

23
 As regards the nature and purpose of the government, Apter insists it is the business of a political scientist to see
conditions under which a government can maintain itself during the period of transition, without causing loss to its
legitimacy. With regard to the models of government, he suggests that the modernising governments should be placed
in the category of pre-democratic rather than antidemocratic category. Apter holds that all political systems are
characterised by a number of functions. He says all political systems must act as (i) the role of sanctions in a society
(ii) providers of symbols linking a people's past and future; (iii) the responsible agents for the orderly arrangement
and performance of roles in the system; and (iv) the providers of criteria for deciding on membership and participation
in the society. Thus Apter, like other Structural-functionalists tries to make a search for the functional and structural
requisites of the Government.
According to Almond a political system has four basic characteristics which he designates as 'legitimate patterns
of interactions'. These are as follows;
(i) Every political system has its structures-some more specialised and others less specialized which perform
more specialised functions and less specialized functions respectively.
(ii) Despite the differences between the system and its structures, same political functions are performed by all
the political systems.
(iii) Political functions which can be designated as 'multifunctional'.
(iv) All political systems being part of the society have a culture of their own which is a mixture of the traditional
and modem.
Almond holds that the environmental factors greatly influence the roles, structures and sub-systems and offer an
input-output analysis with seven variables. Out of these four are designated by him as input functions viz. political
socialisation and recruitment; interest articulation; interest aggregation; and political communication. The three output
functions mentioned by him include rule making, rule- application and rule adjudication. Almond holds that the input
functions are performed by non-governmental subsystem viz. the society and the general environments, while the
output functions are performed by the three organs of the government viz. the legislature, the executive and the
Judiciary.
3.5.7 Simulation Approach
That contemporary political scientists have borrowed much from natural sciences as well as from cybernetics and
mathematics may be studied in this direction. Simulation means a study with the help of image-construction or
model-building. We may take note of this fact in the study of political communication, decision-making and game
theory. The political communication approach, as popularised by Karl Deutsch, lays emphasis on how one part of a
system affects another by sending messages or transmitting information with the result that other parts function and,
in turn, do the work of sending messages and transmitting information to each other because of the ‘feedback’ process.
Thus, according to this approach, politics and government “appear in essence as processes of steering and coordinating
human efforts towards the attainment of some set of goals.
Decision-making approach is another variety of tire simulation approach. Here a scholar lays focus on the
characteristics of decision-makers, on persons or groups who might exercise influence ever the decision--makers
though not being in the capacity of taking a decision themselves, on the situations under which a decision is actually
taken and the like. Allied with it is the approach of game theory where social scientists, like mathematicians, look like
developing a conceptual design that will help the decision makers to choose a strategy’ whereby they may make the
best possible bargain out of the competing or conflicting situations. Here the simplification “is reflected in such
assumptions as following: that there are only a very few alternatives among which to choose; that the criteria of the
judgment of all parties (i.e., the ends that each party pursues) are known to all; and that each party is thoroughly
rational. Since certain games—e.g., poker—involve simplified decision-making situations, study of the problems
has tended to focus on games and the subject has come to be called game theory.
From a critical standpoint, it may be added that, like systems approach, simulation approach also is too mechanistic,
even abstract. It tries to simplify the behaviour of real decision--makers by taking them as fully rational beings.
Social sciences may not be converted into natural sciences, nor sciences of numbers and cybernetics may help in
understanding and explaining entire political reality A mechanical engineer or a mathematician may have a very simplified
way of studying his subject, but a social scientist has to take into consideration the complexities of human life that
beset all fixed and definite calculations. For instance, decision-makers are living human beings who act rationally in
few and irrationally in most of the given situations. As such, decision-making approach or the use of game theory
cannot be applied to explain their behaviour in a thoroughly successful measure.

24
3.5.8 Behavioural Approach
Modern empirical approaches have found their best manifestation in the trend of behaviouralism where a host of
leading American writers have laid emphasis on the collection and examination of ‘facts’ relating to the actual behaviour
of man as a social and political being. This approach has emerged on the scene in the midst of a large amount of
turmoil and controversy within the profession widely lauded by the protagonists as a ‘revolution’ in the realm of
political science. E. Kirkpatrick, the Executive Director of the American Political Science Association, explained its
meaning thus: “Between World War II and the mid-fifties, the term ‘political behaviour’ represents both an approach
and a challenge, an orientation and a reform movement, a type of research and a rallying cry, a ‘hurrah’ term and a ‘boo’
term. Debate about behavioural techniques and methods was often accompanied by vituperation; discussions, were
more often aimed at vanquishing adversaries than at clarifying issues.” Simply stated, the behavioural approach bears
the following important characteristics:’’
(i) It specifies as the unit of object of both the theoretical and empirical analysis the behaviour of persons
and social groups rather than events, structures, institutions, or ideologies.
(ii) It seeks to place theory and research in a frame of reference common to that of social psychology, sociology
and cultural anthropology.
(iii) It stresses the mutual interdependent of theory and research. Theoretical questions need to be stated in
operational terms for purposes of empirical research. And, in turn, empirical findings should have a bearing
on the development of political theory.
(iv) It tries to develop rigorous research design and to apply precise methods of analysis to political behaviour
problems.
Since David Easton is regarded as the leading light in this direction, we may refer to the ‘intellectual fundaments’
of this trend as enumerated by him, in the following manner:”
(i) That regularities exist which are discoverable and which can be expressed in generalisations.
(ii) That such generalisations must be testable with reference to human behaviour.
(iii) That means for acquiring and interpreting data cannot be taken for granted; they are problematic and need
to be examined self-consciously.
(iv) That measurement and quantification are necessary, but only where such measurement makes sense in
terms of other purposes.
(v) That ethical evaluation and empirical explanation should be kept separate.
(vi) That research ought to be systematic; research, untutored by theory may prove trivial and theory
unsupportable by data futile.
(vii) That understanding and explanation of political behaviour should precede application of this knowledge.
(viii) That material from the various social sciences should be integrated.
It is true that as a result of the utilization of this approach, the scope of political science has widened- and the
nature of the discipline improved in understanding and explaining ‘political reality.’ However, it may be criticized on
these grounds;
1. It is based upon a false theory of knowledge. It takes facts alone as real. On the contrary ‘universals are as
real as facts’ and facts can have meaning only in connection with the universals.
2. It is based on a false conception of scientific method. Even after collecting facts and doing their
measurement and quantification, the writer cannot free himself from the limitations of subjectivity or his
own sense of value-judgment while making some observation on their basis. Thus, fixity and definiteness
of a natural science cannot be infused in the discipline of a social science.
3. It circumscribes the scope of political science by advising us to study only those aspects, of political life
that are amenable to measurement and quantification. In this way, the significance of speculative political
theory is sacrificed at the altar of a dry and barren craze of mad scientism.’
4. Finally, it makes political science at handmaid of sociology by laying down that all political activity and
institutions reflect the nature of society and are determined and patterned to a large extent by divisions
within society.

25
3.5.9 Marxian Approach
In this direction, Marxian approach has a place of its own that may be regarded as basically different from - both
the traditional and the modem approaches in several important aspects, though we may discover certain points of
resemblance with both as well. The astonishing feature of this approach is that here ‘state’, being the central theme of
political science, is conceived as an inevitable consequence of class contradictions. As such, the system of Marxian
dialectics culminates in the justification of a stateless condition of social life that would come into being as the final
stage of social development. Moreover, economics dominates the scene so much so that all other disciplines like
history, sociology, psychology and ethics become its offshoots. Politics becomes integrally connected with the
basic economic structure finding its manifestation in the forces and relations of production. Thus, it is stressed that
in the real world, “economic and political forces and factors are constantly interacting and are extremely hard to
disentangle one from the other.”
The significance of the Marxian approach is traceable in the fact that its utilization calls for a deeper scrutiny of
the meaning and nature of politics. Instead of keeping the focus of study confined to the formal structure and
sub-structure of a political system, it lays emphasis on going at the roots. Thus, it holds that the economic system
determines the class structure and as there is a change in the means of production, distribution and exchange, so there
is a corresponding change in the relations of the masters and the slaves, the feudal lords and the serfs, the capitalists
and the workers — the dominant and the dominated classes. Struggle for power constituting the bedrock of politics
should, therefore, be studied in the context of the conflict between two antagonistic classes. This state of contradictions
can end only in the establishment of a socialist society. Obviously this approach not only lays stress on the fact of
social contradictions, it also discovers their resolution. In- this way, it assumes a deterministic character.
If so, the Marxian approach becomes like an ideology. It stands on a particular set of propositions that are not
open to question and that call for a concerted action for the sake of their realisation and implementation so as to
change the world and not merely interpret it. It not only exposes the inherent weaknesses and defects of the existing
capitalist system, it also informs the exploited and the oppressed class of the workers peasants and toilers to unite so
as to break the chains of slavery and win the whole world. Thus it treats state as an instrument of exploitation and
oppression by one class over another and lays down that class character of the state cannot come to an end until the
classless society is culminated in the stateless condition of life. As Marx in his German ideology says: “...in a
communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity, but where each can become accomplished in
any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing
today and another thing tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize
alter dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.”
Since the subject of comparative politics throws special focus on the study of the Third World countries, the
Marxian approach endeavours to study the politics of the undeveloped and developing areas in the context of
imperialistic exploitation that has for centuries kept a very large number of the Afro- Asian countries in a state of
political subjugation and economic exploitation and is still making efforts for the retention of the same in the garb of
neo-colonialism. In this way, not the state but the ‘class’ remains the main actor even in the realm of international
politics and the entire class of the workers of the world is informed to break the hold of the imperialist powers. Thus,
Lenin calls imperialism the ‘final stage of capitalism’ and Maurice Dobb says: ‘Capitalism has grown into a world
system of colonial oppression, and of financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the
world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries And this ‘booty’ is shared between two or three powerful world marauders
aroused to the teeth...who also involve the whole world in their war over the sharing of their booty.”
Viewed in this context, a study of the politics of the poor and backward countries of the world should be made in
the context of extra-societal forces operating in the international environment. Instead of making superficial
comparisons between the political processes and institutions of the rich and advanced countries of the world like the
United States, Britain and France on the one hand and the newly independent countries of the Third Word like Zaire,
Zimbabwe and Combodia on the other, we should study the working of the political system of the poor and backward
countries of the world in the light of ‘inputs’ coming from the environment and the ‘outputs’ being a result of the
same. Thus, Frantz Fanon suggests that “the Marxist analysis “should always be stretched every time we have to do
with the colonial power.” The reason of the justification of liberation wars going on in the dependent or semi-
independent parts of the world and the support of the Marxists for the same should be traced here. It is evident from
the statement of Khruschev: “The communists fully support such just wars, arid march in the front rank with people’s
waging liberation struggles.”

26
 In this way, the Marxian approach claims itself to be scientific as well as progressive. It rejects the present as
oppressive, exploitative and inequilitarian and instead desires a new set up in which exploitation ,and oppression are
replaced by the glorious virtues of co-operation and harmony. Politics is treated as a manifestation of class antagonisms
and its end is conceived in the culmination of social development when the phase of class identification and resolution
of conflicts would unleash glorious human values. Thus, this approach that has been empirical so far, assumes a
normative character in the end. In short, the whole approach looks like “a theory, which qua theory, provides a broad-
based vision of society in all stages of development; at its base lies the fundamental importance of production, and
from there the economic sub structure of society and the crucial role of the class.”
The Marxian approach may be appreciated for being empirical. The role of economic factors in the operation of
politics cannot be lost sight of. If the working of a political system is to be studied and analysed with the help of any
modern approach (as structural-functional, input-output, political communication and simulation, political socialisation
and acculturation, political development and modernization etc.,) the role of economics in the creation of inputs
cannot be ignored. The inputs are so powerful that they have their definite impact on the decisions of the ‘men in
authority roles’. Similarly, we may not ignore the fact of international economic forces that have an impact of their
own on the environment within which the politics of a country, particularly of a poor and backward country, operates.
The multinational corporations or transnational agencies have their strength in the domain of economics and their
working in the form of neo-imperialism has its definite impact upon the politics of a country as a result of which
revolutions and counter revolutions occur in a country like Indonesia, Chile and Iran. However, the weakness of this
approach may be seen in its conversion into an ideology. The perspectives of this approach are so rigid that the
subscriber has to work within a specified parameter. Elasticity is replaced by rigidity that has a circumvential effect
on the scientific study of politics. Thus, this approach is criticized for culminating in the ‘pseudo-scientism of
degenerated Marxism.’
Several modem political scientists came forward to work for the development of new approaches for the study of
politics and comparative politics. All these got a collective name. The Modern Approach or Empirical scientific
approach to the study of comparative politics.
3.5.10 Political Economy Approach
It is defined as a social science which deals with the interconnections of economic and political process. There is
general agreement that the political system functions within an ecology of other systems of human interaction namely,
sociology, economic and religious. Therefore, mere study of Constitutions and institutions is considered inadequate
to understand the nature of politics and state in terms of its functions and ability to perform desired goals. Marxists
in particular believe that economics is the base of society and political system.
Marxism's ultimate aim is to create a classless society. Till this aim is achieved, state and politics is to be understood
and analysed in terms of class relations, class domination and class struggle. According to the Marxist approach,
therefore, comparative politics also has to be understood in terms of class domination over political structures.
The nature of political regimes has to be explained as the expression of specific interest and forces within particular
national states, which can take important decisions for the operation of an economy. It must be kept in mind that the
state is shaped by civil society, i.e. the conjuncture of wide range of social, cultural, economic and political forces. A
historical analysis of these alone will enable to grasp the nature of the state in terms of its structure, function and
legitimacy.
In order to investigate the origins and characteristics of present day states, it is necessary to consider their political
history and also the dynamics of the mode of production, capitalist or socialist. In addition, the conjunctures of
socioeconomic and political forces have created national cultures which legitimate the role of the state and prescribe
the limits of its intervention in the sphere of social and economic activity.
In this sense, there are considerable differences not only between states based on different modes of production
but also between political regimes situated within similar modes of production.
3.5.11 New Institutionalism Approach
New institutionalism is also called neo institutionalism. It is a methodological approach in the study of Political
Science, Economics, Organisational Behaviour, and Sociology. Such methodology became prominent in the 1980's
among scholars of US politics.
New institutionalism combined the interests of traditionalist scholars, who focused on studying formal institutional
rules and structures, with behaviouralist scholars, who examined the actions of individual political actors.

27
 Historical Background of New Institutionalism Approach
From the 1930s through the 1950s, traditionalist scholars dominated political science as a discipline, especially
in the United States. Scholars which were most interested in examining the formal structures and rules, were the
foundation of political and governmental institutions such as the executive, legislative and judicial branches.'
The new institutionalist approach has its roots in the early to mid-1980s. The two of the leading founders of the
new institutionalism, American political scientist James G March and Norwegian political scientist Johan P Olsen
published at a very influential pace.
The New Institutionalism, Organisational Factors in Political Life (1984), followed by a book. Rediscovering
Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics (1989).
They continued to argue for further institutional analysis in Democratic Governance (1995). According to these
authors, studying individual political behavior without examining institutional constraints on that behaviour was giving
scholars a skewed understanding of political reality. There are at least three branches of neo institutionalism
(i) Rational choice institutionalism
(ii) Sociological institutionalism
(iii) Historical institutionalism
Despite the differences, there are some common notions in this line of research. Historical institutionalists
define and explain specific real-world political outcomes (such as an election) by using the historical legacy of
institutional structure and feedbacks available to them.
They also view politics as a competition over scarce resources and highlight differences in political power between
institutions, such as between the courts and the legislature. Historical institutionalists note that institutions do not
perform with perfect efficiency (because they were designed in earlier times) and institutional rules are slow to
change and thus these factors must be taken into account in any analysis.
3.6 Features of Modern Approach and difference between modern and Traditional Approaches
The following are the features of the Modern Approach. These also fully demonstrate the difference between it
and the Traditional Approach.
1. Whereas the traditional approach focuses on the study of the state, the modem approach focuses on the
study of the political system - a concept which is much broader than the concept-of state.
2. Modem approach advocates the study of political processes and patterns of political beliaviour of the
people of all the countries whereas the traditional approach advocates the study of political institutions of
major states.
3. Modem approach stands for a realistic study of the actual behaviour and functions of political structures,
while the traditional approach stands for legal-institutional and philosophical-normativist study of the formal
political institutions of the state.
4. Modem approach places great attention on the study of the environment - social, economic, cultural and
psychological - which surrounds political institutions and strictures. The traditional approach pays little
attention to this aspect.
5. Modem approach stands for interdisciplinary focus, whereas traditional approach upholds the autonomy of
political science as a distinct science of state and government.
6. Modern approach undertakes the study and comparative study of all political systems - their processes,
structures and functions - located in all pails of the globe. As against this, the traditional approach was
initially dominated by the study of European political systems and even now stands inclined in favour of
this direction.
7. Modern approach stands for the use of scientific methods for conducting political and comparative political
research. Traditional approach favours the use of the knowledge of Law, History’ and Philosophy for this
purpose.
8. Modem approach stands for explanation, prediction and theory-building and the traditional approach stands
mainly for description.
28
 9. Modem approach stands for the empirical study of relevant facts of politics. It gives only a limited place to
the study of values. Traditional approach, however, stands for the study of values as the essential ingredient
of all studies in politics and comparative politics.
Thus, the features of the modern and traditional approaches are quite different from each other.
3.7 Let us Sum up
As such, in contemporary times, comparative politics studies are characterised by the traditional approach, the
modem approach and the Marxian approach. This is, in fact, a necessary and ideal condition for the development of
the discipline.
3.8 Glossary:
● Normative: The Prescription of values and standards of conduct, dealing with questions pertaining to
‘what should be’ rather than ‘what is’.
● Methodology: The study of different methods of research, including the identification of research question,
the formulation of theories to explain certain event and political outcomes, and the development of research
design.
● System Theory: The theory that treats the political system as a self regulating mechanism, responding to
‘inputs’ (demands and support) by issuing authoritative decisions or ‘outputs’ (Policies).
● Eurocentric: Refers to the bias and distortions which emerge from the application of European Values,
beliefs and theories, to other cultures and groups.
3.9Answer to Check you Progress Exercises
Note: use the space given below for your answer
Check your Progress-1
1. What is meant by Historical Method?
........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................
Check your Progress-2
2. What are the different methods of Comparison in Comparative Politics?
........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................
3.10 Suggested Readings
● Tapan Biswal (ed.), Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Trinity, 2015).
● O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.).
● Hari Hara Das, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: National Publishing House).
● J.C. Johari, Comparative Politics (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.).
● Parmatma Sharan, Comparative Government and Politics (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan).
● Eddy Asirvathan and K.K. Misra, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors).
● A.C. Kapoor, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● S.C. Singhal, Political Theory (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarawal).
● V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.)
● Sri Ram Maheshwari, Comparative Government and Politics (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Aggarwal, 1985).

29
 ● Manoj Kumar, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis (New Delhi: Anmol Publication, 2004).
● Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: the Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered
(Westview Press, 1994).
● Howard J. Wiarda, ‘Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the field in the Post cold War Era’
Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19 No.5.

3.11 Terminal Objectives

1. Critically examine the main theme of philosophical, legal and institutional approaches?
2. What is modern approach to comparative politics? Explain its features and compare it with the traditional
approach?
3. Critically examine the Marxist approach to the study of Comparative Politics?

*****

30
 Lesson-4
Political System: Meaning and Typologies

Structure
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Leaning Objectives
4.2 Shill’s Classification of Political System
4.3 Apter’s Classification of Political System
4.4 Almond’s Classification of Political System
4.5 Almond’s Classification of Political System on the basis of Political Culture
4.5.1 Anglo-American Political System
4.5.2 Continental European Political System
4.5.3 Pre-Industrial or Partially-Industrialized System
4.5.4 Totalitarian Political System
4.6 Finer’s Classification of Political System
4.7 Let us Sum Up
4.8 Glossary
4.9 Answer to Self Check Exercise
4.10 Suggested Readings
4.11 Terminal Questions
4.0 Introduction
A major types of Political System are democracies, monarchies and authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more unstable politically because their leaders do not enjoy legitimate
authority and instead rule through fear.
In other words, the classification should be done by taking into consideration the nature and activities of the
political systems and not on the basis of formal governmental institutions or nature of constitutions and the like.
Such variables as political development, political structures, political functions, political chance, political culture,
nature and process of political socialization, etc. should be taken into consideration while classifying political systems.
Most of the modem political scientists have now fully realised the importance of this this necessity and hence have
come forward with several classifications of political systems.
Before discussing the classifications or typologies of political systems as done by eminent modem political
scientists, it is worthwhile to remember that a Political System is taken to mean a system of interactions through
which authoritative values (laws, rules, decisions and the like) are made and implemented in the society. Robert Dahl
defines it as a persistent pattern of human relationships involving, to a significant extent, power, rule, authority or
control. It consists of all interactions which are patterned and through which the struggle for power takes place in
every society.
The concept of Political System covers all interactions that take place within the state, the government, all
political institutions both formal and non-formal, constitutional or extra constitutional and legal or extra-legal. In
other words, it is the sum total of political interactions through which authoritative values are made and implemented
in the society. It is the power system of the society in the sense that it alone exercises political or sovereign power in
the society.
4.1 Learning Objectives
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:-
• Understand the typologies of Political System.
• Explain Shills’s Classification of Political System.
• Know the meanings totalitarian Political System.
4.2 Edward Shills’s Classification of Political Systems
Edward Shills in his book “Political Development in New States” suggests a fivefold classification of political
systems based on his observation of the contemporary world. These are :

31
 1. Political Democracy: The components of the political systems of this category are : (1) regime of a civilian
rule through representative institutions, (2) important position of the legislature, (3) political enjoyment of
liberties by the people, (4) periodic assessment by the people (competitive elections), (5) rule of law, (6)
functioning of all the branches of the government within the framework of the constitution, (7) definite term
of government, (8) independence of the judiciary, (9) high degree of legitimacy of the political institutions,
(10) intelligent leadership with high credibility, and (11) trained and well organised bureaucracy.
2. Tutelary Democracy: Such a political system retains all the institutions of political democracy but adapts
them in the direction of a greater preponderance of the executive. This system is characterized by (1) dependence
on modernisation, (2) a powerful executive, (3) limitations on press and representative institutions, and (4)
control of the elites over the masses.
3. Modernising Oligarchies: This type of political system is characterised by a well- organised elite which is
“clique-like in structure”, a “relatively closed group” watchful over new members or aspirants. It is ruled
either by a military group or a civilian junta. Its main features are ; (1) lack of interest in political democracy,
(2) rule of a military or civilian clique, (3) weak position of the legislature, (4) unreal and farcical elections,
(5) lack of opposition, (6) efficient and modernised bureaucracy, (7) lack of independent judiciary and stability
in appearance but hollowness within.
4. Totalitarian Oligarchies: Such political systems are characterised by a “monolithic ideology” and a “strong
well-disciplined party” which is the “custodian of the ideology” led by a “highly coherent elite.” In them, “no
other party or opposition is tolerated” and they completely “dispense with representative institutions” except
for “acclaiming or ceremonial purposes.” There is no rule of law, no independent judiciary and the highest law
is the decision of the party. In other words, its main features are : (1) glory of the ruling elite, (2) democratic
cloak, (3) lack of real rights and liberties of the people, (4) supreme regard for ideology, i.e., official ideology,
(5) monolithic position of the party of the rulers, (6) identity between party and government, (7) lack of
political participation by the people, and (8) absence of rule of law and independence of judiciary.
5. Traditional Oligarchies: In this type of political system, there is a “firm dynastic constitution buttressed by
traditional religious beliefs.” “Kinship” or “a constitution of Kinship and choice of the qualified” is the basis
of the rule of the rulers. All decision -making is done by the ‘palace of the ruler’. Its main features are : (1)
Importance of “royal/rulers’ blood” relationships, (2) lack of modernised bureaucracy, (3) respect for traditions
(4) parochial and traditional culture, (5) weak government since it is an instrument in the hands of the feudal
lords, the clergy, and the rich.
Shills’s classification is comprehensive but is based on values and standards drawn from Western political
systems.
4.3 Apter’s Classification of Political Systems
Apter’s classification is based on two identifiable criteria and their combinations. They are :
(a) “measure of stringency of control” or “centralisation of authority”.
(b) “degree to which ultimate ends are employed in action, i.e., whether the ends are ‘sacred’ or secular”.
By a combination of these two bases, Apter suggests a fourfold classification of political systems. He
shows these with the help of the following figure :

Values Hierarchial Pyramidical Authoritative Pattern

Consummatory
(Sacred or Religious) A B

Instrumental C D
(Secular)

Where (A) = Mobilization System (Totalitarian).

(B) = Consociational or Reconciliation System (Democratic)

32
 (C) = Modernising Autocracies or Modernising Oligarchies (Military or Civil Modernising Regimes)
(D) = Theocracies (Religious Rules)
1. Mobilising System: It is a totalitarian system in which the ruling elite is not, any way, limited by constitutional
provisions and it has full control and forcibly secured support of the people. The legislature is merely an
instrument for legitimizing the policies of the rulers. A single all-powerful party carries out the entire
operation of politics.
2. Consociational or Reconciliational System: Such a system gives importance cooperation among various
groups. Its model can be confederal or federal. The emphasis is upon the coordination of consenting and
dissenting opinions. The pattern of author is pyramidical, there is dispersion of powers, the leadership is
pluralistic, power is exercised both by the centre and the units and legitimacy depends upon the representatives.
This type of system is very near to the one described by Shills as political democracy.
3. Modernising Oligarchic Systems or Modern Autocracies: In these, the authority is hierarchically
organised. They believe in values of modernisation. Power is exercised by hierarchically organised groups
of leaders working at different levels. They follow revivalist and neo-traditionalist ideology. They tolerate
new changes.
4. Theocracies: Such systems are ruled by religious leaders or leaders in the name of religion, e.g., Saudi
Arabia, Iran, even Pakistan are theocracies.
Apter’s classification is modem but does not cover all political systems.
4.4 Almond’s Classification of Political Systems
In their work ‘Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach,’ Almond and Powell have suggested a
comprehensive classification of Political Systems. Their classificatory scheme is based on two criteria:
(i) Structural Differentiation, i.e., the development and proliferation of specialised structures for the performance
of specific functions or roles.
(ii) Cultural Secularization, i.e., the growth of rational, analytical and empirical criteria in decision-making.
On these two bases they offer a three-fold broad classification of political systems :-
(1) Systems with intermittent political structures - in which there is a minimum of structural differentiation and
a concomitant diffused and parochial political culture.
(2) Systems with differentiated governmental political structures characterised by subject political culture.
(3) Systems with differentiated political infrastructures characterised by participant political culture.
Within these three broad categories, they have specified several specific categories of political systems.
The whole scheme is given below :-

33
 The classification of Political Systems offered by Almond and Powell is very comprehensive and covers all
political systems. However, it is a very lengthy scheme.
4.5 Almond’s Classification of Political systems on the basis of political culture
In Comparative Politics, Political Culture can be a basis for classifying political Systems. Almond uses the
concept of political culture to classify political systems. He identifies four distinct types of political systems in the
contemporary world. These are (1) The Anglo-American Political Systems; (2) The Continental European Political
Systems; (3) The Pre-Industrial or Partially-Industrialised Political Systems, and (4) Totalitarian Systems.
4.5.1 Anglo-American Political Systems
The main features of the Anglo-American political systems are as under :
(i) These systems are characterised by multi-valued political cultures in which a large majority of the population
is firmly committed to the realisation of values of individual freedom, mass welfare and security. Cultural
Pluralism and Political Integration characterises such political systems.
(ii) In such systems, the political culture is homogeneous to the extent that there is general agreement about
political ends and the means to their realisation.
(iii) Politics is played like a game. The result of the political struggle is constantly in doubt but the rival groups of
political leaders do not convert the atmosphere of the game into a battlefield.
(iv) The political system presents the scene of a market in which each actor has a well defined role, and a great deal
of bargaining takes place between various role incumbents. Policies are offered for sale in exchange for
votes. The outcome of the game of politics is determined by votes. That group of leaders wins it which gets
more votes than every other group.
(v) Roles in these political systems are highly differentiated. Each structure—Party or Pressure Group or voluntary
organisation or governmental institution, has a specialised purpose or some specific purposes and performs a
specialised function in the political system.
(vi) In addition to the complex and highly differentiated role structure, there is stability of this differentiation.
Each structure performs its functions and contributes to the stability of the system.
(vii) The Anglo American political systems operate on the basis of the diffusion of power and influence. There is
distribution of power among various structures. There are several meaningful checks and balances among
them.
(viii) Finally, in these political systems, all political interest groups in society play a part in the system and make
their influence felt in the political process.
Anglo American Political Systems are at work in developed Western countries like Britain and America.
4.5.2 The Continental European Political Systems
The Continental European Political Systems are less developed than the Anglo-American political systems. Their
main features are as under :
(i) The political culture is fragmented and not homogeneous. Different sections of society have different sub-
cultures some of which are more developed than others. The political culture is of the nature of a series of
sub-cultures. These sub-cultures arc the product of internal industrial and technological developments. Some
of the sub-cultures are feudalistic while others are modernised. Further, each sub-culture tends to be divided
within itself. Each has elements which are more intransigent in their attitude towards other sections of society
than the rest.
(ii) The type of bargaining and compromising which characterises the Anglo-American systems, is absent here.
Each cultural sub-section of society has conflicting and mutually exclusive design for the political culture
and the political system. Political affiliations become more an act of faith rather than a starting point for
negotiations among the competing big political actors.
(iii) In The process of conflict resolution, each sub-cultural group tries to dominate the other and is not prepared
to compromise and adopt the views of others.
(iv) In Continental European systems each sub-culture develops a separate sub-system of roles. These roles are
not attached to the system as a whole but become embedded in the sub-cultures themselves. There is a general
lack of mobility between role incumbents in various sub-cultures.

34
 (v) The sub-cultural divisions are often challenged and sometimes swept by movements of charismatic nationalism
using coercive methods for transforming the fragmented political culture into a synthetically homogeneous
one.
Continental European political systems include, as Almond says, the French, German and Italian Political
Systems.
4.5.3 Pre-Industrial or Partially-Industrialised Systems
(i) Such a political system has a mixed political culture - Traditional Political Culture plus Western Political
Culture.
(ii) The Cultural mix is very often the result of an imperialist or colonial era in the country’s history. It results
from contact between the native political culture and the Western type culture which dominated society in the
era of imperialism and colonialism.
(iii) The erosion of traditional political culture often results in tensions appearing in society. People become
concerned with the erosion of traditional values, norms, customs and traditions and develop a sense of insecurity
which often leads to violent protests against the emergent system. However, here again, like the Continental
European systems, the conflict of political cultures often results in the appearance of charismatic nationalism
attempting to consolidate the new cultural norms.
(iv) This type of system has a high potential for violence. It is caused by difficulties of communication and
coordination which result from the fact that large groups within the system have radically different conceptions
and orientations about the political system as a whole and its various parts.
(v) In place of functional specialisation and differentiation which characterises the Anglo-American systems, in
the Pre-industrialised systems, there tends to be a high degree of role exchanges among political structures.
Armies and bureaucracies often take over the work of legislation, legislatures indulge in interfering with
judicial proceedings and policy-making takes the form of party decision-making.
Most of the new states - the Third World countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America are having pre-industrial
or partially-industrialised political systems with native-imperialist mixed political cultures.
4.5.4 Totalitarian Political Systems
Totalitarian political systems have an altogether different political culture from the Anglo-American political
systems. Their main features are:
(i) Voluntary associations are not allowed to exist and operate in the society.
(ii) Means of communications are controlled by the government or its agencies.
(iii) Political Culture of a Totalitarian political system is projected as a homogeneous one, but this homogeneity is
artificial and synthetic.
(iv) Use of power as coercion or force stands centralised in the hands of bureaucracy which, in turn, is controlled
by a monolithical political party.
(v) Legitimacy of authority in a Totalitarian Political system is secured through forcible means and propaganda.
(vi) Force and fear are used by the state to control the system.
(vii) There is centralisation of the power in the hands of a monolith party and no diffusion or decentralisation of
power is really permitted. The party controls the government, the bureaucracy, the army and the police.
These characteristics were present in the Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The former communist countries
of the world, the erstwhile USSR and socialist countries of Eastern Europe and at present China and Cuba fall in this
category.
Almond’s classification of political systems, on the basis of political cultures, though somewhat rigid, can
be very helpful in analysing and comparing all political systems in terms of their political cultures. In this era of Post-
Modernism, the political culture of all the countries, particularly the developed countries are destined to change in
the years to come feminism, sub-altemism justice movements are definitely going to act as a source of change in all
political system.
4.6 S.E. Finer’s Classification of Political Systems
S.E. Finer, in his book “Comparative Government” has given a classificatory scheme which is quite
comprehensive, relatively simple and takes into account the empirical realities of politics in various states. For his
classificatory scheme, he identifies and depends upon three criteria :

35
 (a) how far are the masses or the public involved in or excluded from the governing process - this is the participant-
exclusion dimension:
(b) how far the masses or the public obey their rulers out of commitment or how far out of fear - this is the
coercion-persuasion dimension; and
(c) how far are the arrangements designed to cause the rulers to reflect the actual and current values of the
masses or the public or how far may they disregard these for the sake of continuity and future values - this is
the order-representativeness dimension.
On each of the three dimensions, S.E. Finer classifies political systems in several categories.
(1) Under the first dimension, i.e., the participant-exclusion dimension. Finer classifies political systems on
the basis as to whether the mass of the people extensively participates in the system or stands excluded from
it. In developed democratic systems, like the USA, the UK, and Switzerland, the political participation of the
people is very big and effective whereas in less democratic or developing systems, it is limited. In non-
democratic totalitarian authoritarian systems, it is negligible.
(2) Under the second dimension - coercion-persuasion dimension. Finer seeks to classify political systems on
the basis as to whether the rulers use coercion or persuasion for securing people’s obedience or they use a
mixture of persuasion and coercion or they use coercion for this purpose. He sub-divides this dimension
into four parts; (1) Coercion (Fear), (2) Manipulation (Deference), (3) Regimentation (Sentiments), and
(4) Persuasion/ Bargaining (Cognition) interests.
(3) The third dimension - the order-representativeness dimension, is used by Finer to classify political systems
on the basis whether the rules reflect the present goals or disregard these for the sake of continuity and
future values. “The qualities expected of government are by no means simple. On the contrary, they form a
complex of requirements which are mutually inconsistent and so the composition of this complex tends to
differ from one society to another. The organs of government do not simply represent or reproduce the
consciously expressed values of the public.... A government does not simply represent, for the public will
also expect it to provide continuity and they are also expected to show foresight.” So each government has
to take care of the present as well as future goals, represent as well as lead the people. It has to maintain
order and rule as well as act as representative of the people. In some political systems, there is a large
amount of sub-group autonomy whereas in others, there is sub-group dependence. Representativeness demands
turn-over of rulers but many rulers, in practice, trample upon the representative principle and build personal
or collective (group) despotism; they discount the present goals for the sake of future goals.
On the basis of above these three dimensions and by relating one with the Other dimension, S.E. Finer offers
a sixfold classification :
1. Military Regimes. Based on coercion, lacking in sub-group autonomy, having either high or moderate sub-
group dependency, e.g.. Military Regime of Pakistan.
2. Dynastic Regimes. Based on manipulation (deference), e.g., Saudi Arabia.
3. Facade Democracies. Democratic in form but oligarchic in reality, show of representativeness, persuasion
and participation but in reality dependence upon manipulation, exclusion, coercion and other future goals.
4. Quasi-Democracies. Having varying degrees of representativeness but living under the hegemony of a single
party.
5. Totalitarian Regimes. These rely on regimentation and are characterised by hegemonic party control.
6. Liberal Democracies. These have a high level of extensive popular participation, depend mostly on persuasion,
are characterised by a high degree of representativeness and sub-group autonomy.
S.E. Finer’s classification is indeed very comprehensive but ignores the importance of the forms of
government - Parliamentary, Presidential, Unitary and Federal, as a variable for the classification of systems.
4.7 Let Us Sum Up
In fact, the task of classifying political systems is so complex that no single scheme can really serve the
entire need. Classification done by Almond and Powell and S.E. Finer can be regarded as two of the best classificatory

36
schemes, though not without inadequacies. By combining the views of several political scientists and by combining
the attempts at the classification of states and governments, we can attempt to arrive at a generally acceptable and
nearly complete classificatory scheme. Political Systems can be classified into three specific categories. Liberal
Democratic, totalitarian and Authoritarian Political Systems.
Governments can be classified into four Main Categories - Parliamentary, Presidential, Unitary and Federal.
A combined classificatory scheme can be given below :
Political Systems

Liberal Democratic Totalitarian Authoritarian

Federal Unitary Communist Fascist Modernising Traditional

Parliamentary Presidential Parliamentary Presidential Civilian Military

4.8 Glossary
● Liberal Democracy : Democratic government that provides for the protection of individual human rights,
in order to prevent a majority from oppressing a minority.
● Totalitarion : A regime of command by the government and obedience by the citizens. The regime controls
all aspects of Political and Social life.
● Authoritarian : A regime command and control by the ruler of the government. The government is fully
controlled by the ruler.
● Order : A state of peace and security, maintained by protecting citizens from violence and criminal activity.
4.9 Answer to Self-Check Exercise
Note: Use the space given below for your answer.
Check your Progress-I
1. What do you mean by Political System?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
Check your Progress -2
2. Write a short essay on modern classification of Political System?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
4.10 Suggested Readings
● Blum, W.T., Theories of Political Systems, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall), 1981.
● Caramani, Daniele (ed.) Comparative Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press), 2008.
● Dahl, Robert A., Pluralist Democracy in the United States, (Calcutta Scientific Books), 1969.
● Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their origin and Activities in Modern State, (London: John Yiley), 1954.
● Eckstine, H. and Apter, David, Comparative Politics: A Reader, (New York: Free Press), 1963.
● Gena, C.B., Comparative Politics and Political Institutions, (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House), 2014.
37
● Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, (New York: Palgrave),
2001.
● Johari, J.C., Comparative Politics, Latest Revised edition, (New Delhi : Sterling Publishers).
● Landman, Todd, Issue and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, (London : Routledge), 2000.
● Macridis, C.R. and Ward, R.E., Major Political Systems, (New Jersey : Prentice Hall), 1963.
● Milbarth, Lester W. and Goel, M.L., Political Participation, (Chieago: Rand Menally College),1977.
● Palekar, S.A., Comparative Politics and Government, (Delhi: PHI Learning), 2009.
● Ray, S.N., Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall).
● Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis, (Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press), 1976.
4.11 Terminal Questions
1. What do you mean by Political System?
2. Discuss the typologies of Political System as suggested by Almond?
3. Examine the modern classification of Political System?

*****

38
 Lesson-5
Democratic Political System
Structure
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Learning Objectives
5.2 Meaning of Liberal Democracy
5.3 Forms of Liberal Democracy
5.4 Features of Liberal Democracy
5.5 Advantages of Liberal Democratic System
5.6 Demerits of Liberal Democratic System
5.7 Let Us Sum Up
5.8 Glossary
5.9 Answer to Self Check Exercise
5.10 Suggested Readings
5.11 Terminal Questions
5.0 Introduction
A Liberal Democratic System is one of the three most popular types of contemporary political systems which are
at work in various states. Some of the states have maintained this system for well over a century; for example, the UK,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries. The list also
includes several other states which are today liberal democratic states but whose past has been chequered, e.g.,
France, West Germany, Italy and Japan. Further, we can add to the list of developing liberal democratic states like
India, Zambia, Sri Lanka. A liberal democratic political system is considered to be the best system that the people of
a state can adopt, provided they have the willingness and a certain commitment to its values and norms.
5.1 Learning Objectives
After going through this chapter you will be able to:
• Understand the meaning of Liberal Democracy.
• Discuss the features of Liberal Democracy.
• Examine and evaluate the features of Liberal Political System.
5.2 Meaning and Definition of Liberal Democracy
In a Liberal Democratic Political System, people are regarded as the final source of all power. The government of
the state derives its power from the people and is responsible and accountable to the people. It always works in
accordance with the dictates of public opinion. People enjoy rights and freedoms which are constitutionally granted
and guaranteed. There is rule of law, independence of the judiciary’, decentralization of powers, sub-system autonomy,
open struggle for power among voluntarily organized groups and political panics, consensus politics, peaceful conflict
resolution, dependence on persuasion, little role of coercion and a harmonious balance between the present and
future goals.
S.E. Finer clarifies the meaning of the terms “Democracy” and “Liberal” for clearly conceptualizing the essential
features of a Liberal Democratic Political System. S.E. Finer assigns three meanings to Democracy:-
(i) The primary meaning of democracy is government which is derived from public opinion and is accountable
to it. Accountability does not mean that the government once elected represents public opinion. It means
that the government must continuously test its representativeness, that it must continuously test its claim
that it is derived from public opinion.
(ii) The public opinion is orderly and freely expressed. The people have the means to express their opinion
freely. They have the political rights to elect, to get elected,’ to get information from the government, to
criticize the policies of the government and to change the government in elections,
(iii) In matters of contention between sections of public opinion, it is the majority opinion that prevails.
In other words, Democracy means a system in which people’s power is supreme, and they are the determinants of
the government. Public opinion is freely expressed and rule of majority is there, but the majority does not ride rough
shod over the minority. Attempts are always made to coordinate or harmonies majority and minority opinions into a
coherent whole - a consensus.
39
5.3 Forms of Liberal Democracy :
A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms as it may be constitutional monarchy such as Australia,
Belgium, Canada, France, India, Italy, Ireland and the United States. It may have parliamentary system, a presidential
system or a semi-presidential system such as France and Romania.
5.4 Features of Liberal Democracy
After having conceptualized Liberal Democracy, it becomes easy for us to comprehend and describe its salient
features. These are as under:
(1) Representative Government: In a Liberal Democratic system, the government is‘ the representative of the
people. It is elected by the people. The members of the legislature are elected by the people for a fixed term. The
legislature is the custodian of the finances of the nation and representative of national public opinion. The right to
vote is available to all without any discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, creed, place of birth, religion, sex, and
property. Except for a minimum age qualification (18 or 20 or 21 years), there is no rigid and formal qualification in
respect of the right to vote. People elect their representatives. Who govern them. They have to continuously prove
their representativeness. They have to maintain and periodically prove their popularity. People can change the
government through elections.
(2) Civil Liberties: In a Liberal Democracy, the people have the right to freely express their views. They have
the right to freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of the press and other means of mass media are ensured.
They have the right to form voluntary associations and through them to pursue their interests.
(3) Defined and Specific Role of the Executive: In a Liberal Democratic system, the role of the executive is
defined. The political executive undertakes policy formulation and the permanent executive - the Bureaucracy/Civil
Service, implements the decisions and policies of the government. The latter advises the former and places at its
disposal professional expertise, non-political non partisan advice, technical knowledge and experience. The political
executive head and the executive is representative of and responsive to public opinion. It supervises the functioning
of the civil service. The civil service is skilled, neutral, dispassionate and permanent. Its main function is to advise and
run the day-to-day administration of the government.
(4) Limited Government: Liberal Democracy involves the concept of limited government. The government
exercises only those powers which are granted to it by the Constitution. The manner in which powers are to be
exercised by the government institutions is also specified and definite. It is not allowed to exercise its power arbitrarily.
A separation of functions is affected. The powers of all the organs are granted in a manner which help them to act out
well their roles and involve inter-original checks and balances with a view to prevent arbitrariness on the part of any
one organ. The government is accountable to the people for all actions. It holds office for a fixed tenure after which
it must seek a fresh mandate from the people.
(5) Social and Economic Checks and Balances: In a Liberal Democracy, there are social and economic checks
and balances on the activities of the government. It is characterized by the active existence and activities of a large
number of social and economic associations and interest groups of the people which enjoy a large amount of autonomy.
These groups play a vital role in interest articulation, political communication, political socialization and the policy-
making processes of the political system. The bulk of economic decisions in liberal democracies are not taken by the
government alone. The economic interest groups play a vital role in it. Likewise, many decisions are taken in
consultation with the associations of professional men.
(6) Political Checks and Balances: Political participation of the people in very large numbers is a hallmark of
liberal democracy. All shades of public opinion are involved in the political process. The right to form political
associations and use them to influence decision-making is an accepted and popular practice. The three organs of
government are held by different hands and never united under the control of same man or body of men. None of these
three is given the power to coerce or dominate either of the other two. The division of powers between the three
organs of government acts as an intenal brake and prevents the government from being autocratic. Further, the division
of the legislature into Upper and Lower Houses also serves this end. In some states, the adoption of the federal
system involving division of powers between one central government and several unit governments is also designed
as a system of checks and balances.
According to A.R. Ball, liberal-democratic system has the following characteristics:-
1. There is more than one political party the parties are able to compete freely with each other for political
power.
2. The competition for power is open not secretive, and based on established and accepted forms of procedure.

40
 3. Entry and recruitment to positions of political power is relatively open.
4. There are periodic elections based on a wide franchise.
5. Pressure groups are able to operate to influence government decisions. Associations such as trade unions
and other voluntary societies are not subject to close governmental control.
6. Civil liberties such as freedom of speech and religion and freedom from arbitrary arrest, are recognised
and protected by the government.
7. There is an independent judiciary.
8. The mass media, that is, television, radio, newspapers, are not monopolized by the government and have,
within certain limits freedom to criticize the government.
All this brings us to the point that a liberal democratic state whether it fails into the list of successful countries of
the West like Britain and the United States or comes into the category of ‘experimental’ countries of the East ‘like
India and Japan, is one which stands for the preservation of the entire paraphernalia of a representative government.
Realizing it well that democracy has become the battle cry of the day and every system assiduously claims to be
democratic despite having a rank authoritarian character, the sanctity of the case of a liberal- democratic state remains
unvitiated by the specter of a totalitarian order. The fact stands out that while power is divided and diffused in a liberal
democratic system, it is freezed and concentrated in the opposite model known by the name of totalitarianism.
5.5 Advantages of Liberal Democratic System
A Liberal Democratic system is considered the best system which can enable the people to develop under a freely
organised, representative and responsible government. It is suited most for safeguarding the interests of the common
man. To him, it provides several social, economic, political and individual benefits. It is a source of stable and
responsible government, because the government always rests upon and works in accordance with the dictates of
public opinion. All the people are equal partners in organising, working and controlling the government. It ensures an
open, free, fair and continuous struggle for power in society. It encourages peaceful resolution of conflict and is a
source of self-education for the people. It provides adequate political education to the people by involving them in
the activities of the political system at various levels. Since the government is limited and rests upon the consent of
the people, its policies and actions are neither arbitrary nor violently opposed by the people. In it the people get the
chance to elect their representatives, i.e., the government after regular intervals. Periodic, secret, free and fair elections
ensure such an opportunity.
It, therefore, leaves little reason for the people to plan and effect revolutions. Through their political parties and
interest groups, the people play a vital role in the political process. There is always a close relationship between the
“governors” and the “governed”. The government is responsible and accountable for all its actions and is, therefore,
always engaged in explaining its actions to the people. It enjoys a high degree of legitimacy and credibility because of
its representative character. It always tries to work efficiently because only through good productive development
results can it maintain and strengthen its popularity, legitimacy and credibility.
5.6 Possible Demerits of Liberal Democratic System
Along with the above merits, there are several possible demerits of a liberal democratic system. Any unscrupulous
and rigid approach towards the system can be counter productive. Critics criticize it as a system involving the possibility
of the rule of ignorance and incompetence. They advocate that equality is neither possible nor really desirable. The
government under this system is weak because of several social, economic, political, legal and constitutional checks
upon its authority. The principle of the rule of the majority can be exploited by it against the interests of the minorities.
The political parties and interest groups keep the people fragmented and give rise to the problems of maintaining
national unity and integrity. It is a very expensive system. Elections involve a lot of expenditure on the part of both the
government which organises and the candidates who contest elections. In modem liberal democratic systems, the
executives have come to occupy a position of dominance and the legislatures have suffered a decline. The systems of
Delegated Legislation and Administrative Justice have strengthened the hands of the executive vis-a-vis the legislature.
It is responsible only in theory and not in practice.
5.7 Let Us Sum Up
These above demerits can be eliminated through several constitutional and extra constitutional, formal and non-
formal devices. Enlightened citizenship, external vigilance, free, fearless and well-organized press and means of
mass media, economic equality, high level of literacy, independent judiciary, well qualified, trained and disciplined
civil service, special steps against political corruption, a healthy and competing party system, organised, disciplined
and active opposition, and similar other devices can go a long way in eliminating or at least considerably reducing its
41
possible demerits. Liberal Democracy is a way of life and not just a system of government. Its values have to be
adopted and cultivated as habitual values. “No rule is better than self-rule.” ‘’No education is better than self-education”
and “No system is better than a responsible, responsive and accountable system.” A Liberal Democratic, Political
System meets all these three principles and hence deserves to be described as the best, at least the best possible
system that a society can have.
5.8 Glossary
● Liberty: The fullest freedom of individuals consistent with the freedom of others in the society.
● Public Opinion: It is the collective opinion of the people of a society or state on an issue or problem.
● Minority: A Small group of people who are a different race or religion to most of the people in the community
or country where they live.
● Franchise: The right to vote. Universal franchise is a modern phenomenon.
5.9 Answer to Check you Progress Exercises
Note: Use the space give below for your answers.
Check you Progress-1
1. Define Liberal Democracy?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
Check you Progress-2
2. What is a Political System?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
5.10 Suggested Readings
● See, Liberal Democratic Theory, Comparative Politics, Course-3, Lesson-8 (ICDEOL), PP. 51-54.
● A.H. Birch, The British System of Government, (London : George Align, 1970).
● C. Wright Mills, Power Elites, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957).
● Apan Biswal ed; Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (Jalandhar : Trinity Press, 2015).
● Dawryl Bakshi, American Pluralist Society, (New York: Von Noatrant, 1971).
● G.A. Almond and B. Powell, Comparative Politics:A Developmental Approach, (Boston:Little Brown, 1966).
● Eckstein and D. Apter, Comparative Politics: A Reader, (New York: free Press, 1963).
● Jean Blondel, Commparative Politics, (New York: Free Press, 1963).
● Lester W. Milbrach and M.L. Geol, Political Participation, (Chicago : Rand Mchally College Publishing Co.1977).
● Mehran Kamrava, Understanding Comparative Politics:A Framework for Analysis, (London:Rontledge. 1996).
● R.C. Macridis, The study of Comparative Government, (Garden City : Doubleday, 1955).
● Robert A. Dahl, Pluralist Democracy in the United States, (Calcutta : Scientific Books, 1969).
● Who Governs ? New Haven, (Yale University Press, 1961).
● Samarsen Ashish Bbandari, Advance Readings in Comparative and Politics, (New Delhi:Sandarbh, 1998).
● T.B. Bottomore, Elites & Society, (Penguin, 1971)
● Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics, (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 1997).
5.11 Terminal Questions
1. Define Liberal Democracy?
2. Define and discuss the features of Liberal Democracy?
3. Examine and evaluate the silent features of Liberal and Democratic Political System?
*****

42
 Lesson-6
Electoral System

Structure
6.0 Introduction
6.1 Learning Objectives
6.2 Definition
6.3 Types of Electoral System
6.3.1 First past the Post
6.3.2 Proportional Representation
6.3.3 List System
6.3.4 Single Transferable Vote System
6.3.5 Mixed System
6.3.6 Right to Recall
6.3.7 Right to Reject
6.3.8 Compulsory Voting
6.4 Majoritarian Democracy
6.5 Participatory Democracy
6.5.1 Value of Participatory Democracy
6.5.2 Current Perspective of Participatory Democracy
6.6 Let Us Sum Up
6.7 Glossary
6.8 Answer to Self Check Exercise
6.9 Suggested Readings
6.10 Terminal Questions
6.0 Introduction Electoral System:
The systems of election and representation are basic to a democratic form of government. With the rise of
political consciousness of the people it has become imperative that governmental action must conform to the people’s
aspiration. In ancient democracies, the citizens of the city-states participated in the making of laws and administration
of public business. But now with large nation-states, direct popular participation is nearly impossible. As a consequence
the practice of periodically electing some representatives who would work as the trustee of the people came to be
developed. In the realm of politics, ‘representation’ can be defined as a process through which the attitudes, preferences,
viewpoints, and desires of the entire citizenry or a part of them are, with their expressed approval, shaped into
governmental action on their behalf by a smaller number among them, with binding effect upon those represented.
The process of representation is intrinsically linked to elections and voting. Some thinkers have portrayed
elections as the very heart of democracy. Joseph Schumpeter (Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy, 1942) has
portrayed democracy as an ‘institutional arrangement’, as a means of filling public office by a competitive struggle
for the people’s vote. As he put forth, ‘democracy means only that the people have the opportunity of accepting or
refusing the men who are to rule them’. While interpreting democracy as nothing more than a political method, he
identified it with elections, and especially with competitive elections. Now barring a few democratic theorists, most
follow Schumpeter in understanding democratic government in terms of the rules and mechanisms that guide the
conduct of elections.
6.1 Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:
* Know the meaning of Electoral System.
* Understand the types of Electoral System.
* Explain First Past the Post System.

43
6.2 Definition and Procedures
An electoral system is a set of rules that governs the conduct of elections. These rules vary across the world.
The oft-cited variant in electoral systems is the formula by which votes are converted into seats. There is a generalized
assumption that electoral formulae are what matter in determining the proportionality of a system. There are a number
of determinants of, and distortions to, proportionality. Farrell mentioned four of them among others:
1. Malapportionment - where by changes in constituency profile and size over time mean that unchanged electoral
boundaries and constituency sizes result in unequal representation.
2. Gerrymandering - where politicians deliberately re-draw boundaries, often in bizarre ways, in order to maximize
concentrations of supporters and consequently win more seats.
3. Electoral thresholds - where parties need to win a certain proportion of the vote to qualify for seats.
4. Party laws which impose certain criteria on the kinds of party which are allowed to run in a race.
6.3 Types of Electoral System
6.3.1 First Past the Post
This system is more familiar to English-speaking countries such as the UK (House of Commons), the USA,
Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and also countries like India which follows the same pattern after getting
independence due to familiarization with the system during the colonial era. In this system the whole country is
divided into a number of electoral districts that may or may not coincide with the administrative districts into which
the country is divided. These electoral districts are termed ‘constituencies’. This constituency may be either single-
member or multi-member.
(i) First Past the Post is the simplest form of plurality/majority electoral system. The winning candidate is the
one who gains more votes than any other candidate, even if this is not an absolute majority of valid votes. The
system uses single-member districts and the voters vote for candidates rather than political parties.
(ii) In true majoritarian system however, election requires that the victorious candidate must hold at least ‘50
per cent plus 1’ of votes cast. Here a single-member constituency raises a very important problem. When
three or more parties are engaged in the contest, the successful candidate may be elected by less than an
absolute majority. To remedy this specific defect, the second ballot and the alternative vote system have
been proposed.
(iii) The second ballot system involves a second or ‘run-off’ election immediately after the first. The method is
that if in the first election none of the candidates in a constituency gets an absolute majority, all the candidates
below the top two are eliminated from the contest; then a second election takes place in which the contestants
are only the top two candidates. This system of voting was prevalent in France and Germany for some time.
(iv) The alternative vote system, also known as the method of preferential voting, does not involve two elections.
In an election the voters are required to make their order of preference for the candidates in a constituency.
Thus a voter is to mark 1 opposite his first choice on the ballot, and 2 and 3 opposite the names of his
choices to express his second and third alternative preferences. Then, if on the counting of the first preferences
of all the voters none of the candidates is found to get an absolute majority, the candidate getting the lowest
number of votes is dropped out of the contest and the second choices of the voters who voted for him as
their first choice are distributed according to their preferences. In the second counting that follows, the
first and second choices are totaled to see if any candidate gets an absolute majority. Even then if an absolute
majority for someone does not emerge, the process of eliminating candidates from the bottom of the poll
continues, till one gets an absolute majority.
This system operates in Australia and some Polynesian states. In this system it is possible for a candidate
who came second or, in closely run races lower, on first preferences to win the seat eventually. One of the most well-
known examples of this was the Australian election of 1998, where the extreme right party ‘One Nation’ candidate,
Pauline Hanson, who had the greatest number of first-preference votes, lost the Blair constituency to the third-placed
Liberal Party candidate, who received more second-preferences from other candidates, including those of the originally
second-placed Labour Party candidate.
The above two systems may, at best, produce a government based ‘on a majority of popular votes as well as
of parliamentary seats. Now, the majority produced by the system of the second ballot or the alternative vote is a kind
of second best, not whole hearted first choice...’ as observed by Finer.
There is a form of the first past the post system known as the ‘Block Vote System’ used in multi-member
constituencies and each voter has as many votes as there are candidates to be elected. The candidates with the highest
vote totals win the seats. Usually voters vote for candidates rather than parties and in most systems may use as many,
or as few, of their votes as they wish.
44
 Canada, Britain, and the US all use the Single Member Plurality system, sometimes called first-past-the-
post. In this system there is one representative in the legislature for each riding, and that person only has to win one
vote more than any other candidate in that riding. When the results are added up across a province or the whole
country, there are usually significant discrepancies between the share of votes won by the political parties and their
share of seats in the legislature.
6.3.2 Proportional Representation
The purpose of the proportional representation system (PRS) is to ensure, with as much mathematical precision
as possible, that all significant currents of political opinion are guaranteed a voice in the legislative body.
The characteristics of proportional representation are:
• First, at least two candidates must be chosen from a single district. Election of three to five candidates
seems to be the usual case. In both the Netherlands and Israel, the entire country is constituted into a single
election district for the selection of the entire strength of membership in the second chamber which is
popularly elected.
• Second, this focuses on party rather than on personality. Usually in a single- member electoral district,
independent of the electoral system, the personal impression made by the candidate on the voters determines
the result. Under the proportional representation system, a party offers three or five or more candidates and
the main consideration is the party label rather than the personal qualities of any individual candidate.
The fundamental idea is that if a number of seats are filled by the same voting operation, they can be distributed
among two or more parties proportionately on the basis of the votes polled by each of them. Due to the fact that a
single-member constituency can never be guaranteed to produce a proportional result, a more complex formula
generally needs to be employed to produce this outcome. In the majoritarian and plurality systems, a single candidate
is elected to the constituency on the basis of their vote being higher than everyone else’s but in the proportional
system, the number of seats which a party wins is based upon the size of the vote. Suppose a party X’s vote is smaller
than party Y, this does not mean that party X will not get a share of the seats. Instead, it will precisely get the share
which corresponds to its share of the votes. One of the key determinants of proportionality in an electoral system is
the number of seats within each voting district (so called ‘district magnitude’).
District Magnitude
District magnitude can range from one to potentially hundreds. In the plurality and majoritarian system the
district magnitude is one but as PR systems will have multi-member districts, the district magnitude will be always
greater than one, up to the largest M, namely nationwide constituencies where an entire legislature is elected using a
list vote. The two most well-known examples of this are the Netherlands and Israel, where 150 members of the
Tweede Kamer and 120 members of the Knesset are elected by a single national party list. In terms of proportionality,
this district magnitude will result in as close to an entirely proportional system as possible. As M grows, greater
proportionality appears. The PR systems exhibit higher levels of proportionality than plurality systems, this is in fact
the higher M which is responsible for this proportionality. Among PR systems, electoral formulae holding M constant
will explain the variation in proportionality (Lijphart, 1994; Taagepera and Shugart, 1989).
Proportional Representation stands on the principle that the votes should be ‘weighed, not counted’. This has
three ingredients:
(i) there is a multi-member constituency;
(ii) a candidate is elected not by gaining an absolute or relative majority but by obtaining a quota of votes that is
equivalent to a number of votes cast divided by the number of seats to be filled or the method suggested by
Thomas Hare for calculating Electoral Quota, and;
(iii) there is a mathematically exact, as far as possible, representation of the electorate in the legislature.
There are basically two methods involved in putting proportional representation system to application - the
list system and the single transferable vote system (also known as the Hare system).
6.3.3 List System
Here the candidates are grouped in lists according to the labels of their political parties. Each party submits
a list of its chosen candidates equal to the number of seats to be filled up or even less than that. One common list
system described as characterizing the ‘newer democracies’ is the ‘closed list’ whereby the party chooses its set of
candidates and puts them in ranking order. Voters have no choice in deciding which candidate to vote for, but vote
simply for the party. On the basis of the number of votes this party wins, the upper corresponding proportion of the
list is elected.
45
 In the older democracies, the list systems tend to have varying degrees of ‘openness’. In these cases, there is
the possibility of not only voting for a party list, but of also expressing some preferences amongst candidates, either
by ticking a box next to the candidate’s name or by writing their name in a space on the ballot paper, often called
personal votes. How these personal votes are used varies as per the system, and allows voters more or less individuation
amongst candidates, something which is entirely absent in the closed list.
At the time of counting, election quota is determined in the same manner as in the Hare System.
Quota = (Total number of valid votes/Number of seats + 1) + 1
The total number of votes polled by a party list is divided by the quota, and each party receives a number of
seats according to the quotient. Sometimes when all the seats cannot be filled, the party which has the largest fractional
surplus is entitled to the remaining seat. Another method is to make up the deficiency in the quota by adding the
fractional surplus of votes secured by the party in an adjacent constituency.
6.3.4 Single Transferable Vote System
The STV system is used in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, and Australia for its Senate elections. In India this
system is followed in the election of the members of the Council of States. In this system, the election is held across
a number of constituencies, each containing multiple seats. Unlike the PR List System, there is freedom of choice of
candidates — party affiliations can be entirely ignored. Voters list their preferences by numbering each candidate. A
quota is established beyond which candidates will be elected, up until the allocation of all constituency seats.
The quota is determined by dividing the total number of valid votes cast by one more than the number of seats
to be filled, and then by adding one to the result.
(Total number of valid votes
Quota = +1
Number of seats + 1)
Or
Total Votes + 1 = Quota
Number of Seats + 1
A candidate securing votes equal to or more than that of the quota is declared successful. The candidates who
reach the quota after the result of the first counting of the ballots are declared elected. It may, however, be found that
all the seats have not been filled, as sufficient number of candidates have not been able to reach the quota of votes.
Then the remaining seats are filled by taking the second choice of the voters who have voted for the already elected
candidate or candidates who do not require these votes any longer. By the addition of such second choice votes those
candidates who achieve the quota are similarly declared elected. In this way surplus votes may further be distributed
according to third choices and so on until all the seats have been filled. There is another way of transferring the votes.
When the requisite number of candidates fail to reach the quota even after the surplus votes of the successful candidate
or candidates are transferred to others, then the candidate with the smallest total is eliminated and his ballots are
transferred to the candidates in accordance with preferences expressed. This elimination occurs until there are equal
number of candidates with quota surpluses to seats to be filled.
This method was invented by Thomas Hare in 1857 in a pamphlet entitled ‘The Machinery of Representation’.
In 1859 the scheme was expanded in his larger treaties, ‘The Election of Representatives’. This complex formula,
despite being based upon candidates and consequently retaining the notion of constituency linkage, attains a high
degree of proportionality. In addition, where there is a level of political diversity in a constituency and candidates
from a number of parties or political affiliations are elected, constituents can be more confident of finding a
representative close to their own political view than in a single-member plurality system.
6.3.5 Mixed System
The mixed system contains both candidate-based and party-based votes, thus corresponding to both microcosm
and principal-agent models. This system is adopted by Germany, in which 50 per cent of the members are elected
through single-member constituencies and the rest by the list system on a party basis. The system has introduced two
votes for each voter - one for the candidate and the other for the party lists. The first vote is cast for a constituency
candidate and, as with plurality system, the candidate with a simple majority of votes wins the seat. 50 per cent of the
Bundestag seats are allocated on this basis. The second vote is a closed party list vote, and the voter casts an independent
vote, either for the party list of their chosen candidate on the first vote, or a split-ticket vote, that is, for one of the
other party lists. Any party which wins at least 5 per cent of the second votes cast is then entitled to a share of the
remaining 50 per cent of the seats, based upon what share it has won of the list vote. The list seats are allocated to

46
‘remedy’ any disproportionality produced in the constituency seats. Although a hybrid electoral system, it has adopted
a splinter party-avoiding clause so that the conventional bane of the proportional representation system could be
avoided.
In representative terms, this allows the voter the possibility of looking for constituency representation,
while at the same time supporting smaller parties whose programmes they support, but with no chance of winning a
constituency. In terms of the electoral system, the allocation of the list votes allows for high proportionality while
retaining the constituency link. The imposition of the threshold can be seen as a rational act to determine outcomes
— to exclude smaller extremist parties, for instance.
6.3.6 Right to Recall
The recent debate in India specially after Anna Hazare’s movement for strong Jan Lokpal Bill to be introduced
in the parliament, has thrown light on right to recall option be available to people. Many countries, such as the US, the
UK, Canada, Switzerland, Venezuela among others, have the practice of right to recall. But the question is if it can be
applicable to an electoral system like ours (first-past-the-post system) in which a candidate needs to get just one vote
more than his nearest rival to win the election irrespective of whether he gets 50 per cent of the votes cast plus one
vote or not. Applying the right to recall to the current Lok Sabha members on the condition of a minimum requirement
of 50 per cent plus one vote would imply that almost all the MPs will end up being recalled at any point of time,
because when votes are cast to recall a candidate, the ballot paper will offer only two options ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The option
of recall has already been tried out at panchayat levels in the states of Punjab (1994), Bihar (2010), Madhya Pradesh
(2000), Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh (2004), but it has not produced good results. On the contrary it has been
primarily misused as a tool in the hands of the dominant castes against candidates belonging to the weaker sections
and women.
If Anna’s suggestion to include the right to recall in electoral reforms is accepted. It can lead to instability of
government, by empowering not those who win elections, but those who lose. With a society so deeply embedded in
castes, sub castes, religion, and sects, the idea of not waiting for five years for the next election and bringing recall at
the drop of the hat would eventually amount to undermining the very essence of Indian democracy. We have grown up
with first past the post (FPTP) system and despite its limitations, many parties of the weaker sections like BSP and
RJD have come to power. Hence using the right to recall to remove them from power will be a betrayal of our
electoral system.
6.3.7 Right to Reject
The Anna Hazare Movement also aroused the debate that voters should have the right to reject all the candidates
in a constituency, if they do not find any of them suitable. For this one more option will be added after the name of the
last candidate in the ballot paper or electronic voting' machine ‘None of the above’. The Election Commission (EC)
first made this proposal in 2001. The idea was to check criminalization of politics and to improve transparency with
regard to the antecedents of candidates via affidavits filed by them while filing nominations.
The Election Commission also favoured giving the voters the right to negative or neutral voting. When
conventional ballot paper is used in elections, the voter can drop the ballot paper into the ballot box without marking
his vote. However, no such provision is there in electronic voting machines. Under Rule 49 (O) of the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961, a voter has the right to refuse to vote after he has been identified, his presence is marked in the
register of electors and he is issued a ballot paper. However his decision not to vote does not remain secret and
polling officials and polling agents become aware of the voter’s decision. The EC therefore recommended that the
law be amended to specifically provide for negative or neutral voting. This can be done by amending Rules 22 and 49
B of the conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and adding a column ‘None of the above’ after the name of the last candidate
in the ballot paper. This will enable a voter to reject all the candidates in the fray.
6.3.8 Compulsory Voting
Compulsory voting requires citizens to register to vote and go to their polling place or vote on election day.
With secret ballots, it is not possible to prove who has or has not voted so this process can be better named ‘compulsory
turnout’ because voters are required to show up at their polling place on election day.
Over twenty countries have some form of compulsory voting systems. Australia is well-known for compulsory
voting laws. There are both merits and demerits of this system. Some merits of the system are: Parliament reflects
more accurately ‘the will of the electorate’, candidates can concentrate their focus on issues rather encouraging
voters to attend the poll, voting is secret so voters cannot be compelled to vote for anyone. Demerits of the system
can also be cited like it is undemocratic to force people to vote, ignorant and those with little interest in politics are
forced to go to the polls, it may increase the number of informal votes (ballot papers which are not marked according
to voting rules), etc.
47
 Should there be a compulsory voting system in India? This has been debated in, some political quarters. L.K.
Advani opined that India should go for compulsory voting while unfurling the tricolour on his residence on 26 January,
2012. In 2009, the Narendra Modi government endorsed a law making voting compulsory in Gujarat assembly and
added that non-voting will attract penalty. Jayanti Natrajan, a congress MP said, ‘Out of thirty-two countries which
have law of compulsory voting, only nineteen enforce the law, and of these only Belgium has a punitive section.
The apex court of the country rejected a private member bill in 2005 that sought to make voting compulsory.
The Election Commission of India disapproves the idea of compulsory voting in the country. Election commissioner
S.Y. Quraishi believes that ‘For India, it is full of difficulties. We also consider that democracy and compulsion
cannot go hand in hand’.
With the demand for compulsory voting comes the necessity of other issues as well like proper voter ID
cards should be issued to all the citizens who are eligible to vote. Many people do not go vote as they think it is a
tiresome job to attain the ID cards. There is huge migrant population. If we make voting compulsory and pass laws to
penalize those who do not vote, then separate laws or some methods will have to be arranged to ensure this population
can vote.
6.4 Majoritarian Democracy
It refers to democracy based upon majority rule of a society’s citizens. Majoritarian democracy is the
conventional form of democracy used as-a political system in many countries. Though common, majoritarian
democracy is not universally accepted. It was famously criticized as having the inherent danger of becoming a ‘tyranny
of the majority’ which can lead to violence and civil war.
In contrast-to majoritarian democracy and the perceived danger of a tyranny of the majority, consensus
democracy was development in response that emphasises rule by as many people as possible to make government
inclusive, with a majority of support from society merely being a minimal threshold. Fascism rejects majoritarian
democracy because the latter assumes equality of citizens and fascists claim that it is a form of authoritarian democracy
that represents the views of a dynamic organised minority of a nation rather than the disorganised majority.
6.5 Participatory Democracy
The exact opposite of an authoritarian democracy is the participatory form of democracy. There are different
types of participatory democracy, but all of them yearn to create opportunities for all members of a population to
make meaningful contributions to the decision-making process.
6.5.1 Values of Participatory Democracy
It empowers the dis-empowered by breaking up the state into small networks and prefers to empower
community- based grassroots politics. It values deliberation and discussion, rather than merely voting.
6.5.2 Current Perspective of Participatory Democracy
No country actively practices this form of democracy. Although the theories behind it are sound, the real life
application of this approach is fraught with complications However, many social movements, like the international
occupy movement, the Bolivarian movement in Venezuela and the Narmada Bachao Andolan in India organise themselves
around a participatory’ model of democracy.
6.6 Let us Sum up
The study of electoral behavior and its impact on Political development are considerable significance for a
country committed to caring out planned social change through democracy. The Indian political system has reached a
critical stage because of the development in respect of governmental stability since 1967. There is evidence of a new
alignment performance of the system.
6.7 Glossary
● Liberal Democracy : Democratic Government that provides for the protection of individual human rights, in
order to present a majority from oppressing a minority.
● FPTPS : First-Past-the-Post-System.
● PRS : Proportional Representation System.
● STV : Single Transferable Vote.
● Majoritarian : The government ought to do what the majority of the citizens want.

48
6.8 Answer to Self Check Exercise
Note : Use the space given below for your answer.
Check Your Progress-1
1. What do you understand by Electoral System?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
Check Your Progress-2
2. What is the First Past the Post System?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
6.9 Suggested Readings
• Blum, W.T., Theories of Political Systems, (New Delhi, Prentice Hall, 1981).
• Caramani, Daniele (ed.) Comparative Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
• Dahl, Robert A., Pluralist Democracy in the United States, (Calcutta : Scientific Books, 1969).
• Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their origin and Activities in Modern State. (London: John Yiley,
1954).
• Eckstine, H. and Apter, David, Comparative Politics: A Reader, (New York : Free Press, 1963).
• Gena, C.B., Comparative Politics and Political Institutions, (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 2014).
• Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, 5th Edition, (New
York: Palgrave, 2001).
• Johari, J.C., Comparative Politics, Latest Revised edition, (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers).
• Landman, Todd, Issue and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, (London: Routledge, 2000).
• Macridis, C.R. and Ward, R.E., Major Political Systems, (New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1963).
• Milbarth, Lester W. and Goel, M.L., Political Participation, (Chieago : Rand Menally College,1977).
• Mukherjee, Subarta and Ramaswamy, Sushila, Theoretical Foundations of Comparative Politics, (Delhi:
Orient Blackswan, 2017).
• Palekar, S.A., Comparative Politics and Government, (Delhi: PHI Learning, 2009).
• Palombara, Joseph La and Weiner, Myron (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development, (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966).
• Ray, S.N., Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall).
• Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis. (Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press, 1976).
• Farell, David M., Electoral System: A Comparative Introduction (New York: Palgrave Publication, 2001).
• Lijphart, Arend, Electoral System and Party System (Oxford University Press, 1992.)
• Andrew Reeve and Alan Ware, Election System : A Comparative and Theoretical Introduction (London :
Routledge, 1992).
6.10 Terminal Questions:
1. Define Electoral System.
2. Explain the types of Electoral System?
3. Write a short note on Proportional Representation?

*****
49
 Lesson-7
Non-Democratic Political System

Structure
7.0 Introduction
7.1 Learning Objectives
7.2 Meaning of Totalitarian Political System
7.3 Totalitarian State is known by different names
7.4 Features of totalitarian Political System
7.5 What is an Authoritarian Political System?
7.6 Feature of an Authoritarian State
7.7 Evaluation of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political Systems
7.8 Difference between Liberal Democracy, Totalitarian and Authoritarian State
7.9 Dictatorship
7.10 Feature of Dictatorship
7.11 Critical Evaluation of Dictatorship
7.12 Let us Sum Up
7.13 Glossary
7.14 Answers to Self Check Exercise
7.15 Suggested Readings
9.16 Terminal Questions
7.0 Introduction
A Non-democratic Political System is a government run by officials who are not elected by citizens. A non democracy
is used to describe any system of government other than a democracy.
Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political Systems are the two veritable opposites of the Liberal Democratic Political
System. These two types of political systems are at work in several states of the world. During the inter-war years
(1919-1939), they remained so popular that Mussolini in one of his speeches observed, “If the 19th century was an
age of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, the twentieth is to be a century of authority, collectivism and totalitarian
stale.” Mussolini’s prediction did riot prove to be correct, yet no one can deny that nearly l/3rd of the population of
the world is even today living under Totalitarian or authoritarian political system in which there is near total or-
excessive state control over their lives. In 1999 Pakistan came under an authoritarian military rule.
Let us discuss the meaning and features of these two types of political systems. Totalitarian and Authoritarian
political systems have a large number of similarities and the difference between them is that of degree and not of
kind. We shall, as such, discuss the meanings of the two separately and then follow these by analysing their salient
common features and finally analyse the points of difference between them.
7.1 Leaning Objectives
After going through this lesson you will be able to:-
• Know the meaning of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political System.
• Discuss the features of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political System.
• Understand the difference between Liberal, Totalitarian and Authoritarian State.
7.2 Meaning and Definitions of Totalitarian Political System
A totalitarian political system is one in which the state has full control over the whole life of the individual. No
part of his life is beyond the control of the state. In the words of Finer, “It is the veritable contradiction of the liberal
democratic type of government. The scope and authority of government is not limited, but just the reverse is total.”
Asirvatham while discussing the meaning of a Totalitarian State observes, “In current political literature, the term
“totalitarian state’’ is used in contrast with the term “Liberal democratic state.” The totalitarian state claims jurisdiction
over the whole of man’s life. No pan of the individual’s life is outside its detailed supervision and control. If the Bible
-teaches that we live, move, and have our being in God, totalitarianism teaches that we “live, move and have our being
in the State.” In it “the individual’s life is not his own. It is a trust given to him by the state to be used in the service of
50
the state.” The State is regarded as the very march of God upon the earth ruled by the ruler and he claims to be the
state. The State is omnipotent and infallible and in practice, it means the all powerfulness and infallibility of the ruler
of the state.
Explaining the meaning of a totalitarian state, the Foreign Policy Association of America defined it as one ’which
embraces all the activities of individuals and subordinates them to national (rulers) ends.’ It is a state of truly sovereign
authority which dominates all the spheres of the country. It is a cult of state worship. The authority of state is unlimited.
The individuals, as the components of the state, have to think, live and act as the state wishes them to do.
Prof. Neumann sptecifies five elements of a totalitarian state:
1. Against the rule of law, it stands for the rule of the state police.
2. It involves a total centralization of power into the hands of the ruler of the state.
3. There is only one political party - the political party of the ruler.
4. Against pluralistic society, it stands for total social control over individuals.
5. It is based on force and coercion. It acts through force for securing the obedience of the people.
In other words, a totalitarian state is one which controls the Whole life of the society, the rulers have unlimited
powers and are not responsible before the people. State worship, force and fear are the sanctions behind the laws of
the state (wishes of the rulers). Total centralization of all powers in the hands of the ruler of the state and his party is
its hallmark.
7.3 Totalitarian State is known to us by different names
Bonapartism in France, Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany or as some say Communism in China and other
communist states. The hallmark of a totalitarian state is its solid opposition to any institutional division of power.
According to Western political scientists, there are two varieties of Totalitarian States:
(i) The Radical totalitarian states, i.e., Communism political systems, and
(ii) The Conservative Totalitarian Governments, i.e., the Fascist and Nazi types of Political System.
7.4 Features of Totalitarian Political System
(1) A Totalitarian system is totally opposed to a liberal democratic political-system.
(2) It is based on the concept of total centralization of powers in the hands of the ruler and his party.
(3) The-State is regarded as an end and the individual is regarded as means.
(4) The ideology of the ruler is the ideology of the state and all the people of the state have to accept it.
(5) The people have no role in decision-making. Decisions are made by the rulers and imposed upon the people.
(6) The basis of all state actions is force. Force is used to command obedience and instill fear among the
people.
(7) No part of individual’s life is outside the control of the state.
(8) The rights of the people depend upon the wishes of the rulers. Only those rights are given which are considered
good for the health of the state.
(9) The struggle for power is kept confined to the ruling group. No dissent or opposition is tolerated.
(10) The ruler or his party is the government. The power of the government is exercised by the leaders of the
ruling party irrespective of the fact whether they hold any position in the government or not.
(11) The Totalitarian state stands for a monolithic, society with one leader, one party, one ideology, one government
and one rule.
(12) Through propaganda and officially sponsored mass movements, the rulers try to show their popularity and
representativeness.
(13) The Totalitarian state has no faith in internationalism. It regards war as an instrument of central importance
and a means of progress and power.
(14) The press and other means of mass media are owned and run by the state. Only that part of public opinion is
projected which suits the rulers.
(15) Change of rulers is sudden and is characterized by big changes in all policies.
(16) The totalitarian state is a repudiation of reason and a glorification of instinct and impulses.
(17) In it, the state is dictatorial and is opposed to liberalism and democratic government.
(18) Totalitarianism glorifies the nation and emphasises the ideas of the state as a power system.
(19) The totalitarian state is exclusive. It does not believe in liberalism, humanitarianism and sharing of power.
51
 (20) There is absence of independent judiciary and rule of law in it.
(21) The Totalitarian state embodies the cult of state worship. The rulers rule as the state. No difference is made
between the state, the government, the society and the party.
Out of all these features, A.R. Ball in his book “Modem Politics and Government” specifies five salient-features
of a Totalitarian state. These are :-
(1) All aspects of individual and social activity are theoretically the political concern of the government.
(2) One party is politically and legally dominant. All political activity is channeled through this party, and the
party provides the only institutionalized basis for competition, recruitment and opposition.
(3) There is an elaborate ideology which, in theory, regulates all political activity within the system;
(4) The judiciary and the mass media are rigidly controlled by the government and civil liberties, as defined in
a liberal democracy, are seriously curtailed.
(5) Totalitarian regimes emphasise consent mobilization of the population to win mass support for the regime,
to provide it with a democratic basis. The regime is legitimized by the secured consent and participation
(unreal) of the people.
All these characteristic features make it clear that the case of a totalitarian state presents an anti-thesis of a
liberal-democratic model. While the process of decision-making is dispersed in a liberal-democratic model, it is
concentrated in a totalitarian state; while the former strives for the maximization of political participation in a sincere
way to secure legitimacy, the latter wants minimization of the same for the sake of consolidating its foundations by
all possible means. So, while the former stands for a pluralistic society having various autonomous social associations
with their recognised personalities, the latter either starves them or forces them to live like its own emanations or
colonies.
7.5 What is an Authoritarian Political System?
This type of Political system is very near to a totalitarian and far away from a liberal democratic political system.
The states, writes A.R. Ball, which do not fall in the two categories - Liberal Democracy and Totalitarian state -
belong to the category of the Authoritarian state. C.H. Dillon defines an authoritarian state as one in which “all
authority and power are concentrated in the hands of a few, i.e., the government, whose rule is essentially not responsible.
The people participate in few of their decisions but are subject to all of them.” E.B. Schulz writes : “An Authoritarian
government is characterized by the possession of supreme authority either by one person or by a minority group
which is in no way accountable to the people over whom control is exercised.”
7.6 Features of an Authoritarian State
This type of political system is very near to the totalitarian stale. The difference between the two is one of degree
and not of kind. In it the state control over the people is not total but excessive. Limited openness is permitted.
Centralization is considered ideal but along with it, some limited devolution of authority is also tolerated. In such
states, the power is in the hands of a military dictator or a civilian junta. Manipulative politics is practiced. Either
Modernisation or Traditionalism is eulogized to win popular support and maintain credibility. Religion or an ideology
is often used to secure support and serve the ends of the rulers. A.R. Ball uses the term Autocratic state for an
authoritarian state and specifies its following seven features :
(1) Important limitations are imposed on open political competition, i.e., political parties and elections.
(2) There is absence of a dominating political ideology such as communism or fascism, although racialism
and nationalism often provide some basis for attempted political uniformity.
(3) The definition of what is “political” is more restricted in a totalitarian system than in an authoritarian
system.
(4) The political rulers mostly use force and coercion to command political uniformity and obedience.
(5) Civil liberties enjoy low priority and governmental control over the judiciary and the mass media is direct
and considered justified in the interest of public good.
(6) The basis for the rule is found either in a traditional political elite or in a new modernizing elite often the
army, which has seized power by a coup (as in Pakistan in October 1999) or as the result of a colonial war
of independence. Manipulation and suppression are the bases of the power of the rulers.
(7) It is usually one group that monopolises political control in contrast to the pluralism of the liberal
democracies.

52
 The Authoritarian Political Systems are further sub-classified by Almond and Powell into two catagories:- (1)
Stabilization Conservative Authoritarian Governments, and (2) Modernizing Authoritarian Governments. A.R. Ball
classifies these into two parts. Traditional Authoritarian Governments and Modernizing Authoritarian Governments.
The latter are further sub-divided into Military Authoritarian Governments and Civilian Authoritarian Governments.
With these seven features, an authoritarian political system is quite near to a totalitarian state. Frequently,
authoritarian states get transformed into totalitarian when it is excessive, permitting limited liberty and political
participation to the people, the system is authoritarian. Ideology is used by a totalitarian state to acquire, justify and
exercise power upon the people. In authoritarian regimes, power is maintained with the help of several ideological
principles or even otherwise through the exercise of coercion camouflaged as constitutionalism.
Such a system may have the under-pinning of an ideology that takes it very close to fascism and communism.
However, the essential point is that in such a system politics is driven entirely by the whims of those in power. Naked
and unabashed use of violence is used to suppress dissidence of any kind. The sanctity of rules and norms is mercilessly
discarded so much so that the supreme leader himself becomes the regime. All decisions flow from the ruler, unfettered
by political institutions of any sort. Cases of Kim Jong II of North Korea, Castro of Cuba and Gaddafi of Libya may
be referred to in this regard. The fact stands out that “a small group of individuals exercises power over the state
without being constitutionally responsible to the people. The public does not play a significant role in selecting or
removing leaders from office and so they have much greater leeway to develop policies that they ‘dictate’ to the
people.
7.7 Evaluation of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Political Systems
The totalitarian an authoritarian system are adopted by the rulers because they are a source of several advantages;
strong government, stability and efficiency, rapid modernization and development through forced mobilization of
resources, helpfulness in meeting emergencies, inexpensiveness, possibility of strong action in favour of eradication
of social evils and others. However, for the people at large, these systems are highly exploitive and coercive systems
which in no stay help them to develop their personalities and act in accordance with the dictates of position of cogs
in the wheels of the state. Force and fear, violence and coercion, manipulation and suppression characterize their
living. These regimes almost always involve violent political changes in the form of coups and revolutions. There is
always the problem of finding successors. The changes in leadership are always accompanied by big and revolutionary
changes.
The international community also has to bear the brunt of anti-internationalism and war oriented aggressive policies
pursued by the totalitarian/authoritarian rulers. Totalitarianism in the form of Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany
and the emergence of several dictatorial and authoritarian regimes during the inter-war years (1919-1939), were
responsible for throwing the world into the pit of a very destructive war, the Second World War (1939-45). No doubt,
through forced mobilisation of resources and use of coercion for getting things done, these regimes are often in a
position to achieve some developmental goals.
7.8 Difference between Liberal Democracy, Totalitarian and Authoritarian State

Liberal Democracy Totalitarianism Authoritarianism

1. Based on formal, usually legal 1. An official ideology 1. A small group of individuals
rules. exercises power over the
state.
2. Guarantee of civil liberties and 2. A one-party state usually 2. Government is not
individual rights. led by an all-powerful constitutionally responsible to
leader. the public.
3. Institutionalized fragmentation 3. A System of terroristic 3. Public has little or no role in
and a system of checks and policing. selecting leaders.
balances.
4. Regular elections that respect 4. A monopoly of the means 4. Individual freedom is
the principle of ‘one person, of mass communication. restricted.
one vote’ and ‘one vote one
value’
53
 5. Party competition and political 5. A monopoly of the means 5. Authoritarian regimes may be
pluralism. of armed combat. institutionalized and
legitimate.
6. Independence of organised 6. Stale control over all aspects
group and interests from of economic life.
government.

7.9 Dictatorship
Dictatorship is a form of government in which one ruler exercises unlimited or excessive authority. Its
alternative name is Autocracy. In it, a person comes to power, either through a legal means as Hitler did, or by illegal
means or a revolution and begins exercising power in an 'illegal' and unlimited way. He rules by his will and is limited
only by his own will. He is responsible to himself and not to the people.
In other words, 'Dictatorship means absolute rule of a single person who usurps power and exercises it in an
autocratic way.' He is neither responsible nor accountable to the people or any other popular institution. He may or
may not wear a crown, he may or may not proclaim himself as the president or the ruler, the fact remains that he
exercises his power ill a way as he deems fit. He can use any ideology or an ideological principle to justify his rule.
Sometimes, he gets himself elected as the President/Head of the state just as General Zia-ul-Haq and General Musharraf
of Pakistan did after usurping power by force. This was done for projecting their rule as rule based on wide-spread
popular consent. A dictator uses 'election' as a means to camouflage his illegally captured authority as legitimate
authority. He often uses an ideology or ideological principle to rule and project the 'legitimacy' of his rule which is in
reality illegitimate. However, in reality, his power to rule, i.e. his ability to unleash the use of force for maintaining
himself in power as well as in running the administration rests upon force.
We can define Dictatorship as has been done by Alfred Cobban. It is a government of one man who has not
obtained his position by inheritance but by either force or consent (manipulated consent), or a combination of both
(coming into power by force and then securing popular consent through manipulated elections often by projecting
himself as the only candidate for the office of the Head of the State or coming to power through legal means but
establishing an autocratic rule by trampling the opponents and establishing of personal autocratic rule). A dictator
exercises an absolute power of governance and dominates all decision making. In fact, laws reflect his will and they
are made and enforced arbitrarily. All political authority emanates from his will and is unlimited in scope. His authority
is unrestrained by law and is exercised for a very long time, i.e., so long as he lives or so long as he is not overthrown
by another dictator or by a revolution or a coup. Arbitrary exercise of unlimited power is the main property of
Dictatorship. General Franco of Spam was a dictator and so were Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar, Idi Amin, Ayub Khan and
Zia-ul-Haq. Pervez Musharraf is also a military dictator of Pakistan.
7.10 Features of Dictatorship
The following can be identified as the key features of Dictatorship :-
1. Dictatorship involves the rule of one person or one small group led by one person.
2. The ruler come to power either by force or through manipulation, i.e., by illegal means. However, when a
duly elected person also begins using his powers arbitrarily by dominating and controlling all other centres
of power, the system takes the form of autocracy.
3. The ruler rules by his will. His will is the law.
4. The rule of a dictator is neither transparent, nor responsible, nor even accountable to the people or popular
institutions.
5. Usually, Dictatorship is the product of militarism, directly or indirectly.
6. Rule by force and domination is the eternal law of dictatorship.
7. The ruler identifies the interests of the people with his own interests but describes his interests as national
interests.
8. The ideology of nationalism is used as a means for securing credibility for the interests of the ruler. In the
name of the unity of the nation, the ruler exercises his power for putting his view of the social order into
actual operation.
9. Dictatorship does not make a distinction between state and government.
54
 10. Dictatorship as the rule of one person is totally opposed to democracy which stands for the rule of the
people.
11. The ruler tries to organise a group of his loyalists or 'the Junta and often rules the state with its help.
12. Dictatorship pays little attention to the rights of the people but always places emphasis upon the duties of
the, people towards the state.
13. The ruler exercises power for life or for as much time as he can. The change of rulership is mostly, almost
always, affected through force or through a revolution or through a 'coup' against the ruler.
14. Dictatorship may have a number of governmental organisations for exercising power but each such organisation
works under the authority and control of the ruler.
15. The ruler uses war and aggression as means for diverting the attention of the people away from their domestic
problems. He undertakes to put down domestic discord with a firm hand and uses force in the name of the
nation or any other such abstraction.
In simple words, it can be said that Dictatorship is the veritable opposite of Democracy. Whereas Democracy
stands for popular sovereignty, a representative and responsible government, and for the grant and guarantee of rights
and freedom to the people. Dictatorship stands for one-man rule or junta rule characterised by the personal and
authoritarian rule of the ruler who assumes and claims all powers of the state and rules the people.
7.11 Critical Evaluation of Dictatorship
As a form or govemment. Dictatorship has little to commend itself. It can claim that under it, strong decisions
can be taken and strongly implemented for securing reforms and the goals of socio-economic development. Further,
that it alone can effectively meet emergencies which always require prompt decision-making and implementation.
Because of centralisation of all authority in the hands of the ruler, he can act decisively to meet emergencies.
However, its critics, and their number is very large, strongly criticize dictatorship as an anti-liberal, anti-
democratic, and anti-human system of rule. It is anti-liberal because it gives little place to the rights and freedom of
the people. It is anti-democratic because it stands for centralisation of all authority into a single hand and has no faith
in the equality of all the people. It is based on force, suppression and domination. The ruler and 'his group' enjoy an all
important superior position and rule the people. It is anti-human because it is based on force and domination and
regards individuals as means and the regime as the end.
1. Dictatorship destroys individual rights and freedoms.
2. It wrongly upholds that the state is the end and the individual is the means.
3. It glorifies force, war and aggression and pursues aggressive nationalism.
4. Dictatorship always thinks in terms of expansionism, aggrandizement, war and imperialism in international
relations.
5. Dictatorship is in the long ran always a source of instability and chaos. There is no system of peaceful
change of the ruler. It is always characterised by a fear of revolution and has to live with periodic coups/
revolutions and counter-revolutions.
6. It is opposed to the currently held and cherished values of democracy, sustainable development, human
rights, peace and security.
7. History gives ample evidence of the weaknesses and dangers of dictatorships. It has not only been guilty of
raining the people of the states in which it 'flourished' in the past, but also of giving a big blow to international
peace and security.
7.12 Let us Sum Up
Dictatorship as a form of government is despised by all. The people never really register progress and
development under dictatorship rule. Their immediate gains, if any, always lay the foundations of a fractured future.
The case of Pakistan is known to us. So has been the case with other dictatorship ruled states.
7.13 Glossary
● Democracy : Rule by the people.
● Totalitarian: A dictatorial form of Centralized government that regulates evey aspect of state and private
behaviour.
● Authoritarian: A style of government in which the rulers demand unquestioning obedience from the ruled.
● Dictatorship : It is a form of government in which one ruler exercises unlimited authority.

55
7.14 Answer to Check you Progress Exercises
Note: Use the space given below for your answers.
Check Your Progress-1
1. What do you understand by totalitarian Political System?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
Check Your Progress-2
2. What is Authoritarian Political System?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
Check Your Progress-3
3. What is Dictatorship ?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
7.15 Suggested Readings
● Tapan Biswal (ed.), Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Trinity, 2015).
● O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.).
● Hari Hara Das, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: National Publishing House).
● J.C. Johari, Comparative Politics (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.).
● Parmatma Sharan, Comparative Government and Politics (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan).
● Eddy Asirvathan and K.K. Misra, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors).
● A.C. Kapoor, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● S.C. Singhal, Political Theory (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarawal).
● V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.)
● Sri Ram Maheshwari, Comparative Government and Politics (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Aggarwal, 1985).
● J.C. Johari, New Comparative Government (New Delhi: Locus Press, 2011).
● Manoj Kumar, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis (New Delhi: Anmol Publication, 2004).
● Alan R. Ball & B. Guy Peters, Modern Politics and Government (New York: Palgriue Press, 2000).
● Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: The Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered
(Westview Press, 1994).
● Howard J. Wiarda, ‘Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the field in the Post cold War Era’
Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19 No.5.
● Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Political (New Delhi : Atlantic Publishers, 1997).
● Comparative Politics, Course-3, Lesson-9 to 10 (ICDEOL), PP. 55-60.
7.16 Terminal Questions
1. Examine the Silent features of Totalitarian Political System?
2. Examine the main features of Authoritarian Political System?
3. Totalitarian Political System are not the modern nation states. Comment?
4. What is Dictatorship? Critically evaluate its features?
*****

56
 Unit-3
Lesson-8
Meaning, Nature and Functioning of Political Parties

Structure
8.0 Introduction
8.1 Learning Objectives
8.2 Meaning and Definitions of Political Parties
8.3 Nature of Political Parties
8.4 Development of Parties
8.5 Origin of Political Parties
8.6 Structure and Organization of Political Parties
8.7 Functions of Political Parties
8.8 Formation of Political Parties
8.9 Kinds of Political Parties
8.9.1 Mono Party System
8.9.2 Bi-Party System
8.9.3 Multiple Party System
8.10 Defects of Party System
8.11 Opposition Parties in a Democracy
8.12 Let Us Sum Up
8.13 Glossary
8.14 Answer to Self Check Exercise
8.15 Suggested Reading
8.16 Terminal Questions
8.0 Introduction
Political parties have a special importance in democracy because during the elections, they create
consciousness among the voters. In other words, parties have grown up to turn social thought into political action.
It is now generally agreed that representative government cannot work without political parties. Still,
surprisingly enough, the phenomenon of party system was almost unknown hundred and fifty years ago. To the founding
fathers of the United States of America (USA), the influence of parties was bad. They considered the whole people as
one unit. Even in Bluntschli’s comprehensive Theory of the State, there is no reference to party government.
Only in a formal democracy parties attain significance. In a democracy the responsibility for making decisions
regarding governmental personnel and policy rests ultimately with the citizens. It turns the social area into a vast
reservoir of hitherto unknown political power; conflicts in the social area create tensions which, in turn, raise political
issues. It is for the parties to use these issues as “campaign ammunition”. The rights of free speech and assembly
coupled with the practice of universal adult suffrage make it mandatory to mobilise voting strength and win elections
for the control of the government. Briefly speaking, with the extension of the franchise to the mass of citizens the
struggle for political power is institutionalized in the operation of political parties.
A political party involves the agreeing together of some people on the important issues of the day on which
they hold similar opinion and which they want to achieve jointly.
8.1 Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, Students will be able to
• Know the meaning of Political Parties.
• Explain the Nature of Political Parties.
• Understand the functions of Political Parties.

57
8.2 Definitions of Political Party
The following are a few definitions of political party:—
Leacock: “By a political party we mean more or less organised group of citizens who act together as a
political unity. They share or profess to share the same opinions on public questions and by exercising their voting
power towards a common end, seek to obtain control of the Government”.
Gettell: “ A political party consists of a group of citizens more or less organised who act as a political unity
and who by the use of their voting power aim to control the Government and carry out their general policies.”
Gilchrist: “A political party is an association organised group of citizens who prefer to share the same
political views and who by acting as a political unit try to control the government.”
Maclver : “A political party is an association organised in support of some principle or policy which by
constitutional means endeavors to make the determinant of government.”
Edmund Burk : “A political party is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the
national interest upon some political principle in which they agreed.”
According to Asirvatham : “By a political party we mean an organised body of people who stand for certain
principles and policies in the political life of the country by whose operation they seek to promote the interests of
the country as a whole.”
From these above definitions we come to the conclusion that four things are essential for the formation of
political party. First the people should be organized’. Secondly, there should be similarity of principles. Thirdly, the
aim of a political party should be to attain political power. Fourthly, a political party should use peaceful means for
attaining political power.
8.3 Nature of Political Party
A political party is a group operating to secure the control of a government. Obviously, the first important
point about political parties is that they are groups with some degree of organisation and permanency. Here, they may
well be contrasted with the temporary political organisations such as the Food Price Increase and Famine Resistance
Committee, that are formed for the single purpose of supporting or opposing a particular temporary issue. Political
parties, on the other hand, have some degree of permanence. They live by the strength of their organisations, without
which dissemination of their ideas is not possible. Secondly, parties must have definite aims and objectives. The
objectives are often a mixture of ultimate and immediate purposes. Party programmes contain ideas about law and
government, ideas about the shape of political things to come and each party seeks to focus its own brand of political
ideas. Besides, a recognition of material advantages that go with the securing of the power of government, forms a
part of party programme. In some cases, as in the United States, the concern for material interests rules the roost; for,
on their much advertised ideal principles the contending parties appear to be holding, in the last analysis, almost
identical views.
According to Julius Hatschek, a party with a definite programme, at first, comes to power. In course of time,
portions of its programme appear impossible to achieve and some parts of it are opposed by a section of the party
members. Such disintegrating forces lead to the formation of another party, irrespective of whether it has evolved a
definite programme of its own or not. Again, the newly formed party, too, is subject to, in course of time, the same
process of disintegration. It appears, therefore, that with the growth and development of political parties, programmes
and principles become almost a side issue. What is more important is a realistic recognition of material interests.
In a formal democracy parties are organised around con-stitutional questions. Operating as a part of the
functioning process of the constitution, they act as a system of effective restraints. To attain political power by
constitutional means is their aim. Sometimes organisations that aim at seizing power by violence and suppressing all
other opposition groups were wrongly called ‘parties’. Parties in a democracy facilitate peaceful change of government
by substituting “the conflict of ideas” for “the clash of arms”. Here, they differ essentially from parties like the
Communist party in Russia. The latter constitute the organised, monoidea groups whose monopoly of political power
does not allow the formation of alternative parties.
Our discussion about the nature of parties has made it clear that they must have a wellknit organisation and a
philosophy, or a combination of ideal and material objects; also, they will aim at constituting and controlling government
by constitutional means. It has further been pointed out that monocratic or oligarchic leadership is inherent in party
organisation. Parties, it is said, strive to secure power not for themselves, but for their leaders. Preponderance of
leaders is an inseparable part of the party system.

58
 Parties are fighting groups. They are constantly engaged in retaining or capturing governmental power. Hence,
they are compelled by circumstances to obey the rules of successful warfare. The monocratic or at least hierarchical
leadership follows naturally from circumstantial pressures.
It may further be observed that parties, in spite of their differences, possess, generally speaking, a unity of
outlook on fundamental matters. The legal pattern of political authority is delineated by the constitution. To the
fundamental laws of the land as enshrined in the constitution parties show general respect. In the absence of this
fundamental unity, parties, degenerate into factions engaged in a struggle for the achievement of sectional, rather than
national interests.
Here the implication is that parties transcend class-barriers and sectional interests by mutual recognition of
rights. Different socio-economic classes are associated with different political parties. In fact, it is the idea of a
common interest and national unity which sustains the constitutional appeal of the polls. Thus the logic of party
system rejects the Marxian doctrine of class and the class struggle. The upshot of these arguments is that in spite of
their differences, polit-ical parties do not disagree on everything. On the basic features of the system to which they
belong there must be a consensus. Combining the different aspects of the nature of political parties, we may now, by
slightly altering Friedrich’s definition, define a party, as a group consisting of cross-sections of human beings, more
or less stably organised, with the objective, in accordance with the constitu-tion, of securing or maintaining for its
leaders the control of a government, and of giving to members of the party, through such control, ideal and material
benefits and advantages.
8.4 Development of Parties
The explanations regarding the origin of political parties are mainly two: (a) one seeks to explain the
phenomenon in terms of the basic drives and instincts of mankind; (b) and the other discovers the determinants in the
social environment.
(a) The Human Nature Theory
(i) Under this category, the first explanation is: what causes parties to rise is the characteristic tendency of
human nature towards combativeness. Men form parties to give organized expression to their combative instinct.
Such was Sir Henry Maine’s theory, to quote his observation, “Party feeling is probably far more a survival of
the primitive combativeness of mankind than a consequence of intellectual differences between man and
man.”
(ii) A second explanation of the origin of parties centres upon man’s “temperament”. Some men are temperamentally
radical and seek to change the existing social order; while others are conservative by temperament and like to
stick to the present order of things. A refined version of this explanation discovers the bias for a party programme
in man’s attitude towards government corresponding to each stage of his progress through life. Thus, radicalism
is connected with boyhood, liberalism with youth, conservatism with middle age, and reactionary attitude with
old age.
(iii) Another explanation regarding party origins run in terms of the charismatic traits of political leaders. The
dynamic personality of a political leader might inspire thousands to follow him and thus to form a political
party.
(b) Environment as the determinant of the Party: Besides these theoretical explanations, socio-political factors
in the environment have been found to be the determinants of political parties. In the West, the historic roots of the
modem democratic party can be traced back to two important political factors viz., the limitation of the authority of
the absolute monarchy and the widest possible extension of the suffrage. Thus, in England, for instance, a long struggle
between king and parliament culminated in the limitation of the king’s prerogatives. Subsequently, through various
electoral reforms, the electorate came to be the source of political power. Party activities gained political importance
with the extension of the suffrage to virtually all the adult citizens.
8.5 Origin of Political Parties
Certain factors explain the origin of political parties:-
(i) Human Nature : Human nature itself explains the origin and growth of parties. All people by nature do not
have the same views; some do not wish to have changes, but desire to hang on to the same old institutions; on
the other hand, there are others who desire to have changes for better. The former may be called conservatives,
and the latter progressives. Thus two parties are formed on the basis of these two attitudes.
In European countries, parties which wanted to leave things as they were came to be called rightists. The
terms rightist and leftist originated towards the end of the eighteenth century. In France, for instance, the
progressive members who sat to the left of the President came to be called leftists, and the others who sat to
his right were called rightists.
59
 (ii) Inspiration by a great leader: A political party owes its origin to the inspiration of a great leader, who is
able to attract a large number of people towards him and make them scruple under his guidance for realizing
certain political aims.
(iii) Different economic views and aims: Political parties are also formed on the basis of different views and
aims in the economic field. For instance, rich people and property holders wish to have the status quo,
whereas those having no property desire to have changes, which are likely to do them good. Obviously the
two groups of people belong to different political parties.
(iv) Environment: Political environments are bound to have effect on the political views of a person. The
domestic environment goes far in making a man the member of a particular party; the political views of a
youngster are sure to be influenced by those of his father. Very often, the son joins the political party of the
father. Political movements are bound to influence the people of the area concerned.
(v) Religious and communal feelings: Religious and communal feelings in some cases provide a basis for
the formation of political parties. While in western countries, generally parties are not formed on religious
and communal considerations, in India religious and communal feelings drove a wedge between groups of
people, and communal parties were formed. Even now, certain parties in India have religious and communal
bias, and they are against secular ideas.
8.6 Structure and organization of Political Parties
Political parties have hierarchical structure. Broadly speaking, a well organized party has a constitution
according to which the party structure is built up. At the top there may be a periodically elected president assisted by
secretaries and treasurers. A working committee may be set up to meet from time to time for holding discussion and
taking decisions, Once in six months or a year, a conference on a large scale may be organized to enable the rank and
file in the party to attend the broad deliberations and discussions. The party conferences, if properly convened and
organized, can be very impressive in the show of the party strength and solidarity and can exert a great impact on the
public mind.
Parties held together by ideology and organization: If a party is to be strong and well-knit, it should have
absolutely clear aims and objectives, principles and ideologies, a well organised machinery, and ample funds. “The
party is held together by its ideology and organization. An ideology is indispensable in the life of a political movement;
it is a mechanism essential to the survival and development of a movement. Without an ideology, a movement would
grope along in an uncertain fashion and could scarcely survive in the face of pointed opposition from outside groups.”
If a political party functions well, it will be able to attract huge funds.
Well organized party, a State within a State : A well- organised party with all is elaborate paraphernalia is
almost like a state within a state. All over the world, political parties have become very powerful organizations, whose
impact is felt by all the people. They have a very large membership, very influential, enterprising and powerful leaders,
and huge funds. These parties make use of all the agencies of public opinion to win the support of the people and
capture votes.
8.7 Functions of Political Parties
Political Parties are an essential part of democracy. They are the backbone of democracy. According to
Munro, “Government by free political parties is merely another name for democratic government”. The following are
the main functions of Political Parties.
(i) To formulate and mould public opinion: Political Parties select various issues and present their manifestoes
before the people. These policies are expounded, explained and discussed. For this purpose the canvassing
is done, public meetings “are held, pamphlets are distributed and posters are displayed. The issues are clarified
by criticism and counter criticism. All these activities of the parties help in formulation and moulding of
public opinion.
(ii) To form the government: The party which wields majority in the National Parliament forms the government.
In the Parliamentary form of government, the majority party wields the whole power of the government. The
majority party implements those policies which it formulated at the time of elections.
(iii) To criticise the government: In a democratic state, the main function of political parties is to keep a watch
over the activities of the government. The minority parties form an opposition. Opposition parties severely
criticise the defective policies of the government. The opposition parties are always searching loop-holes
in the administration of the government. It keeps the government alert.

60
 (iv) Mediation between the individual and the government: The political parties act as a link between the
people and the government. According to Merriam, “it is the buffer, the adjuster between society and
individual”. Political parties explain the governmental policies to the people and take the public grievances
to the government.
(v) To co-ordinate between the governmental organs: In those countries where there is separation of powers,
the political parties bring about co-ordination among the executive, legislature and judiciary. For example,
in U.S.A., the political parties play an important role in coordinating the work between executive and
legislature.
vi) To control the parliamentary party members : Political parties bring organisation and discipline in the
parliament. The representatives belonging to one party have the same voice. The Parliamentary members
have to follow the rules of rigid party discipline. It brings discipline and organisation in the parliament.
vii) Economic and social reforms: Political parties also serve as an instrument of social change. In order to
win the favour of public opinion, the parties try to bring about the social and economic reforms in the
society as the Congress party is doing in India.
(vii) Political Education: Another important function of political parties is to provide political education to the
people. The propaganda process is highly informative for an average voter. The activities of political parties
keep the masses wide awake. The parties’ advocacy of personalities and policies Involves elaborate instruction
which is carried on through press, forum and personal contacts.
(ix) To contest elections: Every political party has to select its best candidates and contest election. Competing
type of candidates are sifted by the party bodies and the choice is finally made. Every party has to spend a lot
of money for winning elections.
8.8 Formation of Political Parties
Certain conditions are essential for the formation of political parties. These are the following:
(i) Democracy: The foremost essential condition for the formation of political parties is a democratic form of
government, which believes in the principle of liberty of thought and action. Political parties presuppose the
existence of various kinds of rights, one of which is to form associations. Parties cannot be established, and
even if they are formed, they cannot function meaningfully under an autocratic government or dictatorship.
(ii) Keen Interest in Politics: Political parties can be formed only when large groups of people are roused by
political consciousness and have a keen desire to take part in political activities. In the absence of a highly
conscious and intelligent electorate, no political party can function effectively.
(iii) Common Objectives: A large group of individuals in a state should have common political aims and objectives,
and there should be common agreement on the basic political principles. In the absence of well-agreed
fundamental principles, a political party cannot be organised.
(iv) National Interest: Individuals thinking of political parties should have national interests at heart, and they
should accept unreservedly the principle of protecting and promoting national interests. Under no circumstances
should political parties think of entertaining extra-territorial loyalties.
(v) Common agreement to play the game of Politics decently: When large groups of individuals think of
forming political parties, they should agree to follow scrupulously the rules of the game of politics. For
instance, all individuals should bind themselves to the principle of settling all issues peacefully and in a
constitutional manner.
(iv) Ultimate aim of capturing power: Individuals planning to form a political party should have the ultimate
aim of capturing power by peaceful, legal and constitutional means. All other aims are to be subservient to this
basic aim.
8.9 Kinds of Political Parties
8.9.1 Mono party system
In countries which have Mono Party, the liberty of the individual is lost, because there the people are deprived
of the liberty of electing their representatives. There is only one candidate in whose favour all the citizens have to
vote. This cannot be called an election in the real sense of the word. The ruling party rules on the basis of dictatorship.
In countries of the world where communist parties are in power, they do not allow any other to exist and establish
dictatorship of the party. Sometimes they declare themselves as extremely democratic but in the absence of opposition
parties the form of the government is no more democratic but dictatorship. There the change of government is
effected not as a result of elections, but by revolutions. The capturing of powers by Kosygin and Brezhnev by removing
Khrushchev is a clear proof of it. In the modem world one party system is current in Russia, China, Spain, East
Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland and Bulgaria etc.
61
8.9.2 Bi-Party System
In countries where there are only bi - or two parties, one of them forms the government, and the other in the
form of opposition party, checks the government from following the path of dictatorship. These countries have two
party system. That does not mean that there are only two parties in those countries; there may be other parties besides
them, and there is also complete freedom for forming new parties and influencing politics; but the importance of
such parties in the politics of the country is negligible; England, Canada and U.S.A. have two party system. In England,
there are two main parties; the Labour Party and Conservative Party. The Liberal and Communist Parties have no
partic-ular importance.
8.9.3 The Multiple Party System
There are many parties in the country in this system and every one represents the Parliament. Consequently
there are many small groups in the Parliament. France has been very famous for multiple party system. Multiple party
system was in vogue in Italy before Mussolini and in Germany before Hitler. In India too about a dozen and a half
parties had taken part in election but gradually the number of these parties has diminished. These days there are only
four or five All India Parties. In the near future the parties will have clearer forms in India. But it is hoped that there
will exist more than two parties in India.
8.10 Defects of Party System:
No doubt, the political parties are indispensable for the successful working of the democracy, yet they
suffer from serious defects. Some of the prominent defects of the party system are as follows:
1. In the first place, the political parties try to divide the people into opposing groups and thereby vitiate the
atmosphere. The whole country is divided into two hostile camps pitched against each other, which poses a
serious threat to the unity of the country.
2. Second, party system gives rise to political nepotism and favouritism. All the important government offices
are offered to the leaders or supporters of the party, and the talented people belonging to the opposition
parties are excluded from such positions. Thus, the country is deprived of the services of such talented persons.
3. Third, party system encourages sectional interests at the cost of national interests. The parties view all the
issues purely from party angles. The animosity and rivalry of the election continues even after the elections.
The opposition tries to oppose all the policies of the government unmindful of the national interests. Likewise
the ruling party tries to promote the interests of those sections of society which are known to be its supporters,
unmindful of the interests of the other sections. In this way, the national and public interests suffer.
4. The party system curbs the individuality of members. The members of party are expected to blindly toe the
line indicated by the party leaders and are not permitted to express independent views. The individual members
become mere cogs in the party machinery. Highlighting this point Leacock says “individual judgement remains
frozen tight in the shape of the party mould. This kind of unanimity seems to the critics false and injurious, it
suppresses that very freedom of individual opinion and action which is meant to be the vital principle of
democratic government.”
The defects of the party system, should not lead on us to the conclusion that the political parties should be
done away with. In fact, the modern democratic system cannot be imagined without political parties. The remedy does
not lie in ending the party system, but in mending the same. Effort should be made to remove the various defects of
the party system. Above all people should develop a high moral standard so that the political parties are not able to
exercise any corruption influence.
8.11 Opposition Parties in a Democracy
We have seen in the discussion so far that political parties provide opportunities to the people to choose
between alternatives. The existence of a number of parties is now generally accepted as essential to the working of a
democracy on a large scale, so also is the existence of opposition considered necessary in a democracy. Power has
the tendency to corrupt those who exercise it and there is always the danger that those in power may misuse it for
their own ‘ends. Opposition acts as a check on those in power. It exposes their faults of omission and commission and
tries to convince the citizens that the trust they have placed in the elected representatives is being misused. The
government is also kept under vigilant watch where opposition exists. In Great Britain, the parties are fairly balanced
and the opposition party is always prepared to replace the government in power with their own party men. The leaders
of opposition form a shadow cabinet.
62
 Even in the Presidential system where the government does not depend on the support of the majority in the
legislature, the opposition performs the function of keeping the government on the right track. It prevents the
government from getting complacent and therefore, indifferent to the people’s problems and aspirations.
Opposition can perform these functions only if it is organised and sufficiently strong to make its influence
felt. Parties which remain weak and un-organised, fail to discharge their duties in a democracy. Especially in a
parliamentary democracy, responsible opposition is very crucial. It is not only in the interest of the public that a
responsible opposition party should exist, but it is in the interest of the ruling party as well, for that alone can ensure
an efficient and effective government which would be responsible to the people’s wishes. If the opposition is not
strong, it cannot develop a sense of responsibility and it tends to get frustrated, leading to extra-constitutional tactics.
Bandhs, gheraos, demonstrations, stunts, etc., are tactics of this nature largely born out of defeatism.
8.12 Let us Sum Up
Finally, we can say that parties are essential for every political system whether democratic or dictatorial,
comparative or non-comparative, parliamentary or presidential, federal or unitary. These play a key role in the process
of politics.
8.13 Glossary
● USA : United States of America.
● Mono Party : One Party.
8.14 Answer to Self Check Exercise
Note: Use the space given below for your answers.
Check your progress-1
1. What is Political Party?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
Check Your Progress-2
2. Discuss any four function of Political Parties in a Democratic Political System?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
8.15 Suggested Readings
• Blum, W.T., Theories of Political Systems, (New Delhi : Prentice Hall, 1981).
• Caramani, Daniele (ed.) Comparative Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
• Dahl, Robert A., Pluralist Democracy in the United States, (Calcutta : Scientific Books, 1969).
• Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their origin and Activities in Modern State, (London : John Yiley,
1954).
• Eckstine, H. and Apter, David, Comparative Politics: A Reader, (New York : Free Press, 1963).
• Gena, C.B., Comparative Politics and Political Institutions, (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 2014).
• Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, 5th Edition, (New
York: Palgrave, 2001).
• Johari, J.C., Comparative Politics, Latest Revised edition, (New Delhi : Sterling Publishers).
• Landman, Todd, Issue and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, (London : Routledge, 2000).
• Macridis, C.R. and Ward, R.E., Major Political Systems, (New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1963).
• Milbarth, Lester W. and Goel, M.L., Political Participation, (Chieago : Rand Menally College,1977).
• Mukherjee, Subarta and Ramaswamy, Sushila, Theoretical Foundations of Comparative Politics, (Delhi:
Orient Blackswan, 2017).
• Palekar, S.A., Comparative Politics and Government, (Delhi: PHI Learning, 2009).
63
 • Palombara, Joseph La and Weiner, Myron (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development, (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966).
• Ray, S.N., Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall).
• Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis. (Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press, 1976).
8.16 Terminal Questions
1. What is a Political Party?
2. Discuss the Role of Political Parties in a democratic Political System?
3. Discuss briefly the functions of Political Parties in a Democratic Political System?

*****

64
 Lesson-9
Political Parties in U.K. U.S.A. and India

Structure
9.0 Introduction
9.1 Learning Objectives
9.2 Features of British Party System
9.3 Major British Political Parties
9.3.1 Labour Party
9.3.2 Conservative Party
9.3.3 Other Political Parties
9.4 Political Parties in U.S.A.
9.5 Features of US Party System
9.6 Comparative study of British and American Political Parties
9.7 Indian Party System
9.8 Features of Indian Party System
9.9 Problems of Political Parties in India
9.10 Emerging Trends in India Party System
9.11 Let us Sum Up
9.12 Glossary
9.13 Answer to Self Check Exercise
9.14 Suggested Readings
9.15 Terminal Questions
9.0 Introduction
In our country, there are several political parties that stand for the election. The presence of the political
party is actually a healthy situation for the nation. It gives people a choice to make a more evolved and effective
decision. Moreover, it drives the other political parties to get better than their competitors to win elections and rule
the nation. So, this is the basic backdrop of political parties. But what is a political party and what are the main
function of a Political Party? Let's find out.
9.1 Learning Objectives:-
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:-
• Understand the role of Political Parties in U.K.
• Explain the role of Political Parties in U.S.A.
• Analyze the main features of Indian multi-party system.
9.2 Features of British Party System
The salient features of the British Party System can be discussed as under:
1. Two Party System :- Britain has a two party system. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party are the
two main parties, each of which has been periodically getting the opportunity to rule. Since 1923, other
parties, namely, the Liberal Party, the Communist Party, the Social Democrates are active but only in a
minor way. The Liberal Party has been suffering a gradual decline in popularity and power ever since the
birth and rise of the Labour Party in 1906. Today it has come to be a minor party, content to play a limited
role, that too only at times. The electoral battle for securing political powers is, to all intents and purposes
between the Labour Party and the Conservatives. The two party system, which has evolved naturally as a child
of both accidents and designs, has become deeply embedded in British Political System.

65
 2. Moderate Approach of the Political Parties:- The British political parties are, in general, moderate in
approach. The Labour Party is not committed to socialism or rule of the proletariat. It, while accepting and
advocating the important place and role of the labour unions in society, also accepts the due importance of
other social groups. Likewise, the Conservative Party is not really conservative, it is liberal in policies. It is
not opposed to change and reforms tooth and nail. It is due to the moderate approach of the parties that little
difference takes place when one party is replaced by an another.
3. A High Degree of Centralism in Party Organisation:- The third salient feature of the British Party
System can be described as high centralistion in party organisations. Each of the major parties has a strong
well-knit organisation right from the bottom to the top, with real power in the hands of the top level party
organs. There is a direct chain of connections and command relations between the headquarters and the local
units. Members of each party are bound by party discipline as enforced and maintained by the party leaders.
There is firm, vigilant and continuous control of the party over its members. Even this principle is applied to
the elected representatives of the people in the Parliament. ‘Chief Whip’ and other ‘whips’ of the party play
a key role in maintaining and implementing party discipline among the members of the Parliament. The
members have to vote strictly in accordance with the directives, decisions and whips issued by their party.
4. Organised Opposition:- The system of organized opposition, with ‘Shadow Cabinet as an instrument of
control over the policies of the government’ is another important salient feature of the British Party System.
The majority party forms the Cabinet, runs the administration and tries to implement its policies and
programmes as enumerated in its election manifesto - The Mandate of the People. The minority party - the
opposition party, also forms a ‘Shadow Cabinet’ which keeps a watch over the activities and policies of the
cabinet with a view to bring to light the acts of omission and commission on the part of the government. In
this way it tries to secure a swing of public opinion against the ruling majority party and in its own favour.
The leader of the opposition enjoys a constitutional recognition, gets a salary from the treasury and runs his
office as the leader of the shadow cabinet. He is always respected as the ‘Alternative Prime Minister’. The
right of the opposition to present organised dissent is respected by the ruling majority.
5. Continuity in Operations:- The British parties are continuously and actively involved in the struggle for
power. After one general election is over, they start preparing for the next. Any time can be an election time,
the majority patty can at any time go in for elections with a view to seek a fresh mandate from the people on
any particular issue or otherwise. The opposition too can force the majority party to seek a fresh mandate
the people. Public opinion, as represented by free press, radio and television network, can also force at any
time a decision in favour of new elections. The political parties have no time to rest and sleep between
elections. Both of the major patties are always active and there is continuous constitutional and political
activity present in the British Patty System.
Lack of deep ideological difference between the labour and the conservatives, strict party discipline, absence
of the evil of political defections, acceptance and respect for the time tested and time honoured conventions
of the British Political System and positive, active and constructive participation in the process of struggle
for power can be described as five other features of the British Party System.
9.3 Major British Political Parties
In Britain, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are, in reality, the two major parties and it is because
of their role in the political system that the party system is regarded as a bi-party system. Besides these two, the
Liberal Patty, the Communist Party and SDP are also at work, though in a minor way, in the political system. A brief
description these four parties are presented as under:
9.3.1 The Labour Party
The need to check and reform and growing evils of the factory system and capitalism in general brought into
existence in England tire Social Democratic Federation, the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society towards
the end of the Nineteenth century. But these parties lacked funds. They approached the Trade Union Congress in 1906
which had money and formed a new organisation which came to be known as Labour Party. The Party got a general
support from the industrial areas of the manufacturing towns, the areas, the social reformers, the minorities like the
Jews, the Roman Catholics and the dissenters. The radicals among the Liberals also swelled the ranks of the Labour
Party. Its members have been showing dogged devotion to the cause of the Party for about 100 years. It has an appeal
to the intellectuals and the middle classes also. The rich People hardly vote for Labour Party and the poor hardly for
the Conservative Party.

66
 A. Organisation of the labour Party:- The Labour Party, at present, is composed of four organisations ;
socialist and semi-socialist societies, intellectuals and professional men; trade unions and co-operatives; the local
organisations of the party. The first group is small in number, the second provides the bulk of members and money,
the third group is a half-hearted ally, and the fourth group provides enthusiastic workers.
1. Membership:- There are two ways of becoming a member of the Labour Party namely, either by membership
of an affiliated organisation, or by direct membership and subscribing to a local constituency organisation.
Some members enjoy both types of membership at once; “a fact”, writes Finer, “that complicates the true
reckoning of total membership.”
2. Party Conference:- The Labour Party is organised on the basis of the Constitution that was drafted in 1918.
At the top is Party Conference also called Annual Party Conference for it meets every year. It lays down the
policy and issues instructions to be carried out by the National Executive Committee to the Party, the affiliated
organisations, its representatives in the Parliament and the local authorities. It consists on an average of about
1100 delegates and in addition approximately 200 ex-officio members who attend its meeting but have no
right to vote. The basis of representation at the Conference is (1) Each Trade Union or other affiliated
organisation may send one delegate for each 5,000 members, (2) Constituency parties also send one delegate
after 5,000 members. (3) Each central labour party or Federation of labour parties may nominate one delegate,
(4) Ex- officio members include the members of the National Executive Committee, members of the
Parliamentary Labour Party, prospective labour candidates. The Patty Conference meets for five days and
most of its time is taken by Parliamentary Party and the National Executive Committee.
3. National Executive Committee (NEC):- This committee is subject to the control and directions of the
Party Conference. It is the administrative organisation of the party. It has 27-28 members. The leader and
deputy leader of the Party are its ex-officio members.’ The treasurer of the party is the third member and is
elected by the vote of the whole Party Conference. Of the rest 24 members, 12 are nominated and voted for by
the Trade Unions Socialist professional and cooperative delegations put together, 7 by constituency party
organisations and 5 women members elected by the Party Conference. Most of the members of NEC are
elected time and again and hence are senior and experienced party members. The committee meets once a
month under a chairman chosen by seniority for one year. NEC manages the central office of the Party and in
reality it manages the affairs of the party during the interval between the two meetings of the Party Conference.
It plays a key role in policy formulation. The central office organises and coordinates the working of the party
organisations and conducts election campaigns. It works under the control of the NEC. The NEC decides party
candidates for different constituencies. It has the authority to expel any member or disaffiliate any organisation
considered guilty of anti-party activities.
4. Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP):- It consists of the members of the Labour Party who are elected to the
House of Commons. When the Labour Party is in opposition, it elects three officers at the beginning of each
parliamentary session - the chairman and the leader of the party, the vice-chairman and the deputy leader, and
the chief whip of the party. At present, Golden Brown is the leader of the Labour Party. He became the leader
of the Labour Party when Mr. Tony Blaire resigned from the office of the Prime Minister and his membership
of House of Commons. In addition to these three, the PLP elects 12 members forming a total of 15 which
constitute the Parliamentary Committee of the Labour Party. The Labour Peers are also members of this
Parliamentary Committee but they do not vote on matters or special concern to the Commons. The leader of
the PLP organized his “Shadow Cabinet” which acts as party’s main instrument of opposition to the ruling
cabinet. Whips ensure party discipline.
When the Labour Party enjoys majority in the House of Commons, its leader becomes the Prime Minister and
forms the ministry. The party leaders enjoy greater independence becomes and the ministry works independent
of undue control of the NEC. However, special care is taken to consult party members outside the cabinet and
PLP meets once in two weeks for policy discussions. Chief Whip and 10 other party whips help in the
maintenance of discipline among the PLP members.
(5) National Council of Labour:- Besides the above three organizational structures there is a coordinating
agency known as the National Council of Labour. It is composed of 24 members - 7 represent the Trade Union
Congress, 5 are from National Executives composed Committee of the Labour Party, four from Parliamentary
Labour Party (PLP) and five from the cooperative Union. It holds monthly meetings and coordinates the
activities and policies of the party in various fields of participation.
67
 B. Ideology of the Labour Party:- Between 1900 to 1997, the Labour Party remained opposed to capitalism
and wanted to secure for every worker, a larger share in the output of industry. It stood for securing socialistic
objectives through a democratic polity and an increased protection of the interest of the labour. The Party wanted a
much bigger share of the national cake for the workers. It wanted to raise their standard of living, by providing them
with better education facilities, better health services, better houses and economic security. It was out to fight the
five ‘Giants’ which stood in the way of freedom with security as pointed out by Sir William Beveridge in his report in
1942: “ want, ignorance, idleness, squalor and disease.” It wanted to secure its objective through state planning,
nationalization and more equitable distribution of wealth. When the Labour Party for the first time came into power
in 1945, it nationalized the Bank of England, the coal mines, telecommunications, electric power supply and
transmission, the railways, road transport, docks and inland waterways, gas supply and some part of the iron and steel
industry. The Labour Government also introduced a national health service, a comprehensive system of national
insurance, government supported housing, town and country planning. It was opposed to rank colonialism and
imperialism. The Labour Party in a way stood for Democratic Socialism. It was essentially a Trade Union Party with
a leftist or left of the centre ideology. But it should not be taken to mean that it was fully dominated by Trade Unions
and was out to secure socialism in democratic ways. In several ways it accepted some of the virtues of the competitive
economic system and private enterprise. However, since late 1990s, the Labour Party has been pursuing the ideology
of liberalisation of economy. It virtually left behind its love for democratic socialism and came forward to be a new
Labour Party with strong advocacy of liberalization, liberalism.
9.3.2 The conservative Party
The Conservative Party draws its members and support from the big industrialists, the wealthy gentry, business
people and big farmers. It has some members from the middle classes as well as from working classes and all those
who believe in the King, Church and Empire with the zeal of a fanatic. It has been described as the party of, as Finer
writes, “the possessing and patriotic, of the wealthy, of the aristocratic and sub-aristocrats, the gentry, the upper and
middle classes. The Conservative Party has been a key player in British Political System ever since its birth first as
Tories in the 18th century and then as the conservatives since the early years of the 19th century. Initially it always
competed with the Liberal Party for gaining political power and since 1940s, it has been competing with the Labour
Party. In the late 20th century it created a sort of history when it remained in power continuously for eighteen years,
(1979-1997). Since 1997, it has been playing the role of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
A. Organisation of the Conservative Party :-
1. Membership:- Conservatives become party members by joining a local association and paying a weekly
subscription. In this way, all the party members are individual members.
2. Three Organisational Units:- The party has three organisational units which look after the party work. These
are National Union of Conservatives and Unionist Association, The Parliamentary Party, and the Central Office.
(a) The National Union of Conservatives and Unionist Association:- Its popular name is National Union. It is a
federal organisation to which constituency associations are affiliated. The nominal head of the Union is its
President who has ceremonial and chairman type functions to perform. Its functions are primarily, deliberative
and advisory. Its views are conveyed to the leader of the party or the Chairman of the party organisation as may
be necessary and convenient.
(b) Central Office or Central Council of the National Union:- The Central Office is a governing body of the
National Union and is composed of 15 categories of units such as constituency associations, provincial areas
and university graduates. It selects the President and an executive committee. It organises party’s annual
conference whose total membership is around 6000. It is an institution for demonstrating the unity and solidarity
of the party because all decisions are taken unanimously. Twice a year it provides opportunity to the constituent
associations to express their opinions and hear the reports of the leaders. Central Office is controlled by the
party leader. He appoints the Chairman of the Central Office as well as Vice-Chairman and Treasures. This
Central Office organises local party groups, conducts publicity campaigns, raises party funds and performs
several other functions.
(c) The Executive Committee of the National Union:- This committee looks after the affairs of the party during
the intervals between the meetings of the Central Office. It meets once a month to consider resolutions and
reports which are sent by various subordinate bodies. It implements the decisions of the Central Office.

68
 3. The Parliamentary Party:- This wing is the policy-making unit of the Conservative Party. It consists of such
party members as are members of the House of Commons. The leader of the party is elected by it and when the
conservatives are in majority, he becomes the Prime Minister and when it is in minority, he takes up the role
of the leader of opposition. The leader looks after the affairs and interests of the party and the parliamentary
business is helped by whips of the party. Meetings of Parliamentary Party are held quite regularly for discussing
various issues and problems being faced by the party in the Parliament.
4. The Leader of the Conservative Party: A salient feature of the organisation of the Conservative Party is the
dominant position enjoyed by the leader of the Party. He may consult whom he .wishes and he may attend to
various organs of the party or not, but he remains the main foundation and main interpreter of the policy of the
party. He works through the central office. The Central Office works as a personal machine of the leader and
guides, inspires, coordinates and controls the work of the party throughout the country.
(B) Ideology of the Conservative Party:- The Conservative Party proclaims itself to be a ‘National’ and ‘nationalistic’
party representing the entire nation and not any one or few sections. National unity is its central piece of ideology. It
rejects class-struggle in favour of capital-labour cooperation and a property owning democracy. It proclaims the need
for free competition in industry and the end of restrictive trade practices both between employers and employees. It
is the party of social mobility and its two slogans are ‘Quality and not Equality’ and “Opportunity rather than security”.
The party stands for private enterprise, vested interests, established institutions, empire, and is opposed to
nationalisation, control of prices to prevent profiteering and control of monopolies and cartels. The Conservative
Party agrees with the Labour Party in supporting the United Nations, upholding the Commonwealth, co-operation
with the United States and Western Europe. Both favour the development of colonies. Both believe in maintaining a
high and stable level of employment and provision for social security. The only difference regarding the similar
objectives is that the Labour Party believes in drastic steps whereas the Conservatives believe in gradualness. The
leftwing Conservatives would like to move with the times while the right-wing to maintain the status quo organisation
of the Conservative Party. The Party is, however, not dogmatic in its approach and ideology. It tries to be realistic and
empirical in actual practice. It accepts the concept of welfare state and is not dogmatically attached to capitalistic
laissez faire. It is not always opposed to public ownership and control over industries.
9.3.3 Other Parties
1. The Liberal Democratic Party:- The Liberal Party, which is now known as the Liberal Democratic Party
was originally one of the two principal parties of Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, it could
continue to remain popular only up to the first quarter of the twentieth century. It is now considered as the
third party after the Conservatives and the Labour. It got 53 seats in the House of Commons in June 2001
elections and 62 seats in May 2005 elections. It has still men of great calibre among its leaders and a sizeable
vote in the country, but is has been and an unfortunate victim of the British electoral system under which the
voting strength is not always reflected in the number of candidates elected. The principal cause of its debacle
has been its lukewarm programme of reforms which has an appeal neither for the workers nor for the employers.
In the early years of the present century, the Liberal Democratic Party carried out a programme of help to the
lower-income groups and successfully curtailed the power of the House of Lords.
Ideologically, the party is nearer to the Labour Party than the Conservative Party. It accepts the concepts of
“Protection of the interest of the workers” and “a social welfare state”. It is committed to work for the socio-
economic development of all sections of the society, particularly the youth and the workers. It upholds the
right to freedom, workers’ participation in management and adoption of the middle path.
2. The Communist Party:- The Communist Party, though numerically weak, has some very ardent and enthusiastic
supporters. Its membership has never gone beyond 50,000. The party ran 21 candidates in 1945 elections and
two were successful. None was successful in the 1950 and 1951 elections. The Labour Party has consistently
rejected its over tunes for an affiliation. Its support has never been welcome. The Party has a journal of its
own, The Daily Worker. The party used to follow the footsteps of the erstwhile U.S.S.R, After the demise of
Socialism in Russia, the Communist Party of Britain continues to live in wilderness.

69
 3. The Social Democratic Party (SDP):- The British Party System registered tin important development in the
1980s with the rise of the Social Democratic Party and its alliance with the Liberals. The SDP was founded by
a breakaway group a neo rightist group of the Labour Party. The precipitating factor, however, was the decision
of the Labour Party to give greater share to trade unions. The Social Democratic Party affirmed faith in mixed
economy. It had little connection with trade unions. Its membership was thrown open to all individuals as it did
not believe in class conflict. It stood for the development of society through democratic means and believed
that equality could be achieved without wholesale public-ownership.
9.4 Political Parties in U.S.A.
Americans have a slightly different view of a political party than the one which prevails in other countries
like Britain and India. We, in India, conceptualize a party as a homogeneous ideologically harmonious group of
people. The American, however view a political party as confederation or ever federation of interest groups.
9.5 Features of the US party system
The study of political parties in America throws light on the prominent features mentioned below:
1. Almost similar Types of Memberships:- At present, the two important political parties, i.e.. Republican and
Democratic, have no marked differences in their nature. Previously the Republican Party was of the industrialists
whereas Democratic party was of the agriculturists. Now no line can be drawn between them. Both the major
parties have no procedure or ceremony for recruiting members. They have no general rolls of members. They
get no signatures of their programmes or policies. They collect no dues. They enforce no rules. They have no
means of disciplining a member or expelling him.
2. Lack of Fundamental Differences in the Programmes and Policies of Parties:- Once Lord Bryce
humorously remarked, “The great parties were like bottles. Each bore a label denoting the kind of liquor it
contained but both were empty.” It is time to say that “America has only one party, of the Republican-cum-
Democratic, divided into two nearly equal halves by habits, they contest for office - the Republican being one
half and the Democratic the other half of the party.
3. Bi-party System:- The American political system,” writes Schatt Schneider is “a classical example of two
party system. When we say that we have a two-party system in the United States, we do not mean that we have
only two parties. Usually about a dozen parties nominate presidential candidates. We call it a two-party system
because we have two large parties and a number of small parties, and the large parties are so large that we often
forget about the rest.” Usually the small parties collectively poll less than 5 per cent of the votes cast in
national elections. Both the Republicans and Democrats get the opportunity to wield power from time to time.
Hence, the USA has a real and active Bi-Party System.
4. Most of the Elected Officials are from the two Political Parties:- According to E.E. Schatt-Schneider, “as
a consequence of the dominance of the major parties, most of the elected officials are either Republicans or
Democrats, including all presidents and nearly all senators and national representatives, all state governors,
nearly all local officials. Attempts to break up this old system have been made in every presidential election
during the, past one hundred years, but the system has survived all assaults.”
5. Two-Party System is strongly rooted in American Political System:- In the United States, unlike countries
with a parliamentary system of governments, the people of America elect not only the President, but also a
host of other executives, about 8,00,000 of them. They also elect Congressmen from single member districts.
For example, they elect 435 members of the House of Representatives from 435 districts (there are a few
exceptions), one member for each district. Statistically, this kind of election favours the major parties. The
system of elections makes it easy for the major parties to maintain their dominant position, because they are
apt to win more than the share of the offices.
6. Existence of Strong Interest Groups within each Political Party:- For a period of several months, in
every election year, people of America are likely to hear more about contests within the parties than about
contests between the parties. Later, when the nominations have been made, in the election campaign, the contest
between the parties begins. An American election is a two-stage affair. At the end of the first stage they compete
for votes in the election itself. According to Young, “Interest groups seek to influence the policies and personnel
or political parties as well as the state.” Claims on behalf of those groups are frequently urged upon party
platforms, upon committees at all levels of government and on individual members of important party committees
and conventions.

70
 7. Parties are not always guided by their General Statements and Public Promises:- When a party chooses
a presidential candidate, it says to the country, in fact, “Trust us under the leadership of this man to cope with
the visual and the unknown problems that are going to come up for decision in the next four years.” A party
platform is not a contract between the party and the public but a declaration of its attitudes and tendencies.
Sometimes this declaration is specific, but more often it is general and the public probably does not want
more.
8. Absence of Political Parties based on Race or Religion:- The American society is a society of diverse
races, cultures and religions. It is almost as much characterised by diversities as has been the case with the
Indian society. However, in the United States, there is a near total absence of parties based on race and religion.
There are local parties. There are several national level parties besides the Republicans and the Democrats and
yet no party stands organised on narrow biotic lines. This really reflects high level of political maturity, objectivity
and cultural integration of the Americans.
9. Local Domination:- Local level organisations always play a dominant role in the activities of both the
Republicans and the Democrats. The national level party organisations become active only during the periods
of Presidential elections. The local leaders and organisations remain active continuously at all the times’.
With all these features, American Party System has been successfully functioning as an extra-constitutional,
nevertheless, as an integral part of the Political System. These have come to be major players in the working of
the American Political System.
9.6 Comparative Study of British and American Political Parties
The American and British Party systems are similar so far as both are bi-party systems and both are at work
in developed and liberal and democratic and political systems. Both have been the products of an evolutionary process
and both bear the impacts of their socio-economic-cultural environments. However, the similarities are only in
respect of certain features, particularly in respect of their functions within their respective political systems. A
comparative analysis of all their features brings out several sharp differences between the British and American Party
Systems.
1. Ideological Difference:- Traditionally, several scholars have been pointing out that ideologically the two
American parties have much more in common than in those of die British political parties. In America, both the
Republicans and Democrats stand committed to a competitive economic system or private capitalism, free enterprise,
the supremacy and sacredness of the US Constitution, and the American democratic political institutions. The two
seldom differ in respect of issues of US Foreign policy. The ideological difference between the two is more of
degree and less of kind. In other words, American parties are not “ideologically divided” political parties. What divide
them are their ‘interests’ and not ideologies. In England, the two major political parties adhere to two different sets of
ideologies. The Conservatives are rightists and favour the interests of the rich, the landlords, the capitalists and the
industrialists, whereas the Labour favours democratic socialism (Now of course liberalisation and Democracy) and
the interests of the workers and their trade unions. However, in the changed circumstances of the contemporary age,
neither British political parties stand rigidly separated by ideological differences nor the American political parties
stand very closely united because of similar ideological perceptions. Both the political parties in England now believe
in market economy, British Constitution, democratic institutions, commonwealth of nations and several other principles
of foreign and domestic policies. But despite these similarities, class conflict is still represented by the two political
parties and hence both continue to be rival competitors in struggle for power. Likewise, in America, the two political
parties have their respective strongholds and committed voters. Similarities in ideological perceptions have not
helped them to cut across the class lines and sections represented by each of the two. The Republicans continue to be
a party of the Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Whites, of big business and the upper middle class. The Democratic Party
stands identified as the party of the poor, the lower middle class, the negro and other racial and religious minorities.
2. Organisational Differences:-A real difference between die American and British political parties happens
to be in the sphere of organisational structure. The American parties have similar political organisations and are
hierarchically organised. However, the organisation of each party, in its working, is dominated by the local/state level
units. The national organisation of the political parties in the United States is almost a confederation of local and
state party units. There is a lot of decentralisation of political authority. Even the authority to select personnel and
public policies is not in the hands of permanent organisations of the party. Popular participation of the members in
the affairs of their party is very low. The personality of the leaders or the President, the Senators and the Representatives,
as the case may be, dominates the party organisation. As against this, the political parties of England are very strongly
organised parties in which the national level units exercise full control over the local level party units. Authority
flows from the higher to the lower level. In the Conservative Party, the leader enjoys a pre-eminent position in the
party organisation. The Labour Party is also a very strongly organised Party.
71
 3. Differences in respect of Discipline:- The British political parties are highly disciplined parties. Rigid
party discipline and control is a feature of this party system. The members are under the political control of the
parties. They can contest elections only when adopted by their party as candidates. In the Parliament, the members
have to go by party whips and orders. The majority party members have always to support the policies of their leaders,
who constitute the Cabinet. Voting against the policies of the cabinet, or criticizing its policies always involves party
action against the erring members. Termination of party membership can terminate the political career of the member.
The British political parties are characterised by high degree of coherence and discipline, a feature which the American
political parties lack.
4. Difference in respect of relation between organisational and legislative wings of the Parties:- In
the United States, the organisational wing of the party has no control or even influence over the legislative wing of the
party. On the other hand, in the British Political system, the party organisation has an important control over the
legislative wing.
5. Difference due to the difference in systems of Government:- In the United States, there is a Presidential
system of Government. The Congress has a lesser role vis-a-vis the ‘President. Consequently, the Congressional
elections draw less vigorous struggle among parties. This is particularly so in respect of elections to the House of
Representatives. The Presidential election involves acute and keen political struggle and, as such, involves bigger and
vigorous struggle for power between the two major political parties. But this happens only in the year of Presidential
election. As against this, there is a parliamentary form of government in Britain. The government is formed by that
political party which gets majority of seats in the elections and the other party becomes the opposition party. The
struggle for power and influence goes on continuously between the ruling party and the opposition. In Britain, the
two-party system and the rigid party discipline enforced by the two parties have together led to a big increase in the
powers of the British Cabinet. This development has, in turn, strengthened the hold of the party leader over the party
organisations. The working of the two-party system in Britain has become different from that of its counterpart in
America because of the difference in their systems of government.
In the United States, one often hears a demand for making the political parties stronger, more integrated and
responsible parties. As against this, in Britain, one often hears a complaint against the rigidities of the party organisations
and the discipline enforced by the two political parties over their respective members.
9.7 Indian Party System: Features and Emerging Trends
As a liberal democratic system and with a parliamentary form of government, Indian Political System has
been living with several political parties which are continuously and actively engaged in all aspects of the political
process. It was in the second half of the 19th century that several politically active groups began emerging in India.
This process got substantiated in 1885, when the Indian National Congress was formed. In 1906, the Muslim League,
in 1916, the Hindu Mahasabha and in 1924, the Communist Party were formed.
After independence, the adoption of a full-fledged democratic system set the stage for the emergence of
more political parties. In 1951-52, as many as 14 national and 50 state level political parties participated in the First
General Elections. Since then, the number of political parties, both national and regional, has been increasing. The
nature of the party system has been changing continuously because of the splits in the existing parties and the emergence
of new parties. BJP, Congress, BSP, CPM, CPI, PSP, FB, KC, AGP, SAD, TDP, DMK, AIADMK, SP, Janata Dal (S),
Janata Dal (K), JMM, ML, National Conference, Shiv Sena, Trinamool Congress, PMK, BJD, RJD and SP besides
several others, have all been active political factors in the Indian Politics.
9.8 Features of Indian Party System
The following can be described as the main features of the Indian Party System :-
1. A Multi-party System:- As a land of social pluralism, India has been a natural home for a multi-party
system. Even before the dawn of independence, there had appeared four major political parties-Congress, Muslim
League, Hindu Mahasabha and the Communist Party. After the dawn of independence and because of the adoption of
parliamentary democracy the stage was set for the birth of new political parties.
Besides the above four, Jan Sangha, PSP, SSP, DMK, and National Conference came into being and gradually
the number of political parties began increasing. Republican Party, Janata Party, Janata Dal, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha,
Assom Gana Parishad and several other Parties came to be organised. Presently there are, in active presence several
major parties both national and regional—Congress, BJP, BSP, CPI, CPM, NCP, AGP, Janata Dal (U), Janata Dal (S),
AIADMK, DMK, PMK Telugu Desham, SAD, BJD, RLD, RJD, SF, JDS, PDP, TCM, ML, and several other Parties.
We can legitimately say that there are almost 50 active political parties, national as well as regional, working in the
Indian Political System. Six stand recognised as national level political parties (BJP, Congress, CPI, CPM, BSP,
NCP) while 30 parties are active state level (Regional) Political Parties. In addition to these there are about 400
other registered parties.
72
 2. Dominant Position of the Congress during 1947-89:- The Indian multi party system initially worked
as one party dominant multi-party systems. Between 1947-67, the Congress dominanted fully the Indian political
scene at the national and state levels. It got 354, 371, 361 seats in 1952, 1957 and 1962 General Elections respectively.
In 1967 it got 283 seats in the Lok Sabha. A split then came into its way which forced it to depend upon the support of
CPI and DMK. Non-Congress governments came to power in several states. But it proved to be a short-lived change
as in 1971 elections, the Congress again got 352 seats in the Lok Sabha. Between 1971-74, the Congress retrieved its
formidable position both at the Union and State levels. However, the emergency rule imposed by it during June 1975
to March 1977, considerably reduced its popularity. In March 1977 elections, a united opposition (Janata Party)
defeated it. However, the internal factionalism in the opposition parties set a stage for the re-emergence of the
Congress as the dominant party of Indian Political System. It successfully reasserted its dominant position in January
1980 elections. In 1984, the Congress scored a very spectacular victory when it got 411 seats in the Lok Sabha.
However, around 1987, the Congress began suffering a decline in its popularity. In 1989 elections it could get only
193 seats and in 1991 it got 224 seats. In both these elections, it failed to secure a majority. In 1989, it decided to sit
in the opposition. But in 1991, it decided to form the government at the Centre. At the state level also though it
improved its position as compared to its position in 1989, yet it failed to regain full strength.
3. Special Status for the Leader of Opposition:- “Under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of
Opposition in Parliament Act 1977, the leader of opposition in each House of the Parliament enjoys a special status.
His status is equal to that of a Cabinet minister and he draws the same salary and allowances as are drawn by a Cabinet
minister. An opposition party in India gets its status recognised only when its secures a minimum of 1/10th of the
total seats of a House. Since 1989, there has been present a recognised opposition in the Indian Political System.
4. System of Registration of Political Parties with the Election Commissions:- Since December
1988, there has been in existence a provision for the registration of political parties with the Election Commission
of India. By amending the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951, it has been laid down that it was essential for each
political party to get itself registered with the Election Commission. A party which fails to get registered is not
accepted as a political party. Each new party has to apply for registration within 30 days of its inception. In 1988, the
parties which were already in existence were asked to get registered within 60 days of the passing of the Act. A
political party has to attach a copy of its constitution or governing rules along with the application for registration.
Further, it has to declare its loyalty towards the Constitution, socialism, secularism, democracy and sovereignty,
unity and integrity of India. Such an application has to be filed by the executive head of the party within 30 days of the
formation of party. The right to grant registration lies with the Election Commission and in this respect its decision
is always final. After getting registration, a political party has to intimate to the Election Commission any change in
its name or place of activity, or office bearers or any other major change in its structure and organisation. The
Election Commission has been also according recognition to the parties as National level or State/Regional level
parties. However, it can do so only when the parties satisfy the stipulated conditions. The provisions for registration
have been incorporated for ensuring a democratic organisation and working of political parties. At times, the Election
Commission orders the political parties to complete internal party elections. Such an order is binding on all political
parties.
5. Large number of Regional and Local Political Parties:- The existence of a large number of regional
political parties along with some national level political parties has been a reality of Indian Political System. Such a
feature is quite natural for a country like India which is characterised by social pluralism. A regional party is one
which enjoys its popularity in one or two States and is committed to secure the interests of these vis-a-vis the Union.
DMK, AIADMK, National Conference, Shiromani Akali Dal, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Assom Gana Parishad, Biju
Janata Dal, PMK, TRS, UP, RLD, RPI, RSP, MNF, Telugu Desham, Vishal Haryana Party, Bangla Congress, Utkal
Congress, Forward Bloc, IUML, Kerala Congress, Manipur National Front and several are some of the more prominent
regional parties. Several States of Indian Union are being ruled by the regional parties either individually or as coalitions.
6. Power-sharing between National and Regional Political Parties:- A development in the Indian Political
System has been the emergence of a process of power-sharing between National and Regional parties. Since June
1996, a coalition, consisting of several regional parties and some national level parties, has been ruling at the Centre.
The CPM has been ruling West Bengal in a similar fashion for more than 30 years. During 1997-Feb 2002, the BJP
and the SAD remained in power in Punjab. Congress is sharing power with NCP in Maharashtra and with PDP in J&K,
with DMK in Pondicherry. BJD and the BJP are in an alliance in Orissa. Now JD(S) and BJP alliance is in power in
Karnataka. The leaders of regional parties have started playing an active and even deterministic role in the organisation
of the central government.

73
 7. Lack of Rigid Ideological Divisions among Political Parties:- Almost all political parties have similar
Ideologies. In fact, the parties are not very rigid about their ideological commitments. All the parties are committed
to uphold democracy, secularism, socialism and decentralisation, and most of them now favour liberalisation and
privatisation. All of these are willing to use the caste factor, linguistic factor and regionalism for expanding their
support bases. In fact all of them have been doing this.
8. Existence of Communal Parties:- A communal party is one which draws its support from amongst the
members of a particular community. In this way several of the Indian Political Parties can be called communal parties.
Muslim League, Shiv Sena, Republican Party, Hindu Maha Sabha, Majlise Shura, Akali Dal, lUML, AIMIM are all in a
way communal parties. Many persons hold that even BJP is a communal party because it enjoys the support of mainly
(95%) of the Hindus and it uses such terms as Hindu, Hindutav and Hindi. Even DMK and AIADMK are anti-Brahmin
communal parties.
9. Inner Groupism and Factionalism:- Factionalism and groupings are present in most of the political
parties. Internal groupism in the Congress has been a recognised feature. The existence of ‘Leftists’, ‘Rightists’,
‘Young Turks’, ‘Dissidents’, and ‘Inner circles’ within the Congress has been a historical fact. It is also true of all
other political parties.
This feature has been mainly responsible for political splits and defections. Groups owing loyalties to different
leaders are present in almost every party. Each leader has had a group of loyalists.
10. Personality-Cult Politics:- Personality-cult dominates party politics in India. Several political parties
stand organised around a leader. The existence of such political parties like Congress (Indira), Congress (Jagjiwan
Ram), Congress (Urs), Janata Party (JP), AD (Mann), AD (Badal), AD (Longowal), AD (Tohra), Jana Sangha (Madhok),
Janata Dal (A), Lok Dal (A), Biju Janata Dal and other splinter parties reflect the presence of politics of personality-
cult in Indian political parties. It has been a standard practice with the political leaders of India to float their political
parties. Often the political scene witnesses the rise of groups loyal to different leaders and ‘loyalty towards the
leader’ enjoys precedence over ‘loyalty towards the party or the ideology’. The leader of the party behaves like a
‘queen bee’.
11. Lack of Internal Democratic Organisations:- Most of the parties in India do not have good
democratically organised structures. Theoretically or legally most of the political parties stand organised in a
democratic way but in practice the ‘top leaders’ or the ‘party elites’ dominate the set up. Party elections are rarely
held. Political parties hold their state level and national-level conventions and conferences but in these also the
‘leaders’ or the ‘caucus’ dominate the proceedings. The principle of ‘One leader One Office’ is advocated but rarely
followed. Even the political parties which are active actors in the democratic process are undemocratic in their
internal workings. This is as much time of the Congress Party as of the CPM, the CPI, the BJP and the BSP.
Now, the Election Commission has made it mandatory for the political parties to hold organisational elections.
At times, the Chief Election Commissioner directs the political parties to complete their organisational elections by
a stipulated date.
12. Lack of Party Discipline:- Lack of discipline among the party members is again a sad reality of Indian
party system. The party members do not hesitate to become rebels whenever they find a decision unacceptable. In
elections ‘the dissidents’ or ‘the rebels’ even oppose’ and contest elections against the officially sponsored party
candidates. The party discipline is, at times, enforced and it takes the form of suspension or removal from membership
of the rebels or dissidents for a period of six years or so. But, such rebels/ dissidents are often in a position, either to
return to the party or in causing a split in the party or in joining another party which is even opposed to their parent
party. Lack of party discipline has been a source of defections, splits, factionalism, groupism and political turn
coatism in Indian Politics.
13. Large Number of Independent Candidates in Elections:- Another feature, which has a bearing on the
working of Indian Party System, can be described as the presence of a large number of independent candidates in the
elections. The political parties have to meet the challenge posed by locally popular independent candidates who are
contesting elections from various constituencies. The Constitution grants to the citizens the right to contest elections
and in actual practice, a large number of candidates come forward to utilise this right.
14. Politics of Populism:- Almost all the political parties adopt and follow populistic policies and raise
populistic slogans for securing their votes. The party in power uses its power of policy-making for attracting votes.
‘Rozgar Yojnas’, ‘Waiving of Loans’, ‘Power to the People’, ‘Increased Reservations’, ‘Vote for Mandir ‘Protection
of Panth’, ‘Protection of interests of Minorities’, ‘Garibi Hatao’, ‘Free water, Free-electricity’, sabka sath, sabka
vikas etc. are used as election-year slogans and ploys for securing votes.
74
 15. Politics of Opportunistic Alliances. Political parties often resort to unprincipled electoral alliances
and coalitions for securing short-term gains. During elections, almost all the political parties enter into unprincipled
alliances. These do not hesitate to enter into electoral alliances with communal parties.
9.9 The problems of Political Parties in India
The political parties in India face many problems. The major problems are organisational problems, the
problem of indiscipline and the problem of finances.
1. Organisational Problems- The inherent nature of social order in the country increases the problems of
political parties. India presents a traditional, stratified social order. Religion, caste and many other cultural factors
dominate the minds of the people and purely ideological politics is something difficult in the given context. To run
purely secular organisations is much more difficult and hence the parties resort to informal tactics in increasing their
appeal.
Factionalism, which is a pervasive feature of the Indian political system, poses another major hurdle in the
way of effective organisation of parties. The Congress party itself has witnessed for major splits in five decades.
There are three communist parties—the C.P.I., the C.P.I. (M), and the C.P.I. (M.L.)—which arose out of factional
politics in the Communist Party of India. Regional parties like DMK, ADMK and Akali Dal have also witnessed splits.
The parties are there-fore riven with factions. The country saw in 1982, 3 Congress parties, 3 Communist parties, 2
Janata parties, 2 Lok Dal, 2 Muslim Leagues and countless small state parties Except the two Communist parties
which arc cadre-based and to an extent BJP, no other political party has had a strong organizational structure.
Factionalism is thus a problem in all political parties and mere personal differences lead to splinter parties. This
destroys the chances for any long term perspectives in the organisation of political parties.
2. Defections:- The weakness of central leadership in the case of almost all parties is symptomatic of the
erosion of party discipline and party loyalty. This erosion is highlighted by a disturbing feature of our democracy viz.,
the phenomenon of defection. The Fourth General Elections in 1967 witnessed an alarming increase in the number of
defections in the country. These defections were responsible for the fall of no less than 16 governments in the period
between 1967 and 1968. Of the 3,500 and odd members of the Legislative Assemblies, more than 500 changed their
political affiliations, which came to one out of each seven. Defections erode political stability in the country and
disturbs the evolution of viable party system.
3. Absence of Inner Party Democracy:- Over the last fifty years of Inde-pendence, no political party has
been able to observe the basic norms of inner party democracy. The authority in organizational matters has always
been from the top to the bottom through successive layers of party structures. Leaders of political parties in Independent
India have not always emerged through a process of democratic elections and promotion from the lower levels to the
higher and the top. Thus leadership in most political parties in India may be democratic in ap-pearance but highly
oligarchic in reality. Frequent rifts between the National and State party organizations in almost all national parties
suggest that highly integrated party structures may soon no longer be appropriate and we may be led to the realisation
that a national party should not be over-centralized, still less personalized. Fear of party disintegration has led many
political leaders to worry about preventing it from being reduced to the status of a State or regional party. Strong
leaders with support from their States have been by-passed in favour of loyalists. Instances are galore when the party
presidents have appointed party chiefs in the States just before the organizational elections were to take place despite
the protests of the central election authority chairmen. Even when the elections to State party chiefs were to take
place after a gap of almost two decades, the President of the party was “authorized” to nominate a majority of the
State party chiefs. These trends are likely to boomerang on the party’s strength and capability. A modern party is a
public institu-tion, not a personal fief without intra-party elections, without ministers who enjoy strong regional
support, and without the encourage-ment of a variety of opinions, political parties are like to witheraway. Undemocratic
parties cannot contribute to constitutional and democratic government.
4. Representation of Women:- Political parties cannot remain in different towards women who constitute
nearly 50% of the electorate. Although almost all parties have attempted to build women organizations to secure their
support and make their organization more broad-based, but in practice they have fielded much less proportion of
women candidates in the elections giving them proportionately much less representation in the legislative bodies
than their actual population strength. In recent times this has been a matter of crucial concern in view of the controversy
over reservation of 30% or so of the seats in these bodies.
5. Training of Members:- Training and orientation of new members is one of the important functions of
political parties. The parties which are organized on the model of cadre party systematically develop appropriate
agencies of training for members. But most Indian parties, except for the Communist parties and the BJP have not
followed this model. Parties in India do not have a permanent system of training of their members and whatever
arrangements for training are done on adhoc basis by national or state level organization.
75
 6. Need for Funds:- To perform various functions and contest elections in an effective manner, every
political party requires huge funds. Apart from expenditure of office establishment, full time- workers, agitations,
propaganda and travel, parties have to organize election campaigns. But the financial matters of party are kept secret
while other aspects of organization are known to people. Very little is known about finances of political parties. In
fact, secrecy is maintained even within a party. Only a few leaders at the higher level know the truth about the total
funds and expenditure. Parties do not publish statements of accounts, income and expenditure, though financial matters
are discussed at conventions and conferences or in meetings of higher bodies like working committee or the executive
com-mittee. Many political parties and candidates have been found to be using dubious methods in raising funds, like
kickbacks, funds from foreign countries and even from donations by mafia gangs and other non-desirable elements.
How to let the parties get honest funding from legitimate sources for their basic and continuing political activities
has emerged as one of the most crucial contemporary concerns of the reform agenda in respect of the functioning of
political parties in India.
7. Lack of Ideology and Values in Politics:- There has been a very sharp erosion in the ideological
orientation of political parties. Party dynamics in India has led to the emergence of valueless politics much against
the ideals of the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, who suggested that the Congress party should be disbanded
after the achievement of Independence and its members should engage themselves in the service of the people. While
Gandhi ji taught us tremendous selflessness, self-sacrifice and service to the people, such inspirational values, the
democratic norms and institutions have been destroyed systematically over the last fifty years of the working of the
Constitution. In the process, both the politicians and political parties have lost their credibility, the ultimate value that
should bind them with the masses. There seems to be a crisis of character amongst the politicians, as the system does
not encourage the honest leader. Because of the falling moral standards both in the public and among the leaders,
criminalization of politics and politicization of criminals has become the norm. Due to degeneration of leadership,
parties have been entangled in power struggle for the sake of personal ends.
8. Leadership Quality:- The older political leadership had risen from the ranks. The rise was neither sudden
nor irrational, and their adherence and commitment to party ideals and ideology was unflinching. They respected
party discipline. The present day political leadership seems to be in a tremendous hurry to reach up to the top, and is
not averse to use short cuts, dubious methods, money or muscle power to achieve their objective. The entry of the
toughs and persons with criminal back-ground to the portals of the legislature is a very serious consequence of these
trends.
9.10 Emerging Trends in Indian Party System
India has a continuously changing and developing multi-party system. It has been a developing multi-party
system. We can identify some of the emerging trends as follows :
1. No national level political party (Congress, BJP, BSP, NCP, CPI or CPM) has now the potential to emerge as
a single majority party. Each one of these now finds it essential to have an alliance or an understanding with
some regional or local level parties.
2. The regional and local parties now feel their importance as active players in Indian elections and politics.
These regional parties always try to secure desired benefits (offices or exploits) from major parties in lieu of
extending their support to them.
3. Political parties have been adjusting, in fact, well-adjusting with the new realities of coalition politics.
4. There have been emerging two contending alliances : Congress-led UPA Alliance and BJP- led NDA alliance.
In July 2008, the Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh joined hands with the Congress. Several political parties,
the CPM, the CPI, the TDP and some others continue to talk of forming a third alliance-a non-BJP— non-
Congress alliance in Indian Politics. However, there appears to be a little chance for such a development, for
the present at least.
5. Coalition politics has come to be a stable feature of Indian Party Politics. It operates both national as well as
state level politics.
6. Coalition politics has helped and encouraged the multi-party system to remain a part and parcel of Indian
Political System.
7. Indian Federalism has started getting influenced by the nature and functioning of party-alliances which involve
cooperation between some national and several regional parties. Indian federalism has started developing an
orientation towards competitiveness and thus a bargaining approach.

76
 8. Two types of party alliances have been emerging—pre-poll party alliances and post election power sharing
alliances.
9. Politics of unprincipled alliances among several political parties has emerged to satisfy the need for government-
making after elections. This has become inevitable because elections have started producing Hung Houses.
10. Entry of criminals in the ranks of all the political parties has been becoming an unfortunate reality.
11. Persons with criminal background have started occupying party positions, both inside and outside the legislature.
12.Women participation in the party organisation continues to remain limited. Political parties continue to field
a very small number of women candidates in elections.
13.Politics of populism, caste politics, reservations politics and politics of unprincipled party alliances continue
to charaterise the functioning of Indian Party System.
9.11 Let Us Sum Up
Finally, we can say that parties are essential for every political system whether democratic or dictatorial,
comparative or non comparative, Parliamentary or presidential, federal or unitary. Political parties play a key role in
the process of politics.
9.12 Glossary
● NEC : National Executive Committee.
● PLP : Parliamentary Labour Party.
● SDP : Social Democratic Party.
● Checks and Balances : A principle of system of government whereby each branch of the government can
check the actions of the others.
● Parliamentary System : Representative Democracy where political power invested in an elected legislature.
9.13 Answer to Self Check Exercise
Note : Use the space given below for your answer.
Check your Progress-1
1. Discuss any two features of British Party System?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
Check your Progress-2
2. Explain any two features of American two Party System?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
Check your Progress-3
3. Explain any three features of Indian Party System?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
9.14 Suggested Readings
• Blum, W.T., Theories of Political Systems, (New Delhi, Prentice Hall, 1981).
• Caramani, Daniele (ed.) Comparative Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
• Dahl, Robert A., Pluralist Democracy in the United States, (Calcutta : Scientific Books, 1969).
• Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their origin and Activities in Modern State, (London : John Yiley,
1954).
• Eckstine, H. and Apter, David, Comparative Politics: A Reader, (New York: Free Press, 1963).
• Gena, C.B., Comparative Politics and Political Institutions, (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 2014).
• Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, 5th Edition,
(New York: Palgrave, 2001).
• Johari, J.C., Comparative Politics, Latest Revised edition, (New Delhi : Sterling Publishers).
77
 • Landman, Todd, Issue and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, (London : Routledge, 2000).
• Macridis, C.R. and Ward, R.E., Major Political Systems, (New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1963).
• Milbarth, Lester W. and Goel, M.L., Political Participation, (Chieago : Rand Menally College,1977).
• Mukherjee, Subarta and Ramaswamy, Sushila, Theoretical Foundations of Comparative Politics, (Delhi:
Orient Blackswan, 2017).
• Palekar, S.A., Comparative Politics and Government, (Delhi: PHI Learning, 2009).
• Palombara, Joseph La and Weiner, Myron (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development, (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966).
• Ray, S.N., Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall).
• Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis. (Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press, 1976).
• Baxter, Malik, Kennedy Oberst, Government and Politics in South Asia, 1988.
9.15 Terminal Questions
1. Discuss the silent features of British Party System?
2. What are the features of American Party System?
3. Make a Comparative Study of the Political System of Britain and the United States?
4. Explain the major emerging trends in Indian Party System?

*****

78
 Lesson-10
Pressure Groups

Structure
10.0 Introduction
10.1 Learning Objectives
10.2 Meaning of Pressure Groups
10.3 Definitions of Pressure Groups
10.4 Nature of Pressure Groups
10.5 Kinds of Pressure Groups
10.5.1 Special Interest Groups
10.5.2 Associations based on religion or Community
10.5.3 Associations based on caste or region
10.5.4 Groups based on Gandhian Principles
10.6 Functions of Pressure Groups
10.7 Types of Pressure Groups in India
10.8 Techniques of Pressure Groups
10.9 Features of Indian Model of Pressure Groups
10.10 Difference between Political Parties and Pressure Groups
10.11 Let Us Sum Up
10.12 Glossary
10.13 Answer to Self Check Exercise
10.14 Suggested Readings
10.15 Terminal Questions
10.0 Introduction
Those interest groups which seek to influence the decision-making process in a state through pressure are
called pressure groups. All pressure groups are interest groups but not all interest groups are pressure groups. The
pressure used by these groups may be either economic, social or political. But unless an interest group participates in
bringing some kind of pressure to influence public policy, it does not become a pressure group. Thus, various associations
of social or cultural bodies are interest groups, but not pressure groups. The Medical Council of India is a professional
association concerned with the promotion and maintenance of standards in medical education. It is an interest group,
but it may not be a pressure group unless it participates in the political process by seeking to influence policy-making
with regard to medical education. Interest groups usually try to bring pressure upon public officials such as legislators,
executives, administrators and members of the Judiciary.
10.1 Learning Objectives
By the end of this Chapter, you will be able to:-
• Know the meaning of Pressure Groups.
• Understand the kinds of Pressure Groups.
• Explain the nature of Pressure Groups.
10.2 Meaning of Pressure Groups
The pressure groups have assumed unusual importance in the politics of 20th century. ‘Demands’ have an
important place in a constitutional system. The demands make the government responsible. Sources and demands go
side by side. In a democratic set-up, the pressure groups get the demands fulfilled. According to Roche and Stedman,
modem democracy is everywhere characterized by presence of numerous groups and associations”.
However, Mackenzie names them as ‘Interest Groups’. J.D. Reynand while distinguishing between the pressure
groups and the interest groups said, when the interest groups act at the political level, they are called pressure groups”.
Edgar Lane calls them ‘Lobby’ whereas Gross calls them ‘Private Organizations’.
79
10.3 Definitions of Pressure Groups
Watson:- A pressure group has been defined as an organised aggregate which seek to influence the content
of governmental decision without attempting to place its members in formal governmental capacities.”
Leiserson:- “A pressure group declares itself to be a nonpartisan organisation of persons united for the
achievement of a certain end, for the protection or promotion of nationalities and ideal causes deemed vital to the
group’s existence or survival.”
Bale :- “Pressure groups are firmly part of the political process and they attempt to reinforce or change the
direction of government policy, but do not wish, as pressure groups, to become the government.”
Turner:- “By definition, pressure groups are non-partisan organisations which attempt to influence some
phase of public policy. They do not themselves draft party programmes.”
Hitchner and Harbold:- “It is employed to describe any collection of persons with common objectives to
seek realisation through political action to influence public policy.”
F.C. Castles:- “Pressure Group may be defined as any group attempting to bring about political change
whether through government activity or not”.
The above definitions are indicative of the following features of the pressure groups :-
(i) Every pressure group is based on some specific interest.
(ii) Pressure groups are organised structures.
(iii) These groups aim to influence the politics of the government.
(iv) They do not directly participate in politics.
(v) They have neither political aims nor aspirations.
(vi) They work for class interests and have a smaller membership than political parties.
10.4 Nature of Pressure Groups
Pressure groups play a vital role in every democratic state. Individuals having common interests come close
together and form a group for protection and promotion of their interests. In the true sense a particular organised
group ‘“claim to represent not only those who are actually members of it, but also all those who are potentially
members of it, by virtue of some common characteristic which they share with the groups.” The following points
indicate the nature of pressure groups.
(i) Indirect participation in election.
(ii) Propaganda methods by posters, newspapers, meetings and procession are adopted.
(iii) Strikes, demonstrations, bandhs and gheraos are encouraged.
(iv) Pressure groups serve as a strong weapon of the opposition parties.
(v) Pressure groups indulge in lobbying at various levels.
(vi) Pressure groups sometimes adopt violent methods.
10.5 Kinds of Pressure Groups :-
Pressure groups and lobbies came into being since the establishment of the American Republic; but their
number and intensity of work reached their zenith only in the twentieth century. There are many types of pressure
groups and it is not easy to classify them. One way of classifying them is according to the subject they handle. The
general subjects attracting pressure groups are, agri-culture, Industry, Labour, Professions, Consumers, and so on.
Even religious groups have their own lobbies. Different organizations represent the Roman Catholics,
Protestants and Jews. In his book Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups (1958), V.C. Key said ; “Organized religion
seeks, both through action by the church itself and by lay groups to influence government action. The prominence of
these groups on the political scene creates an obligation to mention them.”
The classification of the Pressure and Interest Groups can be made in the Indian context in the following way:
10.5.1 Special Interest Groups: These can be further classified into (i) Trade Guilds; (ii) Trade Unions; (iii) Peasant
Unions and (iv) Teachers’ or Students’ Unions.
(i) Trade Guild : They are of three types.

80
 (a) Family Centered Guilds:- There are families like the Dalmia house, Birla house etc. which act as pressure
groups. These families donate liberally for their interests. They donate to party funds according to the
importance of the parties. They offer top posts to the relatives of political leaders and administrators. These
merchant families run religious institutions temples, educational institutions etc. This increases their influence.
(b) Some Castes :- There are certain castes which are mainly merchant classes like the Marwaris, Jains, Parsees
etc., These castes try to influence public policy in different ways.
(c) Some commercial organisations:- There are various commercial organisations which aim at safeguarding
their interests. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry is such an organisation with its head
quarters in Delhi Employer’s Federation of India and Bombay Millowners’ Association are also important
organizations. Muslim or Marwari Chambers of Commerce are based on religion caste.
The main function of these commercial organizations is to influence public policy. They control newspapers.
They own the press and various monthly, fortnightly, weekly or daily journals and newspapers. The Bipin Bose
Report and the Dr. Hazari Report exposed the honeymoon of these commercial organizations with the
government.
(ii) Trade Unions:- There are many Trade Unions in India which fail to exert pressure because of their mutual
bickering and rivalry. Workers do not have unity, because political parties try to destroy the unity of the
workers. These trade unions cannot grow, because of their link with political parties which never look to the
interests of the workers, but to their political gains. Often these political parties are influenced by capitalist
pressure groups through money and other allurements to bluff and befool the workers through subtle policies
and demagogy and thus act against the interests of the workers. Trade Unions are mentioned below:
(i) All India Trade Union Congress (ATTUC)— linked with the communists.
(ii) Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC)—Linked with the Congress.
(iii)Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS)— It is the organ-isation of the socialists.
(iv) Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)— It is the trade union of the former Jana Sangh.
Morris David said, “Trade Unions in India act neither as pressure groups, nor as political parties as such.
Rather they have been organised by middle class leadership of the various political parties as arms of those
parties.”
(iii) Farmers Association :- India is an agricultural country, and agriculture is the main livelihood of the people.
Farmers have many problems. Not only this, votes are influenced by political parties by using the symbols of
farmers, cow or bullock. But the problems of farmers have not been solved during last sixty years. The main
problem is that Indian farmers are illiterate and unorganised. Their organisations have no influence and no
strength. They cannot influence the policy of the government. All India Farmers Organisation of the communists
and the Hind Kissan Panchayat of the Socialists exist, but they have little influence. Some work has been done
by the Bhoodan Movement.
(iv) Teachers and Students’ organisations:- Teachers have their unions which work in various ways to safeguard
the interests of teachers by influencing the government and the administration.
These unions are of different kinds. Primary teachers have local, regional and national organizations. Similarly,
secondary teachers have local, regional and national organizations. University teachers have different unions. The
government recognizes these associations, and consult the union leaders on problems.
Students have their unions but they lack unity. The main unions are AB.V.P. or Vidyarthi Parishad, AISF or All
India Student Federation etc.
10.5.2 Associations based on religion or community:
There are various associations of this type. They have much influence and no political party can ignore them.
These associations do not have direct link with politics, but they are close to political parties. According to Dr.
Palmer the Republican Party, Akali Party, Hindu Maha Sabha etc. can be grouped this way. The Christians have different
religious associations. The Arys Samaj, Jamaiyat-e-Islami, Sanatan Dharma Sabha etc. are other such groups.
10.5.3 Associations based on caste or region:
In India pressure groups based on caste or regions are very influential. They cannot be ignored by any political
party. While the Cabinet is formed, the representation of a region or caste is kept in mind. Again, members of a caste
try to safeguard their interests in various ways by opening schools, hostels etc. Members of their own caste are given
priority in these institutions. Members of a particular caste placed in high posts try to safeguard the interests of their
own castes.
81
 Regional groups are also very influential pressure groups: Conditions of various regions cannot be ignored.
The tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh, Telengana or Naxalites in Andhra, Jharkhand in Bihar, Muslim areas in Kerala,
etc. influence the politics of the state.
10.5.4 Groups based on Gandhian Principles :
Gandhiji influenced various aspects of the life of the people. Even today his influence is felt everywhere.
Various associations uphold and propagate his ideas. These are influential and powerful associations spread far and
wide. Gandhian principles are respected in villages, tribal areas, among the Harijans and other classes. These groups
do not act directly as pressure groups, but they influence the government through Gandhian ideology. Sarvodaya idea
and Vinoba’s Bhoodan idea are important. Further, Sarva Seva Sangh Village Industries Corporation, Gandhi Peace
Foundation etc. have exerted great influence on government.
10.6 Functions of Pressure Groups
It is generally thought that these pressure groups adopt wrong means to influence the government. But it is
seen that with the expansion of the activities of a democratic government these groups are adopting right and stable
means to influence the government. They are applying constitutional means more and more. Generally these pressure
groups have the following functions:-
(1) Create public opinion:- They not only influence government but also public opinion in their favour. For this
purpose they publish newspapers, pamphlets and posters, send letters to editors, and give publicity through
radio, TV and Cinema.
(2) They provide literature to students:- Many groups try to form the opinion of the youth who are the future
citizens. They provide such literature to ‘these young people which can orient their mind in favour of the
interests of the groups. These young people would be the champions of the interests of the groups.
(3) Pay subscription:- Money is very essential for meeting the worldly needs. Various interest groups pay
subscription to different associations linked with legislators and administrators. By this subscription they try
to influence the government.
(4) They support during elections:- In America, these groups do not look for the candidate, but for the party and
its programme that will safeguard the interests of the groups. So the candidates of both the Republicans and
Democrats are supported by different interest groups according to their expectations. When the candidates
are elected on the basis of the support of the groups, then these legislators try to safeguard the interests of
these groups by appropriate legislation. In parliamentary system of government these groups support those
parties and their candidates who can favour their group interests. But in a parliamentary form of government
party discipline is strong. So pressure groups find it difficult to influence legislators.
(5) Influencing legislators and administrators:- Legislators have very little time and means. These pressure
groups provide the means and all information and data. Not only these pressure groups form a kind of social
relationships and influence these administrators and legislators.
(6) They educate the legislative committees:- Committees have important roles in the passing of Bills. So
these pressure groups influence the committees through various means, and try to draw the members of the
committees in their favour. They try to influence public opinion in their favour and, if necessary, try to amend
the Bill.
(7) Correspond with the legislators:- These groups try to influence the legislators to safeguard their interests.
So they send petitions signed by large number of people, or send telegrams or memoranda from the constituency
of the legislator so that the legislator might support or oppose the Bill according to the desire of the groups.
(8) They approach the court:- When the Interest Groups feel that the government has adopted certain
unconstitutional or illegal method and thereby harmed their interests, then they approach the court to safeguard
their interests.
(9) They organise strikes and demonstrations:- These Pressure Groups try to pressurise the government by
organising strikes and demonstrations so that their interests are safeguarded.
(10) They exert their influence in the appointment of the ministers of their choice :- The Pressure Groups
try to influence the government and put then pressure so that the ministers of their choice who can safeguard
their interests are given place in the cabinet.
(11) They offer high posts :- These Interest Groups and Pressure Groups try to pressurise the government by
organ friends of these legislators or administrators, and thus try to keep close contact with them. This method
is followed in all democratic countries.

82
(12) Try to control newspapers:- Newspapers have great importance m democracy. So Interest Groups try to
control and influence newspapers to create public opinion in their favour. There are two ways; first, they bring
out newspapers favouring their interest. Second, these Interest Groups try to influence the editors and writers
of these newspapers and thus try to influence public opinion in their favour.
10.7 Types of Pressure Groups in India
The following are the important and active Pressure Groups in India :-
1. Big Business Groups:- This category of groups comprise commercial, industrial and linancial interests
and its rise and growth stands linked up with the expansion of commercial, industrial and financial interests.
Business Groups/associations are among the largest and the most powerful of all Indian Pressure Groups.
These include a large number of business associations, industrial associations, regional associations and All
Indian Organisations connected with trade and commerce. Most important of these are the Federation of
Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry
(ASSOCHAM), All Indian Manufacturers Organisation, All India Exporters Organisations. FICCI has been
in existence since 1927 and its aims have been the protection and promotion of indigenous Indian interests
in trade and industry. Assocham initially emerged as a body of British industrial and commercial interests in
India. However, since 1986, when several FICCI members joined it, and the Indian Merchants Chamber
merged with it, the ASSOCHAM has become more a broad-based and active organisation of big-business in
India. For securing their interests, these groups lobby with legislators, ministers, bureaucrats and various
economic institutions like the Planning Commission. The big business Interest Groups also use their money
power in politics for securing their interests. Over the years, the big business has emerged as a major force
in Indian economy and politics. Their influence often outweighs the influence of the labour unions.
2. Trade Unions:- There are about 37000 plus Trade Unions in India. Some of these have been sponsored by
the political parties, while others have come to develop naturally out of the necessity for protecting the
interests of the workers vis-a-vis the capitalists. Active among these are : All India Trade Union Congress
(AITUC), the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), the United
Trade Union Congress (UTUC), the Hind Mazdoor Parishad (HMP), the Centre of Indian Trade Unions
(CITU), the All India Bank Employees Association, the National Federation of Railway men, and the National
Federation of Post and Telegraph Workers. These trade unions are very conscious of their rights and these
try to protect the interests of their members. Almost all the trade unions, particularly their federations have
links with political parties. INTUC is pro-Congress, AITUC is pro-Communists, UTUC is backed by CPM,
HMS is pro- Socialist and HMP is pro-BJP. The existence of so many trade union organisations cuts at the
root of unity of the working class in India.
3. Peasant Organisations: With nearly 75 per cent of available Indian work force engaged in agriculture, it is
but natural for the agricultural groups, associations, unions and organisations to play an important role in the
process of politics. All India Kisan Sabha, Hind Kisan Panchayat, United Kisan Sabha, Workers and Peasants
Party, Kshetkari Sangathan, Bhartiya Kisan Union and Bhartiya Kisan and Kamgar Union are the important
peasant organisations which are active in the Indian Political System. These organisations are active in
different regions of the country but these try to put pressure on the Central Government because important
agricultural policies and decisions are annually fixed by the Central Government. These organisations are
now trying to become more active actors. These have begun resisting the dominance of policy-making in
India by the urban big. In the recent past, these successfully compelled the Central Government to withdraw
cuts on several subsidies which have been available to the agriculturists.
4. Caste Groups: Of all the groups based upon the traditional structure of Indian society, the caste groups are
the most politically significant groups. “Caste continues to be the most important political force in India.”
Caste continues to be a determinant of political behaviour of the Indians. In particular it is a major determinant
of electoral behaviour and voting behaviour. The Caste organisations like Scheduled Castes Federations,
Vanniyakul Kshatriya Sangam, Jat Sabha, Aggrawal Sabha, Gujjar Sabha, Gujarat Kshatriya Sabha, etc., are
active actors in the Indian politics. Caste associations play a useful role in providing channels of
communication and basis of leadership and organisation to all such people who continue to follow the
traditional way of life.
5. Religious Groups: India is a land of several religions. The multi-religious character of the society has
been instrumental in giving rise to several religious Pressure Groups and organisations. Anglo-India Christian
Association, Jamaat-e-Islami, Arya Samaj, Brahmin Sabhas. Catholic Bishops Association, Hindu Maha Sabha,

83
 Shiv Sena, SGPC, the Chief Khalsa Diwan, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Hindu Suraksha Samiti and others are
religious Pressure Groups. These have always tried to influence the government policy. ‘These have become
highly self-conscious and politically conscious groups and some of these have even staned fielding their
candidates in elections.
6. Student Associations:- Since 1928 when a student organisation was formed in Punjab by Lala Lajpat Rai,
several student groups and organisations have been active in India. In contemporary times several such
organisations - National Students Union of India, Students Federation, Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad,
Progressive Students Union, Janata Yuva Morcha, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Youth Congress, All India
Sikh Students Federation, Jamaat-e-Tulba, and several others, are actively involved in the political process.
The lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 years has further encouraged them to play a more active role.
Most of the student organisations have committed links with the political parties, e.g., Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi
Parishad is a supporter of BJP, Bhartiya Janata Yuva Morcha is also a BJP sponsored Yuvak group. The Youth
Congress supports the Congress, and All India Sikh Students Federation has links with the Akali Dal. A
political party, when in power, usually tries to convince its youth organisation to avoid party politics. However,
when in opposition it tries to capture power by troubling the politics. However, when in opposition it tries to
capture power by troubling the ruling party through its youth organisation or to increase its influence through
the activities of its ‘youth organisation’.
7. Linguistic Pressure Groups:- Several Pressure Groups in India have been organised mainly for furthering
the development of a particular language, the Tamil Sangh, the Aiijuman Urdu Taraqqi, the Hindi Protection
Parishad, the Punjabi Sahit Shabhas, the Sahitya Sammelan etc. are Linguistic Pressure Groups.
8. Women Organisations:- The need to secure the emancipation of women in India has given rise to the
organisation of several women conferences, and sabhas. The Anti- Dowry Council, Women Welfare Sabhas,
Nari Sudhar Sabhas, Mahila Mandals, Council for the Protection of Rights of the Women, Women Liberation
Organisations, Sathins etc., can be characterised as women pressure Interest Groups that are engaged in the
process of securing the due rights and liberties of the women as well as for creating a healthy environment
committed to encourage the process of women uplift in India.
9. Professional Groups:- Several professional Interest Groups, like All India Bar Association, All India
Medical Council, All India Federation of University and College Teachers Organisations etc., are also active
in India. These professional groups put forward their problems and needs before the government and try to
secure favourable governmental policies as can help them to protect and develop their professional interests.
10. Tribal/Regional Groups:- With a view to secure the development of their regions and the satisfaction of
their regional interests several tribal Interest Groups have been active in the Indian Political System. United
Mizo Federal Organisation, Tribal Sangh of Assam, Tribal League of Assam, Naga National Council, Jharkhand
Mukti Morcha, GNLF. All Bodo Students Union etc. are examples of tribal/regional Pressure Groups in
India.
11. Interest Groups based on Gandhian Ideology:- Gandhism has been a popular ideology in India. Several
Interest Groups committed to secure the realisation of several ideas put forward by Gandhijee are actively
pursuing the Gandhian objectives. For this purpose, these often compel the government to allocate them
funds and other facilities. The Sarvodya Samaj, the Seva Sangh, Khadi Ashrams, Prohibition Councils, Gandhi
Peace Foundation and several other groups are Interest Groups based on the Gandhian Ideology. In addition
to the above listed eleven categories of Pressure Groups there are hundreds of other Interest Groups in
India. The organisation of adhoc Interest Groups-Anomic Interest Groups, e.g., Action-committees, Strike
groups, Rasta Roko groups, Anti-repression groups etc., is a standard practice in India. These are organised
spontaneously for fulfilling a particular need or interest. These get dissolved either after getting their demands
fulfilled or when these fail to secure their demands and get diluted and dissolved. Along with these
organisations like Citizen Council, Nagrik Sabhas, Citizens for Democracy, Nehru Yuvak Kendra, etc., are
acting like Pressure Groups. Now Non-Resident Indian Associations NRI Sabhas, are being established for
protecting their interests in India. Thus a large number of Pressure Groups are present in India. These always
try to influence government policy and action in favour of their interests.
10.8 Techniques of Pressure Groups
Pressure groups make use of different techniques and methods to achieve their objectives. Some of the
most common techniques are as follows :-

84
 Lobbying is a favourite technique of pressure groups operating in every political system. This is a political
technique which means influencing the government. In other words, interested persons making representations to the
legislature or other departments of governments in order to influence public policy in favour of themselves may be
called lobbying. In fact, the lobbying is the key intermediary between pressure groups and the government. The
lobbist actually performs at least three functions vitally important to legislators and executives. He communicates
information; he defends the interest of his employers and he defines the political implications of legislative matters.
Secondly, pressure groups endeavour to secure the nomination and election of sympathetic legislators, who
may later be used in the enactment of favourable laws. In modern democracies, in fact legislators often find themselves
virtually in the pockets of pressure groups. How and why this happens is rather very simple. The legislators, above all,
want to maximise the possibilities of their elections; and the election campaign needs money. So, the member is
always on the look-out for money, which is available with private association, thus he goes to the associations. In
return, he has to support the demands of the association.
Thirdly, pressure groups influence policy-makers by supplying them accurate data and information. Most of
the modern pressure groups now maintain a research cell and come out with effective measures and cures. Thus
policies are framed with the help of the information supplied by pressure groups.
Fourthly , sometimes drafts of bills are framed by pressure groups themselves and submitted to legislatures.
They possess skill and expert knowledge in the domain of their own field and have links with Civil Servants. They are
conversant with the administrative process and they know how the work can be done.
Fifthly, pressure groups create a favourable climate for their particular cause by appealing to public opinion
through speeches, books, pamphlets, special articles, news releases, radios and motion pictures.
Sixthly, pressure groups propagate their viewpoint through the press. They usually try to get the support of
the newspapers and even publish their own newspapers. This method is to given the wide publicity to their own views
and contrary views are not expressed in a way that they dislike.
Seventhly, pressure groups align themselves with one or the other political party and act as a powerful clique
in the party. If the party is the ruling party, their objectives are achieved without much difficulty.
Eighthly, the mass media constitutes one of the effective channels of access used by pressure groups. In an
open society the use of the mass media to convey political demands is a major means of appealing to political
decision-makers.
Ninthly, one obvious means of articulating demand is through physical demonstrations and violence. These
methods are employed by anomic pressure groups. The use of riots, assassinations and demonstrations by other
pressure groups is not an uncommon phenomenon.
Tenthly, elite representation on behalf of an interest group constitutes a channel of access which can be
utilised with great effect by some pressure groups. It may take the form of the presence of a group member in the rule
making structure. The agents of interest groups are usually given ample representation on legislative committees in
various countries.
Finally, sometimes pressure groups thrive on bribery and corruption. They utilise effectively the entire
paraphernalia which democracy and science have given to modern age. It is also alleged that pressure groups are using
wine and women vehemently. Thus, there is a degree of outright corruption or back-stage intrigue.
The techniques and functions of pressure groups vary from country to country and system to system. It must
be stated that the actual influence of pressure groups in a political system will depend upon the range of activities
entrusted to the government. If a government keeps off the economic arena, pressure groups will have little to do, in
spite of their skilful techniques. But if the range of activities is wide and the State is a welfare state, committed to
socialism and planning, pressure groups will be very active.
10.9 Features of the Indian Model of Pressure Groups
The specific features of the Indian model of pressure group can be summed up as follows :-
Firstly, the traditional pressure groups like caste community, religion and regional are the determinants of
politics in India. Evidence has been cited from the behaviour of political parties, all of which invoke primordial
sentiments and organise their support on the basis of caste and communal identities. The caste groups in India may
still be called ‘sovereigns without crowns’.
Secondly, most of the associational groups like trade unions, student organisations, peasant organisations,
etc., are dominated and controlled by political parties. They may be called ‘parties behind the parties’. It is a noteworthy
feature that major business associations are free from party control.

85
 Thirdly, in the beginning organised pressure groups had little impact on the for-mation of public policy. In
other words, their influence was almost negative. The reasons were mainly two: (1) charismatic leadership at the
Centre and the States; and (2) monopoly of the Congress Party in the governmental structure. As the influence of the
leadership declined and the Congress monopoly was broken, the role of pressure groups greatly increased. In the
early years of Independence, their influence had been directed towards preventing the Government from pursuing
some course of action. For example, organised lobbies prevented nationalisation of rice trade and opposed
nationalisation of other food grains, including wheat. At the State level, the farmer lobby within the ruling party
prevented an increase in land taxes. Now it is observed that some of the major groups are assisting the Government in
framing the rules and regulations for their concern. For instance, the wheat policy of the Government framed in
March 1974 was chalked out with the positive support and consent of the All-India Food grain Dealers Association.
Fourthly, the Constitution under Articles 262 and 263 makes provision for the Central Parliament to settle
border disputes and inter-state water disputes wherein the members of interested States get an opportunity of playing
the role of pressure groups effectively. It must also be remembered in this connection that almost all the States
maintain liaison officers in Delhi to maintain contacts with the representatives in Parliament for the purpose of
intensive lobbying whenever such questions come up for discussion.
Fifthly, in the period of coalition and non-Congress Governments in the Indian States in the late 1960s, a
few State Governments encouraged organized groups to enlist their support against the Centre. Demands like
establishment of more universities, greater investment by the Centre in the States, location of steel plants and refineries
are always supported by these groups when-ever such a situation arises.
Sixthly, institutional pressure groups in the political parties have created a chaos in the Indian party system
as a whole. The existing groups in the ruling party, as well as those in the opposition parties have threatened the very
stability of the existing majority governments. The Groups in the parties are struggling for power for their narrow
interests.
Seventhly, India heavily depends on foreign aid and technical skill. Consequently, foreign lobbies are in a
position to influence the nation’s domestic and foreign policies.
Eighthly, mass movements, rallies, strikes and sometimes even violence are the instruments used by anomic
or associational groups to press their demands in India.
Ninthly, organized groups largely influence the administrators at level of policy implementation.
Administrators at the state and national levels respond easily to such kinds of pressures. They have, however, often
been unresponsive to other types of pressures. The local officials often ignore the demands made by people whose
position in the local power structure is weak. They tend to respond more favorably to those who have greater wealth
and status. Sometimes local organised groups bribe local officials to seek favourable access on a caste basis.
Tenthly, the general outlook in India towards pressure groups is a critical one. It is considered improper that
interests should guide policy formulation because it is felt that once the Government succumbs to the pressure of
such organised groups then no decision will be taken in the public interest.
Finally, after the Fourth General Elections of 1967, most groups, however, adopted a neutral attitude towards
the political parties. They realised that if they identify themselves more with the Congress Party, they may lose their
influence on the Government if the other party comes to power. Even among the committed groups the tendency now
is to rely less on party connection and more on governmental consultations, no matter which party is in power in
order to safeguard their interests. Thus, the trade unions and business groups rely more on confidential consultations
with the Government now than in their connections with the Congress and other political parties.
10.10 Difference between Political Parties and Pressure Groups
In a technical sense, a political party may be distinguished from a pressure group on these grounds;
1. A party is a very big unit having a membership in thousands, even millions, but a group is a comparatively very
small entity having its membership in hundreds and thousands. It is possible that a political party may be a small
organisation having a few hundred or thousand members (as Sokka Gakkai of the Buddhists in Japan) and there the
line of distinction between a political party and a pressure group may be blurred.
2. A group is always based on some specific interest. It fights for the protection and promotion of that interest. The
interest may be like enhancement of wages and allowances, or the increase of price of agricultural commodities,
or conservation of a particular language and culture. So a pressure group is described as an instrument of interest
articulation. But a party is a federation or an alliance of many interests. It includes persons belonging to various
walks of life like businessmen, workers, farmers, lawyers, and the like. So a party is regarded as an instrument of
‘interest aggregation.’
86
3. But the most important point of distinction between the two is that while a political party plays its part in the
political process of the country ‘openly’, pressure groups do so by involving themselves in, the game of ‘hide and
seek’. A party has its registered offices,’ constitution, flag, membership records, list of office bearers, and it
frankly and proudly owns responsibility for certain actions in the field of politics, a pressure group pretends to
remain politically neutral while being very much involved in the game of simple for power. It is for this reason
that most of the pressure groups prefer to operate in the field of politics through the medium of some political
parties. We may also take note of the fact that while some pressure groups have open and permanent links with a
political party (as British business interests with Conservative Party and labour unions with the Labour Party),
others have their shifting links as per the exigencies of the situation.
10.11 Let Us Sum Up:-
In India, interest groups are formed on the basis of caste, religion, language and region. They fan the basic
loyalty of individuals and lead to the formation of rigid groups. With the varied culture of the Indian society and with
the federal constitution of the country giving wide autonomy to different communities, languages and regions, interest
groups should get fall scope for their operation in India. The system of party discipline and group identification with
the parties may act as a check on the working of interest groups. But conditions in India are generally favorable for the
flourishing of interest groups.
10.12 Glossary
● AITUC : All India Trade Union Congress.
● HMS : Hind Majdoor Sabha.
● BMS : Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh.
● Legislature : The part of government primarily responsible for making laws.
● Government: The establishment form of rule and ultimate authority within a society or a nation. The
institution that has authority and that make decisions to resolve conflicts or allocate benefits and privileges.
10.13 Answers to Self Check Exercise
Note: Use given Space for Your answer
Check Your Progress-1
1. Define Pressure Groups?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
Check Your Progress-2
2. Discuss any three Techniques of Pressure Groups?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
Check Your Progress-3
3. Make a difference between Political Parties and Pressure Groups?
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................
10.14 Suggested Readings
• Blum, W.T., Theories of Political Systems, (New Delhi, Prentice Hall, 1981).
• Caramani, Daniele (ed.) Comparative Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
• Dahl, Robert A., Pluralist Democracy in the United States, (Calcutta: Scientific Books, 1969).
• Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties: Their origin and Activities in Modern State. (London : John Yiley,
1954).
• Eckstine, H. and Apter, David, Comparative Politics: A Reader, (New York : Free Press, 1963).
• Gena, C.B., Comparative Politics and Political Institutions, (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 2014).
• Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, 5th Edition, (New
York: Palgrave, 2001).
• Johari, J.C., Comparative Politics, Latest Revised edition, (New Delhi : Sterling Publishers).
• Landman, Todd, Issue and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, (London : Routledge, 2000).
• Macridis, C.R. and Ward, R.E., Major Political Systems, (New Jersey : Prentice Hall, 1963).
87
 • Milbarth, Lester W. and Goel, M.L., Political Participation, (Chieago : Rand Menally College,1977).
• Mukherjee, Subarta and Ramaswamy, Sushila, Theoretical Foundations of Comparative Politics, (Delhi:
Orient Blackswan, 2017).
• Palekar, S.A., Comparative Politics and Government, (Delhi: PHI Learning, 2009).
• Palombara, Joseph La and Weiner, Myron (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development, (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966).
• Ray, S.N., Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues, (New Delhi: Prentice Hall).
• Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis. (Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press, 1976).
10.15 Terminal Questions
1. Define Pressure Groups?
2. Discuss the methods and techniques of Pressure Groups?
3. What is the difference between Pressure Groups and a Political Party?
4. Describe the major Pressure Groups in India?
*****

88
 Unit-4
Lesson-11
Political Participation

Structure
11.0 Introduction
11.1 Learning Objectives
11.2 Meaning of Political Participation
11.3 Activities which came under Political Participation
11.4 Forms of Political Participation
11.5 Classification of citizens on the Basis of Political Participation
11.6 Determinants of Political Participation
11.7 Why is Political Participation Important
11.8 Significance of Political Participation
11.9 Let us sum up
11.10 Glossary
11.11 Answer to check Exercise
11.12 Suggested Readings
11.13 Terminal Questions
11.0 Introduction
No political system, particularly a democratic political system, can operate without the active participation of the
people in the political process. “Most governments, democratic or otherwise’’, observes Austin Ranney, “want their
citizens to participate in at least some political activities.” Each liberal democratic political system has at its roots,
the desire and the will to secure participation of as many people as possible in politics. In it an attempt is always made
to secure increased and willing popular participation in the political process. High level of political participation of
the people in the political process reflects the consent of the people behind the authority and power of the power-
holders at a particular time. In contemporary times, political participation is deemed to be feature of every political
system whether democratic or totalitarian, modern or traditional and developed or developing. No political system
can work without securing the performance of political roles by the people.
The process by which people participate in the political process is referred to as political participation. The need
to study politics as an aspect of human behaviour has focused attention on the need to study political participation.
Several modem political scientists have formulated and used this concept for analysing the behaviour of the people in
politics.
11.1 Learning Objectives
After going through this chapter, you will be able to:
• Understand the meaning of Political Participation.
• Discuss the determinants of Political Participation.
• Explain the significance of Political Participation.
11.2 Meaning and Definitions of Political Participation
The term political participation covers all kinds of political activities which involve the people in shaping and
influencing the political decision-making process, and the exercise of power, people take part in the selection of
their rulers, casting of votes in elections, making of organised demands on the political system, involvement in party
politics, participation in political movements, conferences, discussions, strikes and demonstrations, communication
with the representatives and other political leaders, involvement in political communication etc., all are parts of
political participation.”
Definitions
● In the words of Heinz Eulau, “Political Participation is the involvement of masses in the decision-making
process or policy formulation.

89
 ● According to Almond and Pawell “Political Participation can be defined as the involvement of the members
of society in the decision-making process.”
● Michael Rush and Philip Alihoff define “Political participation as the movement of the individual at various
levels in the political system.”
● In the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Herbert McClosky defines political participation
as “those voluntary activities by which members of a society share in the selection of rulers and, directly or
indirectly, in the formation of public policy.”
In simple words, we can say that political participation refers to the involvement of the people in the decision-
making, policy-formulation, electoral process, and in the struggle for power in society. It includes all activities
through which the people get involved in the political process. It does not mean merely the exercise of right to vote
by the people. It refers to their active involvement in the decision-making process of the political system. Main
Activities which come under Political Participation
11.3 Activities which came under Political Participation
J.L. Woodward and Elmo Roper hold that the following five activities form part of political participation : (1)
Voting at polls. (2) Supporting possible pressure groups by being members of them. (3) Personally communicating
directly with legislators. (4) Participating in political party activity and thus acquiring claim over legislators. (5)
Engaging in habitual dissemination of political opinions through word of mouth/communication to other citizens.
‘The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies’ has identified the following kinds of activities which form part
of political participation :
(1) voting
(2) canvassing for candidates
(3) getting out voters
(4) organisation of meetings and rallies
(5) participation in precessions
(6) distribution of pamphlets and campaign literature
(7) other campaign activities
(8) campaign through associations and groups
(9) attending public meetings and rallies
(10) membership of political panics
(11) conducting party leaders in-resolving problems, and
(12) conducting government officials in solving problems.
Thus, political participation refers to the active and willed participation of the people in the political process,
particularly in the decision-making and policy-formulation processes. It is not confined to the casting of votes in
elections. It means the willing involvement of the people in various activities involved in Politics.
11.4 Forms of Political Participation
Scholars studying political participation usually identify several forms or kinds of political participation. Since
political participation refers to several kinds of activities in which people participate in politics, scholars-categories
political participation as direct or indirect, active of inactive, high or low, legitimate or illegitimate and few others.
Mostly, the following forms of political participation are identified by them:-
1. Direct Political Participation: When people play a direct role in the election of their rulers and in the
decision-making or policy formulation process, political participation is identified as Direct Political Participation.
In political systems with direct legislation and direct election systems there is direct political participation.
2. Indirect Political Participation: In representative democracies, the people elect their representatives directly
and through them take part in the decision-making process. The representatives are accountable to the people and
they represent the people in the decision-making and policy-formulation.
3. Active Political Participation: When people actively participate in the political processes, leadership-
recruitment, elections, electoral politics, political communication, party politics, pressure group activities etc., the
political participation is referred to as active political participation. Active political participation characterizes liberal
democratic systems, both developed and developing.
4. Low or Passive Political Participation: When the people have little interest in the political process and
they are not fully oriented towards the political system and its sub-systems which makes them politically apathetic,
the political participation is called low or Passive.
90
 5. Instrumental Political Participation: When people participate in politics with definite ends in view which
they want to achieve in politics, the political participation is identified by Davies and Milbrath as Instrumental
Political Participation. When several people participate in politics for securing a majority for their political party, it
is a case of instrumental political participation.
6. Expressive Political Participation: When people participate in politics without any commitment to a definite
objective, but for the satisfaction of their feelings or sentiments or emotions, the political participation is referred to
as Expressive Political Participation.
However, it is very difficult, almost impossible to -separate instrumental political participation from expressive
political participation. Almost always, the two are present simultaneously.
7. Political Participation through Legitimate Means: When people participate in the political process through
legitimate and constitutional means, the political participation is identified as Legitimate Political Participation.
Participation in politics through involvement in party campaigns, political meetings and demonstrations and the like,
fall in the category of Legitimate Political Participation.
8. Political Participation through Illegitimate Means: Participation in politics through violent and non-
constitutional means - riots, violent outbursts, destruction of public property, involvement in political violence,
electoral malpractices etc., fall under the category of Political Participation through illegitimate means.
Thus, political scientists make a distinction between several forms of political participation on the basis of several
factors. In every political system, political participation is characterized by all these forms. The study of the nature,
level and forms of political participation can be one basic way of studying the behaviour of the people in politics.
11.5 Classification of Citizens on the Basis of Political Participation
Politics is one of the unavoidable facts of human existence. Human beings are social animals and they always
develop political relations which form a system of politics. Everyone is involved in some fashion, at some time; in
some kind of a political system. Whatever be his values and concerns everyone is inevitably enmeshed in a political
system - whether or not one likes or even notices the fact.
However, nature and level of participation in politics differs from person to person and place to place. All are not
equally concerned with politics. Some are indifferent to politics while some others are deeply involved. Even among
those who are deeply involved in politics, only some actively seek power, and among the power-seekers some gain
more power than others.
On the basis of the levels of political participation, Woodword and Paper identify four classes of people: (1) Very
Active. (2) Active. (3) Inactive, (4) Very inactive. The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies has suggested a
five-fold classification of citizens on the basis of the level of participation in politics. (1) Apathetic (2) Peripherals
(3) Spectators, (4) Auxiliaries and (5) Politists.
(1) Apathetic are those who remain away from politics. They are psychologically drawn away from politics.
(2) Peripherals are those who participate in voting and have a limited interest in politics.
(3) Spectators are those who vote, who have an interest in politics and who participate in lower levels of politics.
(4) Auxiliaries are those who have a medium level interests in politics and who participate in some activities of
the political process.
(5) Politists are those who are fully oriented towards politics and who participate in the struggle for power.
11.6 Determinants of Political Participation
The role that the people of a political system play in the political process, particularly in decision-making or
policy-formulation, is influenced by several psychological, social, economic, political, environmental and situational
factors. These are referred to as the determinants of political participation. In every political system, the nature and
level of political participation is dependent upon several such factors. The study of political participation necessarily
involves a study of these factors. We can study these factors by classifying these into six categories: (1) Psychological
Factors (2) Social Factors. (3) Political Factors, (4) Economic Factors, (5) Environmental Factors, and (6) Situational
Factors.
1. Psychological Factors of Political Participation: Participation in politics is influenced by several
psychological factors. Several people participate in politics for satisfying their psychological urges. Love for power
and other values always impels people to get involved in the political process. Many persons find the political field
useful as it provides them opportunities for winning over others or for reducing their tensions. However, the basic
personality traits also act as checks upon political participation. The introverts are less likely to get involved in the
struggle for power. Psychological aversion against competition also checks some persons from participation in
91
politics. Robert McClosky observes, “An individual who scores high on measures of paranoia, inflexibility, guilt,
hostility and so oh will ipso facto function less effectively in many social contexts. He will be less able to perform
tasks that acquire accurate appraisals’ of reality and may find such political activities, threatening as organising,
deciding, bargaining, interacting, cooperating, debating and proselytizing,” The business like’ approach of the Swiss
people has always been a determinant of their political participation. In many political systems, the low voting turn-
out in elections is also due to psychological factors.
The orientations of the people towards politics and political objects always-influence the level and nature of
political participation.
2. Social Factors of Political Participation: Political participation is always affected by social factors:
Education, Social Stratification, Sex, Age, Caste, Religion, Language, Residence, Region, Urban-Rural Gap, and
Ethnicity. The nature and level of political participation in societies which have a high literacy percentage, always
differ from the political participation in societies inhabited by a majority of illiterates. In developing societies, like
India, caste, religion, sex and language are the determinants of political behaviour and political participation. Caste
groups, caste based politics, caste based elections and caste considerations in the formation of government are the
realities of politics in India. In the American political system, the level of political participation among the negroes
is low. The Whites in the USA form the basic core of the political stratum. Likewise, ethnicity and urban-rural gap are
always factors of political participation. Leadership very often remains in the hands of the urban elites. A major part
of the powerful stratum is constituted by the educated urban elite. In British politics, role of social status as a determinant
of political participation is clearly reflected in the working of British party system, House of Lords, Privy Council
and Monarchy. Thus, social factors always determine the nature and level of political participation.
3. Political Factors of Political Participation: Political Factors are always the major determinants of political
participation. Nature of the political system, the constitution of the state, the organisation of government, nature and
organisation of the political parties, nature of Press and other means of mass media etc., are all the determinants of
political participation. In the democratic political system, the people are encouraged to participate freely and actively
in the decision- making process and other political activities. People have the right to vote, right to contest elections,
right to hold public offices, freedom to criticize the policies of the government and to give one’s own views on all
subjects, freedom to organise and manage political parties, interest groups and associations, and freedom to participate
at all levels of politics. These conditions encourage the people to voluntarily participate in the process of decision-
making. In totalitarian systems, an attempt is made by the powerholders to secure popular support for their policies.
Political participation of the people is secured by rules and regulations. The decentralization of powers, which is a
feature of every liberal-democratic political system, always encourages the people to get involved in the struggle for
power. It encourages die development of the substratum of power-seekers within the political stratum.
The existence of well-organised and active political parties always increases the level of political participation.
The political parties act as important agencies of political socialization, political recruitment, and interest articulation
and aggregation, and political communication. These are directly involved in the struggle for power. These always
affect the process of decision-making and the nature of authoritative values made and implemented by political
system. These play a yeoman’s role in involving the people in the process of politics. The campaigns and movements
launched by them and election campaigns organised by them during elections always lead to increased political
participation. Relations with political parties always act as a powerful determinant of political participation. Along
with political parties, the mass media also act as a determining factor of political participation. Thus, political factors
are always the determinants of political participation.
4. Economic Factors of Political Participation: Economic motives always influence almost all human relations.
These are also the determinants of politic behaviour and political participation. The expectation of rewards in terms
of economic gains always provides a basic incentive to people’s involvement in the political process. The urge to get
involved in the decision-making or policy formulation is always governed by considerations of economic gains. The
rich always try to become richer and influential and for this they regard political participation as an ideal and useful
means. The poor often find their poverty a hindrance in the way of an active and full political participation. Sometimes
they get involved in politics out of frustration. The cost of contesting elections is always a factor of political
participation. The role of money power in politics is a major factor of political participation in developing countries,
like India.
5. Environmental Factors of Political Participation : Political participation is also affected by environmental
factors. Geography, industrialization, level of technological advancement, and demographic features also determine
the nature and level of political participation. The people living in hot climates do not come forward to participate in
92
political campaigns, movements and elections, particularly during summer months. People living in hilly areas are
usually less active in politics. Geographical conditions have a bearing upon the temperament of the people and it, as
such, influences their political participation.
6. Situational Factors of Political Participation : Along with the above discussed five factors of political
participation, the situational factors also act as the determinants of the people’s participation in politics, The existence
of British rule over India and the need to end it acted as strong motivating factors for the people of India and they
joined the national liberation movement in a big way. After independence, the political legacies became the determinants
of popular participation in politics. The emergency rule (1975-77) also produced an increased political participation
as a reaction against repressive policies of this era. In every political system, the policies adopted and formulated by
the government of the state often act as inputs of political participation.
The above factors clearly shows that there are several determinates of Political Participation. All these factors
influence, in varying degree, popular participation in Politics. All these factors together determine the level and
nature of Political participation.
11.7 Why is Political Participation Important
Political participation is one of the best ways for ordinary people to make a substantial change to their community.
If people are engaged with the politics of their country, they will better understand where the government is going
wrong. Once they have an understanding of the political problems, they will be better equipped to combat them. If this
political understanding then becomes political action, the government will have a clearer understanding of why people
are unhappy. If everyone in a country participates in politics, it will become much harder for a government to ignore
the problems of the people. Therefore, an increase in political participation, should mean more will be done to
address political and social problems.
11.8 Significance of Political Participation
These are as under :-
1. Stability in Political System
2. Origin of Moral Virturs
3. Law and Order
4. No fear of Revolution
5. Spirit of Patriotism
6. Spirit of Equality
7. Development of Citizen
8. Knowledge about the Role of People
11.9 Let us Sum Up
The above account of the factors clearly shows that there are several determinants of political participation. All
these factors influence, in varying degrees, popular participation in politics. These have to be analysed together for
analysing peoples and their groups, their role in the political process. No single factor is, individually and continuously,
a determinant of political participation. All these factors together determine the level and nature of political
participation. However, out of these, social, economic and political factors are the major determinants and these
exercise a continuous influence on the process of involvement of the masses in the process of decision-making or
policy formulation, i.e., in political participation.
11.10 Glossary
● System: A set of ideas or rules for organizing something; a particular way of doing something.
● Participation: The fact that you take part of become involved in something. For example your participation
in this investigation is vital.
● Communication: The act of sharing or exchanging information, ideas or feelings.
11.11 Answer to Check you Progress Exercises
Note: Use the space given below for your answer.
Check your Progress-1
1. What is Political Participation?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................

93
 Check your Progress-2
2. Discuss any two determinates of Political Participation?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
11.12 Suggested Readings
● Tapan Biswal (ed.), Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Trinity, 2015).
● O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.).
● Hari Hara Das, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: National Publishing House).
● J.C. Johari, Comparative Politics (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.).
● Parmatma Sharan, Comparative Government and Politics (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan).
● Eddy Asirvathan and K.K. Misra, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors).
● A.C. Kapoor, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● S.C. Singhal, Political Theory (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarawal).
● V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.)
● Sri Ram Maheshwari, Comparative Government and Politics (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Aggarwal, 1985).
● Manoj Kumar, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis (New Delhi: Anmol Publication, 2004).
● Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: the Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered
(Westview Press, 1994).
● Howard J. Wiarda, ‘Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the field in the Post cold War Era’
Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19 No.5.
● See also, Comparative Politics, Lesson No. 4 and 5 Old Study Material of M.A. Pol. Science, ICDEOL,
PP. 18.
11.13 Terminal Questions
1. What is Political Participation? Explain the Classification of Citizens on the basis of levels of participation.
2. Explain the meaning and features of Political Participation?
3. Explain the factors which determine the nature and level of political participation?

*****

94
 Lesson-12
Political Participation and Voting Bhaviour in UK, USA and India

Structure
12.0 Introduction
12.1 Learning Objectives
12.2 Political Participation in UK
12.3 Political Participation in USA
12.4 Political Participation in India
12.5 What is Voting Behaviour
12.6 Determinants of Voting Behaviour in India
12.7 Let us Sum Up
12.8 Glossary
12.9 Answer to Self Check Exdercise
12.10 Suggested Readings
12.11 Terminal Questions
12.0 Introduction
Political Participation denotes the active involvement of individuals and groups in the political process affecting
their lives. Political Participation is both an activity and an attitude.
12.1 Learning Objectives
After going through this lesson, you will be able to :
• Explain the meaning of voting behaviour.
• Analyse the voting pattern in developed and developing countries.
• Discuss what is voting behaviour.
• Understand the determinants of voting behavior
12.2 Political Participation in UK
Constitutional democracy is firmly enterached in the U.K. It provides the power-holders, apparent and latent, to
carry on their struggle for power which is at the root of the political process within the constitutional framework.
Evidently, the power-holders may be categorized as constitutional and extra- constitutional. To the former belongs
the cabinet, the parliament and the bureaucracy, and to the latter, the political parties, pressure groups, etc. so far as
the British political system is concerned. Such a distinction is of no consequence for the obvious reason that the
constitution is unwritten and no power-holder has any constitutional basis, except that some institutions have been
given a statutory basis.
In theory, the government of the UK is verted in the crow-in-Parliament which consist of the sovereign, the House
of Lords and the House of commons. The Sovereign is nominal. The titular character of the British monarch is
testified by two adages : ‘The King (Queen) can do no wrong”, and “the king (Queen) is dead, long live the kind
(Queen).” In other words, constitutional monarchy prevails in the UK. The House of Lords, which was once the
repository of political power, has now abdicated it in favour of marginal influence, to the House of Commons. Today,
the House of commons has also become more formal and nominal in view of the ascendency of the cabinet. In recent
times, there is a controversy regarding whether the term ‘cabinet government’ is a mishomer and ‘prime ministerial
government’ not a more appropriate description of the British System. Without entering into a discussion on this
subject, it would be worthwhile to note that the prime minister, in many respects, has become the ‘first among equals’
in place of ‘first among equals’. But if it is meant that the prime minister can always get his way on any matter then the
thesis is false. For instance, in 1967 Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brown wished to take a strong line against Egypt’s closure of
the straits of Tiran but failed owing to the resistance of the other cabinet members. On the other hand if he is taken as
the most important individual in the cabinet, the statement is true. With this important provision regarding the prime
minister’s role, the cabinet is the lower house of the governmental system in the U.K.
Blackstone once wrote about “Omnipotence of Parliament”, which resides in the lower house, the House of
Commons. It is a big body consisting of 635 elected members, organized on party lines. The bulk of its business, and
surely, important business, is carried on through cabinet proposal. The cabinet need not comprise all ministers;
95
actually, it consists of some twenty one members who form the policy making circle. The Prime Minister leads this
body of policy maker and as such his position is preeminent in the governmental process. Although the overriding
authority of cabinet is an axiomatic fact in the cabinet system, cabinet rule is regulated by certain working conventions.
These conventions that government outvoted on a matter of confidence must resign, that with the resignation of the
prime minister, the entire cabinet must resign and that the parliament would act as a channel of communication to the
government-are devices for effecting inter-organ control of parliament over government. No doubt in the process the
opposition cannot but emerge as a power-holder. The opposition is led by the ‘Shadow Cabinet’ with which the cabinet
negotiates in hours of crisis. In actuality, inter-organ control by the legislature over the executive in the U.K. is
exercised by the ‘Shadow Cabinet’ of the opposition. Normally the opposition’s sphere of action in the decision
making is circumscribed for the reasons: First it is excluded from any share in the formulation of governmental
policy prior to its presentation in the parliament. Second, when the government presents the policy before the House,
it is a minority there. Thus, in the policy-making process, which is an important part of the overall political process,
the opposition has a share, however limited in scope.
A brief exposition of the non-legitimate power-holders in the system would not be out of place here. Government,
in the extended sense, includes the entire leadership apparent and potential. The prime ministers, especially Harold
Wilson, recognized the fact that potential power-holders should be kept under control. That is why the government,
including the parliamentary private secretaries, constituted a third of the total Labour members of parliament. These
parliamentary private secretaries are not salaried personnel; they are trainees for ministerial jobs. They struggle for
office, to designate themselves as legitimate power-holders.
Political parties in the UK constitute the working hypothesis in governmental operations. But strangely enough, it
has no constitutional basis. Political parties and pressure groups are essentially power-holders in the political process.
In a parliamentary system, the party and the government are inextricably interwoven. In spite of the existence of
multiple groups and interests in a British Society, Britain is one of the few countries where a two-party system has
persisted in spite of occasional and temporary interruptions. This is mainly due to the political ethos, as well as the
role actually played by the parties in the British political process. The British government is a party government and
the British system requires political parties and party discipline. There is broad national consensus about
constitutionalism. The parties have generally with a sense of responsibility and with respect for the constitutional
foundations of the political system and have provided channels of communications, interaction and cooperation
among the various groups. The two- party system has helped to create a system of political responsibility for the
prime minister and the cabinet system down to the electorate,’ that makes electoral choice meaningful and significant.
It is therefore, by and large admitted that the key to the understanding of British Cabinet government, and for that
matter of the British political process, lies in the British party system, especially, party discipline. Party discipline
has secured the smooth operation of the system and has provided for effective governmental leadership, effective
legislative performance and effective democratic control which respects the rights of the opposition and guarantees
fair play between the alternating parties. The existence of two competing and alternating parties, with the electorate
holding the balance between them, has ensured one of the most successful patterns of government and political
processes of our time.
The essence of constitutional democracy is supposed to be the unfettered participation of the most diversified
plural groups in the political process. The pressure groups, which have been defined as organized aggregates which
seek to influence the content of governmental decisions without attempting to place their members in formal
governmental capacities, have an overriding importance for the reality of the British political process, although they
still lack legal institutionalization or constituionalization. They arc the non-legitimate power holders in Britain, and
the British government is as dependent on pressure groups as it is a party system.
Under the British electoral system, the party as a power-holder may occupy political power for a term of five
years. The cabinet cannot pursue a coherent policy of action without a disciplined party majority. The necessity of
pressure groups becomes urgent to make the polity representative and well conceived. Pressure groups are thus an
auxiliary circuit of representation.
Pressure groups in the UK may be classified into three catteries interest groups such as trade unions, churches
and universities, promotional groups like the society for the protection of wild Birds and Animals, and a hybrid group
which is established and finance by interest groups but is propagandist in character. British Society is a mosaic of all
these three types of pressure groups. To achieve their objective of influencing the decision-making process, they
would surely aim at three targets the executive, the Parliament and the general public. The choice of target is largely
a matter of expediency. The operation of pressure groups is no doubt conditioned by political institutions, the party
96
system and the political culture. In Britain, organized groups focus their activities primarily upon the executive. In the
face of strict party discipline and the supremacy of the cabinet, legislators are left with little scope for independent
decision-making. Only broad questions of legislation are decided by Parliament, leaving the details and their
implementation to the executive agencies. Even then, many groups try to influence executive policies through their
parliamentary activities. They also play a significance role in representing the interests and objectives of individuals.
A tradition has been built up for consultation of pressure groups by appropriate departments. More often than not,
these groups are invited to record their opinions in various departmental committees.
Members of Parliament are the target of pressure group activity. It is quite customary for members of Parliament
to receive both a regular salary and assistance in their campaign expenses in return for representing the view point of
an interest group. According to Harry Eckstein, more than a hundred members of Parliament received such payments
from labour unions. In 1969, trade union sponsored members of Parliament held 127 to 384 Labour seats in the
House of Commons. The interaction between Pressure groups and government hinges on four variables: Formal
interest groups, deputations and negotiating committees, formal semi-social contacts, representation on government
committee concerned with their affairs, and helping not only to determine government policy, but actually to administer
it.
While adaptation, stability and general durability of political institutions have been the hallmarks of British politics
and political process, with an over whelming majority of the people not favoring any radical, revolutionary or violent
changes, there have been signs of unrest, tension, instability and disorder in recent years, as evident from the conflict
in Northern Ireland, growing racial tensions, urban crime, human rights abuses, growing fluidity in the party system
and electoral politics, decline in leadership qualities, recurring crisis in the institution of monarchy whose future is
now questioned and debated, and problems arising out of Britian’s entry into the European community involving loss
of identity and further decline in her world status. The future does not augur very well.
12.3 Political Participation in USA
Any meaningful analysis of the American political process must move simultaneously on two levels. The premises
of policy must be set forth in relation to the precise institutional developments, and second, the analyst must concentrate
on the nexus between ideological shadow and operational substance. The logical starting point would, of course, be
the constitution of the US, but the puzzling phenomenon is that although the document is clear on structure, the power
relationships have never been delineated with any precision. One can, indeed, isolate a number of different political
forces and institutions on the American Scene—State governments parties, pressure groups, courts, congressmen,
presidents and administrators—which are visible and identifiable entities but in the face of constantly shifting
equilibrium and changing coalitions, such institutional forces of themselves cannot provide an insight into the
intricacies of the political process.
The constitution provided the framework within which power-holders, as the framers of the constitution hoped,
should operate. For instance, the President would be obligated to discharge his functions within the constitution, the
congress would legislate for the American nation, and the Judiciary would examine the application of law in individual
cases. Thus there were these constitutionally designated power-holders in the political process. The underlying
assumption of the government organization in the United States was the quoted formation of the separation of powers.
This was all the more needed to erect the structure of a constitutional state which means sharing of political power
among the power-holders.
All the roles cast in the constitution for power- holders have undergone radical changes, mainly because of the
enormous upsurge of American industrial power, and the USA’s control role in world politics. The reality of American
politics does not permit a neat division of roles of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary into rule making,
rule-enforcement and role-adjustication. These formal dements are obviously involved in the resolution of political
conflict in the US. All imported decisions are made in the congress, the executive and the judiciary, but -these formal
institutions are influenced by the demands and supports from the informal elements and by the nature of the constitution
consensus. They are also constant interaction with each other. Richard Neustadt has correctly, observed that
constitutional convention created a government of separated institutions sharing power, rather than a government of
‘separated power’. In the pluralist democracy of the United State, the environmental variables continuously work to
minimize conflict in politics — such Actors as a common political culture, economic, social and ethnic homogeneity
of the people etc.
The chief executive, i.e. the President, who combines in him the titular head of state and the actual head of
government, has been the centre of gravity in the American constitutional system. His most important function is to

97
provide policy-making leadership to the government. The national government has now the regulate the economy and
the social conditions in keeping with the expectations of the people. The role President Rossevelt arrogated to
himself emergency powers during the l930’s has now become the duty of the presidency. He is also the main architect
of foreign policy. He shoulders tremendous, responsibility and is the prime power- holder in the American political
system. S.E. Finer has beautifully expressed this role in the following words: The President is the one focus. The one
centre of coherence in the bewieldering variety, profusion, and confusion which mark American society and its
government expression. Or more justly, one must say the cure possible focus, the one possible centre of coherence.”
The former President Richard Nixon also expressed his concept of the presidency in these very appropriate
words: ‘‘He today cannot stand aside form crisis, he cannot ignore division, he cannot simply paper-over disunity. He
must lead ... only through an open candid dialogue with the people can a president maintain his trust and leadership.
The President cannot isolate himself from the great intellectual ferments of his time... while the President is a leader
of thought, he is also a user of thought, and he must be a catalyst of thought... The President’s chief function is to lead,
not to administer. The presidency is a place where priorities are set and goals determined.”
The constitutionally designated power-holder in the legislative field is the American Congress consisting of the
House of Representatives and the Senate. Of the two, the senate shares power with the American President in regard
to appointments and foreign relations. The House and the senate has different ways of working. The former is larger,
more impersonal and formal in its proceedings, and more hierarchically organized. Its rules are rigid, but it can act
quickly, and power is unevenly distribute. The Senate is less hierarchical, more personal and informal, its rules more
flexible, but it acts slowly. Power is more evenly distributed. With longer terms and smaller membership, the senate
is a-more prestigious institution then the House Taken as a whole. Congress appears to be slow in its operation and,
conservative and compromising in domestic matters. Owing to several forces and factors, the past century has witnessed
an interesting reversal in the original and intended role of the congress. While the presidency has become the major
and dominating focus in policy making, congress has assumed largely a negative role—vetoing proposals of the
President, investigating activities of the executive and sometimes reducing appropriations requested by the President.
It has become, so to say, a kind of continuing and permanent opposition to the President. It has failed to act promptly,
during times of crisis. It lacks effective, responsible leadership. As a result of these, and some other factors like
dispersion of power among the committee, weak party discipline and dilatory procedures, congress has failed satisfy
critical analyst of the American political analysts, of the American political process. Recently with the Watergate
episode, the senate’s stubborn assertion has thrown political and constitutional challenges to the American presidency
which is the propeller of the political process but which has now been brought into disrepute by the indiscreet actions
of former President Nixon. In the struggle for political power between these two major power-holders, the presidency
has in the last few years, yielded the initiative and position to the legislative branch.
The American System is undoubtedly one of checks and balances among three coordinate branches of government,
but these are not sufficiently reciprocal to achieve a balance among the three power-holders, namely the President,
the congress, and the court. The balance of power is constantly changing one branch or the other is exercising leadership
at any one point of time. But, except during the 1920, and 1930, when the count was supreme, the role of the American
judiciary has been, by and large negative, protective, and controlling rather than steering, propelling, and leading. The
power of judicial review of legislation and executive action has several major consequences for the American political
system and process. First the judiciary has efficiently and effectively discharged the conflict-resolving function
within the American political system. Second it has been one of the chief instruments of balance by exercising
interogan control over the other branches of government, by protecting individuals and minorities, and by maintaining
the soundness and democratic character of the American political process. Third, by representing some of the more
enduring values and long-term points of view, the judiciary sometimes slows down conderable change until it becomes
acceptable to a large majority of the people. Fourth, on occasion, the courts themselves have been important instruments
of change when other branches have failed to respond to the demands of changing times, as in the segregation cases.
Finally, the courts offer an additional channel of communication between the people and their government, and a long
-term feed-back circuit through which the’ American political system can steer itself. All this said and done, however,
the function of the judiciary is not to determine what decisions can be made by political processes, but to prevent the
mechanism from breaking down. Thus the courts have performed most creditably and earned an enduring place in the
American political life and experience.
The American liberal democratic system is characterized by more than one political party, open competition for
political power based on established and accepted forms of procedure, and operation of lobbies and pressure groups
to influence governmental decisions. An indistinct two-party system obtains in the US, indistinct, because the

98
Democrats and the Republicans differ on different issues but arc not too for apart in ideologies. The US government
is not a party government, unlike the UK. The loose federated character of the national party organizations, coupled
with the presidential type of government, the vast extent and sectional diversity of the country, and the irrational fear
of party machines have resulted in only partisanships, not responsible government. The parties monopolization of
national elective office—the Presidency and Congress—gives rise to bipartisanship in the American political system.
It is interesting to note that the President’s party may not have control of the congress as during Ronald Reagan’s
presidency and also during George Bush’s term. For six of the eight years of Eisenhower’s presidency, the Democrats
controlled the congress. Interogan control of the congress over the executive is thus exercised through the parties
which are non-legitimate power-holders. The importance of political parties can hardly be exaggerated as an effective
instrumentality for gaining access to the policy-making function by infiltration into the legitimate power-holders.
The open-ended nature of American parties and the congressional system of working invite the attention of interest
groups. Political patties in the US are now subject to a high degree of legislative control resulting in their formal
integration into the political process and have been accorded the status of a recognized instrumentality of the political
process. They have contributed very effectively to the American political process. In a system of separated powers,
the parties have played the role of governmental unifiers and thereby contributed to policy-making. They have served
to bridge the divisions of power in American politics, have fostered democracy and encouraged political stability.
The role of pressure groups in the political process is perhaps one of the most conspicuous and persistent features
of the American political system. In the US, where separation of functions affords considerable scope for independent
decision-making by legislators, the pressure groups focus much of their activity on the legislative branch. The impact
of these groups is one of the most important external inputs in the American legislative process. Features like the
constitutional separation of powers, existence of two separate but equal legislative bodies, the great importance of
the committees and their control over the budgetary process, and the lack of party discipline which makes most
senators and representatives not only open to individual persuation but concerned about aspring themselves of the
widest possible support at the next election and responsible for the interest groups tending to focus attention on the
congress. Powerful situational interest groups like the AFL-CIO, and the AMA and attitudinal bodies like the American
Legion and various religious groups are able to exert very powerful leverage. Lobbyists also frequently turn to the
officials of the executive branch who make many vital decisions almost daily. There is a degree of cooperation and
mutual dependence for information, services and support. The powerful groups may even advance or retard the careers
of individual administrators and executives. The attention of the groups is sometimes directed even towards the
President or his departmental leads in the long run. The President cannot, in fact, extricate himself from lobbying
activities. Although generally speaking, the judges are largely insulted from political pressures, the pressure groups
may even intervene and affect judicial decisions to some extent. They may influence the selection of judges; and they
may file briefs or present oral arguments before a court. Civil Rights groups have also used test cases to dramatize
their cause and promote a different interpretation of law or the constitution. Thus, the interest groups play a very
decisive part in the American political process by making demands upon the prominent participants of the political
system by providing-creative energy to it, by supporting it, and by sharing a legitimate place in the policy-making
process.
The main criticism against the American model of pluralist democracy in which interest groups with their policy
interests try to influence congressional committees and administrative agencies has been that it carries with it the
inevitable consequence of highly unequal power and influence of certain classes or grant corporations which stand
behind these interest groups. The pluralist competition, according to E.E. Schattschneiderr, is not open to groups
other than certain well-organized or powerful interests. Writers like C. Wright Mills have described this process as
.elitist and based on unequal power and resources of interest groups. It is apparently hard to reconcile the fact that the
world’s largest liberal democratic system has been putting up with a political process that is mostly manipulated by a
few extrenched interest, and also that these giant corporations even enjoy considerable political and public support.
This political process has also generated large-scale corruption in high places justified in some quarters by the
capitalist correct of social utility of greed. There is a virtual neglect of public interest as opposed to private gain that
has dominated political discourse in the United States. The penetrative thrust of the powerful interest groups indicates
how porous and fragile the system has become. The operation of the political parties has failed to find a way out and
the concept of equal opportunity does not sound genuine and realistic either. Urgent reform must be a top priority on
the American national agenda. Whether the 1990’s would herald a turning point in history, as compared wife with the
earlier Bush Reagan era, would be observed wife keen interest by scholars and students of American and comparative
politics in the coming years.

99
12.4 Political Participation in India
To understand the operation of the Indian political system or the nature of the political process, we need to find
answers to some questions, namely, what are the groups which operate in the system, how they recruit people, how
they communicate their interest and how they are aggregated. It is also necessary to find out the extent, to borrow
Almond’s model, to which the rule-making, rule-application and rule adjudication functions are being carried out
within or outside of the formal structures or institutions.
In an industrialized society, the groups are organised mainly around economic interests, over and above the normal
patterns of social, cultural and ideological associations. These groups articulate the claims and interests, and make
demands upon the government. These claims are fed into the state mechanism and reconciled in the form of policy
decisions. Pressure groups in these political systems play an important role in the decision-making process. In the
political process of the west. One generally comes across more formally and explicitly organized interests but in the
non-western systems, one find a far greater informality and many interests are unrepresented by concrete associations.
In general, two lands of interests are expressed and organized in India—functionally specific economic interests
such as those of landlords, peasants, trade unions, businessmen, refugees, etc., and interest organised around traditional
loyalties to caste, tribe and community. Of these interests, the economic interests are more highly organized than
other. The associations representing tire business in India are far more efficient and there are also community interests
and institutional interest groups in India. The army and the administrative services are potential political forces, but
not as prominent as in other South Africa or Middle-East countries. The Chambers of commerce may have some
influence on industrial policy and taxation measures, and trade unions have some effect on industrial relation legislation
and wage-policy, but there is not much direct involvement of interest lobbies in the making of public policy, and the
major development programmes are conceived almost independently of the interest groups. It is left primarily to the
political parties to adopt or reject the major interest pleadings and aggregate them into party policy. There is a general
political domination over interest groups.
From the point of view of the party system, the most obvious fact about the Indian political process is the continued
dominance of the Congress Party up to 1977, and from 1980 till the coming of the National Front Government, and
finally from the end of 1991 to 1996. It has been the main channel of political activity in India for nearly a century. It
has provided governmental stability from 1947, and has generally been an integrating force. Though primarily “one-
party dominant” in character, up to march 1977, the Indian political system embraced a multitude of national, regional
and local parties, only a few of which have so far succeeded in retaining their organizational identities. The opposition
parties lacked leadership and firm policy, although some of them had ousted the congress from power and formed
independent or coalition government in some states. The congress party itself was a sprawling coalition of many
diverse groups, including right-wing conservatives, rnoderate socialists, left-wing socialists, orthodox Hindus, large
land-owners and landless labourers. In the context of the Indian political process, the congress party only ‘aggregated
diverse interests, but also served as an important communication network in the political system.
As for the governmental structures and the output functions, in terms of the constitution, the central government
is headed by a President who is the ceremonial head of state in a parliamentary form of government. The parliament,
headed formally by the President, is controlled by the council of minister with the prime minister at its head. The
prime minister is the effective, de facto source of executive power, the chief policy-maker. The cabinet, made up of
senior ministers, is responsible collectively to the parliament. The bureaucracy is subject to the control of the executive,
i.e., the prime minister. Rule-making functions are in the hands of the prime minister and the cabinet. Parliament had
the functions of articulating interests and of ratifying government decisions. On many occasions in the past, Parliament
had been able to modify government policies. The functions of rule- application and rule-adjudication are performed
by a highly centralized administrative and judicial system. In general therefore, it can be said that functions of rule-
making, rule-application, and rule-adjudication are in reality performed by those institutions of government specified
in the constitution as having responsibility for the performance of these functions. Thus, these modem political
structure perform their functions against tire peculiar ways of functioning of foe communication, articulation and
aggregation processes in a country which had no democratic tradition, but which is committed to new values of
economic development, national unity, and the democratic process.
From the point of view of the political process, the most important casualty has been the party system and for a
variety of reasons the integrating force of the congress Party has been totally lost. The party has degenerated into a
motley group of assorted self-seeking power hungry and opportunistic individuals and factions without any ideological
foundation or organization cohesion and sense of purpose or mission. No less a person than the late Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi had made an angry but pathetic confession that the party consisted only of cliques which followed the
100
path of self-aggrandizement, corrupt ways, linkage with vested interests and their sanctimonious posturing. Corruption
was not only tolerated, but was ever regarded as a hallmark of leadership. There is genuine and general disillusionment
with the leadership. For the last couple of years, there has been a general weakening of credibility of the democratic
institutions. This is evident from the increasing social and political violence. The political system shows signs of
disintegration. Whether there is a growing crisis of ‘governability; arising, out of a highly interventionist but ineffectual
national government and weak and fragmented politic parties, or the roots of this crisis lie mainly in India’s political
structure and process, is a matter of debate. There is a growing organizational vacuum at the core of India’s political
space. The political process stands fragmented and few mechanisms are available for resolving the power conflicts.
Parliament has not been functioning as a significant and effective political body. There is an all round decay in India’s
authority structures. There is also a growing doubt about the state’s capacity to simultaneously accommodate disparate
interests and promote development.
12.5 Voting Behaviour
In the previous units, you have read about political parties and pressure groups. In this chapter you will read about
meaning, evolution and determinants of voting Behaviour. In the words of Plana and Riggs. "Voting Behaviour is a
field of study concerned with the ways in which people tend to vote in public elections and the reasons why they vote
as they do." The term voting behaviour has recently been expanded in meaning and is taken as one major and broad area
of study subsumed within the broader designation of political behaviour. It involves a study of human political behaviour
in the context of voting in elections. Voting behaviour studies open windows on the minds of the millions of people
who are involved in the political process as voters. These constitute an important area of political science in which
theory can be systematically and qualitatively measured and tested. These can lead to definitive conclusions.
In simple words, voting behavior defines the pattern of Casting vote or the factors that influence people in casting
vote. Its study explain what factors determine or influence voter's choice of voting. The study of voting behavior does
not confine to the observation of voting statistics, record and electoral data. It also covers psychological action and
institutional patterns. Voting behavior reflects the way in which people tend to vote in public elections and why they
vote in that particular way. It also reflects the voter's choice, preferences, ideologies, concerns, alternatives etc.
12.6 Determinants of Voting Behaviour in India
India is the largest working democracy, a parliamentary democracy, in the world. At the time of the March-April
1996 polls, an electorate of as many as 591.5 million voters went to the polls to choose their representatives from
amongst 14474 contestants. All men and women of 18 years or above of age have the right to vote in the Indian
elections. Despite the fact that nearly half of them are illiterate, they have in the past acted wisely and in a mature way
to elect their representatives. They have already participated in Eleven elections to the Lok Sabha, several elections
to State Legislative Assemblies and a large number of bi-elections. The data pertaining to these elections and the
electoral process can help us to analyse the voting beliaviour of the people of India, In particular, we can analyse the
factors or determinants of voting behaviour in India. In fact, the voting behaviour studies conducted in India have
identified the following main political and socio-economic factors which act as determinants of voting behaviour in
India.
1. Caste: Caste continues to bo a determinant of voting behaviour in India. It has deep roots in the society and
constitutes an important basis of social relations at all levels. Despite the adoption of several provisions which
prohibit action and discrimination on its basis, caste continues to be a determinant of political behavioiir. Politicisation
of caste and casteism in politics have been a well known reality of the Indian Political System. "The process of
politics is one of indentifying and manipulating existing structuies in order to mobilise support and consolidate
positions. When the caste structure provides one of the most important organisational clusters in which the population
is bound to live, politics must strive to organise through such a structure. The alleged casteism in politics is thus no
less than politicisation of caste." The political parties in India, without any exception, while formulating their policies,
programmes and election strategies, always keep in mind the caste factor. Caste is a factor in the selection of candidates
for contesting an election from a constituency. Votes are demanded in the name of caste, Jat Ki Vote Jat Ko, Brahmin
votes vs Jat votes or Jat votes vs Ahir votes etc., are commonly used 'principles' in planning election strategy. The
organisation of political parties for protecting or/and furthering caste interests has been present in the Indian system
of politics. The DMK and AIADMK arc anti-Brahmin parties which are dominating politics in Tamil Nadu. Kammas,
Reddys and Nairs have tlieir parties in Andhara.
The role of caste as a determinant of voting behaviour has been analysed by several scholars and they have come
out. With the conclusion as Morris Jones writes, 'Politics is more important to caste and caste is more important to
politics than before. Caste is the main language of voters, particularly of voters belonging to rural India." Despite the
101
adoption of democratic values which conceive of a society free from casteism, caste continues to characterise
politics in India. As Rudolph says, "Within the new context of political democracy, caste remains a central element of
India's' society even while adapting itself to the values and methods of democratic politics. Indeed it has become one
of the chief means by which the Indian masses have been attached to the process of democratic politics." The decision
to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations for reservation of jobs for Other Backward Classes (castes)
and the reaction it generated in polities testifies to the continued presence of caste as a detenninant of politics in
India.
However, it must be stated that the role of caste as a detenninant of voting behaviour has been undergoing a
change, at least in the urban areas. Issue based political struggle is gradually taking shape in the Indian polity. But the
situation continues to be paradoxical.
2. Religion:- The establishment of a secular state in India-by guaranteeing the right to freedom of religion to
everyone, treating every religion as equal and non-recognition of any religion as a state religion has not been successful
in preventing the role of religion as a determinant of political behaviour in general and voting behaviour in particular.
The existence of such political parties and non-political groups as stand linked with a particular religion, for example,
the Muslim League, the Akali Dal, the Hindu Maha Sabha, the Shiv Sena, etc., has been one of the reasons behind the
continued role of religion as a determinant of voting behaviour. Religious pluralism of the Indian society is a major
feature of the environment of the Indian Political System and it greatly influences the struggle for power among
political parties. The selection of candidates is done with an eye upon the presence of a religious majority in a
particular constituency. The candidates do not hesitate to seek votes by playing the religious card with the co-religious
voters and the secular card with members of other religious communities. Use of religious places for political ends
is also a standard practice, particularly during elections. The religionisation of social-political issues is again resorted
to by political parties and other groups. The Punjab problem has a religious dimension. Muslim politics, Hindu
politics, Sikh politics, Christian politics etc., are parts of Indian politics. The voters very often vote on religious
considerations.
3. Language:- India is a multi-lingual state. There are 18 official languages and several hundred other languages
and dialects. Linguism also serves as a factor in voting behaviour. The organisation of states on linguistic basis fully
reflects the importance of language as a factor of politics in India. There have been problems in the states like that of
the status of one particular language in that state, or relating to the quality of the status of a language of a state. For
example, in Haryana, there has been a demand for declaring Punjabi as the second official language. The Punjabis
want that the second language status should be conferred on Punjabi in Haryana (This was realised in 1996). In
Karnataka, there is a demand that Kannada alone should be the medium of instructions in schools, but it is being
opposed by other ethnic groups. Such problems are present in almost all the states. Since people have emotional
attachment with their languages, they easily get influenced whenever there comes up any issue relating to language.
Linguistic interests always influence voting behaviour.
4. Personality Factor:- Personality is another factor which influences voting behaviour in India. There have
been leaders in India like Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, whose personalities have played a key role
in determining a voter's attitude apart from his feelings about issues and his party affiliation. The organisation of
political parties around the personalities of charismatic or popular leaders is a standard practice. The Congress (I),
The Congress (J), The Congress (Urs), The RPl (K), The Lok Dal (Charan), The Janata Dal are examples of parties
tied up with personalities. The personality of the leader at the top of the party has always been a remarkable factor of
popular support. The Congress has won elections by building an Indira wave and also lost one due to an anti- Indira
wave. The sympathy wave resulting from the assassination of Mrs Gandhi helped the Congress (1) to register the
biggest win in elections. The assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi also resulted in a sympathy vote in favour of the
Congress (I) in the second phase of 1991 elections. Some political parties and state political systems are dominated
by several popular leaders. The RJD and Bihar politics revolve around the personality of Sh. Laloo Prasad Yadav. The
role of personality as a factor of voting behaviour becomes clear if we see that despite some wave-elections in India,
some opposition leaders have always won elections only because of their honesty, integrity and personality. The
Indian voters, in general, prefer to vote for an honest or charismatic candidate.
5. Money Factor:- India is a poor Country with a large number of people living below the poverty line. Money, as
such, plays a vital role in determining the voting behaviour of the people in India. A rich candidate or party always has
better chances of winning the elections. But it is to be pointed out here that it happens only in normal circumstances
and not during a wave election or when other key issues are involved. Despite organizing a very expensive election
campaign, the congress (I) lost power in 1989.

102
 6. Education:- It is often seen that the educated people take more interest in casting their vote as compared to the
illiterates because they know the importance of their right to vote and consider the use of this right a national duty.
They know that they can elect the government of their choice by executing their right to vote. Thus, education affects
the voting behaviour of person and with the spread of education the ratio of the use of franchise is also increasing and
during the election of the 16th lok sabha, the percentage of voting had gone up to 66.38% which was quite high in
comparison to previous elections.
7. Political Slogans:- Sometimes different political parties raise the populist slogans according to the need of
the time and affect the thinking of the voters. For example, congress raised the slogan of, 'garibi hatao' in 1971.
During the 16th Lok sabha election the slogans like 'Aabki bar Modi sarkar.
8. Personal contacts:- Personal contacts of the candidate and voters also affect the voting behaviour of the
voters. Most of the voters get influenced by personal visits of the candidate and they cast their vote in their favour.
Besides this, the relatives and friends of the candidate also cast their votes in favour of them because of their personal
relationship.
9. Sub-nationalism:- Ethnic pluralism, commnunalism, regionalism and sub-nationalism are the hard realities of
Indian society. Of late, sub-nationalism has become a crucial factor in influencing the voting behaviour of the people.
At times, a secessionist group gives a call for the boycott of elections and uses pressure tactics to force the voters
either not to vote or to vote in favour of a particular party. Some regional political parties like some factions of the
Akali Dal, Naga Nationalist Organisation, Gorkha League, Jharkhand Party, AASU and AAGSP in Assam have raised
parochial slogans from time to time and have disturbed the emotional stability of the people of their states. Such
actions of some political parties have at times influenced some people to organise themselves on narrow and parochial
lines.
10. Performance of the Party in Power:- Each political party contests elections on the basis of an election
manifesto, and after coming into power, it is expected to fulfill the promises made therein. Good or bad performance
of the ruling party, just on the basis of the election promises made and promises actually fulfilled, influences the
voting behaviour of the people in a big way. We experienced it in 1989 in India, when the Congress (I), which had got
a-thumping majority in the 1984 elections could not win even a simple majority in the very next election held in 1989
mainly because of its failure to perform successfully. In 1989, the Congress Party and in 1991, the Janata Dal failed
to win because of their failures to exercise power and maintain their political stabilities. This has happened mainly
because of a corresponding increase in the number of 'floating votes' or 'switchers' who are mostly young men and
women from educated upper middle class, and are ready to shift their support from one party to another on the basis
of their performance.
11. Mass Illiteracy:- Mass illiteracy has been another factor of voting behaviour in India. It is because of this
weakness of the people that political parties, communal groups and militant outfits are in a position to exploit the
sentiments of the people in the name of caste, religion, region and other such factors. The votes of the illiterates
constitute a big proportion of the votes polled and hence they play a big role in determining the outcome of elections.
However, despite this feature, the common sense and maturity born out of the experience of the past has also been
playing a big role in influencing the voters' minds and actions. In 1997, they united to defeat the forces of
authoritarianism and in 1980, they again united to defeat the disunited non-performers.
12. Factionalism:- The Indian political life, from the village level to the national level, is characterised by
factionalism. No political party, not even the cadre based BJP and the two communist parties, is free from factionalism.
It is at work, as Rajni Kothari points out, at all levels of the Congress. It has adversely affected the strength of the
Congress-a political party with a glorious past, a weak present and not a bright future, Other parties are also suffering
from factionalism.
The voters are getting disenchanted with some of the political parties because of their inability to overcome
factionalism. They are turning to locally organised parties or regional parties which, because of their small
organisational network and limited operational base, are relatively less affected by factionalism.
13. Party Affiliations:- In developed political systems like the American and the British, political parties have
their committed and known affiliations. These play a deterministic role in the determination of the voting behaviour
of the people. These determine an individual's choice of representatives and his views on key national and international
issues. In India also, the parties have their committed supporters who always accept the views and actions of their
respective parties. Even during the periods of the lowest level of its popularity (1977), the Congress was in a position
to secure 34.5 per cent popular votes. A majority of popular votes has all along been going to non-Congress parties.
But because of their inability to give a sustained united fight to the Congress, they have not been in a position to get
a majority of seats in the Parliament. In 1977, their unity in the form of the Janata Party led to the defeat of the
Congress. In 1989 their success in making electoral adjustments and alliances and in setting the stage for one to one
103
contest in several constituencies provided good dividends. However, in India, party identities are not very strong and
people do not hesitate to shift their votes from one party to another. In 1971, the voters of Rae Bareilly elected
Congress (1) leader Mrs. Gandhi as their representative in the Lok Sabha by a margin of 110,000 'votes but in 1997 a
majority of them voted against her and her Congress (1), and Mr. Raj Narain, a leader of the Janata Party, was in a
position to win the election by a margin of 50,000 votes. The number of floating votes in India is definitely more than
the committed party votes. Volatility of the Indian voters is a significant fact and is a determinant of voting behaviour.
14. Public Esteem of the Candidate:- A candidate's rapport with the people of his constituency or his known
qualities or contribution in any valued sphere of activity always acts as a factor of voting behaviour. Apart from his
party loyalty or opinion on various issues and problems, a voter while making his choice always takes into account the
nature and level of his association with the candidate. A positive image of a party's candidate is a source of popular
support for the party. A voter prefers to vote for a candidate who is approachable and who can help him in any w-ay.
Even at times when a sympathy or support- wave in favour of a party is in existence, a candidate belonging to a party
other than the one which has a support-wave behind him can certainly win an election. The fact that a number of
independents are in a position to wm their seats also reflects the role of the public image of a candidate as a factor of
voting behaviour in India.
15. Current Events:- The current problems and difficulties faced by the people as well as recent Stol developments
or the poll-eve developments also act as determinants of voting behaviour The political and economic events of the
election year also act as determining factors. The price rise, shortages, and other economic hardships faced by the
people during 1966-67 helped several political parties in considerably reducing the popularity of the Congress with
the masses. In 1967, the Congress, though it retained its majority at the Centre, suffered a loss of popularity which
was reflected in its poor performance "elections to the Legislative Assemblies, However, the victory in the 1971
Indo- Pak War turned the tide in favour of the Congress in the elections that followed. In 1984, the assassination of
Mrs. Gandhi created a huge sympathy wave in favour of the Congress (I) and its leader Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. In 1991, the
assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi on 21st May, stemmed the swing away to a low swing in favour of the Congress (I).
The violent protests against the decision to implement the Mandal Comimssion Report by the Janam Dal Government
in 1990 played a definite role in reducing its popularity. It suffer a loss of 7 per cent popular votes in the 1991
elections. It secured 17.8 per cent popular votes in 1989 and only 10.8 per cent in 1991. Election year bonanzas are
offered to the people by the party in power with a view to tap voters support and gamer votes. In the elections, the
current events like the Kargil victory or Bofors scam always influence the voting behaviour.
16. Election Campaigns:- Each party launches a vigorous election campaign for influencing the voters in its
favour. Use of such means as mass meetings, street meetings, personal contacts posters, poster war speeches by film
stars, T.V. and Radio broadcasts, newspaper advertisements, hand bills processions and propaganda is made to win
votes, particularly the floating votes. The Election campaign is designed to make a voter believe that his interest can
be best served by the party/the candidate of the voters. A party which is in a position to create an impression through
its election campaign that it has a chance to wm, can earn some additional votes as several voters try to side with the
side which they perceive to be the winning side.
17. Local Issues:- Local issues always influence the choice of the voters. A regional or a local party tries to
identify itself with local issues and thereby secures for itself popular local success of the Jhaikliand Mukti Morcha
in the Jharkhand region of Bihar is a classic example which highlights the role of local issues as a determinant of
voting behaviour. The spectacular success of the Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh in the 1999 Lok Sabha and
Andhra Vidhan Sabha elections was largely determined by its image as a local party identified with the local interests
of the State an having a good rapport with the Centre. All regional parties try to win elections on local issues. Even
contest the Lok Sabha elections, the projections are made for securing local goals through a role in politics.
18. Mass Media, Opinion Poll, Protest Movements, Agitations and Political Movements:- Like every
other democratic political system, the means of mass media and public movements and agitations always act as a
determinant of voting behaviour. In fact, all agencies of public opinion always act as determinants of voting behaviour.
19. Agenda for Development:- Recently a positive change has started coming in Indian politics. In their respective
election manifestoes, the political parties have been giving important place to a development agenda. All political
parties have faith in the principles of liberalisation, privatization and market economy and all of them accept the
objective of securing socialistic goals through democratic means. However, each tries to project its own development
agenda. At the time of 16th Lok Sabha elections, the BJP, particularly its priministrial candidate Narender Modi
demanded votes from the people in the name of securing rapid all round socio-economic growth, and sustainable
development. He promised that if voted to power, the BJP would pursue this objective as its first priority. Similar
agenda was also projected by the Congress. The Left Parties also promised to work for securing comprehensive and
rapid socio-economic development thorough a socialist agenda. The development agenda offered by etch political
104
party is hotly debated by the people, particularly their interest groups and Indian media. In fact, Development agenda
offered by each party acted as a major determinant of the voting behaviour of the people during the run up to the
election of the 16th Lok Sabha.
Other Factor: In addition to the above explained factors, there are also various other factors, which determine
the voting behavior of the Indian electorate. These are mentioned below:
(i) Political events preceding an election like war, murder of a leader, corruption, scandal etc.
(ii) Economic conditions at the time of election like inflation, food shortage, unemployment etc.
(iii) Age-old or young
(iv) Sex-men or women
(v) Education- education or uneducated
(vi) Habitation- rural or urban
(vii) Class (income)-rich or poor
(viii) Family and Kinship
(ix) Candidate orientation
(x) Election campaign
(xi) Political family background
12.7 Let us Sum Up
Thus the important determinants of Indian voting behaviour. The continuity in the operation of India's political
system as a developing democratic political system is gradually educating and training the Indian voters. The process
of emergence of an issue based political struggle in place of a caste or religion or personality dominated struggle for
power is very slowly but gradually taking shape, Indian voters have been gradually becoming more and more mature.
Democratic Politics always provides comprehensive opportunities for self education of the people.
12.8 Glossary:
● Monarchy: Monarchy Originally meant the 'rule of one' but the word has now come to be attached to the
constitution of Kingship, and queenship that is usually conceived as hereditary, though many posts which we
would consider as monarch.
● Separation of Power: The division of governmental functions and powers among different branches of
government, so that the various self-interests of each group would moderate those of others.
● USSR: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
12.9 Answer to Check you Progress Exercises
Note: Use the space given Below for your answers.
Check Your Progress-1
1. What is Political Participation?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
Check you Progress -2
2. Define voting Behaviour?
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................
12.10 Suggested Readings
● Tapan Biswal (ed.), Comparative Politics: Institutions and Processes (New Delhi: Trinity, 2015).
● O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan India Ltd.).
● Hari Hara Das, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: National Publishing House).
● J.C. Johari, Comparative Politics (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.).
● Parmatma Sharan, Comparative Government and Politics (New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan).
● Eddy Asirvathan and K.K. Misra, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
● Vidya Bhushan, Comparative Politics (New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors).
● A.C. Kapoor, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.).
105
 ● S.C. Singhal, Political Theory (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarawal).
● V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.)
● Sri Ram Maheshwari, Comparative Government and Politics (Agra: Lakshmi Narain Aggarwal, 1985).
● Manoj Kumar, Comparative Politics and Political Analysis (New Delhi: Anmol Publication, 2004).
● Ronald H. Chilcote, Theories of Comparative Politics: the Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered (West
view Press, 1994).
● Howard J. Wiarda, ‘Is Comparative Politics Dead? Rethinking the field in the Post cold War Era’
Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19 No.5.
● Comparative Politics: Political Science, Course-3, Lesson-4 (ICDEOL), PP. 18-35.
● Palekar, S.A., Comparative Politics and Government, Delhi: PHI Learning, 2009.
● Palombara, Joseph La and Weiner, Myron (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966.
● Ray, S.N., Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues, New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
● Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party System: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press, 1976.
12.11 Terminal Questions
1. Define Political Participation? Discuss Different forms of Political Participation and different kinds of
people based on it?
2. Write an essay an political participation in United States of America and United Kingdom.
3. What is meant by Voting Behaviour? Discuss the determinants of voting behavior in India?
4. What do you mean by voting Behaviour? Discuss the various determinants of voting Behaviour in USA?

*****

106
 ASSIGNMENTS
Political Science
M.A. 1st Semester (New Syllabus)
COMPARATIVE POLITICS : APPROACHES & PROCESSES
Course Code : POLS 102 Total Marks = 20 (4x5 = 20)

Note:- Attempt any four questions.

1. Discuss the meaning & scope of Comparative Politics?

2. Examine the system approach to the study of Comparative Politics?
3. What do you mean by Political system? Discuss its characteristics?
4. Write a note on characteristics of liberal Political system.
5. What do you mean by voting behaviour? Discuss the various determinants of voting behavior in
INDIA?
6. What do you understand by Pressure Groups? Also Discuss the various technique used by the pressure
group to achieve their objectives?

*****

107
108
M.A. Ist Semester Political Science Course Code - Pols-102
New Syllabus Paper-2

COMPARATIVE POLITICS:
APPROACHES & PROCESSES
Lesson 1-12

By : Dr. Yog Raj

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION

AND OPEN LEARNING HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY,
GYAN PATH, SUMMERHILL, SHIMLA-171005
 CONTENTS
Sr. No. Topic Page No.
Syllalbus 1
UNIT-I
Lesson-1 Meaning, Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics 2
Lesson-2 Comparative Method : Its Nature and Limitations 10
Lesson-3 Approaches to the study of Comparative Politics 16
UNIT-II
Lesson-4 Political System: Meaning and Typologies 31
Lesson-5 Democratic Political System 40
Lesson-6 Electoral System 44
Lesson-7 Non-Democratic Political System 53
UNIT-3
Lesson-8 Meaning, Nature and Functioning of Political Parties 60
Lesson-9 Political Parties in U.K. U.S.A. and India 68
Lesson-10 Pressure Groups 84
UNIT-4
Lesson-11 Political Participation 94
Lesson-12 Political Participation and Voting Bhaviour in UK, USA and India 100