Chairperson : Prof.

Madhurima Verma
Subject Co-ordinator : Prof. Emanual Nahar
Course Leader : Prof. Emanual Nahar

M.A. (Sem-III) Sub.: Political Science

Course X, Comparative Politics II
Understanding Developing Societies

Introductory Letter (i)

Syllabus (ii)

CONTENTS

L.No. Topics Writers/Editors Pages

Syllabus
Unit-I
1. Political Sociology approach Prof. lnderjeet Mann/Prof. S.K.Shukla 1

2. Political Economy approach Prof. lnderjeet Mann/Prof. S.K.Shukla 24

3. Alternative approaches Prof. lnderjeet Mann/Prof. S.K.Shukla 49

Unit-II
4. Colonialism Prof. lnderjeet Mann/Prof. S.K.Shukla 66
5. Impact of Colonialism on party Prof. lnderjeet Mann/Prof. S.K.Shukla 76
Economy & Culture.
6. Nationalism & Anti-colonial Movement Prof. lnderjeet Mann/Prof. S.K.Shukla 81

Unit-III
7. Civil Society Dr. Emanual Nahar/Prof. S.K Shukla 98
8. Ethnicity, Race and National Identities Dr. Emanual Nahar/Prof. S.K. Shukla 106
9. Globalisation and the Developing World Dr. Emanual Nahar/Prof. S.K Shukla 115
10. Constitutionalism, State Political Regimes Dr. Emanual Nahar/Prof. S.K. Shukla 125
 Unit-IV
11. Political Parties-I Dr. Emanual Nahar 136

12. Political Parties-II Dr. Emanual Nahar 147

13. Nature of the State in Developing World: Dr. Emanual Nahar 156
An Analysis of Hamza Alavi
14. Nature of the State in Developing World: Dr. Emanual Nahar 171
An Analysis of J.S. Saul and Colin Leys
15. Political Regimes: Military and Islamic Prof. Surinder .K. Shukla 192

Vetter : Prof. Emanual Nahar

E-Mail of Department : [email protected]

Contact No. of Department : 0172-2534332
 (i)

Introductory Letter

Dear Learners,
Welcome to the Semester Ill of M.A. Political Science. The objective of present paper
is to familiarize students with key issues like political sociology, political economy, various
approaches, nationalism and anti-colonial movement with special references to
developing societies. Through this paper you will be able to know and analyze role of
different social and economic factors in the liberation struggle of underdeveloped
societies and views of different thinkers on the post-colonial state. Department organizes
Personal Contact Progmnme for the students teachers interactions. For my queries you
are always welcome in the department during the working hours.
With best wishes,

Prof. Emanual Nahar

Department of Political Science (USOL)
Panjab University, Chandigarh
 (ii)
Course X : COMPARATIVE POLITICS (II) : UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPING SOCIETIES
(Compulsory)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PAPER-SETTER AND THE CANDIDATES:

(i) The theory question paper will be of 80 marks and 20 marks will be for internal assessment.
(ii) For private candidates, who have not been assessed earlier for internal assessment, the marks
secured by them in theory paper will proportionately be increased to maximum marks of the
paper in lieu of internal assessment.

The paper setter must put note (ii) in the question paper.

The syllabus has been divided into four units.

There shall be 9 questions in all. The first question is compulsory shall be short answer type
containing 15 short questions spread over the whole syllabus to be answered in about 25 to 30 words
each. The candidates are required to attempt any 10 short answer type questions carrying 20 marks i.e.
2 marks for each. Rest of the paper shall contain 4 units. Each unit shall have two questions, and the
candidates shall be given internal choice of attempting one question from each Unit-4 in all. Each
question will carry 15 marks.
Objectives : The objective of the course is to familiarize students with key issues and debates in
comparative politics with special reference to developing societies.

UNIT-I
Approaches to the politics of developing couniries:
Political Sociology.
Political Economy.
Alternative Approaches.
UNIT-Il
Colonialism and Its Impact: Politics, Economy and Culture.
Nationalism and Anti-colonial Movement.
UNIT-Ill
Civil Society: Ethnic, National and Regional identities.
Globailsation: Its impact on the Developing World.
UNIT-IV
State, Political regimes, constitutionalism.
Political Participation and Representation : Political parties, New Social Movements.
 (iii)
Readings :
Students are advised to see the relevant entries in the following reference books Seymour
Martin Lipset (ed. in chief). The Encylopaedia of Democracy, Volumes I, II and III, Routledge, London,
1995 : Vernon Bogdanor (ed.). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions, BIackwell, Oxford,
1987; Joel Krieger (ed. in chief). The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, OUP, Oxford,
1993; Tom Bottoanore (ed.). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought Blackwell, Oxford, 1983.
General Text Books
1. Alavi, H., The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh, New Left Review, No.
74, 1972.
2. Alavi, Humza and Teodor Shanin (eds.), Introduction to the Sociology of Developing Societies’,
Macmillan, London, 1982.
3. Allen, C. and G. Willams (eds.), Sociology of Developing Societies’, Sub-Saharan Africa,
Macmillan, London, 1982.
4. Amin, Samir, ‗Social Movements at the Periphery, in P. Wignaraja (ed.), New Social Movements
in the South, Zed, London, 1989.
5. Archetti, E. et. a!., Latin America, Macmillan, London, 1987.
6. Ayoade, J.A., ‗States Without Citizens : An Emerging African Phenomenon‘ in D. Rothchild and
N. Chazan (ed.). The Precious Balance: State and Society in Africa, Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado, 1988.
7. Bayart, J.F., ‗Civil Society in Africa‘ in Chabal, P. (ed.), Political Domination in Africa: Reflections
on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
8. Berger. M., ‗The End of the Third World‘, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1994.
9. Bratton, M., and Vander Walle, N., Towards Governance in Africa: Popular Demands and State
Responses‘ in G Hayden and M. Bratton (eds.), Governance and Politics in Africa, Boulder.
Colorado, 1991.
10. Callaghy, T., ‗Vision and Politics in the Transformation of the Global, Political Economy :
Lessons from the Second and the Third World‘s in R. Slater, Schutz, B. and Dorr, S. (eds.),
Global Thansformation and the Third World, L. Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, 1993..
11. Cammack, Paul, David Pool and William Tordoff, Third World Politics : A Comparative
Introductlon, John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 1993.
12. Chabal, P., Introduction : ‗Thinking About Politics in Africa‘, in Chablal, P. (eds.), Political
Domination in Africa : Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1986.
13. Chezan, N., ‗Between Liberalism and Statism African Political Cultures and Democracy‘ in
Diamond. Larry (ed.). Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, L. Rienner,
Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
14. Clapham, C., Third World Politics : An Introduction, Routledge, London, 1985.
15. Diamond, L., ‗The Globalisation of Democracy‘ in Slaper, R., Shutz, B., and Dorr, S. (ad.),
Global Transformation and the Third World, L. Rienner, Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
 (iv)
16. Diamond, L., ‗Introduction: Political Culture and Democracy‘, in L. Diamond (eds.), Political
Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries, L. Rienner, Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
17. Dixon, Chris and Michael J. Heffeman (eds.), Colonialism and Development in the
Contemporary World, Mansell, New York, 1991.
18. Eckstein, Harry and David, B. Apter, Comparative Politics : A Reader, The Free Press of
Glencoe, London, 1966.
19. Engles, D., and Shula Marks (eds.), Contesting Colonial Hegemony : State and Society in Africa
and lndia, British Academic Press, London (1994).
20. Eliott, Carolyn, Civil Society : A Reader, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003.
21. Fatton, R., Predatory Rule. State and Civil Society in Africa, L. Rienner, Boulder, Colorado,
1992.
22. Frank, A.G., Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, Penguin, Harinondsworth,
1971.
23. Garreton, M.A., ‗Political Democratisation in Latin America and the Crisis of Paradigms‘ in
Manor, J. (ed.), Rethinking Third World Politics, Longman, London, 1991.
24. Geddes, Barbara ‗Paradigms and Sand Castles in Comparative Politics of Developing Areas‘ in
Crony, William (ed.), Comparative Politics,’ Policy and International Relations, Northwestern
University Press, Evanston, 1991.
25. Hawthorn, G., ―Waiting for a Text?‖ Comparing Third World Politics in Manor, J. (ed.),
Rethinking Third World Politics, Longman, London, 1991.
26. Haynes, Jeff, Third World Politics, A Concise Introduction, Blackwell Oxford, 1996.
27. Huntington, S., Political Order in Changing Societies, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1968.
28. Huntington, S., The Third Wave, Democratisation in the Late Twentieth Century, University of
Oklohoma Press, Norman, 1991.
29. Jayaram, N., On Civil Society: Issues and Perspective, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2005.
30. Kamrava, M., Politics and Society in the Third World, Routledge, London, 1993.
31. Manor, James (ed.), Third World Politics, Longman, London, 1991.
32. Kaviraj, S., ‗On State, Society and Discourse in India‘ in Manor, J. (ed.) Rethinking Third World
Politics, Longman, London, 1991.
33. Luckham. R., ‗Introduction: The Military, The Developmental State and Social Forces in Asia
and the Pacific : Issues for Comparative Analysis‘ in Selochan, V. (ed.), The Military, The State,
and Development in Asia and Pacific, Westview, Boulder, 1991.
 Lesson-1

POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

Contents
1.0 Objectives

1.1 Introduction

1.2 David Easton‘s system approach and criticism

1.3 Gabriel A. Almond‘s structural functional approach and criticism

1.4 Summary

1.5 References

1.6 Further Readings

1.7 Model Questions

1.0 Objectives
This lesson deals with the Approaches of political sociology to understand the comparative
politics. After going through this lesson you should be able to:
 Know the overview of above said both approaches.
 Understand the Political Systems how they work.
 Learn about the structure and functions of the Political Systems.
 Analyze the role of Social system in respect to various Political Systems
Systems Approach:
1.1 Introduction
The political Sociology of Systems approach envisages the political system 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, 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 converter hold that the political system operates on the same principles as an automatic of
demands (viz., opening of education 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 feed back continues. Finally, some scholars have
viewed of political system as a kind of structure which performs particular kinds of functions which are
vital for the survival of the system.
1.2 David Easton’s Approach to Systems Analysis
David Easton was the first political scientist who systematically developed a framework on the
basis of the systems approach for the study of politics instead of merely adapting it from anthropology
and sociology. He selected the political system as the basic unit of analysis. He, however, concentrated
on the inter-system behaviour of various systems as principal areas of research. He put forward his
ideas in his work entitiled ―The Political System: An Enquire into the State of Political Science‖,
published in 1953. The concept was elaborately explained in two of his later books, namely, ―A
Framework for Political Analysis‖ and ―A Systems Analysis of Political Life‖ both published in 1965.
These works have been appreciated by leading writers on contemporary empirical political theory as
providing an original set of concepts at the level of theories and interpreting political phenomena in a
new and helpful way. Political scientists, before his studied only isolated political institutions or area.
That never led to useful study because the environments around were totally ignored. Easton found
political system the most suitable unit through which all the political processes and forces could be
analysed. He was primarily concerned with portraying the relationships between a system and the
environment in which it was located. He direct attention to the boundary between politics and other
aspects of social life and postulated the existence of a close relationship between system and
environment.
Easton‘s concept of political life is that of ―a system of behaviour embedded in an environment,
to the influences of which the political system itself is exposed and in turn reacts.‖ He claimed that his
system is a ―conceptual framework‖ through which in the fullness of time a theory may possibly‘ be
produced Easton‘s approach to system is specifically an attempt to describe political systems and the
manner in which they cope with stress, their persistence in the face of changing and stable
environments looked at from the point of view of authoritative value allocations. He believes that
political behaviour consists of interactions between the different parts of the system acting as members
of the system. According to Easton the system comprises any set of interactions that an investigator
finds interesting.
Easton has taken care to distinguish between a ‗concrete‘ system and ‗analytical‘ system. The
concrete system consists of individual members. The analytical system is mentally devised one by the
investigator and consists of interactions among the behvaiour of individuals. The analytical system
operates in an environment. It is an abstract concept which Easton describes as non-political
phenomena, which may be social or economic or cultural or biological or anything. It is something
which stands outside the political system. The boundary line between the two always remains thin and
a great deal of trespassing is inevitable between each other. It is against this backdrop that Easton
discusses the input-output analysis.
Definition of Political System
David Easton defines political system as ‗a set of interactions, abstracted from the totality of
social behaviour, through which values are authoritatively allocated for society‘. He further says ―it is
that system of interaction in any society through which binding and authoritative allocation of values are
made and implemented‖. Easton‘s definition highlights certain key aspects of a political system. In the
first place, political system is just one among other forms of social systems. Secondly, the political
system allocates by means of politics. Thirdly, its allocations are authoritative. Fourthly, its authoritative
allocations are binding on the society as a whole. Elaborating the meaning of the word ‗authoritative‘,
Easton points out, ―a policy is clearly authoritative when the feeling prevails that it must or ought to be
obeyed … that policies, whether formal or effective, are accepted as binding‖. Max Weber‘s definition of
political system is worth noting here when he says that ―Political system is a human community that
(successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory‖.
Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman point out the limitations of this definition. They say
that authoritativeness as defined by Easton does not differentiate political systems from churches,
business firms and the like. They want to turn Easton‘s concept of authority into ‗legitimate physical
compulsion‘ in order to make his definition more accurate.
Political System and Boundaries
The Political system is just one among other forms of social systems. It means that political
systems function within a certain boundary. It is this boundary which separates it from other systems.
But it is very difficult to determine its exact boundary. It is because political interactions are so
intermingled with other systems that are not easy to distinguish one from the other. This is, however,
not very difficult in the case of modernizing societies because in such societies there is a great
differentiation in role structures. A system does not exist in a vacuum. The boundary of a political
system is defined by all those actions, more or less directly related to the making of decisions for a
society which are binding.
Political System and Environment
The concept of boundary leads us to the conclusion that the political system lives in an
environment. This means that, outside the beyond the political systems, there are other systems of
environments – physical, social, economic, psychological sets that may be distinguished from each
other. The environment of a political system may be intra-societal as well as extra-societal. The intra-
societal forces of an environment have their place within the political system itself. But the extra-
societal forces operate outside it. The conflict between or among the rulers on adoption or rejection or
particular legislative or administrative measures may constitute the instances of intra-societal factors.
Both of them, however, have their impact on the decision making process. A political system always
remains subject to challenges from its environment. From the environment come both energy to
activate a system and information with regard to which the system uses this energy. Since a political
system lives in an environment, it is open to influences from environment. Easton regards all political
systems as open systems. He also treats the political system as adaptive. His primary emphasis is on
the nature of exchanges and transactions that take place between a political system and its
environment.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Define Political System.

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

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

2. Define feedback in Political System.

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

...................................................................................................................................................
Concept of Systemic Persistence
Easton is critical of the equilibrium analysis as employed by sociologists. He says that the
analysis neglects the variable capacity of systems to cope with environmental influences. He believes
that the system has the capacity for creative and constructive regulation of disturbances. Every system,
including political systems, continues to persist even in the face of the stresses. A system is not
necessarily defenseless in the face of disturbances to which it may be subjected. It means that the
political system will continue to exist or persist. Persistence of political system does not mean that there
will be no change of any kind whatever in it. Every political system undergoes changes. The degree of
change determines the persistence or failure of the system.
Easton is primarily concerned with the source of stress and modes or processes of regulating
stress. Here stress refers to challenges that disturb the normal functioning of the political system.
Stress may arise within the political system or at the environmental level. A political system receives
challenges as well as support from the society. It is expected to deal with the challenges in such a way
so as to maintain itself with the help of support it receives or can manipulate. The political system is a
complex cyclical operation. It has its own dynamism. It has a purpose of its own and tries to move
towards that. At every stage it may have to face problems of stress and maintenance. Some stresses
may be acute while others are minor. Pertaining to the impact of stress there are two main aspects to
be considered. In the first place, it is to be examined whether a political system can make authoritative
allocation of values. Secondly, whether it can get those decisions obeyed by all its members.
Easton believes that there is an extraordinary capacity inn the internal organization of the
political system to adjust to the conditions under which it functions. It has its own regulatory
mechanism. Easton talks of four types of regulatory mechanisms. These are explained below:
There is the phenomenon of gate-keeping at the boundary of the political system, designed to
regulate the flow of wants from entering the system and becoming articulated demands. Certain
demands can be kept out on one pretext or other – either that they are not the proper demands
to be made on the political system, that they are not put forward in a proper form, or that, if
accepted they would jeopardize the very existence of the political system and as such their
relationship would be self-defeating.
There are certain cultural mechanisms and socio-cultural norms, which establish influential
criteria of appropriation for the articulation of political demands. In other words certain demands
can be designated as against the norms of culture prevailing in a particular kind of society.
The political system can be develop a number of communication channels through which
demands may be forced to convert themselves into specific issues without which, they would
not be able to feed the conversion process of the political system in a proper way.
The political system, however, is not entirely left to its own regulatory mechanisms for
persistence. In order to strengthen itself the political system has to depend upon the support. The
authorities of the system should be capable of bringing changes in the system itself in order to
successfully face stresses. Easton makes a clear distinction between system maintenance and system
persistence. His method was directed towards the study of system persistence rather than to its
maintenance only.
Political Systems and Subsystems
The political system, apart from being a system in itself, consists of sub-systems. These sub-
systems include mediating groups that are involved in the decision-making process. There are several
internal political systems of groups and organizations. These Easton refers to as para-political systems.
He says that associations such as family can at best be called para-political systems. They are not all
comprehensive. The political system is the most inclusive system of behaviour in a society for the
authoritative value allocations. There are many other organizations. These Easton refers to as para-
political systems. He says the associations such as family can at best be called para-political systems.
They are not all comprehensive. The political system is the most inclusive system of behaviour in a
society for the authoritative value allocations. There are many other organisations and groups that play
their part in the political process without having the character of a political organisation. Easton,
however, concentrates his analysis on the ―Political system dealing with the political life in the most
inclusive unit, namely, the society‖. He believes that his methodology can be used to study the para-
political systems on one side and the international political system on the other.
EASTON’S MODEL
The general characteristics of the political system have been studied repeatedly in recent years.
In Eaton‘s analysis the various elements of the system are well ordered and the over-all process has
been clearly described. The political system can be conceived as analogous to an electronic computer
which processes and thereby transforms ‗inputs‘ into ‗outputs‘ while adjusting mechanisms, allowing for
a feedback from the ‗outputs‘ on the ‗inputs‘ mechanism.
THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

INPUT – OUTPUT ANALYSIS

The inputs are the pressures of all kinds which are exercised on the system David Easton, the
first political scientist to analyse politics in explicit system terms, distinguishes two types of inputs into
the political system: demands and supports. Demands and supports are received by the system from
the society.
DEMANDS
Easton defines demands ―as an expression of opinion that an authoritative allocation with
regard to particular subject-matter should or should not be made by those responsible for doing so‖.
Demands further mean that certain decisions made by the political system are expressed in every
society. Demands are thus the motive power for the working of a political system. The sources of these
demands may be traced to a wide range – from the general public to small group. In form they vary
from virtual commands to rather timid requests. Their means of expression range from voting to rioting.
In short, demands vary greatly in their sources, forms and means of expression. But they are all
indications of desires that certain decisions be made by the political decision makers. The people as
‗actors‘ make demands upon their political system that subserves their specific interest. A demand
implies a four-fold process of growth namely,
a. a mass of conscious but undifferentiated wants,
b. the articulation of recognizable demands
c. the formulation of specific issues and
d. the out stage of binding decisions
Along with the concept of demand there is the concept of over-load. This is due to either excess
quantity of demand or because the nature of demand is exacting though few in numbers. A political
system has its own way of reacting to these demands.
SUPPORT
The political system does not depend solely on its regulatory mechanism for persistence and
survival. In order to strengthen it, Easton prescribes the concept of support. No political system could
last long without the support of the society of which it is a part. This support can take many forms.
Simply accepting the decisions of the political system as being legitimate and obeying them is the most
common way of showing support. Legitimacy refers to the feeling or recognition by the public that the
decisions of the political system are legitimate and should be obeyed. Inputs of demands are not
enough to keep a political system operating. They are only raw materials out of which finished products
called decisions are manufactured.
A political system receives considerable support from the environment. Support is both overt
and covert. The overt supports are forms of actions which are clearly and manifestly supportive. The
covert supports are attitudes and sentiments towards the political system. Support may be for a specific
political object. It may also be an all-out support to:
(a) the political community,
(b) the regime or basic values (the political structures and norms) or
(c) the political authorities holding power at any given time.
The political systems can itself to the support stress by several ways. This includes the change
in representational system, party system and the like. Easton refers to the support stress that may be
due to output failure. Political support declines if the political system fails to deliver the goods. If a
substantial number of people are dissatisfied with the achievements of the political system for a
substantial length of time, this may result in with drawl of their support either partially or completely from
it. The political system, if it is basically sound, can face this challenge by mobilizing the greater support
of other people and maintain itself.
CONVERSION PROCESS
The manner and mechanism through which a political system converts inputs and responds to
the process in the environment is called the conversion process. It has been observed that the political
system does have more control over outputs than it has over inputs. The flow of decisions coming out
of the political system can to some extent be regulated channelised and organized by the operation of
the procedures which are imposed on the polity by governmental structures. The conversion
mechanism turns inputs into outputs after some process of selection, limitation or rearrangement. The
conversion process operate dynamically because the selection can take place over a period of time and
not merely among the input which are fed into the system at a given system for extraction of resources,
regulation and control over individuals and goods, distribution of resources and its capacity for
development.
OUTPUTS
The outputs of the political system consist of authoritative decisions. In the first place,
authoritative decisions are either application or interpretation of rules. Secondly, the authoritative
decisions affect the environment of the political system. The outputs are rules, regulations, actions,
laws and so on which are authoritative vis-à-vis the environment. Outputs may help to maintain support
for the political system. A political system maintains itself partly through its own regulatory mechanisms
and partly through the support which it can generate in the society. But the main test of its effectiveness
is to be attributed to what it does and actions of the authorities.
FEEDBACK
Easton sys the outputs of a political system are the authoritative decisions and actions of the
system‘s leaders that influence the allocation of values of it. These outputs ―not only help to influence
events in the broader society or which the system is apart, but also, in doing so they help to determine
each succeeding round of inputs that finds its way into the political system‖. This process is described
as a ‗feedback loop‘, and is an important type of response to support stress in a political system.
Outputs, flowing through the feedback loop, are, from the point of view of the system, primarily a means
of generating specific support. The feedback is a dynamic process through which information about the
performance of the system is communicated back to it. This affects the subsequent behaviour of the
system. Information is essential to the authorities who take decisions for the system. This is conducive
for the persistence of the system. Through feedback loop the system may take advantage of adjusting
its future behaviour.
Without information feedback, about what is happening in the system, the authorities would
have to operate in the dark. Easton says that the feedback loop has a number of parts worthy of
detailed investigation. It consists of production of outputs by the authorities, a response by the
members of the society to these outputs, the communication of information about the response to the
authorities and possible succeeding actions by the authorities. This is a crystal process. This has been
described as a ‗flow points – they feedback into the system, which in turn shapes the subsequent
behaviour. The feedback thus has a profound influence on the capacity of the system to persist and to
cope up with the stress.
Contribution of Easton
David Easton applied the concept of systems analysis in the field of political science. He was
the first political scientist to have introduced the system model for the analysis of politics. Talcott
Parsons applied the systems analysis in the field of sociology. Easton applied this concept of systems
analysis with the same vigour. That is why David Easton is often described as the Talcott Parsons of
political science. Easton has immensely contributed to the methodology of political analysis.
In the first place he goes beyond the equilibrium approach and takes not of the change and
dynamics in the system. The concepts like disturbance, stress regulation, purposive direction etc. are
helpful for political analysis.
Secondly, his methodology is advantageous in the field of comparative political analysis. It
provides a properly standardized set of concepts and categories which makes it easier to bring broad
and comparative overviews of the entire political system.
 Thirdly, he makes a comprehensive attempt to lay the foundation for systems analysis in
political science, which provides a general functional theory of politics. Easton‘s systems analysis in
political science provides a very neat conceptual framework.
Fourthly, he believes in a unified theory of politics which explains the behaviour of both national
and international political systems and brings out their comparison.
Fifthly, in his work the various elements of the system are well ordered and the overall process
has been clearly described.
Sixthly, Easton is concerned with the issue of survival or persistence of the political system.
Seventhly, his purpose was to study political systems both from theoretical and applied
perspectives.
Finally, the input-output analysis presents a properly standardized set of concepts and
categories that have the advantage of being logically conclusive.
Criticism
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 connected 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 advantages by political scientists in their own
analysis of political phenomena
Structural Functional Approach:
The structural functional approach in political science developed in the second decade of the
past 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.
Basic Assumptions:
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 a part. 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 institutions 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 systems (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 a 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.
General Overview:
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 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
analyzing 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 for the adaptation
or adjustment of a given system, ‗dys-functions‘ are those observed consequences which lessen the
adoption 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 unrecognized. But 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 emphasized 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 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 mobilization 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 but also pointed out the ways in which political
processes contribute to performance of all the functions.
After Mitchell, Apter gave a new direction to the structural functional approach. He made a study
of the political system in systematic terms and gave the classification and analysis of types of
government. He also tried to bring about a workable reconciliation between the normative and empirical
dimensions of political theory. He paid special attention to the study of the political system of the third
world countries. He tried to study the political system in three respects – nature and purpose of the
government, types and models of the government, and functions of the government.
As regards the nature and purpose of the government, Apter insists it is the business of a
political scientist to see conditions under which a government can maintain itself during the period of
transition, without causing loss to its legitimacy. With regard to the models of government, he suggests
that the modernizing governments should be placed in the category of pre-democratic rather than anti-
democratic category. Apter holds that all political systems are characterized by a number of functions.
He says all political systems must act as (i) the loci of sanctions in a society (ii) provides 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:
a. Every political system has its structures-some more specialized and other less specialized
which perform more specialized functions and less specialized which perform more specialized
functions and less specialized functions respectively.
b. Despite the differences between the system and its structures, same political functions are
performed by all the political systems.
c. Political functions which can be designated as ‗multifunctional‘.
d. All political systems being part of the society have a culture of their own which is a mixture of
the traditional and modern.
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 socialization 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 hold that the input functions are performed by
non-governmental sub-system 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.
1.2 Gabriel A. Almond’s structural functional approach
The most outstanding contribution to structural functional analysis comes from Gabriel A.
Almond. He gives a comprehensive analysis of structural functionalism. In the book, jointly edited by
him and James S. Coleman entitled ‗The Politics of Developing Areas‘ in 1950, he gives a detailed
analysis of his approach. He gives four common characteristics of all political systems on the basis of
which they may be compared with one another.
First, all political systems, including the simplest ones have political structure. In a sense it is
correct to say that even the simplest societies have all the types of political structures which are to be
found in the most complex ones. They may be compared with one another according to the degree and
form of structural specialization.
Secondly, the same functions are performed in all political systems, even though these
functions may be performed with different frequencies and different kinds of structures. Comparisons
may be made according to frequency of the performance of the functions, the kinds of structures
performing of the performance of the functions, the kinds of structures performing them and the style of
their performance.
Thirdly, all political structures, no matter how specialized, whether found in primitive or in
modern societies, are multi-functional. Political systems may be compared according to the degree of
specificity of functions in the structure. But even highly specialized structures involves substantial multi-
functionality.
Fourthly, all political systems are mixed systems in the cultural sense.
There are no ‗all modern‘ cultures and structures, in the sense of rationality and no ‗all-primitive‘
ones, in the sense of traditionality. They differ in the relative dominance of the one as against the other,
and in the pattern of mixture of the two components.
Almond suggests a classification scheme of structures that is based upon the following basic
dimensions of the political system namely,
the degree of differentiation;
the extent to which the system is ‗manifest‘ or ‗visible‘,
the stability of the functions of various roles, and
the distribution of power.
In applying structural-functional analysis Almond holds that political systems can be compared
and ranked in terms of the manner in which the functions are performed. He identifies two types of
functions of a political system. They are (i) Input functions and (ii) Output functions.
INPUT FUNCTIONS
The ‗input functions‘ are activities associated with the formation and transmission of demands
and supports. Almond identifies the following four input functions of a political system.
Political Socialization and Recruitment
Political socialization is the learning process by which people acquire political beliefs, values
and attitudes. It is the process by which individuals come to share a common ‗orientation‘ towards
politics – a political system. All political systems tend to perpetuate their cultures through the process of
socialization at different stages of human development. This is a process of induction into political
culture. While comparing the political socialization function in different political systems, it becomes
necessary, to examine the structures which are involved in the function and style of socialization. This
function creates a distinct loyalty and membership on the part of the individual in the general political
system. Political socialization is a process by which citizens become aware of the political system, its
traditions and institutions. Successful political socialization is a basic pre-requisite for the effective
functioning of the polity. In the Western political system such as the United States, family, church, peer
group, community, school, voluntary associations, media of communication, political parties and other
governmental institutions all share the functions of political socialization.
The political recruitment function begins where the general political socialization function ends.
It recruits members of the society out of the religious communities, classes, ethnic communities and the
like. They are inducted into specialized roles of the political system and trained in the appropriate skills.
Interest Articulation
Every political system has some way of articulating interest, claims and demands for political
action. This function is closely related to political socialization function and the patterns of political
culture produced by it. The interest articulation function involves the formulation of demands and their
transmission from society at large to political system. This function is performed by a number of
structures. The following main structures are involved in interest articulation:
Institutional interest groups;
Non-associational interest groups;
Anomic interest groups and
Associational interest groups.
The particular structures which perform this function and the style of their performance
determine the character of boundary between polity and society.
Interest Aggregation
The aggregation of interest may be accomplished by means of formulation of general policies in
which interests are combined, accommodated or otherwise taken account of. This is also done by
means of the recruitment of political personnel, more or less committed to a particular pattern of
society. The functions of articulation and aggregation overlap, as also happens in case of aggregation,
recruitment and rule-making. In the authoritarian and the primitive political systems the three functions
of articulation, aggregation and rule making may not be easily differentiated. In modern Western
systems, however, there are partitions in the process and separate structures and sub-systems with
definite boundaries take a distinct part. Aggregative functions may be performed within all of the sub-
systems of the political system. They all perform the aggregative function either by formulating
alternative public policies or by supporting and advocating changes in political personnel. Aggregative
functions are performed by legislative bodies, political executives, bureaucracies, media of
communication, party systems, interest groups and the like. In modern democratic political systems
political parties play a prominent role in this regard and provide durable links between the elites and the
masses.
Political Communication
All the functions like political socialization and recruitment, interest articulation, and interest
aggregation are performed in the political system by means of communication. The agents of political
socialization perform their functions through communication. The leaders of interest groups and political
parties communicate demands and recommendations. The legislators enact laws on the basis of
information communicated to them and by communicating with one another and with other elements of
the political system. The bureaucrats receive and analyse information from society in performing their
functions. Thus, to analyse the functioning of the political system it is necessary to examine the
communication function. The political communication function is the crucial boundary – maintenance
function, as all political functions are performed by means of communication. Autonomy, in the media of
communication, makes possible a free flow of information from society of polity and inside the polity
from one political structure to another political structure. It also facilitates the feedback from output to
input again. The performance of the communication function in different political systems may be
compared according to the structures performing it. A comparison can be made between Western and
non-Western political models in four respects, namely,
The homogeneity of political information;
The mobility of information;
The volume of information; and
The direction of the flow of information.
Output Functions
Almond makes a three-fold classification of governmental output functions. The output functions
are activities associated with policy-making and implementation. The three authoritative governmental
functions, such as rule making, rule application and rule adjudication, are the old functions of
‗separation of powers‘, except that an effort is being made to free them of their structural overtones –
rule-making rather than ‗legislative‘, rule application rather than ‗administration‘ etc. These three
functions have been deliberately underplayed by Almond. This is because he feels that it would not
carry us very far in our efforts for precise comparison of the performance of the political systems.
Rule making
Almond refers to rule-making rather than ‗legislation‘ for the simple reason that the term
‗legislation‘ seems to connote some specialized structure and explicit process. In many political
systems the rule-making function is a diffused process which is difficult too specify. Rule-making
processes are present in some form or other in all political systems. Rules must be made in certain
ways and by specific institutions and with certain kinds of limitations. The problem of identifying the
rule-making structures in political systems in one of specifying the whole set of agencies and
institutions involved in the process, determining the kind of things they do, the way they do them, and
how they performed by a group of elected officials. They meet in formal sessions to register their
preferences by voting. To fulfil their rule-making functions politicians must make conscious choices
between alternatives, primarily in the legislative arena.
Rule-Application
Once made, rules must be put into effect. Any problem in their application must be brought to
surface and resolved. The presence of differentiated and well-developed structures for rule application
greatly expands the capacity of a political system to manipulate its environment. As a political system
expands in size, or faces an increasingly complex environment or a wide range of tasks, there is the
pressure to develop specialized rule-application structures. The rule-application structures found both in
primitive and modern political systems do not operate with the same style and level of effectiveness.
They may differ in complexity, in hierarchical structure, in degree of autonomy, and in impartiality of rule
enforcement. The bureaucracies in most modern systems are the structures responsible for the
application. They have come to play an almost dominant role in this regard. They not only enforce
legislation but also create new rules under its power of delegated legislation. The bureaucrats also feed
the communication media with their pronouncements on state policies.
Rule-Adjudication
The primary rules of the political system impose authoritative restraints or obligations on
individuals. The performance of the rule-adjudication function involves this process of authoritative
decisions as to whether or not a rule has been transgressed in a given case. It therefore, involves
invariably the resolution of conflict. Generally speaking, in modern Western societies, it is common to
associate this function with the courts. From the perspective of the political system as a whole, a
specialized adjudicative structure provides a means of resolving the conflict within the system. This
ensures that no pressure is put on rule-making authorities to make new laws or to enable them to
intimately engage themselves in the administration of old ones. In modern western systems, a norm of
impartiality has grown around the performance of the adjudicative function.
Almond’s view on Political System
Almond starts his study of the various political systems with an attempt at defining what a
political system means. He examines the definition given by Max Weber, namely that a political system
‗is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force
within a given territory‘. He rejects this as inadequate. Almond also examines the definitions given by
Marion Levy, Jr., H.D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan and remarks that they are too wide and
suggestive. He examines the definition of David Easton wherein he finds its three components namely,
Allocation of values (by means of policies),
Authoritative allocations, and
Authoritative allocations as binding on the society as whole.
He was satisfied with this definition. But points out that the difficulty in this definition is that of
‗authoritativeness‘ as defined by Easton. He seeks to sharpen Easton‘s definition by turning his
conception of authority into ‗Legitimate political compulsion‘. He thinks that by modifying Easton‘s
definition he has successfully widened the definition of political system given by Max Weber. He then
defines political system as ‗that system of interactions to be found in all independent societies which
perform the functions of integration and adaptation (both internally and vis-a-vis other societies) by
means of the employment, or threat of employment, of more or less legitimate physical compulsion‘.
Three things emerge from Almond‘s definition of the political system:
that a political system is a concrete whole influencing, and in turn influenced by the environments,
interactions take place not between individuals but between roles adapted by them, and
the political system is an open system engaged in a continuous communication with entities and
systems beyond its own boundaries.
SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS IN ALMOND’S MODEL
Almond brings modifications in his structural-functional analysis as a result of criticism of his
approach in 1966, in the book entitled ‗Comparative Politics – A development Approach‘, jointly written
by himself and G.B. Powell Jr. wherein he explains his new approach. He agrees with criticism that in
his analysis the emphasis on equilibrium, or harmony of parts has a static or a conservative bias. He,
therefore, treats the political system as one of interdependence and not one of harmony. Regarding
classification of functions his approach has also been criticised. He lays emphasis in his new approach
on the functions of the political system from three points of view. The first of these is the conversion
function of interest articulation, interest aggregation, political communication, rule-making, rule-
application and rule-adjudication. The second consideration is the operation of political system as an
‗individual‘ in its environment. He refers to this aspect of the functioning of political system as its
capabilities. Finally, he speaks of system maintenance and adaptation functions – political recruitment
and political socialization. These functions are to be taken into account when a comparison between
political systems is being made. By ‗capabilities‘ Almond means the way the political system performs
as a unit in its environment. He lists four categories of capabilities, namely,
Extractive,
Regulative
Distributive, and
Responsive.
The ‗Conversion‘ processes or function are the ways systems transform inputs into outputs.
Obviously, the capabilities and the conversion process of a system are related. The conversion
processes of one political system may be analysed and compared with those of other systems
according to a six-fold functional scheme, namely.
demands are formulated (interest articulation);
demands are combined in the form of alternative courses of action (interest aggregation);
authoritative rules are formulated (rule-making);
these rules are applied and enforced (rule-application);
These application of rules are adjudicated in individual cases (rule-adjudication) and
These various activities are communicated both within the political systems, and between the
political system and its environment (communication).
Finally he speaks of ‗system maintenance and adaptation‘ functions.
Advantages of Structural-Functional Approach
The structural-functional analysis is useful for several reasons.
Firstly, according to David Apter it reduces the risk of ethnocentrism. It delineates change in
systematic terms and forces the observer to examine meanings on the basis of function. It points out
the core problems facing systems. It provides an orderly way of examining large number of cases in
order to develop comparative theories.
Secondly, it is quite attractive for comparative analysis of political systems. It deals for the most
part with a manageable collection of variables, and it provides a set of standardized categories that can
be applied successfully and varied political systems.
Thirdly, the greatest strength of this approach lies in the area of pattern maintenance of the
system.
Fourthly, Almond‘s seven function analysis of the political system is considered to be one of the
most significant contributions to modern political theory. It provides a new tool for comparing political
systems. This analysis though in a way related to the separation of powers theory, is a qualitatively
superior and more refined version with universal application.
Fifthly, as regards the Marxian attack on this approach, it would suffice to mention that conflicts
within the system are not limited to two classes only. Almond‘s analysis provides conflict resolution
mechanism along with continuous reaction of the system as a whole to the demands made on it. The
approach is, therefore, dynamic and not static as is characterized by some social scientists.
Sixthly, this approach has been accepted as one of the most important techniques of empirical
investigation in modern political science.
Finally, like systems analysis, structural-functionalism is a wide-ranging analysis which does knit
together insights into interest, socialization and group analysis into a relatively coherent body of ideas.
Criticism of the Structural functional Approach.
Though the structural functional approach proved very popular, it suffers from serious
shortcomings. Some of the important defects of this approach are enumerated below:
Firstly, the structural functional approach is primarily applied to static relationship and aims at
systems maintenance. In other words it is alleged that this approach is anti-change. It is primarily
concerned with the present and has no perspective of the future.
Secondly, it is alleged that this approach is not helpful in understanding the political systems of
the developing countries. It is indeed difficult to understand how the principles of empirical investigation
devised in sophisticated societies of the west can be applied to the Afro-Asian countries. As Edward
Shills has said that the basic problem of the ―new states‖ is that they do not form a single civil society:
they are scarcely able thus far to produce a polity that can supply the personnel necessary to run a
modern society. They lack the affirmative attitude towards rules, persons and actions that is necessary
for consensus‖. Thus approach is not helpful is analyzing the problems of religion, castle, poverty,
linguism etc. which pervade the countries of the third world.
Thirdly, the structural-functional approach is wrong in so far as it tries to explain the origins of a
condition of pattern of action in terms of its being a functional necessity for the survival of the system. It
leads to an unwarranted twisting and distorting of empirical realities in the interests of conceptual and
theoretical neatness.
Despite the above defects of the structural functional approach, it cannot be denied that it has
helped in dealing with most parts of the manageable collection of variables; and provided a set of
standardized categories that can be applied successfully over widely disparate political systems.
1.4 Summary
Through his systems analysis, David Easton made a significant contribution to the study of
Political Science. Earlier, political scientists studied only isolated political institutions or areas, but the
credit goes to Easton for selecting the political system as the basic unit of analysis. Easton provided a
set of original concepts at the level of theory and the interpretation of political phenomena in a manner
that was unique for the understanding of the political process. Easton analysed all the political
processes and forces with due emphasis on the environment and its relationship with the political
system. He analyses the political systems and the manner in which they cope with stress. He also
carefully examines the persistence adopted by political systems in the face of changing and stable
environments through a process of authoritative value allocations. Easton is conscious that despite
persistence of a system, a political system has to under go changes. A political system‘s success
depends on its capacity to adapt to the necessary changes. In this context, Easton analyses the
sources of stress and the modes or the processes of regulating it. While a political system is confronted
with several challenges, it also receives support from the society. The success of a political system
depend on effectively dealing with the challenges in such a way as to maintain itself with the help of
support it receives or can manipulate.Besides, the structural functional approach in political science
developed in the second decade of the past century. This approach started in Mathematics by Leibriz
found its way into Political Science through Sociology and Anthropology. Under the structural-functional
approach the state or government are not treated as units, rather the political system is treated as a
unit and an effort is made to find out the centre of authoritative decisions. Accordingly this approach is
helpful in making a systematic study of the functions performed by the political system and their mutual
relations. In short, this approach seeks to make a study of the political systems and institutions and
tries to impart knowledge about the similarities and dissimilarities of the various systems. The most
outstanding contribution to structural functional analysis comes from Gabriel A. Almond. He gives a
comprehensive analysis of structural functionalism. In the book, jointly edited by him and James S.
Coleman entitled ‗The Politics of Developing Areas‘ in 1950, he gives a detailed analysis of his
approach. He gives four common characteristics of all political systems on the basis of which they may
be compared with one another.
INSTITUTIONALISM
As a discipline, political science has always been able to legitimately claim that the study of two things,
power and institutions, have been at the core of its concerns and contribution. Institutions are important,
because, as entities, they form such a large part of the political landscape, and because modern
governance largely occurs in and through institutions. Institutions also matter because they (or at least
actors within them) typically wield power and mobilise institutional resources in political struggles and
governance relationships. Institutions are also said to matter because they are seen as shaping and
constraining political behaviour and decision making and even the perceptions and powers of political
actors in a wide range of ways. Hence, in institutional terms, students of politics have analysed party
systems, the rules of electoral competition, government bureaucracies, parliaments, constitutions, the
judicial system, as well as large institutional complexes made up of the government and the gamut of
public institutions we call the ‗state‘. There have also been extensive studies of supra-national
institutional complexes such as the United Nations, the European Union and other international
institutional regimes that help regulate economic relations, the environment or international trade (eg
the World Trade Organisation). There have also been studies of ‗non-state‘ institutions such as
business corporations and trade unions.
So, broadly speaking, institutions are important because they shape or influence the behaviour, power
and policy preferences of political actors. The emphasis here on shaping and influencing implies that
institutional dynamics, whilst often important, do not explain everything. The preferences and resources
of political actors might be drawn from a number of sources. Also, institutionalism is a ‗middle-range‘
theory because institutions can be thought of as standing above actors but below wider ‗structural‘
forces in politics. These broader structural factors include, for example, the impact of class forces or the
impact of the domestic or international economy on politics. This raises the question of where to draw
the boundaries of institutional factors; particularly since it is clear that macro-level structures, such as
class relations, also clearly impact on behaviour. Ultimately, the distinctions here are analytical in
nature. It is useful to distinguish between institutional and wider structural factors, particularly since the
former often play an important role in shaping and mediating the impact of the latter. For example, class
forces are important in all capitalist societies, but the actual impact of such forces will be mediated by
the institutional make up of the state, by the nature of trade union organisation or by the dynamics of
party competition. Another example is that the impact that international economic pressures have on
national policy will be affected by a country‘s economic structure and also by the institutional capacities
and make-up of the state. In this respect Tsokhas (1995) tells an interesting story about how the impact
of British financiers in shaping policy responses to the 1930s Depression in Australia was limited by our
federal division of powers between State and federal governments.
In the post-World War II era, a second major school in political science developed (especially in the
United States). This rejected or at least watered down the focus on institutions and argued instead that
political behaviour and the sources of political power were derived primarily through informal
relationships within and beyond the institutions of government. In particular, attention shifted somewhat
away from the state and the formal organisations of government towards a more ‗society centred‘
focus, with an emphasis on the socially embedded nature of pressure group politics, individual political
behaviour and informal distributions of power. It was argued that the best way of explaining behaviour
was not through reading the rule book but through the direct observation of behaviour itself
New Institutionalism
So pervasive has the impact of institutionalism been that each of the social science disciplines now has
its own ‗new institutionalism‘ (Lowndes 1996; Koelble 1995). In economics, there have been a range of
arguments about how and why institutions matter (Hodgson 1988). For example, scholars have argued
that institutions can play an important role in reducing transaction costs and various associated forms of
market uncertainty and information costs and also in helping to monitor and enforce contracts and
agreements. Thus, economic institutions, such as the firm, are created to organise a process of pulling
back from the open market to ‗internalise‘ certain forms of transactions to help cope with such problems
(North 1990, Williams 1985, Zald 1989). In sociology, emphasis is put on the way in which institutional
life establishes normative orientations, conventions and taken-for-granted practices that shape and
influence behaviour, often in subtle ways (DiMaggio and Powell 1991). And in political science, as we
saw above, there has been renewed interest in how institutional arrangements shape the behaviour,
power and preferences of actors in politics.
Applications
Institutionalism has a wide range of applications in political analysis and public policy. In this section
we briefly review how institutional analysis has been applied to studies of policy networks and state
capacity. Mention is also made of the institutional foundations of ‗varieties of capitalism‘ and we also
look briefly at some of the practical public policy applications of institutionalism.
First, policy networks A policy network can be defined as a structured pattern of interaction between
the key actors in a given public policy arena, be it health policy, economic policy or whatever. Typically,
the key actors in question are state actors (politicians, key bureaucrats) and non-state actors (business
leaders, 9 unionists, interest group leaders etc.) who bargain and wield power and resources in
patterns of policy contest and compromise. As such, a policy network - as a structured pattern of
interaction between policy actors - is not an institution but a set of behaviours between actors. For our
purposes, the critical thing about a policy network is that such interactions and behaviour are strongly
influenced by institutional factors. These factors typically involve the nature of the state in a given policy
arena and the institutional and organisational capacities of the major non-state actors or organisations
in question.
Second, state capacity The concept of state capacity simply refers to the ability of a state to achieve
its own goals. Institutional factors play a major role in defining and underpinning state capacity.
The ability of a political leader to carry out a policy is critically determined by the authoritative
institutional resources and arrangements existing within a given political system.
Beyond this, the ability of state leaders and policy makers to understand the needs of and to forge
positive, collaborative and change-oriented relations with key groups or sectors (‗state embeddedness‘)
is also thought to be an important institutional relationship supporting state capacity. This capacity for
positive state society collaboration, or what Weiss (1998) terms ‗governed interdependence‘, in turn
depends on the organisational and associative capacity and outlook of major social or economic
groupings and interest associations. Primarily, then, the relevance of the state capacity concept is that
it underlines the fact that the resources and capacities of political leaders will be heavily shaped by the
particular types of institutional environments in which they operate.
Conclusion
It is argued that institutions matter in political life and it has tried to explain how and why this is so.
Institutions can be defined as sets of rules, codes or tacit understandings which shape behaviour.
Whether they determine behaviour is another matter. As we saw above, rational choice approaches to
institutionalist explanation run perilously close to this. For this reason it is best instead to carefully
explore the interaction between institutions and the ‗situated subjects‘ within them. The emphasis
should be on actors as the primary unit of analysis and how they interpret and make choices within their
institutional environment. It is these interpretive processes which have been the focus of the research
mentioned above on how ideas and discourse interact with institutional settings. Reference was made
above to the fact that the old institutionalism was somewhat theoretically anaemic. This cannot be said
of new institutionalism. Instead of description or normative evaluation, the focus of new institutionalism
is more oriented towards explanation and explicit theory building. The approach forces us to reconsider
central theoretical issues, such as the agency/structure debate. There is also the related issue of how
institutions interact with wider structural forces in politics and the economy, and, as just noted,
explorations of the links between the institutional and ideational realms are underway. These linkages
underline the fact that institutional accounts of politics, whilst often being of critical importance, can only
ever be one (middle range) dimension of more fully rounded explanatory accounts in political analysis.
POLITICAL CULTURE APPROACH
―Political culture is a part of the more general phenomenon of culture, for which there are
several definitions in the social sciences, focussing upon different phenomena mind behaviour or
artefacts. For sociologist and anthropologists culture embraces all that constitutes ‗ways of life‘. An
inclusive conception of culture as ways of life tends to be too broad, as it is difficult to say that certain
social phenomena do not constitute a way of life. What counts is the variety of cultural
and their political consequences. Political scientists tend to focus more upon culture as attitudes or
belief systems towards politics, policy and polity. Furthermore ―the basic belief and value patterns of a
culture - those general values that have no reference to specific political objects - usually play a major
role in the structuring of political culture.
But what exactly is the essence or substance of political culture concerning political scientists? ―Political
culture does not refer to the formal or informal structures of political interaction: to governments,
political parties, pressure groups or cliques. Nor it refers to the pattern of interaction among political
actors -who speaks to whom, who influences whom, who votes to whom. As we use the term political
culture it refers to the system of beliefs about patterns of political interaction and political institutions.
It refers not to what is happening in the world of politics but what people believe about those
happenings. All these beliefs can be of several kinds: they can be empirical beliefs about what the
actual state of political life is, they can be beliefs as to the goals or values that ought to
be pursued in political life and these beliefs may have an important expressive or emotional dimension.
If we take as example the political battle about the marriage between homosexuals political scientists
will study the different values between liberalists vs traditionalists about the issue.
Political culture approach has been very popular for conducting comparative studies and making
empirical analyses of transitional societies. Scholars have liked to investigate political behaviour and
processes in the context of their political cultures. Almond, Verba and Pye have been its pioneers.
Borrowing concepts from Sociology and Anthropology, Almond has developed a methodology for
comparative studies of political cultures. He believes that all political cultures can be comparatively
studied on that basis. For Almond, political system is a system of roles which can be empirically
observed and understood scientifically. He studied, besides legal-institutions, family relations, mass-
behaviour, electoral system, power, influence and the like.
Political culture has been used a conceptual umbrella that wraps around values, perceptions and
beliefs, dealing with every political phenomena. Political culture emerged out of the need, emphasized
especially by Almond, to deepening and broadening the scope of political explanation. The goal of
political culture was to explain the diversity among and continuity within states (Lane 1992). The origins
of the modern political and cultural analysis can be related to the Political Culture and Political
Development (Pye and Verba 1965). Political culture has also adopted a psychologist or individualist
approach, an example is The Civic Culture by Almond and Verba (1963).
Ronald Inglehart is one of the major contributors to the political culture approach. Inglehart tries to
operationalize culture through levels of what he calls ―civic culture.‖ Civic culture refers to a coherent
syndrome of personal life satisfaction, political satisfaction, interpersonal trust, and support for existing
social order. In his The Renaissance of Political Culture, Inglehart hypothesized that societies that
ranked high on this syndrome are much likelier to be stable democracies than those that ranked low.
He also argues that publics of different societies are characterized by durable cultural orientations that
have major political and economic consequences which are closely linked to the viability of democracy
(Inglehart 1988). He finds that ―wealthier nations and those with highly developed tertiary sectors are
most likely to be long-established democracies, and the public of these societies tend to show ‗civic‘
political culture, have less materialist values priorities‖ (1226).
Political culture approach has been very popular for conducting comparative studies and making
empirical analyses of transitional societies. Scholars have liked to investigate political behaviour and
processes in the context of their political cultures. Almond, Verba and Pye have been its pioneers.
Borrowing concepts from Sociology and Anthropology, Almond has developed a methodology for
comparative studies of political cultures.

He believes that all political cultures can be comparatively studied on that basis. For Almond, political
system is a system of roles which can be empirically observed and understood scientifically. He
studied, besides legal-institutions, family relations, mass-behaviour, electoral system, power, influence
and the like.
The basis of his classification and analysis of the political systems is their structures and cultures. Both
are related to each other. Political culture of a society is deeply influenced by its structures, and vice
versa. For explaining relationship between them he picked up orientation of roles and political actions.
All political activity reflects attempts made to attain maturity. Attitudes, feelings and preferences are
their indicators. To him, political system is an interactive set of roles or is a structure of roles. In some
societies, degree of differentiation of role is more, while it is less in others.
The boundaries within which a political system operates to attain its goals and purposes make space of
its culture. He discovered three models of political systems, which reflect attitudes of individuals
towards political activity. They are like Weberian ideal-types. He measures political culture of a society
on the basis of its orientation towards political action and political structures. Orientation of an individual
involves cognitive understanding of political objects, events, acts and disputes; his emotional
attachment; and methods and rules of evaluation.
An individual‘s objective knowledge usually stands on under-mentioned four grounds:
1. Understanding of the whole system;
2. Input processes which are connected with transforming structures like political parties,
bureaucracy etc.;
3. Output processes include acts of executive offices, judiciary, bureaucracy etc.; and
4. Self which involves matters of personality, such as, rights, powers, possessions and obligations.
One can know political culture on the basis of these grounds.
There is close relation between political culture and political system. Political culture is the basis of
survival of all old and modern political systems. A political community, even without having ‗state‘, can
exist as a polity or political system. Whatever be the form of a political system – developing or
developed, it does possess some form or pattern of political culture. Stateless political systems like the
United Nations Organisation (UN), many international and regional organisations, are more or less,
operating on the basis of some form of political culture.
Observing important and role of political culture for a political system, many scholars at advanced stage
of theoretical sophistication, are trying to move ahead from political culture ‗approach‘ to political culture
‗theory‘. However, their attempts are being severely criticised. It has been observed that political culture
is a new name for an old existing concept. Hardly there is consensus on its variables, indicators and
methods of study and measurement.
One can know a lot about the political culture of a political system on the basis of his own insight or
intuition. Political culture continues to grow, turn complex and appear more and more subtle. When it is
said that political culture is the directing and determining element or force of political structures, and is
also an outcome of cultural values, the whole argument looks circular. In fact, political culture approach
is a by-product of modernisation and development theories. It is not certain whether they regard it
independent variable or dependent variable, e.g., cause or effect. As such, the whole perspective
happens to become conservative, static and anachronistic.
When looked from this view, ‗civic culture‘ of Almond and Verba suffers, centring on the political
cultures of USA or Great Britain, from bias and prejudice. Arendt Lipzart has pointed out that
prevalence of homogeneous values is not an essential element of political cultures of Germany and
Italy. He found institutional participation of the elites much more relevant. He calls them as
‗consociational democracy‘.
Pateman too does not accept cause-effect relations between stability of a democracy and its political
culture. D. Kavanagh finds the role of sub-political cultures as more important. In the past, Almond and
Powell had also tried to rescue themselves from this plight by resorting to the concept of
‗secularization‘. Thus, no final conclusion comes out.
The political culture approach, like the other approaches, faces conceptual problems. Scholars within
have not reached a compromise in defining ―culture.‖ In Political Culture and Political Preferences,
David Latin criticizes Wildvsky for his definition of culture. Wildavsky defines culture as ―shared values
legitimating social practices‖ (Latin 1988:499). Latin argues that by focusing only on shared values,
Wildavsky misses the point that people with strongly opposed views can share a culture and people
with strongly similar views may come from different cultures. Latin proposes that we should see culture
as not as values that are upheld but rather as ―point of concern‖ (idea presented initially by Thomas
Metzger). Latin argues that to share a culture means to share a religion, language, or history. As one
can assume, if the difficulties in reaching a common definition of culture are great, its operationalization
is even greater.
The political culture approach been applied to explain levels of democracy and postmaterialism
attitudes. Edward Muller and Mitchell Seligson develop a model that allows them to make inferences
about the possibility of unidirectional or reciprocal causation between civic culture attitudes and
democracy. They find that most civic culture attitudes do not have any impact on changes in levels of
democracy. Their findings contrast with the assumptions made by Almond and Verba (1963) and later
Inglehart, as discussed earlier, that the viability of democratic institutions is affected by individual
attitudes and beliefs. Raymond Duch and Michaell Taylor in their Postmaterialism and the Economic
Condition test the notion that early economic experiences have a lasting effect on postmaterialism
values as proposed by Inglehart. And their findings suggest that education and economic conditions at
the time of the survey are much more relevant explanations for variations in the postmaterialist
measure.
Some of the weaknesses of this approach are: (a) the conceptualization and operationalization, as
discussed earlier; (b) the inability to draw a distinction between subcultures and the overall political
culture; (c) the inability to bridge the inferences made on the individual level to the state or system level.
In my opinion the greatest strength of this approach is its potential to correct the rational choice theory
conceptual flaw of not being able to indentify the range of human goals. Marc Howard Ross is an
advocate of the political culture approach and he points out to two features of culture relevant to
comparative politics (Lichbach and Zuckerman 1997). First, people use culture to define meaning;
second culture is the foundation of social and political identity which affects individual behavior.
1.5 References
1) https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9699/Institutionalism.pdf
2) http://pol523.blogspot.in/2009/03/ approaches-to-study-of comparative. html
3) http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/ articles/ approaches-to- political-culture-theory/618

1.6 Further Readings

(1) Alavi, Hamza and Teodor Shanin (eds.). Introductin to the Sociology of 'Developing
Societies', Macmillan, London 1982.
(2) Amin, Samir, 'Social Movements at the Periphery' in P Wignaraja (ed.), New Social
Movements in the South, Zed, London, 1983.
(3) Archetti, E. et al., Latin America, Macmillan, London, 1987.
(4) Ayoade, J.A.,‘ States Without CitizenL An Emerging African Phenomenon‘ in D.
Rothchild and N. Chazan (ed.) The Precious, P. (ed.) Political Domination in Africa :
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1988.
(5) Bayarrt, J.F. ‗Civil Society in Africa‘ in Chabal, P. (ed)., Political Domination in Africa :
Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(6) Berger, M., ‗The End of the Third World‘, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1994.
(7) Bratton, M., and Van der Walle, N., ‗Towards Govermance in Africa : Popular Demands
and State Responses‘ in G. Hayden and M. Bratton (eds), Govermance and Polticals in
Africa, Boulder, Colorado, 1991.
 (8) Callaghy, T., ‗Vision and Politics in the Transformation of the Global, Political Economy :
Lessons from the Third World, L. Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, (eds), Global
Transformation and the Third World L. Reinner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
(9) Chbal, P., Introduction : ‗Thinking About Politics in Africa‘ , in Chabal, O. (eds), Political
Domination in Africa : Reflections : Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(10) Guaba. O.P 2002 Comparative Politics. New Delhi. Mayur Publicatons.

1.7 Model Questions

1. Critically examine the David Easton‘s System Approach.
2. Discuss the Structural Functional Approach and its various defects.
3. Define political sociology approach are its major assumptions.

---S---
 Lesson- 2

POLITICAL ECONOMY APPROACH

Contents

2.0 Objectives

2.1 Introduction

2.2 The Liberal Political Economy Approach

2.3 The Marxist Political Economy Approach

2.4 Criticism of The Marxist Political Economy Approach

2.5 Summary

2.6 References

2.7 Further Readings

2.8 Model Questions

2.0 Objectives
This approach to the study of comparative politics is the one way of looking at relationship
between politics and economics. After reading this chapter you will be able to
 Understand various attributes of political economy as a concept
 Learn how the approach has become relevant for the study of comparative politics
 Know the interpretations of liberal Political thinkers regarding Political Economy approach
2.1 Introduction
Political economy approach refers to a specific way of understanding social, political
phenomena whereby economics and politics are not seen as separate domains. This Approach
provides an economic interpretation of politics. It seeks to study the social relations that evolve between
people in the process of Production, distribution, exchange and consumption. This approach assumes
that the political systems are merely expressions of the economic requirements of the society and
social groups and the changes in the economic systems automatically lead to changes in the political
system. This approach can be sub-divided into two parts viz., Liberal Political Economy approach and
the Marxian Political economy approach.
2.2 The Liberal Political Economy Approach
The Liberal political economy approach is mainly associated with the names of political thinkers
like Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, James Mil, J.S. Mill, McCulloch etc. These writers held that the civil
society passed through the stages of hunting, pastrolism, agriculture and commerce which naturally left
its impact on the prevailing political system. The growth of commerce in particular has greatly
contributed to the growth of liberty of making accumulation of wealth possible in liquid form which in
turn has enabled the merchants to act independent and prevented political tyranny. Adam Smith
favoured that the individuals should be left free to pursue their self-interest unhindered by outside
interference. While pursuing their self-interests the individuals shall automatically promote the interests
of the society as a whole. The Liberal Political economy approach however suffers from several
drawbacks. In concepts to study capitalist reproduction, which is historically not correct, natural form of
production which changes only qualitatively. They failed to appreciate that economic categories
expressed the relations of social production. Thirdly, the adherents of this approach failed to investigate
why a product of labour assumes a form of commodity. Fourthly, this appropriated from the viewpoint of
labour theory of value.
2.3 The Marxist Political Economy Approach
The Marxian Political Economy approach holds that the economics forms the base of society
and political system. Accordingly the followers of this approach to the society is divided into classes and
the state is the representative of the dominant class. No wonder it tries to maintain and regulate the
social relations in such a way that existing system is not disturbed. As the nature and the working of the
state is greatly influenced by a variety of social, cultural economic and political forces, the true nature of
the state cannot be understood without acquiring an insight into their political history and dynamics of
the mode or production, capitalist of socialist.
The Marxist Political Economy Approach suffers from several shortcomings. In the first place, it
wrongly attributes all the misfortunes to the capitalist system and asserts that these misfortunes would
automatically come to an end with the disappearance of the capitalist system. In other words it
represents the conflict purely in terms of class struggle, which is wrong. The main cause of conflict in
society is the opposition between the claims of the individual and society. Secondly, the approach is
defective in so far it makes only macro level study of the political system. Thirdly, it attaches more
importance to the motives rather than the methods. Despite these shortcomings it cannot be denied
that the approach provides ―guidance in asking and answering questions concerning virtually every
phase of political life. It is an all embracing and all pervasive system of thought.‖
Though different modern approaches suffer from various defects, they have certainly
contributed to the growth of systematic and scientific study of political science.
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 modern approaches in several
important respects, 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 interacting and are extremely hard to disentangle
one from the other.‖
The significance of the Marxian approach is traceable in the fact that its utilisation 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
realization 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 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 after
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, Lenn 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 a 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 Third world like Zaire, Zimbabwe and Kampuchea 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 environments 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 Khrushchev: ―The communists fully support such just wars and march in
the front rank with people‘s waging liberation struggles.‖
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 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 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 socialization and acculturation, political development and
modernization etc.), the role of economics in the creation of inputs can not 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.
2.4 Criticism
Marxist approach is not an absolute approach rather it is partial study. 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.‘ The Marxist approach, while gives importance to the
economic factors and issues pertaining to developing countries it has its own weaknesses. First of all
its belief that state is controlled only by economically dominant class and is an instrument in their hands
has not stood the test of time. Many Marxists themselves now view state to be relatively autonomous,
partially removed from the immediate control of capital and its vested interests. This alone can explain
the persistence of important structural variations between different national formations. The state can
not be simply conceived as a servant of capital. Particularly in developing societies state plays a major
role in directing and regulating economic development. A second problem with the Marxist approach is
that it does not take many minor but significant aspects into account. Because of that it remains unable
to provide theoretical sophistication. In fact comparison has not been an important aspect of Marxist
approach.
Self Assessment Exercises
1. Define Political economy.
.........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................
What is Dependency?
.........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................

2.5 Summary
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.‖
MODERNIZATION THEORY
Modernization theory is a theory used to explain the process of modernization that a nation goes
through as it transitions from a traditional society to a modern one. The theory has not been attributed
to any one person; instead, its development has been linked to American social scientists in the 1950s.
Modernization theorists study the social, political, and cultural consequences of economic growth and
the conditions that are important for industrialization and economic growth to occur. In
general, modernization theorists are concerned with economic growth within societies as indicated, for
example, by measures of gross national product. Mechanization or industrialization is ingredients in the
process of economic growth. Also, modernization theories of development do not necessarily bear any
relationship to more recent philosophical concepts of ―modernity‖ and ―post-modernity.‖ Modernity in
philosophical and epistemological discussions refers to the perspective that there is one true
descriptive and explanatory model that reflects the actual world. Post-modernity is the stance that no
single true description and explanation of reality exists but rather that knowledge, ideology, and science
itself are based on subjective understandings of an entirely relational nature. While their philosophical
underpinnings place most modernization theories of development into the ‖modern‖ rather than the
‖postmodern‖ context, these separate uses of the term modernity should not be confused. Development
(like industrialization) implies economic growth, but not necessarily through transformation from the
predominance of primary production to manufacturing, and not necessarily as characterized by
modernization theory. For example, while modernization theorists may define development mainly in
terms of economic output per capita, other theorists may be more concerned about development of
autonomous productive capacity, equitable distribution of wealth, or meeting basic human needs.
The basic assumption of this theory, in any of its versions, is that there is one general process of which
democratization is but the final stage. Modernization consists of a gradual differentiation and
specialization of social structures that culminates in a separation of political structures from other
structures and makes democracy possible. The specific causal chains consist of sequences of
industrialization, urbanization, education, communication, mobilization, and political incorporation,
among innumerable others: a progressive accumulation of social changes that ready a society to
proceed to its culmination, democratization.
History and Orientation
Historically, modernization is the process of change towards those types of social, economic, and
political systems that have developed in Western Europe and North America from the seventeenth
century to the nineteenth and have then spread to other European countries and in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries to the South American, Asian, and African continents‖. Modernization means the
appearance of ‗modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the
seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their
influence‘. Another early influence on modernization theory was Weber‘s work on the Protestant
ethic. This work stressed the influence of cultural values on the entrepreneurial behavior of individuals
and the rise of capitalism. Contemporary theorists in the Weberian tradition include Lerner, McClelland,
Inkeles, and Rostow. Lerner‘s (1958) empirical studies in several Middle Eastern societies identified
empathy, the capacity to take the perspective of others, as a product of media, literacy, and
urbanization and as a vital ingredient in producing rational individual behavior conducive to societal
development. McClelland (1961) felt that prevalence of individuals with the psychological trait of high
‖need for achievement‖ was the key to entrepreneurial activity and modernization of society. In a similar
vein, Inkeles and Smith (1974) used interview data from six societies to generate a set of personality
traits by which they defined ―modern man.‖ They felt that the prevalence of individual modernity in
society was determined by such factors as education and factory experience and that individual
modernity contributed to the modernization of society. Finally, Rostow‘s (1960) well-known theory of the
stages of economic growth, which he derived from studying Western economic development,
emphasized the importance of new values and ideas favoring economic progress along with education,
entrepreneurship, and certain other institutions as conditions for societies to ‖take off‘ into self-
sustained economic growth.
The theory of modernization normally consists of three parts: (1) identification of types of societies, and
explanation of how those designated as modernized or relatively modernized differ from others; (2)
specification of how societies become modernized, comparing factors that are more or less conducive
to transformation; and (3) generalizations about how the parts of a modernized society fit together,
involving comparisons of stages of modernization and types of modernized societies with clarity about
prospects for further modernization. Actually, reasoning about all of these issues predated postwar
theory. From the Industrial Revolution, there were recurrent arguments that a different type of society
had been created, that other societies were either to be left permanently behind or to find a way to
achieve a similar transformation, and that not all modernizing societies had equal success in sustaining
the process due to differences in economic, political, and other institutions. In the middle of the 1950s,
these themes acquired new social science and political casting with the claim of increased rigor in
analysis.
In the early post–World War II era, approximately twenty societies were regarded as highly modernized
and roughly another ten to twenty were depicted as having passed a threshold on the path to
modernization. Definitions of modernized varied. Some noted structural features, such as levels of
education, urbanization, use of inanimate sources of energy, and fertility. Others pointed to attitudes,
such as secularization, achievement orientation, functional specificity in formal organizations, and
acceptance of equality in relationships. Conscious of the ethnocentric nature of many earlier
explanations for growth in national power and income, social scientists in the 1950s and 1960s
generally omitted cultural traits associated closely with Western history from definitions of modernity.
Yet, given the rhetoric of the Cold War and a preoccupation with democracy in U.S. national identity,
political institutions became a central factor in many definitions.
Core Assumptions and Statements
Modernization theory has evolved in three waves. The first wave appeared in the 1950s and 1960s.
One made the attempt to explain the diffusion of Western styles of living, technological innovations and
individualist types of communication (highly selective, addressing only particular persons) as the
superiority of secular, materialist, Western, individualist culture and of individual motivation and
achievement. The sociological concept of modernization does not refer simply to becoming current or
‖up to date‖ but rather specifies particular contents and processes of societal changes in the course of
national development.
This first wave of theory produced three variants. There are many different versions of modernization
theory. This lesson will discuss the opposing views of the Marxist and capitalist versions, a Western
version, and a present-day version of modernization theory.
1. Economic development: mass media promote the global diffusion of many technical and social
innovations that are essential to modernization (Rogers, 1962).
2. Literacy and cultural development: mass media can teach literacy and other essential skills and
techniques. They encourage a ‗state of mind‘ favorable to modernity, e.g. the imagination of an
alternative way of life beyond the traditional way.
3. National identity development: mass media could support national identities in new nations
(colonies) and support attention to democratic policies (elections).
Most of these theories have been discredited because of their pro-Western bias.
The second wave of modernization theory is a part of the critical theory that was popular in the 1970s
and 1980s. It does not support but criticize the influence of Western modernization. This is held to be a
case of Western cultural and economic imperialism or dominance. Since the 1960s, many critiques of
modernization theory and the emergence of competing theories of development have eroded support
for modernization theory. Foremost among these are dependency, world systems, and neo-Marxist
theories, all of which criticize the ethnocentricity of the modernization concept and the bias in favor of
dominant capitalist interests. The focus of these theories is on explaining the contemporary
underdevelopment of Third World countries or regions of the world in terms of colonization, imperialist
interference, and neo-colonial exploitation of developing countries since their gaining of independence.
In these counter-perspectives, both development and underdevelopment are viewed as part of the
same process by which certain ‖center‖ countries or regions become economically advanced and
powerful at the expense of other ‖periphery‖ areas. Rather than explaining development and
underdevelopment by the presence or absence of certain internal institutions or personalities, these
alternative theories argue that both result from unequal exchange relations and coalitions of interests
associated with the structural position of societies in the global economy. Rather than interpreting
underdeveloped societies as traditional or archaic, both underdeveloped and developed societies are
contemporary but asymmetrically linked parts of capitalist expansion. Both are relatively ―modern‖
phenomena.
The third wave of modernization theory rising in the 1990s is the theory of late-high- or post modernity.
It tries to be more neutral, being not in favor or against Western modernization. Rather it attempts to
unearth the contradictions in the modernization process and to explain the consequences of modernity
for individuals in contemporary society. Traditional society is based on direct interaction between
people living close to each other. Modern societies stretch further and further across space and time
using mass media and interactive media. Disembedding mechanisms such as money, symbolic means,
English as the lingua franca and the Internet help to lift out and activities in an abstract or online form
that were once embedded in particular material goods and in places.
Because modernisation theories have viewed the total transformation, that is westernisation, of
developing countries to be an inescapable outcome of successful diffusion of the Western
economic/technological complex, by methodological reversal it is argued that a reorganization of
existing social and cultural as well as political patterns in anticipation of their compatibility with the
diffused Western economic/technological complex may in fact facilitate the very process of this diffusion
itself. This monumental theoretical error—which to be fair was not always committed by the theorists
themselves—has in fact been made and continues to be made by modernisation policy-makers such as
those employed by Western government, U.N. organizations, the World Bank, and so forth. Thus,
various indicators of social, political, and cultural development (such as degree of urbanization, high
literacy rates, political democracy, free enterprise, secularization, birth control, etc.) have frequently
been promoted as ‖conditions‖ for development.
Interestingly, as modern structures and institutions have spread around the world and created
economic, political, social, and cultural linkages, an awareness of global interdependence and of the
ecological consequences of industrial development and modern lifestyles has grown. It is now clear that
finite natural resources and the nature of the global ecosystem could not sustain worldwide modern
conditions and practices of European and North American societies even if modernization theory
assumptions of evolutionary national development were correct. Thus, new visions and interpretations
of national and global development have already begun to replace classical modernization theory.
Disagreements about what modernization theory is and what has been learned from comparisons
bedevil discussions between users and critics. Those who applied the theory often failed to be specific
or to supply supporting explanations to establish it as a powerful set of generalizations in the forefront
of cross-disciplinary social science analysis, while critics usually neglected to define the theory
precisely or to make an effort to balance its merits against alleged shortcomings. Although the theory
exerted a huge impact on the disciplines of history, political science, and sociology, and on thinking
about capitalism versus socialism, East Asia versus Western advanced capitalist countries, and more
versus less developed countries, to many its legacy remains confusing, as does its connection to recent
globalization theory. Even in the twenty-first century, there is little agreement on what modernization
theory is and how it has advanced social science analysis.
Marxist and capitalist version of modernization
The Marxist theory of modernization theorized that as nations developed, adopting a communist
approach to governing, such as eradicating private property, would end conflict, exploitation, and
inequality. Economic development and social change would lead developing nations to develop into a
society much like that of the Soviet Union.
The capitalist version of modernization theorized that as nations developed, economic development
and social change would lead to democracy. Many modernization theorists of the time, such as W. W.
Rostow, argued that when societies transitioned from traditional societies to modern societies they
would follow a similar path. They further theorized that each developing country could be placed into a
category or stage of development. Rostow's stages of development are:
o Traditional - an agricultural based society
o Pre-conditions for Take-off - characterized by an abundance of entrepreneurial activity
o Take-off - a period of rapid economic growth
o Maturation - economic development slows to a more consistent rate
o Mass production or mass consumption - a period in which real income increases
Other modernization theorists, such as Samuel Huntington, argued that social mobilization and
economic development were driving forces behind modernization. Increased social mobilization meant
that individuals and societal groups changed their aspirations. Increased economic development meant
the capabilities of the newly modern society would change. Huntington argued that these societal
changes would inevitably lead to democratization.
Although the Marxist and capitalist versions of modernization held opposing views, both views held that
in order for developing countries to modernize the countries needed assistance in economic
development and social change.
Communism was deteriorating by the 1970s and democratization had failed to occur in many nations
struggling to develop. Many critics declared the Marxist and capitalist versions of modernization were
void.
DEPENDENCY THEORY – POLITICAL ECONOMY
Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped
states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. Dependency
Theory developed in the late 1950s under the guidance of the Director of the United Nations Economic
Commission for Latin America, Raul Prebisch. Prebisch and his colleagues were troubled by the fact
that economic growth in the advanced industrialized countries did not necessarily lead to growth in the
poorer countries. Indeed, their studies suggested that economic activity in the richer countries often led
to serious economic problems in the poorer countries. Such a possibility was not predicted by
neoclassical theory, which had assumed that economic growth was beneficial to all (Pareto optimal)
even if the benefits were not always equally shared.
Prebisch's initial explanation for the phenomenon was very straightforward: poor countries exported
primary commodities to the rich countries who then manufactured products out of those commodities
and sold them back to the poorer countries. The "Value Added" by manufacturing a usable product
always cost more than the primary products used to create those products. Therefore, poorer countries
would never be earning enough from their export earnings to pay for their imports.
Prebisch's solution was similarly straightforward: poorer countries should embark on programs of
import substitution so that they need not purchase the manufactured products from the richer countries.
The poorer countries would still sell their primary products on the world market, but their foreign
exchange reserves would not be used to purchase their manufactures from abroad.
Three issues made this policy difficult to follow. The first is that the internal markets of the poorer
countries were not large enough to support the economies of scale used by the richer countries to keep
their prices low. The second issue concerned the political will of the poorer countries as to whether a
transformation from being primary products producers was possible or desirable. The final issue
revolved around the extent to which the poorer countries actually had control of their primary products,
particularly in the area of selling those products abroad. These obstacles to the import substitution
policy led others to think a little more creatively and historically at the relationship between rich and
poor countries.
At this point dependency theory was viewed as a possible way of explaining the persistent poverty of
the poorer countries. The traditional neoclassical approach said virtually nothing on this question except
to assert that the poorer countries were late in coming to solid economic practices and that as soon as
they learned the techniques of modern economics, then the poverty would begin to subside. However,
Marxists theorists viewed the persistent poverty as a consequence of capitalist exploitation. And a new
body of thought, called the world systems approach, argued that the poverty was a direct consequence
of the evolution of the international political economy into a fairly rigid division of labor which favored
the rich and penalized the poor.
How Can One Define Dependency Theory?
The debates among the liberal reformers (Prebisch), the Marxists (Andre Gunder Frank), and the world
systems theorists (Wallerstein) was vigorous and intellectually quite challenging. There are still points
of serious disagreements among the various strains of dependency theorists and it is a mistake to think
that there is only one unified theory of dependency. Nonetheless, there are some core propositions
which seem to underlie the analyses of most dependency theorists.

Dependency can be defined as an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of the
external influences--political, economic, and cultural--on national development policies. Theotonio Dos
Santos emphasizes the historical dimension of the dependency relationships in his definition:
[Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such
that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the
subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned
by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected.
There are three common features to these definitions which most dependency theorists share. First,
dependency characterizes the international system as comprised of two sets of states, variously
described as dominant/dependent, center/periphery or metropolitan/satellite. The dominant states are
the advanced industiral nations in the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). The dependent states are those states of Latin America, Asia, and Africa which have low per
capita GNPs and which rely heavily on the export of a single commodity for foreign exchange earnings.
Second, both definitions have in common the assumption that external forces are of singular
importance to the economic activities within the dependent states. These external forces include
multinational corporations, international commodity markets, foreign assistance, communications, and
any other means by which the advanced industrialized countries can represent their economic interests
abroad.
Third, the definitions of dependency all indicate that the relations between dominant and dependent
states are dynamic because the interactions between the two sets of states tend to not only reinforce
but also intensify the unequal patterns. Moreover, dependency is a very deep-seated historical process,
rooted in the internationalization of capitalism. Dependency is an ongoing process: Latin America is
today, and has been since the sixteenth century, part of an international system dominated by the now-
developed nations.... Latin underdevelopment is the outcome of a particular series of relationships to
the international system.
In short, dependency theory attempts to explain the present underdeveloped state of many nations in
the world by examining the patterns of interactions among nations and by arguing that inequality among
nations is an intrinsic part of those interactions.
The Structural Context of Dependency: Is it Capitalism or is it Power?
Most dependency theorists regard international capitalism as the motive force behind dependency
relationships. Andre Gunder Frank, one of the earliest dependency theorists, is quite clear on this point:
...historical research demonstrates that contemporary underdevelopment is in large part the historical
product of past and continuing economic and other relations between the satellite underdeveloped and
the now developed metropolitan countries. Furthermore, these relations are an essential part of the
capitalist system on a world scale as a whole.
According to this view, the capitalist system has enforced a rigid international division of labor which is
responsible for the underdevelopment of many areas of the world. The dependent states supply cheap
minerals, agricultural commodities, and cheap labor, and also serve as the repositories of surplus
capital, obsolescent technologies, and manufactured goods. These functions orient the economies of
the dependent states toward the outside: money, goods, and services do flow into dependent states but
the allocation of these resources are determined by the economic interests of the dominant states, and
not by the economic interests of the dependent state. This division of labor is ultimately the explanation
for poverty and there is little question but that capitalism regards the division of labor as a necessary
condition for the efficient allocation of resources. The most explicit manifestation of this characteristic is
in the doctrine of comparative advantage.
Moreover, to a large extent the dependency models rest upon the assumption that economic and
political power are heavily concentrated and centralized in the industrialized countries, an assumption
shared with Marxist theories of imperialism. If this assumption is valid, then any distinction between
economic and political power is spurious: governments will take whatever steps are necessary to
protect private economic interests, such as those held by multinational corporations.
Not all dependency theorists, however, are Marxist and one should clearly distinguish between
dependency and a theory of imperialism. The Marxist theory of imperialism explains dominant
state expansionwhile the dependency theory explains underdevelopment. Stated another way, Marxist
theories explain the reasons why imperialism occurs, while dependency theories explain the
consequences of imperialism. The difference is significant. In many respects, imperialism is, for a
Marxist, part of the process by which the world is transformed and is therefore a process which
accelerates the communist revolution. Marx spoke approvingly of British colonialism in India: England
has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating--the annihilation of old
Asiatic society, and the laying of the material foundations of Western society in Asia.
For the dependency theorists, underdevelopment is a wholly negative condition which offers no
possibility of sustained and autonomous economic activity in a dependent state.
Additionally, the Marxist theory of imperialism is self-liquidating, while the dependent relationship is self-
perpetuating. The end of imperialism in the Leninist framework comes about as the dominant powers
go to war over a rapidly shrinking number of exploitable opportunities. World War I was, for Lenin, the
classic proof of this proposition. After the war was over, Britain and France took over the former
German colonies. A dependency theorist rejects this proposition. A dependent relationship exists
irrespective of the specific identity of the dominant state. That the dominant states may fight over the
disposition of dependent territories is not in and of itself a pertinent bit of information (except that
periods of fighting among dominant states afford opportunities for the dependent states to break their
dependent relationships). To a dependency theorist, the central characteristic of the global economy is
the persistence of poverty throughout the entire modern period in virtually the same areas of the world,
regardless of what state was in control.
Finally, there are some dependency theorists who do not identify capitalism as the motor force behind a
dependent relationship. The relationship is maintained by a system of power first and it does not seem
as if power is only supported by capitalism. For example, the relationship between the former
dependent states in the socialist bloc (the Eastern European states and Cuba, for example) closely
paralleled the relationships between poor states and the advanced capitalist states. The possibility that
dependency is more closely linked to disparities of power rather than to the particular characteristics of
a given economic system is intriguing and consistent with the more traditional analyses of international
relations, such as realism.
The Central Propositions of Dependency Theory
There are a number of propositions, all of which are contestable, which form the core of dependency
theory. These propositions include:
1. Underdevelopment is a condition fundamentally different from undevelopment. The latter term simply
refers to a condition in which resources are not being used. For example, the European colonists
viewed the North American continent as an undeveloped area: the land was not actively cultivated on a
scale consistent with its potential. Underdevelopment refers to a situation in which resources are being
actively used, but used in a way which benefits dominant states and not the poorer states in which the
resources are found.
2. The distinction between underdevelopment and undevelopment places the poorer countries of the
world is a profoundly different historical context. These countries are not "behind" or "catching up" to
the richer countries of the world. They are not poor because they lagged behind the scientific
transformations or the Enlightenment values of the European states. They are poor because they were
coercively integrated into the European economic system only as producers of raw materials or to
serve as repositories of cheap labor, and were denied the opportunity to market their resources in any
way that competed with dominant states.
3. Dependency theory suggests that alternative uses of resources are preferable to the resource usage
patterns imposed by dominant states. There is no clear definition of what these preferred patterns might
be, but some criteria are invoked. For example, one of the dominant state practices most often
criticized by dependency theorists is export agriculture. The criticism is that many poor economies
experience rather high rates of malnutrition even though they produce great amounts of food for export.
Many dependency theorists would argue that those agricultural lands should be used for domestic food
production in order to reduce the rates of malnutrition.
4. The preceding proposition can be amplified: dependency theorists rely upon a belief that there exists
a clear "national" economic interest which can and should be articulated for each country. In this
respect, dependency theory actually shares a similar theoretical concern with realism. What
distinguishes the dependency perspective is that its proponents believe that this national interest can
only be satisfied by addressing the needs of the poor within a society, rather than through the
satisfaction of corporate or governmental needs. Trying to determine what is "best" for the poor is a
difficult analytical problem over the long run. Dependency theorists have not yet articulated an
operational definition of the national economic interest.
5. The diversion of resources over time (and one must remember that dependent relationships have
persisted since the European expansion beginning in the fifteenth century) is maintained not only by the
power of dominant states, but also through the power of elites in the dependent states. Dependency
theorists argue that these elites maintain a dependent relationship because their own private interests
coincide with the interests of the dominant states. These elites are typically trained in the dominant
states and share similar values and culture with the elites in dominant states. Thus, in a very real
sense, a dependency relationship is a "voluntary" relationship. One need not argue that the elites in a
dependent state are consciously betraying the interests of their poor; the elites sincerely believe that
the key to economic development lies in following the prescriptions of liberal economic doctrine.
The Policy Implications of Dependency Analysis
If one accepts the analysis of dependency theory, then the questions of how poor economies develop
become quite different from the traditional questions concerning comparative advantage, capital
accumulation, and import/export strategies. Some of the most important new issues include:
1. The success of the advanced industrial economies does not serve as a model for the currently
developing economies. When economic development became a focused area of study, the
analytical strategy (and ideological preference) was quite clear: all nations need to emulate the
patterns used by the rich countries. Indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s there was a paradigmatic
consensus that growth strategies were universally applicable, a consensus best articulated by
Walt Rostow in his book, The Stages of Economic Growth. Dependency theory suggests that
the success of the richer countries was a highly contingent and specific episode in global
economic history, one dominated by the highly exploitative colonial relationships of the
European powers. A repeat of those relationships is not now highly likely for the poor countries
of the world.
2. Dependency theory repudiates the central distributive mechanism of the neoclassical model,
what is usually called "trickle-down" economics. The neoclassical model of economic growth
pays relatively little attention to the question of distribution of wealth. Its primary concern is on
efficient production and assumes that the market will allocate the rewards of efficient production
in a rational and unbiased manner. This assumption may be valid for a well-integrated,
economically fluid economy where people can quickly adjust to economic changes and where
consumption patterns are not distorted by non-economic forces such as racial, ethnic, or gender
bias. These conditions are not pervasive in the developing economies, and dependency
theorists argue that economic activity is not easily disseminated in poor economies. For these
structural reasons, dependency theorists argue that the market alone is not a sufficient
distributive mechanism.
3. Since the market only rewards productivity, dependency theorists discount aggregate measures
of economic growth such as the GDP or trade indices. Dependency theorists do not deny that
economic activity occurs within a dependent state. They do make a very important distinction,
however, between economic growth and economic development. For example, there is a
greater concern within the dependency framework for whether the economic activity is actually
benefitting the nation as a whole. Therefore, far greater attention is paid to indices such as life
expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, education, and the like. Dependency theorists clearly
emphasize social indicators far more than economic indicators.
4. Dependent states, therefore, should attempt to pursue policies of self-reliance. Contrary to the
neo-classical models endorsed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, greater
integration into the global economy is not necessarily a good choice for poor countries. Often
this policy perspective is viewed as an endorsement of a policy of autarky, and there have been
some experiments with such a policy such as China's Great Leap Forward or Tanzania's policy
of Ujamaa. The failures of these policies are clear, and the failures suggest that autarky is not a
 good choice. Rather a policy of self-reliance should be interpreted as endorsing a policy of
controlled interactions with the world economy: ppor countries should only endorse interactions
on terms that promise to improve the social and economic welfare of the larger citizenry.
WORLD SYSTEM ANALYSIS
World-systems analysis is a knowledge movement elaborated since the 1970‘s and is a critique of
dominant modes of analysis in the nineteenth-century social sciences. It insists on three things
primarily: (1) World-systems (and not nation-states) are the basic unit of social analysis; (2) Neither
nomothetic nor idiographic epistemologies permit useful analyses of social reality; (3) The existing
disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences no longer make any intellectual sense. World-
systems analysis is not a subdivision of the social sciences. It is another approach to, or perspective
on, the ways in which one should undertake social analysis of historical reality. As a mode of analysis, it
must itself be placed in its historical context, which is where we begin. This will be followed by a
discussion of the distinctive features of world-systems analysis. Then we shall turn to reviewing
arguments with its critics.
1. Historical Origins of World-systems Analysis
Concepts in the social sciences are seldom without precedent. But it is only when they receive
considerable attention and a reasonable amount of empirical elaboration that we can consider that they
have entered the purview of the social sciences as a structure of knowledge. In this restricted sense,
world-systems analysis came into existence in the 1970s.
The dominant current in world social science from the late nineteenth century to circa 1970 was that
social science consisted of a series of specified disciplines with more or less accepted boundary lines.
Whereas, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, there were a very large number of
different appellations of university chairs that seemed to cover matters we today call social science, this
list began to be reduced to a select few. As of 1945, the standard list included anthropology,
economics, political science, and sociology. The author would include history, even though many
historians insisted that history was not a social science. The author would also include Oriental studies,
although this was not widely accepted as a social science discipline. And, on the other hand, the author
would not include psychology, because the object of psychology treats a different level of reality than
social science. This, however, is controversial. This short list of names had become standard in most
universities across the world as of 1945, but since then there has been a blossoming of other names,
so that by 2000 it had become less clear that there was a standard list.
The logic of the list that had evolved between 1850 and 1945 was that it reflected three intellectual
cleavages thought to be most important by nineteenth-century scholars: past/present; the Western
world/the others; and the three presumed separate domains of modernity. Historians studied the past
and economists, political scientists, and sociologists studied the present. All four of these disciplines
studied the Western world and anthropologists and Orientalists studied the "others." The
anthropologists studied "primitive" societies, and the Orientalists studied non-Western "high
civilizations." Finally, the study of the Western present was divided among the three domains into
which, it was argued, all of the modern world had become differentiated: the market (economics), the
state (political science), and civil society (sociology). As of 1945, the boundaries between the
"disciplines" were considered quite firm intellectually, and they were reinforced organizationally.
This categorization was intellectually defensible in terms of the dominant social realities of the world
from 1850 to 1945. But it began to fall apart after 1945 for two separate reasons which combined to
undermine the schema. On the one hand, the geopolitical self-assertion (or reassertion) of the non-
Western world (decolonization, national revolutionary movements, the Bandung conference of 1955)
made it not very useful to Westerners to study these countries via the lens of either anthropology (with
its traditional emphasis on "tribes" that had no "history") or Orientalism (with its traditional emphasis on
philology and the analysis of esoteric non-Western, but essentialist and therefore unchanging, cultural
patterns).
In the post-1945 period, historians, economists, political scientists, and sociologists were all
encouraged to include the non-Western world in their domain of research. When that happened,
anthropologists decided to abandon their exclusive concern with the non-Western world and study the
cultural patterns of the Western world as well. And the Orientalists, under considerable political
pressure, committed organizational suicide, for the most part renaming themselves (cultural) historians.
The epistemological gap between studying the West and studying the "others" more or less ceased to
exist.
The second new element was the enormous expansion of the world university system after 1945 in
terms of numbers of universities, numbers of faculty, and numbers of students. For faculty and for
doctoral candidates, this led to the search for more niches into which social scientists could claim a
specialty, and for doctoral students an original topic of research. One way to do this was to add a
second discipline's name as a modifying adjective to one's specialty (economic anthropology, social
history, etc.) which expanded the domains of acceptable research for persons in the separate
disciplines. However, at the same time, it led to a breakdown of the disciplinary separations that had
been predicated on presumably the radical distinctions between different spheres of social life.
The response to these two breakdowns of the logic of the distinctive disciplines was multiple. All sorts
of concepts and methodological assumptions that had seemed so useful and so obvious now were
open to re-evaluation. One major way of handling some of these problems that obtained wide purchase
from 1945 to about 1970 was the newly-fashionable concept of "modernization" built around a social
process called "development." In one sense, modernization was not at all a new concept. It is easy to
demonstrate that most of the great binary distinctions developed by nineteenth-century social scientists
- status/contract, mechanical/organic solidarity, Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft, traditional versus rational-
legal legitimation, etc. - were after 1945 being simply collapsed into one overall category of
traditional/modern.
Development, which was of course an avatar of the eighteenth-century concept of progress, had two
virtues which made it into a useful operational tool for post-1945 social scientists. On the one hand, it
allowed the social scientist to distinguish between various kinds of development - economic, political,
social - and thereby maintain intact the classical distinction that undergirded the three great nomothetic
disciplines of the social sciences. But on the other hand, it allowed the social scientist to overcome the
Western world/"others" distinction now out of favor by adding the codicil that different countries were at
different "stages" of development. This had the advantage of being universalist. The operations of all
states worldwide were explained by the same concept of development and therefore were said to be
pursuing the same trajectory or model of development. On the other hand, the states were also
different (or particular) at the present time, because they were at different "stages" of the same
developmental process. In addition, "development" had a third virtue. One could derive from its study
useful parables for political advice: if "underdeveloped" countries copied the wisdom of "developed"
ones, they would advance more rapidly along the universal path of societal development. As a result,
the gap between the "developed" and the "underdeveloped" would inevitably close. In this way,
modernization theory put forth a very optimistic view of the future of those states that were still poor and
struggling.
This intellectual patchwork seemed for a while to be a promising solution to the intellectual and political
issues of the post-1945 world. Within 20-25 years, however, it fell apart under multiple assaults. By
1970, it had become reasonably clear that the real-world gap between "developed" and
"underdeveloped" countries, far from closing, was growing wider. The reinvigorated militancy of both
women=s movements and movements of ethnic/racial/national understrata found no explanatory or
political berth within the framework of modernization theories, or at least none that these movements
found useful. And the world revolution of 1968 threw the cozy dominance of modernization theories and
theorists out of kilter altogether by challenging both their substantive and their methodological
premises. It is at this point that world-systems analysis presented itself as a knowledge movement that
made a series of arguments which called into question first modernization theory and then, more
fundamentally, the whole structure of the social sciences as they had been constructed in the
nineteenth century. There were three basic elements to world-systems analysis. One had to do with
space, one with time, and one with epistemology.
2. Basic Concepts of World-systems Analysis
2.1 The Space of Social Reality
In the nineteenth century, the political primacy of the state as an institution came to be the accepted
norm in terms of both social science analysis and political preference. It followed that almost everyone
believed that the most significant arena of social action was that which occurred within the boundaries
of the state. Using this premise, many things seemed obvious: States were sovereign. States had
historical roots. They had economies, political systems, social norms and structures, and cultural
heritages, each of which could be specified by social scientists. What distinguished one state from
another was its specific combination of these parallel spheres. Above all, states were the geographical
container of "societies" - that is, coherent, holistic entities in which all individuals were located.
States all sought to become or to be thought of as nation-states. To be a nation-state meant that a state
had very largely overcome any and all divisive particularisms, which were regarded as anomalous
leftovers from prior history, leftovers whose destiny it was to disappear. Hence, whatever happened of
any importance happened within the state, or between states as entities vying with each other in the
international (geopolitical) arena.
Obviously, the eyes of the researcher had to be focused therefore on the state as the unit of analysis.
Insofar as scholars used quantitative data, they spoke of statistics. The very word, statistics, derived
from the word, state. Statistics were normally and primarily compiled by state machineries. If scholars
compiled their own material, they sought to express them in terms of state boundaries (as, for example,
percentages or trends within states).
It was of course possible to compare states to each other - either synchronically in terms of their level
of achievement at a given moment of time or diachronically in terms of the historical moment at which
they began to do specific things or have specific institutions. The vision was very linear. All states were
or should be moving forward along similar paths. The nineteenth century called this progress. One
could of course analyze why particular states were reluctant to discard "antiquated" institutions, in this
way holding themselves back or falling further behind.
With the aid of their specialists, states looked forward to where they might arrive in the future, and how
soon they might get to a point at which their situation had manifestly improved. Simultaneously, they
also looked backward to discover their "origins" - a concept that had implications for appreciating to
what kinds of physical boundaries they could legitimately lay claim, and what language or form of
language they could or should utilize and teach.
The comparative mode and analytic model became especially strong in the period following the Second
World War with its emphasis on what came to be called "development" and the process of "catching-
up" to leading states. In the post-1945 period, it was seen to be important not merely to "catch up" but
to do so as fast as possible. Populations and their elites were very impatient. Scholars were required to
figure out exactly what allowed a country to "develop" and thereby be able to suggest the optimal
techniques for accelerating the pace.
The self-evident quality of the view that the states were the primary locus of social action and the cadre
within which societies existed and were nourished was slow to unravel. Political "internationalism" was
precisely inter-national and presumed the existence, indeed encouraged the strengthening, of the
states as the loci of sovereignty. The great anti-colonial movements of the twentieth century did not
challenge the concept of the nation-state - far from it! Rather, they insisted that the (colonial) state in
which they lived was oppressed by its inclusion within the boundaries of the "metropolitan" state, and
should therefore make its way as an independent entity, one that had all the attributes of every other
sovereign state.
Nonetheless, there were dissenting voices. One of the most significant and ultimately most influential
was that of Fernand Braudel, whose first classic book, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean
World in the Age of Philip II, explicitly rejected the state as its unit of analysis. Braudel argued that in
the sixteenth century the Mediterranean arena constituted an économie-monde. This was not the
economy of the entire world (globe) but a historical structure that cut across many political boundaries
and was knitted together by its skein of economic interdependencies. Braudel described the
Mediterranean économie-monde as it evolved over what he called its longue durée, and sought to trace
the complex imbricated patterns of its natural environment, its economic rhythms (conjonctures) and
secular trends, its multiple variety of political structures (empires, city-states, and nascent "nation-
states"), and its different "civilizations."
With this approach, Braudel had changed the unit of analysis in a very fundamental way. His book was
hailed as original and path-breaking, but in practice social scientists - most social scientists - continued
to make the state their basic unit of analysis. When Braudel's book was published in 1949, it was no
doubt still too early to reverse a long tradition, especially since that was the moment of the apogee of
developmentalism as a doctrine and a political practice.
It was the world revolution of 1968 that made it more possible to break the orientation of the social
sciences to the state as the basic unit of analysis. It was at this time that developmentalism /
modernization theory first came under serious attack - first political, then intellectual attack.
The political attack was straightforward. There came to be widespread sentiment that the political path
that most states had been followed worldwide from 1945 to 1968 was not bearing the promised fruit.
Despite the fact that states everywhere seemed to have come under the control of political forces that
promoted developmentalist policies, the situations had not improved significantly either at the level of
the world-system as a whole or at the level of each state taken separately.
At the level of the world-system, as we noted above, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest
countries had not decreased at all. On the contrary, it had actually increased rather significantly. In that
sense, the policies ensconced in modernization theories had not paid off for the "developing" countries
of the world. The fact that these governments were in many, even most, cases led by political
movements that proclaimed themselves antisystemic or of the left - national liberation movements,
communist or socialist parties - did nothing to alleviate this sense of disappointment and disillusion. It
merely tarred these movements themselves with the brush of error, folly, or betrayal.
What perhaps was even worse in the eyes of the populations of the "underdeveloped countries" or
"peripheral zones" was that the internal structures of these countries, while often ostensibly
transformed in many ways, seemed to have continued old negative features under new names. They
were not clearly more democratic politically or egalitarian socially or economically. Indeed, class
distinctions seemed to have persisted in the creation of various kinds of Nomenklaturas.
Politically, therefore, the revolutionaries of 1968 called for a reassessment of historic strategies of
social transformation. Since the dominant strategy for over a century had been acquiring state power as
the mechanism wherewith one could achieve social transformation, the revolutionaries wondered
whether the social movements had been right to be so state-oriented. They began to orient their
political strategy to be at once both more global and more local.
This political shift, of considerable cultural importance, opened for social scientists the epistemological
question of the usefulness of the state as the basic unit of analysis. World systems analysis was one of
the outgrowths of this questioning.
World-systems analysis insisted that, apart from mini-systems that no longer existed, all historical
systems were world-systems (using the word "world" to indicate a large region, not necessarily the
entire globe), and that it was historical social systems that were the basic unit of analysis. The states
that social scientists had been assuming as the basic units did indeed exist, but as structures within the
modern world-system. Therefore, the modern world-system was not to be thought of a collection of
autonomous state-structures that occasionally and in limited ways interacted with each other. Rather it
was an integrated system of multiple states and cultures with an axial division of labor, a system that
had a historical life. It had been created (and one was called upon to analyze the moment and
conditions under which it had been created). It had structures that were simultaneously enduring and
evolving. And it would at some point move far from equilibrium and come into structural crisis, one that
would lead to its demise and replacement by some other historical system or systems.
In terms of space, a historical social system had boundaries, but the boundaries were not fixed. The
structures of the modern world-system, which was a capitalist world-economy, led to its continual
geographic expansion, such that over time the capitalist world-economy came to encompass the entire
globe. At that point, the issue for the modern world-system was no longer how it related to zones
outside its geographical limits but how it coped with the fact that there were no longer zones outside its
geographical limits.
2.2. The Time of Social Reality
Once one takes historical systems as the basic units of analysis, time becomes as important as space.
Indeed, one has to move towards using a concept of Time Space. We have already noted that there
are three basic moments in time for any historical system: the time of its coming into being; the time
(much longer) of its "normal" functioning and development/evolution; the time of its structural crisis,
bifurcation, and demise. The first and third times are quite different from the second (much the longest)
time.
The period of a historical system's coming in being and the period of its structural crisis leading to
demise are both unique. They can only be analyzed idiographically in terms of the very specific
parameters that define them. The social action of a time of creation can malfunction and a stable,
equilibrated historical system may fail to come into existence. This happens all the time, although social
scientists rarely investigate such abortive attempts at structural creation. The time of structural crisis
likewise has no predictable outcome. Its trajectory is intrinsically uncertain. In this way too, world-
systems analysis rejects the assumption of inevitable progress. Progress from this perspective is
merely possible, but so is regression.
However, time is most neglected as a defining variable when we deal with the "normal," more or less
equilibrated life of a historical social system. Most analysts use time as an exogenous and negligible
element. Either they use a nomothetic epistemology, in which time is said to be irrelevant, since all the
"laws" they claim exist are in their view eternal laws of social existence. Or they assert an idiographic
epistemology, in which time is a sequence of "events" that are completely particular, and all that an
analyst can do is to recount empathetically what has occurred, to the degree possible. This sequence is
said to determine everything in the particular case but not to have probative value beyond the case
being described. No generalizations of any kind are possible in this view.
It was against this dominant model of nineteenth-century social science that Braudel rebelled. He called
the first the "very long duration." He doubted its very existence, saying that it could only be the "time of
the sages." He called the second episodic or event-linked time (l'histoire événementielle). Events
indeed existed, but he said they were "dust" and therefore of very minor importance. He thus insisted
that these two uses of time were both of limited use to the analyst.
As against these two concepts of the role of time, Braudel put forward two other forms. One he called
"structural" time - the slow-moving, long-lasting (but never eternal) environmental and social structures
of a historical system that constrain the options of social action. The second was "cyclical" time
(l'histoire conjoncturelle) composed of the A and B-phases of the many processes that occurred within
the parameters of the underlying structures, and precisely as a result of their constraints, World-
systems analysis attempted to operationalize these Braudelian temporalities, especially the two that he
considered most important. For world-systems analysis, there are measurable cycles whose effect is
clear and repeated. The Kondratieff "long waves" of economic activity (of 50-60 years) are one of the
most obvious. They describe the expansion and contraction/stagnation of the world-economy as a
whole. There are also geopolitical cycles of hegemony, whose pace is slower (100-150 years) - what
Rondo Cameron has called "logistics." Some analysts, such as Joseph Schumpeter, argue that these
kinds of cycles can be divided not merely into two phases, but into four. And if one does this, one
acquires a powerful tool to explain continuing ostensible shifts in social reality, without falling into the
deceptive trap of seeing every shift as something "new."
If we denominate these shifts as "cyclical rhythms" of the historical system, we need to recognize that it
requires political action to emerge from a B-phase, and that it is virtually impossible to return to the
precise point of cyclical upturn. The cycles have their impact on the system, and force it to develop or to
evolve. If one puts together all the changes, this tends to look like a ratchet - two steps up and one step
down. The whole then forms part of a "secular trend," which involves the slow and limited modification
of the basic structures.
The combination of cyclical rhythms and secular trends constitute the basic framework within which one
can recount and understand the historical operation and development of any historical social system.
Of course, accepting such a framework for analysis does not commit the analyst to any particular
empirical judgment. One can still debate the empirical location of space and time. Was the Russian
empire in the seventeenth century part of the capitalist world-economy (as Nolte argues) or still outside
it? Is the first hegemonic power of the modern world-system the United Provinces or were there one or
two predecessors (as Modelski and also Arrighi argue)? These empirical controversies force the
analysts to sharpen their theoretical perception and eventually to eliminate ambiguities. What the
theoretical framework of world-systems analysis does do from the outset is to delimit which are the
fruitful empirical debates to pursue and which ones are not.
The fact that there are secular trends necessarily implies that, at some point, they much reach
asymptotic limits. And thus it is that any historical social system sooner or later reaches its moment of
structural crisis - which is the moment at which there is no longer sufficient "upward" space for the
secular trends to move, and therefore there is no longer a way to emerge from the B-phases of the
cyclical rhythms. Equilibrium can no longer be restored even partially because the system is now too far
from equilibrium.
It is in this discussion of what happens when systems move far from equilibrium that the sciences of
complexity provide a model, one that is quite different from the long-dominant Newtonian model. The
sciences of complexity, as elaborated notably by Ilya Prigogine, have a different model from the long
dominant Newtonian model, a model which they assert applies to all kinds of systems (physical,
biological, and social): The future is inherently indeterminate, not determinate. Probabilities are not
reflections of our scientific ignorance but describe states of the world, indeed the vast majority of states
of the world. Time-reversibility does not exist. Everything is governed by the arrow of time, which plays
an essentially constructive role. The object of science is not to reduce everything to simplicity but to
explain and elaborate complexity. Systems move far from equilibrium and at a certain point bifurcate,
which then requires a "choice" between two alternative outcomes, a choice whose outcome cannot be
predicted in advance, but one that establishes a new order out of the chaos and wild fluctuations of the
period of bifurcation.
The period of bifurcation, chaos, and wild fluctuations out of which will emerge a new order (but one
impossible to predict in advance) is in fact the description of the third time of historical social systems,
that of structural crisis. It is the view of many world-systems analysts that the modern world-system has
entered this third moment of time. It is important to note that, in this third moment, the processes
adumbrated as constituting the mechanisms of the "normal" operation of the historical system do not
cease to operate. It is merely that they no longer serve the function of restoring some kind of
equilibrium; they may indeed exacerbate the fluctuations.
Hence, world-systems analysis has elaborated a fifth kind of TimeSpace that is applicable to this
period. Borrowing Paul Tillich's concept of kairos, it may be labeled transformational TimeSpace. This
third moment of time is of course the first moment of time of the subsequent historical social system or
systems that will emerge at the end of the process. Hence the first moment of time of the existing
modern world-system must be analyzed as the third moment of time of some previous historical
system, a further task for the world-systems analyst.
2.3. Epistemological Consequences
It is thus clear that world-systems analysis, in the course of its analytic development, has been forced
to cope with fundamental epistemological issues, and as a result to challenge some of the reigning
views. As the work of world-systems analysts proceeded, explaining the history of the epistemology of
the social sciences and the present challenges became one of the accepted tasks of world-systems
analysis.
Basically, world-systems analysis sees the structures of knowledge as themselves one of the basic
institutions of any historical system. It follows that the modern world-system developed its own
epistemological assumptions. The unified epistemological concepts of pre-modern social systems were
replaced by ones more suited to the structural needs of the capitalist world-economy. The basic form
that this took was the invention of the concept of the "two cultures" - one scientific and the other
humanistic. This division marked in fact a division of the primary concerns of the scholar between the
two groups. The scientific group argued that they alone were able to pursue effectively the search for
truth, and in turn renounced any other task. The humanistic group was thus left with exclusive control
over and concern with the search for the good and the beautiful, and effectively withdrew from the
search for truth.
This division of focus and task began to seem important in the middle of the eighteenth century. It was
institutionalized in the revived university system of the nineteenth century wherein knowledge was
divided among separate faculties of the natural sciences and the humanities, each utilizing different and
mutually hostile epistemologies. The domain of social action became a contested terrain for the two
cultures, each asserting dominion over the social/human sciences. In practice, the various disciplines
within the social sciences divided the terrain as well, choosing sides. Some leaned in the scientistic
direction and others in the humanistic direction.
However, as the modern world-system moved into its structural crisis, this crisis was reflected in the
realm of epistemology as well. The very concept of the two cultures came to be challenged. The
sciences of complexity, by their attack on Newtonian premises and their emphasis on the centrality of
the arrow of time, moved decisively away from the concept of the two cultures. Similarly, cultural
studies within the humanities, by their emphasis on the social context not only of the production of
knowledge but on the reception and interpretation of knowledge, similarly moved away from the
concept of the two cultures.
While there does not yet exist an accepted new unified epistemology for all of knowledge, it is quite
clear that resolving this issue is part and parcel of the "choices" imposed upon us by the bifurcation
within which we find ourselves presently. Since we do not know what will be the outcome of this
systemic struggle, we are left unsure what kind of epistemology will emerge in the new order that will
eventually prevail. However, the debate about epistemology has begun to be central to the larger
debate about what kind of the worldsystem will be constructed in the course of the transition.
3. Critiques of World-systems Analysis
World-systems analysis, like any vibrant knowledge perspective, is replete with internal debates about
the definition of the basic perspective, the empirical findings of those who pursue this perspective, and
the moral and political implications to draw from this perspective. What is perhaps more important is to
outline briefly the four main intellectual objections to the entire thrust of world-systems analysis. They
come from the positivists, the orthodox Marxists, the state autonomists, and the culturalists.
In the past 150 years, the positivists have held the dominant position within the social sciences, not
only in the nomothetic disciplines (economics, political science, and sociology) but in history as well.
The positivist historians object to the efforts of world system analysts to elaborate a structured vision of
historical phenomena, asserting their aversion to generalizations. And the nomothetic positivists object
in the other direction. For the latter, world-systems analysts fail to put forward falsifiable propositions
and are insufficiently oriented to quantitative data. Both are of course reacting to the precise criticisms
that world-systems analysis has been making of their modes of analysis.
The orthodox Marxists generally assert that world-systems analysis has abandoned or insufficiently
stressed class analysis, and has thereby eliminated the presumption of an inevitable progression of
historical stages of development. In addition, they protest against all sorts of particular propositions: the
importance of non-wage labor in capital accumulation, the recognition of modes of social grouping other
than class (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) as crucial explanatory variables, the failure (in their view) to
distinguish adequately between the sphere of production and the sphere of circulation, and the
interpretation given to "real existing socialism." In short, the orthodox Marxists are objecting to anything
that deviates from the model put forth by the two intellectually prescriptive Marxist parties - the German
Social-Democratic Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
The state autonomists (in the tradition of Otto Hintze) object to the eradication of the strong intellectual
boundary between the activities of states and the activities of capitalist entrepreneurs. They insist that
the basic motivations of actors in the two spheres respond to different rules and pressures, and the two
stories cannot be collapsed into a single analytic sphere.
All three of these forms of objectors - the positivists, the orthodox Marxists, and the state autonomists -
insist on the centrality of the state as the unit of analysis. They are therefore objecting to the basic
premise of world-systems analysis.
Finally, the culturalists are rebelling against the priority given to either the market or the state in all the
other main modes of social analysis. They insist that not merely has the cultural sphere been neglected
but that it in turn is the primary locus of explanation of social reality. For this group, world-systems
analysis seem to involve merely another variety of generalizing propositions that neglect or give a
secondary role to the cultural sphere. They particularly are upset by the proposition that the so-called
political, economic, and sociocultural spheres are merely a construct of centrist liberalism and have no
lasting intellectual utility.
In short, most of the criticisms of world-systems analysis criticize it for what it explicitly proclaims as its
perspective. World-systems analysis views these other modes of analysis as defective and/or limiting in
scope and calls for unthinking them. The response of those thus criticized has been primarily to
reassert their own, long-standing epistemological and substantive views.
World-systems analysis is a perspective in creation. It is a holistic, uni-disciplinary view of social reality.
Its future development and its future intellectual utility will be a function of how plausible its empirical
conclusions prove to be and how useful its analytic insights will be to those engaged in the real struggle
over the transition to a new world over.

Glossary
Epistemology: The branch of philosophical thought that discusses how we know what
we know and how we can arrive as the validating truth of our
knowledge
Hegemony: This term is often used loosely merely to mean leadership of
dominance in a political situation. Antonio Gramsci, the Italian
Communist theorist, following Machiavelli, insisted on an
ideological/cultural component, in which leadership was legitimated in
some way by the population, which he saw as crucial to enable elites
to maintain power. The term has a narrower use in world-systems
analysis. It refers to those situations in which one state combines
economic, political, and financial superiority over other strong states,
and therefore has both military and cultural leadership as well.
Hegemonic powers define the rules of the game. Defined in this way,
hegemony does not last very long, and is self-destructive.
Historical (social) This combination of "historical" and "system" into one phrase is used
system: by world-systems analysts to insist on the fact that all social systems
are simultaneously systemic (that is, they have continuing
characteristics that can be described) and historical (that is, they have
a continuing evolving life and are never the same from one moment to
the next). This paradoxical reality makes social analysis difficult but, if
the contradiction is kept in the center of the analysis, makes it more
fruitful and more realistic.
Idiographic This pair of terms was invented in Germany in the late nineteenth
century to describe what was called the Methodenstreit (battle of
Nomothetic: methods) among social scientists, one that reflected the division of
scholarship into the two cultures. Nomothetic scholars insisted on
replicable, "objective" (preferably quantitative) methods and saw their
task as arriving at general laws explaining social realities. Idiographic
scholars used largely qualitative, narrative data, considered
themselves humanists, and preferred hermeneutic methods. Their
principal concern was interpretation, not laws, about which they were
at the very least skeptical. (Note that idiographic is different from
ideographic. "Idio-" is a prefix derived from Greek and means specific,
individual, one's own; hence idiographic means particular descriptions.
"Ideo-" is a prefix derived from Latin and means picture, form, idea;
hence ideographic means a non-alphabetic writing system, such as
Chinese characters.)
Kondratieff These are the basic cycles of expansion and stagnation in the
cycles: capitalist world-economy. The so-called A- and B-phases generally last
50-60 years in length taken together. Their very existence is contested
by many economists. Among those who utilize the concept, there is
much debate about what explains them and particularly what explains
the upturn from a B-phase to an Aphase. They are named after Nikolai
Kondratieff, a Russian economist who wrote about them in 1920s
(although he was far from the firts to describe them). Kondratieff
himself called them long waves.
Nation-state: The nation-state is the de facto ideal towards which all, or almost all,
modern states aspire. It refers to a state in which all persons can be
said to be of one nation and therefore share certain basic values and
allegiances. Being a nation is defined differently in different countries.
It almost always means speaking the same language. It often means
sharing the same religion. Nations are said to have historical ties
which, it is usually claimed, predate the existence of a state structure.
Much of this, not all, is mythology. And almost no state comes really
close to being a genuine nationstate, but few admit this.
Social time: This concept, particularly favored by Fernand Braudel, suggests that
there the analyst should look at different temporalities that reflect
different social realities. Braudel distinguished between two widely-
used social times: the short time of "events" used by idiographic
scholars and the "eternal" time of nomothetic social scientists. He
much preferred two other social times which he considered more
fundamental: the structural time that was longlasting and reflected
continuing (but not eternal) structural realities, which he called the
longue durée; and the cyclical time of ups-and-downs that occurred
within the framework of a given structural time.
System: A system literally means some kind of connected whole, with internal
rules of operation and some kind of continuity. In social science, its use
as a descriptive term is contested, particularly by two groups of
scholars: idiographic historians who tend to doubt the existence of
social systems, or at least feel they are not the primary explanations of
 historical reality; and persons who believe that social action is the
result of individual actions (often called methodological individualists)
and that the "system" is nothing but the compound of these individual
activities. The use of the term "system" in social science implies the
belief in the existence of socalled emergent characteristics.
TimeSpace: This is a recently invented concept. The capitalization and the lack of
space between "time" and "space" is used to represent the view that,
for every kind of social time, there exists a particular kind of social
space. Thus, time and space in social science should not be thought of
as two separate phenomena, measured separately, but irrevocably
linked into a limited number of combinations.
World-system: A world-system is not the system of the world, but a system that is a
world and which can be, most often has been, located in an area less
than the entire globe. World-systems analysis argues that the units of
social reality within which we operate, whose rules constrain us, are for
the most part such world-systems (other than the now extinct, small
mini systems that once existed on the earth). World-system analysis
argues that there have been thus far only two varieties of world-
systems: world-economies and world empires. A world-empire
(examples, the Roman Empire, Han China) are large bureaucratic
structures with a single political center and an axial division of labor,
but multiple cultures. A world-economy is a large axial division of labor
with multiple political centers and multiple cultures. In English, the
hyphen is essential to indicate these concepts. "World system" without
a hyphen suggests that there has been only one world-system in the
history of the world.
2.6 References
1. Modernization Theory - Defining Modernization Theory - Modernized, Societies, Science, and
Social – Jrank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/ 10273/Modernization-Theory-Defining-
Modernization- Theory.html #ixzz4O 1LFBJQA
2. http://study.com/academy/lesson/modernization-theory-definition-development - claims.html
3. Vincent Ferraro, "Dependency Theory: An Introduction," in The Development Economics Reader,
ed. Giorgio Secondi (London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 58-64,
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/depend.htm
4. WORLD-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS Immanuel Wallerstein Yale University,
http://www.eolss.net/ebooks/sample%20chapters/c04/e6-94-01.pdf
2.7 Further Readings
(1) Archetti, E. et al., Latin America, Macmillan, London, 1987.
(2) Ayoade, J.A.,‘ States Without CitizenL An Emerging African Phenomenon‘ in D.
Rothchild and N. Chazan (ed.) The Precious, P. (ed.) Political Domination in Africa :
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1988.
(3) Bayarrt, J.F. ‗Civil Society in Africa‘ in Chabal, P. (ed)., Political Domination in Africa :
Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
 (4) Berger, M., ‗The End of the Third World‘, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1994.
(5) Bratton, M., and Van der Walle, N., ‗Towards Govermance in Africa : Popular Demands
and State Responses‘ in G. Hayden and M. Bratton (eds), Govermance and Polticals in
Africa, Boulder, Colorado, 1991.
(6) Callaghy, T., ‗Vision and Politics in the Transformation of the Global, Political Economy :
Lessons from the Third World, L. Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, (eds), Global
Transformation and the Third World L. Reinner Pub., Boulder, Colorado,1993.
(7) Chbal, P., Introduction : ‗Thinking About Politics in Africa‘ , in Chabal, O. (eds), Political
Domination in Africa : Reflections : Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(8) Guaba. O.P 2002 Comparative Politics. New Delhi. Mayur Publicatons.

2.8 Model Questions

1. Discuss the relevance of political economy approach.
2. Critically examine the Marxist political economy approach.
---S---
 Lesson 3

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Contents
3.0 Objectives

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Political development

3.3 Political modernization

3.4 Feminist approach

3.5 Postmodernism

3.6 Summary

3.7 Reference

3.8 Further Readings

3.9 Model Questions

3.0 Objectives

This lesson encircles the information of four approaches like Political Development, Political
Modernization, Feminist and Post Modernism. After going through this segment you will be able to;
 Understand the definition and various aspects of political development.
 Comparatively understand the meaning and dimensions of political modernization
 Analyze the feminist view to comparative politics with the respecting developments
 Learn about overview post modern theory to comparative politics
3.1 Introduction
In last lesson we were gone through the political economy approach, now we going to discuss
four alternative approaches to the study of comparative politics like political development, political
modernization, feminist and postmodernism. The concept of political development was initially
formulated in the mid forties-after the World War II, and the liberation of many Asian and African
countries. The theoretical base was provided by the writing of Max Weber, Malinowski, Radcliffe Brown,
Talcott Parsons and Merton Levy. The works of Pye, Mclelland and Easton supplemented the concept
in the early sixties, and Apter, Coleman, Pye, Riggs, Weiner and Frey with their path breaking studies
of many African and Asian societies provided the practical substance to the theoretical frame work.
3.2 Political Development
To define political development in very precise terms is rather difficult. Samuel Beer says that
the concept recognizes the importance of time. He says that three motions are associated with idea of
development:
1. The idea provides directionality movement or trends.
2. Development is understood as a directional change focusing in stages.
3. Each stage is produced by the preceding one and the whole process works as a trend that is
the distinctive pattern of historical process to which the concept of development calls attention.
Lucian Pye has given a list of components of the concept of Political development.
1. Political development as the political prerequisite of economic development: In many
traditional societies the focus was on economic development which was accepted as the
principal objective of the political system. In this context political development was accepted as
the precondition of economic development.
2. Political Development as the Politics, Typical of Industrial Societies: It is believed that
political development is the kind of politics basic to developed societies. The less developed
societies should be try to emulate the standards, olitics and performance of developed
societies.
3. Political Development as Politics Modernization: A number of social scientists have
expressed the view that political development and political modernization are identical. As often
the term modern is confused with western, political development has come to mean the
acceptance of western institutions and political processes.
4. Political Development as Nation Building: Political development is taken to mean
organization of political life and the performance of functions expected of a modern nation state.
Politics is the performance of those activities and building up of behavioural patterns which form
the basis of nation building.
5. Political Development as Administrative and Legal Development: Max Weber, Parsons and
La Palombara have asserted development process. This had strengthened the view to accept
development as administrative and legal development.
6. Political Development as Mass Mobilization and Participation: Mass mobilization activities
the citizens to set a new standard of loyalty and involvement. This awakening is often taken to
mean political development. Another view is to assert that political development is a process of
mass participation change from authoritarianism to democracy.
7. Political Development as the Building of Democracy: It is Common to associate political
development with certain sets of values, forms of ideology, the commonest being democracy.
8. Political Development as Stability and Orderly Change: Political Development, it is asserted,
is not a haphazard way of bringing about a change but a process combing stability with a
capacity for purposeful and orderly change.
9. Political Development as Power and Mobilization: Mobilization is a commitment to action
and a means of translating this commitment into action. It is essential for the performance of
 tasks before policy that all human and material sources are fully mobilized. State must have
absolute power for this sort of mobilization. Political development is, therefore, taken to mean a
part of the process of mobilization and exercise of state power. Though it is generally believed
that mobilization is more effective in an authoritarian regime. Pye clarifies that the support a
popular regime can commands is more effective and a democratic system can mobilize in a far
more effective manner than an autocratic regime.
10. Political Development as one Aspect of a Multi-dimensional Process of Social Change:
Political development cannot be independent of social and economic factors, and is not an
isolated phenomenon. When a social system changes, all its components are equally or
materially affected. Political development is one aspect of a bigger multi-dimensional process of
change.
The various view points surveyed her show the confusion prevailing regarding the agreed
definition of political development. Pye isolates three common characteristics, namely.
1. Equality: Participation by all in the political processes; equality before law; and recruitment of
political offices on the basis of certain achievements and not ascriptive considerations;
2. Capacity: Political outputs, governmental performance, effectiveness and efficiency, and
rationality in administration; and
3. Differentiation: Specialization of structures based on an ultimate sense of integration.
Pye admits problems can arise when these three dimensions of political development
are reconciled, and tensions can develop between the demands for equality, the needs of
capacity, and the processes of great differentiation. Pye also considers the relationship between
these three dimensions of political development and other components of the political system.
The development of political systems occurs due to many factors in combination-both
domestic and international. For a development of Powell assert that, development results when
the existing, structures and culture of the political systems is unable to cope with the problem of
challenge which confronts it without further structural differentiation and cultural secularization.
They enumerate four types of problems and challenges which may lead to political
development.
4. The problems of state building: Creation of new structures and organizations designed
to penetrate the society in order to regulate olitics in it and draw larger volume of resources
from it.
5. Challenge comes from nation building: The process whereby people transfer their
commitment and loyalty from small tribes villages to the larger political system.
6. Problems of participation: An increase in the volume and intensity of demands for a share in
the decision-making of the political system by various groups and strata in the society.
7. Problem of distribution: A rapid increase in the volume and intensity of demands on the
political system regarding distribution of resources or values.
These four challenges are important sources of political development or at least for accelerating
the process. Almond and Powell also consider five major factors which may also be considered in the
analysis of political development. These are:
1. The stability of a system is heavily dependent upon the types of problems to faces.
2. The resources the system can draw upon under various circumstances.
3. Developments in other political systems also affect political development.
4. The functional pattern of the system itself.
Crises in Political Development
Pye mentions six crises which may arise at different stages of political development. They are:
1. The Identity Crisis: When people in a political system fail to achieve a common sense of
identity this creates an identity crises. Many newly independent countries have faced this in
view of tribal, linguistic ethic and cultural differences.
2. The Legitimacy Crisis: When governors fail to come to an agreement on certain fundamental
questions with those whom they govern, this is the result. Political authority which is
authoritarian also can face this crisis. If such a situation arises the only remedy for the
government is to legitimize its authority by ascertaining the wishes of the people.
3. The Penetration Crisis: Power of the government must be spread all over the state, and its
policies reach the lower levels of authority. The problem is of building up the effectiveness of the
formal institutions by government and of establishing confidence and rapport between the
government and the governed. The crisis can be overcome by making the government
institutions more efficient and effective.
4. The Participation Crisis: The new entrants to the political process bring with them new issues
and new problems. These strain the efficacy of the system as a whole. The demands of various
groups need to be properly channalised to avoid a crisis from extraordinary stress of demands
on the system.
5. Integration Crisis: The government needs to identify itself with the popular demands by
suitable reorienting its policies to avoid an integration crisis, which means it needs to improve its
demand processing ability. Once this is done the possibility of lack of integration with the
popular mood is considerably minimized.
6. The Distribution Crisis: The authoritative allocation of values is the primary function of the
system, and this calls for management with utmost care. Many newly independent nations with
limited resources and their unequal distribution are trying to manage the distribution crisis. It is a
highly sensitive area and various ideologies play their part in bringing about socio-economic
equalities.
Evaluation
The concept of political development has been olitics d on three grounds. It is definitionally
vague, lacks uniform development models and is dependent on other social and economic factors.
These are not very serious drawbacks.
The concept is of great value as an aid to the students of comparative government and politics.
The main strengths of the concept are:
1. The management of political change is an important issue in contemporary politics and political
development is gradual, purposeful and an ordered manner of bringing about political change.
2. It is useful tool for description explanation and classification of political system. Once the stage
of development of a political system is identified, it would be easily to compare it with other
systems.
3. A study of the development of the political system at different periods of time can help us in
understanding the weaknesses and the strengths of the ideology to which that system ascribed
at the stage.
4. A study of the stage of political development would reveal other features of the polity such as
sub-system autonomy, structural, role differentiation and cultural secularization.
5. A study of the development indicators and time series would lead to the development of a new
discipline according to Almond who names it polimetrics.
The measurement of political performance is a difficult task, but it is hoped that it may be
possible to evaluate political systems by their liberty score, the welfare score and other ethical scores.
3.3 POLITICAL MODERNISATION
Introduction
Political Modernization is a term that cannot be defined precisely. It has been called ―a process
based upon the rational utilization of resources and aimed at the establishment of a modern society.‖
By Welch. Huntington has described it as ―a multifaceted process involving change in all areas of
human thought and activity.‖
Political modernization is a comprehensive concept and includes much within the ambit of
politics than is generally accepted. It covers the realms of economics, sociology and even psychology.
It alludes to the change in political culture and political institutions as a result of the process of
modernization. It is a multifaceted process and has several aspects which are:
1. At the psychological level: It involves a change in the norms, values, attitudes and orientation
of the people.
2. At the intellectual level: It involves a tremendous expansion of human knowledge about his
environment, and the diffusion of this knowledge throughout society by increased literacy and
mass communications.
3. At the demographic level: It means improvements in the standards of living and progress
towards the mobility of people and urbanization.
4. At the social level: It implies replacing the focus of individual‘s loyalty to family and other
primary groups to voluntarily organized secondary associations.
5. At the economic level: It means the growth of market agriculture, improvement in commerce at
the expense of agriculture, development of industrialization and widening of the economic
activity.
Modernization can be regarded as a comprehensive phenomenon which ―brings about radical
changes in the economic development, mainly in the direction of industrialization and material
advancement, changes in the nature and content of the political systems and also changes in the social
and psychological spheres of live.
Taken from this view-point, the concept of political modernization does not seem to be as vague
as the that of political development. The concept of modernization is an open-ended concept and
simple. It takes the idea that a traditional order exists and is to be changed for the better. The old is to
be modified for the better. There is no demolishing of the old.
It refers to transformation that took place in the European countries in the modern period, and
has recurred in other parts of the world in recent times. In the political sphere, this transformation may
be taken to mean a syndrome of related characteristics which may include the following changes, as
Pye asserts.
1. General attitude towards equality that allows equality of opportunity to participate in politics and
complete for government office.
2. Capacity of a political system to formulate policies and to implement them.
3. Difference and specialization of political functions, but not at the expense of their overall
integration.
4. Secularisation of political process – The separation of politics from religious and other
influences –
The concepts of modernization and the development meet at a point where the capacity and
capability of a political system to solve the problems arising out of the trends of renovation and change
is at issue. The process of modernization leads to the emergence of some problems and challenges
that a political system has to face and cope with, and do as to create the situation of development.
Political development becomes identifiable here with a process which aims at a particular political
condition, but one creates an institutional framework for solving as ever widening range of social
problems.
Stages of Political Modernisation
The concept and subject of political modernization is of great importance to the developing
countries of the third world. They face a dilemma as to what path should they adopt to achieve the goal
of modernization. All countries seek to do that but most of the Third World countries incline towards the
socialist course. Apter points out that if the capitalist solution creates the problems of inequity, the
Marxian system requires coercion. But still, most countries seek to mdernise because development
brings hope.
Political modernization also takes place where it is most easily accepted or wanted. It signifies
the transfer from metropole to periphery. It has its won stages each having its own predicament. Apter
defines four stages in the regard:
1. Stage of Contact and Control: This began with a few hardy and enterprising individuals with a
strong sense of adventure, greed desire or mission. They paved the way for change and
innovation. This is what happened in the European countries in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries and naturally the stage transferred to the colonies of these European countries. This
first stage of development represented a process by means of which the then new wealth of
Europe and new technologies, created opportunities for trade, affecting the settlement of trade
centers and acquisition of territory as well. It was accompanied by the belief that the condition of
dependent peoples must be changes. It was called the ―white man‘s burden‖ by many, any was
marked by consolidation of the alien rule, erection of a stable system of authority and the
beginning of urbanization, health and schooling for an elite being produced at the end of this
stage.
2. Stage of Reaction and Counteraction: This showed the effects of western colonialism, foreign
elites of bureaucrats, missionaries, and traders created urban centers or renovated old ones
and drew the local people to them. Notions of racial and cultural superiority gained ground and
justified alien domination. Primitive and backward societies were opened up to benefits of
modern civilsation trade and commerce, though there were adverse effects also. Exploitation of
the backward and dependent people became more severe-the most heinous example being the
 slave trade. The important feature of this stage was the interaction between local and foreign
elements-new forms of association developed and new interests grew. Also a wave of
nationalism in all states with nationalists demanded more participation in public affairs. The
ruling elites tried to divide the nationalists by winning some over and suppressing those that
could not be won over.
3. Stage of Contradiction and Emancipation: With new elites, more complex associations in
politics arose. Base of Nationalist movements also widened, Elites developed in semi-rural
areas and the nationalist leaders sharpened the pace of their struggle. This produced events
like the American War of Independence 1776, and French Revolution of 1789. These became
the source of inspiration for the peoples of other countries. In order to contain these challenges
a new strategy of introducing democratic reforms was adopted. This created more demands, led
to political organizations, mass movements, demands for greater independence. Intellectuals
created conditions of rebellion by providing ideological arguments and alternatives. Charismatic
or near charismatic leaders promised a new unity with independence.
4. Stage of Search for a new Generative Solution: After independence, a second revolution in
the social, economic and technological spheres. The main problem before the developing
countries is to use political independence to produce more viable and effective communities
without being snared in new colonialism. This is a matter of partly economic growth, partly an
awakening to the predicaments of uneven change. Each type of solution and each type of
political generates its own problems and difficulties. Charismatic leadership losses its
charismatic hold and often the imported democratic system is replaced by some authoritarian
model provided by the ruling party or military.
Apter‘s analysis is based on the dichotomy to tradition represented by native forces and
modernity brought by alien masters. The process of conflict between the two begins with the
establishment of the colonial system. A unique reconciliation develops with the passage of time, but the
process of systemization and contradiction flow simultaneously, with the result that the people emulate
the imitate the political culture of the rules, but also agitate for more emancipation. After national
independence they struggle for a suitable course so as to realize the aim establishing social democracy
in the country.
Political Modernization and Social Change
Political modernization is closely interconnected with social olitics d n which can be called a
process which breaks down or erodes major clusters of old social, economic and psychological
commitments and people are open to new patterns of socialization and olitics. In this light social
systems can be categorized into three types:
1. Primitive and Behavioural Social System: This category included backward social systems of
the world where traditional response, customs and rituals still carry authority over the society.
No serious effort is made in the direction of political modernization, socialization or recruitment.
Membership and the right to participation in both the government and in the limited number of
voluntary associations is largely confined to members of particular kinship and lineage groups,
or to some religious and cast communities.
Several Third World countries may be put in this category. In most of these countries
high offices of the state are shared by men of one family or tribe. Urbanisation may have a start,
literacy may also rise, gradual industralisation may take place, and mass media channels may
expand, but goals that are modern such as democracy, stability, structural differentiation,
achievement patterns and national integration seem to be beyond realization.
2. Developing Social Systems: The countries coming in this category show a dichotomy of
tradition and modernity that may be seen in most parts that have been under European control.
A cross – cultural phenomenon developed as the culture of the ruler affected the social and
political cultures of the countries under colonial domination. The result is a series of modern
institutions resting rather uneasy on a traditional base, which is under the impact of increasing
pressure of industrialization and urbanization
Two points of importance are:
1. Though the peace of political modernization picks-up speed, the factor of tradition is not
thoroughly eroded by the trend towards modernity.
2. No break with the past can be complete and far-reaching, and even where fundamental
changes may be effected, an element of continuity remains.
3. Western or developed Social Systems: These developed countries are affluent and people
educated. The country is well urbanized and industralised, and institutional arrangements
ensure that decision makes are either elected by the people, or are legally answerable to the
representatives of the people, and the decisions made by the government are democratic.
Political Modernization and Political Systems
Political modernization is a variable for classifying social system. It can also be used for
presenting a typological illustration of the political systems of the world Edward Shils has classified
modern political systems into varieties: democracy and oligarchy. He further classified them into
political and tutelary democracies and totalitarian and traditional oligarchies.
He takes political modernization as a plausible ground for stratification of political systems. He
begins with primitive societies where role of kinship, caste and religion prevail and democratic norms
are difficult to establish. The middle level is of those developing societies where traditional beliefs,
existing social structure, scarcity of human material of politics, and normal and intellectual qualities of
the elites themselves all affect the operation of the political system. At the top are the developed
political systems of the world that have reached the goal of dynamism, and are concerned about the
people and are democratic and equalitarian, scientific, economically advanced, sovereign and
influential.
Summary
The approach has been recommended by its protagonists as highly rewarding and has led to
other expansion of the frontiers of modern political science. The concept of political modernization is
related to the concept of political development and has provided modern political scientists with tools to
study the modern political systems. It is a concept derived from sociology once again proving the inter-
disciplinary nature of social sciences.
It emphasizes the view that political systems can function only when the entire social system is
mobilized, and the necessary political participation of the people at various levels is secured.
The concept of political modernization can be criticized on the same grounds on which political
development is criticized. These concepts have made political science into a dependent variable of
other social sciences. Modern Political writers have often seemed to take the view that governmental
system is dependent on other systems and derives its contours, from social, psychological, economical
and cultural factors, and whose main job is to process the inputs generated by these forces and
covering them into governmental outputs.
3.4 Feminist approach
Introduction
Feminist approach to Comparative Politics is a new field in feminist theory (which emerged in
the late 80s and early 90s) maintaining that the state, public policies and institutions have impact on
gender relations. It analyses "policies and their impact on gender relations, and thereby offers important
contributions to the analysis of the state and to political science in general. However in the field there
are different perspectives resulting of the different types of analyses – Marxist, socialist, liberal, etc. But
what is common for the field is that the previous negligence of the state in the feminist theory is
abandoned. This discursive turn within feminist analysis reflects the turn within political science as a
whole. Previously viewed as fundamentally patriarchal, now the state is analyzed in its relations of
power, class, social and economic groups in feminist perspective, also state's instruments for
subordination of women, structuration and influence of gender roles and relations, and in more positive
vision – positive economic policies for lessening of the financial dependency of women on men,
analyses of the "promotion – of women‘s interests within the state, either through the action of
‗femocrats‘ (feminist bureaucrats) working from within the state system to empower women, or when
the state itself acts in a way to further women‘s status. Feminist political theory includes comparative
research, it focuses on politics constructing gendered subjects, and the ways in which gender
constructs politics, and the ways in which gender issues such as ‗women‘s inequality‘ are constructed
in policy debates and decision-making.
Feminism in comparative politics and international relations (IR) is a broad term given to works
of those scholars who have sought to bring gender concerns into the academic study of international
politics. In terms of international relations theory it is important to understand that feminism is derived
from the school of thought known as reflectionism. One of the most influential works in feminist
International Relations is Cynthia Enloe's Bananas, Beaches and Bases (Pandora Press 1990). This
text sought to chart the many different roles that women play in international politics – as plantation
sector workers, diplomatic wives, sex workers on military bases etc. The important point of this work
was to emphasize how, when looking at international politics from the perspective of women, one is
forced to reconsider his or her personal assumptions regarding what international politics is 'all about'.
However, it would be a mistake to think that feminist International Relations was solely a matter
of identifying how many groups of women are positioned in the international political system. From its
inception, feminist view of International Relations has always shown a strong concern with thinking
about men and, in particular, masculinities. Indeed, many International Relations feminists argue that
the discipline is inherently masculine in nature. For example, in her article "Sex and Death in the
Rational World of Defense Intellectuals" Signs (1988), Carol Cohn claimed that a highly masculinised
culture within the defense establishment contributed to the divorcing of war from human emotion.
A feminist view of International Relations involves looking at how international politics affects
and is affected by both men and women and also at how the core concepts that are employed within
the discipline of IR (e.g. war, security, etc.) are themselves gendered. Feminist IR has not only
concerned itself with the traditional focus of IR on states, wars, diplomacy and security, but feminist IR
scholars have also emphasized the importance of looking at how gender shapes the current global
political economy. In this sense, there is no clear cut division between feminists working in IR and those
working in the area of International Political Economy (IPE).
Feminist IR emerged largely from the late 1980s onwards. The end of the Cold War and the re-
evaluation of traditional IR theory during the 1990s opened up a space for gendering International
Relations. Because feminist IR is linked broadly to the critical project in IR, by and large most feminist
scholarship has sought to problematise the politics of knowledge construction within the discipline –
often by adopting methodologies of deconstructivism associated with postmodernism/poststructuralism.
However, the growing influence of feminist and women-centric approaches within the international
policy communities (for example at the World Bank and the United Nations) is more reflective of the
liberal feminist emphasis on equality of opportunity for women.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Define feminism.
….........................................................................................................................................
….........................................................................................................................................
2. Define gender.
….........................................................................................................................................
….........................................................................................................................................

This approach details some of the main varieties of gender issues in world politics. Here we
offer an overview of five main types of feminist theory, which have become common since the mid-
1980s. These are liberal, socialist/Marxist, standpoint, post-modern, and post-colonial. Although this
section is titled ‗feminist theory, it is both a deliberate and misleading heading. It is deliberate in that it
focuses on the socially constructed roles that ‗women‘ occupy in world politics. It is misleading because
this question has to be understood in the context of the construction of differences between women and
men and contingent under standings of masculinity and femininity. In other worlds, the focus could
more accurately be on gender rather than men, and the concepts of masculinity and femininity, are
highly contested in much feminist research. Similarly, the distinctions of liberal/socialist, etc., are slightly
misleading for as you will discover below these categories do not exactly correspond to the diverse
work of feminist scholars, especially in contemporary work in which elements from each type are often
integrated.
The term ‗gender‘ usually refers to the social construction of difference between ‗men‘ and
‗women‘. Some of the theories covered in this section assume natural and biological (e.g. sex)
differences between men and women. The most interesting work in this field does, however, is analyze
how gender both affects world politics and is an effect of world politics; in other words, how different
concepts (such as the state or sovereignty) are gendered and, in turn, how this gendering of concepts
can have differential consequences for men and women It is important to note that feminists have
always been interested in how understandings of gender affect men‘s lives as well as women. Indeed,
there is also a field of research known as men‘s studies that models itself after, and was made possible
by emergence of women‘s studies Feminist approach in international relations originally developed in
work on the politics of development and in peace research. But by the late 1980s a first wave of
feminism, liberal feminism, was more forcefully posing the question of ‗where are the women in world
politics?‘ The meaning of ‗liberal‘ in the context of feminism, the term starts from the notion that the key
units of society are individuals possess specific rights and are equal. Thus, one strong argument of
liberal feminism is that all rights should be granted to women equally with men. Here we can see how
the state is gendered in that rights, such as voting rights, right to possess property, etc., were
predicated solely on the experiences and expectations of men-and, typically, a certain ethnic/racial
class of men. Thus, taking women seriously made a difference to the standard view of world politics.
Liberal feminists look at the ways in which women are excluded from power and prevented from playing
a full part in political activity. They examine how women have been restricted to roles critically important
for the functioning of things (such as reproductive economics) but that are not usually deemed to be
important for theories of world politics.
Moreover women were absent from the canonical texts of international relations, and thus
appeared invisible. We would be able to see their presence and importance to world politics, as well as
the ways in which their exclusion from world politics was presumed a ‗natural‘ consequence of their
biological or natural roles. After all, it was not that women were actually absent from world politics.
Indeed, they played absolutely central roles, either as cheap factory labour, as prostitutes around
military bases, or as the wives of diplomats. The point is that the conventional picture painted by
traditional international theory both ignored these contributions and, if recognized, designated them as
less important than the actions of states- ‗men‘. Enloe demonstrated just how critically important were
the activities of women to the functioning of the international economic and political systems. She
illustrated exactly how crucial women and the conventional arrangements of ‗women‘s and men‘s work‘
were to the continued functioning of international politics. Most specifically, Enloe documented how the
concepts and practice of militarization influenced the lives and choices of men and women around the
world. ‗Militarization‘. She writes, ‗is a step-by-step process by which a person or a thing gradually
comes to be controlled by the military or comes to depend for its well-being on militaristic ideas‘. Enloe
is an example of a scholar who begins from a liberal premise, that is that women and men should have
equal rights and responsibilities in world politics, but draws upon socialist feminism to analyze the role
of economic structures and standpoint feminism to highlight the unique and particular contributions of
women.
A second strand of feminist theory is socialist/Marxist feminism, with its insistence on the role of
material and primarily economic forces in determining the lives of women. This approach is also
sometimes known as materialist feminism. For Marxist feminism, the cause of women throwing
capitalism is the necessary route for the achievement of the equal treatment of women Socialist
feminism, noting that the oppression of women occurred in pre-capitalist societies, and continues in
socialist societies, differs from Marxist feminism in that it introduces a second central material cause in
determining women‘s unequal treatment, namely the patriarchal system of male dominance (Braun
1987, Gottlieb 1989). For Marxist feminists, then, capitalism is the primary oppressor, for socialist
feminists it is capitalism plus patriarchy. For socialist/Marxist feminists the focus of a theory of world
politics would be on the patterns by which the world capitalist system and the patriarchal system of
power lead to women being systematically disadvantaged compared to men. The approach, therefore,
has much in common with post-colonial feminism, which is discussed below; both are especially
insightful when it comes to looking at the nature of the world-economy and its differential advantages
and disadvantages that apply to women. But post-colonial feminism criticizes socialist/Marxist feminism
for presuming the ‗sameness‘ of patriarchy throughout the world and across time; rather than seeing
the ways in which patriarchy both falsely presumes a universal experience of male domination and
obscures the intersections of oppression of both men and women of colour.
The third version of feminist theory is standpoint feminism. This variant emerged out of socialist
feminism and the idea of a particular class might be able to ‗envision‘ or see politics from a perspective
denied to those who benefited from the subordination of women. Radical feminism was premised upon
the unique qualities and individuality of women. Drawing upon socialist feminist interpretations of
structure, standpoint feminism began to identify how the subordination of women, as a particular class,
by virtue of their sex rather than economic standing (although the two were related) possessed a
unique perspective or standpoint on world politics as a result of their subordination. This first insight
was later developed to consider also how the knowledge, concepts and categories of world politics
were predicted upon a norm of masculine olitics and masculine experiences, and therefore
represented not a universal standard – but a highly specific, particular standard. Standpoint feminists
argue that seeing the world from the standpoint of women radically alters our understanding of that
world. Standpoint feminism has undergone dramatic changes since its first articulation to incorporate
the critiques of women of colour, who argued that, like socialism, it presumed that class identity (or in
this case, sex identity) was the primary affiliation of all women and, accordingly, the single source of
their oppression. The standpoint position also runs the risk of essentializing and fixing the views see the
world. Nonetheless despite these dangers, standpoint feminism has been very influential in showing
just how male-dominate the main theories of world politics are in part because it is grounded in ple, J.
Ann Tickner (1988) reformulated the famous ‗Six principles of political realism‘ developed by the
‗godfather‘ seemingly ‗objective‘ rules of Morgenthau in fact reflect male values and definitions of
reality, rather than female ones. As a riposte, Tickner reformulated these same rules taking women‘s
(as opposed to men‘s) experiences as the starting point.
The fourth version is post-modern feminism, which develops the work of post-structuralism to
analyze specifically the concept of gender. Therefore, it might help to read the following in conjunction
with the section on post-modernism below. Essentially, post-modern feminism criticizes the basic
distinction between sex and ‗gender‘ that earlier feminist theories found so useful in thinking about the
roles/lives of men and women in world politics and in analyzing the gendered concepts of world politics
itself. This distinction between sex and gender was useful because it allowed feminists to argue that the
position of women and men in the world was not natural, but highly contingent and dependent upon the
meaning given to biological differences. Yet, while extremely useful, the acceptance of the sex-gender
distinction retained the binary opposition of male-female, and presumed that while gender was
constructed, sex was wholly natural. However, as a number of scholars demonstrated, what we
understood sex to be, what biological differences were, was heavily influenced by our understanding of
gender – that is, that sex was as constructed as gender. This does not mean that our biological bodies
or ‗the determination of sex‘ is not important. Rather it suggests that ‗understand this process leads to
questions concerning how sex and gender operate to create the reality through which bodies
materialize as sexed, as sexualized … as objects of knowledge and subjects of power.
In questioning the sex-gender distinction, in arguing that sex is not the origin of gender but an
effect of gender post-modern feminists introduced the concept ‗gender performativity‘. Performativity is
itself a tricky concept, and one that is easily misunderstood. However, a good place to begin is thinking
about an act that is repeatable, yet alterable, and an act or a production that can only make sense
within a large social construct of agreed-upon norms. To think about gender performativity is to think
about gender as not given or rooted in sex, but as something that is enacted and produced in social
relations. In Judith Butler‘s famous phrase ‗ender is a doing‘. This is still a difficult concept in feminist
theory, and it is highly contested as well. Nonetheless, the concept of gender performativity opens the
sex-gender distinction to analysis while, simultaneously, displacing the subject of ‗woman‘ from the
centre of feminist theorizing and introducing the question of identity. For, rather than presuming women
are the subjects of feminism, Butler asks how subjects are produced. To try to understand this process
in world politics is to ask, to put it simply, how world politics produces certain kinds of ‗soldiers‘, certain
kinds of ‗workers‘, certain kinds of ‗states‘ that are not simply men or women, male or female, but
complexly positioned states that seem, to us, completely natural.
The final form of feminism to mention is post colonial feminism. It might help to read the
following in conjunction with the discussion of post-colonialism in this chapter. Post-colonial feminists
work at the intersection of class, race, and gender on a global scale, and especially analyzes the
gendered effects of transnational culture and unequal division of labour in the global political economy.
From this perspective, it is not good enough to simply demand (as liberal feminists do) that man and
women should have equal rights in a Western-style democracy. Such a move ignores the way in which
poor women of colour in the global Sough remain subordinated by the global economic system; a
system that liberal feminists were slow to challenge in a systematic way. In other words, the concerns
and interest of feminists in the West and those in the rest of the world may not, therefore so easily fit.
Post-colonial feminists are also critical of Western, privileged academic intellectuals (men and women)
who claim to be able to ‗speak for‘ the oppressed, a form of cultural imperialism with important material
effects. Perhaps the most influential post-colonial feminist scholar in this vein is Gayatri Spivak, who
combines Marxism, feminism, and deconstruction to interpret imperialism, past and present, and onging
struggles for decolonization. In an influential essay ‗Can the Subaltern Speak?‘, spivak (1988)
acknowledged the ambiguity of her own position in a privileged Western university and argued that elite
scholars should be wary of homogenizing the ‗subaltern‘ and try to speak for them in their ‗true‘ voice
(what she calls of form of ‗epistemic violence‘). The concept of the subaltern is discussed below, but it
essentially refers to subordinated groups and in this instance to underprivileged women in the global
South. In not recognizing the heterogeneity of experience and opinion of these diverse women,
seemingly benevolent and well-meaning academics are to once patronizing in their desire to redeem
them and unwittingly complicit in new forms of colonialism. Some post-modernists have also been
criticized along similar lines for being too Western-centric and gender-blind. The combination of
colonialism and patriarchy has made it doubly difficult for the resistance and agency of subaltern to be
heard and recognized.
Summary
Feminist approach to Comparative Politics is a new field in feminist theory (which emerged in
the late 80s and early 90s) maintaining that the state, public policies and institutions have impact on
gender relations. It analyses "policies and their impact on gender relations, and thereby offers important
contributions to the analysis of the state and to political science in general. However in the field there
are different perspectives resulting of the different types of analyses – Marxist, socialist, liberal, etc. But
what is common for the field is that the previous negligence of the state in the feminist theory is
abandoned. This discursive turn within feminist analysis reflects the turn within political science as a
whole. Previously viewed as fundamentally patriarchal, now the state is analyzed in its relations of
power, class, social and economic groups in feminist perspective, also state's instruments for
subordination of women, structuration and influence of gender roles and relations, and in more positive
vision – positive economic policies for lessening of the financial dependency of women on men,
analyses of the "promotion - of women‘s interests within the state, either through the action of
‗femocrats‘ (feminist bureaucrats) working from within the state system to empower women, or when
the state itself acts in a way to further women‘s status. Feminist political theory includes comparative
research, it focuses on politics constructing gendered subjects, and the ways in which gender
constructs politics, and the ways in which gender issues such as ‗women‘s inequality‘ are constructed
in policy debates and decision-making.
3.5 Postmodernism
Introduction
Post-modernism has been a particularly influential theoretical development throughout the
social sciences in the last twenty five years. It reached international theory in the mid-1980s, but can
only be said to have really arrived in the past fifteen years. Nonetheless, it is probably as popular a
theoretical approach as any discussed in this chapter and overlaps with a number of them Part of the
difficulty, however, is precisely defining post-modernism. This is in addition to the fact, of course, that
there are substantial theoretical differences within its various strands. One useful definition is by Jean-
Francois Lyotard: ‗Simplifying to the extreme, I define post-modern as incredulity towards
metanarratives‘. Incredulity simply means skepticism; ‗metanarrative‘ means any theory that asserts it
has clear foundations for making knowledge claims and involves a foundational epistemology. Post-
modernism is essentially concerned with deconstructing and distrusting any account of human life that
claims to have direct access to ‗the truth‘. Thus, Marxism Freudian psychoanalysis, and standpoint
feminisms are all suspect from a post-modern perspective because they claim to have uncovered some
fundamental truth about the world.
Three central themes in post-modern work are briefly discussed in this section: the power-
knowledge relationship, the performative nature of identity, and various textual strategies used by post-
modern thinkers. Work on the power-knowledge relationship has been most influenced by Michel
Foucault. Foucault was opposed to the notion dominant in rationalist theories and positivism that
knowledge is immune from the workings of power. Instead, Foucault argued hat power in fact produces
knowledge. All power requires knowledge and all knowledge relies on and reinforces existing power
relations. Thus, there is no such thing as ‗truth‘ existing outside power. To paraphrase Foucault, how
can history have a truth if truth has a history? Truth is not something external to social settings but is
instead part of them.
Accordingly, post-modernists look at what power relations are supported by ‗truth‘ and
knowledge practices. Post-modern international theories have used this insight to examine the ‗truths‘
of international relations theory to see how the concepts and knowledge claims that dominate the
discipline in fact are highly contingent on specific power relations. Three recent examples on the
concept of sovereignty in the history and theory of international politics are by Cynthia Weber (1995),
Jens Bartelson (1995), and Jenny Edkins et al. (1999). In each book, the concept of sovereignty is
revealed to be both historically variable despite the attempts of mainstream scholars to imbue it
artificially with a fixed meaning, and is itself caught up in the practice of sovereignty by producing the
discourse about it.
How do post-modernists study history in the light of this relationship between power and
knowledge? Foucault‘s approach is known as genealogy, which is to undertake a ‗history of the
present‘ and turn what we accept as natural into a question. The central message of genealogy is that
various regimes of truth merely reflect the ways in which, through history, both power and truth develop
together in a mutually sustaining relationship. The way to uncover the workings of power is to
undertake a detailed historical analysis of how the practices and statements about the social world are
only ‗true‘ within specific discourses. Accordingly, post-modernism is concerned with how some
discourses, and therefore some truths, dominate others in very concrete ways. It is for this reason that
post-modernists are opposed to metanarratives, since they imply that there are conditions for
establishing the truth of falsity of knowledge claims that are not the product of any discourse, and
thereby not the product of power.
A second theme is how post-modernists view identity not as a fixed ‗thing‘ but as a performative
site. One way to approach this is to make a comparison with how identity is understood in mainstream
Constructivism. David Campbell has summarized the approach to identity.
Campbell is suggesting that in main stream Constructivism identity is regarded as a kind of object
or substance that can be observed and measured. But for post-modernists, identity out to be conceived
as having ‗no ontological status apart from the various acts which constitute its reality‘ In contrast,
stressing the performative make-up of identity and the constitutive nature of political agency reveals
culture as ‗a relational site for the politics of identity, rather than a substantive phenomena on in its own
right‘. On this view, while appropriating some of the labels and terms of post-modernism,
Constructivism does not really challenge the dominant discourse about identity.
 A third post-modern theme concerns textual strategies. The main claim is that, following
Jacques Derrida (1976), the very way in which we construct the social world is textual. For Derrida, the
world is constituted like a text in the sense that interpreting the world reflects the concepts and
structures of language, what he terms textual interplay. Derrida has two main ways of exposing these
textual interplays, deconstruction and double reading. Deconstruction is based on the idea that
seemingly stable and natural concepts and relations within language are in fact artificial constructs.
They are arranged hierarchically in the case of opposites in language where one term is always
privileged over the other. Therefore, deconstruction is a way of showing how all theories and
discourses rely on artificial stabilities produced by the use of seemingly objective and natural
oppositions (such as public/private, good/bad, male/female, civilized/barbaric, right/wrong). Double
reading is Derrida‘s way of showing how these stabilizations operate by subjecting the text to two
readings. The first is a repetition of the dominant reading to show how it achieves its coherence. The
second is to point out the internal tensions within a text that result from the use of seemingly natural
stabilizations. The aim is not to come to a ‗correct‘ or even ‗one‘ reading of a text, but instead to show
how there is always more than one reading.
In international theory, Richard Ashley (1988) has performed exactly such a double reading of
the concept of anarchy by first providing a reading of anarchy according to the traditional IR literature.
He then undertook a second reading showing how the seemingly natural opposition between anarchy
and sovereignty in the first reading, Ashley shows just how arbitrary is the ‗truth‘ of the traditional
assumptions made about anarchy and the kind of logic of state action that it requires. In a similar move,
R.B.J. Walker (1993) looked at the construction of the tradition of Realism and shows how this is only
possible by ignoring the major nuances and complexities within the thought of the key thinkers of this
tradition, such as Machiavelli and Hobbes. Post-modernism is taking apart the very concepts and
methods of our thinking. It helps us think about the conditions under which we are able to theorize
about world politics and for many is the most appropriate theory for a globalized world
3.6 Summary
The concept of political development was initially formulated in the mid forties-after the World
War II, and the liberation of many Asian and African countries. The theoretical base was provided by
the writing of Max Weber, Malinowski, Radcliffe Brown, Talcott Parsons and Merton Levy. The works of
Pye, Mclelland and Easton supplemented the concept in the early sixties, and Apter, Coleman, Pye,
Riggs, Weiner and Frey with their path breaking studies of many African and Asian societies provided
the practical substance to the theoretical frame work. However the concept of political development has
been criticised on three grounds. It is definitionally vague, lacks uniform development models and is
dependent on other social and economic factors. These are not very serious drawbacks. The concept is
of great value as an aid to the students of comparative government and politics. Besides Political
Modernization Approach has been recommended by its protagonists as highly rewarding and has led to
other expansion of the frontiers of modern political science. The concept of political modernization is
related to the concept of political development and has provided modern political scientists with tools to
study the modern political systems. It is a concept derived from sociology once again proving the inter-
disciplinary nature of social sciences. It emphasizes the view that political systems can function only
when the entire social system is mobilized, and the necessary political participation of the people at
various levels is secured. The concept of political modernization can be criticized on the same grounds
on which political development is criticized. These concepts have made political science into a
dependent variable of other social sciences. Modern Political writers have often seemed to take the
view that governmental system is dependent on other systems and derives its contours, from social,
psychological, economical and cultural factors, and whose main job is to process the inputs generated
by these forces and covering them into governmental outputs. Moreover Feminist approach to
Comparative Politics is a new field in feminist theory (which emerged in the late 80s and early 90s)
maintaining that the state, public policies and institutions have impact on gender relations. It analyses
"policies and their impact on gender relations, and thereby offers important contributions to the analysis
of the state and to political science in general. However in the field there are different perspectives
resulting of the different types of analyses - Marxist, socialist, liberal, etc. But what is common for the
field is that the previous negligence of the state in the feminist theory is abandoned. This discursive turn
within feminist analysis reflects the turn within political science as a whole. Previously viewed as
fundamentally patriarchal, now the state is analyzed in its relations of power, class, social and
economic groups in feminist perspective, also state's instruments for subordination of women,
structuration and influence of gender roles and relations, and in more positive vision - positive
economic policies for lessening of the financial dependency of women on men, analyses of the
"promotion - of women‘s interests within the state, either through the action of ‗femocrats‘ (feminist
bureaucrats) working from within the state system to empower women, or when the state itself acts in a
way to further women‘s status. Feminist political theory includes comparative research, it focuses on
politics constructing gendered subjects, and the ways in which gender constructs politics, and the ways
in which gender issues such as ‗women‘s inequality‘ are constructed in policy debates and decision-
making. Another new approach the Post-modernism has been a particularly influential theoretical
development throughout the social sciences in the last twenty five years. It reached international theory
in the mid-1980s, but can only be said to have really arrived in the past fifteen years. Three central
themes in post-modern work are briefly discussed in this section: the power-knowledge relationship, the
performative nature of identity, and various textual strategies used by post-modern thinkers. Work on
the power-knowledge relationship has been most influenced by Michel Foucault. Foucault was opposed
to the notion dominant in rationalist theories and positivism that knowledge is immune from the
workings of power. Post-modernism is taking apart the very concepts and methods of our thinking. It
helps us think about the conditions under which we are able to theorize about world politics and for
many is the most appropriate theory for a globalized world.
3.7 References
1. Smith, B.C. Understanding third Wold Politics, Palgrave Mcmillan, 2003
2. Nkrumm K. Neo-Colonalism. The last stage of Capitalism, Nelson. 1998
3.8 Further Readings
(1) Alavi, Hamza and Teodor Shanin (eds.). Introductin to the Sociology of 'Developing
Societies', Macmillan, London 1982.
(2) Amin, Samir, 'Social Movements at the Periphery' in P Wignaraja (ed.), New Social
Movements in the South, Zed, London, 1983.
(3) Archetti, E. et al., Latin America, Macmillan, London, 1987.
(4) Ayoade, J.A.,‘ States Without CitizenL An Emerging African Phenomenon‘ in D.
Rothchild and N. Chazan (ed.) The Precious, P. (ed.) Political Domination in Africa :
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1988.
(5) Bayarrt, J.F. ‗Civil Society in Africa‘ in Chabal, P. (ed)., Political Domination in Africa :
Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(6) Berger, M., ‗The End of the Third World‘, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1994.
 (7) Bratton, M., and Van der Walle, N., ‗Towards Govermance in Africa : Popular Demands
and State Responses‘ in G. Hayden and M. Bratton (eds), Govermance and Polticals in
Africa, Boulder, Colorado, 1991.
(8) Callaghy, T., ‗Vision and Politics in the Transformation of the Global, Political Economy :
Lessons from the Third World, L. Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, (eds), Global
Transformation and the Third World L. Reinner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
(9) Chbal, P., Introduction : ‗Thinking About Politics in Africa‘ , in Chabal, O. (eds), Political
Domination in Africa : Reflections : Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(10) Guaba. O.P 2002 Comparative Politics. New Delhi. Mayur Publicatons.

3.9 Model Questions

1. Discuss Liberal feminism looks at the roles women play in world politics.
2. Analyze Marxist/socialist feminist focus on the international capitalist system and patriarchy.
3. Describe the views of Standpoint, Post-modernist and Post-colonial feminists regarding the
women ‗s role in world politics.
4. Define post-modernism and discuss it as a modern political theory.
5. Discuss the Foucault focuses on the power-knowledge relationship and sees the two as
Mutually constituted.

---S---
 Lesson-4

COLONIALISM

Contents
4.0 Objectives

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Meaning and Definitions

4.3 Characteristics of colonialism

4.4 Difference between colonialism and imperialism

4.5 Goals of colonialism

4.6 Means of colonialism

4.7 Merits and demerits of colonialism

4.8 Summary

4.9 References

4.10 Further Readings

4.11 Model Questions

4.0 Objectives
Objective of this lesson is to give you the overview of colonialism. After reading this lesson you
should be able to :
 Know the meaning of colonialism
 Understand the difference between colonialism and imperialism
 Assess the ends and means that how colonialism flourished and retained longer.
 Discuss the merits and demerits of colonial rule over third world countries.

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter we shall try to comprehensively discuss the colonialism and also try to
differentiate colonialism from imperialism. Furthermore we shall make efforts to understand the ends
and means of colonialism as well merits and demerits. Colonialism is quite similar to imperialism and
there is a close relationship between the two. Sometimes both are used interchangeably. According to
Walter laqueur, both are used interchangeably. Accordingly to Walter Laqueur, colonialism and
imperialism are synonymous words. Both involve the imposition of an alfen rule and domination of the
native people. But sill the colonialism is more subtle and deeper than imperialism because it involves a
more extensive penetration in the life of the natives of the colonies. In it the colonial powers establish
their social, economic, political and cultural control the people of the colonies. In imperialism, formal
political control is established over the imperialized states and India before 1947 was the example of
imperialism.
4.2 Meaning and Definitions of Colonialism: - Different writers have given the following
definitions of colonialism: -
1. According to E.M. Winslow, ―Colonialism is the occupation of virgin territory in which conflict was
incidental, or even unnecessary and subordinate to the desire of Europeans to find a new place
to live.‖
Comments: - Followings are the weaknesses of E.M. Winslow‘s definition of Colonialism: -
(i) The purposes of colonialism is not always to enslave the virgin territories. (ii) The
purpose of colonialism is not always to find new territories to live. Sometimes it is motivated by
economic interests also.
2. According to Malvin M. knight, ―In political sense a colony is either (a) a settlement of subjects of
a state beyond its frontiers or (b) a territorial unit geographically separated from a state but
owning allegiance to it in some specific and tangible way.‖
3. In the words of J.A. Hobson, ―Colonialism is a natural overflow of nationality, its test is the power
of the colonists to transplant the civilization they represent to the new natural and social
environment in which they find themselves.
Comments: - The definition of colonialism given by Hobson seems to be quite comprehensive. It
states that the colonial rulers try to impose their culture on the people of the colonies and in this
purpose how far they are successful, can also be judged. If they succeed in this purpose, then it
becomes easy to govern over the colonies. But this definition does not explain the other aims of
colonialism.
4. According to President Sukarno, ―Colonialism has also its modern dress in the form of economic
control, intellectual control and actual physical control by a small but an alien community within
a nation.‖
5. According to Palmer and Perkins, ―To the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa,
colonialism is anything that involves white man dominating the dark, the big power prevailing
over the small.‖
6. According to Dictionary of Politics, edited by Walter Lequeur ―it (colonialism) referred to the
policies and methods of which imperial power maintained or extended its control over the
territories of other people.‖
After reading and evaluating the above given definitions we come to the conclusion that
colonialism is to control the weaker nations by strong nations and to establish their colonies and to rule
over these colonies. In this the strong impose their culture over the weak nations and try to change their
thinking. This way the influence of the colonial states is very subtle and deep.
4.3 Characteristics of Colonialism: - Following are the main characteristics of colonialism: -
1. Dominance of an Alien minority over Native Majority: -
Usually the weak and backward states are the victims of colonialism. Therefore, it is easy for a
developed state to control them inspite of their minority. For example very few Britishers ruled over
crores of Indians for a long time.
2. Relations between developed and under developed culture: -
In colonialism a developed and economically strong culture establish relationship under
developed and weak culture.
3. Spread of culture: -
According to the definition given by J.A. Hobson‘s it is clear that colonialist countries try to
impose their culture, which they regard superior, over the colonies. For this reason they bring changes
in education system, spread their religion and bring change in the overall living of the people. In India
the influence of Portugase culture can be seen in Goa.
4. Policy of Divide and Rule: -
To strengthen the colonial rule, permanently, the colonialists use the policy of ‗Divide and Rule.‘
They make the people to fight in the name of religion, culture, language, class etc. This weakness the
native country. Moreover this directs the attention of people towards other un-important things.
5. Despotic Rules:-
Colonialist countries establish despotic rule over their colonies. They depar the natives from
political rights and liberties. This becomes an obstacle in the way of political consciousness among the
natives. Their participation in policy making process is negligible.
6. Reward to Loyalty:-
Colonialists also adopt the policy of rewarding the loyal persons of the colonies. This helps the
colonialists to strengthen their grip over the colonies.
4.4 Differences between Imperialism and Colonialism
We have studied the meaning and characteristics of both Imperialism and colonialism and have
seen that there are close relationship between these two. Foreign rule, economic exploitation to impose
their culture over the other and their cultural subordination etc. are the common characteristics of the
both. Not only this, colonialism is a form of imperialism. But inspite of all this, we find the following
differences between the two:-
1. Colonialism is older than Imperialism: - In comparison to Colonialism, imperialism is a
new invention for influencing the week nations. In these days, it has become almost impossible to
establish colonies, whereas in the old times it was quite a common practice. Today, the powerful and
developed nations try to influences other nation in the guise of economic help. So, in comparison to
imperialism, colonialism is much older.
2. In colonialism transfer of population is essential, not in Imperialism: - Colonialists
transferred their population to the colonies in order to rule the colonies and to make their rule strong.
But it is not necessary in Imperialism. Today many countries are under the influence of America and
U.S.S.R. but it is not necessary that their population has migrated to those countries.
 3. Colonialism is direct and open, but it is not essential In Imperialism:- Colonialists rule
is direct over the weak and backward countries. For example before 1947 India was the Empire. But
imperialism can be both open and close. Today many countries are the victim of imperialism though not
directly but indirectly. They are indirectly under the impact of imperialism.
4. In comparison to colonialism Imperialism is more rigid and Autocractic: - Aim of
colonialism is to establish colonies over virgin territories, therefore the use of autcractic power is not
necessary. But imperialists need rigid and autocractic power to rule over the colonies.
5. In Imperialism use of military power is essential, not in colonialism: - In Imperialism,
foreign rule is imposed on other lists generally control the virgin territories which do not protest against
the imperialist forces.
6. Difference in their objectives: - There is difference in the objectives of Imperialism and
Colonialism. The object of Imperialism is the imposition of foreign rule and economic exploitation. But in
colonialism, a special culture, which is alien, is imposed on the natives and to achieve this purpose they
generally make use of the motivating means.
Comparing Imperialism and Colonialism E.M. Winslow has written, ―Imperialism is something
more organized, more militant, more self consciously aggressive and bent on objectives, above and
beyond those of colonialism.
Closes Relationship between Imperialism and Colonialism
The above written differences between Imperialism and colonialism are more theoretical rather
than real. Some people think that both Imperialism and colonialism are the chips of the same block.
The main aim of both the concepts is the economic, social and cultural exploitation of the victim states.
Therefore, both are evils and man of right thinking can never support these concepts. Therefore, the
age of both the concepts is almost over. But in these days both imperialism and colonialism have got
transformed into Neo-Colonialism and the era of Neo-Colonialism and imperialism have been in a
position to secure political independence, but at the same time they continue to be economically
dependent upon their former colonial and imperial masters. Because of this, they are not in a position to
make their policies independently. So, the need is to end this evil at international level so that an
international community based on justice could be established.
Self Assessment Questions
1. Define Colonalism

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

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

Define Imperialism

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

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

4.5 Motives and Goals of Colonialism

We have studied above that the differences between Imperialism and Colonialism are more
theoretical and less real. The aim of both is the imposition of an alien rule and culture over the native
people. Both try to exploit the subordinate state to their advantage. So, in practice both are dangerous
and harmful systems. Deposite moral pretentions, their basis is always immoral and selfish. The
motivating factors of both are almost commons which can be discussed under the following headings:-
1. Economic Gains:- The most important and the primary objective of imperialism and colonialism
is to secure economic gains by exploiting the raw material potential of the subject nations. The
powerful and developed nations need raw material to run their factories and markets to sell their
finished goods. According to Dr. Shacht, ―The fight for raw material plays the most important
role in world politics.‖ Every powerful nation want to establish maximum control over the sources
of raw material and their this need leds to imperialism and colonialism.
The imperial powers also need markets for selling their surplus goods produced by its
industrial units at profitable price. The backward and under developed units at profitable price.
The backward and under developed countries, because of their economic backwardness,
constitute big consumer markets and hence attract imperial powers. They earn maximum profit
by selling their goods in these countries.
Further, the powerful and rich nations also get motivated to invest their surplus capital in
the colonies. In their own country there is very limited scope to invest surplus capital because
after a particular point it becomes unprofitable to invest capital. So, the backward states provide
a good opportunity for the investment of surplus capital. The economic motives of imperialism
are so strong that many scholars try motives of imperialism solely in terms of economic theories
and offer a number of economic theories of imperialism. For the coming of Britishers to India,
economic gains were the most important motivating factor and they exploited the economic
resources of India to their maximum advantages.
2. To achieve more power and Prestige in International Field:- To achieve more power and
fame is the natural desire of man. Moreover, politics is struggle for power. Like Individual
nations also want to achieve more and more power and Prestige in international sphere.
Mussolini of Italy and Hitler of Germany adopted Imperialism only to get back the lost prestige of
their country and they conquered many states. Britishers felt glory when it was said, ―The sun of
the British Empire never sets.‖ Thus the lust for power and prestige has always been a strong
motive for Imperialism and colonialism.
3. White Man’s Burden or Humanitarian motives:- The supporters of Imperialism and
colonialism advocate that it is motivated by humanitarian motives of uplifting the poor and
backward people of the Asia and Africa. It is the humanitarian responsibility of the western
nations to work for development of the non-white peoples. Such a view, as described by Kipling
is known as ‗White man‘s burden.‘ And it is based on the notion that white race is superior race
and it is its prime duty to uplift the inferior races. The supporters of this view believe in
abolishing ignorance, slavery and cannibalism from amongst the backward people and to
civilize them by imparting them their own religion and civilization to which they consider
superior. Joseph Chamberlain who was the main supporter of imperialism, declared in 1893, ―It
is our duty to take our share in the work of civilization in Africa.‖
But according to the critics of this view the humanitarian motive is in fact used by the
imperialists to clock their egoistic selfishness with professed attruism.
4. To strengthen National Defense:- To strengthen their security in international sphere is also a
motivating factor to imperialism and colonialism. At times, the imperialist nations get help both in
the form of men and material from the subject nations and strengthen their security. For
example, during First World War to safeguard their imperialistic interest in other states, the
Britishers got help from India, both in the form of men and material. In the 19 th century, Britain
 used Afghanistan, Iran and Tibet as buffer states for the defence of India against Russia. During
World War-I, France drew nearly 5 Lakh troops and 2 Lakh labourers from her colonies.
5. Aggressive Nationalism:- Aggressive nationalism, which is also termed as Blind Nationalism
in the motive behind Imperialism and colonialism. Powerful state take pride in capturing the
weak nations. According to Hans Kohn, ―Imperialism is for the most part a rate phase in the
process begun by nationalism. Nationalism strives to unite the members of the nation, politically
and territorially, in a state organization. When that is accomplained, the struggle for the
possession of earth proceeds further.‖
6. Adjustment of Surplus Population:- Many interllectuals belive that djustment of surplus
population is another motive behind Imperialism and colonialism. This view was given by
Imperialist nations like Japan, Germany and Italy. But this view has not proved a powerful
motivating factor because the imperialist nations have not succeeded in adjusting their surplus
population in other states. In the words of Palmer and Perkins, ―All imperialist states have failed
completely to win as much enthusiasm for home as for flags in those far away places with
strange sounding names.‖
7. Spread of Religion:- Spread of religion was also one of the motives behind imperialism and
colonialism. Britishers tried to spread Christian religion in their colonies and in their this purpose,
they were successful to a great extent.
8. To maintain Power Balance:- In these days, to maintain power balance is one of the motives
of imperialism and colonialism. The U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. are always conscious of the fact that
the international power balance may not tilt to their disadvantage. So, they are always making
efforts to maintain it to their advantage.
9. Spread of ideology:- The socialist countries are making all efforts for the spread of socialistic
ideology. They also want to limit the influence of capitalism. Similarly the capitalist states are
making all efforts to stop the spread of communistic ideology in the world. The Soviet
intervention to Afghanistan and the America aid to Pakistan are the clear examples of this
motive.
4.6 Methods or Means of Colonialism and Imperialism
According to Moregenthou, there are three methods of imperialism and colonialism which are
explained below: -
1. Military Means: - According to Marganthou the oldest and the cheapest method of conquering
other nation is military means. All the great conquerors of all ages were Imperialists. Hitler,
Napolean, Mussolini, Luis XIV and many other rulers used this method. While
justifying military means they said that the results are instant by military means. Weak Nations
can be controlled. This process is the oldest because from ancient times powerful has made the
weak his slave.
But while giving his arguments against this method, Marganthou has said that war is a
gamble and its results can not be predicted. Many times military imperialism has secured
negative and opposite results. A nation trying to imperialise other nation through military means
very often finds itself imperialized by other states. Hitler made use of military power to conquer
other states, but as a result of this Germany itself became victim of imperialism. Apart from this,
this means is quite dangerous because the result of war is generally a great devastation.
Therefore, every right thinking person rejects this method.
2. Economic Means: - In the present age to control the weak and backward states, the economic
means has proved the most effective and successful. According to Morgenthou, the economic
means is the most rational method of gaining power, a product of modern times throught
economic means the rich and developed nations exercise control over the fianance and
consequently the policies of the backward and the poor countries. The rich states make the poor
states completely dependent on themselves. They give economic help but also put many
conditions on them and all this limits the independence of action of the poor states.
Economic imperialism which is known as ‗Dollar Imperialism‘ is the result of the age of
mercantilist and capitalist expansion. In these days throught foreign investment, economic aid,
loans and by establishing multi-national corporations, in the poor state the rich and powerful
states of exercising economic influence over the backward states of Asia, Africa and Latin
America-popularly known as the ‗Third World‘. Though these states are politically independent,
but economically these states are completely dependent on the imperialist nations. They fall to
frame policies independently and this situation of political independence and economic
dependence has come to be calle Neo-Colonialism and Neo-Imperialism.
3. Cultural Means: - Cultural means can also he called psychological means because thought this
the total thinking of the people is changed. Its aim is to control the minds of the people of the
other nations by impressing upon them the superiority of their culture, Ideology and way of life of
the imperialist nations. It is a very subtle means and its effect is very deep. Sometimes it aims at
the complete destruction of the culture of the subject states and for this purpose, their attitudes,
values and principles are completely changed. According to Morgenthou, ―Cultural Imperialism
is the most subtle and, if it were to succeed by itself alone, the most successful of imperialist
policies.‖
American policy of impressing upon other nations the value of freedom, liberal democracy and
free trade and open competition, is in fact a subtle method of influencing other nations in favor of
American Imperialism. Similarly in order to spread their influence in the international sphere, Soviet
Union is also propagating the merits of socialistic order. To achieve this purpose these countries try to
influence the education system and the curricultums being taught in the other states. They distribute
their literature, establish cultural societies and cultural fairs are arranged in other state. Though the
influence of all these factors is very slow, yet it is very deep and effective. It prepares the way for
cultural infiltration and economic penetration into the life of the other people. This also known as
‗Ideological Imperialism.‘

a. Merits and Demerits of Colonialism

Merits of Colonialism
The supporter of Imperialism and colonialism gave the following views in its support: -
1. It is based on Natural Principles: - Justifying Imperialism and colonialism, the supporter said
that ―Struggle for Existence ―Survival of the fittest.‖ ―Will to survive and Dominate‖ are natural principles
and imperialism and colonialism are based on these natural principles. It is natural right of the strong to
conquer the weak-countries. Mussolini and Hitler advocated the theory of Imperialism on this basis.
2. Useful to fulfill the needs of growing Population: - Today the population of every nation is
increasing. It is the duty of the nation to fulfill the needs of its citizens, but the resources of every sate
are limited. Therefore, fulfillment of the needs of the citizens by developing the resources of other
states is not bad.
3. Helpful in Economic Progress: - Imperialism and colonialists advocates that it is necessary for
the development of both developed and under developed nations. Rich countries exploit the economic
resources of the poor countries. They sell ready goods on cheap rates in colonies. Moreover they
invest surplus money in under developed countries which results in economic development of the poor
country. People are given employment which enables them to earn their livelihood.
4. Transfer of Technical knowledge: - Developed countries transfer technical knowledge to
undeveloped countries which help in economic developed thought new techniques.
5. Helpful in cultural Development: - Imperialism and colonialism also help in the cultural
development of backward countries. We have studied earlier that developed countries believe in
supremacy of their culture and they held it their responsibility to make the people of backward countries
civilized. Kipling has termed it as ―White Man‘s Burden‖. Western counties accept it as their moral
responsibility to civilize the uncivilized classes of the world.
6. Means of Political Unity: - Imperialism and Colonialism was successful in bringing political
unity in different countries and it was also able to establish same type of political institutions. The
parliamentary form of Government and representative assemblies adopted by India, are the gifts of
British Imperialism. Common wealth of Nations are also the gift of British Imperialism.
7. Training in the Art of Self Government: - The supporters of Imperialism and colonialism
advocates that the establishment of self government is also the gift of imperialism and colonialism.
Imperialist states trained the people in the art of self government and made them sufficient.
8. Means of International Peace and Cooperative: - C.D. Burns while supporting this view has
said, ―Imperialism breaks down the narrow of villages politics and leads to internationalism the narrow
of villages politics and leads to internationalism and brotherhood.‖ It is natural that the people living
under one imperialist country develop a mutual love and fraternity. Imperialism brings the people out of
the narrow nationalism and teach them the lesson of world peace and fraternity. This helps in
establishing discipline out of anarchy.
9. It helps the backward nations to stand on their Feet: - Imperialism and colonialism helps the
backward nation to stand on their feet and give them the feeling of security. This helps in the economic,
cultural, political and technical development of backward country.
Demerits of Colonialism
Following views are given against Imperialism and colonialism:-
1. Against the principles of Equality: - Both, the imperialism and the colonialism are against the
principle of equality. Both these views accept that some nations are inferior and some are superior and
the superior nations have the right to establish their control over the inferior nations. But this is
absolutely a wrong view.
2. It is inhuman and Immoral: - These concepts encourage discriminate on among different
nations and propage that some nations are born to rule and others to be ruled. This is inhuman and
immoral and such views have no place in the present day world.
3. It encourages Exploitations: - Imperialism and colonialism are the means of organized
exploitation. Imperialist states exploit the subject states. They import raw material at low rates and sell
their finished goods at high rates. This way they exploit the subject countries to their advantages.
4. Against Democratic Principles: - According to democratic principles, every country, whether
rich or poor, is equal and every state should be given freedom to run their administration. But
imperialism and colonialism do not believe in this idea. Therefore, both these ideologies are
undemocratic.
5. Destruction of Native culture: - Imperialist countries try to impose their culture on the
conquered state. For this reason they use many crooked means, which results in the destruction of
native culture.
6. Policy of Divide and Rule: - To strengthen their control on the controlled state they use the
policy of divide and rule. They encourage riots on the basis of caste, religious community etc. All this
destroys the unity of the country.
7. It is against the principle of self determination: - The international community has accepted
the right of self determination of the every nation which means that every nation has the right to
maintain separate and independent existence. They are also free to run their administration. But
imperialism and colonialism do not accept the principle of self determination.
8. These concepts bring sense of inferiority among the people of subordinate Nations: - The
people of the subordinate states start feeling themselves inferior and it destroys their sense of self
respect. It also becomes an obstacle in the way of their development.
After reading the merits and demerits of colonialism and imperialism we come to the
conclusion that both these ideologies are evils and can not be justified on any ground. These are
inherently inhuman, anti-liberal, anti-democratic in nature and scope. These are black spots on the fair
names of the progressive societies of the 20th century. Today almost the entire world is determined to
end these curses and the nations who have been their supporters, are also critical of these. The United
Nations also rejects and condemns these evils and it is a matter of great satisfaction that the major
portion of the world is free from their control. But now these evils have taken the form of Neo-
Colonialism which needs to be liquidated.
4.8 Summary
Colonialism is to control the weaker nations by strong nations and to establish their colonies and
to rule over these colonies. In this the strong impose their culture over the weak nations and try to
change their thinking. This way the influence of the colonial states is very subtle and deep. We have
studied the meaning and characteristics of both Imperialism and colonialism and have seen that there
are close relationship between these two. Foreign rule, economic exploitation to impose their culture
over the other and their cultural subordination etc. are the common characteristics of the both. Not only
this, colonialism is a form of imperialism. The above written differences between Imperialism and
colonialism are more theoretical rather than real. Some people think that both Imperialism and
colonialism are the chips of the same block. The main aim of both the concepts is the economic, social
and cultural exploitation of the victim states. Therefore, both are evils and man of right thinking can
never support these concepts. Therefore, the age of both the concepts is almost over. But in these
days both imperialism and colonialism have got transformed into Neo-Colonialism and the era of Neo-
Colonialism and imperialism have been in a position to secure political independence, but at the same
time they continue to be economically dependent upon their former colonial and imperial masters.
Because of this, they are not in a position to make their policies independently. So, the need is to end
this evil at international level so that an international community based on justice could be established.
We have studied above that the differences between Imperialism and Colonialism are more theoretical
and less real. The aim of both is the imposition of an alien rule and culture over the native people. Both
try to exploit the subordinate state to their advantage. So, in practice both are dangerous and harmful
systems. Despite moral pretentions, their basis is always immoral and selfish. Colonialism left the
positive and negative impacts on the whole world and tended to change the nature i.e political,
economic and socio-cultural as well as religious.
4.9 References
1. Smith, B.C. Understanding third Wold Politics, Palgrave Mcmillan, 2003
2. Mouzelis, N. Politics in the Semi-Periphery, Macmillan, London, 1998
4.10 Further Readings
(1) Archetti, E. et al., Latin America, Macmillan, London, 1987.
(2) Ayoade, J.A.,‘ States Without CitizenL An Emerging African Phenomenon‘ in D. Rothchild and
N. Chazan (ed.) The Precious, P. (ed.) Political Domination in Africa : Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado, 1988.
(3) Bayarrt, J.F. ‗Civil Society in Africa‘ in Chabal, P. (ed)., Political Domination in Africa :
Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(4) Berger, M., ‗The End of the Third World‘, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1994.
(5) Bratton, M., and Van der Walle, N., ‗Towards Govermance in Africa : Popular Demands and
State Responses‘ in G. Hayden and M. Bratton (eds), Govermance and Polticals in Africa,
Boulder, Colorado, 1991.
(6) Callaghy, T., ‗Vision and Politics in the Transformation of the Global, Political Economy :
Lessons from the Third World, L. Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, (eds), Global Transformation
and the Third World L. Reinner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
(7) Chbal, P., Introduction : ‗Thinking About Politics in Africa‘ , in Chabal, O. (eds), Political
Domination in Africa : Reflections : Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(8) Guaba. O.P 2002 Comparative Politics. New Delhi. Mayur Publicatons.

4.11 Model Questions

1. What do you mean by colonialism? Write down its characteristics and also write down difference
between colonialism and Imperialism.
2. Explain the motives and goals of colonialism.
3. According to Morgenthou discuss the means of Imperialism Colonialism.

---S---
 Lesson-5

IMPACT OF COLONIALISM ON POLITY, ECONOMY AND

CULTURE OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES

Contents

5.0 Objectives

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Various impacts

5.2.1 Political

5.2.2 Economic

5.2.3 Cultural

5.3 Summary

5.4 References

5.5 Further Readings

5.6 Model Questions

5.0 Objectives
This chapter deals with the various impacts of colonialism. After going through this lesson
you should be able to:
 Know that how colonialism effected the politics and economy of developing societies
 Understand the impacts of colonialism on socio-cultural sphere of developing countries.
5.1 Introduction
In previous lesson we have discussed the overview colonialism. In this lesson we are going
to discuss about the various impacts of colonialism i.e political, economic and cultural on
developing countries. There is no unanimity amongst scholars regarding the impact of Western
Colonialism and Imperialism on Asia and Africa. On the one hand, some scholars hold that it greatly
contributed to the civilizing of the backward people and contributed to the improvement of their
living standards. They argue that the various colonial powers set up schools and colleges,
constructed roads and railways, built canals and bridges; provided law and order, improved
sanitation and health, promoted trade and commerce and thus contributed to the welfare of the
native people. On the other hand, writers like John Conard and Holison are highly critical of the role
of western imperialism in Asia and Africa. They associate imperialism with exploitation, misery,
poverty, cruelty, conversion, degradation and racial segregation. Holison says that imperialism was
'rapacious and immoral'. John Conard says "In many cases the motives for empire building have
been selfish and the people in the colonies have frequently been exploited for the benefit
of the mother-country." Both the above views contain only partial truth. In fact, the
western colonization and imperialism was a mixed blessing. Its effect can be conveniently studied
under the following heads.
5.2 Various Impacts
5.2.1 Political Impact :
In the political sphere, Imperialism proved to be a blessing in disguise for some countries. For
example it provided political unity to India which had been torn by dissensions and strife before the
arrival of the western powers. Thus the British provided political unity to India which she had not
achieved at any stage in her past history. This was rendered possible due to development of railways,
modern means of transport and communication, press, introduction of English language which served
as lingua franca and a uniform system of administration throughout the country. This unity paved the
way for the growth of political consciousness amongst people and ultimately motivated them to over-
throw the colonial and imperialist yoke.
Secondly, the western colonialism and imperialism was responsible for the introduction of
western ideas like nationalism, democracy, constitutionalism etc. in Asia and Africa. The various
imperialist powers tried to implant their ideas and institutions in their colonies and thus unconsciously
let loose liberal forces in the countries of Asia and Africa.
Thirdly, the colonial powers introduced efficient system of administration in the country. It is true
that the administrative machinery was evolved primarily to promote the interest of the imperialist
powers and paid little attention to the well being and welfare of the natives. Further, the natives were
not given adequate representation in the civil services and generally excluded from higher positions.
Despite these shortcomings, the system of administration, provided by the imperialist powers, exposed
the colonial people to the system of western administration.
Fourthly, the imperialist rule also led to the rise of slavery. The slaves began to be sold and
purchased as part of personal belongings. The practice commenced when Portuguese in the 15th
century raided the African villages and enslaved the people. These persons were then transported to
America. In fact there existed a regular market of slaves in Lisbon. Even the English engaged
themselves in the slave trade. This slave trade resulted in the uprooting of millions of Africans from their
homes. What is still worse that they were made to work under the most inhuman conditions and were
treated with great cruelty.
Finally, the colonialism and imperialism led to bitter rivalry among the European powers and
they fought various wars for the possession of the^ colonies. For example France and Germany
clashed over Morocco in Africa. In India also the French were involved in a long drawn-out struggle with
the British.
5.2.2 Economic Impact.
 In the economic sphere impact also the western imperialism had a mixed impact. On the
positive side ii led to development of industries in Asia and Africa. The various imperialist powers set up
industries in their colonies to make profits and thus paved the way for the industrialization of the
colonies. The colonial powers established long lines of railways, built banking houses etc. in the
colonies to fully exploit their resources. They also set up certain industries in these colonies to make
quick profits and fully exploited the resources available there. All this proved to be a boon for the
colonies and led to their industrialization. On the negative side, the imperialist powers exploited the
colonies by importing raw materials at the cheapest possible rates and exported the finished products
at very high rates. They also tried to cripple local industries, trade and commerce by enacting
necessary industrial and taxation laws. This policy of systematic exploitation resulted in the draining of
wealth and greatly contributed to poverty, starvation and backwardness of the colonies.
The most important and the primary objective of imperialism and colonialism is to secure
economic gains by exploiting the raw material potential of the subject nations. The powerful and
developed nations need raw material to run their factories and markets to sell their finished goods.
According to Dr. Shacht, ―The fight for raw material plays the most important role in world politics.‖
Every powerful nation want to establish maximum control over the sources of raw material and their this
need leds to imperialism and colonialism.
The imperial powers also need markets for selling their surplus goods produced by its
industrial units at profitable price. The backward and under developed units at profitable price. The
backward and under developed countries, because of their economic backwardness, constitute big
consumer markets and hence attract imperial powers. They earn maximum profit by selling their goods
in these countries.
Further, the powerful and rich nations also get motivated to invest their surplus capital in the
colonies. In their own country there is very limited scope to invest surplus capital because after a
particular point it becomes unprofitable to invest capital. So, the backward states provide a good
opportunity for the investment of surplus capital. The economic motives of imperialism are so strong
that many scholars try motives of imperialism solely in terms of economic theories and offer a number
of economic theories of imperialism. For the coming of Britishers to India, economic gains were the
most important motivating factor and they exploited the economic resources of India to their maximum
advantages.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Write down any two Impact of Colonialism.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2. Define Neo Colonialism.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

5.2.3 Social and Cultural Impact:

In the social and cultural spheres the colonial and imperialist rule produced serious
consequences. In the first place it adversely affected the religions of the local people because the local
people were encouraged by the Western Missionaries to embrace Christianity by offering them certain
material benefits. As a result soon Christianity became a thriving religion in many Asian and African
countries.
Secondly, the Christian Missionaries played an important role in providing certain social
services to the local people in the form of hospitals, dispensaries, schools, colleges etc. and thus
greatly contributed to the enlightening of the people of Asia and Africa.
Thirdly, colonial and imperialist rule led to racial segregation. The European rulers treated their
culture as superior to the Asian and African cultures and tried to impose the same on them. Further,
they believed that white races are superior to the black races and tried to keep aloof. They often
enacted discriminatory laws against the local people. For example, in India the Indians could not travel
in the railway compartment in which the Europeans were travelling. This policy of racial segregation
greatly undermined the moral tone of the local population.
Fourthly, the imperialist rule undermined the moral principles. They foreshook all norms of
morality to keep their hold on the colonial people. They tried to divide the local people and made them
fight among themselves to retain power. The policy of 'divide and rule' followed by the British in India
best exemplifies this policy of the imperialist powers. It is well known that this policy of 'divide and rule'
ultimately led to the partition of India.
Finally, the policy of colonialism and imperialism caused untold misery and suffering to the
people. The various imperialist powers were involved in a number of wars with the local people as well
as amongst themselves which resulted in loss of millions lives. Thus colonialism and imperialism
resulted in untold misery to humanity. In the light of the above discussion we can say that colonialism
and imperialism left a deep impact on Asia and Africa in the political, economic as well as social field.
Cultural means can also he called psychological means because thought this the total thinking
of the people is changed. Its aim is to control the minds of the people of the other nations by impressing
upon them the superiority of their culture, Ideology and way of life of the imperialist nations. It is a very
subtle means and its effect is very deep. Sometimes it aims at the complete destruction of the culture of
the subject states and for this purpose, their attitudes, values and principles are completely changed.
According to Morgenthou, ―Cultural Imperialism is the most subtle and, if it were to succeed by itself
alone, the most successful of imperialist policies.‖
American policy of impressing upon other nations the value of freedom, liberal democracy and
free trade and open competition, is in fact a subtle method of influencing other nations in favor of
American Imperialism. Similarly in order to spread their influence in the international sphere, Soviet
Union is also propagating the merits of socialistic order. To achieve this purpose these countries try to
influence the education system and the curricultums being taught in the other states. They distribute
their literature, establish cultural societies and cultural fairs are arranged in other state. Though the
influence of all these factors is very slow, yet it is very deep and effective. It prepares the way for
cultural infiltration and economic penetration into the life of the other people. This also known as
‗Ideological Imperialism.‘
5.3 Summary
The major impact of colonialism is the economic, social and cultural exploitation of the victim
states. Therefore, both are evils and man of right thinking can never support these concepts. Therefore,
the age of both the concepts is almost over. But in these days both imperialism and colonialism have
got transformed into Neo-Colonialism and the era of Neo-Colonialism and imperialism have been in a
position to secure political independence, but at the same time they continue to be economically
dependent upon their former colonial and imperial masters. Because of this, they are not in a position to
make their policies independently. So, the need is to end this evil at international level so that an
international community based on justice could be established.
5.4 References
1. Manor, Tames (ed.). Third World Politics, Longman. London 1995.
2. Randall, V. Political Parties in third world. Sage, London, 1998.
5.5 Further Readings
(1) O.P. Guaba Comparative poltiics, Mayur Publications, 2003.
(2) Allen, C. and G. Williams (eds.), Sociology of 'Developing Societies, Sub-Saharam Africa,
Macmillan, London, 1982
(3) Cammack, Paul, David Pool and William Tordoff. Third World Politics. : A comparative
Introduction, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1993.
(4) Caramani, Daniele, Comparative Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014.
(5) Clapham, C. Third World Politics : An Introduction, Routledge, London 1985.
(6) Dickovick, J. Tyler and Jonathan Eastwood, Comparative Politics : Integrating Theories,
Methods, and cases, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 20140
(7) Eckstein, Harry and David, E. Apter, Comparative Politics : A Reader, The Free Press of
Glancoe, London, 1994.
(8) Manor, James (ed.), Third World Politics, Longman, London, 1091.
(9) Mohanty, Manorajan, P. Mukherji with O. Tornquist. People's Rights. Social Movements and
the State in the Third World, Sage, New Delhi, 1998.
(10) Randall, V.Political Parties in the Third World, Sage, London, 1988.
(11) Smith, Anthony D., State and Nation in the Third World : The Western State and African
Nationalism, Wheatsheaf, Sussex 1983.
5.6 Model Questions
1. Discuss the major impacts of colonialism on developing societies.
2. Analyze that how colonialism left the positive and negative impacts on third world countries.

----S----
 Lesson-6

NATIONALISM AND ANTI COLONIAL MOVEMENT

Structure
6.0 Objectives

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Kinds of Nationalism

6.3 Determinants

6.4 Hindrance in the way of Nationalism

6.5 Merits of Nationalism

6.6 Demerits of Nationalism

6.7 Anti-colonial Movements

6.8 Summary

6.9 References

6.10 Fruther Readings

6.11 Model Questions

6.0 Objectives
This lesson provides to you the comprehensive knowledge of Nationalism anti colonial
movements. After going through this lesson you should be able to:
 Know the various types of Nationalism.
 Discuss the various obstacles in the way of Nationalism
 Assess the factors which promote to Nationalism
 Understand the development of anti-colonial movements
6.1 Introduction
Nationalism is a psychological feeling which develops in man love for his motherland and
patriotism under the influence of nationalism. Different states have made tremendous progress. States
under the foreign rule have attained independence and these states have shown the path of
independence to other states. The unity and integrity of the state depends upon the feeling of
nationalism that is present in its citizens. In simple words nationalism is the soul of the state and in its
absence no state can maintain its identity for a long time. That is why each and every state tires its
utmost best to inculcate the feeling of nationalism among its citizens. It is because of the feeling of
nationalism that an individual is ready to sacrifice his life and earnings for the nation and he embraces
the gallows with a smiling face.
No doubt nationalism inculcates in man the feeling of love for motherland and patriotism but at
the same time blind nationalism is the root cause of various problems. Blind nationalism proves an
obstacle in the way of international co-operation and peace. First World War, Second World War, Arab
Israel conflict and Iran-Iraq war etc. were the result of blind nationalism. It was because of this blind
faith in nationalism that many lives were lost and the world suffered a set back economically but
positive nationalism, which will inculcate in man the feeling of co-operation and internationalism apart
from inculcating in him the feeling of nationalism.
Origin and Meaning
It is very difficult to define nationalism as it is a very vast concept. Hayes is of the view that
nationalism can not be defined in a precise way as it lacks proper form. Nationalism is a feeling which
man defines in different forms we can feel it, but we cannot see it.
The word nationalism is made from the word nation, which has been derived from the Latin
Word. ‗Nation‘ which mean ‗birth‘ or people belonging to same community. In common usage people
belonging to the same community or caste are called nation and their love and devotion for motherland
is called nationalism. Nationalism has developed with the concept of nation state. The nation state
concept means that the boundaries of the state should be determined on the bases of its nation (people
belonging to the same community) and not geographically. People belonging to the same community
and having a feeling of oneness and unity among them are generally called nation. Such an
organization is either politically independent or is trying to achieve political independence. The feelings
which inculcate in people a sense of patriotism and love for motherland is called nationalism. Therefore
it can be said that nationalism is such a feeling which forms the bases for the formation and
organization of the nation. In this way it is the soul of the state. Thus nationalism is a feeling that binds
people of the nation together and inculcate in them the feeling of sacrifice and love for motherland.
Development of Nationalism –
No doubt the concept of Nationalism developed in the middle ages, but it is a very old concept.
The concept originated in The Greek city states. After few years the Greek city states were won over by
the Romans and the Roman. Empire was established in which the feelings of nationalism developed. In
the middle ages one of the greatest scholars of Italy. Machivelli popularised the concept of nationalism.
Machivelli was a nationalist and he was interested in the unification of Italy that is why he propagated
the concept nationalism.
This concept further popularity in the 18th century. Before 18th century the boundaries of the
state were determined by the kings. The rulers were interested in expanding their boundaries and they
were least bothered about the interests of their people. But in 18th century certain events took place
which further helped in the development of the concept of nationalism.
Cause of the Development of Nationalism – Following are the causes responsible for the
development of the concept of nationalism –
1. Renaissance and Reformatory Movements – Renaissance and Reformatory Movements
played a great role in the development of the concept of Nationalism. It was because of the
Renaissance movement that men revolted against the social evils and started interesting the
society from a new angle. The religious reformatory movement started by Martin Luther helped
 in liberating people from the influence of Pope and a new state religion was established. It was
because of all these factors that man started feeling liberated and a sense of consciousness
developed in him.
2. Spread of Education – Spread of Education too has played its due role in the development of
the concept of nationalism. In the 18th century education started spreading slowly and gradually
with the result there developed consciousness and new thinking among the people. Because of
the spread of education people started understanding the problems in a better way. With the
spread of language, people started exchanging the views with each other, in this way the spirit
of national integration developed in them.
3. Development of Democracy - Because of the spread of Renaissance, Reformatory movement
and education, the period of Totalitarianism almost came to an end and democratic principles
soon started gaining popularity. After the Glorious Revolution in England the powers of the
monarch were limited. Individual liberties started gaining popularity among the people and the
change in administrative structure further helped in popularizing the concept of nationalism.
4. Division of Poland - In 1772 on the recommendations of the king of Persia Austria, Russia and
Persia jointly divided a month themselves some portion of the territory of Poland after defeating
it. Once again in 1793 and 1795, Poland got divided among Austria, Russia and Persia. The
people of Poland started living in other states from where they started a movement for getting
freedom for their nation. After First World Ward the map of Europe was reconstituted and
Poland was recognized as an independent state. The national movement of Poland and great
impact on the national movements of other states of Europe and these states started taking
various initiatives for liberating their states.
5. French Revolution – French Revolution and Napolean war too helped in the spread of
nationalism. With the result of French people realized that the rulers should run the
administration according to the wishes of the people. The Vienna Conference tried to suppress
the feelings of nationalism but nationalistic sentiments were victorious.
6. Role of Press - Press too has played an important role in the development of the concept of
nationalism. The industrial revolution lead to the development of machinery and machinery in
turn lead to the development of press. By reading different views in the newspapers and
magazines, there started developing consciousness in the people. Through newspapers people
started understanding the problems prevailing in different parts of the world and they started
coming closer to each other.
7. Influence of Great Writers – 18th and 19th Century writers too contributed a lot towards the
development of the concept of nationalism. A special mention must be made to two of the great
scholars of England John Stuart Mill and Bentham and writer, philosopher and thinker from
France namely Rousseau. J.S. Mill who is considered as one of the great supporters of
individual liberties can go together. Rousseau‘s concept of Liberty Equality and Fraternity
exercised great impact on the minds of French revolutionaries and it was declared as the slogan
of French revolution. Further Rousseau‘s principle of ‗General Will‘ negated the concept of
Absolution and Totalitarianism.
On the bases of above mentioned facts we can conclude that various factors were responsible
for the development of the concept of nationalism. In the contemporary era it is one of the most popular
doctrines.
6.2 Kinds of Nationalism
 1. Conservative Nationalism: According to conservative nationalism each and every nation
has its historical significance. The various traditions prevailing in the state are given due significance,
the state tries to maintain these traditions and the affairs of the state are run according to these
traditions. Conservative nationalism supports Imperialism and is in favour of spreading its influence on
different states of the world. England is an example of Conservative nationalism.
2. Liberal Nationalism: The Liberalists are of the view that states have their right to preserve
their independence and adopt different paths of economic, political and cultural development. The
supports of Liberal nationalism are not in favour of domination of one state over the other. They are
against imperialism and are in favour of spreading the feelings of brotherhood among different nations
of the world.
3. Democratic Nationalism: The supports of Democratic Nationalism believe in popular
sovereignty of Democratic Nationalism believe in popular sovereignty. They are supporters of
individual‘s personal rights and liberties. They are of the view that sovereignty resides with the people
and each and every state has its right to take independent decisions. The French Revolution was an
example of Democratic Nationalism.
4. Totalitarian Nationalism: Totalitarian Nationalism is against democratic and liberal
nationalism. According to Totalitarian nationalists man is a means and state is an end. The powerful
one‘s have the right to exercise their powers on the weaker one‘s. Totalitarian nationalists support
imperialism. The power of the state can be judged from its powerful army. Personal interests are
sacrificed for the sake of national interests. Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy propogated
totalitarian nationalism.
6.3 Determinants of Nationalism
Various factors have helped in the promotion of the concept of nationalism. According to
―Nationalism is a spiritual sentiments or principle of arising among a number of people usually of the
same race resident on the same territory, sharing a common language, the same religion, similar
history and traditions, common interest with common political associations and common ideals of
politically unity.‖
Following are the factors which have helped in the promotion of the concept of nationalism –
1. Common Race – It is natural and obvious that the people belonging to the same race will
come to each other because of this common language culture and customs. This commonness
consolidates unity among the members of the community and ultimately they start differentiating
themselves from other communities. Burgers and Leacock are of the view that common race is the
base of a nation. Zimmern is also of the view that the element of community consciousness is prevalent
in nationalism in which kinship of the element of unity in the race is one of the most important aspect
which promotes nationalism. Lord Bryce is also of the concept of nationalism. This factor was given
importance in the 20th century too, superiority of race among the citizens of Germany.
In the contemporary era purity of race is not considered as an essential determinant of
nationalism as international tourism has developed to a great extent. People visit foreign states, get
married to foreigners and settle there. With the result purity of race cannot be maintained. According to
Hayes, ―Purity, if exists at all, it exists (now a days) only among uncivilized tribesmen.‖ According to
Stalin, Pilsbury, ―In the determination of national lives in general race is no more important. If we trace
to the history of words we find that no entire race has ever formed one nationality.‖ In practice no nation
can claim that purity of race prevails in their nation. Almost all the races have singled with each other.
Among Britishers we find Salta, Teutona, Dava and Sacksna. In Switzerland we find German, French
and Italians. In India we find Aryans and Dravis. People we find Aryans and Dravis. People belonging to
different races are living in America.
2. Common Language- Common Language too has promoted the concept of nationalism. It is
through language that one can exchange his views with others. As man is a social animal he loves
exchanging his views with other, which he can only do through the use of language. In the absence of a
common language people are aliens to each other.
According to Pilsbury, ―In the determination of national lives in general race is no more
important. If we trace to the history of the words we find that no entire race has even formed one
nationality.‖
According to Ramsay Muir, ―Nothing that will give unity to divergent races as the use of common
language and community of ideas which it brings have roved the main binding force in the nation.‖
According to Dr. Garner, ―Community of language is a most important factor in moulding a
people into a nation.‖
According to Stalin, ―A national community is unconceivable without a common language, while
a state need not have a common language.‖
But common language is not the only essential determinant of nationalism. Today in the world
there are various states where nationalism is found but common language is missing. The people of
Switzerland speak German, Italian and French, and inspite of different languages there exists in them
the feelings of nationalism. The Indian constitution have recognised 15 languages. States like Soviet
Union, Canada etc. have population which speak different languages, but even then the sentiments of
nationalism are found in them. According to Dr. Garner, ―Community of race and community of
language are undoubtedly the most important of these elements, but it is necessary to recognize that
neither is absolutely necessary.‖
3. Common Religion – History is witness to the fact that religion has played a great role in the
life of man and it has limited the people together. People belonging to the same religion have many
things in common which keep them limited. In the middle ages wars took place between christians and
Muslims in Palestinc, the martyers were called as national hero. In India too religion has played a great
role in uniting the people together. When the muslims tried to spread their religion by force among the
Hindus, the Hindus got united and opposed the move of muslims. The movement of Sikhs against
muslims is an example of the influence of religion on them. It was on the bases of religion that
Mohammed Ali Jinnah gave the ‗Two Nation Theory and raised the demand for a separate state of
Pakistan for muslims. The Balkan war of demand for a separate state of Pakistan for muslims. The
Balkan war of 1911-12 was religious in nature. Generally we see people belonging to the same religion
that staying in different countries have the sentiments of unity in them and ready to sacrifice their lives
for their fellow men in other states.
But in the contemporary era common religion is not the only essential determinant of
nationalism. People belonging to different religions live in the same state. Many states have adopted
the policy of secularism and they consider religion as a personal affair of man. People belonging to
different religions live in India, even then the feelings of nationalism are found in them. On the contrary,
despite of existence of common religion in East Pakistan and West Pakistan, in 1971 East Pakistan got
separate from West Pakistan and formed a new state viz. Bangladesh. Despite the existence of
common religion in Iran and Iraq, the two states continued to fight war for eight years. According to
Gettle, ―The growth of toleration and of freedom to belief has diminished the importance of religion as
an element in determining nationality.‖
 4. Geographical Unity- Geographical unity of nearness also helps in promoting the concept of
nationalism. Persons who stay nearer to each other, develop closeness among them. There develops
cultural unity among persons who stay closer to each other, they develop similar customs, they share
their sufferings and pleasures and mingle with each other. They develop love for their mother and ready
to sacrifice their life and property for their motherland. Geographical unity among people with different
religions. The reason for lack of unity among East Pakistan and West Pakistan was the absence of the
geographical unity. By staying closer people get a chance to share each others views.
But geographical unity cannot be considered as the basis of nationalism. Despite the absence
of geographical unity in most of the people nationalism is found e.g. most of the Indians have settled
abroad but this does not mean that the sentiments or the feelings of nationalism are no more found in
them. Before the coming up of Israel in 1948, the Jews were scattered throughout the world even than
the feelings of nationalism were found in them. Because of the development of means of
communications, the importance of geographical unity has decreased. Today people living in different
areas stay unitedly.
5. Common interests- Commonness of interest is closely related with the development of the
concept of nationalism. People who have common economic, political, social and religious interests are
bound to come closer to each other. In order to achieve their common interests, they struggle in a
united way. Before 1947 despite the disparities among them, the Indians united for the achievement of
their independence. Students, labourers, teachers, farmers etc. unite together for the achievement of
their common interests, despite the existence of disparities among them. According to Gilchrist,
―Common interests are closely connected with the development of nationality.‖ In 1907 the Union of
Scotland and England were formed because of their common economic interest. In 18 th century,
because of the common interests the feelings of unity could be seen among different states of America
and they united together.
But sometimes common interests do not play a constructive role in the development of the
concept of nationalism. Belgium and Holland united because of their common economic interests but
after sometime, due to economic conflict they separated from each other. According to Gilchrist,
―Common interests are rather aids towards strengthening union than fundamental agents of union.‖ In
the way common interest plays its due role in uniting the people together and helps in the development
of the concept of nationalism.
6. Common History- People who have common history their pleasures and sufferings too are
common. They stay together in times of ups and downs, successes and failures. The brave persons
who help the nation during emergency set an example for other citizens, which helps in developing the
concept of national prestige in them. Their folk songs unite them together. The sacrifice of martyres
become the common bondage of all. Ramsay Muir while laying stress on the concept of common
history says, ―Heroic achievements, agonies heroically endured, these are the sublimate food by which
the spirit of nationhood is nourished. A legitimate pride in the past, a wholesome confidence in the
present and a buoyant hope for the future, all strengthen them and sustain national spirit.‖
The aggressions and atrocities done by foreigners on India, first war of independence 1857,
Jalianwalal Bagh massacre etc develop the feelings of unity among the Indians. When some people
fight against their enemy in a united whay, win or lose together, these incidents develop feelings of
nationalism in them.
7. Common Culture- Culture is a way of living of any community. It is an influential concept and
it includes in it people with the same customs, art and dresses. It is natural and obvious that people
who have common customs, art and dresses will come closer to each other and the feelings of
nationalism will develop among them. Because of the presence of this element the people come closer
to each other. Sometimes there is a lack of common interests among the people, but common culture
bride them together and stay united. Indian culture establishes unity among diversities.
Their determinant too helps in the development of the concept of nationalism, but it cannot be
considered as the most important determinant in the development of the concept of nationalism.
Despite of the existence of same culture in India and Pakistan, they could not remain united. Burma
and India have the same culture, but still they are two different nations.
8. Common Political Aspirations- Common political aspirations, intentions and demands too
develop the feelings of nationalism among the people. Whenever people aspire to achieve an
independent nation for them it is natural that they will unite for the achievement of that aim. In the
modern times ‗Right of Self Determination‘ has instigated the people to form a separate independent
nation for themselves. The spirit of nationalism developed in those communities which were under the
foreign rule. The feelings of nationalism developed among Indians who belonged to different castes and
religions and they united together for the achievement of independence from the foreign rule. Common
political aspiration too were responsible for the unification of the people of America. Most of the political
scientists are of the view that no other element is required, if this element is present.
9. Common Administration - People who stay under the same administration develop the
feelings of unity among them e.g. India stayed under the British rule for a long time, with the result,
despite the existence of diversities there developed unity among them. The French, Germans and
Italians living in Switzerland prefer themselves to be called as Swiss people, same is the case with
Americans who belong to different communities. Common administration too helps in the development
of the concept of nationalism.
10. Common Slavery and Common Sufferings- Common slavery and common sufferings too
help in the development of the concept of nationalism. Because of common slavery the sufferings of the
people become common and in order to get rid of them they unite together. The slavery of Britishers
helped a lot in the development of the feelings of nationalism among the Indians. People united n order
to achieve their independence. The speeches and writings of the leaders developed unity among the
people and independence was the result of joint initiative taken by all of us. The feelings of unity would
not have developed in us if we were ruled by different rulers and we would not have achieved
independence till today.
Is Any Element Absolutely Necessary for the Emergence of Nationalism?
We have analyzed the determinations which have helped in the development of the concept of
nationalism. We have also studied that these determinants unite the people together. Nationalism is
such a feeling which develops in people in people love and respect for its nation and the above
mentioned determinants help in the development of such feelings. It will not be correct to lay emphasis
on one determinant as compared to other elements in the development of the concept of nationalism.
Each and every determinant has its own importance, in different circumstances different elements
prevail e.g. religious unity among the Muslims was responsible for the creation of Pakistan, but this
religious unity could not unite East Pakistan and West Pakistan. According to Buck, ―Nationality is
essentially subjective, an active sentiment of Unity within a fairly extensive group, a sentiment based on
real but diverse factors, political, geographical, physical and social any or all of which may be present in
this or that caste, but one of which must be present in all cases.‖ That one determinant is psychological
unity which can be the bases of any determinant.
6.4 Hindrance in the way of Nationalism
 Following are the hindrance in the way of nationalism –
1. Diversity of Religion
Where common religion plays a dominant role in uniting the people together, there diversity in
religion is also responsible for destroying unity among the people. Communal riots occur because of
religion and these riots weaken the national unity. In 1947 India was divided into two nations on the
bases of religion and even today we find communal riots taking place in India. In Lebnon riots between
muslims and Christians have become a daily routine and all this is responsible of weakening the
concept of nationalism.
2. Regionalism
Under the influence of regionalism people living in different parts of the state give more
importance to the interest of their religion as compared to the interest of nation and sometimes they are
ready to sacrifice their national interest for the sake of their regional interest. The feeling of regionalism
narrows down the thinking of the people. In India the feelings among people that I belong to North,
South, East or West and Cubic in Canada aggravate the problem of regionalism. Regionalism thus
weakness national unity and proves as an obstacle in the way of nationalism.
3. Diversity of Language
Diversity of language too proves as a hindrance in the way of nationalism. People speaking
different languages differentiate between than and the conditions prevailing in India are testimony to the
fact. People living in Southern India are not willing to accept Hindi as a national language. Conflict that
arises between Kerala and Tamil Nadu was the result of different languages raise demand for separate
statehood. No doubt states in India have been reorganized on the bases of languages, but the problem
of language has still not been solved in India.
4. Diversity of Interest
Common interest binds the people together, but at the same time diversity of interests proves as
a hindrance in the way of nationalism. People who have common interests are bound to come closer.
But people with diversity of interest are ready to sacrifice their national interest for the sake of their own
interests.
5. Economic Disparities
Marxists are of the view that economic disparities and the presence of classes also prove a
hindrance in the way of nationalism. A society which is surrounded by rich and the poor persons, their
interest will clash with each other and there will be lack of cooperation in the society. The rich exercise
control over the administration of the state and they use state as an instrument for exploiting the poor
persons of the society. The poor persons will never develop regard and respect for this type of a state.
They are always thinking of revolting against this type of administration.
6. Provincialism
Provincialism is even worst than regionalism, which narrows down the thinking of man. Under
the influence of provincialism people belonging to one province develop feeling of hatred and jealousy
towards people of other province. Disputes relating to areas of provinces, distribution of water and inter-
state trade relations spread more hatred among people. Slogans like ‗some of the soil‘ are saised which
are a great the eat to the integrity of the state and proves a hindrance in the way of nationalism.
7. Privileged Classes
 The presence of privileged classes in the state too proves as a hindrance in the development of
nationalism. The presence of privileged class in society is against the principle of equality. The
privileged classes consider themselves as superior to other classes. The spreads hatred among the
people against the privileged classes and a struggle starts in society which proves as a hindrance in the
development of nationalism.
8. Narrow Party Loyalty
In modern democratic states political parties are found in abundance. Political Parties apart from
solving the problems also give birth to new problems. They divide the people into different factions,
narrow their thinking and convert national loyalty into party loyalty. Generally the political parties are
willing to sacrifice the national interests in order to achieve power. The struggle for power among
various political parties takes the form of civil war, with the result the integrity of the state is threatened.
9. Feeling of Selfishness
Feeling of selfishness too proves as a hindrance in the way of nationalism. A selfish man always
gives more importance to his interest as compared to the interest of the nation and he is ready to
sacrifice the interest of the nation for the sake of his own selfish interests. Spys smugglers and
hoarders come under this category. They lack national sentiments and of the fulfillment of their selfish
interest they are willing to sacrifice the interests of the nation.
10. Lack of Moral Values
Lack of moral values too is a hindrance in the development of nationalism. A person who lacks
normal values cannot develop love for motherland and feelings of sacrifice which are basic to the
development of nationalism.
11. Foreign Influences
In the modern times each and every state is trying its level best to exercise its influence on other
states so that it can secure its interests. In order to achieve this end the rich and the developed nations
are always willing to give a helping hand to the poor nations. By giving aid to the poor nations, they
influence their decision making process, and in these days is called neo-colonialism. Apart from this the
foreign agencies, through their activities try to instigate the people of the poor nation, in order to spread
instability. For the achievement of this goal they bribe the people of poor states. They spread their
political ideology and instigate the people against their patriotic feelings. Thus foreign influences too
prove as a hindrance in the development of nationalism.
12. Wrong Education System
Where good educational system plays a dominant role in the development of nationalism, there
wrong education system proves as an obstacle in the development of nationalism. If the base of
education is not nationalistic then it is bound to weaken. The national sentiments of the people. During
the British regime the aim of their education of the people. During the British regime the aim of their
education policy was not to spread nationalism but to consolidate the British regime in India. The
Britishers did not spread the golden history of India through education, with the result the role of
education in spreading the sentiments of nationalism among the people remained slow. During British
regime the aim of their education policy was to create a literate class which could help them in running
the administration of the state.
13. Partial Press
 In the Modern times press influences as well as moulds the public opinion to a great extent. But
generally we see the press takes the wrong news to the people and influences the people in bad sense.
Most of the newspapers are more concerned about a particular ideology, political parties or the interest
of some particular community. With the result national ideology cannot be spread among the people
and it proves as an obstacle in the development of nationalism. Independent and national press can
play a dominant role in the development of nationalism.
6.5 Merits of Nationalism
Nationalism can prove as a blessing if it is used in proper sense different nations have made
tremendous progress on the bases of this concept. According to Hayes, ―Nationalism, when it becomes
synonymous with the purest patriotism, will prove a unique blessing to humanity and the world.‖
Following are the merits of nationalism.
1. It brings national unity
The feeling of nationalism strengthens national unity. It is on the bases of this feeling that
people belonging to different religions, communities and speaking different languages live together and
face the threat to the nation unitedly. In 1962, 1965 and 1971 wars the Indians fought against China
and Pakistan in a unitd spirit.
2. It creates Patriotism
Patriotism in other words means nationalism. Nationalism inculcates in citizens such a spirit by
way of which they are willing to sacrifice their lives for the nation. It was under the influence of this spirit
that thousands of Indians sacrificed their lives for attaining independence. It is under the spirit of
nationalism that citizens feel proud to their nation and they are not ready to hear anything against their
nation.
3. Possibility of more Progress
It is on the bases of nationalism that different nations have made tremendous progress. Citizens
of each and every state try their level best to work for their nation so that their nation can complete in
the international market and rise to the top, otherwise they will have to bow their heads down in shame.
That is why they try their level best to take their nation towards the path of progress. After First World
War Hitler and Mussolini injected among the people of Germany and Italy such nationalistic feelings,
that these two nations become major powers in such a short span.
4. Sense of Competition
Nationalism instigates in people a sense of competition and if it is used in a proper way,
different nations can make tremendous progress. It is this sense of competition under which each
nation tries to leave the other nation behind.
5. Promotes Internationalism
Some political scientists are of the view that nationalism is an obstacle in the ways of
internationalism. But Gandhiji has rightly said, ―It is not nationalism which is evil, it is the narrowness of
modern nation which is an evil‖. If we take the correct meaning of nationalism, then nationalism and
internationalism are not opposed to each other but they supplement each other. Gandhiji was of the
view that in order to become a good internationalist one should be good nationalist. Nationalism
eliminates the feeling of hatred and jealousy towards other nations. With the elimination of these evils,
internationalism will get a further boost.
6. Development of Civilization and Culture -
 Each and every nation has its own civilization and culture and they are proud of their culture and
civilization. They try their level best to spread their culture and civilization to other nations through skits,
plays, dramas, music, dance, art and other such activities.
7. It teaches Obedience
Nationalism inculcated in individual the spirit of obedience. It is under the influence of
nationalism that one abides by the orders of the state and government, pays taxes and serves in the
army, he considers this as his moral duty.
8. Enemy of Imperialism
The spread of Imperialism brought different nations under the foreign rule. In contrast with
imperialism, nationalism has given a benefiting reply to imperialism. Under the influence of nationalism
today even the smallest nations are ready to sacrifice their everything for the sake of maintaining their
sovereignty. They prefer death rather than foregoing with their sovereignty. The spread of national
feelings has lead to the decay of imperialism and most of the African and Asian states achieved
independence. Nationalism has given a befitting reply to imperialism.
9. Supporter of Freedom
Nationalism and freedom are supporters of each other. Where national feelings arise, there
freedom is bound to come. National feelings arise first in the people who are under the foreign rule,
under its influence people struggle for their freedom and finally achieve it. Nationalism is not only
helpful in providing freedom from foreign rule, but it also helps in maintaining the freedom. It is infact
the soul of a nation and if it dies, the state shall also eliminate. In this way freedom and nationalism are
closely related to each other.
10. Supporter of Democratic Values
Nationalism and freedom are supporters of each other. Where national feelings arise, there
freedom is bound to come. National feelings arise first in the people who are under the foreign rule,
under the influence people struggle for their freedom and finally achieve it. Nationalism is not only
helpful in providing freedom from foreign rule, but it also helps in maintaining the freedom. It is infact
the soul of a nation and if it dies, the state shell also eliminates. In this way freedom and nationalism
are closely related to each other.
11. Teaches the people to live together
The people who have faith in different religions and speak different languages start coming
closer to each other after development of nationalism. They live in coordination with each other and
share their sufferings and pleasures. They rise above the feelings of mine and thine. It is because of
the feelings of nationalism that the Indian having different castes, creed, birth, religions etc. are having
together.
6.6 Demerits of Nationalism
Nationalism apart from solving some problems he also created problems. The tensions that we
see today in the international scenario are the result of narrow nationalism. According to Rabindra Nath
Tagore, ―Nationalism is an organized self interest of ht whole people. It is an organized power of
exploitation.‖ Following are the demerits of nationalism –
Self Assessment Questions
1. Define feminism.
 .............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2. Define gender.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

1. Dangerous for World Peace

In the modern time nationalism has become a great threat to world peace. People belonging to
one nation consider themselves superior to people of other nations and they are ready to fight over
small matters, they give undue importance to these triffle matters and convert them into national
prestige. Minor matters among nations sometime take the form of international wars, blind nationalism
is responsible for creating such a situation.
2. Obstacle in the way of Internationalism
Most of the modern political scientists are of the view that solution of almost all the international
problems lies in the spread of internationalism. But narrow nationalism proves as a hindrance in the
development of internationalism. According to Prof. Joseph, ―Nationalism is dangerous in principle and
constitutes a chief obstacle to word progress.‖
3. Sense of False Pride
Nationalism develops a sense of false pride among individuals. An individual likes his country
made goods and hates foreign goods. He dislikes the good things of other nations whereas he likes
even the bad elements of his own nation and is ready to accept them.
4. It encourages imperialism -
Nationalism apart from weakening Imperialism has at the same time strengthened imperialism.
Nationalism instigates the rich, developed and powerful nations to impose their will on the poor,
developing and weak nations. Powerful nations exploit the weaker nations economically and destroy
their culture.
5. It teaches hatred towards other nations
Nationalists consider their nation superior to other nations and they develop a feeling of hatred
towards other nations. They try to inject their superiority on other nations. Hitler had instigated the
feeling among the citizens that they belong to a superior race and they shall rule the world. The
Germans superiority of race was responsible for the second World War.
6. Nationalism provokes war
Whenever the feeling of hatred and jealously arise among the citizens of one nation against the
citizens of other nations, it will lead to international wars. The reasons for first and second world wars
was blind nationalism. Whenever a nation starts considering itself as superior to other nations, it starts
framing policies inorder to suppress the weaker and underdeveloped nations. According to Hayes,
―Modern nationalism has indeed been a peculiar bloody religion. Vastly more persons have been slain
in the nationalist wars of the present century then in the four centuries of medieval crusading.‖
7. In encourages Racialism
 Nationalism encourages racialism too. Some nations believe in the superiority of their race and
they spread their race to other nations too. In South Africa minority of whites are ruling over majority of
blacks on the bases of superiority of their race. Hitler called the German people as pure Aryans who
shell rule the world.
8. Man looses his freedom
The spirit of nationalism limits the personal freedom of man. He lives and dies for his nation and
is ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of his nation. In such a situation man becomes a source
and is more or less like a part of the machine. National worship becomes the main
moto of his life
9. Hindrance in the way of International Trade
Nationalism proves as a hindrance in the development of international trade. Every nation tries
to become self sufficient as national image and national prestige comes in the way of international
trade. But in the contemporary era no state can be self sufficient in the economic field. International
trade increases international cooperation. This is one of the reason that the supporters of world peace
talk of increasing the pace and development of international trade.
10. Hindrance in the way of cultural progress
Under the influence of nationalism every nation considers its culture as superior to the culture of
other nations and they hate adopting even the good culture of foreign nations. With the result it proves
as a hindrance in the way of cultural progress. One‘s culture can progress by adopting good things from
others culture. The supporters of internationalism support international culture, whereas nationalism
proves as a hindrance in the way of cultural progress.
11. It narrows down the thinking of Man
Nationalism narrows the thinking of man too. Man under the influence of nationalism remains
confined to the four walls of his narrow thinking. He thinks, he will be considered as a traitor if he rises
above narrow thinking. With the result his mental development stops, as he turns a deaf ear to others
view points. Mental development of man is only possible, if he is willing to listen and adopt good points
from others.
12. It teaches self dependence in place of inter – dependence
Nationalism teaches self dependence in place of inter – dependence. There is no doubt that
every nation should become self – sufficient, but at the same time inter – dependence too cannot be
ignored. Inter – dependence promotes cordial relations among various nations and in this way it helps
in the promotion of international peace. Infact interdependence is the crux of world peace.
6.7 Anti-Colonial Movements
Anti-colonialism, strictly speaking, is a term that may be applied to a movement opposed to any
form of colonialism or imperialism. Anti- colonialism includes opposition to wars of conquest, particularly
of non-contiguous territory or people with a different language or culture; it also includes people opposing
the expansion of a country beyond earlier borders.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the states of Western Europe projected their
power and their rivalries into much of Asia and Africa, establishing an era of western domination over the
rest of mankind. This creation of a global imperial order eventually generated a counterrevolution as
colonized peoples organized anticolonial movements that asserted their rights to self-government. The
age of imperialism spawned an era of nonwestern nationalism that gained great momentum during the
twentieth-century world wars, thus changing the face of contemporary international politics.
The competition to acquire overseas territories was fueled by political, economic, and
technological factors. European states developed military technologies, including naval maneuverability
and enhanced firepower that allowed them to prevail over the societies they sought to conquer. The
search for exotic goods, raw materials, and new markets in which to trade provided a material motive for
expansion. Political prestige was at stake as well, as states sometimes sought to compensate for defeats
in Europe by victories abroad; doctrines such as the ―civilizing mission‖ were invented to justify colonial
empires. This gigantic historical enterprise transformed Asia and Africa, not the least by unleashing the
will of the colonized to strike back.
Anticolonial movements such as the Indian National Congress, the Association of Vietnamese
Revolutionary Youth, and the United Gold Coast Convention took form in individual colonies to confront
different local situations. These diverse local movements were well aware of one another, prompting a
transnational sentiment of solidarity against colonial rule. Although each movement adopted its own
tactics and strategy according to its local circumstances, they shared a sense of common cause with one
another. Some struggles for independence were violent, others primarily diplomatic, and yet other
anticolonial forces shrewdly combined political and military means to achieve their goals.
A representative regional example of these historical processes can be seen in the case of North
Africa. In 1830 France invaded the territory of Algeria, waging an extremely bloody war of conquest.
Finally overcoming prolonged Algerian resistance, the French colonial administration encouraged
European settlers to occupy the country. Once established in Algeria, France extended its power by
imposing protectorates over Tunisia (in 1881) and much of Morocco (in 1912). Then as World War I
(1914-1918) engulfed Europe, the French conscripted North African manpower into its army. When these
soldiers returned from the trenches of Europe, they contributed to laying the early groundwork for what
became national movements for independence. World War II (1939-1945) further eroded the foundations
of empire as another generation of Africans was enlisted in the French war effort. In Algeria the National
Liberation Front (FLN) took up arms in 1954, spurring France to negotiate the independence of
neighboring Tunisia and Morocco in 1956. Through effective diplomacy as well as armed resistance, the
FLN achieved the independence of their nation in 1962.
Movements such as Algeria‘s FLN emerged, often under the leadership of western-trained elites,
throughout the colonized world. Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru mobilized the Indian
people against the inherent inequalities of colonial rule in the name of certain liberal principles such as
self-determination, as articulated by the U.S. president Woodrow Wilson. The Vietnamese nationalist Ho
Chi Minh was inspired by both the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the antiimperialist ideology of
V. I. Lenin. Ho traveled to France and the Soviet Union on his path to organizing the anticolonial
movement in Indochina. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana studied in the United States, where he where he
was influenced by pan-Africanism, another anticolonial doctrine. The Sorbonne trained the Tunisian
lawyer Habib Bourguiba (1903-2000), who assumed the leadership of the nationalist Neo-Destour Party.
East African leaders such as Jomo Kenyatta and Julius Nyerere studied in British universities. These
intellectuals from developing countries found the means to turn the west‘s rhetorical ideals of justice and
democracy into tools of liberation. Thus did the imperial powers plant the seeds of the eventual formation
of anticolonial movements.
Not only European wars, but also Asian ones destabilized the imperial order, allowing room for
anticolonial movements to consolidate. Japan‘s ambitions to become an imperial power in China in the
1930s, and later in Southeast Asia, shook the hold of the French in Indochina, the Dutch in Indonesia,
and the British in South Asia. In India, where the Indian National Congress had been created as early as
1885 as a primarily elite organization, the anticolonial forces had built a mass movement incorporating a
wide range of social groups by the 1920s. Thus the Congress Party was well situated to play a vanguard
role in the march to independence in 1947. Nehru declared a neutralist foreign policy that offered support
to other anticolonial movements. In rapid succession, Burma (now Myanmar) and Indonesia achieved
independence under their prewar nationalist leaders—U Nu (1907-1995), who founded the leftist
University Students‘ Union in the 1930s, and Ahmed Sukarno (1901-1970), who formed the Indonesian
National Unity Party in 1927. In Indochina, however, the French chose to resist the anticolonial League
for Vietnamese Independence. France waged a costly war that lasted until the Vietnamese victory at
Dien Bien Phu in May 1954.
The struggle in Vietnam was closely watched by the Algerian nationalists. The anticolonial
movement in Algeria had long been divided into competing political parties and religious associations.
The model provided by Vietnam‘s successful guerrilla war inspired the more radical wing of the Algerian
movement to organize the FLN, which carried out its first military operation on November 1, 1954, just
months after the fall of Dien Bien Phu. Thus did a common anticolonialism lea lead to common strategy
across colonized continents. The Algerian war in turn became a major episode in the history of
decolonization. The FLN mounted an exceptionally dynamic diplomacy in the Arab world, Africa, and
Asia, enlisting both recently independent governments and sub-Saharan anticolonial political parties in
support of Algerian independence in such forums as the United Nations and the Bandung Conference.
The latter, held in Indonesia in April 1955, was a meeting of the independent states of Asia and Africa,
most of which were former colonies. The conference both celebrated this newly won independence and
issued a call for ongoing efforts to end colonialism. The ―spirit of Bandung‖ became a major
mobilizational theme for the continuing anticolonial movement. The FLN was an unofficial participant in
the conference (its representatives lodged within the Egyptian delegation) and it subsequently insisted
upon representation of national liberation movements in similar conferences.
The pressure exerted upon the government of France by the war in Algeria became an asset for
anticolonial movements in sub-Saharan Africa, speeding the process of decolonization on the continent.
Likewise, the radicaliza-tion of the anticolonial movement in Ghana under Nkrumah—who proceeded
from organizing the Fifth Pan-African Conference in England in 1945 to editing a paper called The New
African in 1946 to serving as general secretary of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) in his
homeland in 1947—accelerated the pace of events. Disillusioned by the moderation of the UGCC,
Nkrumah formed the Convention People‘s Party in 1949 and promptly initiated a Gandhi-style campaign
called ―Positive Action,‖ for which he was imprisoned by the colonial authorities. His popularity obliged
the British to deal with his movement; by 1954 he won a promise of self-government, by 1957 Ghana
was independent, and in 1958 he convened in Accra an All-African People‘s Conference, which was
attended by anticolonial forces from around the continent. Meanwhile, Ahmed Sékou Touré (1922-1984),
a trade unionist who had assumed leadership of the Democratic Party of Guinea in 1952, persuaded his
compatriots to vote for independence from France in a 1958 referendum organized by French president
Charles de Gaulle in his attempt to diffuse the mounting international opposition to the French war in
Algeria. Political momentum arising out of this Algiers–Accra–Conakry axis enabled anticolonial forces to
sweep away the fractured colonial framework in seventeen more African countries in 1960, the ―year of
Africa.‖
The influx of former colonies into the United Nations General Assembly allowed the anticolonial
movement to harness that institution to the goal of eradicating the final vestiges of colonialism. The
assembly sponsored the passage of, for example, Resolution 1514, the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (December 1960). They formed new instruments such
as the Nonaligned Movement and the Organization of African Unity to pursue the remaining agenda of
decolonization in the Portuguese colonies and the settler states of southern Africa. Activist states such
as Algeria supported the training of guerrilla movements in Angola, Mozambique, and Portuguese
Guinea; upon independence in 1975 the Frelimo government in Mozambique in turn aided the Patriotic
Front in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and the African National Congress in South Africa,
whereas Angola assisted the Southwest African People‘s Organization (SWAPO) in Namibia. In South
Africa, whose African National Congress (ANC, organized in 1912) was one of the oldest members of the
collective anticolonial movement, the release of the activist leader Nelson Mandela in 1990 led to the
election of an ANC government in 1994. These were among the final battles in the long march of
decolonization.
He historian Hugh Tinker has called anticolonial militants ―fighters, dreamers, and schemers.‖
Their common scheme was to build a local organization that could join a larger movement that restored
self-rule to their peoples.
6.8 Summary
After going through the merits and demerits of nationalism we have overviewed that
nationalism is not bad in itself. It is because of nationalism that most of the nations got independence
and they are today enjoying the democratic principles in their nations. Under the influence of
nationalism, nations have developed tremendously. Proof. Hayes has rightly said, ―Nationalism can
prove as a blessing for humanity and world, if it is taken in its true patriotic sense.‖ When we convert
nationalism into blind patriotism it takes its worst form and proves harmful to world peace and
international cooperation. Infact nationalism and internationalism are not opposed to each other but
they support each other. The need of the hour is to understand the positive meaning of nationalism.
Mahatma Gandhi as rightly said, ―It is not Nationalism which is evil is the narrowness of modern nation
which is evil and which leads to decay.‖ So the need of the hour is to rise above the narrow thinking
and adopt a broader approach. With the result the demerits of nationalism will eliminate. Besides Anti-
colonialism, strictly speaking, is a term that may be applied to a movement opposed to any form of
colonialism or imperialism. Anti- colonialism includes opposition to wars of conquest, particularly of non-
contiguous territory or people with a different language or culture; it also includes people opposing the
expansion of a country beyond earlier borders. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the
states of Western Europe projected their power and their rivalries into much of Asia and Africa,
establishing an era of western domination over the rest of mankind. This creation of a global imperial
order eventually generated a counterrevolution as colonized peoples organized anticolonial movements
that asserted their rights to self-government. The age of imperialism spawned an era of nonwestern
nationalism that gained great momentum during the twentieth-century world wars, thus changing the
face of contemporary international politics
6.9 References
1. Manor, James (ed.) Third World Politics, Longman, London, 1995
2. Randall, V. Political Parties in Third World, Sage, London, 1998
6.10 Further Readings
(1) Bayarrt, J.F. ‗Civil Society in Africa‘ in Chabal, P. (ed)., Political Domination in Africa :
Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(2) Berger, M., ‗The End of the Third World‘, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1994.
(3) Bratton, M., and Van der Walle, N., ‗Towards Govermance in Africa : Popular Demands
and State Responses‘ in G. Hayden and M. Bratton (eds), Govermance and Polticals in
Africa, Boulder, Colorado, 1991.
 (4) Callaghy, T., ‗Vision and Politics in the Transformation of the Global, Political Economy :
Lessons from the Third World, L. Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, (eds), Global
Transformation and the Third World L. Reinner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
(5) Chbal, P., Introduction : ‗Thinking About Politics in Africa‘ , in Chabal, O. (eds), Political
Domination in Africa : Reflections : Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(6) Guaba. O.P 2002 Comparative Politics. New Delhi. Mayur Publicatons.
6.11 Model Questions
1. What do you mean by nationalism? Explain various determinants of Nationalism
2. Write down the meaning of Nationalism and discuss its merits and demerits
3. ―Nationalism is both a curse and blessing.‖ Discuss this statement.
4. Describe the determinants of Nationalism. Is anyone of these absolutely necessary?
5. Discuss in detail the anti colonial movements.

---S---
 Lesson-7

STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY: RECENT DEBATES

Structure
7.0 Introduction

7.1 Meaning of Civil Society

7.2 Definitions of Civil Society

7.3 Liberals‘ View on Civil Society

7.4 Hegal‘s View on Civil society

7.5 Karl Marx‘s view on Civil Society

7.6 Gramsci‘s view on Civil Society

7.7 Analysis

7.8 Contemporary debate on Civil Society

7.9 Summary

7.10 Reference

7.11 Furhter Readings

7.12 Model Questions

7.0 Introduction
The nation state remains the key crucible of power in terms of elections, public policy and in
international negotiations. But it faces serious new challenges. Territory and power no longer align.
Boundaries within and without the state are shifting continuously. Every boundary is an exp of power
and relates to question of justice, division of power between public and private domain. The debate
between centrality of trust in social and political life has become reactivated. The role of civil society
within the state is being reshaped.
The concept of civil society has today captured the imagination of a ‗wide global community.
This idea is related with concepts such as empowering citizens for problem solving, counter-balancing
the state, preserving individual‘s privacy and deepen people‘s participation in government to increase
effectiveness and improved governance (Elliott, 2006; Civil society plays important role in three
interrelated areas i.e. economic, political and social.
 The economic role of civil society centers on securing livelihood and providing services where
state and market have left a vacuum. It also strengthens the social values, networks and institutions,
which underpin market economics. In social role the civil society cultivate cultural life, social norms,
intellectual innovations and in its political role, it is seen as a counterweight to state, an essential pillar
in promoting transparency, accountability and other aspects of good governance (Edwards, 2004;
13-15).
Today civil society refers to that private realm of individual and non-government associations
that perform much of the economic, social and religious activity in west. Current western
thinking holds that healthy arid diverse civil society is necessary to stabilize progress in
economy, and responsiveness of the government. The tendency to have the State run more and
more of private life has diminished in most Western democracies (Sheldon, 2005: 63)
Civil society has certain distinctive features. Thus unlike segmentary societies, civil society
excludes stifling communalism and is free of the ritualism of communities. Unlike religious theocracies
civil Society is a moral order, which the society makes for itself without any force or ambiguity. Unlike
communism, civil society represents separation of Politics from the economy (Planner, 1995:171).
Civil society consists of voluntary organization and groups and also defines the relationship of
such groups to the state in a manner which at least guarantees their autonomy. This further
strengthens the basis of the civil society (Johari 2006: 46). Civil society exists in every state, i.e.
democratic or authoritarian or any other. But its size varies from one type of state to another. More the
civil society, more liberal the state is, and conversely less the area of civil society the less liberal the
state is.

Civil Society Civil Society Civil Society

The existence of civil society does not mean that it will always challenge the state but it can act
as a check on state‘s undue power and also an inactive civil society leads to unresponsive state. On
the other hand, politically self-conscious civil society imposes limits upon state power (Chandhoke,
1995:10). Thus through the civil society, the potential excesses of the centralied state in democratic
societies can be controlled. Hence the civil society is a necessary constraint on the power of the state.
But civil society does not aim to capture the state or transform state power, its aim is to expand the
sphere of individual and collective life outside the preview of the state (Ibid: 34-32).
7.1 Meaning of Civil Society
The term civil society is linked to the concept of civility, which means respect for individual
autonomy. It is also based on security and trust among people. It is a society in which strangers act in a
civilized way towards each other. It also requires regularity of behaviour, rules of conduct, respect for
law, and controls over violence. Hence there is no difference between civil society and polite society i.e.
a society in which mutual respect, rational debate and discussion become possible (Kaldor, 2003:17).
Nevertheless, civil society is an ambiguous concept, which has various meanings. Originally it was
considered to be synonymous with political society, but recently it has been used in the context of
social and economic agreements, codes arid institutions apart from the state (Vermani, 2005:108). Civil
society is, thus, set of intermediate associations, which are covered neither by the state nor the family.
It includes voluntary associations and firms and other corporate bodies. (Mclean and Mcmillan,
2006:82).
It is the network of institutions and practices in society that enjoy some autonomy from the state
and through which groups and individuals organize, represent and express themselves to each other
and to the state. These include the media, education system, churches, voluntary organizations etc.
(Baylis and Smith, 2005:236). Civil society is accordingly conceptualized as a space where people can
pursue self-defined ends in an associational area of common concerns and it is conceptualized as
space which nurtures and sustains its inhabitants rather than exercise control over them and their
relationship. We can also designate it as an area in which modern man legitimately gratifies his self
interests and develops his individuality. But the individual also learns the values of group action, social
solidarity, and dependence of his welfare on others, which educate him for citizenship and prepare him
for participation in the political area of the state (Chandhoke, 1995: 32-34).
But civil society is a very sensitive affair, and it is not to be forced upon the people. It is the body
of the eternally vigilant people who recognize their identity and know about the parameters of civil and
political life. They make public opinion on the basis of freedom of thought and expression, which they
have. This way, they prevent their state from over-reaching and also have the capacity to roll the state
back.This is possible through the free flow of information and ample scope for dialogue, dibate and
discussion in civil society (Johari; 2006: 43)
7.2 DEFINITIONS OF CIVIL SOCIETY
David Held
Civil society is made up of areas of social life, the domestic world, the economic sphere, cultural
activities and political interaction which are organized by private or voluntary arrangements between
individuals and groups out side the direct control of state (Vermani, 2005: 108).
Neera Chandhoke
Neera Chandhoke defines civil society as the public sphere where individual come together for
various purposes both for their self interest and for the reproduction of an entity called society it is a
sphere which is public because it is formally accessible to all, and in principle all are allowed entry in to
this sphere as the bearer of rights (Ibid).
Adam Ferguson
He viewed it as the new commercial civilization while displacing the older clan - based feudal
order of the Scottish highland and enhancing individual liberty, through the introduction of ‗Civil
Society‘, ‗Civil life‘ an ‗economic society‘ (Darity, 2008: 552).
Karl Marx
 Marx views Civil society as morally decadent, oligarchic society rife with greed, egoism,
individualism and alienation that benefited only the privileged class of the ―Bourgeoisie‖ who lived off
the labour of the rest of society especially the industrial working class (Ibid: 553).
Mahatma Gandhi
For Gandhi, Civil society meant a new social order, which was based on mutual respect and
tolerance, open and secular institutions where people learn the lesson of accommodating each other.
Gandhi described civil society as an arena of self-rule or self-management based on self-sacrifice for
the pursuit of common good: He hoped that civil society will be based on the truth and non-violence on
the one hand and the notion of cooperation and social feeling on the other and also a place of
deliberation where people understand each other and respect the views of others (Pathak, 2008:276).
7.3 Liberals Views on Civil Society
Civil society as a particularly modem concept emerged between the seventeenth and nineteenth
centuries. In modern liberal thought of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke civil society is contrasted with
pre political state of nature where individuals roam around, compete with One another and injure each
other. Civil society civilized the natural humans, who through reason, created social contract that
established organized society and delegated government (Sheldon, 2005: 62). Hobbes and Locke use
terms civil and political inter changeably. Civil society to these theorists was conceptual opposite of the
state of nature or we can say the anti thesis of state of nature. It emerges as an artificial creation
through social contract by the people (Chandhoke, 1995:80).
(a) Thomas Hobbies
Hobbes uses the term ‗civil society‘ for a political set-up or state to distinguish it from the lawless
‗state of nature‘. So the Hobbsian civil society is contact created civil and political society which is
opposite to state of nature. His use of term ‗civil society‘ is a misnomer. (Jayaram, 2005:70)
In Hobbes‘s theory civil society is actually to be found in the freedom that an individual enjoys in
his/her day to day life in which the sovereign does not interfere. Individual has two types of rights which
the state has to respect. State can not interfere with the right of individual to self preservation and self
preservation includes not only right to life but right to the means of subsistence such as access to food.
This right imposes the positive limits on ‗the powers of sovereign. On same time individual has negative
rights where the state law is silent. And in this case where sovereign prescribed no rule individual has
full liberty. These areas constitute the market economy, the personal freedoms and the freedom to
develop culture in the society (Chandhoke, 1995: 84).
Self Assessment Questions
1. What is Civil Society.

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

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

2. Hegel's View on Civil Society.

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

.............................................................................................................................................
(b) John Locke
Locke too like Hobbes uses term ‗civil society‘ erroneously for state. In Locke‘s liberal context
every state is a limited state and hence the residuary powers accrue to the individual Limited Powers or
rights were surrendered to the state on the condition that the state would protect rest of the tights of the
individual These rights were life, liberty and property. According to Locke these rest of Powers or
freedoms of Individual constitute civil society (Gauba, 2005: 122).
Locke also feared that sovereign could behave irresponsibly and can act against the interest of
society so he made two contracts. One among the members of civil society and other for formation of
government. He gave right to revolt against government to civil society and also argues that dissolution
of government does not mean dissolution of civil society (Vermani 2005:110-111).
7.4 Hegel’s View on Civil Society
Hegel was the first thinker who distinguished civil society from the state. For Hegel civil society
represents ‗universal egoism‘ and the state stood for ‗universal altruism‘. For him the civil society is an
organization in which an individual competes with all other individuals to serve his selfish interests. It is
the sphere of economic activities in which an individual tries to satisfy the needs of other in order to
satisfy his own needs (Gauba, 2005:122) Hegel presented an innovative and state centered concept of
civil society. He introduces a tripartite division of society the family the civil society and the state in
which the family stands for private domain and both civil society and state stand for public domain
Hegel considers family as thesis, civil society as antithesis and state as synthesis. He termed civil
society as progressive realization of ethical life, which could be realized only in state (Vermani, 2005:
11-13).
He viewed family as the first and civil society as the second ethical root of the state. The state,
according to Hegel is the ‗true ground‘ of both family and civil society, supporting the sanctity of the
former and saving the latter from its own atomization. Progress consists in formation of civil society in
the first place and the state in the second (Jayaram, 2005:73). Hegel finds civil society in between state
and family. Civil society or bourgeoisie society is the realm of individuals who had left the unit of family
and entered in economic competition in the market. Though civil society gave rise to state, it is
inevitable that state supersedes civil society as the embodiment .of society‘s general interests stands
over and above the particular interests both in the family as well as in civil society (Ibid: 126).
Hegel considered civil society as an achievement of modern world. He expanded the notion of
civil society, and rescued it from being excessively identified with the economy. To him civil society is a
set of social practices, which are constituted by the logic of the capitalist economy and also in the
respect of the ethos of the market. It is the theater where two principals of modern society ‗particularity‘
and ‗universality‘ are negotiated and tensions between them are worked out. The state, according to
Hegel, synthesizes particularity and universality. To Hegel, civil society is an important moment in the
transition from the family as a mode of social organization to the state as the supreme and the final
form of such organization (Chandhoke, 1995:117-118).
7.5 Karl Marx's View on Civil Society
According to Marx, civil society belongs to the base or sub structure and it controls the
superstructure. For Marx, the political reality of state is in economic life. What Marx means is that the
relationships of production and class, struggle are formed in civil society. Man contends that state is
part of the structure, which is controlled by the productive forces and productive relations in civil society
(Jayaram, .2005:46). He, therefore, assumes that the state is a product of civil society and it is also
affected by it. Marx asserts that before the emergence of civil society, individuals were part of many
different societies like guilds and estates. He says that when these societies broke down civil society
emerged and its emergence signified the struggle of each against all and the individual became all-
important. According to Marx the dominant class in civil society requires the protection of the state (Ibid:
126). Marx criticizes Hegel‘s Philosophy because it justifies the protectionist role of the state. Marx
narrows down the meaning of civil society and in its relationship with state, he said that the state is
partisan and biased towards the rich. He recognized the distinction between state and civil society and
rejected the view that state is all-inclusive political community. He considered state as subservient to
the conflicting but dominant forces of civil society. According to Marx, civil society emerged in the post-
feudal separation of the political sphere of the state from the sphere of private production. He makes
civil society very much synonymous with bourgeoisie society and he considers civil society nothing but
animalization and dehumanization of man. For Marx, civil society itself should resolve its own
contradictions without the interference or help of the state (Vermani, 2005:114-115).
7.6 Gramsci’s views
Gramsci expressed his views on civil society in trying to understand as to why the Italian
workers were not going for the socialist revolution as was predicted by Marx. And he finally found his
answer in the notion of hegemony. For Gramsci, civil society is a sphere in which battle for and against
capitalism is fought. It is sphere, which is occupied by struggle for material, ideological and cultural
control over all societies including state. Gramsci contends that the state is not the expansion of
universal will but the instrument of domination by capitalism. He argued that civil society represents
broader community interests instead of being simply a sphere of selfish and egoistic individual needs.
He calls it a trench system, which protects state from being challenged by the dominated classes
especially during economic crisis. Gramsci‘s contention is that the state is protected by hegemony of
the dominant classes in civil society while the coercive state apparatus fortifies the hegemony of the
dominant class. Gramsci thus admitted the superior power of state (Jayaram, 2005:127).
Gramsci called civil society a second line of defense for capitalism against revolution. According
to him, civil society and political society both belong to superstructure. Civil society is a set of
institutions like churches, parties, trade unions, universities, press, publishing houses and voluntary
organizations which disseminate the ideology of dominant class in order to ensure its cultural and
spiritual supremacy over the subordinate classes which give consent for this. On the other hand the
state exercises coercive power in case if spontaneous consent has failed in the civil society (Kaviraj
and Khilnani, 2002:140).
Thus for Gramsci state and civil society are the two levels of superstructure of the capitalist
society and together they form the structure of domination. Civil society which is nearer the base
embodies structure of legitimation and political society or state embodies the structure of coercion.
Capitalist society according to Gramsci largely depends on efficiency of civil society for its stability
(Gauba, 2005:122).
Gramsci also differentiates between the political and civil society and also makes distinction
between the sites and forms of power. Political society has its location where the coercive apparatus of
the state is concentrated such as prisons, judicial system, armed forces and police. On the other hand,
civil society is the located where invisible, intangible, and subtle form of power dominates through
educational, cultural, religious systems and other ideological institutions. The bourgeois state prefers
consent to coercion, and if consent is operative and present, then the coercion is just not required
except in the moment of crisis. Gramcsi advises the revolutionaries to build counter-ideology which he
calls counter-hegemony to confront the domination of the dominant classes (Chandhoke, 1995: 149).
7.7 An Analysis
In its modern form, the beginning of the conception of civil society concept can be traced to the
period between seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Thomas Hobbs and John Locke, the two major
exponents if social contract theory can be regarded as pioneers in the matter of formulation of the
concept of civil society. Locke was the first to introduce the notion of private property as a condition for
civil society.
Hegel enlarged the notion of civil society from the liberal emphasis on the market to include
social practices distinct from economic life. For Hegel civil society was the terrain where individuals
seek their particular interests. According to Hegel civil society is egoist, selfish and fragmented. He was
skeptical about the capacity of individual to overcome self serving interests. He emphasized the need
for organizations, law and an overarching organization to integrate individuals into to a community and
provide a sphere of freedom within which they could pursue particular interests.
Marx rejected Hegel‘s celebration of the state arid called it instead an instrument of domination
linked in an unholy alliance with bourgeois elements in civil society to protect propertied interests. Marx
made a critique of the illusion of freedom created by the distinction between civil and political society.
Gramsci extended understanding of modes of domination in modem society by showing how
intellectual and cultural organizations create non violent modes of hegemony. He proposed that civil
society could also provide the possibility of liberation as a terrain where rising social groups may
challenge the power pf the state and the, dominating class associated with it.
7.8 Contemporary debate
As the concept of civil society enters in a new millennium it involves diverse actors who are
motivated, by different goals. The economic vision which is represented by the business groups and
trade unions. The social logic of civil society is manifested by the work of non governmental
organizations, grass root organizations and associations of volunteers and ethnic groups. The political
viewpoint includes the subversive, paramilitary and other armed group movements. On the basis of all
these concepts we can define civil society as the totality of organizations formed by citizens outside the
state and the market to support aspects of social life where common interests exist (Civicus, 2005:88).
In democracy, civil society has both demand and supply side of government functions. On
demand side it monitors the state‘s exercise of power and broadens citizen participation in
public policy making. On supply side it shares the function of implementing public policy with
state institutions and undertakes this function outside of but with the sanction of state institutions
(Ibid: 195).
The increasing linkages between civil society organizations in different countries and the
formation of cross border networks, alliances and movements suggests that civil society must
now look beyond national boundaries (Kaldor, 2006:53).
The creation of global civil society is an answer to war, a way of addressing the problem of war
and it also can act as a vehicle for overcoming the gap between civil societies and uncivil part of
the world or the gap between Europe and rest of the world (Ibid:144).
In the era of globalization the concept of civil society by consisting of different movements,
networks and non-governmental organizations, express the reflexivity of the contemporary world
(Ibid: 108).
7.9 Summary
Civil society has successfully performed two important functions. At one place it has acted as a
zone of contestation to bringing clown authoritarian tendencies and on the other hand it has acted as a
protector for safeguarding the democratic Institutions. Today the liberal-individualistic approach is
dominating on contemporary debate of civil society. It occupies the place as standard vision of civil
society in opposition to the state. Civil society got separated from the state as a sphere of articulation
and organization. Though this concept has its origin in Europe and North America during the process of
industrialization and capitalist developments but it successfully acquire the characteristic of universality
by owning the problems of rest of the world.
7.10 References
1. Baylis, John and Smith, Steve (2005), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relation, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
2. Chandhoke, Neera (2000), State and Civil Society, Sage Publications: New Delhi.
3. Darity, William A. (2008), International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences 2nd edition,
Thomson Gale: London.
4. Edwards Michael (2004), Civil Society, Polity Press: Cambridge
5. Elliott, Carolyn M. (2006), Civil Society and Democracy, Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
6. Gauba, O.P. (2005), An Introduction to Political Theory, Macmillan India: New Delhi.
7. Jayaram, N. (2005), On Civil Society, Sage Publication: New Delhi
8. Johari, J. C. (2006), New Comparative Government Lotus Press: New Delhi.
9. Kaldor, Mary (2003), Global Civil Society: An Answer to War, Polity Press: Cambridge.
10. Kaviraj, Sudipta and Khilnani, Sunil (2002), Civil Society: History and Possibilities. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
11. Mclean, lain and Mcmillan Alistair (2006), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
12. Pathak Sumit Kr. (2008), “Gandhi and Civil Society”, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (ed.), The
Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. LXIX, No.2.
13. Plattner Marc F. (1995), “The uses of Civil Society” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 4.
14. Sheldon, Garret Word (2005), The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Viva books: New Delhi.
15. Vermani R. C. (2005), An Introduction to Political Theory and Thought, Gitanjali Publishing
House: New Delhi.
7.11 Further Readings
1. Chandhoke, Neera "State and Civil Society", Sage Publications: New Delhi.2000
2. Elliott, Carolyn M. "Civil Society and Democracy", Oxford University Press, New Delhi.2006
7.12 Model Questions :
1. What do you understand by the concept of Civil Society?
2. Write not on contemporary debate on Civil Society?
---S---
 Lesson-8

ETHNICITY, RACE AND NATIONAL IDENTITIES

Structure
8.0 Objectives

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Meaning

8.3 Ethnicity and Nation

8.4 Approaches

8.5 Ethnic Groups

8.6 Ethnic Movements

8.7 The Dravidian Movement and Tamil Ethnicity in India

8.8 Ethnic Movement of the Tamils in Sri Lanka

8.9 Summary

8.10 References

8.11 Further Readings

8.12 Model Questions

8.0 Objectives
This lesson introduces you to the concept of Ethnicity. Once you are able to grasp it, you should
be in a position to :
 explain the meaning of ethnicity;
 discuss various approaches to ethnicity;
 discuss ethnic movements in this region.
8.1 Introduction
Ethnicity as a subject of study and research is a recent phenomenon. It was expected in some
quarters that there will be decline of ethnic, racial and national ties as a result of globlisation and
development of mass communication. On the contrary we are witnessing ethnic revivals across the
globe. Multi-ethnicity is a social-political phenomenon in most civil societies and since the last century
inter-ethnic cleavages, conflict arid competition appear to have acquired a marked intensity. In this
process, ethnic moblisation has posed varied challenges to many developed and developing societies.
In Europe and America ethnic movements surfaced in 1960‘s and 1970‘s. In Asia and Africa they have
been there since 1950‘s. The collapse of Soviet Union has also encouraged ethnic conflicts throughout
its territory. So ethnicity seems far from fading away. In fact, it has become a central issue in the social
and political life of every country.
8.2 Meaning
The word ethnic is derived from the Greek word ―ethnikos‖. If refers to races or large group of
people having common traits and customs or groups in an exotic primitive culture Max Weber defines
ethnic groups as those groups that entertain, a subjective belief in their common descent. This belief is
Important for the propagation of group formation. Similarly Geertz tries to define ethnicity by stressing
the primordial ties and the longing not to belong to any other group. Yinger defines ethnic group as a
segment of a larger society whose members are thought by themselves and or others to have a
common origin and who In addition, participate in shared activities in which the common origin and
culture are significant Ingredients. He further says that in defining ethnic groups some mixture of
language, religion, race and ancestral homeland with its related culture Is the defining clement. The
phenomenon of ethnicity, it appears survives on primordialties political and economic interests and
strangement from a larger society leading to problems of integration and mutual adjustment between a
majority group and ethnic minorities in a culturally hetergeneous society. To sum up the above
discussion we can define ethnic group as a historically formed aggregate of people having a real or
imaginary association with a specified territory a shared cluster of beliefs and values connoting
distinctiveness in relation to similar groups arid recognized as such by others.
The definition of ethnicity thus has five components (I) a subjective belief in real or assumed
historical antecedents. (II) a symbolic real geographical centre. (III) shared cultural emblems such as
race, language, religion dress and diet combination of some of them, to provide the overt basis of
ethnic identity (IV) awareness of distinctiveness and belonging to the groups (v) recognitions by others
of the group differentiation. It is thus a self defined and other recognized status.
The notion of ethnicity is directly related to ethnic group. Providing the group a quality and a
character ethnicity is the summation of its impulses and motivation for power and recognition. Ethnicity
may be viewed as a device or a focus for group mobilizations by its leadership for social cultural,
political and economic purposes by the use of various ethnic symbols. It has been the driving force
behind ethnic movements.
8.3 Ethnicity and Nation
There is a certain degree of similarity in the definitions of nation and ethnic group. The word
nation is derived from Latin Word nation meaning birth and race initially the term nation referred to a
social group based on birth or race. However in the 17th century it was expanded to describe the
inhabitants of a country. Consequently became a virtue synonym for the total population of a country
regardless of its ethnic composition. With such a view nation and state merged and came to be used
inter changeably and the term state became popular. Nation state thus connotes a situation in which
boundaries of a state are perceived to have approximated that of a nation. Even in this one nation one
state formula, the existence of diverse social or ethnic groups is recognized but equal the nation with
numerically dominant ethnic group. Inspite of the fact that the term nation state is in vogue, but nation is
not the same as state. The state is primarily a politico-legal concept whereas the nation is psyche-
cultural one. There is another view point that is of ethnicists. They also regard the nation as a large
politicized ethnic group defined common culture and descent but they argue that in a world of today the
national group cannot be equated with a state. They emphases not the phenomenon of nation state but
of multinational states.
The words race and ethnicity are also very close to each other. The word ‗race‘ as popularly
used in social sciences possess no definite connation. For example, it may be used to denote a class of
population possessing common traits or certain aggregation of traits. Very often a group of persons
who ancestrally have lived in a country for a number of generations like English. French or the Chinese
are called a race. Any culturally homogenous group of people is known as race. Ethnic groups also
have all these features. In fact, ethnic group or ethnicity is much wider term than race. Race is one of
the distinctive features of an ethnic group. As such study of ethnic groups includes the study of racial
group as well.
8.4 Approaches :- These are four major approaches on ethnicity. These are (a) Primordialist
approach (b) cultural pluralist approach (c) modernization and development approach (d) Marxist and
neo-marxist approach.
The major focus of the Primordialists is on the culture. To them, ethnic identities are not chosen,
they are given. Group inherits it from its past. They say that individuals inherit certain cultural traits
which are a part of their personality formation and which persist with them throughout their life
consciously pre-requisite to explain ethnicity. The very recognition of the preimordialist sentiments and
consequently the differentiated character of ethnic groups does not explain group relationships have
been harmonious at one time but not at another.
Moreover the promise of primordial ties are particularistic. They are perceived as a road blocks
in the process of national cohesion and nation – building. It is also argued that since ethnic attachments
pertain to the non-ration domain of human personality, they load to violence and social turbulence and
thereby tend to be dysfunctional in the development processes of the civil society. But here again it is
said that if ethnic turbulence is the manifestation of a protest or revolt against the structural inequalities
inherent in the existing social framework (e.g. the position of low castes and some of the tribes in South
Asia) in which certain segments have continued to be disadvantaged, then these conflicts should be
viewed as mobilization efforts on the part of such groups for distributive justice. In this sense they are
functional in the developmental processes.
Cultural Pluralist approach is an improvement over the Primordialist approach because it
emphasizes not only the ethnic distinctiveness of a group but also the dominant subordinate pattern of
interaction among various ethnic groups. In a single society there are number of ethnic groups having
institutional systems (i.e. social, structures, value systems, belief patterns) which are incompatible with
each other. In such a culturally divergent situation, there bound to be a subordination of one group by
the other, this explains the phenomenon of ethnic conflicts in such societies. Ethnic interest conflicts
take place in all ethnically plural societies. The dominant ethnic groups try to further their group interest
by political means and to mould laws and institutions to serve their interests.
This approach i.e. dominant-subordinate syndrome des take note of intra-ethnic, cleavages,
Again it falls to explain why in such a society ridden with conflict, iner-ethnic group harmony exists.
Finally , if the degree of cultural difference among the groups is the critical variable, then it will be
difficult to explain why inter-ethnic groups conflict has often been led by the segments of people who
are culturally most similar, specifically among the westernized strata which have been engaged in the
greatest amount of social and cultural interchange.
However some theorists have asserted that with growing development and extensions of the
capitalist market, ethnic attachments would be underlined diffused and dissolved. But the continued
assertion of ethnic pluralismion countries like U.S.A., U.K. and Canada have proved that the
assumptions of the developmentalists are erroneous.
 The problems of ethnicity have also been related to modernisation and development Karl W.
Deutech says that the problems persisting in the nation states in terms of fissparous tendencies would
wither away as modernization progresses. But later studies have rejected his arguments by projecting a
new trend that modernization process creates cleavages in the societies and ultimately the whole state
system has to work for managing the ethnic groups. In the fact the processes of modernization and
development are caught up in the dialectics of their won dynamics, combating ethnic loyality on the one
hand and simulating ethnic consciousness on the other. Consequently what be the level of
development of a state, ethnic conflicts are to be seen as a part of the ongoing process which have to
be coped with and managed but cannot be resolved once and for all except through the total
assimilation or elimination of a particular group. We have sufficient evidence to prove that states have
successfully managed the ethnic problems. So far as other alternative is concerned it is simpaly
genocidal.
The Marxist and neo-marxist approach explains ethnic conflicts as emerging at a general level
where ethnicity is regarded as a device to detract the class, consciousness and is manipulated by
political leadership and class interests. Further it also emerges in a situation where there has been a
―cultural division of labour when members of an ethnic group are placed in a subordinate position within
a given state. (Internal colonialism). To marxists ethnic identity is a reactionary impulse which hampers
the development of class. Consciousness and class solidarity Mobilisatlon on an ethnic basis evokes,
according to them false consciousness. It is often looked down upon by them.
The marxist explanation of cultural division of labour (internal colonialism) seems to be relatively
closer to the empirical realities. The proponents of internal colonialism have placed people rather than
classes as the central point of their approach. In other words we can say that, ethnic conflict take place
in a society because certain groups are exploited and subjugated by the economically stronger groups.
This internal colonial model has only limited application. It explains the conflicts in certain
situations and in some places only, it hardly explains ethnic violence in Sri Lanka or the recent
turbulence in Punjab. Nor do the movements in Scotland and Spanish Basque region fit easily into this
model.
8.5 Ethnic Groups : India has a great degree of ethnic heterogeneity going by the various
categories of cultural markers for group identity i.e. race, religion, tribe, language. In India, one can find
thousands of groups delineated in various censuses as racial, religious, tribal and, linguistic groups.
Here we can find the phenomenon of various tribal groups moving to the phase of ethnic community
encompassing in the process a number of tribes e.g. Naga or Mizo community. Similarly among
linguistic groups a process. If integrating the various dialects into a relatively standardized language
community paves the way for a number of ethnic communities e.g. Tamil, Telugu, Malyalam, Nepali,
Bengali and Assamese. Similar is the case of a number of religious groups developing themselves into
ethnically self-conscious communities e.g. Muslims, Sikhs and Parsee. Some of them stake their claim
as a nation others do not. Like elsewhere in India also not one but number of cultural markers are used
to mark the ethnic identity e.g. Tamil ethnicity is based on race language and territory. In the case of
Telqgu Desam it is language and territory. The combination of descent and territory among the Nagas
and Mizos have been projected in a manner as to subsume intra-tribal of differences. Sikh Ethnicity is
eased on religion and territory. It has diluted the linguistic marker as well as the long drawn cultural
affinities between Punjabi, Sikhs and Punjabi. Hindus. Thus different markers are stressed by the
leadership to assert its distinctiveness, vis-à-vis other groups for protection on the one hand and power
on the other.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, its society has remained overwhelmingly, Muslims, yet
ethnically diverse. The Punjabs, Pathans, Baluchis and Sindhis are four distinct ethnic communities. In
numerical terms Punjabis Predominate in Pakistan accounting for about two third of the total population.
Pathans have North West Frontier Province as their major habitat, Sindhis are concentrated in Sind.
Baluchis about 3% of the total population also contribute to the ethnic diversity of Pakistan. Sri Lanka‘s
multiethnic configuration has been determined by its proximity to India and its distance from all other
land mass. Nearly 90% of its populations has Indian antecedents. Sinhaleses and Tamils are the two
major ethnic communities in Sri Lanka. Sinhaleses constitute 74% of the population and claim Aryan
descent whereas Tamlis account for nearly 18 percent of the total population claim Dravidian descent.
In Canada there exist many ethnic groups. Red Indians, English, French, Chinese and Asian
are prominent among them. In U.S.A. there are four major ethnic groups—Red Indians, white Migrants,
Negroes and Asians. It means that multi-ethnicity is a universal phenomenon.
8.6 Ethnic Movements
Ethnic Movement is a process of group mobilisation by the leadership with a view to bringing
about partial or total change in the civil society. It aims to enhance or sustain the status and power of
the group concerned. Here we shall discuss few ethnic movements.
8.7 The Dravidian Movement and Tamil ethnicity in India :- Though the issue of Tamil ethnicity
and nationhood at the popular level is largely a post independence phenomenon in India. Its evolution
is linked with Dravidian movement in the colonial India. This movement emerged in the early decades
of the twentieth century. In this movement race emerged as the primary facto Brahmins, about three
percent of the population were projected as Aryan invaders subjugating the Dravidians and sabotaging
their linguistic cultural traditions during the British rule the Brahmins with their literacy traditions were
the first to benefit from the English education and enter colonial administration as well as other urban
professions in disproportionately, large numbers. Other non-Brahmin upper castes retained their
dominance in the rural areas but felt danger to their status in the urban areas it was these non Brahmin
elites who gave expression to new Non Brahmin political identity under the label of Dravidian). This
group organised itself into Dravidian, Association which subsequently came to be known as justice
Party. This Dravida movement became more radical under leadership of E.V. Rams Sweaty Naicker, in
1944 he founded a new party, Dravida Kazhagam (DK) to fight the Britons, the Brahmins and the
Banias in order to achieve a sovereign independent, Dravidian State-Subsequently the Dravida
Munnetra iKaznagam (DMK) the breakaway group of D.K. led by C.N. Annadurai also subscribed to the
same goal.
During the post independence period the DMK emerged as the harbinger of Tamil ethnicity and
nationhood. It did not contest the 1952 elections but in 1957, it decided to enter the electoral area with
its major electoral slogan being separate Dravida Nadu. The secessionist demand during this period
was justified by its leadership as the means to achieve the long term goals. But electoral politics
provided it with a better control of socio-political resources at the state level and considerable
bargaining leverage with the centre in the federal framework. This appeared to have made the issue of
secession merely tactical for the DMK, leadership the anti-secession constitutional amendment in 1963
provided it an opportunity to justify its move for a formal abnegation of its secessionist demand in 1972
a group led by the popular film star M.G. Ramachandran broke away from the DMK and called itself
AIADMK. In terms of its support base, power structure or ideology, the AIADMK hardly differed from
D.M.K.. From time to time both DMK and AIADMK formed coalition governments with congress in Tamil
Nadu. Inspite of the fact that there is not much difference in the ideological and structural bases of
power of the congress and Tamil parties but the difference between these lie inherently the Tamil
character of regional parties which is the very basis of their existence and sustenance. These regional
parties have consistently asserted their being the torch-bearers of the Tamil nation and have been
demanding greater financial allocation from the centre an have pledged to fight Hindi imperialism-thus
Tamil party leadership tries to avoid direct confrontation with the centre. They operate in manner as to
keep the slogans of Tamil National and Indian nation a going concern within a federal framework,
The case of Tamil in India shot that ethnic Identity and national identity are not incompatible.
Through interaction between ethnic and national forces, socio economic and political interests of ethnic
groups could be protected and in turn Identity transformation would take place. From the beginning of
formation of iron- Brahmin identity, the same ethnic group professed ‗different value system to cope
with changing circumstances and conditions. While professing ethnic, identity, national Identity end
loyalty have has been kept in the political process by the ethnic group to realize its objectives.
8.8 Ethnic Movement of the Tamils is in Sri Lanka
At the, time of independence the Sri Lankan Tamil community had a fair share in the power
structure of colonial Sri Lanka. Since independence particularly in the last, four decades this situation
underwent a sea change and Sri Lankan Tamil community, become increasingly alienated from the
political mainstream which eventually eroded the credibility of the centre vis-a-vis Tamil minority. This
was the genesis of the autonomist demand of the Tamils turning into the demand for Eelam-a separate
Tamil state.
As you know Sinhalese and Tamil are the two major communities in Sri Lanka. The beginning
of‘ the post-independence interaction between these two communities can be traced to the year 1951.
In the same year Federal party was formed comprising a group of Tamils who broke away from Tamil
congress on the question of denial of citizenship, to large number of Indian Tamils and T.C‘s
cooperation, with United National convention (1951). They called for a federal constitution instead of
unitary framework and regional autonomy on the pleas that Tamil speaking people in Ceylon
constituted, a nation distinct from Sinhalese. Inspite of the various problems of Indian Tamils, actual
confrontations occurred more often between Sri Lanka Tamil and Sinhalese.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Define Ethnicity.

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

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

2. Define Race.

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

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

The four basic issues on which there is a conflict between Sinhalese and the Sri Lankan Tamils are a
language & employment, (b) regional autonomy, (c) land settlement, and (d) access to higher
education.
The language question was perhaps the pivotal factor in the Tamil‘s loss of faith in Sinhalese
leaders. In the elections of 1956, the Sinhalese nationalist‘s gained majority in the Parliament under the
Leadership of Bandaranaika. They promptly passed official languages. Act which declared that the
Sinhala Language shall be the only official language of Sri Lanka. This generated fear in the minds of
Tamil that they would be shut out of state employment and professions and that their Language and
culture would gradually be strangled. This led to open fighting between Sinhalese and Tamil in the
Eastern province. Alarmed by the violence, Prime Minister Bandaranaike and leader of the federal party
S.J.V. Chelvanayakam in July, 1957 negotiated an agreement. It provided for the recognition of Tamil
as the language of nation at minority and that language of administration in the Northern and Eastern
provinces shall be Tamil. It also provided for a measure of regional autonomy through regional councils.
But Tamils complained from time to time that government makes promises only to break them. These
are not implemented.
On the issue of land settlement, all governments since 1930 have tried to ease population
pressure in the south west by developing irrigation projects to settle people in the populated northern
plains. Tamils view such schemes as devices to convert Tamil majority areas to Sinhalese majority
areas. This has led to heightened tension in the area.
Regarding higher education, government has changed its policy from time to time. Upto 1969,
admission to universities was based on the results of final examination at the senior secondary school
level, in 1971, the government reviewed the exceptional performance of Tamil students in Science
subjects and took the position that it was difficult to compare standards between the Sinhalese medium
and Tamil medium students and decided to set arbitrary cut off points to regulate the quota of
admissions from each ethnic group. It meant Tamil students had to obtain higher marks to enter
science faculties. From 1974 onwards it had changed many schemes of standardization of quota but
the final results of all these was to restrict the entry of Tamil students to medical and engineering
faculties.
If we took at Tamil insurgency, its roots can be traced to the time when some of the Tamils had
protested against the policy of standardisation as well as the Constitution of 1972. The agitation led to
their arrest without trial and few of them were tortured in jail. The emergence of Bangla Desh was
another factors which inspired them was in this context that a small groups of Tamil youth decided to
form the Tamil New Tigers in 1972 which was renamed in 1976 as the liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
( LTTE) under the leadership of Prabhakaran. Besides LTTE there are many other group of Tamil
militants but LTTE is the most powerful them. Despite their differences the militant groups had two
points in common. First, the achievement of Tamil Eelam and second the achievement of this goal
through armed struggle. Since then, there is no end to the ethnic violence with Sinhalese murdering
Tamils and Tamils attacking Sinhalese.
The violence ceased temporarily when Indo-Sri Lankan Accord was signed by then Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lanka President Jayewardane in July, 1987. It stipulated the surrender of
arms by the militants followed by amnesty, the formation of an interim administrative council in Northern
and Eastern provinces, the holding of elections in the area and devolution of powers at the provincial
level. It also provided for the stationing of Indian peace keeping forces (IPKF) towards the restoration of
normally in the strife-torn Tamil dominated provinces. But LTTE was not willing to give up its separatist
stance. Accord could not work because it was perceived as inadequate to assuage the Tamil
aspirations. On 5th October, 1987, the Tamil Tigers stated formally that they were opposing the pact
and would no longer cooperate with India‘s peace keeping force. On the other hand Sinhalese regarded
the devolution of powers as detrimental to their Interests, how ever IPKP did some good work by
ensuring the peaceful conduct of polls in December, 1988. It also assisted the government in fighting
insurgency in Sri Lanka. But subsequently IPKF had to be withdrawn from Sri Lanka for various
reasons.
The ethnic movement in Sri Lanka underlines the rivalry between these two competing
communities -the Sinhalese and the Tamils. In the process they have shrouded if not totally fractured,
the building of state centric nation of Sri Lanka. Partly this can be ascribed to the partisan attitude of
major political parties like UNP (United National Party) and SLFP (Sri Lanka freedom party) vis the
Tamils. And partly it is due to increasingly position of the one time advantaged community of the Sri
Lankan Tamils. Because of their numerical majority and the advantages it brings in the parliamentary
arena, the Sinhalese have relentlessly pursued goals of modernization of their ethnic group and
persecution of the Tamils. Finding their feebleness weakness and their underdevelopment the Tamils
have taken increasingly to militant strategies to achieve their Eslam.
In the end, we can say that the inter play of ethnicity and ethnic movements indicates the
competitive turned confictual assertion of ethnic nationalism against the state. Such movements show
an organised effort on the part of the ethnic community for collective mobilization with a view to bringing
about change in the socio-political system. It is an attempt on the part of ethnic leadership to gain
greater access and control in the institutions of power. In some cases the demands of ethnic
movements have been for certain safeguards and reservations for the ethnic group : Mainly it is for
greater autonomy vis-a-vis the centre or within its constituent units. But in some cases the demands for
greater autonomy turn into secessionist demands. In such cases the challenges of ethnicity pose a
great threat to process of building a composite and secular nation-state. However it the demands and
aspirations of the ethnic community are accommodated and contained through open competitive and
democratic processes, ethnicity has the potential to facilitate the process of nation-building.
8.9 Summary
Ethnicity is an important Issue in the political of every society. Inter-ethnic divisions and conflicts
are a common phenomenon in the present day political system. Ethnicity has a both racial and cultural
overtones, It is a sentiment of loyalty towards a distinctive population, cultural group or region. It gives
them a common identity and a sense of distinctiveness by focussing on their origin and descent. There
are four major approaches to ethnicity. These are : (a) Primordialist approach focuses on the culture of
a group (b) cultural Pluralist approach talks of pattern of relationship and interaction among different
ethnic groups (c) Ethncity is related to the process of moderntsation and development (d) The Marxist
and neo-Marxist approach regard ethnicity as a device to detract class-consciousness.
The study of various ethnic movements show an effort on the part of ethnic groups to bring
about change in the socio-political system of the society. It the demands of ethnic groups are taken
care of by the leadership ethnicity it can facilitate the process of national integration.
8.10 References
(1) Edwards Michael, Civil Society. Polity Press, Cambridge, 2004
(2) Johri, J.C. New Comparative Government. Lotus Press, New Delhi 2006.
8.11 Further Readings
(1) O.P. Guaba Comparative poltiics, Mayur Publications, 2003.
(2) Allen, C. and G. Williams (eds.), Sociology of 'Developing Societies, Sub-Saharam Africa,
Macmillan, London, 1982
(3) Cammack, Paul, David Pool and William Tordoff. Third World Politics. : A comparative
Introduction, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1993.
(4) Caramani, Daniele, Comparative Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014.
(5) Clapham, C. Third World Politics : An Introduction, Routledge, London 1985.
(6) Dickovick, J. Tyler and Jonathan Eastwood, Comparative Politics : Integrating Theories,
Methods, and cases, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 20140
(7) Eckstein, Harry and David, E. Apter, Comparative Politics : A Reader, The Free Press of
Glancoe, London, 1994.
(8) Manor, James (ed.), Third World Politics, Longman, London, 1091.
(9) Mohanty, Manorajan, P. Mukherji with O. Tornquist. People's Rights. Social Movements and
the State in the Third World, Sage, New Delhi, 1998.
(10) Randall, V.Political Parties in the Third World, Sage, London, 1988.
(11) Smith, Anthony D., State and Nation in the Third World : The Western State and African
Nationalism, Wheatsheaf, Sussex 1983.

8.12 Model Questions

1. Discuss various approaches to the study of ethnicity.
2. Discuss the growth of Tamil ethnicity in India.

---S---
 Lesson-9

GLOBALISATION AND THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Structure
9.0 Objectives

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Developing Nations

9.3 Reasons for Globalisation

9.4 Role of WTO in Globalisation

9.5 Globalisation and the Nation States

9.6 Summary

9.7 References

9.8 Further Readings

9.9 Model Questions

9.0 Objectives
In this lesson you will be introduced to the phenomenon of globalisation and its impact on the
developing states. After studying this lesson you should be able to:
 Explain the meaning of Globalisation;
 Understand the role of WTO in Globalisation;
 Discuss the place of developing states in the global economy.
9.1 Introduction
Globalisation is a very widely used concept in academic circles by economists, political
scientists and sociologists. It can be defined as the social, political and economic changes at various
scales enhanced by the growing Interconnections between all parts of the world. Coke of the US but
the Ranbaxy of India, e.g. Samsung of Korea that find themselves spreading their wings to the rest of
the world. Today developing economies are growing as sources of production, competition and sales.
Money is flowing more freely across the national borders. Companies seek the best rates for financing
anywhere in the world and the investors seek or the best returns everywhere. World trade is growing at
a rate faster than the domestic production rate. All these processes represent economic globalization.
Cultural globalisation is the deteorialisation of the culture in which there is an increasing
disconnection between the original identity, culture and. traditional location. As people move freely
across the world and communicate at the click of the finger we find a harmony developing in the cultural
habits of the people. The growth of cultural flows has increased the homogeneity between the distant
places. Some critics like to refer to this as cultural imperialism or what a common man refers to a the
Americanization. However for the peace of these critics it can be said that there is a limit on the cultural
globalization, primarily due to the presence of indigenous, traditional and cultural traits.
Lastly there is the political globalization. The Increasing economic and cultural globalization has
reduced the role of the nation state and enhanced the role of the Transnationals in controlling the cross
border transactions. The form of governance has changed its character and is being increasingly
influenced by the economic factors. The increasing significance of the international organizations, like
the IMF, World bank, World Trade organization (WTO), EU etc. has forced many a developing nations
governments to succumb to the whims of these organizations. The classic example is the relief
package balled out by IMF to India in 1991. This relief was accompanied with a condition of opening up
of the economy a condition to which our government succumbed without a fight.
The current chapter is an attempt to explore this dilemma facing the developing nations, where
neo-colonialism is rearing its head. The economic globalization is forcing the developing nations to
trade their political sovereignty. These developing nations who have just faced a sigh of relief from the
colonial rule are now again facing the threat of economic colonialism. In order to examine these
question let us see the progress of the developing nations, especially on the latter half of the previous
century.
9.2 Developing Nations
The countries which attained independence from the colonial rule after the second world war
are known as the ‗Third World Countries‘, a term coined by Alfred Sauvy in 1952. It refers to those
countries which are practically non-aligned, economically less developed and less industrialized. In the
1970s the term ‗developing Nations‘ came to be used for these third world countries. These terms are
now being commonly used interchangeably. These developing countries share may common features.
One of them is their colonial bondage of the past. Alt these countries were yearning to escape from
dehumanizing poverty and underdevelopment and to provide better quality of life to their citizens.
Common problems of low productivity, population growth, unemployment, primary product export
dependence and International vulnerability bonded them together in their demand for a just economic
order. The third world assumed importance in the 1960s and the 1970s for a variety of reasons. It had
and still has a command over enormous natural resources. It produces most of the world‘s oil and raw
materials. The industrial economies are dependent on these resources. The third world countries were
at that time facing the revolution of rising expectations. They embraced development but the end result
was different. It led to what the proponents of the dependency theory say ―The development of the
underdeveloped‖. The gap between the developed industrial world and the developing world is
consistently growing.
In 1955 a conference of the Asian and African nations was held at Bandung. This conference
sowed the seeds of third world solidarity. These nations now fought for their rights in the world forums
like the UN General Assembly, its committees and its specialized agencies. In 1962 at the request of
the non-aligned nations, the UN General Assembly approved, a resolution calling for a worldwide
conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) right from its inception in 1964 has remained preoccupied with the demands
of the developing nations. Now they confronted the developed nations as a unified group making
demands for the reforms in the world economic order. Some of the issues that cropped up frequently
were the demand for better prices for their primary products exports. Between 1964 and 1970, the
focus of the development debates shifted from the need of the foreign aids to improving the access to
these third world manufactured and semi-manufactured exports to the western market. The developing
world demanded a new international economic order (NIEO) based on sovereign equality,
interdependence and common interest and cooperation among all the nations. In other world the
developing through the NIEO demanded a non-discriminatory and preferential treatment for their
manufactured goods in the markets of the industrialized countries, more stable and higher prices for
their commodities, more transfer of technology to the less developed nations and a greater voice in the
management of the world‘s monetary system. However, all these demands required the greater
cooperation of the developed countries, which was not easy to secure. Third world countries blamed for
their attitude. However these nations continued their efforts through the various NAM summits to forge
greater unity among the nations and to achieve individual and collective self-reliance. The disintegration
of the Soviet Union in 1991, the end of the cold war and the advent of the globalisation had profound
implications on the third world. The global change in the post cold war situation has created difficult
situation for the third world countries. The emergence of the unipolar world is fraught with the dangers
of the return to the dominance of the powerful over the weak. This whole development does not favour
the third world. They are confronted by the paradox of increasing globalisation of the world economy in
the absence of the super power competition, the bargaining power of these nations has steadily eroded
and NAM has also lost its relevance. Many NAM countries fool that they are no Longer the new states.
One can see a marked change in the economic perspective of the third world. They are no longer
seeking foreign assistance for a growing public sector. In fact they are inviting foreign capital to make
their economy more productive by encouraging the private sector and exposing it to the international
competition. Instead of spurning the MNCs they are now trying to woo them. Many developing countries
have rather become the birth place of MNCs themselves. They no longer think of third world solidarity.
They want to address themselves to new issues. They are fostering, economic regionalism and making
their economies market friendly. They just want to develop themselves by virtue of their oil wealth, as in
case of OPEC countries or through forming regional cooperation where natural resource rich countries
like Canada and Mexico have formed an economic alliance with an industrialized nation like the US,
and it is a success.
The world economies have been redefined today. Although the old broad demarcation of the
developed and the developing nations exist but the developing nations have amongst themselves
shown a drastic economic evolution. The developed nations are those who have mature economics
with substantial per capita GDPs and international trade and investments. However the developing
countries also have groups of countries in different stages of development. They are being lead by the
four Tigers or the Newly Industrialized Countries (NIC) of Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. These
are the future hot spots of the world economy. The transition economies of the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Poland and the Russia are the ones that are shifting their economic system from government
controlled to market controlled system. Then there are the baby tigers like Indonesia, Malaysia and
Thailand who hope to succeed by imitating the tigers. They are borrowing the technology and
management practices from the developed nations, hoping to leapfrog into a more profitable grid. And
at the end of this continuum are the less developed countries that have yet to put their economy on the
path of growth. However the world has definitely evolved economically in a short span of fifty years, and
globalization is one of th major reason responsible for this development.
9.3 Reasons for Globalisation
There are several factors that are driving the world economy towards globalization. As
mentioned earlier the world is categorized into a clear division of the developed and the developing.
Various factors cumulatively had the effect of bringing about a shift in the world. Lubbers, a former
Netherlands Premier, explains that :
―The far reaching integration of the electronics and the computers on the one hand, and
communication technology on the other hand, led to whet Alvin Toffler christened as the ‗Third wave‘.
And thus today the world came into being‖.
Apart from the rising force that is called as the information technology there are a number of
other factors that are operating on these countries that has encouraged their globalization.
It can be seen that there is an inclination towards increased flow of funds, people, products and
ideas. On the one side there is a harmony in the global standards regarding the technology. After all
who has not heard of the ISO standards. This has resulted in the products becoming more similar and
global across the world. Rising competition has encouraged entrepreneurial nature in the world
economy. Domestic enterprises are assuming an international character and we find new
Transnationals coming up everywhere in the world. A Transnational Company is one which has its
headquarters in one country and carries out its operations in a number of countries. These
Transnational are responsible for the increased flow of trade and investment. This has resulted in many
nations becoming dependent on these investment flows from developed countries for the growth of
their economy. All the above activities have been possible due to the disintegration of barriers between
the nations. As per the World Investment Report of 2000 there has been dismantling of the barriers in
the past decade of the nineties.
National Regulatory Changes
Item 1991 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
No. of countries that 35 64 65 76 60 63
introduced changes in their
investment regimes
No. of regulatory changes of 82 112 114 151 145 140
which
More Favourable to FDl* 80 106 98 135 136 131
Less Favorable to FDI# 2 6 16 16 9 9

Source : UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2000.

*Including liberalising changes or changes aimed at strengthening market functioning as well as
increased incentives.
# Including changes aimed at increasing control as well as reducing incentives.
The disintegration of the national borders can be primarily attributed to the role played by WTO
or the erstwhile GATT. Their contribution hence needs to be studied in a greater detail.
9.4 Role of World Trade Organization (WTO) in Globalization
The desire to liberalize trade has resulted in the formation of General agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) in 1948 The primary objective of GATT was to expand international trade by liberalizing
so as to bring about all around economic prosperity. It rested on the principle of non - discrimination,
prohibition of quantitative restrictions on trade like quotas and tariff and consultation. India has been
one of the founder member of GATT. Eight rounds on trade negotiations were held under the auspices
of GATT. The last round which started in 1986 and carried on till 1994 is known as the Uruguay Round.
The Uruguay Round took up three basic subjects for discussion:
 Reducing specific trade barriers and improving market access.
 Strengthening GATT disciplines.
 Problems of liberalization of trade in services, trade related aspects of intellectual property rights
(TRIPs) and trade related investment measures (TRIMs).
Under the agreement on this round GATT was converted from a provisional agreement into a
formal international organization called World Trade Organization an (WTO) with effect from 1st
January, 1995.
The WTO has five specific functions.
The WTO shall facilitate the implementation, administration and operation a further the
objectives of the multinational Trade Agreements and shall provide the platform for the
Implementation of plurilateral negotiations.
WTO shall provide the forum for negotiations among its members concerning their multilateral
trade relations in matters dealt with under the agreements.
The WTO shall administer the ‗Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes‘.
 The WTO shall administer the trade mechanism.
In order to achieve greater coherence in global economic policy making, the WTO shall
cooperate and appropriate, with IMP, IBRF and its affiliate agencies.
Uruguay Round and The Developing Countries
The developing countries are in general dissatisfied with the outcome of the Uruguay round.
The Wall Street Journal has reported.
―While the US and the EU are getting the best pieces of the world trade pie, the developing
countries are getting the crumbs.‖
Some of the areas where the developing countries are very dissatisfied are as follows:
1. WTO requires the developing countries to lower their protection against competition from the
unequally developed countries. It imposes on the member nations to do away with the trade
restricitions like tariffs and quotas that cause disruption to international trade. It exposes the
weak domestic industries of those nations and leaves them at the mercy of the developed
nations.
2. As far as agriculture is concerned, it is the developed countries that will suffer the most by the
liberalization of trade in agriculture. The subsidies in agriculture in Europe is as high as 30 to
50%. Thus where on the one hand reduction in these subsidies will benefit the exporters of
agriculture goods, which are primarily the developing nations, but at the same time it will raise
the prices of these food products. More than 100 developing nations are net food importers.
However the reduced subsidies will make the agriculture exports from the developing nations
more competitive than those from developed nations.
3. Trade in textiles another area of disappointment. Most of the developing nations export textiles.
The developed nations followed a very restrictive import policy regarding textiles. The
liberalization ins this sector took place in the year 2005, almost after 10 years of WTO formation
and during this period the export from countries like India were adversely affected.
ALL this does not mean that WTO has not benefited the developing nations. Take the cast of
India being a member of the WTO it enjoys the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status. Under this status
India can get access to all the member nations. Opting out of the WTO would mean that India would
have to perform the labourers task of entering into bilateral negotiations with all the nations. This would
mean getting our arm twisted by nations like US, EU and Japan on issues like intellectual property
rights, environmentally clean technologies for packing and human rights. No wonder China has really
fought hard to gain entry to this trade organization.
In the latest round of negotiations held at Doha the emphasis was on a more varied and diverse
issues. Although no fruitful agreement could be reached on these matters yet India gained on the front
of intellectual property rights. WTO has unequivocally accepted that patents will not stand in the way of
public health. Earlier this provision as available only for problems like fighting AIDS/HIV but now
patents can be looked away in cast of epidemics like tuberculosis and malaria. That means cheap
drugs for these diseases even if they patented drugs.
9.5 Globalisation and the Nation States
The policies of the national governments in capitalist countries are mainly determined by two
important dynamics : the first is the state of national process of capital accumulation and its relative
international strengths the second is the balance of the class forces both nationally and internationally.
The concept of globalization is being discussed in the period of stagnating national capital accumulation
as excess capital is aggressively exported or deploped speculatively on the stock markets of the world
to stave off a profits collapse.
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister expressed that, ―What is called as globalisation is the
changing nature of the nation state as power becomes more diffuse and borders more porous.
Technological change is reducing the power and the capacity of the government to control its domestic
economy free from external influence.‖
Does that mean that nation states have been sidelined by the globalization wave? Consider the
issue of sovereignty and multinational corporations or Transnational Corporations (TNCs). A world run
by 180 global corporations would mean: no national sovereignty, no national parliaments, no national
laws, no national armies. However, nation states still dominate the social and economic structures of
this planet. But the nation states are themselves a global order- a specific arrangement of a specific
type of state. Nation states are one of the many forms of the state. The very existence of the world of
nation states indicates the presence of sonic form of global order of nation states. Supporters of the
globalization claim that a world of isolated nation states existed in the recent past. They claim that
these isolated nation states are being eroded in the process of globalization. Saskia Sasson (in: ‗Losing
control: Sovereignty in the age of globalization‘, Colombia University Press 1996) summarizes the claim
as follows:
―Economic liberalization represents a major transformation in the territorial organization of the
economic activity and politico economic power... The sovereignty of the modem state was concentrated
in mutually excusive territories and the concentration of the sovereignty in nations… economic
globalization has contributed to the denationalizing of the national territory.‖
But nations are not mutually exclusive. Every existing nation state supports the division of the
world into nation states. Even a total surrender of the national sovereignty does not denationalize the
territory. When nations re-unite, for instance, the states can completely disappear e.g. The Republic of
Ireland has abandoned as claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland. However, a future majority, in the
North Ireland might want to accede to the Republic of Ireland. In those circumstances the United
Kingdom said that it will abandon its claim to the territory. Yet, either way they are still two states in the
British Isles. The Border might shift but the nation states as such does not disappear in such cases.
Global process is deliberately being confused with global erosion of borders. Trade among
nations may be global; that does not mean nations are dissolving in trade. Recent trade flows are used
as evidence of recent globalization, but inter continental trade has existed for thousands of years. Even
the present pattern of all continent trade is two hundred years old. We have to remember that nation
state is not a particularly existing itself in isolation but part of global deign.
The Global Economy and Developing States
For most developing countries the world economy is given; they must play by the rules shaped
by the developed states. Only a few developing states have managed to establish a successful place in
the global economy. Many developing nations, called as the least developed countries (LDCs) remain
in a dependent post colonial position, surviving by exporting basic food stuffs, minerals in competition
with other poor states. So far then one of the main effect of the global economy on the developing world
has been to intensify the gap between the genuinely developing countries and the LDCs.
East Asia is renowned example of a region which has seized the opportunities offered by the
global economy. Between the 1960s and the early 1990s the region increased its share of gross world
product from 4% to almost a quarter. Under Japanese economic leadership, the East Asian countries of
Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan have become key economic players. They have promoted their
countries as source of cheap labour and stable politics. This has at large amounts of foreign direct
investments into these countries. Today these countries have themselves become as sources of
outflow of capital and have started investing across their own domestic borders.
But the experience of the LDCs has been worse than that of the East Asian states. Some
countries, mainly in the Sub-Sahara region could not benefit from the global economy. These states are
land locked, remote vulnerable to national disasters consist mainly of deserts and populations which
are sick and illiterate. In some of these countries the population of the working people is severely
reduced by the chronic diseases which plague the people of this region. In these situations even the
cheapest labour and stablest of the governments will not be able to attract the multinationals to invest.
One limit of globalization is that so many of these LDCs are not a part of the global economy at all.
Further even those developing countries that attract foreign investment find that it is concentrated to a
few favoured regions within their territory i.e. development of these economies is not on the agenda of
the MNCs.
Many commentators argue that the economies of the least developed states are locked into
dependence on rich countries. Dependency theory suggests that the whole international economy
inherently operates to the disadvantage of the developing world because the developed world is
already economically advanced and it can continue to maintain its advantage through the production of
the manufactured goods. The developing world is left to concentrate on the primary goods for which the
prices are low. No wonder that the developed country members of the WTO find it difficult to arrive at
an agreement on the opening up of their economies for the agricultural goods. The result is unbalanced
development. Dependency theorists argue that what has emerged is not a neutral global economy but
rather a new form of economic colonization in which the developed countries shape the structure of the
client economics in the developing world. This is not development but rather what Gunder and Frank
called as the ―development of the underdeveloped‖.
Certainly the weaker the finances of the developing countries the more control can be exerted
by the international financial agencies like the IMF and the World Bank. These states riddled with debt
crises surrender to the whims and fancies of these agencies. IMF and World Bank are generally willing
to provide the financial support but this debt restructuring is conditional. After all the debt crisis of India
in 1991 is a classic example. These conditions generally take the form of privatization, reduced
corruption, lower tariffs and disinvestments. In effect the international agencies require the developing
countries to restructure their politics as well as their economics. Few governments like the Egypt in
1988 and Jordon in 1990 sought to fight back abandoning the IMF restructuring and the aid attached to
it. Politically these states were unwilling to relinquish their control on the state controlled enterprises to
reduce government spending and to offer larger role to the MNCs. Later on both the countries agreed
to domestic restructuring.
It is not only these inter governmental agencies that impose conditions. Since the end of the
cold war bilateral assistance has also come the shade of specific conditions. During the cold war period
the competition between the Soviet and the America gave the developing countries considerable
leverage. A promise to cooperate with one super power was enough to get the financial aid. But the
end of cold war diminished the strategic role of small states. African states in particular suffered in this
count. As such the donor governments may attach strings to the aid which may take the form of
pressure for political change e.g. sanctions may be imposed on countries with poor human rights record
(China), corrupt government (Kenya) States which are being ruled by undemocratic means or which are
still under the communist control. (North Lorea, Cuba) find themselves isolated within the international
system. Thus these dominating countries directly effect the political situation in the developing states.
 It can thus be concluded that the growing influence of economic activities is changing the way
the nation states are connecting with each other. The future of these nation states is being guided by
the economic factors. Neo-colonialism through the economic forces is being seen in the present world
order. If lMF is guiding the future of Mexico and Brazil through the foreign aid given to these strife torn
economies then it is definitely having a hand in shaping the economic and political future of these
nations. However this does not mean that there is an erosion of nation states. They stand tall even in
the rising wave of neo-colonialism.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Define term "Global".

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

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

2. What is LDC

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

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

9.6 Summary
Globalisation refers to social, economic and political changes because of growing
interconnection among countries throughout the world. As you know most of the countries of third world
attained independence after the second world war. At that time their economies were in a very bad
shape. They started the process of development but the results were far from satisfactory. This led to
their growing dependence on the developed nations. But now they have started asserting their rights at
the world forums. Instead of aid they have started asking for non-discriminatory and preferential
treatments to their goods in the international market and more say in international monetary system.
Instead of public sector they have started encouraging the private sector and inviting the foreign capital
to invest in their countries to make their economies more productive.
The main reasons for globalisation are advancement of information technology, increasing
competition, using global standards, privatisatlon and using trade and investment. WTO has played a
great role in globalization. It stands for expanding the international trade by liberalizing-by doing away
trade restrictions like tariffs and quotas, Only few countries especially in east Asia have benefited from
the global ecomony. It is a general observation that only developed countries have gained the most
from the global economy.
9.7 References
1. Edward Michale Civil Society, Polity Press Cambridge, 2004.
2. Johri, J.C. New Comparative Governments Lotus Press, Delhi, 2006.
9.8 Further Readings
(1) Archetti, E. et al., Latin America, Macmillan, London, 1987.
 (2) Ayoade, J.A.,‘ States Without CitizenL An Emerging African Phenomenon‘ in D.
Rothchild and N. Chazan (ed.) The Precious, P. (ed.) Political Domination in Africa :
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1988.
(3) Bayarrt, J.F. ‗Civil Society in Africa‘ in Chabal, P. (ed)., Political Domination in Africa :
Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(4) Berger, M., ‗The End of the Third World‘, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1994.
(5) Bratton, M., and Van der Walle, N., ‗Towards Govermance in Africa : Popular Demands
and State Responses‘ in G. Hayden and M. Bratton (eds), Govermance and Polticals in
Africa, Boulder, Colorado, 1991.
(6) Callaghy, T., ‗Vision and Politics in the Transformation of the Global, Political Economy :
Lessons from the Third World, L. Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, (eds), Global
Transformation and the Third World L. Reinner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
(7) Chabal, P., Introduction : ‗Thinking About Politics in Africa‘ , in Chabal, O. (eds), Political
Domination in Africa : Reflections : Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(8) Guaba. O.P 2002 Comparative Politics. New Delhi. Mayur Publicatons.

9.9 Model Questions

1. Explain the reasons of globalisation.
2. What is the contribution of WTO in reducing trade barriers among nations?
---S---
 Lesson-10

STATE POLITICAL REGIMES AND CONSTITUTIONALISM

Structure
10.0 Objectives

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Constitutional Government

10.3 Constitutionalism

10.4 Constitution

10.5 Constitutional methods to limit the government

10.6 Growth of Constitutionalism

10.7 Problems of Constitutionalism in the Developing Nations

(a) Political instability

(b) Limitations of Governmental authority

(c) Guarantee of Rights and Liberties

(d) Lack of Political Consensus

10.8 Summary

10.9 References

10.10 Further Readings

10.11 Model Questions

10.0 Objectives
The aim of this lesson is to acquaint you with the concern of constitutionalism. After going
through this lesson you should be able:
 explain the meaning of constitutionalism
 discuss the growth of constitutionalism
 explain the strains on the constitutional system of developing countries
10.1 Introduction
 Constitutionalism, in a formal sense denotes the principle and practice under which a
community is governed by a constitution. Constitution, in turn, stands for a act of rules and processes
codified or established by a long practice which prescribe the structure and functions of government,
defining organs of government, their powers and mutual relationships as also the limitation under which
they are bound to function, so as to ensure that the government or any organ thereof does not function
arbitrarily. Constitutionalism therefore, postulates effective checks on the absolute powers of
government so that the liberties of the citizens are not curtailed without adequate reason. In this lesson,
we propose to discuss the constitutional government and constitutionalism.
10.2 Constitutional Government
Ever since man has come to live in an organized society, the social affairs have always been
guided and controlled by (what has come to be described) the government, which, in turn, comprises a
set of individuals. Until recently, most of the Societies were governed by kings and queens who
conducted the business of their states by themselves, of course with the assistance and advice of their
courtiers, ministers and others, the latter always playing the subservient role. More often than not, it
was the sole will of the king that was the source of all law in the state.
Gradually as time passed by, people got consciousness of their rights and freedom, with the
result that the traditional ‗rule by men‘ came to be replaced by the ‗rule by law‘, or (better put ‗rule of
law‘). Time latter symbolized a government set-up which would function not according to the dictates of
the sole will at a certain person or persons, but according to a certain mutually-agreed, impersonal set
of laws which would be equally applicable to both the rulers and the ruled. The new governmental set-
up came to be described as constitutional government and the principle behind it constitutionalism.
Explaining the meaning and genesis of the constitutional government, Harvey Wheeler remarks.
―Constitutional government, a phrase that appeared in England in the seventeenth century,
referred both to the actual frame of government and also a mode of conducting government that
would accord with the principles of some fundamental source of Validity lying outside the
constitution itself.‖
In time words of K.C. Where :
―Constitutional government ―means something more than a government. It means government
according to rules as opposed to arbitrary government; it means government limited by the
terms of a constitution not government limited only by the desires and capacities of those who
exercise power.
Constitutional government is, thus, a structural mechanism which ensures a rational system of
government.
10.3 Constitutionalism
As hinted above, the idea or objective behind the constitutional government is that people
should not be unduly harassed and coerced to lead a life which serves the interests more of the
ruler/rulers than those of their own. lnstead, they should be left to themselves and if possible may be
positively helped) to develop their personality as best as they wish to do. This idea is manifest in, what
is called, constitutionalism.
Austin Ranney very aptly remarks
―Constitutionalism is a doctrine that the power of the government should be limited so that the
rights of man-free speech, free press, due process of law, security of person and the like-are in
fact, protected from abridgement by either public officials or private individuals. The antithesis of
 constitutionalism is totalitarianism.‖
Carl Friedrich views constitutionalism as :
―Constitutionalism by dividing power provides a system of effective restraints upon
governmental action. In studying it, one has to explore the methods and techniques by which
such restraints are established and maintained. It is a body of rules ensuring a free play; thus
rendering the government responsible.‖
The need for constitutional government or constitutionalism was felt long ago because of the
might and tyranny of the traditional rulers. (It may, however, by wrong to imagine that the tradition of
tyranny has come to an end. It continues, more or less, unabated in large parts of the globe even today.
We will highlight this facts little later in this lesson). In fact, the problem of kingly repression has been as
old as the mankind. But with the victory of the kingship over the Pope in the long-drawn battle for
supremacy ever the realm, kings became all the more untruly and repressive. For, the restraining
influence of Pope whatever little of it there was became extinct. It was the ghastly state of affairs that
led John Loke who, coming on the heels of Thomas Hobbes (one who goes down in history as the
most zealous champion of absolutism) made a forceful plea for the protection of man‘s right to life,
liberty and properly, against the too-impinging authority of the ruler. The ball, thus, set in motion by him,
was further pushed, stage by stage, by men like Harington, Montesquieu, Balckstone, Washington,
Himliton and others. Their incessant efforts made every thinking mind realize that the uncontrolled
conduct of the ruler must be properly restrained and people‘s freedom and rights must consequently be
duly protected and safeguard. Thus, the spirit of constitutionalism began to pervade, paving the road for
the emergence and functioning of the constitutionalism government.
Carl. J. Friedrich very aptly remarks that constitutionalism is the by product of the two beliefs
about man. The first is ―the belief in the dignity of man, that is to say that every human being has
certain fundamental rights. On the other hand there is the beliefs in the corruptibility of all men when
entrusted with power and the consequent need to check and control them continuously if abuse is to
be avoided‖ The latter fact has also been attested by Lord Acton in his off-quoted remark,‖ Power
corrupts man and absolute power corrupts him absolutely.‖
10.4 Constitution
The long tradition of absolute and tyrannical rulers drove philosophers to the conclusion that
the best way to retain the conduct of the rules is to suitably institutionalize restraint in the form of a
constitution. This is an old method dating back to the days of Plato and Aristotle. Constitution may be
defined as that basic document or set of documents which enunciates the functional law of the land,
binding the conduct of the rulers and the rules alike. Besides, it specifies that network of institutions
which is charged with the task of implementing various facts of the basic law. Thus, the constitution
which symbolizes both the basic law of the land and an arrangement of offices or institutions, ensures
that the affairs of the state are managed according to the ‗rules of the game‘.
Though an ideal bulwark against the autocracy of the strong-headed rulers, constitution has at
many a time miserably failed to achieve its laudable objective. It has been widely observed that some of
the rulers have goaded the constitutions to the advancement of their parochial powe interests. The
cases of the dictators having constitutions are no less few. Today it has become a fashion that every
ruler, whether he is a genuinely elected representative of the people or a ‗self-styled‘ champion of the
common man‘s interest must have a constitution in order to legitimize his claim to power.
Keeping in view these aberrations, Lowenstein classifies constitutions into three categories
namely, normative, nominal and scientific. To explain a normative constitution is one which is adopted
and accepted by everyone not only as a legal document, but also as an effective guide in so far as the
actual conduct of the affairs of the state is concerned. To quote him. ―The constitutions is a suit made
to measure and is actually worn.‖ We may illustrate this type of constitution by citing the cases of
England and the U.S.A. The nominal constitution on the other hand, is one which ―though legally valid,
is actually not lived unto‖. It enjoys only a nominal respect of the people. There is wide gap between
what the constitution says and how things are actually managed. They very spirit is gone from its
parchment. To continue Lowenstein says, ―It is a ready made suit which is not worn; it hangs in the
closet‖. The constitution of most of the Third World countries present the case of nominal constitutions.
Finally, there is the semantic constitution. These are enacted not by the people, but by certain rulers.
They do not symbolize the interests of the common man, but of the rulers concerned in fact, these
constitution are enacted with a view to legalizing, stabilizing and perpetuating the power and authority
of the rulers concerned. Generally, dictators who seize power by means of ―couped‘ etat, try to adopt
this method of raising their image in the eyes of their people by making false, laudatory promises
through constitutions couched in high flown words and phrases. ―The suit is not suit at all but a fancy
dress or a mere cloak‖.
Keeping in view the wide prevalent tendency on the part at the ambitious rulers to show scant
respect for the constitution or to employ it to protect and advance their own interests, constitution is
generally described as too feeble a guarantee to ensure the existence of a constitutional government.
As hinted at the outset of this lesson, the norms that accord validity to the acts of a constitutional
government in fact lie outside the constitution. Every democratic society has evolved for itself certain
norms which govern the conduct of its members in, every walk of life. That is the reason why
democracy is described as not merely a form of government, but as a way of life. Unless the overall
outlook and orientations of the people are geared to the democratic value, a constitution however,
mainly framed and studded with the best available institutional and procedural practices, cannot provide
any safeguard against the high-handedness of the rulers. It constitutions in most of the Third World
Countries have failed to stop the gate crashing of ambitious military officers and others to the seats of
power, the sole reason is that these societies lack democratic traditions, constitutions can be effective
and strong only it there is a strong support behind them. Thus, the constitutional government can not
be transplanted from one country to another. It is cultivated and properly nursed over a long period of
time.
Nonetheless, constitutions as widely employed to restrain, and regulate the conduct of the
rulers, thereby establishing a constitutional government. We may now briefly review those institutional
and procedural methods by means of which constitutional government is established.
10.5 Constitutional Methods to limit Government
Wormuth, a keen student of Constitutionalism, says that the basic issue is : how to secure the
protection of ―substantial interests from governmental encroachments‖. Carl Friedrich too emphasizes,
saying, ―The first and foremost objective is that of protecting the individual member of the political
community against interference in his personal sphere of genuine autonomy. It is his self that each man
presumably wishes to have safeguarded,‖ We too began with this quest and the fact is that this has
been the dominant concern of all ‗those politicians ins, reformers and political philosophers who tried to
look into the problem of the rights as liberty of the people. It has, therefore, been a universal practice
that whenever an opportunity came to the people, they tried to assert their freedom against the
impinging control of the ruler and made an effort to formulate a charter of rights. This is a tradition as
old as the Magna Carta, (This was the first ever charter of demands in history presented by the
opposed people of England to their king, John, in 1215 when he asked them to give him money to fight
a war against the French King) . It has now become an established practice that every constitution
must include a chapter (on the rights of the people The U.S. Constitution did no: include any chapter of
this type for certain obvious reasons. But immediately after its having come into operation, a series of
Congressional Acts were passed which came to be regarded as part and parcel of the constitution for
all intents and purposes. In our constitution, the chapter on fundamental rights occupies quite an
important place. Once people‘s, rights art clearly spelled out in the constitution and the constitution is
made the supreme law of the land; the authority of the rulers is circumscribed, and people can live a life
of happiness and freedom.
The second important thing that a constitution should ‗take care of it the proper division or
power. Montesquieu very rightly emphasized that so long as the concentration of power is not ended,
there would exist neither justice nor freedom. The distribution of power can be effected both functionally
and spatially. The functional distribution implies that power be suitably divided among the three
principal organs of the government legislature executive and judiciary. This obviously refers to the
famous theory of the, separation of powers which was enunciated by Montesquieu in the eighteenth
century. As regards the spatial distribution, it is effected in a federal set up. Power is divided between
the federal centre and the federating units. This principle of the spatial distribution of power was applied
in the U.S.A. for the first time. Since then, it has become quite popular. Keeping in view the importance
of the distribution pattern of power, constitution has been defined by some as an arrangement of offices
or organizations of a government, and by other as a living document which specifies ‗the power
relations‘.
Mcllwain, another keen student of constitutionalism, does not attach much importance to the
theory of the separation of powers. Instead he says that the basic issue which a constitution should
deal is that of the proper reconciliation of the conflicting claims of the government and the independent
judiciary. He remarks :
―The reconciliation of these two (the government and the independent judiciary) remains
probably our most serious practical problem. There is the same necessity now, as in ages past, to
preserve these two sides of political institutions intact…….. and to guard against the overwhelming of
one of them against the other.‖
He, therefore, suggests that the independence of judiciary and, concomitantly, the rule of law
should be accorded an important place in the constitution. Explaining this suggestion of Mcllwain, Carl.
J. Freidrich says :
The Maintenance of constitutionalism requires that democracy be kept vital and the rule of law,
through the independence of judiciary, be kept vigilant.‖
Besides these two, a constitution may include any other thing and, in fact, constitutions do
include such provisions as the goals of a society (in the form of the directive principles), the amending
procedure of the constitution itself, the method for the alteration of the boundaries of the states,
provinces, etc. etc. But in so far as the twin objective of ensuring the establishment and the subsequent
smooth functioning of the constitutional government is concerned, the minimum requirements that a
constitution should fulfill relate the enunciation of people‘s rights and freedom, and the establishment of
the basic institution and prescribing the norms governing their mutual relationship. It may again be
emphasized that the constitutional government needs many things other than the mere enactment on
the part of the people, a healthy public opinion, proper differentiation of roles, a well-developed political
infra-structure in the form of free press, competitive political party system, well integrated network of
pressure groups, etc. etc.
Thus, far we have been explaining the meaning of the three allied concepts namely,
constitution, constitutional government and constitutionalism. As we discovered, all the three concept
broadly hint at the same thing. To recapitulate it to you: while constitutionalism symbolizes the spirit of
freedom from arbitrary rule, the constitutional government acts as an agency to ensure and strengthen
the spirit of constitutionalism. It so far as the constitution is concerned, it provides to the constitutional
government the necessary political infra-structure in the form of both the requisite pedestal to stand
upon, and the means to check the high handedness of others.
10.6 Growth of Constitutionalism
The beginning of constitutionalism can easily be found in Greek city states. The foremost
principle of our modern constitution –democracy was conceived by the Greeks. They had the city state
system in which the benefits of citizenship were open to freemen only. Greek philosophers like Plato
and Aristotle saw no opposition between individual and state. They had a peculiar notion of the state
and the role of citizens therein. As Strong says ― A Greek citizen was actually and in person a soldier , a
judge and a member of the governing assembly…….The state to the Greeks was his whole scheme of
association, a city wherein all his needs, material and spiritual were satisfied……‖The Greek
Philosophers however studies the case of political institutional from an ethical point of view. With the
result that the political constitutionalism became a hand maid of normative and moral notion. The ideal
state Plato under the rule of philosopher king looked like a utopia. Aristotle‘s contribution to the
development of constitutionalism was greater than Plato. According to him the test of good citizen was
observance of the law i.e. the constitution. But Greek constitutionalism failed to move with the pace of
changing conditions of history because these philosophers failed to look beyond the horizon of a city
state.
A great change took place after the collapse of city state system and establishment of great
Roman Empire. Roman empire saw many changes in its constitution during its long history. Roman
constitutionalism made two very strong influences on the development of this concept. (I) They codified
their law and laid down the principle of representative government that came to be the most celebrated
principle of constitutionalism. (II) The dual conception about Emperor‘s legal sovereignty that his
pleasure has the force of law and that his powers were ultimately derived from the people –persisted for
many centuries.
After the disintegration of the Roman Empire a number of feudal states came to be established.
The era of feudalism represented a phase of transition, decentralizations and disintegration. Politically it
exhibited an age of statelessness since every lord could conduct warfares or regulate commerce or
discharge Judicial responsibilities. With the spread of Christianity. Biblical, law took the place of Roman
law. The growth of constitutionalism was retarded by the domination of the Church. This state of affairs
continued for many centuries. This long drawn battle between the state and Church was ultimately
settled in favour of the state in the 13th century. The trend of nationalism reared its head particularly in
France, England and Spain that witnessed the emergence of the actual germs of modern constitutional
state.
Next came the period of Renaissance : During this period the stale was not constitutional. In its true
sense, its essential characteristic was external sovereignty C.F. Strong has rightly summed up this
development, so during renaissance sovereignty flourished and effectively delayed the harvest of, that
constitutional seed which had been sown with such promise in Western Europe towards the end of
middle ages. It developed on the continent into the type of monarchy known as enlightened
monarchism….. That is the reason why, on the continent the full development of constitutionalism was
delayed until the 19th century and why, when It came at last, it took a series of revolutions to achieve
it‖.
Constitutionalism in England : Britain occupied the most significant place in the development
of constitutionalism, Magna Carts and the subsequent documents belonging to the British constitutional
history, particularly the Petition of Rights (1628) and the Bill of Rights (1689) represent important
landmarks in the evolution of modern constitutionalism, John Locke the pioneer and Chief exponent of
modern constitutionalism published his Two Treatises on Government in 1690. In this monumental
work Locke sought to justify the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which laid the foundations of the
sovereignty of the Parliament, Locke upheld the principle of government with consent of the governed
and postulated certain natural rights of men which no government on earth was entitled to destroy.
These Ideas of Locke had a profound influence on the development of constitutional system in Britain.
From time to time number of Reform Acts were passed which strengthened the movement for
democratization of the system. Noteworthy, among these are Reform Acts of 1832, 1867 and 1884
which enfranchised more and more people. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 reduced the powers
of House of Lords. The rise of Two Political Parties also contributed to the development of
constitutionalism. In that country, Meanwhile the principle of ‗Rule of Law‘ was also established.
Writing about English leadership in constitutionalism, Freidrich says: ― Although the idea
is firmly rejected that constitutionalism is somehow the result of a mysterious English character ….It is
never the less true that English people have developed their political traditions more steadily in a
constitutional direction and have thereby become the leaders of modern constitutionalism… The
English system of free institutions infused a great deal of interest in other countries in the course of the
eighteenth century. The eyes of all those who were disgusted with absolutism turned toward Britain.‖
Constitutionalism America : Rousseau‘s ‗Book Social Contract had its influence in America‘
also. The Declaration of independence in 1776 categorically stated that ―all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their creators with certain unatienable rights…..‖ that to secure these rights
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
that, whenever any former government becomes destructive of these ends It is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it and to institute a new government….‖ Guided by these Ideals Founding Fathers of the
American Republic established a Federal form of government based on Montesquieu‘s theory of
separation of powers, supplemented, by checks and balances. It implies that the three organs of
American government, President; Congress and Supreme Court are separated from each other and at
the same time they check each other so that the balance may be maintained. You can quote numerous
provisions to explain this point e.g.. The appointments and foreign treaties made by the president must
be ratified by the Senate. A bill passed by the Congress needs Presidential assent to become a law.
Judges of Supreme court and other federal courts are appointed by the President. The Congress may
pass a law to enhance the jurisdiction of the courts. Courts can declare any law invalid if it is against
the constitution or due process of law. These constitutionalism arrangements have been made to
ensure the democratic spirit. The most outstanding feature of the American constitutionalism is that it
marked the beginning of the modern documentary constitutionalism.
Written constitutions were framed in several countries of Europe in the latter half of the 19 th
century. Each of these constitutions adopted parliamentary institutions which were in a greater or lesser
degree, the revised copies of the British model, Before beginning of the First world war in 1914 national
constitutional experiment had been tried in almost all the countries of Europe except Russia, where too
a partially elected assembly, called the Duma, had been established in 1908, The war led to the
framing of the democrative constitutions in a large number of states. But when the newly established
democratic governments in Italy and Germany failed to tackle the tremendous economic problems, they
gave place to new dictatorships. The success of these dictatorships had a disastrous effect on the
constitutional government in the neighbouring states. The second world war resulted in the defeat of
Germany and Italy. With that came the end of Nazism and Fascism in those countries. It was followed
by the restoration of parliamentary democracy in many countries of Europe, Since the European
empires also broke up, a large number of states in Asia & Africa became Independent and almost all of
them adopted republican constitutions.
Constitutionalism in the Developing, Societies : In the beginning most of the former colonial
dependencies drafted constitutions that resembled those of their former rulers because the former
colonies had become familiar with the political institutions of their colonial rulers —the advanced
Western nations of today. Moreover, the newly independent people, whose civil liberties were
considerably suppressed during their independence movement, were conscious now to restore those
liberties for which western style constitutions could serve as good models.
As we have seen, the developing societies could not live upto the pattern of constitutions
adopted by them, For this the blame does not lie with the apparent forms of their constitutions. Many
Western Writers like C.B, Macpherson have sought to analyse the nature and problem of
constitutionalism in the Third World. The developing societies were averse both to political and
economic competition. After independence their national goals were almost predetermined. Opposition
to these goals in deference to narrow sectarian interests were sought to be suppressed rather them
accommodated within the framework of national policy. Other reasons for the frequent constitutional
failure in the developing societies are delayed industrialization, strains of modernization or the typical
cultural foundations of these societies etc. Western educated native elite tried to introduce cultural
Westernisation in these societies; this was strongly resented by anti-western and revivalist elements.
Moreover predominance of tribal and family loyalty in these societies proved inimical to development of
individualism or civil and constitutional liberties. Again the economic and political transformations in the
west had given rise to organized group interest and their political interplay, but no such development
has taken place in the new developing societies.
If we look at the Indian one, we all know that India adopted a Western type constitution
immediately after her Independence front the British rule. This Constitution has with stood all types of
rough weathers so far although it was required to be amended very frequently Preamble to the Indian
Constitution echoes the great ideals or the French Revolution—Liberty Equality and Fraternity—
elaborated in the light of progressive ideals of the 20th Century. These liberal principles have been
given a new meaning by the Indian Constitution. It represented an attempt to evolve an instrument of
securing liberal as well as socialist objectives of Constitution. One part of our constitution relating to
Fundamental Rights embodies Constitutional guarantee of liberal democratic system. While the other
part relating to Directive Principles of state Policy represents socialist objectives. The working of our
constitution during these years have shown that we have succeeded in up-holding the basic principles
of constitutionalism except a brief period of Emergency (1975 -1977). We need a vigilant Public opinion
and intellectual elite to keep a check on the growth of authoritarian tendencies.
10.7 Problems of Constitutionalism in the Developing Nations
Almost all the new nations have adopted written constitutions specifying therein the privileges,
rights and duties of the citizens and of the government. They have followed the Western tradition of
limited government, individual or group rights and political responsibility. But during the last half a
century we have observed frequent Constitutional change, and general patterns of non-observance and
outright violation of these constitutions by successive governments in those countries. All this has led
many a observer to conclude that constitutionalism is merely a sham in the developing societies. We
discuss here below some of the constitutional problems in the developing nations.
(a) Problem of Political Instability
Most of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America present a picture of political instability.
We have before us the example of our neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Burma and Bangla Desh.
One of the reasons for this state of affairs is social and economic distress. Their economies at the time
of their independence were in very bad shape. When the existing regime fails to deliver the goods and
see serious challenge to its authority, it tries to subvert the democratic constitution. In some countries
such regimes were reputed by military or some other type of authoritarian rule. As Peter H. Merki says.
Where the maintenance and survival of the government authority becomes such a predominant
concern of the incumbants high office, much of the usefulness of constitutional government to facilitate
non-violent political change becomes inoperative. The incumbant structure will tend to do everything,
including violating or appropriately revising the constitution to remain in control while their opposition
will turn to revolutions as the only means of effecting political change‖
(b) Limitation of Governmental Authority
One of the essential features of constitutionalism is limited government. But these days there is
a growing tendency towards centralization of power in the executive, regardless of how the constitution
attempts to devide and check authority Legislature can hardly exercise any check on the growing
authority of the executive. The judicial review has also proved too feeble as checking power. The
organized group capable of exercising any real check on the executive in most of the developing
countries today is military.

Self Assessment Questions :

1. What is Constitutionalism.

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

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

2. Define Political Consensus.

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

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

(c) Guarantee of Rights and Liberties

It must be remembered that rights are not at all a part of the traditional political cultures and are
only gradually being recognised as desirable by the more modernised parts of the population of many
developing countries. In these countries, the constitution would invariably contain a chapter on
individual‘s rights and liberties. But there is much gap between constitutional promise and actual
performance. In all organised communities, government has put restrictions the rights of the individuals.
Many developing constitutions expressly sanction, for example exile, geographical confinement or
preventive detention for political opponents. Preventive Detention in particular is a prior restraint, in
anticipation of unlawful at conduct. Frequently, emergency clauses enable government to suspend all
individual rights including that against arrest and detention without judicial sanction. However a
balanced assessment of these practices will have to concede that the internal turmoil, civil unrest and
violence present in some developing nations is in any case a rather unlikely setting for the perfection of
the slow and subtle processes of constitutional protection of personal liberties.
(d) Lack of Political Consensus
Another problems is lack of political consensus in most developing countries. The rapid
transition from tradition to modernity is likely to destroy the consensus on basic moral and cultural
values of the old society. Traditional elites and modernizing elites look at each other with distrust, thus
unable to come to a new consensus. There is a confusion between the old and new values, uncertainty
of authority and governmental legitimacy and therefore low regard for personal liberties. In such
societies individual rights in threatened more by anarchy than by despotic authority.
In culturally heterogeneous societies, situation can be still worse. There we find number of tribal,
ethnic religious and cultural communities, loosely held together by political bonds of new nationhood. In
such societies the role of such political rights as adult franchise or freedom of press or assembly can be
explosive. Such freedoms can be used to inflame cultural prejudices. Some constitutional arrangement
should be dons to safeguard the interests of all communities. Neutral cultural policies with regard to
schools public personnel and designation of official languages can be laid down in the constitution,
Other schemes for allocating representation to minorities in Legislatures and executives have been
quite successful in many states.
10.8 Summary
Constitutionalism is a doctrine that powers of the government should be limited so that rights
and liberties of the individuals are not abridged by any agency. Constitutional government means that
government should function according to law. It is a limited government. Constitutionalism is closely
related to constitutional government. The spirit of constitutionalism can be secured by various means
e.g. inclusion of the chapter on Fundamental Rights in the constitution itself. There should be division of
powers both spatial and functional. Independence of judiciary, differentiation of roles and well
developed political infrastructure are some other ways to secure the liberties of the Individual.
Although we can trace the beginning of constitutionalism to Greek City States but in real sense
Britain provided the leadership in constitutionalism. America‘s contribution is that it marked the
beginning of a documentary constitutionalism. However developing societies are facing many stresses
and strains. Many of them are experiencing frequent changes and violation in the constitution. The
greatest problem before them is of political instability. The democratically elected regimes are replaced
by military rulers or some other authoritarian regimes. Executive organ of the government is becoming
so powerful that legislature can hardly exercise any check on it. Since these societies do not have
secular culture, excessive restrictions are placed on the rights of the people. There no political
consensus in the society. There is a big gap between the culture of traditional and modern elite. Special
attention needs to be paid to the political cultural of the society.
10.9 References
1. Harvey Wheeler, ―Constitutionalism, in Fred I, Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.)
Handbook of Political Science, vol. 5; p. 28.
2. K.C. Wheare, Modern Constitutions. London Oxford, 1956, p. 137.
3. Austin Ranney. The Governing of Man, Hart and Rinchart, 1971, p. 114.
4. Carl J. Freidrich, Constitutional Government and Democracy, Calcutta, Oxford & IBH.1964, p.
 25.
5. Carl. J. Freidrich, Man and His Government. New York, Mcgrawhill. 1963, p, 271.
6. K. Lowenstein, The Living Constitution, Shadow and Substance, in Jean Blondel (ed.)
Comparative Government: A Reader London, Macmillan, 1966, pp. 145-147.
7. Carl J. Freidrich, ―Constitution and Constitutionalism in International Encyclopedia of Social
Sciences, vol. 3, p. 319.
8. Mcllwain asserts, ―Among all the fallacies that have obscured all the teachings of constitutional
history few are worse than extreme doctrine of the separation of powers and discriminate use of
the phrase Checks and Balances”. Quoted by Carl .J. Freidrich. Ibid p. 34.
9. Ibid p. 33.
10. Ibid p. 33. .

10.10 Further Readings

1. K.C. Wheare "Modern Constitutions" Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
2. Austin Ranney. "The Governing of Man", Hart and Rinchart, 1971.

10.11 Model Questions

1. Discuss various methods to limit the authority of government.
2. Explain the growth of constitutionalism in Britain.

---S---
 Lesson - 11

POLITICAL PARTIES – I

Structure
11.0 Objectives

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Meaning

11.3 Origin

11.4 Party Structure

11.5 Functions

11.6 Types

11.7 Summary

11.8 References

11.9 Further Readings

11.10 Model Questions

11.0 Objectives
This lesson deals with the organisation and functions of Political Parties. After reading this
lesson you should be in a position to:
understand the meaning and different types of party structure,
explain the functions of political parties;
show the difference between different types of party systems.
11.1 Introduction
So far we were discussing the meaning, nature and different approaches to the study of
comparative politics. Now we shall take up some other aspects of Political systems. This lesson will
acquaint you with political parties. Political parties are a central feature of a modern political system. It
is almost impossible to describe any macro political process without taking into consideration the
functioning of the party system in a given society. Infect political parties, are indispensable not only to
democratic political systems but also to totalitarian systems like the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and Nazi
Germany. Whether it is ademocratic or a totalitarian system, political parties are expected to perform
more or less similar type of functions e.g. they organize public opinion, communicate demands to the
decision makers and facilitate political recruitment etc. These similarities of functions suggest that the
political parties emerge ―whenever the activities of a political system reach a certain degree of
complexity or whenever the notion of power comes to include the idea that the mass public must
participate or be controlled.‖1 This indicates that the emergence of political parties is a useful
institutional index of a level of political and it is related to the modernization process.
In recent years a large amount of literature has come up on parties. That the study of political
parties has become so important the fact that a new term ‗stasiology‘2 has come into prominence.
Although Burk‘s was the first elaborate definition of political party, but it was Ostrogorski,3 a Russian
political scientist who gave comprehensive and scientific analysis of political parties. He presented a
detailed account of party systems of the U.S.A. and Britain. In large measure Max Weber‘s and
Michel‘s analysis of parties followed directly from Ostrogoraki‘s writings. Shortly after that, Robert
Michels, an Italian sociologist offered, what has come to Michel‘s ―iron law of oligarchy‘ that there is a
tendency within any large organization for decision-making to devolve into the hands of a small,
cohesive, tight knit elite4 words, any large organizations is inherently oligarchical. His thesis is that even
in social democratic parties there are oligarchical tendencies which strengthen the readers in relation to
their followers. In 1950‘s a very important Contribution came from Maurice Duverger5. He makes clear
great variation in party organizations, in a social composition, in the kind of aims and interests that the
party professes to serve, in 1959 Samuel Eldersveld6 conducted an exhaustive study of party
organization in Detroit (USA). He challenged Michel‘s view of parties as oligarchical. Instead, he
suggested an alternative image of the party as ‗stratarchy a special type of hierarchy in which ruling
groups proliferate and the exercise of power is diffused. In a stratarchy rather than centralized unity of
command, there exist throughout the structure numerous strata commands, which operate with a
varying but considerable degree of independence.
There are others who have searched for the causes of two or multiparty Systems and the effect
of each type of party system on political stability.
After this brief introduction about political parties, we shall study the meaning, organization
functions of political and political difference types of party systems.
11.2 Meaning
Burke defines political party ―as ‗a body of men united for promoting the national interest on
some particular principles in which they are all agreed‖. But this definition represents the traditional
view point about the meaning of a political party. Modern behavioural political scientists regard political
parties as a sort of institution to propagate and ―implement the Interest groups‖. Since interests of
different groups differ from one another this refers to the differences in political parties. But every group
or faction even if its interest is to capture political power cannot be called a political party. Political party
has a very comprehensive connotation and it has certain characteristic features. Political Party should
have a (i) continuity in organization that is organization whose expected span in not dependent on the
life span of current leaders; (ii) manifest and presumably permanent organisation at the local level, with

1
Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner, Political Parties and Political Development Princeton University Press, 1972, p.3.
2
Stasiology means that aspect of the study of political science which deals with political parties. It owes its origin to Greek
word statis which means faction
M. Ostrogorbki Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties,‘ Macmillan, 1902.
4
Rebert Michel‘s, ‗Political Parties, Free Press, New York.

Murice Duverger Political Parties‘. Methuen, London, 1976.

Smuel J. Eldersweld, Political Parties… A Behavioural Analysis, Rand Mcnally, Chicago, 1966. Indian Reprint, 1974.
regularized communications and other relationship between local and national units; (iii) self conscious
determinants of lead at both national and local levels to capture and hold decision-making power alone
or coalition with others, not simply to influence the exercise of power; and (iv) concern on part of the
organisation for seeking followers at the polls in a manner striving for popular support7. It becomes
clear from the above definition that political party is not a loosely knit group. It is organised on the basis
of specific interests and objectives which differentiate from other parties. It always tries to prevail over
others in order to seize power or to retain it. Party must try to enhance its base of popular support. For
this purpose they must resort to peaceful and constitutional means as far as possible.
11.3 Origin :
Political parties in the true sense of the word came into being only in the century. In 1850 no
country in the world except the United States knew political parties in the modern sense of the word.
Regarding their origin, there are ―institution theories focussing on the interrelationship between early
parliaments and the emergence of parties; historical situation theories that locus on the historical crisis
or tasks which systems have encountered at the moment of time when parties developed; and finally
developmental theories that relate parties to the broader process of modenisation‖.8
In most of the countries of the West, the emergence of parties is associated with the rise of
parliaments and extension of franchise. Duverger suggests that parties grew out political assemblies as
their members felt the need of a group to act in concert. With the extension of franchise these
committees began to organise the electors. Duverger thus points out three stages in the development
of parities: First, the creation of parliamentary groups, then the organisation of electoral committees
and, finally, the establishment permanent connections between these two elements.9 Some of the
political parties emerge from the activities of the legislators. This is called electoral and parliamentary
origin parties. Some cases of internally created parties are the conservative and liberal parties in Great
Britain and Canada, the Democratic and the Republican Parties in the United State. However some
parties have extra-parliamentary origin. These parties emerge outside the legislature and invariably
involve same challenge to the ruling group and demand for representation. Such parties are associated
with expanded suffrage and developing countries with nationalistic and anti-colonial movements. They
have the backing of trade unions, co-operatives, student bodies, religious organisatian and so on. Many
socialist parties in the West that emerged late in the 19th century are examples of externally created
parties. The role of trade unions in the establishment of British Labour Party well known.
Political systems have to face many crises when they move from traditional to more developed
forms. Many political parties emerge in the context of these crises and these crises further determine
the pattern of their evolution. The legitimacy crisis has been more central to the early formation of
parties when the existing authority pattern failed to meet the crises. Nationalist movements that emerge
existing governmental system are the products of legitimacy crises. Participation crises may also lead
to the is creation of parties, when new groups are denied participate system. They may organise
themselves into parties. In Europe the emergence of parties in Germany and Italy took place in the
midst of crises.The Muslims League in the pre-independence era may also be associated with
integration crises.
Parties are the conditions of modern political processes and their emergence presupposed a
certain degree of urbanization and development of mass communication. In India for example, though

Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner, Op.cit Page 6.

Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner, Op. cit. Page 7.
Maurice Duverger. Op. cit. p. XXIV.
small nationalist groups were created in various parts of the country especially in the urban area in
1860‘s and 1870‘s, it was not until 1885‘, (sometimes after the country had a reasonably well
established mail and the telegraph system rail, roads, wide circulation of English language newspapers)
that the Indian National Congress was created. Similarly, growth in technology, expansion of
transportation networks, increase in spatial and social mobility all these indices of modernisation
facilitate the growth of political parties. Thus for the emergence of political parties certain degree of
modernisation along with the presence of some historical crises are necessary.
11.4 Party Structure
The structure of political parties is closely related to their function and methods that they employ
to realise their aims. The parties which stand for democratic participation and extension of franchise
and which operate at a parliamentary level have different structure from the ones who are forced
underground by restrictive legislation or from those conducting guerrilla operations. The most significant
analysis of party structure has been given by Maurice Duverger. He begins by making a distinction
between parties with direct structural organization and parties with indirect structure. He generalises
that when ‗trade unions or co-operative societies etc. develop before the party, in that, case the
tendency of the latter into become organized within their frame work. On the contrary, if the party
developed before the trade unions, it followed the method of direct structures. The British Labour party
of 1900 is an example of indirect organization. According to Duverger, the three categories of parties
with indirect structure are : socialist, catholic and agrarian parties. These parties appeal as federation of
workers, co-operative unions and friendly societies. However direct parties are more wide-spread than
the indirect parties. The factors which make them adopt indirect organisation are special political
circumstances, doctrinal influences, national temperament and absence of universal suffrage.10
Duverger also makes a distinction between cadre parties and mass parties based on the nature
of party membership. He further suggested fourfold classification of party structure. These are (a) the
caucus type (b) the branch, (c) the cell (d) and the militta. The caucus may be called a committee, a
clique or a ‗coterie i.e. it consists of a small number of members. It emphasizes quality not quantity in
its membership. Its activities are seasonal. It reaches its peak at election times and remains dormant,
between elections.
Its membership comprises the local notables known for their personal qualities or influence
(direct caucus) or representatives of local organisations, trade unions etc. who have joined together‘ to
form a party (indirect caucus). With the introduction of universal suffrage, there has been a decline in
caucus type parties. Duverger has given the examples of French Radical party and British Labour Party
before 1918 as caucus type of parties. The second type is a branch party. It has a fairly large members
(can be called a mass party) and it seeks to enrol the maximum membership. It meets quite frequently.
The German Social Democratic Party offers an example of this type of structure. The delegates are
elected via the branches and the regions to the biennial party congress, which in theory is the highest
policy-making body in the party. The Congress Party in India can also be called a branch party.
The third type of structure the cell is also a small group. It has mostly occupational basis. There
are shop cells, factory cells, administrative cells etc. Generally these are related to the Communist
parties working on the principles of democratic centralism. The activities of the calls art secretive and
more demanding on the individual than the branch parties. The winning of elections is not of much
importance to the cell structured parties. The Russian Communist party is a cell structured party. Not all
communist parties have this type of structure. Duverger gives the example of the French Communist

For details see Maurice Duverger.Op.cit.pp.13-16.

party which has become less revolutionary and more attracted towards parliamentary form of political
activity. In this way, it comes closer to the branch type of structure.
Finally, there is a militia a type of organisation. It is typical of revolutionary or fascist parties. The
members in these parties are enrolled on military lines and subjected to the same kind of discipline and
training as soldiers. But those members remain civilians. Its structure is based on very small groups
which build up into pyramid to form larger and larger units. The two principal examples of this type have
been Hitler‘s storm troopers and Mussolini‘s fascist militia. Duverger points but that no political party is
exclusively based on militia. In fact, all these four types are more likely to be found in mixed rather than
pure form.
11.5 Functions : As you know, politics parties are essential for the successful working of
modern democracy. The whole government process ranging from the selection of candidates to the
functioning of the government is planned and organised by the political parties. However, not all parties
in different political systems, or even within the same system perform identical, functions Major
national-parties are likely to serve broader functions than minor or geographically limited ones. In a well
articulated setting, some functions ordinarily associated with political parties may be performed by
interest groups or other leadership cadres. Following are some of the important functions attributed to
the political parties.
The recruitment and selection of candidates for various governmental offices is one of the
important functions of the political party. This function is relevant to all types of political system
including one party dictatorship. It is only in military dictatorship or in traditional partyless systems that
the political leaders are selected not by politics parties but by some other agencies. In modern political
systems, this selection process gives the masses of the voters a real choice because otherwise voters
are not capable of making a meaningful choice. Parties help them by limiting their choice to a handful of
candidates. Another very important aspect of this recruitment process is whether a party aims at
selecting the cream or the left over goods of other recruitment processes. For example in the American
political system the cream of the society with rare exceptions goes to other sectors like civil service,
professionals or private industry. It is also important whether recruitment of political leadership by the
parties is restricted to a particular social class or to a particular geographical region. For example the
area of influence Akali party is limited to the state of Punjab and among the Sikhs only. The selection of
party candidates is related to their chance of winning election also.
The second important function is the formulation of policies and programmes. In electoral
competition party has to put forth a programme of policy alternatives in order to make itself more
attractive to the voters. Political parties set goals for the society. Par example, Nazi Party of Germany
worked for the racial purity and the communist parties aim to establish socio economic equality. They
formulate their policies and programmes keeping in view these goals.
The third major function of political parties is the control and coordination of government. The
voters by themselves cannot control and direct the government. Similarly governing elites of their own
cannot mobilize popular support. All this is done with the help of political parties. However, Mearkl 11
says that parties claim to govern is often challenged by rival organizations. In imperial Germany and
Japan, the military and civil service, refused to acknowledge the parties claims to governments
leadership. He further says ‗that all political parties are not even capable of exercising this power. This
is why reliance on personal leadership rather than the mediating structures of political parties is a

11. Peter H. Mearki Comparative Politics Rinehart and Winston , Inc. 1970.pp.278, 279
widespread phenomenon in many transitional and even modern societies. Public opinion polls in most
Western countries show clearly that the individual political leader is far better known and more likely to
be trusted than his political parties, even where the decision making power is in the hands of party
rather than the man. Whether political parties are weak as in America or well-disciplined and cohesive
as in Great Britain, they are an essential part of the political system.
If a political party fails to control the government, it has still another important role to play i.e. to
sit in opposition and keep a strict watch on the government. It must criticise the government if it does
not function properly or if the governmental policies are taking the system away from its goal. In a
parliamentary system the opposition party has to play very responsible role. The opposition party is the
alternate government and hence it should not become irresponsible.
Political parties act as a link between the government and its people. They provide political
education to the people i.e. they perform the function of political mobilization, secularization and
recruitment. In democratic systems parties take the help of media to awaken and advise the masses.
The ruling party presents a profile of its performance and promises for the future. Other parties pin-
point the failures of the party. Thus they serve the purpose of political socialization. They perform the
function political socialization by involving the people in electoral competition, mobilizing their support
for the government or opposition and serving as channel of political communication in some systems
the mobilization of support by activating the masses is done by mass rallies, uniforms, flags to
emphasis the identification between the individual and the political party. This aspect of political
socialization is usually associated with single parties totalitarian systems and the German Nazi party
provide the best example of this.
Another significant function of political parties is societal integration by the satisfaction and
reconciliation of the demands of various groups. People in every society organize themselves in to
different groups they represent different interests and put their demands to the decision makers. Quite
often these demands are of a conflicting, nature. These demands must be either satisfied or reconciled.
The party which is a win the election can meet some of the groups demands. Even parties in opposition
reconcile the groups in its coalition by giving them a voice and lending it a nationwide status. Major
parties of Belgium are an example of a unifying capacity of political which keep the country from being
torn apart by the two language communities. Congress party in India is another example. By
harmonising different interests, they seek to widen their area of support. Take the case of conservative
party of Britain, inspite nature of its internal Organisation and distribution of power, it depends upon the
support diverse economic, social and geographic sections in English politics.
The political parties are an important factor in the unity and stability of the political process.
They bring together sectional interests, overcome geographical distances and provide coherence to
divisive government structures. The American Democratic Party provide bridge to bring together the
southern conservatives and northern liberals. Similar is case of German democratic party. It tries to
bridge the gulf between the Protestants Catholics in West Germany.
It is well known that the newly-liberated countries of the world of the developing countries are
fast introducing various measures to bring about modernization development. Political parties are
playing an important role in this process. They strive shape the government, serve as a link among
different social and economic groups constitute a chief agency for political education and socialization
and try to bring together various communities by breaking the traditional barriers, The Congress Party
in India serves the best example of this where the great leaders played their monumental part the
framing of the constitution and running the government on the tradition parliamentary system.
Beside these, political parties perform certain non-political activities also e.g. they work for the
alleviation of the sufferings of the people during natural calamities and for the eradication of social evils.
By having a look at the functions of political parties, we can safely conclude that it is difficult to
imagine modern political systems without political parties. But this does not mean that we should
overlook the distorting features of political parties. ―They may polarise opinion in ways dangerous to
the stability of the political system. The French Fourth Republic was near to collapse as early as 1957,
with the pending success in the general election of that year of two parties, the Communists and the
Gaullists hostile to the existing constitution. The German Weimar Republic collapsed, as a result of the
polarisation of the electorate between the Nazi and Communist parties.12 These examples refer to the
dysfunctional aspect of the political parties.
11.6 Types : The most important and prevalent criterion of classifying party system is the
numerical relationship among the parties. Duverger based his classification on the criterion suggested
three fold classification i.e. one party, two party and multiparty system. Many significant developments
have taken place since then in the field comparative politics and this classification needs improvement.
We may say that the three categories of single, bi and multiparty system have their own sub categories.
Allan R.Ball13 has given the following types of party systems :
1. Indistinct two-party system e.g. the United States and Fire.
2. Distinct ‗two-party systems e.g. Britain, Australia and West Germany.
3. Working multi-party systems e.g. Norway and Sweden.
4. Unstable multi-party systems e.g. Italy and France.
5. Dominant party system e.g. India and Malaya.
6. One party systems e.g. Spain and Egypt.
7. Totalitarian one party systems e.g. U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany.
Some political scientists ‗differentiate between competitive and non-competitive party systems.
Competitive systems are those where all the seats at the time of election are contested in each
constituency between two or more candidates representing different political parties. There may be too
much or too little competition. Two or sore parties may obtain close returns and win on this margins. In
the case of predominant party system, competition may not be so close. But it is still called a
competitive party system because minor parties also contest the election without any fear, regardless of
the outcome. System is not-competitive if it does not permit contested elections.
Gabriel A. Almond14 classified party system tinder four headings (i) authoritarian (ii) dominant
non-authoritarian (iii) competitive two party systems, an, (iv) competitive multi-party systems. He further
sub-divides authoritarian system into totalitarian and authoritarian varieties. The difference between
totalitarian and authoritarian party system is that in the authoritarian parties some interest groups may
be allowed to articulate demands overtly whereas in totalitarian systems overt interest articulation is not
possible. I means there is complete control of the party. Dominant non-authoritarian party systems are
usually found in political systems where nationalist movements have been instrumental in attaining

12
Allan R. Ball, Modern Politics and Government. The Macmillian Press Ltd. London. 1971. p.85.

13
lbid p.93.

Gabriel A. Almond. Introduction : A functional approach of Comparative political. In Almond and Colement (eds.). The
Politics of Development Areas. Princelon University Press, 1960 . p 40-45
emancipation. In the period following their emancipation or liberation the nationalist party continues as
the dominant party, opposed in elections by relatively small left wing or other very small parties. The
Indian National Congress cal also be called a dominant non authoritarian political party. The third type
of party system according to Almond is competitive two party system, exemplified by Britain America
Multiparty system is where more than parties operate. He divides multiparty systems into (a) working
multiparty systems of Scandinavian area and (b) immoblist multiparty systems of France and Italy.
The distinction between the two is based more on the type of their political culture.
The above description shows that there ate different schemes of classification of party systems
and no scheme can be called perfect. However, we will follow the scheme given by Allan R. Ball. As
already explained, his sevenfold classification of party system is within the broad frame work of the
three major types of party systems (bi-party, multi-party and single party systems).
Bi-party systems :- Allan R. Ball talks of two types of bi-party system in the indistinct, two party
system, there are two major parties but there is not much ideological differences between them. In the
Unites States, the Democratic and the Republicanic party have no ideological difference. In this type of
system parties lack hierarchical structure but they lay more emphasis on vote-winning functions.
In the distinct two party system, policies and programmes of the two major parties are
completely different from each other. In other words, they have ideological differences. The
conservative and the Labour Parties in England are its true examples. In West Germany and Australia
also the two parties are quite distinct and tend to be class-based.
In a two party system some other parties may, also exist and capture some seats ‗in the
legislative body but their influence is only minimal. It is only the two parties who share the major part of
the electoral vote and exercise control over the government. Sometimes they may have to take the
support of other party to form a stable government. The Free Democrats in West Germany, the Country
party, and the Democratic Labour Party in Australia, the Liberal party in Britain fail in this category. But
the existence of these parties does not disturb the essential characteristic of these two party systems.
Multi-party Systems: Multi-party system is one where no single party is able to obtain majority
of seats in the legislature and thus coalition government is formed. Multiparty system may also be
divided into two categories. The working or stable multiparty system and the unstable multi-party
systems. The stable or working multi-party systems resemble two party systems to the extent that they
also provide stability to the government in Switzerland, Social democrats, Radical Democrats, Liberal
Democrats and Communists struggle for power without of political instability. As a result, the system is
never pushed to the direction of political decay. In Sweden and Norway also there are social
democratic parties opposed by many right of the Centre-parties e.g. conservative liberals farmers
christian parties. But there the position is such that either the social democrats form the government or
a stable government is provided by a coalition of right of the centre parties. Thus these systems are
able to overcome the greatest weakness of the multiparty system by giving stable governments.
The unstable multi party system, as its name suggests, lack stability of government. The cases
of France and Italy are conspicuous in this regard. In Italy e.g. there are about eight parties in
parliament but non of them, since the war, has succeeded in winning the majority of seats. In most of
the cases the Christian Democratic Party has emerged as the largest party and it had governed in
coalition with the other smaller parties. Thus Italian government last on an average nine months but the
collapse of one government is usually followed after a short period by a government almost identical to
the government whose fall led to the political crisis. The economic crisis and the divorce question led to
the resignation of the government. In February 1970 and after two months of caretaker government and
inter-bargaining, the same Prime Minister and the same parties were able to form a new government.‖
15
Similarly in France various political parties struggle for the seizure of power in a way that the stability
and even the existence of the system is threatened.
There is another variant of party system, namely, dominant party system. Some people
erroneously call it as one party. But we can call this system a part of the multiparty system. In a
dominant party system, one party outdistance all others. In other words, it is significantly stronger than
other. The Indian National Congress has been a sole governing party (except brief Janata Party rule) at
the national level since independence Numerous other parties exist. They are allowed to freely
compete with the dominate party and they have been controlling government in many of the Indian
states, Maxico is another example. However Giovanni Sartori16 says there can be no dominant party
system, It is correct that certain parties are dominant. The focus is, in effect, on the major party and this
is confused with a system, He prefers to call it a predominant party system. it is a more than one party
system in ‗which rotation does not occur. Parties other than major one are not only permitted to exist
but they do exist as legal and legitimate competitors of the predominant party. A predominant party
system is such to the extent as long as its major party is consistently supported by a winning majority
(the absolute majority of seats) of the votes. It means that predominant party can cease at any moment
to be predominant. In that case system it will change its nature. Predominant party system is a type in
which the criterion is not the number of parties but a distribution or power among them.
One-party system : The prominent feature of one party system is the monopoly of one party or the
absence of competition. Jean Blondel is of the opinion that one party systems increased in number and
in percentage during the postwar period. Almost fifty countries or one-third of the politics now belong to
tins group. The Communist countries form only a small minority among them, though many countries, in
particular new countries have imitated the communist model of the single party system, at least in
structure, if not in norms and policy goals17 Single party system may be totalitarian or democratic. In the
totalitarian model, no other party is allowed to exist and there is complete control of the party over all
aspects of social, economic and political activity. Usually one party systems are based on some
dominant ideology may be rightist or leftist. The rightist ideology stands for the maintenance of status
quo whereas leftist ideology wants to bring about revolutionary change in the present system. The
Fascist or the Nazi party systems represent rightist ideology while the communists stand for the left.
In democratic single party systems like Spain a Egypt either there is one party embracing all
other parties within its fold as in Tanzania, factionalism and electoral competition are allowed within the
structure of a single party. The Tanzanian African ―Union or there are very small parties which even
when put together are far from capturing power from the major party. In Mexico, the Institutional
Revolutionary party, in Kenya, the Kenya African National Union and in Brazil the National Renovating
Alliance absorb within their fold all other major and minor political organizations and thus present the
case of a single party system. Revolutionary situations and political crisis are some of the factors in the
origin of totalitarian and single party systems. All single party systems whether democratic or totalitarian
have to face the problem of demands for greater openness and liberalization. In the traditional systems
the problem is less acute, for the demands are few. To alleviate the problem they allow electoral
contests between party members. Inspite of these difficulties they, have enabled the politics to develop
economically and have been able to control many states of the contemporary world for very long
periods.

15
Allan R Ball, Op cit., p.95
16
Giovanni Sartori Parties and Party System, Cambridge University Press, 1977, pp. 195-201.
17
Jean Biondel, Comparing Political Systems Weidefield and Nicolson. Loildon, 1973 p. 99.
Self Assessment Questions :
1. Define Party.

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

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

2. What is Multy Party System.

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

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

11.7 Summary
Political Parties re an important part of any modern political system. Political parties can be
defined as a well organised group of people who agree on certain principles. Their aim is to capture
political power and they always try to enhance their basis of support Different explanations have been
given about the origin of political parties. Those are institutional theories, historical situation theories
and developmental theories. Murice Duverigers who has discussed, parties from organisation point of
view makes a distinction between caucus type, the branch, the cell and militia type of structure of
political parties.
All political parties perform certain functions. For example recruitment and selection of
candidates for various offices, formulation of policies and programmes, control and coordination of
government. If a political party fails to form the government it acts an opposition. Political parties
provide political education to the people and thus perform the function of political socialization. They
also reconcile the demands of different groups and facilitate the task of societal integration.
Various typologies of party systems have been given by different scholars. But all these can be
discussed in the broad framework of Biparty, multi party and one party system.
11.8 References
1. Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner, Political Parties and Political Development Princeton
University Press, 1972, p.3.
2. Stasiology means that aspect of the study of political science which deals with political parties. It
owes its origin to Greek word statis which means faction.
3. M. Ostrogorbki Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties,‘ Macmillan, 1902.
4. Rebert Michel‘s, ‗Political Parties, Free Press, New York.
5. Murice Duverger Political Parties‘. Methuen, London, 1976.
6. Smuel J. Eldersweld, Political Parties… A Behavioural Analysis, Rand Mcnally, Chicago, 1966.
Indian Reprint, 1974.
7. Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner, Op.cit Page 6.
8. Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner, Op. cit. Page 7.
9. Maurice Duverger. Op. cit. p. XXIV.
10. For details see Maurice Duverger.Op.cit.pp.13-16.
11. Peter H. Mearki Comparative Politics Rinehart and Winston , Inc. 1970.pp.278, 279
12. Allan R. Ball, Modern Politics and Government. The Macmillian Press Ltd. London. 1971. p.85.
13. lbid p.93.
14. Gabriel A. Almond. Introduction: ‗A functional Approach to Comparative Political. In Almond and
Coleman (eds). The Politics of Development Areas. Princeton University Press, 1960. p. 40-45.
15. Allan R Ball, Op cit., p.95
16. Giovanni Sartori Parties and Party System, Cambridge University Press, 1977, pp. 195-201.
17. Jean Biondel, Comparing Political Systems Weidefield and Nicolson. Loildon, 1973 p. 99.

11.9 Further Readings

(1) Alavi, Hamza and Teodor Shanin (eds.). Introductin to the Sociology of 'Developing
Societies', Macmillan, London 1982.
(2) Amin, Samir, 'Social Movements at the Periphery' in P Wignaraja (ed.), New Social
Movements in the South, Zed, London, 1983.
(3) Archetti, E. et al., Latin America, Macmillan, London, 1987.
(4) Ayoade, J.A.,‘ States Without CitizenL An Emerging African Phenomenon‘ in D.Rothchild
and N. Chazan (ed.) The Precious, P. (ed.) Political Domination in Africa : Westview
Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1988.
(5) Bayarrt, J.F. ‗Civil Society in Africa‘ in Chabal, P. (ed)., Political Domination in Africa :
Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(6) Berger, M., ‗The End of the Third World‘, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1994.
(7) Bratton, M., and Van der Walle, N., ‗Towards Govermance in Africa : Popular Demands
and State Responses‘ in G. Hayden and M. Bratton (eds), Govermance and Polticals in
Africa, Boulder, Colorado, 1991.
(8) Callaghy, T., ‗Vision and Politics in the Transformation of the Global, Political Economy :
Lessons from the Third World, L. Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, (eds), Global
Transformation and the Third World L. Reinner Pub., Boulder, Colorado, 1993.
(9) Chabal, P., Introduction : ‗Thinking About Politics in Africa‘ , in Chabal, O. (eds), Political
Domination in Africa : Reflections : Reflections on the Limits of Power, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
(10) Guaba. O.P 2002 Comparative Politics. New Delhi. Mayur Publicatons.

11.11 Model Questions

1. Discuss Maurice Duveriger‘s classification of party structure.
2. Explain the main functions of Political parties.

---S---
 Lesson-12

POLITICAL PARTIES – II

Structure
12.0 Objectives

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Role

12.3 Political Parties in U.S.A

12.4 Political Parties in Britain

12.5 Political Parties in India

12.6 Summary

12.7 Refrences

12.8 Further Readings

12.9 Model Question

12.0 Objectives
In this lesson you will study the role of Political Parties in different societies. After studying this
lesson you should be able to :
 understand the role of Political Parties in dealing with certain problem areas facing the
developing societies.
 Explain the nature and functioning of Political Parties in some important countries.
12.1 Introduction
After studying the organization and typologies of party system, we will now take up their role
modern day political systems. Regarding the role of political parties we would like to make it clear to
you that the conclusions drawn front the study of the developed countries (like America and Britain) are
not always relevant for the study of political parties in the developing areas. The reasons is that in the
developed countries, usually people regard their systems as legitimate and there is a more or less
accepted relationship between political participants and the state. But such is not the case in the
developing areas today. It is in this context that the political parties become significant.
12.2 Role
We will take up four problems about which political parties have a very significant role? These
problems are political participation, legitimacy, national integration and management of conflict. We will
first take up political participation. With increasing urbanization, growth of mass communications, and
spread of education, the demands for political participation also increase. The establishment of the first
party government often create, wide-spread expectation that masses can now have a share in exercise
of political power. But the response of the party government to the demands may not always be
favourable. Sometimes elites operating under a party system do not want to share their political power
with their new claimants. We can see this fact in many developing countries of Asia and Africa where
western educated urban elite does not want to part with the power. One party governments handle the
demand for political participation differently from parties in a competitive system. No doubt one party
systems also sometimes encourage such demands but this is done under carefully controlled and
prescribed limits i.e. the populace is prevented from affecting public policy or administration. Even in
the competitive party system political admission is affected by the fact whether a party is ideologically
oriented or electorally oriented. If it is electorally oriented i.e. primary aim is to win elections, its
programme is likely to be pragmatic and such that it can attract largest number of people. New
participation demands are thus more readily handled by them. The ideological commitments are given
low priority. The toning down of the ideological elements of British labour party policy in the l960‘s and
again in 1997 in order to win greater support among middle classes is well known. In contrast in the
reluctance of the conservatives of the 19th century to appeal to the working class shows the priority of
the ideological concerns over electoral calculations. This made it possible for the British Labour Party to
grow.
The resolution of the crisis of Participation strongly influences the nature of the parties that
emerge. If demands to participate come from social class such as industrial workers or peasants and it
is opposed or repressed we can expect the class base parties to emerge. If the demand for
participation is geographically based or some religious or ethnic minority makes this demand them the
failure to absorb the leaders of such groups into the existing system will give rise to parties, that reflect
these narrow impulses to organization.
The early phases of party development are almost always accompanied by a problem of
legitimizing authority. There are attempts successful, or otherwise to overthrow such systems.
Instabilities, such as the attempted coups are common not only in the developing countries but are
there is the West also as illustrated by the histories, of France and Italy in the 19th Century. Some
parties are ―themselves, not committed to the maintenance of the representative government. They
participate in the competitive politics only to over throw the system. Such parties may be associated
with the military, the aristocracy of insurgency groups seeking to destroy the system. The task of
legitimacy is further complicated by the fact that the early founders of the party systems are not
themselves committed to representative government. In many instances parties were created as device
for rallying large number of people against a foreign government. They may not later think it desirable
to associate the people with the system.
Inspite of the all these difficulties parties are an important instrument for establishing legitimate
national authority In general, they are more flexible instruments for winning popular support than are
armies, and bureaucracies. But the question here is how to test the legitimacy of a system. The first test
is when power is transferred from one leader to another within the same political party for example, the
transference of authority from Lenin to Stalin, from Nehru to Shastri and from Ataturk to Inonu. The
problem of transferring authority from charismatic to non-charismatic leader or in other words how to
exercise power without charisma depends very much upon the establishment of accepted procedures
within the governing party. One can find a similar pattern in Turkey, when power was transferred form
Ataturk to Inonu. The transfer of power from one party to another especially the first such transfer that
occurs within the system is often the critical testing point for the legitimacy of the system. In the United
States the election of 1800 provides an example of peaceful transition. In India the Transfer of power
from Congress party to Janata party at the Centre in 1977 can be another example.‖ In 1945 Ataurk‘
successor Inonu agreed to transform Turkey‘s one party state to a competitive system but the attempt‘
filled. A victorious rural based Democratic party (later the Justice Party) was overthrown by military
coup.
So far as the problem of nation integration is concerned, in many European countries it was
reasonably resolved sometime before political parties made their appearance. Political parties in
Britain, France, Sweden, Norway and Holland did not have to confront the problem of nationhood. But
this was not the case with Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy where the crisis of national identity
was mismanaged by the elite and parties had to face a lot of problems at the end of first world war.
In most of the nations of Asia and Africa, political parties are concerned with two aspects of
national integration. First, the control ―over nation‘s territory and secondly, the problem of loyalty. In one
party authoritarian states the government tries to suppress the tribal, religious and regional parties on
the ground the their existence poses a severe threat to nation‘s territorial integrity. The help of national
symbols is taken to promote the sense of national loyalty. We can see all this in countries like Ghana,
Nigeria and Pakistan. But in one partly systems the difficulty is that government and patty become
indistinguishable. Loyalty to the nation is equated with loyalty of the party and disaffection from party
may mean disaffection both from the nations state and from the political process itself. In such cases
territorial integration can be achieved but integration beyond this becomes difficult. In competitive party
systems political leaders have to put in lot of efforts to achieve, national integration. They must
formulate policies which will amalgamate parochial and national interests. They should look for such
institutional. They should look for such institutional arrangement that will encourage dialogue, unblock
communications channels, keep political and governmental leaders on their toes and in these ways
create a sense of political efficacy while building national unity out of the ethnic diversity.
Lastly, we come to the role of political parties in conflict management. Management of conflict
means the ability of the political system to manage constantly shifting kinds and degrees of demands
that are made on it. In some societies cleavages are so basic and intense that they make the task of
political parties quite difficult especially when cleavages are Ideological and corresponding parties are
fundamentally anti system. But it is not always that parties reflecting ideological or other, societal
cleavages cannot effectively manage conflict. In Nigeria, for example political power is exercised by
minority parties over territorial subdivisions. Thus, one of the methods to cope with the problem is to
allow smaller parties a share in the exercise of power may be at, the local level.
The quality of political party leadership, in other words, the skill and attitudes of party leadership
is an important element in how conflict is managed. It is essential to know something of leadership
style, the degree of tolerance, the measure of trust and the degree, to winch leaders are capable of
making realistic assessment of the behaviour of other people in the system. The leadership style is
itself affected by the memories of past conflicts brought up in a political system in which coups,
assassinations, political arrests and underground movements have existed, will not reflect a political
style emphasizing peaceful and rational behaviour.
The broad-based parties when openly recruit members generally suffer more from an internal
conflict because it will reflect more cleavages in the Society. But if it can accommodate different
minority groups and is in a position to penetrate to a regional and local level many of the conflicts can
be settled at the local level within a given system. If disputes are settled at the local level then, naturally
pressure on the national party or national government is reduced. In the case of the Congress Party in
India, many of the disputes are fought at the local or state level within the party leading to the stability of
the central government. In contrast the absence of acceptable procedure for the settlement of inter
island conflicts within Indonesia culminated in the eruption of a civil struggle.
However, it cannot be said with certainty that political parties can always find satisfactory
solutions to these central problems of political development. But it cannot be denied that the success of
party governments to cope with the crisis of political development in most of the developing countries is
largely affected by the character and performance of parties. In turn, the future of parties depends upon
how efficient and successful they are in dealing with the crisis of political development.
From the above, it may be concluded that the prime function of political parties is that of system
maintenance. To elaborate, political parties enable the common man to participate in decision making
at all levels of the political system by organizing them into parties, by articulating and aggregating their
demands and by making them take part in the electoral process of the nation. In this way the rank and
file of the Population develops a sense of participantion and belongingness to the system, ‗Thereby, the
gap between the common man and the ruling elite is narrowed down. Further, the competitive electoral
system, which is operated mainly through the instrumentality of the political parties, makes the ruling
elite change hands among various sections of the society. Compared to the position obtaining now,
when in olden times hereditary kings and queens ruled their states, the people were kept at a distance
and they were not even allowed to peep into the functioning of the system Obviously, the result was
that the common men felt highly alienated from the system and when his needs and aspirations were
not realized he would think largely in terms of defiance, which generally precipitated into coup‘s, palace
revolutions rebellion and the general disruption of the system.
Political parties further contribute to the maintenance of the system by successfully managing
tensions and thereby avoiding the occurrence of crisis situation. They do so by providing the most
suitable channel for the aggregation of the interests of the people and also by providing, to them a
forum for discussing and debating the important national issues. The Consensus that thus emerges in
these debates is generally converted into the official decisions of the State. In nutshell, political parties
help the system function smoothly and thus make its going effective. If political systems of the U.S.A.,
Great Britain Netherlands, Australia, Japan and of a few other countries have achieved an element of
stability, much of the credit goes to the political parties. One may like to pose a question about the
efficacy of the one party political system by pointing out that the existence of only one single party rules
out the competitiveness of the electoral process or the openness of debate on important issues. There
is no denying the fact that both in communist countries like China, public debates are not possible nor
is the political process competitive in nature. But that does not mean that issues are not debated or that
the political process is free from competition. It is an open secret that the Communist Parties in these
countries possess factions which function underneath the surface. Sometimes their quarrels even come
to the surface. If these systems are functioning more or less smoothly it is not the lack of competition
but the existence of competition by means of which coalition of interests is achieved that provides the
key to the stability of the system. Thus political parties have an immense role to play.
After having studied political parties in their theoretical perspective, we may now study the
nature and functioning of political parties in some of the important countries.
12.3 Political Parties in U.S.A.
The American party system is unique in certain ways. In the first place, the most noteworthy
feature about it is that in the U.S.A. political parties have not been organised on ideological basis. You
will discover that in Great Britain, France, Japan, Indian and in many other political systems parties are
ideologically oriented. They so steadfastly and in zealously hold their party ideology that sometimes
they do not hesitate to indulge in violence in order to get their viewpoint conceded by others and more
specifically, by the decision maker. But happily enough, no such ideological rivalry tears the American
parties as under from each other. They do develop platforms (manifesto) which highlight polices and
programmes of the party with regard to certain important issues, but the platforms of one party does not
present a markedly different ideological content from that of the other.
In the second place, the American parties are not so regular and well-shaped as we find in India
or in Great Britain. Here every party maintains a regular membership register in which the names of
everyone of its member are entered. On their part, the members pay their regular subscription to the
party, hold its membership permanently and seldom resign it But in the U.S.A. political parties are not
so well-organized bodies. In fact, they are in a sense ad hoc agencies which emerge at the time of
elections, their main objective is to provide a forum to the people for the nomination of candidates for
an election, for conducting campaign all over the length and breadth of the country, and to manage all
such allied electoral operators. Highlighting this feature. Burns and Peltason remarks, ―In contrast to
most parties abroad, the Republican and the Democratic parties are not composed of regular18 dues-
paying members. In most states, one does not join the party in any formal sense. He simply enrolls as a
Democrat a Republic and or requests a ballot of either party at the party primary. And if he finds the
party not to his liking, he can easily drop out and become an independent or join the other party.
In the third place the American party system has the distinction of having only two political
parties Republican and Democrates. Rarely one hears of another party. This is perhaps due to fact
that the country is very, large and the highest office of the nation presidency to all intents and purposes,
is elected directly. Both these factors make it incumbent upon the system that there can be only two
parties which may be able to present two clear-cut alternative set of candidates, one of whom may be
chosen by the people.
Finally, it may be observed that even though parties are not ideological bodies and their
membership is highly ambivalent and fluid, each one of them has strong traditional footholds. The
voting behavior of the people reveals that they vote mostly according to their strong family traditions.
There are families which have for traditions been voting for the Republic and there are others which
have like wise been for the Democrats. In the same manner, there are states which Predominantly vote
for the Republicans and there are other which go with the Democrates, Deviation from the established
pattern occurs but rarely.
12.4 Political Parties in Britain
The Britain party system is perhaps the best in the world. It possesses a number of distinctive
features. In the first place, it may be observed that Great Britain too possesses a lofty traditional of two
parties. Way back in the 16th and 17th centuries there were round head and squareheads, they
changed into the Whigs and ―the Tories, later on, as Liberals and conservatives and now the Labour
and the conservatives the However, in recent years the two party system has experienced a
considerable amount of strain. The Liberal Party still attracts some votes. Besides, the Communist
Party also amassed some support.
Commenting upon this feature, Moodie remarks: It is, riot literally true to say that Britain has too
party system. Besides the two major parties. Conservative and Labour, some thirty parties put up
candidates at the general election of 1966, and fifteen parties did so at the 1970 general elections. Of
these, the most significant is the Liberal Party which has never contested fewer than one hundred
seats…19 despite this fact, the two party tradition continues to be very strong. In the elections of May
2005, Liberal Party has secured more then 60 seats. In the May, 2010 elections Liberal Party secured
57 seats and is a partner in government headed by the conservative leader David cameron. It is no

18 th
James C, Burns Jack Walter Peltason, Government by the people, New Jersy, Prentice Hall 7 edition p. 289

Graeme C. Moodie, The Government of Great Britain London Methuen Co. 974, p.164.
longer a bi-party system in the strict sense of the term.
The second distinctive feature is that the parties are ideologically based. While the Conservative
party stands for the status quo and champions the cause of the classes and the moneyed people, the
Labour Party commits itself to the ideology of socialism and the restructuring of the society. It may,
however, be observed that with the coming up of concept of the welfare state, the ideological
differences between the two parties have considerably narrowed down. Now both of them stand
committed to the philosophy of welfare state and cannot afford to ignore the needs of the common man.
Lipset rightly remarks that in the West ideology has reached its end. Commenting upon the obliterating
nature of ideological differences between parties Odegard, Carr, etc. all observe. The average
American tends to exaggerate the extent to which British parties differ from each other. Many
contemporary issues provoke little or no disagreement between them. In its present period in power,
the Conservative Party has attempted to undo very little that was done during the preceding period of
Labour control. A conservative member of the House of Commons has described the situation in the
House as one in which about 5 Percent of our chaps on the extreme right and about 10 percent of their
(Labour‘s) on the extreme left are firing away at each other while the remainder are pretty well agreed
on what must be done, although they differ to some extent on method.
Thirdly, the parties are very well organised from the grassroots upward. Besides each one of
them maintains its parliamentary wing. The members Parliament belonging to a party constitute its
parliamentary section. It is from within its ranks that ministers are drawn and it is this wing which
manipulates all policies of the nation. Besides, both parties maintain regular registers of their respective
members. From time to time, enrollment campaigns are conducted.
The Labour Party officially affiliates itself to trade unions of the country. They play an
enormously important role in the party, contributing to it huge piles of money and placing at its disposal
millions of their members to campaign for its candidates. About 80 percent of the party‘s revenue
comes from trade unions.
The old labour party ceased to have any significant support as brought out by its surprising
defeat in the last elections. The new labour under the leadership of Tony Blair shed the conventional
clothes one at a time and emerged as the champion of free market philosophy. Like the conservatives,
Mr. Blair‘s Labour too is ready to crush militant labour movement. It has devised alternative funding
facilities to undercut the role of trade unions. This has shifted the party‘s base from worker, young
white-collar employees to more conservative urban middle class. The change in the their basic is
largely responsible for their landslide victory in May 1997 genera elections to Britain Labour Party won
the elections in 2001 and 2005 also but with a reduced margin. Tony Blair‘s policy during the Iraq war is
said to be the main reason for this.
The British parties exercise rigid discipline on their members. Unlike the U.S.A. Where anyone
can change party loyalties at any time, in Great Britain one must owe permanent loyalty to the party,
must pay its dues regularly and discharge all other obligations that party prescribes from time to time. If
any anyone fails to do so his membership is scrapped and he is expelled from it. Since the party
membership provides to him a variety of advantages, one would seldom like to indulge in the breach of
its discipline.
In this way, we find that the British party system is basically different form that of the American
system. It is more well-organised based, on distinct political ideologists and comparatively exercising
rigid discipline on its members.
Self Assessment Questions
1. Write down the names of U.S.A. Political Parties
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2. Name U.K.'s Political Parties.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

12.5 Political Parties in India

Indian party system is characterised by the existence of numerous parties. Many political parties
are active in the political field of India. For a long time the Indian model was known (as Morris Jones
puts it as the one party dominant model. Ever since the emergence of political parties in the country,
Indian National Congress dominated all other parties. All parties put together were no match to the
strength and organization of the congress party. But now the phenomenon of one party dominance has
come to an end. After the 1977 election to the Lok Sabha & State legislative assemblies, the place of
the congress was taken by Janta Party. But congress regained its old position after the elections of
1980. Since November 1989 Lok Sabha elections, the position of the Congress had considerably
declined inspite of the fact that‘ it managed to form government after the 1991 elections. This way we
see that there has been a continuous change in the nature of Indian Party system.
The second feature of the Indian system is that there exist two types of parties the national
parties and the regional parties. Those parties which command a nation-wide appeal may be described
as the national parties. For a long time Congress alone enjoyed the status of a political party which
enjoyed popularity all over the country from one end to the other. From 1989 onwards BJP has
consistently expanded its mass base. In 1984 it could manage to win only two seats in the Lok Sabha
in 1996, 1998 or 1999 elections it emerged as a single largest party. Besides these two parties CPI,
CPI (M) and Janata Party have also a nation wide support. On the other hand, there are a number of
such parties whose appeal is restricted to particular regions. In other words, they do not feel concerned
about the problems of the people outside their respective regions. Some of these regional parties are :
the Shromini Akali Dal (Punjab), the National Conference (Jammu and Kashmir), Telgu Dessam
(Andhra Pradesh), DMK and AIDMK. (Tamil Nadu) etc. of Late, the latter have acquired great strength
and have thus begun to badly erode the support structure of the national level, parties and thereby
have posed a serious challenge to the integrity of the country. The out come of the successive elections
have more than attested this fact.
The third feature is that the Indian parties, like the American parties are not ideologically based.
There is not much difference in the ideology and programme of one party from that of another. The
reason is that every one of them is convinced that the status quo would not pay and that the elating
order shall have to be radically reshaped in such a manner that the interests and welfare of all are
adequately protected and that none should be in a position to exploit others. That is why all parties
swear in the name of democracy, socialism, and secularism. Their programmes are also, almost
identical in nature. One thing, however, worth taken note of is that there are parties which champion the
cause of certain specific religions/caste interests, as for instance, the Muslim League, the National
Conference, the Akali Dal , the Shiv Sena, the Hindu Prishad, and so on. Their sectarian concern apart,
they too fight for the social equality, economic, betterment, and political upliftment of their constituents.
The recurrent phenomenon of cummunal riots, civil agitations, gharaos and bunds bears testimony to
the activities of these parties. Thus, the Indian parties are cast almost in the same ideological mould.
Yet another feature of the Indian party system is that it could not develop healthy democratic
traditions. There is no dening the fact that each one of the parties maintains a facade of democratic
organizations frame of its own arid also believes in contesting elections ranging from those of the Lok
Sabha to the village panchayat. But it is also a fact that they do not hold regular party elections and
thus a periodic renewal of their leadership (for the so called circulation of elites) does not take place
with the result that the leadership of the parties remains statistically in the hands of a few persons.
Equally significant is (and that is perhaps the corollary of the above stated (fact) that the rank and file of
the membership of the parties do not whole heartedly subscribe to the programme of their respective
parties and pin faith in it. That is the reason why those who fail to manage an office in its organization
or get elected on its ticket switch their loyalties over to other parties. More often than not, to the one
which is in the ascendance of power. The explains the twin phenomenon of intra factionalism and
defectionism.
Finally, almost all parties maintain their own distinct organizations among various leading
interests of the nation. more specifically the labour, services, students and the business. In other words,
each party possesses its own trade union, ‗baboos‘ association Students organization, Kissan Sabha,
and so on. To illustrate the Congress has established the subsidiary organizations-the Indian National
Trade Union Congress, National Students Union of India. National Teachers Organization, National
Federation of Sub-Ordinate Services Unions. All Indian Kisan Sabha, etc. the BJP, Janata Party, CPI,
CPI (M) have also organized a chain of such bodies. Their only aim is to infiltrate themselves among
these significant sections of the citizenry. Though the Indian parties also perform the twin task, of
aggregating and communicating the interests like their Counterparts anywhere in the world, most of
these parties function at the behest of the important groups that they organize. What actually happen, is
that whenever some important issue comes up, each party likes to be guided by its group members to
whom that issue relates First, the members of the group concerned are asked to deliberate. Over it ‗and
develop their consensus. Thereafter, that consensus is adopted as the official policy of the party
concerned. If the party happens to be in the saddle of power, that decision is invariably bestowed the
official status of the governmental policy. This pattern is not peculiar to India alone but has received a
universal recognition. In these days of growing specialization of knowledge, none but the affected
persons are the best judge of the things. The consideration of various issues by those whose welfare is
involved in them not only furnishes to the decision makers the best of advice but also provides to the
rank and file of the population an opportunity to indirectly associate itself with the affairs of the state,
But for it, its involvement would remain confined to the occasional participation in a triennial or
quinquennial poll. This practice is therefore good and healthy.
To sum up, the Indian party system is still in the process of development. During the past five
decades or so, it passed through various phases. The growing popularity and strength of the regional
parties, mainly at the cost of the national parties is a very significant development. Equally important
trend is the growth of fundamentalism, revival of religion and its inducation into politics and its invasion
over almost all parties. But these developments are disturbing to a great extent.
12.6 Summary
The role of political parties is especially important in the areas of political participation,
legitimacy national integration and conflict management. Political parties encourage people to become
politically active and provide them varied opportunities to participate in the political system. They also
provide legitimacy to the political system by winning mass support. They also facilitate national
integration by encouraging dialogue among people from all walks of life and also from all geographical
areas. They try to forge national unity by providing forum to the people where they can meet and
discuss their problems. They also help resolve conflicts in the Society U. S. A. has a bi-party system. In
U.S.A. political parties are loosely organised and there are no ideological difference among them. Their
objective is to provide a forum to the people to manage all electoral operation.
In Britain also there is a bi-patty system. They are organised in ideological basis Labour party
stands or change and conservaties for status-quo. They are very well organised from grass root
upward. They maintain their separate parliamentary and organisational wing. Unlike U.S.A. they
maintain strict discipline among their members.
In India we have a multi-party system. Parties here are not based on ideology. There is lack of
discipline among them. Defection are a daily occurrence. They have failed to develop healthy
democratic tradition. In the recent years we have seen the growing influence of regional parties even at
the national level.
12.7 References
1. Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties, London Metheum 1976.
2. Palombra, Joseph La and Werner, Myron. Political Parties and Political Development Princeton
University Press 1972.
3. Eldersveld, Samuel J. Political Parties. A Behavioural Approach Chicago Rend Meenally 1971.
4. Almond, Gabriel A and Coleman (eds), The Politics of Developing Areas Princeton University
Press 1960.
5. Bail, Alien R, Modern Government and Politics London The Macmillan Press 1971.
6. Moodie, Greame C. The Government of Great Britrain, London, Metheum, 1974.
7. Burns, James C. and Peltason Jack Walter, Government by the People New Jersey, Prentice
Hall. Seventh Edition.
8. Odegard. Peter Ho. et al, American Government New York, Holt Rinehart 1961.
9. Kim, Eugene C.I. and Z. Ritig, Lawrence An Introduction to Asian Politics New Delhi Prentice
Hall, 1978.
10. Key, V.O. Political Parties and Pressure Groups, New York Thomas Cromwell C, 1964.

12.8 Further Readings

1. Bail, Alien R "Modern Government and Politics" The Macmillan Press, London 1971.
2. Moodie, Greame C. "The Government of Great Britrain", Metheum, Publications, London

12.9 Model Questions

1. Discuss the role of Political parties in the process of national integration and conflict
management.
2. Discuss the features of Party system of India.

---S---
 Lesson-13

Nature of the State in Developing World: An Analysis of

Hamza Alavi
Structure
13.0 Objective
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Hamza Alavi‘s View on the State of Pakistan
13.3 Hamza Alavi‘s View on the State of Post-colonial Societies
13.4 From Structural Functionalism to Marxist Structuralism
13.5 Post Colonial State and Dependency Theory
13.6 Major Propositions of Dependency Theory
13.7 Imperialism Old and New: An Analysis of Hamza Alavi
13.8 Summary
13.9 References
13.10 Further Readings
13.11 Model Questions

13.0 Objective
To study and analyse Hamza Alavi‘s view of the post-colonial state.
13.1 Introduction
Hamza Alavi was born into a Bohra business family in Karachi in 1921, completed his early education
in the city and received higher education at Aligarh Muslim University and Gokhale Institute in Poona.
He joined the research department of the Reserve Bank of India when he was 24 years old and went
on to become the head of operations of the State Bank in East Pakistan. Before he was 30, he was one
of the five principal officers of the newly formed central bank. Shortly after his retirement in 1953, he
moved to London with his wife where he became a political activist. He contributed to the formation of
the Pakistan Youth League and Pakistan Socialist Society. After the Ayub coup, he formed the
Committee for the Restoration of Democracy. However, it is his academic work which provides the
conceptual basis for studying the fabric of society in the subcontinent, for which Hamza Alavi is known.
He died in 2003. Listing the main themes of Hamza Alavi‘s work, Prof Dr Jaffar Ahmed, the director of
Pakistan Study Centre at Karachi University, said the major areas of Hamza Alavi‘s work were: the
mode of production, the state in post-colonial society, nationalism and ethnic politics, and the Khilafat
Movement. Alavi basically belonged to the neo-Marxist school of thought and believed that Asia never
had the kind of feudalism found in mediaeval Europe and it was manifested during the colonial era. His
work on nationalism in the subcontinent revealed that it was the ‗salaried‘ class that was behind Muslim
nationalism in India and Bengali nationalism in 1971. One of Hamza Alavi‘s most-cited works at the
seminar was his paper called ‗the burden of US aid‘, published in 1962, which has been a hot topic for
policy makers and society in general for many years now.
Following a period of research in Tanzania, where the focus of his intellectual interests turned to
the peasantry, he began a doctorate at the London School of Economics, and in the mid-1960s joined
the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University. During the 1970s he taught politics at Leeds
University, where he became a Reader in 1977 and from which he retired in 1988, returning to Pakistan
in 1997. More than most, his work engaged theoretically and politically with colonialism and – before it
was appropriated and distorted by postmodernism – the notion of postcolonialism. The latter concept
linked both class and state formation in the so-called Third World to peasant agency. Because it was
allied to the local bourgeoisie and landlord class, neo-colonialism continued to flourish by means of aid
leverage. International capital was thus able to exercise power over newly formed or newly independent
Third World states, particularly their army and bureaucracy (termed the ‗military-bureaucratic
oligarchy‘).
His own social background in Pakistan gave Hamza a unique insight into the significance of an
educated middle class in post-colonial societies, and in particular its crucial political role. His argument
with classical Marxist theory [Alavi, 1975] was that on account of its colonial experience, the state
apparatus of newly independent nations was not, and could not be, an institution through which a single
class exercised political power. This was because unlike European countries, where an indigenous
bourgeoisie rose to power economically, in the course of which it shaped the state apparatus in its own
image, in post-colonial societies this task had to some degree already been accomplished by a foreign
bourgeoisie. He identified three competing propertied classes struggling for control over the state in
Pakistan: an indigenous bourgeoisie, a neo-colonial bourgeoisie, and an indigenous landowning class,
frequently (and in his view, wrongly) labelled ‗feudal‘ or ‗semi-feudal‘. Hence the state apparatus itself
became the crucial site of struggle for economic power exercised in postcolonial contexts [Alavi,
1982b], as a result of which the ‗bureaucratic military oligarchy‘ assumed a relatively autonomous role
vis-a`-vis competing interests attempting to wrest control over its project and/or resources (the
extraction/allocation of economic surplus, who was to benefit from planned development).
Consequently, in erstwhile colonies the indigenous middle class remained economically weak,
and had to prosecute a twofold struggle: against on the one hand ‗bureaucratic-military oligarchy‘ in
charge of the state apparatus, and on the other the mainly rural masses (to prevent revolution). Rather
than opposing the continuing economic influence of neo-colonial interests, therefore, the indigenous
propertied classes reached an accommodation with imperialism, the outcome being that capitalist
development was both dependent on and occurred under the aegis of what were misleadingly thought
to be ‗feudal‘ landowners utilizing ‗pre-capitalist‘ production relations. That capitalist farming (in the form
of the Green Revolution) developed on the basis of supposedly non-capitalist property and production
relations meant in turn that it was no longer necessary in such contexts to eliminate ‗feudal‘ structures.
These, Hamza concluded, were no longer the obstacles to capitalist development in the so-called Third
World that they were once thought to be.
This was linked in turn to his view [Alavi, 1965, 1973a, 1973b] about the revolutionary role of
peasants in post-colonial societies. Since no opposition to imperialism could be expected from either an
indigenous bourgeoisie or a landowning class, any struggle against capitalism and for socialism in so
called Third World societies would of necessity have to be led by the rural masses in general, and the
peasantry in particular. On the basis of his study of agrarian mobilizations in pre-revolutionary Russia,
in mid-1920s China (the Hunan movement), and in India during the mid-1940s (the Telegana and
Tebhaga movements), Hamza maintained that middle peasants were ‗the most militant element of the
peasantry‘. This theory not only anticipated the ‗middle peasant‘ thesis applied subsequently by Eric
Wolf [1971] to peasant movements in other contexts (Mexico, Vietnam, Algeria and Cuba), but also
departed from the classic Marxist argument that in the countryside of so called Third World societies it
was the poor peasant who was the main revolutionary subject.
Although the view that ‗feudal‘ structures were no obstacle to the growth of capitalist farming
has been vindicated, some of his other arguments were challenged by subsequent developments. This
was the case with the specificity attached to what was identified as the colonial mode of production
[Alavi, 1975, 1982a]. Similarly, the view that the object of neo-colonialism, or the new imperialism, was
not the export of capital to exploit cheap labour in the Third World [Alavi, 1964] has difficulties when
confronted by what came to be seen as the new international division of labour. What is not open to
dispute, however, is the influence of these ideas on those writing at the time about the peasantry and
peasant movements. This is especially true of a series of important articles published in The Socialist
Register from the mid- 1960s onwards [Alavi, 1964, 1965, 1971, 1975]. Their impact during the decade
that followed is evident both from the anthologization and translations of his work [Alavi, 1976, 1988a,
1988b], and from its critical application to non-Asian contexts [Saul, 1974].
13.2 Hamza Alavi’s View on the State of Pakistan
Returning to Pakistan towards the end of his life and career, Hamza Alavi‘s broader global kinship with
the international community of socialist activistintellectuals remained intact. This was confirmed at the
time of his death in 2003, when people such as Andr´e Gunder Frank, Colin Leys and Leo Panitch
contributed to web tributes to Alavi. His global analytical achievements include theories of post-colonial
societies, peasant political action, ethnicity and kinship ties, and religion and democracy. The collection
of essays published towards the end of his life to honour his achievements attest to the rich variety of
these accomplishments. The collection was put together by Prof S.M. Naseem and Dr Khalid Nadvi
(2002); the editors are respectively the doyen of development economics in Pakistan, and a leading
Pakistani development scientist at the international level.
Following his 1950s journal Pakistan Today, mentioned above, Alavi was a founding member of
the editorial board of the Journal of Contemporary Asia (1971–85) and the Journal of Peasant Studies
(1973–96). In addition to the articles he kept writing and publishing throughout his career, he also
edited a number of books, including Introduction to the Sociology of the Developing Societies (1982)
and South Asia: The Sociology of Developing Societies (1989). Perhaps Hamza Alavi‘s first major
contribution to the field of social sciences was his 1965 article ‗Peasants and Revolution‘, concerning
the conditions under which different categories of peasants may contribute to progressive movements.
In the literature, it is bracketed with a comparable later contribution in 1969 by Eric Wolf, distinguished
professor of the City University of New York. The so-called Alavi–Wolf thesis, drawing on the peasants‘
role in the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Algerian and Cuban revolutions and Indian peasant
uprisings, has been vigorously debated in numerous learned journals, books and PhD dissertations.
The essay caused a considerable stir, with its focus on the role of the middle peasantry as the most
militant section, at least initially, of that class in the countryside and, hence, a natural ally of the urban
proletariat, as opposed to the poor peasants.
This is due to a relative freedom of manoeuvre not enjoyed by the poor peasants. Terry Byres
(1985) joined the group arguing for the revolutionary potential of the middle peasant. It may be posited
that the major opponent of this thesis was Mao Tse Tung, who argued that the middle peasants were
likely to vacillate while the poor peasants had nothing to lose (Oommen, 2010). Others who argued
against the middle peasant theory include Gough (1968), Dhanagare (1983) and Oommen (1985). Be
that as it may, the thesis is alive and well today, and needs further debate in today‘s context, where
greater polarization of class in the countryside may require a major review of class analysis that
redefines what small, middle and big peasants might mean under conditions in which rural agricultural
production is beset with new problems such as speculation on product prices and the rental of
expanses of land to non-national giant corporations. Alavi‘s analysis of power in peasant societies and
the methodological and theoretical lessons drawn from that could be, and were, extrapolated to other
settings. For instance, he contrasted the situation of the peasant with that of the industrial worker. In his
view, the latter ‗can engage in militant class action with relative impunity, insofar as he is able to find
alternative employment and (unlike the poor peasant) does not place at risk the entire livelihood of
himself and his family, his home and his entire social existence in doing so‘ (Alavi, 1974: 417; see also
Alavi, 1975a).
The hypothesis, and the concepts of ‗dependence‘ and ‗autonomy‘ suggested by Alavi, were
important aspects of the theoretical underpinning of the major study carried out in Pakistan on the
structures of power and of leadership of industrial workers (see Shaheed, 2007 and the review in Asdar
Ali, 2008). Similarly, while Khalid Nadvi‘s (1999) field research in Sialkot had an urban focus, it also
used Alavi‘s earlier work on biraderi and social identities and their implications for economic inter-
relations. More recently, the lawyers‘ movement of 2007 in Pakistan, in support of the independence of
the Supreme Court, which contributed to the ousting of the last military dictator, General Musharraf,
may be analysed within the framework of relative autonomy posited by Alavi. Lawyers are urban,
middle class, independent professionals, not dependent on ‗salariat‘ jobs (see below), but requiring a
functioning and autonomous legal system and process in order to make a living. It may thus be argued
that, in the particular and exceptional conjuncture that forced General Musharraf to step down from
power, the lawyers had the relative autonomy to stand up for the rule of law and resist the emergency
imposed by the military regime. In his web tribute to Hamza Alavi in 2003, Andr´e Gunder Frank —
renowned for his work on imperialism, neo-colonialism and the globality of capitalist development, and
a founder of the ‗dependency‘ and ‗world systems‘ theories within development studies — remarked on
the parallel tracks that their intellectual development had taken. Writing a couple of years before his
own death, Frank recognized that Alavi‘s structural analysis of colonial capitalism and the burden of US
aid, published originally in Pakistan Today and subsequently in Economic and Political Weekly in the
early 1960s, provided important source material for his own analysis of capitalist underdevelopment.
In his web tribute to Hamza Alavi in 2003, Andr´e Gunder Frank — renowned for his work on
imperialism, neo-colonialism and the globality of capitalist development, and a founder of the
‗dependency‘ and ‗world systems‘ theories within development studies — remarked on the parallel
tracks that their intellectual development had taken. Writing a couple of years before his own death,
Frank recognized that Alavi‘s structural analysis of colonial capitalism and the burden of US aid,
published originally in Pakistan Today and subsequently in Economic and Political Weekly in the early
1960s, provided important source material for his own analysis of capitalist underdevelopment.
Alavi‘s work on the colonial mode of production fed into an important debate of the time
regarding diversity in the paths of transition to capitalism, and how best to analyse and address the
resulting social relations (see Patnaik, 1990). This area of work has been taken forward by, for
instance, Jairus Banaji (involved in the debate since the 1970s), whose 2011 publication Theory as
History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation has recently been awarded the Isaac
Deutscher Prize. The analysis and arguments put forward have relevance not only for scholars of
history, but for a critical and revolutionary understanding of the inner workings of capitalism and its
crises today. At the national level, Taimur Rahman (2012) has adopted the lens of the colonial mode of
production through which to start an analysis of class structure in Pakistan today (where, in addition to
analysing current modes of production and class structure in Pakistan, he also provides an overview of
the ‗modes of production‘ debate in South Asia and elsewhere).
The current situation in Pakistan, where aid (with strings, ribbons and chains attached)
constitutes the third largest source of foreign exchange — export earnings and remittances by the
Pakistani Diaspora, some of whom Alavi sought to sensitize and organize back in the late 1950s and
early 1960s, are the primary contributors — reminds us that neo-imperialism is alive and kicking. The
new old imperialist game for securing Middle Eastern and Central Asian oil and other resources
continues to be played out daily under our eyes.
One of Alavi‘s seminal contributions to the discourse on the dynamics of state and society was
the thesis of the overdeveloped state in post-colonial societies. It helped to explain the kind of
questions often posed in postcolonial underdeveloped countries with regard to frequent interventions by
the military. In such societies, state institutions such as the army and the bureaucracy are
overdeveloped during colonial rule whose ends are social and political control and regulation in
metropolitan interests rather than the development of the colonized. This structural imbalance is
inherited by the state upon independence, with all its implications for imbalanced national socio-
economic development. Alavi defined the Pakistan that emerged in 1947 as an ‗overdeveloped state‘,
by virtue of the overwhelming influence of its bureaucratic–military complex.
The notion of the relative autonomy of the state bureaucracy in a postcolonial state may benefit
from revisiting, in the light of elite bureaucracies in Pakistan and elsewhere in South Asia and beyond
having become increasingly subjugated to political interests and political groupings. However, at least
one element of the state in Pakistan and perhaps elsewhere continues to have growing relative
autonomy, and that is the military. In her 2007 book Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy,
Ayesha Siddiqa naturally refers to this identification by Alavi of the weaknesses of postcolonial political
institutions (Siddiqa, 2007: 66–9), that the counterpoint to an overdeveloped role for the military and
bureaucracy is fragmentation and factionalism among civil society and the political class. In the role of
mediating between rival interests and competing demands within the nation, the balance in civil–military
bureaucracy tipped increasingly towards the military. Over time, the military began to benefit from land,
postings in state corporations and even in the civil service, and ultimately lucrative positions throughout
the economy.
When Alavi‘s article ‗The State in Post-colonial Societies‘ appeared in the New Left Review in
1972, it gave rise to a lively debate. After that article, John Saul wrote on the subject with particular
reference to Africa in 1974, followed by Colin Leys in 1976. The subject remains alive today, with
particular reference to the appropriation of the concept by the international financial institutions (IFIs)
and their structural adjustment programmes starting in the 1990s, seeking to down-size the role of the
state and its institutions. This may be considered a somewhat backhanded confirmation that Alavi and
his colleagues were right on target as regards the overdeveloped nature of state institutions. However,
they were referring to the civil–military bureaucracy, its corrupt rent-seeking and exploitation of civil
society, and not the sectors of health and education and other public goods provided by the state,
which have been assailed by the policies of the IFIs. Of course, this is like throwing the baby out with
the bathwater — the bathwater is those aspects of the post-colonial state that are not imbedded in and
essential for national society.
Within Hamza Alavi‘s conceptualization of the post-colonial state, of seminal influence is the
concept of a ‗salariat‘, a class of educated government job-seekers whose role he argued was pivotal in
the making of Pakistan. Breaking with the idea that the movement for an independent Pakistan in the
1930s and 1940s had been inspired solely by religious motives, Alavi contended that it had been led by
the salary-dependent class of Muslim government servants, whom he dubbed the ‗salariat‘. The Hindu
and Muslim salariats competed for jobs and power in pre-partition India. Having experienced a
diminution in its share of state jobs, this newly emergent salariat saw that it stood to gain most from the
creation of a new state. This concept helps us to comprehend better both the Pakistan movement and
the subsequent rise of ethnic movements in Pakistan—and indeed the rise of regional movements in
the politics of South Asia as a whole. Thus, Alavi‘s analysis underlines that Pakistan was not obtained
for Islam but for Muslims. The difference is crucial and relevant today.
The creation of a theocracy was not approved of by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the leader of the
movement for Pakistan. He was a liberal democrat who wanted Muslims to live without fear of Hindu
domination but did not want a theocracy. In his address to the Constituent Assembly on the eve of
Pakistan‘s birth, Jinnah had declared ‗You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has
nothing to do with the business of the State‘ (Rashid, 2004: 82–83). Jinnah‘s colleague and successor,
Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, declared in March 1949: ‗The people are the real recipients of power.
This naturally eliminates all danger of the establishment of a theocracy‘. This is an important argument
that needs to be understood, defined and elaborated in the light of the current struggles against
fundamentalism.
In a manner comparable to the inter-communal competition for state jobs in pre-partition India,
provincial and ethnic rivalry among the salariat has contributed to ethnic conflict in Pakistan. It may be
argued that current concerns in Pakistan to create new provinces based on linguistic and ethnic
characteristics reflect at least in part the desire to create new government jobs in an expanded salariat,
as well as new political positions. A related implication of this concept is that members of the middle
class competing to join the salariat were interested not so much in pursuing education for knowledge as
in obtaining educational qualifications in order to compete for jobs and positions. This important
distinction may be one explanation for the apathy and lack of seriousness that have persistently and
tragically characterized national efforts to address the critical issue of educational reform. In this
context, it is illuminating to note the recent proclamation by a member of the Pakistani Parliament with
regard to educational qualifications. Addressing the issue of fake college degrees in a system which at
that time stipulated that a requirement for being elected to parliament was a university undergraduate
degree, this parliamentarian argued, ‗A degree is a degree. Whether fake or genuine, it‘s a degree. It
makes no difference‘ (Ellick, 2010). It was found at the time that many members of parliament had fake
degrees. This may be considered an advanced form of commodity fetishism regarding educational
degrees — i.e. the ‗paper qualification‘ syndrome required for formal sector employment that has been
of concern in most post-colonial societies.
In the long and continuing intense debate over the secular versus religious basis of Pakistani
nationalism, Alavi‘s contribution has been significant. It was engagement with this debate that led him
to closely examine the Khilafat movement in British India, which he believed had laid the foundations of
the political ascendancy of the Muslim clergy. The movement was a pan-Islamic call to defend the
Caliphate of Istanbul, at a time when Ottoman Turkey — having sided with the Central Powers in the
First World War — saw its political influence severely limited. While the movement was idealized in
British India as being anti-colonial in nature, its main ‗achievement‘ was to promote a religious and
communalist understanding of politics among Indian Muslims at the expense of a secular one. It was no
small irony that the Khilafat movement was supported by Gandhi and opposed by Jinnah. Alavi spoke
about the territorial dimension of Pakistani nationhood — as distinct from the religious dimension — at
the Lahore Press Club in 1997, which was included in an article in Rashid‘s 2004 book Pakistan:
Perspectives on States and Society. He argued forcefully that the shared legacy of the Indus Basin
could go a long way in ‗building up a sense of our common history and destiny‘.
On the issue of secular politics and equality of citizenship, Alavi studied the Constitution of
Medina at the time of the Holy Prophet, the first Islamic political state. By virtue of the Misaq-e-Medina,
he argued, all residents of Medina, including those Jewish clans that had thrown in their lot with the
new state and were mentioned by name, had become members of the Ummah. From this precedent
fourteen centuries ago, Alavi reminds us—in the midst of a growing penchant for divisiveness and
exclusion in Pakistan and other states with Muslim-majority populations — that there is much to be
learned from the Holy Prophet about equality. This has far-reaching lessons for tolerance and non-
discrimination in Islam that may be drawn upon for a better inter-faith understanding that is essential for
peace today. The Daily Times editorial said that while Hamza Alavi may have been known mostly as a
Left-wing intellectual:
…in truth he was a rational philosopher in the tradition of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who thought
that Pakistan as a Muslim state could survive only if it read its Scripture rationally and
interpreted it pluralistically. Mr Alavi therefore was a great supporter of the Quaid-e- Azam and
wrote about him in his characteristic investigative manner, only to put off the religious
establishment in Pakistan. (Daily Times, 2003).
In a sense returning to his initial work in banking, the editorial continues, it may be argued that
‗his last great work was a series of articles on the impractical interpretation of the Quranic edict on
interest (riba) by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. (Pakistan couldn‘t implement it.) Ever the man of
reason, he demonstrated once again how a religious state may hurt itself by being literalist‘. The
editorial concludes: ‗If he hadn‘t declined in health min recent years, he could have been in the
vanguard of the anti-capitalist movement whose importance we all recognise as we approach the year
2005 under the WTO‘.
13.3 Hamza Alavi’s View on the State of Post-colonial Societies
Hamza Alavi‘s view on the state raises some fundamental questions about the classical Marxist theory
of the State in the context of post-colonial societies. The argument is premised on the historical
specificity of post-colonial societies, a specificity which arises from structural changes brought about by
the colonial experience and alignments of classes and by the superstructures of political and
administrative institutions which were established in that context, and secondly from radical re-
alignments of class forces which have been brought about in the post-colonial situation. Alavi draws
examples from recent developments in Pakistan and Bangladesh. There are, necessarily, some
particular features which are specific to that context. But the essential features which invite a fresh
analysis are by no means unique. In particular the special role of the military-bureaucratic oligarchy has
become all too common a phenomenon in post-colonial societies. This role now needs to be interpreted
in terms of a new alignment of the respective interests of the three propertied exploiting classes,
namely the indigenous bourgeoisie, the Metropolitan neo-colonialist bourgeoisies, and the landed
classes, under Metropolitan patronage a combination which is not unique to Pakistan. If a colony has a
weak and underdeveloped indigenous bourgeoisie, it will be unable at the moment of independence to
subordinate the relatively highly developed colonial State apparatus through which the Metropolitan
power had exercised dominion over it. However, a new convergence of interests of the three competing
propertied classes, under Metropolitan patronage, allows a bureaucratic-military oligarchy to mediate
their competing but no longer contradictory interests and demands. By that token it acquires a relatively
autonomous role and is not simply the instrument of any one of the three classes. Such a relatively
autonomous role of the state apparatus is of special importance to the neo-colonialist bourgeoisies
because it is by virtue of this fact that they are able to pursue their class interests in the post-colonial
societies.
Self Assessment Questions
1. Two Characteristics of the State of PAK

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

2. Define Marxist Structuralism.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

13.4 From Structural Functionalism to Marxist Structuralism

In the early days of independence, the individualistic approach of authors who singled out the
performance of those in positions of power earned them the label of "leadership theorists." Leadership
was essentially viewed as a means for achieving "order." Such writers shared much in common with
the "nation-building" school of American structural functionalism, where "nation" was very often equated
with "state." This literature was more concerned with the possibilities of statehood and the development
of political institutions in the new states than with the constraints on institutional development, the latter
being of greater interest to Marxists. The chief merit of leadership approaches is the emphasis on the
created aspects of state formation and the efforts of individuals with a degree of control over their
political life and environment. Critics point out, however, that the analysis tends to foster philosophical
idealism and does not take enough account of the relationship between ideology and social action.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the underdevelopment paradigm became very influential in
efforts to explain the economies and modes of rule that decolonizing nations were constructing.
Underdevelopment theorists were concerned with the economic dependency of postcolonial states in
the context of international capitalism as well as the relative autonomy of the postcolonial state from
social classes. The theoretical model drew on the dichotomy between base and superstructure that
characterized Marxist structuralism, but the focus was on trade rather than production. Several authors
have pointed out that the developmental experiences of decolonizing countries highlight the centrality of
the postcolonial state in structuring the necessary conditions for continued capital accumulation and
regulating the allocation of surplus among different social categories. In an influential essay on Pakistan
and Bangladesh, "The State in Post-Colonial Societies—Pakistan and Bangladesh" (1972), Hamza
Alavi posited that the postcolonial state was "over-developed" due to its foreign creation. It was
consequently particularly powerful compared to the leading agrarian and industrial classes, the latter
being "under-developed." The idea of the relative autonomy of the state was proposed because of the
independent material base of the bureaucratic-military oligarchy and its relative autonomy from the
other propertied classes. Critics of Alavi's position point to the idea of the state being reduced to a
handful of bureaucrats and military officers in his analysis. Understanding the limitations placed on the
state's responses to pressures from hegemonic interests requires a closer examination of the state, in
relation to its constituent parts and in relation to the international environment, and a more
comprehensive view of classes.
 Alavi's 1972 essay sparked off considerable debate amongst Marxist Africanists. This included
John Saul's emphasis on ideology, which he said was neglected in Alavi's analysis, but was necessary
for the state's function of holding together the capitalist system. Colin Leys responded by reasserting
the importance of class as the basis of analysis of the state, and others responded in a similar vein.
Many Marxists are of the view that patterns of belief can bind the state together and, drawing on the
ideas of Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), have attempted to conceptualize anew the role of elites and
their ideologies, in the complex economic relationships of the postcolonial state.
13.5 Post Colonial State and Dependency Theory
Dependency theory differs from most Western approaches to studying political development. One
difference is that this approach originated in the Third World (primarily Latin America), rather than
among Western academics. Third World dependency thinkers were concerned with explaining the
unequal and unjust situations in which they and their nations found themselves. Third World countries
were poor while "developed" countries were rich. Third World countries had bad health conditions,
while other countries had good health conditions. Third World countries had little military power, while
other countries had tremendous military resources. Third World countries faced starvation, while
citizens of other countries had to worry about losing weight. Third World economies were nonproductive
and agriculturally based, while economies in developed countries were diversified and industrialized. By
almost any conventional socioeconomic measure, Third World countries were at the bottom of the
scale. They had less education, less wealth, poorer health, less military power, and were dominated
politically and economically by the First World. Dependency theorists asked why such inequalities
existed. Their central concern was to understand the causes of inequality. They felt that such
inequalities were unjust, and sought to explain inequalities in order to change them and achieve their
goal of increased equality among nations and peoples. Dependency theory has always been quite
controversial: it incorporates some Marxist concepts; it addresses the sensitive issue of inequality,
blaming inequality on the developed nations; and it originates in the Third World.
13.6 Major Propositions of Dependency Theory
1. Third World countries do not exist in isolation. They can only be understood in the context of the
world economic and political system. Political events in Third World countries are directly related
to events in First World countries. However, relations between First and Third World countries
are asymmetrical. The flow of power and control is from the First World (center or core) to the
Third World (periphery). Political and economic events in the First World have a huge impact on
the politics and economics of Third World countries, but Third World political and economic
events usually have little impact on the First World.
2. Within the world political and economic system there is a tremendous amount of interaction
among core countries and peoples, and between the core and the periphery. There is very little
interaction just among periphery countries. The consequences of this are great, resulting in an
isolated and weak periphery country having an unequal relationship with the united and strong
core.
3. Politics and economics are related. They cannot be understood apart from each other.
Economic ties and relationships between core and periphery countries are particularly
important. These are advantageous for the core, and disadvantageous for the periphery. Core-
periphery trading patterns result in continuous growth of political and economic power for the
core at the expense of the periphery. Economic trade causes a widening of the gap between
 developed and developing countries, rather than a narrowing of that gap. Historically, lower
priced raw materials have been exchanged for higher priced finished goods.
4. It follows from that underdevelopment is not a natural state, but rather a condition that is
caused. The fact is that developed nations are actively under developing Third World
countries as a result of the systems of interactions between them.
5. Put another way, the underdevelopment of weak Third World countries is directly related to, and
makes possible, the "development" of the powerful countries of the industrialized core. Both the
center and the periphery are part of the world political-economic system, and neither would exist
without the other.
6. Furthermore, so long as capitalism remains the dominant world economic system, there is no
reason for the situation of developed and underdeveloped countries to change.
Underdevelopment is not a temporary condition, as had been thought in the past, but is a
permanent condition. In fact, if the present world system does not change we can expect the
core to become more powerful and the periphery weaker in the future. Rather than "catching up"
to the developed countries, most currently underdeveloped countries will fall farther behind. (In
a limited number of cases, where exceptional circumstances exist, it may be possible for an
underdeveloped country to move from the periphery to the core.)
7. The worldwide system of relationships is duplicated within individual Third World
countries. There is a core area (usually the capital) which dominates and exploits the periphery
(interior) of the country. The nation's centers of economic, political, cultural, and military power
are found in the national core, and the core's power and wealth grows more rapidly than that of
the interior as a result of contacts and interactions between the two areas. The urban sector
becomes increasingly powerful, while the rural sector becomes increasingly weaker. Resources
flow from the periphery to the center. The core profits at the expense of the periphery as a result
of the movement of products and resources. The passage of time does not bring a growing
equality within the country, but rather brings about an increasing gap between life in the capital
and that in the countryside. In a sense, national leaders in the capital exploit the people for their
own personal benefit and power. Consequently, these "national" leaders could really be
conceptualized as agents of the international system. Their national power and prominence
derive from their international contacts. It is they (the military, government officials, and
commercial and financial leaders) who act as links between the Third World country and the
world political and economic system. They direct the country's contacts with the world, and they
direct those contacts in such a way that the world core benefits more than their own country,
although they themselves clearly benefit at a personal level. These national leaders may
actually have more in common with their counterparts in London or New York than they do with
interior citizens of their own country.
13.7 Imperialism Old and New: An Analysis of Hamza Alavi
"Imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution," wrote Lenin whilst revolutionary hearts were still
warm with the apocalyptic vision of the social transformation that was about to take place following the
disintegration of moribund capitalism. Monopoly capitalism was in the last throes of its general crisis;
imperialism was the highest stage of its development. National liberation movements in colonial
territories were an important part of the revolutionary process, for they undermined the positions of
imperialism and intensified its contradictions. Since Lenin wrote, the struggles of national liberation
movements of colonial territories have culminated, at least, in formal independence from direct rule. A
group of socialist states has emerged also, which is unequivocally outside the imperialist orbit. Two
decades have elapsed since the world-wide liberation of colonial territories began after the last war. If
this is the end of direct colonial rule, it has not yet precipitated that final crisis which was to see the end
of monopoly capitalism and to herald the age of socialism.
Two sets of questions arise. What, we may ask firstly, was the role of imperialist expansion in
maintaining the dynamic of capitalist development? How is it affected by the attainment of national
independence by colonies? If colonial expansion has a necessary role to play in maintaining the
process of capitalist development, as an outlet for surplus capital, which is to stave off an inevitable
"realization crisis," does the independence of colonial territories mean that the economies of
metropolitan countries will, therefore, automatically be brought to a grinding halt? Or, have imperialist
powers acquired a new lease of life and secured their essential economic interests by subverting the
newly won independence of colonial territories? Or, indeed, has monopoly capitalism acquired a new
dynamic which allows it to continue to function even though colonial expansion is no longer possible for
it? These questions of the conditions of capitalist crisis are fundamental to any consideration of the
strategy of a socialist revolution in metropolitan countries.
We may look at the same problem from the perspective of the new states which are faced with
the task of transforming their colonial economies. What is the reality of the "third world" which they are
supposed to inhabit? What kind of relationships has been established between imperialist powers and
the new states? Have exploitative relationships of the past between imperialism and the people of
these countries given place to a new era of co-operation, in which aid will be offered and administered
in a manner which will promote the economic development of ex-colonial countries? What kind of aims
does monopoly capitalism in the advanced countries in fact pursue in dealing with these countries, and
by what means?
We shall review some of the contributions to the debate on Imperialism and contemporary
capitalism which have appeared during the last decade and consider our questions in the light of the
debate and the facts of the contemporary situation. This debate, however, can be reviewed today from
an altogether new perspective. It was stimulated, firstly, by the failure of a major economic crisis (which
was universally expected after the end of the last war) to materialize, despite several minor crises.
Secondly, there was the challenge of the claims made by apologists of capitalism about a social and
technological revolution that was said to have transformed the character of capitalism. Oddly enough,
although this debate took place against the background of the colonial revolution, which was in
progress, the role of imperialism or the significance of its dissolution barely entered the debate. Above
all, there was the fact that the debate took place in the intellectual climate of the cold war, and bears its
imprint. Today, changes in the world situation and, especially, the great debate in the international
communist movement, have helped to put these questions in an altogether different context.
The main issues today are primarily those of an assessment of the objective conditions which
must determine the strategy of socialist movements. The task of socialist movements would be reduced
virtually to that of waiting for objective conditions to mature if the view were held that the development
of objective forces such as the sharpening of inter-imperialist rivalry, the erosion of the bases of
imperialism by the success of the national liberation movements and, finally, the internal contradictions
of capitalist development must in time, and inevitably, bring about its dramatic collapse. But the task of
socialist movements would be seen to be, both immediate and far more demanding if the view were
taken that the crisis of capitalism, such as it is, is here with us now; not a dramatic collapse but a slow
drift into stagnation, overshadowed by the growing concentration of monopoly power in the metropolitan
countries and its renewed expansion abroad.
The new situation in the metropolitan countries is characterized by stagnation rather than by the
imminence of a breakdown. In the underdeveloped countries on the other hand, the sharp issues of the
national liberation struggle are replaced by a division of class forces. To confront the new situation,
neo-colonialists seek to associate with their activities some sections of the local bourgeoisie and rich
landowners, as a politicaI insurance. On the other hand, it seeks to maintain its own independent
authority vis-a-vis these elements by manipulating and controlling the state machinery in the new
countries. This it does not only by political subversion (with the Cold War as its principal weapon) but
also more directly by the corruption of the bureaucrats and the officers of the armed forces (who are
thus given a vested interest in the new set-up) and also by utilizing the power and the influence of the
metropolitan state. Extensive powers in the hands of the bureaucrats, a powerful army both tied to the
metropolitan state through a complex network of "aid" operations and a proliferation of foreign advisers
who infiltrate the government of the new states at all levels, all help to maintain the authority of
monopoly capital operating in the new states. Political struggle in the new states against the new
imperialism is undermined to the extent that illusions persist about the need of their economies for
foreign capital and about the apparent generosity of the metropolitan powers in bestowing "aid." But as
the movement for a fundamental social transformation and an advance towards socialism develops in
the new states, the role of the new imperialism becomes more and more apparent and the struggle
against it become an integral part of the struggle for socialism.
13.8 Summary
Hamza Alawi, a Neo Marxist, supported the Structural Theory of Marxism which applied to
states in which many modes of production co-exist, through his concept of Overdeveloped State.
Overdeveloped State like the Structural theory of Marxism stated that States have Relative Autonomy
and is not just an executive committee of the bourgeois class. Hamza gave this concept for Pakistan
but can be applied to all third world countries in general. In his concept he compares the western and
colonial states by stating that Political and Economic development took place simultaneously in
Western societies unlike in colonies. The colonial masters gave more powers to the State in their
colonies than what prevailed in their Mother countries in order to govern the colonies properly. They
brought in more Centralization and uniform system in the colonies. The colonial Legacy of the state
passed onto the native bureaucracy and the Political class after independence and hence there wasn't
a big change in the nature of the state. The model of development adopted led to further strengthening
of the state and relative weakening of the bourgeois class. e.g: Licensing and permit, Nationalization of
banks. Hence his overdeveloped State is where the time lag between political and economic
development has led to the state becoming an Equilibrium maker.
Hamza Alavi believed that there are three important institutional structures which are present in
the postcolonial states; cosmopolitism bourgeoisie, which are global capitalist institutions such as multi
national corporations, indigenous bourgeoisie and feudals. This was eloquently said by Dr Riaz
Sheikh, the head of social sciences at the Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and
Technology (SZABIST), while speaking on ―Pakistan -- Crisis of the State: An Analysis by Hamza
Alavi,‖ at a gathering organised by Readers Club at Defence Central Library.
In the discussion which focused on the Alavi‘s opinion, Dr Sheikh said the veteran writer
believed that the postcolonial states inherit these three factors, as the colonisation coercively
establishes them and hence it becomes an intrinsic part of society. ―The traces of these factors find the
capacity to establish themselves as they have been enforced for two centuries,‖ he said. ―However,
looking into the state of India, Alavi found that along with the abolition of feudalism, the state promoted
the indigenous/national bourgeoisie which ultimately sidelined the cosmopolitism bourgeoisie.‖ He said
that as compared to India, aside the continuation of the feudalism, the state of Pakistan was also not
successful in curbing the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie and promoting the national bourgeoisie due to the
country‘s financial requirement.
 ―As the country was dependent on the sale of jute, it had to accommodate and give space to the
international bourgeoisies rather than the national one.‖ Dr Skeikh also agreed with Alavi‘s opinion that
the state of Pakistan was an overdeveloped state, whose arbitrator role had been played by the federal
bureaucracy since its inception. The 1935 act introduced by the British, which already mandated
unrestricted powers to the civil servants, was further modified in the bureaucracy‘s favour. He said the
post of governor general which was supposed to be assumed for a temporary period of time was in fact
continued for more than eight months by the founding father, which rooted the seeds of
authoritarianism. According to Alavi, along with Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan‘s cabinet, a shadow
cabinet comprising bureaucrats was established under the instructions of the governor general, which
had more authority than the PM‘s cabinet. At this, the prime minister handed his resignation twice to
Jinnah, which was not accepted.
He said that when the state failed to provide democracy and socio- economic equality, it opted
to choose religion to enforce the state order, which led to the eruption of ethnic issues in the country.
Dilating on the US-Pakistan relations, he said that initially despite being a non-authoritative premier,
Khuwaja Nazim-ud-din was against the dependence of the state on aid and military assistance but his
suggestions were never heeded. Dr Sheikh ended his lecture, saying that the Alavi quite rightly
believed that if the political process in Pakistan had continued through genuine democratic means,
South Asia would have been living in peace.
The personal, political and intellectual contributions of Hamza Alavi were closely inter-related
throughout his life. He was propelled into seeking social justice and radical change by the situation he
found himself in, in a postcolonial state that he served initially, which he then left and whose trajectory
of development he criticized systematically. He did this within a broader critique of post-colonial and
neo-imperialist developmental processes, his critique growing global with time. He came back to a
Pakistan much changed, especially as regards the interpretation of Islam by important segments of
society, within a further complicated neo-imperial version of globalization. He took on this reality and
criticized it, to the end, never losing sight of the individuals, families and communities that state and
society are supposed to serve.
Much of what Alavi wrote about and taught is still relevant today. These ideas naturally need to
be reviewed critically in the light of current reality: for instance, the nature of the post-colonial state has
been transformed considerably, especially as a result of structural adjustment programmes, with
significant weaknesses in bureaucracies and simultaneous growth in the power of military
establishments. Both rural and urban class analysis needs to be carried out in changing settings, taking
into account new entrants to the workforce such as women and those dispersed in the small-scale and
informal economy. Perhaps most importantly, the role of religion in nation building and defining national
identity needs to be studied from a variety of angles. In all this, the character and role of a new
imperialism, further refined and complex in its concerns relating to energy and resources and perceived
national interests of global security, need a renewed critical analysis. As an important part of his legacy,
then, Hamza Alavi has thus left considerable work to be done by others today.
Alavi‘s legacy underlines the need for academics today to be engaged in the world of praxis
while at the same time permitting the policy world to benefit from deeper intellectual roots. This is
something that is increasingly lacking. Academics tend not only to be driven too often by what one
might regard as a deluxe ‗paper qualification‘ syndrome (or what might in future be referred to as the
‗academic-circumcision‘ syndrome, for those who now know the village tale recounted above), but by
the demands of academic reputation (research and grants merely for the sake of publications, citation
indices, etc.). They tend too easily to forget that the aim of what academics do is to change the lives of
people for the better.
 Alavi‘s life-story also serves to remind us that those with the best brains may well study subjects
like mathematical economics and finance, and certainly understand and even work in those areas. But
they need not stop there; there is always room for human agency to do something more meaningful for
the greater public good. Personally, politically and professionally, Hamza Alavi was dedicated to the
common good of humanity. He applied this dedication through his varied life career, in the state bank,
in farming, in academia, in his empirical, ideological and theoretical writing, in political activism in Britain
and Pakistan and — above all — in the formation of younger activist-intellectuals. They are the ones to
carry forward the legacy Alavi has left us.
13.9 References
1. Alavi, H. (1964) ‗Imperialism Old and New‘, Socialist Register 1964: 104–26.
2. Alavi, H. (1965) ‗Peasants and Revolution‘, Socialist Register 1965: 241–77.
3. Alavi, H. (1971) ‗Bangladesh and the Crises of Pakistan‘, Socialist Register 1971: 289–317.
4. Alavi, H. (1972) ‗The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh‘, New Left
Review I (74): 59–81.
5. Alavi, H. (1974) ‗Rural Bases of Political Power in South Asia‘, Journal of Contemporary Asia
4(4): 413–22.
6. Alavi, H. (writing as ‗Gordon Henderson‘) (1957) ‗Can Capitalism Survive?‘, Universities and
Left Review (Summer).
7. Alavi, H. and Amir Khusro (1961) ‗Pakistan: The Burden of US Aid‘, Pakistan Today (Autumn).
8. Alvarez, Sonia E. Engendering Democracy in Brazil: Women's Movements in Transition
Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990.
9. Baker, C. "Colonial Rule and the Internal Economy in Twentieth-Century Madras." Modern
Asian Studies 15, no. 3 (1981): 575–602.
10. Bayart, Jean-Francois. The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly. London and New York:
Longman, 1993.
11. Butler, Judith. "Gender Is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion." In Dangerous
Liaisons: Gender, Nation and Postcolonial Perspectives, edited by A. McClintock, A. Mufti, and
E. Shohat. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
12. Leys, Colin. Underdevelopment in Kenya, the Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism, 1964-
1971; First published: by Heinemann Educational Books, London, in 1975; Transcribed:
by Dominic Tweedie.
13. Kandiyoti, D., ed. Women, Islam and the State. London: Macmillan, 1991.
14. Leys, Colin. "The 'Overdeveloped' Post Colonial State: A Re-evaluation."Review of African
Political Economy 5 (1976): 39–48.
15. Mama, Amina. "Changes of State: Gender Politics and Transition in Nigeria." Inaugural Lecture,
September 15, 1999, New Series no. 213, University of Cape Town, Department of
Communication.
16. Mbembe, Achille. On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
17. Ollawa, P. "The Political Economy of Development: A Theoretical Reconsideration of Some
Unresolved Issues." African Studies Review 26, no. 1 (1983): 125–155.
18. Rai, Shirin. "Women and the State in the Third World: Some Issues for Debate." In Women and
the State: International Perspectives, edited by S. Rai and G. Lievesley. London: Taylor and
Francis, 1996.
19. Saul, John. "The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania." In The Socialist Register, edited
by R. Miliband and J. Savage. London: Merlin Press, 1974.
20. Stark, F. "Theories of Contemporary State Formation in Africa: A Reassessment." Journal of
Modern African Studies 24, no. 2 (1986): 335–347.
21. Sunder Rajan, Rajeswari. The Scandal of the State: Women, Law and Citizenship in
Postcolonial India. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2003.

13.10 Further Readings

1. Bayart, Jean-Francois. "The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly": Longman Publications, London
New York, 1993.
2. Kandiyoti, D." Women, Islam and the State (ed). Macmillan Publications, London 1991.

13.10 Model Questions

1. Write a note on Hamza Alavi's analysis of state in reveloping world.
2. Discuss the Characteristics of Hamza Alavis Developing State.

--s--
 Lesson 14
Nature of the State in Developing World: An Analysis of
J.S. Saul and Colin Leys

Structure
14.0 Objective

14.1 J.S. Saul

14.2 Saul‘s views on Africa

14.3 The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania

14.4 The State in Post-Colonial Societies

14.5 Models for Africa

14.6 Socialism and the State in Tanzania

14.7 The Politics of Marginalization

14.8 Socialism and South Africa

14.9 Colin Leys

14.10 Contradictions of Neo-colonialism

14.11 A Recapitulation

14.12 Contradictions of Neo-Colonialism

14.13 References

14.14 Further Readings

14.15 Model Questions

14.0 Objective
To study and analyse the views of J. S. Saul and Colin Leys regarding Post Colonial State.
14.1 J.S Saul
John S, Saul is a member of editorial working group of Southern Africa Report and Colin Leys is
co-editor of the Socialist Register, both live in Toronto. J. S. Sual presented a paper entitled ―The State
in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania.‖ This paper was originally presented in the "Views from the Left"
Lecture Series, Toronto, Canada, February 1974. For an overview of the Tanzanian situation which
spells out both the countries achievements and its continuing contradictions in much more detail than
has been possible here.
 Saul in his paper ―The Transition in South Africa: Choice, Fate … or Recolonisation?‖ displays a
picture of a 'false decolonisation', even a 'recolonisation' by a new Empire of Capital, fits--as elsewhere
in southern Africa--all too comfortably the facts of the South African case. Several alternative ways of
thinking about this reality are noted, as well as various alternative possible national projects, each of
the latter suggesting the necessity of a 'next' or 'second' liberation struggle in South Africa. A number of
key questions, arising from the analysis and inviting further discussion and exchange, are quite
specifically signaled in the text.
In his another paper on ‗The Strange Death of Liberated Southern Africa‘, Saul explains the
‗defeat‘ of socialism in Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, countries whose
liberation movements had espoused revolutionary socialist objectives. Saul discusses six alternative
explanations of why these movements abandoned socialism after seizing power, but underplays the
possibility that activists might reasonably be sceptical of this path. He starkly depicts the alternatives as
a marginalising, poverty-deepening capitalism, on the one hand, or a revolutionary and egalitarian
socialism, on the other. Those leaders who reject the latter, therefore, lack fortitude or sell out. Many of
them doubtless deserve such criticism. But others may not see the alternatives so starkly etched. Saul
dismisses ‗the social-democratic delusion: that you can have your capitalist cake and eat your humane
and equitable social outcomes, by means of reform.‘ Yet people in some countries have had their
capitalist cake while eating their humane and equitable social outcomes. This outcome is actually less
rare than a liberating and egalitarian revolutionary socialism.
A liberation vanguard that struggles to achieve socialism in conditions of underdevelopment and
conflict has usually arrived at a new form of class society. The dynamics of this process are well known,
involving a contradiction between means and ends. The Leninist techniques of revolution and its
consolidation, though effective in overturning tyranny and defeating enemies, constrain the ultimate
goal of development as liberation. The hostility of national and external forces to a socialist regime,
coupled with the lack of an autonomously organised working class or peasantry to check oligarchy and
the inevitable decline of revolutionary fervour, lead to an authoritarian revolution from above. The result
is ‗bureaucratic collectivism‘, in which a revolutionary cadre substitutes itself for the workers and
peasantry. Although, in Venezuela, socialism remains more an aspiration than a reality -and one
buffered by burgeoning oil revenues - Chavez‘s authoritarian moves, including most recently the closing
of opposition television stations, suggest that this unfortunate logic is playing itself out. To embrace
socialism today involves a risky leap of faith.
14.2 Saul’s views on Africa
If we define sub-Saharan Africa as excluding not only north Africa but also bracket off, for the moment,
the continent‘s southern cone, dominated by South Africa, the key fact about the rest—the greater part
of the continent—is thrown sharply into relief: after 80 years of colonial rule and almost four decades of
independence, in most of it there is some capital but not a lot of capitalism. The predominant social
relations are still not capitalist, nor are the prevailing logic of production. Africa south of the Sahara
exists in a capitalist world, which marks and constrains the lives of its inhabitants at every turn, but is
not of it. This is the fundamental truth from which any honest analysis must begin. This is what explains
why sub-Saharan Africa, with some 650 million people, over 10 percent of the world‘s population, has
just 3 percent of its trade and only 1 percent of its Gross Domestic Product.
14.3 The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania
The problem of "the state" as it presents itself in the context of "underdevelopment" has been under
theorized and little researched. Needless to say, it does not do so in a complete vacuum. Most notably,
Hamza Alavi has recently provided an important starting point for analysis of "the state in post-colonial
societies", premising his argument:
 "on the historical specificity of post-colonial societies, a specificity which arises from
structural changes brought about by the colonial experience and alignment of classes
and by the superstructures of political and administrative institutions which were
established in that context, and secondly from radical re-alignments of class forces
which have been brought about in the post-colonial situation."
In general, the propositions developed by Alavi in his analysis of Pakistan and Bangla Desh
prove most illuminating when applied to the Tanzanian experience – as will be seen in the following
pages. At the same time, such a comparison suggests certain qualifications and extensions of his
argument which are here discussed tentatively and fully in the spirit of Alavi's conclusion that
"comparative and critical studies are needed before we can hope to arrive at a general theory of the
State in post-colonial societies".
There are certain dangers in focusing upon Tanzania to make such points-a possible confusion
of the particular for the general for example, a danger which may be intensified with respect to
Tanzania because of that country's somewhat atypical post-colonial pattern of development. But there
is a compensating advantage of some significance: discussion of the Tanzanian case provides the
opportunity to work with an analytical literature of a very high order, a literature which is not widely
enough known outside East Africa. Specifically, the past few years have seen the emergence, around
the journal Majimaji, of important school of Tanzanian critics of that country's socialism". The body of
work which these writers have begun to produce is rooted in the Marxist tradition and it has provided a
stimulating domestic counter-weight to the formulations of President Nyerere, in terms of whose
approach to Tanzania much previous analysis has been conducted. As a result, a discussion of "the
state" with reference to Tanzanian experience can serve not only as an invitation to others to undertake
similar inquiries in a variety of African settings, but also as an opportunity to discuss critically this
"Majimaji school" of socialist theorists.
14.4 The State in Post-Colonial Societies
There are three points which define the crucial significance of the state in post-colonial societies-two of
which can be drawn directly from Alavi. For the first, we may quote at length:
"The bourgeois revolution in the colony in so far as that consists of the establishment of a
bourgeois state and the attendant legal and institutional framework, is an event which
takes place with the imposition of colonial rule by the metropolitan bourgeoisie. In carrying
out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution in the colony, however, the metropolitan
bourgeoisie has to accomplish an additional task which was specific to the colonial
situation. Its task in the colony is not merely to replicate the superstructure of the state
which it had established in the metropolitan country itself. Additionally, it had to create a
state apparatus through which it can exercise dominion over all the indigenous social
classes in the colony. It might be said that the "superstructure" in the colony is therefore,
"over-developed" in relation to the "structure" in the colony, for its basis lies in the
metropolitan structure itself, from which it is later separated at the time of independence.
The colonial state is therefore equipped with a powerful bureaucratic-military apparatus
and mechanisms of government which enable them through its routine operations to
subordinate the native social classes. The post-colonial society inherits that
overdeveloped apparatus of state and its institutionalized practices through which the
operations of indigenous social classes are regulated and controlled.‖
A second, complementary, point also can be drawn from Alavi, for the state's prominent place in
post-colonial society is rooted not only in the colonial legacy, but also in the contemporary production
process. "The apparatus of the state, furthermore assume(s) also a new and relatively autonomous
economic role, which is not paralleled in the classical bourgeois state. The state in the post-colonial
society directly appropriates a very large part of the economic surplus and deploys it in bureaucratically
directed economic activity in the name of promoting economic development". Since these two features
both characterize the East African situation, they also serve there, in Alavi's words, to "differentiate the
post-colonial State fundamentally from the state as analysed in classical Marxist theory".
There is a third feature, about which Alavi says little. In advanced capitalist countries the state is
the "dominant classes' political power centre" and, in this respect, comes to have an important
ideological function. For in fact it symbolizes the unity of the social formation, seeming to transcend any
narrow class or sectional interest and thus helping to legitimize the status quo. It is for this reason that
Poulantzas has conceived the state as being "not a class construct but rather the state of a society
divided into classes", a fact which does not negate the further reality that such a capitalist state "aims
precisely at the political disorganization of the dominated classes". But the state's function of providing
ideological cement for the capitalist system is one which has evolved slowly and surely in the imperial
centers, in step with the latter's economic transformation. In post-colonial societies, on the other hand,
and particularly in Africa, this hegemonic position must be created, and created within territorial
boundaries which often appear as quite artificial entities once the powerful force of direct colonial fiat
has been removed. Peripheral capitalism, like advanced capitalism, requires territorial unity and
legitimacy and the postcolonial state's centrality to the process of creating these conditions (like its
centrality in "promoting economic development") further reinforces Alavi's point about that state's
importance. Indeed, when viewed from a Marxist perspective, this is what all the fashionable discussion
of "nation-building" in development literature is all about!
These three points, taken together, help define the centrality of the state in the post-colonial
social formation. And this centrality, in turn, is sufficient to suggest the importance of those who staff
the state apparatus within such a formation. In Alavi's terms, the latter are members of "the military-
bureaucratic oligarchy", who thus come to play a semiautonomous role in the situation created by the
lifting of direct metropolitan control. The nature and extent of this autonomy--of the state and of those
who staff it-from the determinations of other classes more directly rooted in the production process
(Alavi identifies these as "the indigenous bourgeoisie, the Metropolitan neo-colonialist bourgeoisie, and
the landed classes") is more controversial. And it must be admitted that Alavi's answer to this question
is not entirely clear. He does suggest that the "oligarchy" acts "on behalf of [all three propertied classes]
to preserve the social order in which their interests are embedded, namely the institution of private
property and the capitalist mode as the dominant mode of production". Moreover, this would seem to
be the premise which underpins one of his explanations of the oligarchy's position:
". . . a new convergence of interests of the three competing propertied classes,
under Metropolitan patronage, allows a bureaucratic military oligarchy to mediate
their competing but no longer contradictory interests and demands. By that token it
acquires a relatively autonomous role and is not simply the instrument of any one
of the three classes."
But what is being claimed here? Does this autonomy arise because these classes balance each
other off, thus providing openings for the exercise of leverage by the "oligarchy" in their own interests,
or is some different concept at play? In fact, other of Alavi's observations cast doubt on his own use of
the term "convergence". Thus he notes on the one hand that "such a relatively autonomous role of the
state apparatus is of special importance to the neo-colonialist bourgeoisies because it is by virtue of
this fact that they are able to pursue their class interests in the postcolonial societies". Compare this
subservient status with the oligarchy's relationship to the "weak indigenous bourgeoisies": here it is the
latter who "find themselves enmeshed in bureaucratic controls by which those at the top of the
hierarchy of the bureaucratic-military apparatus of the state are able to maintain and even extend their
dominant power in society. . . ." Nor is it merely the notion of "convergence" which is called into
question by the existence of such gross imbalances between the three classes. What of Alavi's other
explanation of the oligarchy's autonomy: its ability to "mediate . . . between competing interests‖?
"Mediation" scarcely summarizes the oligarchy's drive to "extend their dominant power in society" at the
expense of the indigenous bourgeoisie, though this is the situation just described by Alavi. And what, in
any case, is the nature of the oligarchy's distinctive interest which any "autonomy" it may win permits it
to advance and defend?
East African experience reinforces the importance of these and related questions, in part
because the imbalances between the three classes is even more striking there than in South Asia. In
fact, the two indigenous classes to which Alavi refers-"the landed classes" and "the indigenous
bourgeoisies – are very much less prominent. This is true, in part, because of the nature of pre-colonial
African society. Historically, the colonial state in East Africa became "overdeveloped" not so much in
response to a need to "subordinate the native social classes" as a need to subordinate pre-capitalist,
generally non-feudal, social formations to the imperatives of colonial capitalism. As a result, there is no
equivalent, even today, to "the landed class"; rather, commercialization, directly towards capitalist
relations of production with scarcely any quasi-feudal stopovers along the way.' Nor has the
"indigenous bourgeoisie" developed even to the degree described by Alavi for Pakistan and Bangla
Desh. Primarily confined to retail trade and services, it has been mainly comprised of "Asians" (Indians)
rather than Africans, and this fact too has weakened such a class's ability to defend its stake in the
system.
At one level, this greater weakness of the indigenous classes might seem to strengthen the
positions of those who directly control the state apparatus – Alavi's oligarchy. But, as we have seen,
Alavi also emphasized the importance to the latter's power of its ability to mediate interests. It has
therefore appeared to some observers that, under East African circumstances (with weak indigenous
classes), the oligarchy falls much more directly under the thumb of the "Metropolitan neo-colonialist
bourgeoisie" – the transnational corporations whose influence may now seem even more imbalanced
and unalloyed there than in the case studied by Alavi. In consequence, certain theorists (like Fanon)
have presented the new oligarchies as mere transmission belts for these transnational: "the national
middle-class discovers its historic mission: that of intermediary.‖ And Issa Shivji, of whom we shall say
more later, was similarly tempted in his first essay on Tanzania to conclude that the real "socio-
economic base" of those elements who directly control the state lies "in the international bourgeoisie."
There is, of course, much truth in such an emphasis, but it remains an overstatement. True,
Alavi's attempt to premise an explanation of the relative "autonomy" of those elements which cluster
around the state upon the nature of the interplay of other classes in post-colonial society is not entirely
convincing, particularly with reference to East Africa. But some measure of autonomy does remain to
those elements nonetheless – autonomy rooted in the centrality of the state in these societies which
Alavi's other arguments, cited earlier, do in fact help to illuminate. Indeed, some analysts would
strengthen the point by extending the argument concerning the nature of the state's stake in the
production process beyond Alavi's rather bland statement that it deploys surpluses "in the name of
promoting economic development. Rather, they suggest that the strategic position which the state
occupies vis-8-vis the economy, including the privileged access to the surplus which is thus available to
the oligarchy, defines the latter's interest as being that of a class. Perhaps this is what Poulantzas has
in mind when he cites "the case of the state bourgeoisie in certain developing countries: the
bureaucracy may, through the state, establish a specific place for itself in the existing relations of
production. But in that case it does not constitute a class by virtue of being the bureaucracy, but by
virtue of being an effective class".
 Indeed, in East Africa where other indigenous classes are so relatively weak, the positions
articulated by Debray in his discussion of the Latin American "petty-bourgeoisie" may seem to such
analysts to be quite a propos: "it does not possess an infrastructure of economic power before it wins
political power. Hence it transforms the state not only into an instrument of political domination, but also
into a source of economic power. The state, culmination of social relations of exploitation in capitalist
Europe, becomes in a certain sense the instrument of their installation in these countries". Thus the use
of the state-through special financing arrangements, training programmes, manipulation of licenses and
the like-by newly-powerful elements in post-colonial Kenya to parachute themselves into the private
sector at the expense of the Asians is instructive in this respect. Moreover, Shivji suggests that a very
similar logic leads to a somewhat different result in Tanzania merely because of certain features
distinctive to the political economy of the latter country. But on the essential similarity of the process he
is quite outspoken. At the same time it must be emphasized that there are others, equally convinced of
the relative autonomy of the state in many post-colonial African settings, who would draw rather
different conclusions. In doing so, such observers have extended the notion of autonomy far beyond
anything conceived by Alavi, arguing that it can actually provide the initial lever for mounting socialist
development strategies in parts of Africa-including Tanzania! We must now turn directly to these
various formulations.
14.5 Models for Africa
Implicitly, some crude notion of the "autonomy" of the state lies at the root of modernization theory for
example. Much the least interesting of the three broad formulations we shall mention in this section, it is
a model which conceives of those who inherit the postcolonial state as "benign elites3,-the "new middle
class" or "the modernizers". Their role, within the trickle-down process of enlightenment from advanced
countries to backward countries, is naturally, to facilitate the "development", the modernization of their
"new nation". In addition, there is a left variant of this essentially benign interpretation- an interpretation
which, quite uncritically, sees this new stratum as a force for socialism! Of course, this has been the
stuff of Green has recently given this argument an academic formulation (albeit with primary reference
to Tanzania). Quite aware that "the elite" in many parts of Africa may, in the service of its own self-
interest, abuse both its opportunity for service and the trust of the mass of the people, Green
nonetheless concludes that, for some unexplained reason, this does not occur in a country like
Tanzania.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from the "benign" school are those who perceive in parts of
Africa the crystallization of a fully formed class around the apparatus of the state-a class with an
interest quite distinct from and antagonistic to the interests of the mass of the population. Fanon hints at
some such formulation, but it has been given its most vigorous scientific statement by Claude
Meillassoux in his important "class analysis of the bureaucratic process in Mali".16 He focuses on "the
bureaucrats", defining them as "a body generated by the colonizers to carry out the tasks which could
not (or would not) be undertaken by the Europeans themselves". In this capacity they were entrusted
with some of the instruments of power, notably with expertise. In other words, education and
government (and business) employment are the crucial features.
Meillassoux's findings parallel those of Alavi in several respects. There is, for example, the
subordination to imperialism of this "class‖: "Given the economic dependence of the country, the
bureaucracy is itself a dependent group, and its origin as an instrument of western interests continues
to influence its development. Instead of striving towards a real independence after winning the right to
assert itself as political intermediaries with the outside world, the bureaucrats are content to return (with
a higher international rank) under the rule of the old master." Furthermore, their position is consolidated
in contestation with (weak) indigenous classes: in the Mali case, an aristocracy (formerly slave-holders-
a class for which there is no equivalent in East Africa) and a fairly well-developed trading-class.
However, having gone so far, Meillassoux remains reluctant in the end to call this group a class
outright: "it is also crucial that a distinction be made between the class proper and the dependent social
elements which are the out-growth of classes, but which may, in specific historical circumstances,
assume important historical functions". Others, as we shall see, are prepared to go further in this
direction, but for the moment another of Meillassoux' points may be cited. In noting the bureaucracy's
attempt "to gain certain positions of control in the modern economy and to eliminate opposition
spreading from the Malian historical classes", he comments on their moves "to infiltrate the national
economy through the creation of a nationalized economic sector" as follows:
"This was done under the label of 'socialism' which provided them with a convenient
ideology to bring the economy under their control, supposedly of course on behalf of
the entire population. 'Socialism' permitted them to put the bureaucracy into the
position of a managerial board of a kind of State corporation."
This is striking; it is almost identically the analysis that Shivji seeks to document with respect to
"Tanzanian socialism." It also bears a remarkable resemblance to the analysis by Fitch and
Oppenheimer of Ghanaian developments under Nkrmuh. It is therefore interesting to note that a third
model of the role of the oligarchy-he does not, of course, use that term-was articulated by Roger
Murray precisely in the context of a brilliant critique of Fitch and Oppenheimer's position. Murray's is a
model which falls somewhere between the polar opposites of the "benign" and the "class" models
sketched above, and, like Meillassoux' argument, is of particular interest because it too foreshadows an
approach to Tanzanian developments, in this case an approach very different from Shivji's. Murray is
well aware of "the sedimenting of new and gross class and power dispositions centers upon the state"
in Ghana. Yet he is uneasy with Fitch and Oppenheimer's reduction of the socialist impulse there to the
status of "mere manipulation", suggesting that in so arguing the authors lapse into "pseudo-Marxist
determinism". A richer, more complex picture of those who inherit the overdeveloped state in the post-
colonial period is needed. Murray is trapped, almost inevitably, by the concreteness, the static and
undialectical nature, of terminology here for even categories like "unformed class" or "class-in-
formation" remain essentially tele-logical. Thus the "political class" to which he refers might really be
best considered a "political 'x' " since any other formulation (including the term "oligarchy") will mean
that the relative social autonomy and plasticity of the political class-in-formation is lost to view.
This is not to abandon class analysis. It is merely to highlight the "social uncertainty and
susceptibility to multiple determinations and influences which make the dimension of consciousness so
crucial to the Oppenheimer. The contradictory situation and experience of these typically transitional
and partial post-colonial ruling groups is mediated through the transformations, in coherences,
oscillations, 'false' and illusive representations and reconciliation at the level of ideology." Thus, in
discussing the CPP's left-turn in the early 1960s-a "new articulation of ideology and organization . . .
which made socialist Ghana something of a model type in possible postcolonial African development"--
Murray mentions as crucial factors not only the economic crisis of the late 1950s but also "the whole
trajectory of ideological evolution since the 1940 "Nor is this to underestimate the determinations which
encourage such elements-harassed by a "frustrated national bourgeoisie", seduced by the easy lure of
"bureaucratic consolidation" and alternately tempted and tormented by imperialism-to entrench
themselves as an "oligarchy" of dominant "class". Murray states clearly that there are real limits upon
what is "historically possible" under such conditions. But he does at least affirm the possibility, in the
realm of praxis, of a real struggle over the direction which development should take.
It follows that, if such a struggle is possible, it may take place precisely within this unformed "x",
between those of its members who seek to consolidate the neo-colonial set-up and those who are
moved, increasingly, to challenge it. Furthermore, such a model can then be interpreted as providing a
scientific basis for one of Amilcar Cabral's most suggestive metaphors. For Cabral, in identifying the
"revolutionary" wing of a crucial class in formation which he dubs the "petty bourgeoisie" (and which is
strikingly similar in many of its characteristics to that "political class" discussed by Murray), states that
"this revolutionary petty bourgeoisie is honest; i.e. in spite of all the hostile conditions it remains
identified with the fundamental interests of the popular masses. To do this it may have to commit
suicide, but it will not lose; by sacrificing itself it can reincarnate itself, but in the condition of workers
and peasant^."^' As Murray demonstrates, there were no significant sections of the Ghanaian
leadership who could bring themselves, ultimately, to "commit suicide" in this sense. Nor did the CPP,
the political expression of that leadership, realize any such possibility, failing as it did even to attempt
the effective mobilization of that active popular base which could alone have guaranteed forward
momentum in the longer run. What of Tanzania? Clearly, Walter Rodney's application of Cabral to the
Tanzanian situation is of interest in this respect.
14.6 Socialism and the State in Tanzania
Turning to Tanzania, we may note at the outset that each of the models sketched in Section II has
found its echo in the wide-ranging debate about the nature of Tanzania's "socialism". Thus, the "right
benign" interpretation is seen at its most sophisticated in the writings of Cranford Pratt who eventually
gives most bureaucrats and politicians in Tanzania high marks as "developers", despite what to him
appear as the unnerving hi-jinks of some few "political ministers" and the occasional dangers of a
"doctrinaire determination of policies". We have already taken note of Green's "left-benign" variant.
Both wings of this approach present much too oversimplified an account to warrant their further
discussion here. Rather, the really significant differences of scientific opinion lie between what are, in
effect and broadly speaking, the protagonists of the Meillassoux and of the Murray/ Cabral models.
On the one-hand and closer to Meillassoux are "the Majimaji socialists", most notably Issa
Shivji, author of two of the most important papers to have emerged from the Tanzanian debate. It is in
point to recapitulate his argument concerning the nature of class struggle in post-colonial Tanzania, for
it is also a significant statement concerning the nature of the state there. As noted earlier, Shivaji‘s
scepticism about the socialist vocation of wielders of state power in Tanzania first found theoretical
expression in his attempt to view these elements as quite straight forward agents of the international
bourgeoisie. His second paper continues to stress the extent to which such elements service the
interests of international capitalism, but he has gone on to develop a much more sophisticated analysis
of their own stake in the system.
The class which takes power is, once again, the "petty-bourgeoisie", particularly its "upper level"
("the intelligentsia") identified, rather eclectically, as comprised of "intellectuals, teachers, higher civil
servants, prosperous traders, farmers, professionals, higher military and police officers". The inclusion
of the (African) "traders" and "farmers" in this class and in the nationalist coalition is not crucial,
however "one of the outstanding features of the petty-bourgeoisie was that they overwhelmingly came
from the urban-based occupations, with some education and some knowledge of the outside world.
This class spearheads the struggle against the colonial state. In doing so, their interests merely
"coincide with those of the broad masses". The same is true, Shivji states, for the next stage of
development-the struggle with the Indian "commercial bourgeoisie". The role of the latter class-cum-
ethnic group-which has controlled the intermediate sectors of the economy-is analysed by Shivji with
great subtlety; in fact, he has provided the first really convincing class analysis of the Asian community
in East Africa to date. On the African side he extends his analysis in a manner which is much more
controversial.
Shivji does note that the weakness of the petty-bourgeoisie referred to here "is due to the fact
that it is still 'embryonic'; the whole class structure is in the process of formation". The same caveat is
introduced with reference to the bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Is it "a class as distinct from the petty
bourgeoisie"? Not quite. "Suffice to say that the post independence class struggles (including the
Arusha Declaration) were themselves a process leading to the emergence of the 'bureaucratic
bourgeoisie'. The process may not be complete." But having noted this, Shivji, unlike Murray, does not
draw back from his terms. He is unconcerned with the weight of teleology which they bear. As he
proceeds with his analysis, classes-in-formation behave, unambiguously, like fully formed classes. And
this is the chief weakness of his argument.
For Shivji, in sum, the "historical moment" is by no means "uncertain". On the contrary, he now
uses this conception of Tanzania's class structure-straightforwardly and however much the "structure"
may be "in the process of formation5'-to explain the history of postcolonial Tanzania: it is the case of "a
non-proletarian class after coming to political power….now trying to wrest an economic base" from the
commercial bourgeoisie. Half-measures, like the encouragement of the cooperatives, having failed, "the
only alternative, both for further struggle against the commercial bourgeoisie and for further penetration
of the economy, was state intervention" : "it was thus that the Arusha Declaration was born in 1967".
Socialism as "mere manipulation: Shivji comes very close to such a position. Nevertheless, he
does recognize that there is some difficulty in reconciling this with the Arusha Declaration Leadership
Code-a code designed to prevent leaders from involving themselves, profitably, in the private sector.
Here Shivji's explanation, in order to save his hypothesis, is that "the ideology had gained the upper
hand, for even rhetoric has its own momentum and can have important effects on concrete measures".
This would also appear to be his "explanation" for the very real constraints (certainly as compared with
other parts of Africa) on elite income and consumption which have been a part of Tanzania's socialism".
In addition, Shivji states, as if to reinforce his general argument that the Code has often been flouted
since its inception. This, in turn, suggests (quite accurately) that there was a "spontaneous" tendency
for "leaders" to overlap into the private sector-as in neighbouring Kenya. Yet such a reality seems to
contradict Shivji's emphasis. Why didn't the petty-bourgeoisie use the state to facilitate their own
movement in upon the Asians on a private basis-again, as in Kenya-rather than publicly and
collectively? Shivji is aware of this problem, of course, and his explanation is of considerable interest:
"In Kenya, there were important sections of the petty bourgeoisie-yeoman farmers and
traders, for example besides the urban-based intelligentsia, who had already
developed significant 'independent' roots in the colonial economy. Thus the petty
bourgeoisie itself as a class was strong and different sections within it were more or
less at par. This considerably reduced the power of the 'ruling clique' irrespective of its
immediate possession of the state apparatus and kept it 'tied' to its class base the petty
bourgeoisie."
But this does not convince. Even if the entrepreneurial elements were stronger in transitional
Kenya, the difference from Tanzania was not as striking as Shivji suggests and in any case these
Kenyan Africans' commercial opponents (European and Asian) were themselves much stronger than
any counterparts in Tanzania; thus the relative economic weight of the African entrepreneurs cannot
have been that much different. Moreover, it is quite unnecessary to make such subtle distinctions. As
noted, it seems obvious that large sections of Shivji's bureaucratic bourgeoisie continue to cast envious
glances at their civil servant and political counterparts in Kenya and at the gross (and rewarding)
"conflicts of interest" which serve to characterize Kenyan economic and political life. And, being
disproportionately drawn from commercialized, cash-cropping rural areas like Kilimanjaro and Bukoba,
they do in fact have intimate (familial) connections with a yeomanry". Unless contested, such a group
would have had Tanzania gravitate in the Kenyan direction, a point made by Nyerere himself on more
than one occasion. It is difficult, in fact, to avoid the conclusion that the Arusha Declaration package of
policies-the opting for collective solutions to the Tanzanian development problem-represented, first and
foremost, an initial victory for a progressive wing of the petty bourgeoisie (and the announcement of its
continuing commitment to the interests of the workers and peasants), rather than some coldblooded
fulfillment of the class interests of that stratum's bureaucratic core.
This difference of opinion requires detailed exploration of a kind {hat is beyond the scope of the
present paper. Suffice to say that for Shivji this kind of "manipulation" also tends to characterize each of
the specific arenas of post-Arusha policy-making, while for each such arena it can be shown that this is
an oversimplification. Take, for example, the "ujamaa village" programme (designed to promote a
Tanzanian brand of agricultural collective), in Shivji's eyes merely a calculated and perfunctory gesture-
an expression of "intermittent ideological hostility" to "kulaks"-designed to maintain for the petty
bourgeoisie its "popular peasant base". But this was not an immediately popular policy even among
much of the peasantry; support for it would have to be created, sometimes in a manner (as in Ismani)
which challenged the local dignitaries of the party itself. Nor is it entirely true that this policy was "not
basically against the interests of the petty bourgeoisie". The fact that in practice bureaucrats often
worked hard to defuse the policy by directing it away from the "advanced" areas (Kilimanjaro and
Bukoba mentioned above) and towards more defenceless, backward regions (with many fewer kulaks)
testifies to their uneasiness. Nor were the extensive nationalizations of 1967 merely a charade.
International capitalism was stung and the conventional wisdom of most civil servants visibly affronted.
In other words, these and other initiatives represented real achievements in a transition towards
socialism.37 That the full potential of these policies' possible contribution to such a transition has not
been realized is, of course, also true, a point to which we shall return.
However, there is one crucial area of inquiry which cannot be passed over here and which also
sheds considerable light on the issue under discussion. Thus, Shivji argues that the main contradiction
in Tanzania is now between the working-class and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and cites the dramatic
assertions of Tanzania's working-class in recent years. Indeed, the further investigation of this subject
by Shivji's colleague, Henry Mapolu, reveals a level of proletarian action in Tanzania which is virtually
unparalleled elsewhere in Africa.
Beginning with the downing of tools and with lock-outs, some Tanzanian workers had moved, by
1973, to the stage of actually occupying factories (both state-owned and private) and continuing
production on their own. And the issues were not, by and large, of a conventionally consumptionist
nature. Disputes concerned, firstly, "the question of humiliation and oppression on their person by
managements" and, ultimately, "issues of general mismanagement and sabotage of the country's
economy". Predictably, such initiatives began to earn reprisals from the bureaucracy (including police
intervention and arrests), thus polarizing the Tanzanian situation to an unprecedented degree.
It is precisely to this "still on-going struggle among the nizers" that Freyhold traces the socialist
impulse in Tanzania: "In 1967 an enlightened political leadership had decided that Tanzania should not
turn into a neo-colonial society. The Leadership, Code was to cut the links between public office-
holders and petty capitalism and nationalizations were to bring foreign capital under control. . . . Both
measures were . . . a vital first step." And the direction of further steps also remains, in her eves, a
contested matter. "While the transformation of the nizers is an obvious prerequisite for the promised
creation of a socialist society it is obvious that it will not proceed without a protracted struggle within
that educated stratum itself. As long as the future is undecided there are still two ways in which one can
look at the present educated stratum: as a nascent petty bourgeoisie which will not only be a faithful
agent of international capital but which will eventually solidify into a class with petty capitalist
connections and orientations ." Of course, the general definitional problem has probably not been laid
to rest by Freyhold's coinage, suggestive though it is; nor does she directly address herself to Shivji's
prognosis of bureaucratic consolidation without "petty capitalist connections". But the emphasis seems
to me to be basically correct.
 The negative weight of "objective conditions' has been reinforced by subjective conditions. As
Murray's analysis would suggest, ideological contestation in Tanzania has been a creative factor of
great importance, with Nyerere's formulations in particular being crucial to facilitating a move to the left.
But this ideology of the progressive "nizers" has also been marked by inadequacies which some might
like to term "petty bourgeois" in nature: hostility to Marxism, for example, and the consequent lack of a
fully scientific analysis of imperialism and class struggle. And this problem has been compounded by a
much too sanguine reliance on existing institutions of the inherited state (Ministries and Cabinets, an
untransformed party) which cannot easily be turned to purposes of Socialist construction. As
demonstrated in my earlier essay, these factors too have made it difficult for Nyerere and others to
consolidate their original initiatives. The results are paradoxical (and not pre-ordained, A la Shivji). The
conservative wing of the nizers now threatens to inherit a socialist initiative (and an even more
"overdeveloped" state than existed at the moment of independence) in the creation of which it had little
hand but which it has sought to warp to its own purposes from the moment of the policy's first being
announced.
The critique of Shivji is also a qualification of Alavi's approach. Apart from points made earlier
concerning the important differences in context which East Africa presents, and some of the
implications of these differences, it can now be argued that Alavi's approach is too rigid to fully
comprehend the uncertainties which define the historical process in the immediate post-colonial period.
In Tanzania, his "oligarchies" become such only more slowly and with much more ambiguous results
than his model would lead one to expect. At the same time it can be firmly stated that the pressures
which moves the situation towards such an unsavoury result as he seeks to theorize are indeed
powerful. And, as noted, there is no doubt that these pressures have been, and are continually, making
themselves felt upon Tanzania. As a result, ―oligarchical" tendencies-the consolidation of Shivji's
"bureaucratic bourgeoisie" (self-interested and ever more subservient to imperialism)-seem to have
been the increasingly obvious result.
Has the further development of this trend altered perspectives on practice in Tanzania? Writing
two years ago I felt confident to conclude a survey of Tanzania's efforts at socialist construction in the
following terms: "Indigenous radicals will decide their own fates. Yet the fact that almost all have
chosen to work within the established structures and upon the regime is no accident. And there is still
some significant contestation within the "petty bourgeoisie" and within the established institution. But
where, for example, one could then argue, with some confidence, that the control of working-class
organization by party and state had played, despite the costs, a positive role in curbing consumptionism
and raising worker consciousness, there is now reason to be more sceptical about the logic of
continuing control. Faced with "nizers" more bent than ever upon consolidating their power,
independent organization of the working-class may seem an increasingly important goal.50 Similarly,
the time may be approaching when the independent political organization of progressive elements,
already a (difficult) priority in most other one-party and military/administrative regimes in Africa,
becomes a priority for Tanzania as well. Smash the post-colonial state or use it? But this is really a
question which can only be asked, and answered, by those engaged in significant praxis within
Tanzania itself.
14.7 The Politics of Marginalization
What accounts for the degeneration of Africa‘s erstwhile ―developmental states‖? A sad story of
inexperience, incompetence, corruption, ethnic competition, decline, indebtedness; then structural
adjustment, state contraction, state breakdown, war; further decline, further war: such is the
consistently over generalized media account tinged, all too often, with a barely-concealed element of
racism. But ―it is merely in the night of our ignorance that all alien shapes take on the same hue.‖ In
fact, several quite different trajectories are discernible in the histories of African states, with different
potentials for the future.
To understand this we must backtrack briefly to the 1960s. The newly independent African states
inherited the colonial state structures, geared to expanding export production of taxable primary crops
and minerals. For political support, the new leaders had to rely not on urban working classes or middle
classes, who mostly barely existed, but on rural notables, whose allegiance they secured through
chains of patronage stretching from the ministers‘ offices to the villages. By the mid-1970s—sooner in
many places—this system had become unstable. There was not enough patronage to go round and
those excluded from it mobilized their districts and ethnic groups in increasingly unmanageable
opposition. In response to this, ―centralized bureaucratic‖ regimes were created in which an all-powerful
President controlled the patronage system with the help of a centralized bureaucracy and army; the
best-known examples are perhaps Nyerere‘s Tanzania, Kenyatta‘s (and Moi‘s) Kenya, and Mobutu‘s
Zaire, but there were others. Where this kind of system was not created, ―clientelism‖ persisted without
central control and degenerated into ever more unstable ―spoils‖ systems—Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, amongst others—in which everything was eventually up for plunder. Economic
decline tended to be faster and worse in spoils systems, but virtually no regime was immune from the
economic regression of the early 1980s. The impact of the structural adjustment that followed was
severe on both kinds of regime. At this point, however, significant differences emerged in the capacity
of African states of both kinds to survive, due to important differences in their underlying economic and
social structures.
States that relied on peasant export production for revenue and growth had had to build robust
links with the rural areas and these proved surprisingly resilient even in face of the acute stresses of
structural adjustment, especially when centralized bureaucratism had maintained a degree of prudential
control over inequality and injustice in the way state patronage was deployed. States that depended on
mineral exports from foreign-run mining enclaves, however, had not needed to develop such
widespread networks of support, and this proved a crucial weakness in the new situation. Moreover
mineral exports offered extremely rich and vulnerable pickings to well-armed gangs that armies were
less and less able or willing to combat; indeed in many cases the new warlords were former military
officers who had struck out on their own as army pay and privileges dried up and armies disintegrated
in the wake of coups, counter-coups, and civil wars. It is therefore in mineral-rich countries like Angola
and Congo/DRC, with less developed political links to the rural areas—and especially where extreme
―spoils politics‖ had already ruined the state (as in Sierra Leone and Liberia)—that warlordism, fueled
by oil and diamonds, threatens to become endemic.24 In this region of Africa, says defense specialist
Dale Grant, ―what is left of the old Belgian Congo has become a vast pipeline for African rebel
movements to smuggle gems and minerals out of their own nations and into the world market.‖ He
adds:
Even the promise of concessions before a victory is won is a marketable commodity, a sort of
futures‘ market in African outcomes. In early 1997, Kabila sent a representative to Toronto to talk to the
mining companies about ―investment opportunities.‖ This man may have raised as much as $50 million
to support Kabila‘s march on the capital of Kinshasa. A few months later, the Canadian mining industry
was reading announcements like this May 1997 press release [before Kabila was in power]:
―Vancouver, B.C. Tenke Mining Corp…is pleased to announce that the Alliance of Democratic Forces
for the liberation of Congo-Zaire has signed an agreement ….‖ Kabila was not in power when this
statement was made. The AFDL is a political fig leaf for his personal rule. His final push to power was
spearheaded by fresh troops with new uniforms, weapons and vehicles.
Of course export crop economies are not immune to the risk of warlordism, which can spill over
from neighboring countries (e.g., from the Congo and Sudan to northern and western Uganda) or arise
from other causes; the originally ethno-religious conflict in southern Sudan is a tragic case in point, and
also illustrates the way humanitarian aid to the victims of warlordism can become another source of
funding for warlordism, with rival forces extracting a large share for themselves as the price of allowing
any of it to reach sick and starving civilians. But in the long run warlordism probably does need a
source of revenues greater than peasant-export crop production can provide, and by no means are all
African countries doomed to undergo it. On the other hand, small-scale production of export crops
alone spells continuing economic marginalization. It is hardly credible that successive generations of
young Africans will be content to accept this, and political networks of rural notables held together by
patronage, as the last word in African economic and political development.
14.8 Socialism and South Africa
There was, of course, another trajectory to African politics—some states which professed to bend the
logic of global capitalism in favor of more progressive outcomes: Ghana, Tanzania, and Mozambique,
among others. The earliest of these attempts, most often instigated from the top down and more
populist than socialist perhaps (―African Socialism‖), foundered in both developmental and democratic
terms, although not in the long-run any more noticeably than did their African capitalist counterparts.
Still, the absence of self-conscious class action from below, the administrative and ideological
weaknesses of the leaderships, and the severe challenge of finding space for autonomous maneuver
within the global economy proved intractable. Better sited, in Chris Allen‘s view, were socialist attempts
of more Marxist provenance that grew out of some of the liberation struggles in southern Africa, most
notably in Mozambique. In such cases it remains difficult to extract the morals to be drawn from their
ultimate failure, because they were given so little scope to learn from their initial mistakes as a result of
the vicious destabilization they experienced at the hands of apartheid South Africa and various hostile
western interests (Reagan-inspired ―rollback,‖ for example).
Still, certain characteristic weaknesses of their socialist practice are discernible, contributing at
least in part to the often grim outcome—including resubordination to the most overbearing of demands
from global capitalism—of the projects mounted in such countries as Mozambique and Angola: far too
many instances of overweening industrial plans and of forced villagization in the countryside, far too
little democratic sensibility towards the complex values and demands of their presumed popular
constituencies. Future attempts to develop counter-hegemonic projects in Africa will have to learn
lessons from such experiences and also determine how to disentangle, for purposes of popular
mobilization, the discredited notion of socialism from this troubled past.
In this respect the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa was once thought to hold some special
promise. Recall Magdoff and Sweezy‘s mid-1980s formulation in these pages to the effect that ―[South
Africa‘s] system of racial segregation and repression is a veritable paradigm of capitalist super-
exploitation. It has a white monopoly capitalist ruling class and an advanced black proletariat. It is so far
the only country with a well developed, modern capitalist structure which is not only ‗objectively‘ ripe for
revolution but has actually entered a stage of overt and seemingly irreversible revolutionary struggle.‖
Magdoff and Sweezy did leave open the possibility of other, less palatable outcomes, but noted, by way
of summary of what was at stake, that ―a victory for counter-revolution—the stabilization of capitalist
relations in South Africa even if in somewhat altered form—would…be [a] stunning defeat for the world
revolution.‖ Unfortunately, if measured against such a standard, defeat would seem to be an
appropriate description of what has transpired during the present decade in South Africa. For ―the
stabilization of capitalist relations‖ is, by any measure, one clear attribute of that country‘s transition.
True, there have been many other devastating defeats for the cause of ―world revolution‖ since
those words were written, but the implications for Africa of the taming of South Africa‘s promise in this
respect may serve to reinforce the gloomy mood evoked above. At the same time, others may see a
different kind of promise in South Africa‘s size and relatively high level of development in economic
terms. As Manuel Castells reminds us, ―South Africa accounts for 44 percent of the total GDP of all
sub-Saharan Africa, and 52 percent of its industrial output.‖ In consequence, he suggests, ―the end of
apartheid in South Africa, and the potential linkage between a democratic, black majority-ruled South
Africa and African countries, at least those in eastern/southern Africa, allows us to examine the
hypothesis of the incorporation of Africa into global capitalism under new, more favourable conditions
via the South African connection.‖
No doubt (as Castells‘ himself soon concedes) South Africa‘s continental importance in this
respect can be overstated. After all, it occupies only the southern tip of what is a vast continent. Even
more to the point, the ANC‘s decision to abandon the more directive and mobilizational ―growth through
redistribution‖ model that initially drove its project has produced a market-driven, export-competitive,
neo-liberal strategy that, pace Castells, has limited promise of growth and even less promise of
delivering substantial returns to the vast mass of South Africa‘s own impoverished population. Not only
have possible alternatives been abandoned then, but, as even Castells concludes, ―the real problem for
South Africa is how to avoid being pushed aside itself from the harsh competition in the new global
economy, once its economy is open. And there is also the question of just what the fallout from hopes
denied in South Africa will ultimately be: political decay, heightened criminality, increased
authoritarianism—or reactivation of the popular struggle to realize humane and genuinely
developmental socio-economic outcomes?
14.9 Colin Leys
Colin Leys is an honorary professor at Goldsmiths University of London. Colin Leys lives in London. He
is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario and an Honorary
Professor at the Centre for International Public Health Policy at the University of Edinburgh. He is the
author of Market-Driven Politics: He is a member of the management team of the Centre for Health and
the Public Interest. Colin Leys was employed as an academic at various universities of Oxford (Balliol
College), Makerere (Uganda), Sussex, Kivukoni College in Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania; Nairobi(Kenya), Sheffield, and Queen's University, Canada, where he is an
emeritus professor of Political Studies. He also holds an honorary professorship at Goldsmiths
University of London. Until 2009 he was co-editor of the Socialist Register. His research has been on
the political economy of development in Africa and the UK.
The dream of contemporary capitalism is that everything should become a terrain of profitable
enterprise, including most of what has been seen hitherto as the business of government. Like total
war, total capitalism demands the subordination of everything to a single goal - national
competitiveness, as defined by trans-national corporate elites. The result is a dramatic erosion of
democracy, social cohesion and honesty in public life. The three essays collected here, which have
been hailed as 'modern classics', summarise a decade of critical analysis of these dynamics. The Rise
and Fall of Development Theory' shows how neoliberal globalisation put an end to the concept of
development as a collective endeavour and marginalised the two-centuries old intellectual tradition it
rested on. 'Market-Driven Politics' analyses the determining features of the new politics: since the end
of capital controls, the politics of once-sovereign states have become more and more integrated with
market forces: voters no longer set the political agenda and the business of government becomes the
business of adapting public opinion to the perceived interests of business. 'The Cynical State' analyses
what happens to policy-making and the quality of public debate under total capitalism. The privatisation
of public services is a cardinal element of total capitalism, producing a dynamic that is lethal to public
accountability and social solidarity.
 ―Total Capitalism: Market Politics, Market State‖ (2007) a book written by Colin Leys, is about
the way capitalism has been transformed from an economic system controlled – in some countries, and
always with difficulty – by democracy, into a largely uncontrolled system that increasingly invades the
whole of life. Just as total war is war fought without limitations, by whole societies, total capitalism
invades and dominates every sphere of life, public and private. It takes over what used to be the ‗public
sector‘ – including health, social services, education and research – and increasingly controls and
saturates intellectual and artistic life, and turns politics into a business. Instead of being an agent of the
electorate, the state increasingly becomes a servant of Capital. This theme is pursued first in relation to
the countries of the South, in an essay on development theory, and then in two essays which use
Britain as a case study in order to describe a process that has now become literally world-wide. An
introduction brings out the links between the three essays, arguing for the need for a new kind of
democratic politics capable of defeating and replacing capitalism before it devours the biosphere and
plunges the world into irreversible violence.
In another paper ‗The Cynical State‘ Colin Leys argues that state cynicism has broken new
ground. The British government's flagrant abuse of military intelligence to persuade parliament and the
public to endorse its attack on Iraq was a dramatic case in point. Most famously, Blair told the House of
Commons that it was 'completely and totally untrue' that there was disquiet in the intelligence
community over the 45-minute claim, but a senior intelligence officer told the enquiry that he and one of
his colleagues had submitted a written report about their disquiet. These stories, which could be
replicated for almost any field of public policy in contemporary Britain, illustrate the emergence of a
new, neoliberal policy regime that is more brazenly willing to dissemble, more indifferent to evidence,
more aggressive towards critics and distinctly less accountable--to the point of being virtually
unaccountable--than ever before. This policy regime is not peculiarly British. The old 'liberal/social
democratic' policy regime which it has displaced did have distinctively British features. The new
neoliberal policy regime is a more standardized affair. It not only spans the Atlantic but thanks to
neoliberal globalization it is being gradually replicated, in essentials, throughout the world. Its key
feature is that policy is now fundamentally about national competitiveness and responding to global
market forces. The crucial roles are played neither by political parties nor by civil servants but by
personnel seconded into the civil service from the private sector, a handful of 'special advisers' to the
prime minister, a small group of certified market-friendly civil servants, and polling, advertising and
media experts. Scientific evidence is still relied on, but only in so far as it serves competition policy;
otherwise it is treated uncritically, if it helps the government, and dismissed if it does not. When this
new policy regime is properly understood the lies about Iraq no longer appear as a special case, but
only as a special dimension of a general one. Cynicism, we realize, is a necessary condition of
neoliberal democracy.
In his paper ―Underdevelopment in Kenya‖ Colin Leys argues that with the globalisation of the
capitalist economy the economic role of national governments is now largely confined to controlling
inflation and facilitating home-grown market performance. This represents a fundamental shift in the
relationship between politics and economics; it has been particularly marked in Britain, but is relevant to
many other contexts. Market-Driven Politics is a multi-level study, moving between an analysis of global
economic forces through national politics to the changes occurring week by week in two fields of public
life that are both fundamentally important and familiar to everyone…television broadcasting and health
care. Public services like these play an important role, because they both affect the legitimacy of the
government and are targets for global capital. This book provides an original analysis of the key
processes of commodification of public services, the conversion of public-service workforces into
employees motivated to generate profit, and the role of the state in absorbing risk. Understanding the
dynamics of each of these trends becomes critical not just for the analysis of market-driven politics but
also for the longer-term defence of democracy and the collective values on which it depends.
Self Assessment Questions
1. Define Neo Colonialism
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
2. Define Socialism in third world.
____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

14.10 Contradictions of Neo-colonialism

The account of Kenyan history in the 1960s which has been put forward in this book has been the
result of trying to answer a series of questions posed by underdevelopment theory: what was the nature
of the impact of capitalism on the economies of pre-colonial Kenya; what was the nature of the colonial
economy; how did that economy change with the ending of direct colonial rule; what was the role
played by social classes in this transition, and in the subsequent course of political change. To the
extent that my answers to these questions are valid, what do they collectively imply?
14.11 A Recapitulation
In the first place, the colonial economy in Kenya was highly monopolistic. Capital was appropriated
from the African population through primitive accumulation (land alienation and forced labour) and
through wage labour. Some of the surplus flowed to Britain as profits and also through unequal trade.
The transition from colonialism to neo-colonialism was a planned one, aimed at preserving the greater
part of the monopolistic colonial economic structure in the interests of large-scale commercial, financial
and estate capital by coming to terms with those leaders in the nationalist movement — a majority —
who represented the new petty-bourgeois strata which had been formed throughout most of Kenya
under colonialism. This bargain was sealed in 1961-2 under the pressure of the crisis in the colonial
economy. The critical issue was the terms of the transfer of mixed farms in the highlands from
Europeans to Africans. The decision that the incoming Africans should pay for the farms at full market
value underwrote the position of foreign capital in the remainder of the economy, and the protection of
private property in general.
The neo-colonial system was consolidated in the years after 1963 by a combination of policies
which had a common double thread running through them: on the one hand, the adaptation of the
‗peasant‘ modes of production to the capitalist mode in new ways, and on the other, the establishment
of the new African petty-bourgeois strata within sectors of the economy formerly reserved for foreign
capital. The settlement schemes were planned so as to protect the remaining large farm sector,
financed so as to reinforce the regime‘s commitment to foreign property, and substantially abandoned
when further settlement of the smallholding variety seemed no longer to serve the immediate needs of
foreign — in this case essentially British — capital. The large farm sector was preserved even though
its economically parasitic nature was increasingly admitted, both because its preservation was cheaper
than settlement from the point of view of the British government, and because by the mid-1960s it had
already become a substantial vested interest of the African petty-bourgeoisie, including many politicians
and higher civil servants. The incoming African large-scale farmers were wholly dependent on state-
administered foreign capital (as credit) and still more dependent than their white predecessors on
monopolies, which they succeeded in extending through their political influence over agricultural prices
and in other ways. Meanwhile throughout the rest of the country the systems of land tenure were
converted to freehold private ownership: property relations were brought into line with the dominant
productive relations so as to ensure that peasant production would be adapted to and would
supplement capitalist production, not challenge it.
Foreign capital was on the whole little affected. A modest proportion — probably less than 15
per cent of the total in 1963 -moved out of mixed farming, partly abroad and partly into manufacturing,
tourism and other ‗growth‘ sectors. New foreign capital, largely belonging to multinational firms, moved
into the same sectors from abroad. These sectors, and the long-established estate sector, remained
almost wholly foreign-owned. Profits were high, as was the real level of the transfer of profits overseas.
The government sought with some success to control foreign capital, to prevent it exporting surplus
accumulated by the employment of domestic savings, to prevent it avoiding taxation and to make it
employ Kenyan executives. The government also entered into a number of joint ventures with foreign
capital and even bought virtually full ownership of the electricity industry. These measures, however,
were conceived largely in the interests of Kenyan Capital; their main immediate effects were a
substantial outflow of capital (the purchase price of the government‘s share acquisitions) and a
substantial expansion of credit from the government-controlled banks to Kenyan businessmen. The
manufacturing sector remained overwhelmingly foreign-owned. Although the multinationals‘ Kenyan
plants were not always as capital-intensive as their plants in Europe or the USA or Japan, the fact that
they were producing for a limited and predominantly middle-class market still made them low users of
labour and heavy users of imported inputs. A small section of the wage-labour force obtained large
wage increases during the 1960s. The bulk of the wage-labour force, however, was paid as much as its
weak bargaining position, in a situation of rising unemployment, enabled it to secure, i.e. low and barely
rising real wages. The government‘s measures to curb the power of the trade unions reinforced this and
the share of wages in national income declined and that of profits rose. Most of the country‘s wage-
workers — about a million people in all were ‗super-exploited‘, depending for survival on supplementary
income from family agriculture.
The Kenyan businessmen whom government measures sought to establish within the capitalist
mode of production were principally small retail traders, bar-owners, small-scale transporters, builders,
and the like. Their numbers expanded as Asian competition was progressively excluded and credit was
channelled towards them on favourable terms. However the pressure from new entrants to ‗business‘,
added to shortages of capital and know-how, made their position precarious and what they sought was
a protective symbiosis with large-scale foreign capital, or forms of state monopoly which closely
paralleled the situation in agriculture. The growth of their numbers, coupled with their strong
representation in the government and the higher bureaucracy, enabled them to secure extensive
political concessions as well as assistance from foreign capital. At the same time the absolute position
attained by African non-agricultural capital by the end of the 1960s only appeared striking in relation to
its almost complete exclusion from the urban scene under colonialism; the effective share of the total
surplus appropriated by African capitalists remained very modest.
The class structure which both determined and was determined by these developments was still
relatively ‗plastic‘ but it‘s essential features were clear. The various petty-bourgeois strata represented
by the majority of the political leadership at independence gradually gave rise to an ‗auxiliary
bourgeoisie‘ tightly linked to foreign capital. The consolidation of their position involved them in
struggles with the mass of the population, the ‗industrial peasantry‘, which took many varied forms: the
most dramatic at this period was the decisive defeat of the ‗radical‘ opposition which eventually
crystallized in the KPU. Radical politicians among both the Luo and the Kikuyu expressed the hostility
to all aspects of imperialism — including its neo-colonial forms — which had been generated during the
anti-colonial struggle. They drew support from poor and landless peasants and workers, as well as from
various petty-bourgeois elements — especially ‗middle‘ peasants and small traders -who felt deprived
of their proper share of state services, licences, contracts, etc. The main reason for the complete defeat
of this alliance lay in its own internal contradictions. The political aims of the KPU leaders were
essentially petty-bourgeois in character — a ‗fairer‘ distribution of land, more help for the ‗little man‘ in
business, and so on — although they were given a socialist flavour both by the established rhetoric of
African nationalism, and by the fact that their opponents were so closely identified with foreign capital.
Their commitment to parliamentary and electoral politics made them easy game for a regime which did
not scruple to alter the rules. More fundamentally, their standpoint made them look for support among
an electorate the majority of whom were just in the process of being confirmed in the individual
ownership of land, and whose interests were therefore opposed to those of people whose plots were
too small or who were landless. The result was a compromised programme, which eventually
succumbed to tribalism. The decisive moment in the defeat of the KPU was not its banning, but
Kaggia‘s decision to abandon it, which in the end only anticipated by about a year the decision of most
of the other KPU leaders to exchange their release from prison for an agreement to rejoin KANU. In
due course most of them were reabsorbed into the ruling alliance through a variety of salaried
appointments.
These processes constituted Kenya‘s experience of underdevelopment under neo-colonialism.
The economy was far from static; during these years, although the poor remained poor, it is doubtful if
they became, in aggregate, absolutely poorer. What the mass of the people experienced was, rather, a
consolidation of their subjection to the power of capital. This was still overwhelmingly an alien power,
though increasingly linked to the political power of domestic capital. It meant a continuation of the
structure of exploitation and domination established by colonial rule, which for the vast majority of the
population meant a continuing prospect of hard, unproductive labour mainly for the benefit of others,
accompanied by growing inequality, insecurity, social inferiority and the virtually complete absence of
political rights.
Yet there was nothing permanent or inescapable about this, in Kenya any more than elsewhere.
Any impression of an unbreakable structure, locked in a stable equilibrium, is not based in reality but in
the way the facts are interpreted. Speaking generally, after all, the evidence of events throughout the
third world suggests the reverse: neo-colonialism is a structure of contradictions which elsewhere have
progressively transformed relatively indirect and subtle forms of control into more and more direct
forms, accompanied by more and more acute political polarization, leading both to military repression
and to various forms of armed struggle. In Kenya at the end of the 1960s the contradictions of neo-
colonialism had had little time to develop, but this does not mean that they did not exist.
14.12 Contradictions of Neo-Colonialism
This difference, however, concerns what is, perhaps, the central contradiction of neo-colonialism, in its
essential meaning of a system of domination of the mass of the population of a country by foreign
capital, by means other than direct colonial rule. By its nature such dominance requires the
development of domestic class interests which are allied to those of foreign capital, and which uphold
their joint interests in economic policy and enforce their dominance politically. This system is however
unstable. The underdevelopment which begins with colonialism (if not before) and continues under neo-
colonialism implies limits to growth and a growing polarization of classes as the exploitation of the
masses become more apparent. To avert this, foreign capital seeks a redistribution of income internally
(on the general basis exemplified in the ILO report) so as to expand domestic markets and hence
production and wage employment. But any substantial redistribution of income is at the expense of the
owners of domestic, mainly small-scale capital — i.e. the domestic allies of foreign capital. In the
Kenyan situation, too — and this seems likely to be true elsewhere in Africa — a redistribution of
income needed to be accompanied by a dismantling of domestic monopolies if it was to have a
sustained effect on the growth of internal demand. But these monopolies were also very important to
the interests of the domestic petty-bourgeoisie and auxiliary bourgeoisie who, far from wishing to
dismantle it, pressed for its extension. They would have much preferred to see a reduction in the level
of protection accorded to foreign capital, and in the level of capital exports by foreign firms. The one
solution jeopardized the alliance between domestic and foreign capital, and the other threatened the
continued inflow of foreign capital on which the neo-colonial economy depended.
Where a domestic bourgeoisie is relatively strong it may, in theory at least, opt to pursue a
policy of economic nationalism, with various ‗populist‘ programmes aimed at securing the support of
particular elements among the workers and peasants, and at the expense of some elements of foreign
capital. But in Kenya, once the opportunities for adopting populist measures at the expense of Asian
commercial capital (and settler large-farm capital) were exhausted, the continuing dependence of the
African petty-bourgeoisie and auxiliary bourgeoisie on foreign capital seemed more likely to lead to a
policy of wage controls and of land distribution which would as far as possible redistribute income
between different sections of the ‗industrial peasantry‘, rather than between the middle classes as a
whole, and workers and peasants as a whole. In that case there would be a gradual intensification of
the exploitation of labour, with the risk of a growing politicization of the masses. At the same time the
conflicting interests of domestic and foreign capital and of different sections of domestic capital (large-
scale farmers, small-scale manufacturers, importers etc.) would tend to weaken the alliance of the
different interests supporting the regime, with potentially serious consequences in the succession crises
to which any ‗bonapartist‘ government is necessarily prone.
The sort of structural constraints with which the ILO mission was mainly concerned were
symptoms of such contradictions, and could not be removed unless the contradictions were resolved.
Moreover, focusing on such constraints leads to rather uncertain conclusions when they are abstracted
from the antagonisms between classes. The mission, for instance, seems to have been particularly
concerned that Kenya was about to encounter a serious balance of payments problem, which could not
be solved by any realistically foreseeable level of capital inflows, and which would lead to a declining
rate of growth, rising unemployment, and hence perhaps to political unrest which could have further
repercussions on foreign investment, tourism, etc. An interesting early paper by one of the members of
the mission went a good deal further than the mission‘s final report in developing this line of thought:
agricultural stagnation resulting from adverse terms of trade, urban migration and low rates of surplus
and reinvestment, leading to urban food shortages and structural inflation; continual balance of
payments crises requiring dependence upon foreign finance to a growing degree, and perhaps to
repeated devaluation; non-competitive domestic industrial sector with powerful trade unions, resulting in
employers and unions forcing up import and food prices, further feeding inflationary tendencies; and
increased urban migration as agricultural terms of trade deteriorate, resulting in explosive growth of
shanty-towns around Nairobi. In brief, the present strategy provides the ingredients for secular
stagnation, and must be seen as an underdevelopment strategy. It seems quite possible that Kenya
can achieve this state much more rapidly than Latin American countries have managed to do.
Yet although such fears may have been justified, a very large number of other factors enter into
the total situation, making all such models of rather doubtful value as guides to policy. Population
pressure might be absorbed by further land transfer from foreign owners, by irrigation to bring more
land into production, and by a continuing reduction in plot sizes made possible by improved technology.
Export markets for many crops might greatly expand, and the terms of trade, which moved sharply
against Kenya in l973-4, might improve later; new policies and new technologies might expand the use
of labour in manufacturing more rapidly than in the past; and so on. In other words, models of this kind
are not crystal balls which hold the secrets of the future; and for the same reasons it would be dogmatic
and mechanical to assert that neo-colonialism and underdevelopment must inevitably lead to
revolutionary change in Kenya as a result of inevitable social and economic crisis.
On the other hand, it is equally dogmatic, and highly misleading, to regard the social and
political system which had emerged in Kenya by the end of the 1960s as ‗stable‘. The post-
independence years were exceptionally favourable for the consolidation of neo-colonialism. Even so,
those years had witnessed some intense class struggles. The initiative in these was taken by the
African petty-bourgeoisie (against settler and Asian capital, and against wage-workers and the poorer
peasants) and by large-scale foreign capital (against organized labour). In the course of these struggles
the power of the state was used forcefully to give the petty-bourgeoisie the various forms of protection it
wanted, to subdue the unions and to progressively eliminate political opposition. The result was a
structure of social control, based on clientelism, and of ideological domination based on a mixture of
tribalism, ‗free enterprise‘ ethics and ‗development doctrines; reinforced by a restrained but effective
system of repression, in which organized opposition was outlawed. The ‗stability‘ of Kenya in 1971, on
which it was so frequently congratulated by western journalists, was therefore an appearance which
resulted directly from the assertion of state power by the currently dominant combination of classes,
and did not reflect the underlying reality of increasingly sharp social and economic contradictions.
It was, in fact, obvious to everyone that when Kenyatta, then in his seventies, left the political
scene, the problem of succession which is inherent in bonapartism would reveal these contradictions
again. The balance of forces within the ruling alliance, which reflected Kenyatta‘s special position in the
country, would be upset and, in the ensuing struggle for power, class forces which had been repressed
would quite likely be released. This could apply to the organized workers, to landless and unorganized
rural workers and to the urban unemployed, whose struggles for the time being were manifested largely
in indirect forms, such as absenteeism, illegal squatting, crop theft, organized urban crime, and so on. It
would apply in a different way to the army, where the immediate question of succession was likely to be
settled.
On a longer view, however, the forces which would ultimately combine to transform the social and
economic order in Kenya were — like those which produced underdevelopment — regional and
international, as well as national. Developments in neighbouring countries, especially Tanzania and
Uganda, and elsewhere on the continent — particularly in the liberation struggles in southern Africa —
would have very important consequences for the future course of struggles inside Kenya. So would the
vicissitudes of the international capitalist system generally, as the long boom of the 1950s and ‗60s
began to give way in the early 1970s to a period of uncertainty, monetary crisis and the risk of
recession. The resulting processes of change which would be generated in Kenya would, however,
certainly be prolonged, and meanwhile it is true that academic studies can contribute little to the effort
to achieve new strategies of development grounded in the interests of the mass of those who are
currently the victims of underdevelopment. Perhaps the most such studies can do is to try not to
obscure the structures of exploitation and oppression which underdevelopment produces, and which in
turn sustain it.
14.13 References
1. A notorious example is Robert D. Kaplan.1994. ―The Coming Anarchy, “The Atlantic
Monthly, February.
2. Alavi, H. (1964) ‗Imperialism Old and New‘, Socialist Register 1964: 104–26.
3. Alavi, H. (1965) ‗Peasants and Revolution‘, Socialist Register 1965: 241–77.
4. Alavi, H. (1971) ‗Bangladesh and the Crises of Pakistan‘, Socialist Register 1971: 289–317.
5. Ankie Hoogevelt. 1997. Globalization and the Postcolonial World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1997).
6. Catherine Boone. 1994. ―States and ruling classes in post-colonial Africa: the enduring
contradictions of power,‖ in Joel S. Migdal, Atul Kohli, and Vivienne Shue (eds.), State
Power and Social Forces (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
7. Catherine Boone. 1998. ―‘Empirical Statehood‘ and Reconfigurations of Political Order,‖ in
Leonardo A. Villalon and Philip A. Huxtable, eds., The African State at a Critical Juncture
(Boulder: Lynne Rienner).
8. Dale Grant. 1999. ―Canadians cry ‗Havoc‘ and let slip the dogs of war,“Toronto Star,
March 9.
9. David Plank. 1993. ―Aid, Debt and the End of Sovereignty: Mozambique and Its
Donors,‖Journal of Modern African Studies 31 (3).
10. Eboe Hutchful. 1989. ―From ‗Revolution‘ to Monetarism: The Economics and Politics of the
Adjustment Programme in Ghana,‖ in Bonnie Campbell and John Loxley, eds.,Structural
Adjustment in Africa (London: Macmillan)
11. John Ravenhill. 1993. ―A Second Decade of Adjustment: Greater Complexity, Greater
Uncertainty‖ In Thomas Callaghy and John Ravenhill, eds., Hemmed In: Responses to
Africa’s Decline (New York: Columbia).
12. Kandiyoti, D., ed. Women, Islam and the State. London: Macmillan, 1991.
13. Leys, Colin. "The 'Overdeveloped' Post Colonial State: A Re-evaluation."Review of African
Political Economy 5 (1976): 39–48.
14. Leys, Colin. Underdevelopment in Kenya, the Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism, 1964-
1971; First published: by Heinemann Educational Books, London, in 1975; Transcribed:
by Dominic Tweedie.
15. Manuel Castells. 1998. the Information Age, Vol III: End of Millennium (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers).
16. Perry Anderson. 1974. Lineages of the Absolutist State, (London: New Left Books).
17. Saul, John. "The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania." In The Socialist
Register, edited by R. Miliband and J. Savage. London: Merlin Press, 1974.
14.14 Further Readings
1. Alavi, H. ‗Peasants and Revolution‘, Marliy Press, London 1965
2. Kandiyoti, D., 'Women, Islam and the State', Macmillan Press London, 1991.
14.15 Model Questions
1. Write a detailed note on J. S. Saul view on state in developing world
2. Write a critical note on Colin Leys analysis of developing state.
--s--
 Lesson 15
Political Regimes: Military and Islamic

Structure
15.0 Objective
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Islamic Regime
15.3 Essential Features of the Islamic Political System
15.4 Democracy in Islam
15.5 Islamic Republic
15.6 Purpose of the Islamic State
15.7 Fundamental Rights
15.8 Executive and Legislature
15.9 Difference between Islamic Law and Liberal Law
15.10 Contemporary movements
15.11 Military Regime
15.12 The Emergence of Military Regimes
15.13 The Decline of Military Regimes
15.14 Military Dictatorship
15.15 Origins of military rule
15.16 Mechanisms and impacts of military rule
15.17 Transitions from military rule
15.18 Summary
15.19 References
15.20 Further Readings
15.21 Model Questions

15.0 Objective : To study and analyse Milatary & Islamic Regimes

15.1 Introduction
Origins of Islam as a political movement are to be found in the life and times of Islam's
prophet Muhammad and his successors. In 622 CE, in recognition of his claims to prophet hood,
Muhammad was invited to rule the city of Medina. At the time the local Arab tribes
of Aus and Khazraj dominated the city, and were in constant conflict. Medinans saw in Muhammad an
impartial outsider who could resolve the conflict. Muhammad and his followers thus moved to Medina,
where Muhammad drafted the Medina Charter. This document made Muhammad the ruler, and
recognized him as the Prophet of Allah. The laws Muhammad established during his rule, based on the
revelations of the Quran and doing of Muhammad, are considered by Muslims to be Sharia or Islamic
law, which Islamic movements seek to establish in the present day. Muhammad gained a widespread
following and an army, and his rule expanded first to the city of Mecca and then spread through
the Arabian Peninsula through a combination of diplomacy and military conquest.
Today many Islamist or Islamic democratic parties exist in almost every democracy with a
Muslim majority. Many militant Islamic groups are also working in different parts of world. The
controversial term Islamic fundamentalism has also been coined by some non-Muslims to describe the
political and religious philosophies of some militant Islamic groups. Both of these terms (Islamic
democracy and Islamic fundamentalism) lump together a large variety of groups with varying histories,
ideologies and contexts.
15.2 Islamic Regime
An Islamic republic is the name given to several states in countries ruled by Islamic laws, including
the Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Mauritania and The Gambia. Pakistan first
adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. It is a huge mistake to ignore the terrorist nature of the
Islamic Regime and assume that it can be brought into the ―world community‖ by bribing and lucrative
incentives hoping that it would give up its nuclear ambitions and terrorist activities. The reality of the
Islamic Regime is that its very existence is not only a daily danger to the lives of millions of the Iranians;
it is a danger to the entire world. We strongly oppose any military intervention in Iran. The task of
changing the regime of terror in Iran undertaken by Iranian people is huge and difficult but Iranians are
capable of doing it if their enemy, the Islamic Regime, is not supported by the interest driven industrial
power. The European Union‘s support of the IRI and its legitimization and acceptance has been
devastating to the freedom movement in Iran. We hope the US will never endorse these appeasing
policies.
We expect the US not to help this terrorist regime and not to legitimize it regardless of its
compliance with the US demand to curb its nuclear activities. We expect a rigid sanction against IRI.
We expect the US to reduce its diplomatic relations with the Islamic Regime to the lowest possible
level. This regime is not the representative of the Iranian people and we challenge those who think
otherwise by an internationally monitored referendum.
15.3 Essential Features of the Islamic Political System
The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid (unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood)
and Khilafat (vicegerency). It is difficult to appreciate the different aspects of Islamic polity without fully
understanding these three principles. I will therefore begin with a brief exposition of what they are.
Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that
exists in it, organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has
the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else
shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which
we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created
or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for
us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone
else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us,
endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use. Tawhid means
that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or
inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or
forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way.
Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly
everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in
our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the
aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to
make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with
mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use. Tawhid means that only Allah is
the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or inorganic. The
sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid.
Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all
its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything
in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own
right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and
purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these
decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and
physical faculties, and provided material things for our use. This principle of the unity of Allah totally
negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or
collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler
and His commandments are the Law.
The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received
two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative
interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him through
word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of Allah. The Prophet, blessings and peace be on
him, has also, in accordance with the intention of the Divine Book, given us a model for the Islamic way
of life by himself implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. The
combination of these two elements is called the Shari‗ah. Now consider Khilafat. According to the
Arabic lexicon, it means ‗representation‘. Man, according to Islam, is the representative of Allah on
earth, His vicegerent. That is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him by Allah, he is required to
exercise his Allah-given authority in this world within the limits prescribed by Allah.
Take, for example, the case of an estate which someone has been appointed to administer on
your behalf. You will see that four conditions are invariably met. First, the real ownership of the estate
remains vested in you and not in the administrator; second, he administers your property only in
accordance with your instructions; third, he exercises his authority within the limits prescribed by you;
and fourth, in the administration of the trust he executes your will and not his own. These four
conditions are so inherent in the concept of ‗representation‘ that if any representative fails to observe
them he will rightly be blamed for breaking the covenant which was implied in the concept of
‗representation‘. This is exactly what Islam means when it affirms that man is the vicegerent of Allah on
earth. Hence, these four conditions are also involved in the concept of Khilafat. A state that is
established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a human caliphate under the
sovereignty of Allah and will do Allah‘s will by working within the limits prescribed by Him and in
accordance with His instructions and injunctions.
15.4 Democracy in Islam
The above explanation of the term Khilafat also makes it abundantly clear that no individual or dynasty
or class can be Khilafah, but that the authority of caliphate is bestowed on any community which
accepts the principles of Tawhid and Risalat. In such a society, each individual shares the Allah-given
caliphate. This is the point where democracy begins in Islam.
Every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of the caliphate of Allah and in
this respect all individuals are equal. No one can deprive anyone of his rights and powers. The agency
for running the affairs of the state will be established in accordance with the will of these individuals,
and the authority of the state will only be an extension of the powers of the individual delegated to it.
Their opinion will be decisive in the formation of the Government, which will be run with their advice and
in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their confidence will carry out the duties of the
caliphate on their behalf; and when he loses this confidence he will have to relinquish his office. In this
respect the political system in Islam is as perfect a democracy as ever can be.
What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy is that while the latter is based
on the concept of popular sovereignty the former rests on the principle of popular Khilafat. In Western
democracy the people are sovereign, in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His
caliphs or representatives. In the former the people make their own laws; in the latter they have to
follow and obey the laws (Shari‗ah) given by Allah through His Prophet. In one the Government
undertakes to fulfil the will of the people; in the other Government and the people alike have to do the
will of Allah. Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and
uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is subservient to the Divine Law and exercises its
authority in accordance with the injunctions of Allah and within the limits prescribed by Him.
15.5 Islamic Republic
An Islamic republic is the name given to several states in countries ruled by Islamic laws, including the
Islamic Republics of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Mauritania and The Gambia. Pakistan first adopted
the title under the constitution of 1956. Mauritania adopted it on 28 November 1958. Iran adopted it
after the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty. Afghanistan adopted it in 1992 (in
1996–2001 the Taliban was ruling as an Islamic emirate (monarchy)) upon Jamiat-e Islami seizing
capital Kabul from the Communists. Despite the similar name the countries differ greatly in their
governments and laws.
The term "Islamic republic" has come to mean several different things, some contradictory to
others. To some Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa who advocate it, an Islamic
republic is a state under a particular Islamic form of government. They see it as a compromise between
a purely Islamic caliphate, and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception of the Islamic
republic, the penal code of the state is required to be compatible with some or all laws of Sharia, and
the state may not be a monarchy as many Middle Eastern states are presently. Two months after
victory of the Islamic Revolution on 1979, the new government held Iranian Islamic Republic
referendum on the 10th and 11th of Farvadin (30th and 31 March) for changing the Pahlavi
dynasty with an Islamic Republic. On 12 Farvadin, it was announced that 98.2 percent of the Iranian
voters wanted to establish the "Islamic Republic‖
Before Islamic Republic referendum, some political groups suggested various name for ideology
of Iranian revolution such as the Republic (without Islam) or democratic republic. But Ruhollah
Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, asked people to vote to the "Islamic Republic",
not a word more and not one less word.
According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic is a system based on
belief in:
1. the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty
and right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
 2. divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3. the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's
ascent towards God;
4. the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5. continuous leadership and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the
uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6. the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in
which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national
solidarity are secured by recourse to:
Continuous leadership of the holy persons, possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on
the basis of the Quran and the Sunnah, upon all of whom be peace;
Sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort
to advance them further;
Negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of
dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.
15.6 Purpose of the Islamic State
The Holy Qur‘an clearly states that the aim and purpose of this state, built on the foundation
of Tawhid, Risalat and Khilafat, is the establishment, maintenance and development of those virtues
which the Creator of the universe wishes human life to be enriched by, and the prevention and
eradication of those evils which are abhorrent to Allah. The state in Islam is not intended for political
administration only nor for the fulfilment through it of the collective will of any particular set of people.
Rather, Islam places a high ideal before the state for the achievement of which it must use all the
means at its disposal. The aim is to encourage the qualities of purity, beauty, goodness, virtue, success
and prosperity which Allah wants to flourish in the life of His people and to suppress all kinds of
exploitation and injustice. As well as placing before us this high ideal, Islam clearly states the desired
virtues and the undesirable evils. The Islamic state can thus plan its welfare programmes in every age
and in any environment.
The constant demand made by Islam is that the principles of morality must be observed at all
costs and in all walks of life. Hence, it lays down an unalterable requirement for the state to base its
politics on justice, truth and honesty. It is not prepared, under any circumstances, to tolerate fraud,
falsehood and injustice for the sake of political, administrative or national expediency. Whether it is
relations between the rulers and the ruled within the state, or relations of the state with other states,
precedence must always be given to truth, honesty and justice. It imposes obligations on the state
similar to those it imposes on the individual: to fulfil all contracts and obligations; to have consistent
standards in all dealings; to remember obligations as well as rights and not to forget the rights of others
when expecting them to fulfil their obligations; to use power and authority for the establishment for
justice and not for the perpetration of injustice; to look on duty as a sacred obligation; and to regard
power as a trust from Allah to be used in the belief that one has to render an account of one‘s actions to
Him in the Hereafter.
15.7 Fundamental Rights
Although an Islamic state may be set up anywhere on earth, Islam does not seek to restrict human
rights or privileges to the geographical limits of its own state. Islam has laid down universal fundamental
rights for humanity as a whole, which are to be observed and respected in all circumstances
irrespective of whether a person lives on the territory of the Islamic state or outside it and whether he is
at peace with the state or at war. For example, human blood is sacred and may not be spilled without
justification; it is not permissible to oppress women, children, old people, the sick or the wounded;
woman‘s honour and chastity must be respected in all circumstances; and the hungry must be fed, the
naked clothed, and the wounded or diseased treated medically. These, and a few other provisions,
have been laid down by Islam as fundamental rights for every man by virtue of his status as a human
being, to be enjoyed under the constitution of an Islamic state.
The rights of citizenship in Islam, however, are not confined to persons born within the limits of
its state but are granted to every Muslim irrespective of his place of birth. A Muslim ipso facto becomes
the citizen of an Islamic state as soon as he sets foot on its territory with the intention of living there; he
thus enjoys equal rights of citizenship with those who are its citizens by birth. Citizenship must therefore
be common to all the citizens of all the Islamic states that exist in the world; a Muslim will not need a
passport for entry or exit from any of them. And every Muslim must be regarded as eligible for positions
of the highest responsibility in an Islamic state without distinction of race, colour or class.
Islam has also laid down certain rights for non-Muslims who may be living within the boundaries
of an Islamic state, and these rights must necessarily form part of the Islamic constitution. According to
Islamic terminology such non-Muslims are called dhimmis (the covenanted), implying that the Islamic
state has entered into a covenant with them and guaranteed their rights. The life, property and honour
of a dhimmi are to be respected and protected in exactly the same way as that of a Muslim citizen.
There is no difference between Muslim and non-Muslim citizens in respect of civil or criminal law; and
the Islamic state shall not interfere with the personal law of non-Muslims. They will have full freedom of
conscience and belief and will be entitled to perform their religious rites and ceremonies. As well as
being able to practice their religion, they are entitled to criticize Islam. However the rights given in this
respect are not unlimited: the civil law of the country has to be fully respected and all criticism has to be
made within its framework.
These rights are irrevocable and non-Muslims can only be deprived of them if they renounce the
convenant which grants them citizenship. However much a non-Muslim state may oppress its Muslim
citizens, it is not permissible for an Islamic state to retaliate against its non-Muslim subjects. This
injunction holds well even if all the Muslims outside the boundaries of an Islamic state are massacred.
15.8 Executive and Legislature
The responsibility for the administration of the Government in an Islamic state is entrusted to an Amir
(leader) who may be likened to the President or the Prime Minister in a Western democratic state. All
adult men and women who accept the fundamentals of the constitution are entitled to vote in the
election for the leader. The basic qualifications for the election of an Amir are that he should command
the confidence of the largest number of people in respect of his knowledge and grasp of the spirit of
Islam; he should possess the Islamic attribute of fear of Allah; he should be endowed with the quality of
statesmanship. In short, he should be both able and virtuous.
A Shura (consultative council), elected by the people, will assist and guide the Amir. It is
obligatory for the Amir to administer the country with the advice of his Shura. The Amir can retain office
only so long as he enjoys the confidence of the people, and must resign when he loses this confidence.
Every citizen has the right to criticize the Amir and his Government, and all responsible means for the
expression of public opinion should be available.
Legislation in an Islamic state should be within the limits prescribed by the Shari‗ah. The
injunctions of Allah and His Prophet are to be accepted and obeyed and no legislative body can alter or
modify them or make any new laws which are contrary to their spirit. The duty of ascertaining the real
intent of those commandments which are open to more than one interpretation should devolve on
people possessing a specialised knowledge of the law of Shari‗ah. Hence, such matters may have to
be referred to a sub-committee of the Shã r~ comprising men learned in Islamic law. Great scope would
still be available for legislation on questions not covered by any specific injunctions of the Shari‗ah, and
the advisory council or legislature is free to legislate in regard to these matters.
In Islam the judiciary is not placed under the control of the executive. It derives its authority
directly from the Shari‗ah and is answerable to Allah. The judges will obviously be appointed by the
Government but, once appointed, will have to administer justice impartially according to the law
of Allah. All the organs and functionaries of the Government should come within their jurisdiction: even
the highest executive authority of the Government will be liable to be called upon to appear in a court of
law as a plaintiff or defendant. Rulers and ruled are subject to the same law and there can be no
discrimination on the basis of position, power or privilege. Islam stands for equality and scrupulously
adheres to this principle in the social, economic and political realms alike.
15.9 Difference between Islamic Law and Liberal Law
The difference between Islamic laws and man-made laws —especially laws of the liberal societies that
consider right for the people in lieu of the services they render in the society— can be examined
through the following perspectives:
1. Liberal societies, do not consider any rights of individuals who, due to physical disabilities or social
deprivations, cannot contribute to society. Islam, however, gives rights to them as well. In order to
guarantee these rights, the desires of others need to be restrained and a portion of public wealth
allocated for these individuals, which is not liked by other people. So, their dislike should be restrained.
2. In social life, rights are given to society, which prevail in case of conflict with rights of individuals. The
question on which rights should prevail in case of conflict is based on individual-oriented and society-
oriented tendencies existing in Western societies today. Of course, the dominant and ruling tendency in
the Western world is individualism; however, socialistic tendencies, more or less, exist. In Western
societies today, socialist and social democratic governments are gaining momentum compared to other
forms of government.
In contrast to the individualistic tendency in liberal societies, Islam gives preference to the rights
of society. Liberal governments are willing to burn or throw millions of tons of foodstuff into the sea in
order to prevent the market price from breaking down and the capitalists from incurring loss. They are
willing to let millions of people die of hunger only to protect their material interests. Yet, Islam can never
permit such a thing. The desire of such elements should be restricted according to Islam. Economic
freedom must not be ensured in any manner or any way, it should be limited. Just as the interests of
the deprived stratum of society and the handicapped restrict the interests of society, similarly individual
desires must be limited for the sake of ensuring the general interests of society.
3. In Islamic society, there are concerns which are basically related to the individual, but since it leaves
an imprint on society, it is reckoned as part of social concerns. For example, if a person commits a sin
in isolation at home while no one else is informed or a witness, obviously his sin is personal in nature,
and the laws that restrict this kind of action are ―moral laws‖ (without considering whether the use of the
term ―moral‖ in this context is correct or not).
That is, the jurisdiction of the state is related to society and not to the individual. But if the
individual action is done in such a manner that it more or less affects others, at least encourages others
to commit such a sin, it acquires a social dimension. If a person commits a sin in the street or in front of
other members of the family, its hideousness will diminish and people will be encouraged and inclined
to commit it, his action will no more be personal in nature. Do we have no right to interfere because it
will only harm him? According to Islam showing of perversion is a social act. If a person commits a sin
in front of others, it becomes a legal crime (in contrast to moral turpitude), and the state may interfere.
The law that prevents such a sin is an administrative law backed by the state‘s police force.
4. Damaging material interests of society is a crime. Morally damaging acts are also crimes. In every
society, an attack on the integrity and honor of others, even if it is not a physical attack (libel, insult and
mockery) is considered a crime and the state has the right to pursue the offender and penalize him. In
such cases, the executive guarantee is law. In Islamic society, insult to religious sanctity is the most
serious violation of the rights of Muslims. In Islamic society there is nothing more valuable than religious
sanctity. Muslims are willing to sacrifice everything they have for its sake.
It is on this basis that the decree against apostasy [irtidad] and insult to religious sanctity can be
justified and understood. This is why anyone who insults the Holy Prophet (s) and other religious
sanctities is condemned to death by Islam. That is because he has committed the greatest of crimes.
There is nothing more sacred than these sanctities for Muslim people and insult to these sanctities is
the worst of crimes. This is also a fundamental difference between Islamic and liberal perspectives.
Offence against Islamic sanctities is not an offence against an individual for it to require a
private complainant. Anyone who insults the Islamic sanctities in newspapers and speeches is
condemned according to Islamic law. It is not a personal and individual issue but rather criminal and
penal. No one can pardon this crime because it is a right that belongs to all Muslims, nay it is a right
related to God.
These are issues which Muslim scholars, especially the students, should pay attention to and
not imagine that the political and legal issues of Islam follow the limited and monolithic Western
framework that only pays attention to the material, mundane and individual concerns in this world.
According to Islam, the rights of society take precedence over individual rights. In view of what has
been discussed, we can assess the distinctive features of Islamic law and the reason behind its
superiority over other laws.
We can understand why individual desires are more limited in Islamic society than in secular
and liberal societies. It is because in those societies the only thing that limits individual desires are
individual and material interests. But in Islamic society spiritual and otherworldly interests require
particular limitations. This is something which the nature of the Islamic government anchored in
religious belief demands, and we shall defend these beliefs with utmost clarity and courage.
15.10 Contemporary movements
Traditionalism, which accepts traditional commentaries on the Quran and Sunna and "takes as
its basic principle imitation (taqlid), that is, refusal to innovate", and follows one of the four legal
schools or Madh'hab (Shaf'i, Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali) and, may include Sufism. An example of Sufi
traditionalism is the Barelvi School in Pakistan.
Fundamentalist reformism, which "criticizes the tradition, the commentaries, popular religious
practices (maraboutism, the cult of saints)", deviations, and superstitions; it aims to return to the
founding texts. This reformism generally developed in response to an external threat (the influence
of Hinduism on Islam, for example). 18th-century examples are Shah Wali Allah in India
and Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab (who founded Wahhabism) in the Arabian
Peninsula. Salafism is a modern example.
Islamism or political Islam, embracing a return to the sharia or Islamic principles, but adopting
Western terminology such as revolution, ideology, politics and democracy and taking a more liberal
attitude towards issues like Jihad and women's rights.[49] Contemporary examples include
the Jamaat-e-Islami, Muslim Brotherhood, Iranian Islamic Revolution, Masyumiparty, United
 Malays National Organisation, Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party and Justice and Development Party
(Turkey).
Liberal movements within Islam generally define themselves in opposition to Islamic political
movements, but often embrace many of its anti-imperialist and Islam inspired liberal reformist
elements.
15.11 Military Regime
The study of military regimes rose to prominence within the social sciences during the latter half of the
twentieth century, thanks in part to the presence during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s of a large number
of military regimes around the globe. In 1979, fourteen military regimes held power in sub-Saharan
Africa, nine in Latin America, five in the Arab states and North Africa, three in Southeast Asia, one in
South Asia, and one in East Asia. No single social science discipline dominated the research into
military regimes. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, and historians all devoted much time and
energy to studying this form of government.
A military regime is a form of government wherein the political power resides with the armed
forces. The military is the legitimate power-holding group that centralizes political and legal authority.
Military regimes, however, cannot simply be classified as governments dominated by the military,
because they are seldom purely military in composition. Civilian bureaucrats and politicians generally
play a role in the government, but the military always has the final say. The presence of civilians in
military governments shows that military elites do not necessarily organize military regimes.
Nevertheless, a military regime is always governed by a military officer, active or retired, with the
support of the military establishment, and the political structure includes routine mechanisms for high-
level military officers to influence policy and political appointments.
Military regimes are generally held together by their egalitarian belief in equal political,
economic, social, and civil rights for all people. Thus, military regimes emerge most often as products of
political, economic, and societal crises to replace weak executives and governments. The most popular
mechanism used to achieve this is the military coup d’état, wherein members of the armed forces
remove a state‘s chief executive through the use or threat of force. Once the military regime is firmly in
place, characteristic features of this form of government include an intact military hierarchy, and a
militarily controlled security apparatus. Military regimes also include features that would characterize
governments more generally. These include institutions for deciding questions of succession, and
routine consultation between the leader and the rest of the officer corps.
Despite the fact that military regimes are generally egalitarian, historically a variety of ideologies
have held them together. Military regimes have practiced authoritarianism and free market liberalism,
for example, in the military government of Augusto Pinochet in Chile from 1973 to 1990. Avowedly
socialist military regimes held power in Haiti from 1957 to 1994 and also in Peru for a short period.
These variations can occur because military rule is fundamentally undemocratic. Democracies require
self-expression and the questioning of authority. Thus, the ideology that holds democracies together is
inherently antiauthoritarian. However, military regimes are grounded in the military model of giving and
taking orders and absolute obedience. Therefore, depending on the ideology of the armed forces,
variations among military regimes are inevitable.
Military regimes require unquestioned obedience to the leadership, which holds absolute power,
to stabilize the government. This makes military regimes both authoritarian and autocratic, but the
degree of authoritarianism varies from regime to regime. Once power is established, variations abound.
Military regimes are shaped by a mixture of variables derived from specific conditions peculiar to
particular countries, which complicates conceptualization even further. In the Middle East and Africa, for
example, military regimes have often been autocracies led by a single military officer, whereas Latin
American military regimes have frequently been ruled by a junta, a committee composed of several
officers.
Despite these differences, however, most military regimes are variations on one of four basic
types, described by Christopher Clapham and George Philip in The Political Dilemmas of Military
Regimes (1985). The first is known as a veto regime, which pits the military against strongly organized
civilian political structures. Veto regimes support the existing social order and their aim is to defend it.
Consequently, these regimes are highly repressive. The second type, the breakthrough regime, seeks
to attack a social order that threatens its plans for modernization. Breakthrough regimes attempt to
radically reform government. As with veto regimes, a high degree of repression is likely.
A third type is the moderator regime. Highly professional militaries make up these regimes,
which aim to clean up the mess made by civilian governments and then return power to the civilians.
Found in societies at varying levels of social and economic development, moderator regimes tend to be
highly unstable due to internal disputes over exactly when to relinquish power. Moderator regimes are
not particularly authoritarian or repressive. The fourth type, factional regimes, are formed when military
officers align themselves with civilian political actors and groups based on shared traits such as
ethnicity or ideology. Like moderator regimes, factional regimes tend to be highly unstable and are not
particularly repressive.
15.12 The Emergence of Military Regimes
Although military regimes certainly existed prior to World War II, the modern military regime is distinctly
and analytically a new phenomenon restricted to the developing and modernizing world. The impetus
for military regimes is found in the changing nature of the military itself and in its role in the
development and modernization of the society within which it exists. Protection against communist or
revolutionary takeover was historically the most common objective of military regimes, especially during
the 1960s and 1970s. The early 1960s saw a rapid rise in military regimes, which led many scholars to
conduct theoretical analyses of the phenomenon. These studies focused on military intervention in
politics as an exceptional and negative departure from the norm of an elected civilian government.
Analysts had previously assumed that economic and social modernization in developing countries
would lead militaries to become more professional and modern. The hope was that this would prevent
them from meddling in politics in favor of defending their countries against internal and external attack.
In practice, however, as John Johnson argued in The Military and Society in Latin
America (1964), the military was frequently the most modernized and technically advanced sector of
the middle class, which allowed it to make a special contribution to development, and especially
democratization. His theory was validated by the mid-1960s, when militaries overthrew one government
after another, especially where decolonization was in progress in Africa and Latin America. The
research argues that in turbulent modernizing societies the armed forces are best suited to promote
order, making them highly likely to intervene in politics.
Marxism heavily influenced a second set of analyses that emerged during this period. Scholars
in this camp utilized dependency theory, which suggests that the wealthy nations of the world need a
peripheral group of poorer states in order to remain wealthy. These scholars argued that that the
dependency of poor states on wealthier states led to close ties between their militaries. This led to the
premise that the armed forces were willing instruments of capitalism and its domestic class allies. In
turn, the militaries of poorer states would do as wealthier states pleased. Consequently, wealthier
nations advocated military intervention to safeguard their control over essential economic materials.
 The theory of bureaucratic authoritarianism was also used to explain the abundance of military
takeovers during the 1960s. This highly influential theory combines elements of modernization,
dependency, and Marxist theory to argue that military takeovers may occur as one of the stages of
industrialization. The theory posits that populist democracy initially fosters urbanization, popular
participation in government, and trade union development. This is followed by a stage in which
industrialization needs to deepen, and governmental control over the popular sector is seen as the way
to maintain order and pursue policies that will attract foreign investors. Military takeover can be an
efficient way to achieve this.
15.13 The Decline of Military Regimes
Beginning in the mid-1970s, many military regimes started to hand power back to civilians. In turn,
theoretical analyses of military regimes began to ask why. In The Military and the State in Latin
America (1987), Alain Rouquié argues that the military‘s lack of legitimacy due to unfulfilled promises of
democratization precipitated the change. The disillusionment of the economic elite and the middle class
due to the repressiveness and economic incompetence of military regimes was another contributing
factor.
Policy performance also helps explain why military regimes declined in number. Early research
failed to find lower levels of economic development or performance in countries with military regimes
compared to countries with other forms of government; these studies, however, failed to establish any
strong relationship between regime type and public policy performance. Karen Remmer, in her Military
Rule in Latin America (1989), convincingly shows that the military is in fact not generally very
successful as modernizers or as promoters of economic development. As far as social policy goes, the
principle difference between military and civilian regimes is that the military spends more money on
weapons and the civilians spend more money on social welfare. This inhibits public support for military
regimes and ultimately forces them to turn power back over to civilians.
The number of military regimes around the globe decreased dramatically beginning in the
1990s. Their lack of international legitimacy and inability to rule successfully even when they were
robust were the prominent factors in their decline. The end of the cold war and the collapse of the
Soviet Union also made it more difficult for military regimes to use the threat of communism as a
justification for their actions. Nevertheless, military regimes continue to hold power around the globe.
Military regimes came into power in countries such as Fiji, Thailand, and Mauritania at the beginning of
the twenty-first century. Military regimes in Libya and Myanmar, which came to power during the 1960s,
are still thriving. In the end, although the number of military regimes has decreased dramatically around
the globe, it appears unlikely that they will become extinct anytime soon. Understanding why is the
challenge that social scientists now face.
15.14 Military Dictatorship
A military dictatorship is a form of government wherein the political power resides with the military; it is
similar but not identical to a stratocracy, a state ruled directly by the military. Like any dictatorships, a
military dictatorship may be official or unofficial, and as a result may not actually qualify as stratocratic
(some military dictators, like Panama's Manuel Noriega, are nominally subordinate to the civil
government). Mixed forms also exist, where the military exerts a very strong influence without being
entirely dominant. The typical military dictatorship in Latin America was ruled by a junta (derived from a
Portuguese/Spanish word which can be translated as "conference" or "board"), or a committee
composed of several officers, often from the military's most senior leadership, but in other cases (e.g.
when their military superiors remained loyal to, or indeed were, the previous regime) less senior, as
evidenced by the term colonels' regime. Other military dictatorships are entirely in the hands of a single
officer, usually the senior army commander. In either case, the chairman of the junta or the single
commander may often personally assume office as head of state.
In the Middle East and Africa, military governments more often came to be led by a single
powerful person, and were autocracies in addition to military dictatorships. Leaders like Idi
Amin, Muammar al-Qaddafi, and Gamal Abdul Nasser worked to develop a personality cult and
became the face of the nation inside and outside their countries. Most military dictatorships are formed
after a coup d'état has overthrown the previous government. One very different pattern was the one
followed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, which began as a one-party state ruled by the Ba'ath
Party, but over the course of its existence turned into a military dictatorship (as its leaders donned
uniforms and the military became closely involved in the government). Conversely, other military
dictatorships may gradually restore significant components of civilian government while the senior-most
military commander still maintains supreme political power. In Pakistan, ruling Generals Muhammad
Zia-ul-Haq ( 1977- 1988) and Pervez Musharraf ( 1999 till present) have held singular referendums to
elect themselves President of Pakistan for a further several years, as well as general elections voting in
civilian Prime Ministers (politically subordinate to the President). Despite this, the Pakistan Army
maintained a monopoly over the power structure in both cases, with the country's four provinces
entirely coming under the dictatorial military rule of senior generals in the President's cabinet, such as
General Rahimuddin Khan's authoritarian and unprecedentedly long rule over Balochistan, the
country's largest province.
In the past, military juntas have justified their rule as a way of bringing political stability for the
nation or rescuing it from the threat of "dangerous ideologies". This is a form of threat construction. In
Latin America the threat of communism or capitalism was often used, while in the Middle East the
desire to oppose Israel and later Islamic fundamentalism proved an important motivating pattern.
Military regimes tend to portray themselves as non-partisan, as a "neutral" party that can provide
interim leadership in times of turmoil, and also tend to portray civilian politicians as corrupt and
ineffective. One of the almost universal characteristics of a military government is the institution of
martial law or a permanent state of emergency.
Although there are exceptions, military regimes usually have little respect for human rights and
use whatever means necessary to silence political opponents. A military regime is also rarely willing to
leave power unless forced to by popular revolt, whether active or imminent. Latin America, Africa, and
the Middle East have been common areas for military dictatorships. One of the reasons for this is the
fact that the military often has more cohesion and institutional structure than most of the civilian
institutions of society. Military dictatorships can be contrasted with other forms of dictatorship. For
example, in most current and historical Communist states, the centre of power rests among civilian
party officials, and very careful measures (such as political commissars and frequent rotations) are
taken to prevent the military from exercising independent authority.
Since the 1990s, military dictatorships have become less common. Reasons for this include the
fact that military dictatorships no longer have much international legitimacy, as well as the fact that
many militaries having unsuccessfully ruled many nations are now inclined not to become involved in
political disputes. Furthermore, the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union made it
more difficult for military regimes to use the threat of communism as justification for their actions, or to
gain support from foreign sources. As the Cold War began to wind down, military regimes throughout
Latin America were replaced with democracies. In the Middle East, regimes such as those
of Syria and Egypt that were once clearly military dictatorships have switched to other forms
of despotism.
15.15 Origins of military rule
Analyses of the circumstances that lead to the rise of military rule abound. Empirical studies suggest
that there is no direct correlation between the size of the military or its budget and its propensity to
seize power. Further, the reasons for hierarchical coups (led by the high command) tend to be different
from those for coups led by junior officers (those with the rank of, or equivalent to, army captain or
below). Rather more useful is the distinction between factors internal to the armed forces, domestic
political variables, and international influences. In the first category, violations of military hierarchy by
civilian politicians, an expansion of the military‘s capacity or sense of mission, and a heightened sense
of threat can all trigger coups. With regard to domestic politics, high degrees of political conflict
(especially ethnic and religious conflict), economic crises, weak political parties (especially right-wing
parties), and low-capacity state institutions have been observed to precede military takeovers.
Significant in that category is also the image of the military in national politics and, in particular, the
degree of popular identification of the military with certain positive national values. Internationally, the
threat of or defeat in war, foreign political and military assistance, and an enabling international
environment, including military rule in neighbouring countries and international recognition of military
regimes, can facilitate coups. A ―cascade effect‖ has been observed in some regions, whereby military
rule, first established in a single country, occurs elsewhere in subsequent years, leading to cooperation
between military regimes. (For example, the 1964 coup in Brazil was followed by a coup in Argentina in
1966, coups in Chile and Uruguay in 1973, and another coup in Argentina in 1976.)
Superpower competition was likely an important factor in the proliferation of military regimes seen
during the Cold War. Large amounts of military assistance from the United States and the Soviet Union
strengthened military capacity within allied or ―client‖ states. Within the U.S. sphere of influence, the
increased emphasis on internal security threats in the wake of the Cuban Revolution (1959) contributed
to an increase in direct military involvement in politics. Since the end of the Cold War and the breakup
of the Soviet Union in 1991, there has been a marked decline in the number of military regimes in the
developing world.
15.16 Mechanisms and impacts of military rule
Militaries are hierarchical organizations that specialize in the deployment of violence, so it is often
assumed that militaries rule by force and by force alone. However, military rule often involves
complicated attempts to secure some measure of consent from the governed. Some military regimes,
for example, have permitted elections to national and subnational representative bodies. Others have
used judiciaries, of varying degrees of independence, to approximate or simulate the rule of law. Still
others have promulgated, and sometimes actually adhered to, constitutions. Even so, the application of
military law to civilians and the threat or use of extrajudicial repression (such as torture,
disappearances, and killings) by the state‘s security forces studies are commonplace under military
regimes.
Although part of the state apparatus, militaries enjoy a high degree of relative autonomy
because of their control over the means of coercion. (That control, though still significant in most
places, does not necessarily represent a monopoly, because of the prevalence of irregular armed
forces in the developing world.) However, militaries do not constitute a monolithic single actor. They are
hierarchically divided between a high command, junior officers, and enlisted personnel, and horizontal
competition and rivalry between the different service branches (typically the army, navy, and air force)
can be intense. Further, they are often divided along class, regional, and gender lines (although
militaries in most developing countries still allow only very-limited roles for women). In ethnically divided
societies, variation in rates of military recruitment across the major ethnic groups can result in the
armed forces being seen as constituted by, or representing, one ethnic group against others. All those
divisions tend to be exacerbated when the military comes to power, and many military regimes have
foundered as a result of their inability to manage them.
Military rule increases the probability of subsequent military coups and attempted coups. The
rewards of direct rule often increase competition and conflict within the armed forces. Some military
regimes attempt to manage that competition by, for example, allocating the spoils of office equitably
between the different service branches. Other military regimes carefully monitor and purge personnel
within the armed forces and the state as a whole. Military regimes also tend to foster militarism or the
glorification of war and military prowess. Many military leaders see politics as a continuation of war by
other means. That leads them to resort to force in the resolution of conflicts. Military rulers may demand
that civilian organizations develop hierarchical and disciplined configurations along military lines.
Such demands can backfire. Some military regimes have inadvertently stimulated a flowering of
oppositional cultural and political activity, as artists, students, religious leaders, dissidents, and others
express themselves in new ways in opposition to the authoritarianism inherent in military rule. The
attempted imposition of martial standards of behaviour on recalcitrant populations can produce rare
moments of political electricity in which large numbers of people are united in defiance of the generals.
The popularity of Fela Anikulapo Kuti, the outspoken musician and critic of military rule in Nigeria, or the
participation of many of the most popular artists of the day in the ―Direct Elections Now‖ (Diretas Já)
campaign in Brazil in 1984 are cases in point.

Self Assesment Questions

1. Define Islamic Regimes
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
2. What is Military Rule?
___________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

15.17 Transitions from military rule

Most military regimes of the 1960s and ‘70s became civilian in subsequent decades. Analysts
distinguish between regime liberalization, or the lifting of repression and the restoration of various civil
liberties, and democratization, or the reestablishment of a civilian multiparty regime with accompanying
democratic rights. There is some debate over whether the first process leads inevitably to the second.
Regime transitions presided over by the military, in which democracy is the ostensible end goal, have
been especially problematic because militaries have tended to periodically interfere in the process in
order to produce their desired outcome. An example of that is Nigeria, where the military regime of
Ibrahim Babangida (1985–93) initially promised to return the country to civilian rule by 1990, pushed
that deadline back to 1992 after a coup attempt, and then annulled the presidential elections of 1993.
The Babangida ―transition‖ ended in a coup led by General Sani Abacha in 1993.
Military regimes have ended in a variety of ways. Some have collapsed after a failed military
adventure (e.g., Greece in 1974 and Argentina in 1983), whereas others managed to negotiate their
way out of power through the use of formal or informal agreements (an example of the former is the
1984 Naval Club Pact in Uruguay). In an unusual example, the Chilean military regime (1973–90) was
voted out of office in a 1988 plebiscite scheduled in its 1980 constitution, and that was followed by a
1989 election that restored civilian rule. Not all transitions actually lead to civilian rule, of course.
Military regimes are sometimes replaced by a new version of the same type of regime, as in Nigeria in
1993, when Abacha replaced Babangida.
Military prerogatives established under military rule can outlast the military regime itself. Those
prerogatives may include army control over the police or a role for the military in internal public security;
a special responsibility for ―law and order‖ or the rule of law being bestowed on the armed forces in the
constitution, giving it constitutional cover for political intervention; a fixed allotment of the national
budget for the military; higher salaries for military officers than other state officials; control over the
intelligence apparatus; control over civilian activities (such as civil aviation); economic privileges (such
as special export-import licenses, direct control over state-owned firms, and the like); and military veto
power over various decisions beyond national defense. It is not uncommon for post-military regimes to
find that they must seek military approval for a wide variety of state activities. Stable civilian rule,
however, is not synonymous with the reduction of military prerogatives, and, indeed, civil-military peace
is sometimes purchased at the price of not reviewing or reforming any of those legacies of military rule.
15.18 Summary
They are the conservative dynastic regime of Saudi Arabia, the populist clerical regime of Iran, and the
authoritarian military regimes of the Sudan and Pakistan. These regimes articulate different
interpretations of Islam that reflect the interests and ideology of those who control the state machinery,
the influence of society's historical legacy, and specific characteristics of the immediate situational
setting. The Islamic legitimization of all three types has been contested on religio-political grounds by
domestic rivals for power and external rivals for leadership in the Muslim world. The most effective
challenges to regime legitimacy have been manifested in the Islamized military regimes. The
predicament of ―the Islam of the marshals‖ is due to several factors: their lack of the political capital
available in the Saudi type of ―the Islam of wealth,‖ or the legitimacy generated by revolutionary change
under charismatic leadership known in the Iranian type of ―the Islam of revolution,‖ and their anti-
political character, manifested in their distrust of political movements that supported their Islamization
programs and whose leaders aspired to play the roles of its theoreticians and organizers.
15.19 References
Abrahms, Max. (2006) ‗Why Terrorism does not work‘, International Security, 31 (2): 42-78.
Abrahms, Max. (2012) ‗The Political Effectiveness of Terrorism Revisited‘, Comparative Political
Studies, 45 (3): 366-394.
Alavi, Hamza. "The State in Post-Colonial Societies—Pakistan and Bangladesh." New Left
Review 74 (1972): 59–80.
Al-Sayyid, Radwan (2003) ‗The Future of Islamic Movements in the Context of Changing
Regional and International Conditions‘ in The Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and
Research, Islamic Movements – Impact on Political Stability in the Arab World, Abu Dhabi:
ECSSR, 171-196..
Alvarez, Sonia E. Engendering Democracy in Brazil: Women's Movements in Transition
Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Baker, C. "Colonial Rule and the Internal Economy in Twentieth-Century Madras." Modern
Asian Studies 15, no. 3 (1981): 575–602.
Bayart, Jean-Francois. The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly. London and New York:
Longman, 1993.
Burgat, Francois. (2003) Face to Face with Political Islam, London: I.B. Tauris.
Butler, Judith. "Gender Is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion." In Dangerous
Liaisons: Gender, Nation and Postcolonial Perspectives,edited by A. McClintock, A. Mufti, and
E. Shohat. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
Chou, Mark (2011) ‗When Democracies Fail‘, Political Studies Review, 9(3): 344-356.
Clapham, Christopher, and George Philip. 1985. The Political Dilemmas of Military Regimes.
London: Croom Helm.
Colin Leys, Underdevelopment in Kenya, the Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism, 1964-1971;
First published: by Heinemann Educational Books, London, in 1975; Transcribed: by Dominic
Tweedie.
Danopoulos, Constantine. 1988. The Decline of Military Regimes: The Civilian Influence.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Johnson, John J. 1964. The Military and Society in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Kandiyoti, D., ed. Women, Islam and the State. London: Macmillan, 1991.
Leys, Colin. "The 'Overdeveloped' Post Colonial State: A Re-evaluation."Review of African
Political Economy 5 (1976): 39–48.
Mama, Amina. "Changes of State: Gender Politics and Transition in Nigeria." Inaugural Lecture,
September 15, 1999, New Series no. 213, University of Cape Town, Department of
Communication.
Mbembe, Achille. On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
Odetola, Theophilus Olatunde. 1982. Military Regimes and Development: A Comparative
Analysis of African States. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Ollawa, P. "The Political Economy of Development: A Theoretical Reconsideration of Some
Unresolved Issues." African Studies Review 26, no. 1 (1983): 125–155.
Perlmutter, Amos. 1980. The Comparative Analysis of Military Regimes. World Politics 33 (1):
96–120.
Rai, Shirin. "Women and the State in the Third World: Some Issues for Debate." In Women and
the State: International Perspectives, edited by S. Rai and G. Lievesley. London: Taylor and
Francis, 1996.
Remmer, Karen L. 1989. Military Rule in Latin America. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Rouquié, Alain. 1987. The Military and the State in Latin America. Trans. Paul E. Sigmund.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Saul, John. "The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania." In The Socialist Register, edited
by R. Miliband and J. Savage. London: Merlin Press, 1974.
Sigmund, Paul E. 1993. Approaches to the Study of the Military in Latin America. Comparative
Politics 26 (1): 111–122.
 Stark, F. "Theories of Contemporary State Formation in Africa: A Reassessment." Journal of
Modern African Studies 24, no. 2 (1986): 335–347.
Sunder Rajan, Rajeswari. The Scandal of the State: Women, Law and Citizenship in
Postcolonial India. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2003.

15.20 Further Readings

1. Bayart, Jean-Francois." The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly', Longman Publications,
London and New York, 1993.
2. Burgat, Francois."Face to Face with Political Islam", I.B. Tauris, London 2003
3. Johnson, John J. "The Military and Society in Latin America", Stanford University Press,
Stanford, 1964.

15.21 Model Questions

1. Critically Discuss Military regimes in Developing World.
2. Write a detailed note on Islamic Regimes.