Major Governments

For Under-Graduate Students of All Indian Universities

and Autonomous Colleges

MAJOR GOVERNMENTS

Political Systems of U.K., U.S.A., Russia, Switzerland, France and China

V.

II

, [ '#"':♦';

« Jl

;; <►.""

i'-f/sX( iv.

m

K.K. Ghai

Major Governments

POLITICAL SYSTEMS OF^

U.K., U.S.A., RUSSIA, SWITZERLAND, FRANCE AND CHINA

MAJOR GOVERNMENTS

For Under-Graduate Students Of All Indian Universities And Autonomous Colleges

K. K. GHAI

Formerly Head, P.G. Dept. of Political Science D.A.V. College, JALANDHAR

KALYANI PUBLISHERS

LUDHIANA - NEW DELHI - NOIDA (U.P.) - HYDERABAD - CHENNAI KOLKATA - CUTTACK - GUWAHATI - KOCHI -BANGALORE

V/

KALYANI PUBLISHERS

Head Office:

1/1, Rajinder Nagar, Ludhiana-141 008

Administrative Office:

4863/2B, Bharat Ram Road,

24, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110 002

Works : B-16, Sector 8, Noida (U.P.)

Branch Offices:

No. 1, Mahalakshmi Street,

T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017

110/111, Bharatia Towers

Badambadi, Cuttack-753 009 (Orissa)

3-5-1108, Narayanaguda,

Hyderabad-500 029

No. 10.2B, Ramanath Mazumdar Street,

Kolkata-700 009

Arunaiaya, First Floor, Saraswati Road

Pan Bazar, Cuwahati-78! 001

Convent Road, Kochi-682 035

No. 24 & 25 1st floor, Hameed Shah Complex

Cubbonpet Main Road, Bangalore- 560 002

Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this publication. In spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition. It is notified that neither the publisher nor the author or seller will be responsible for any damage or loss of action to any one, of any kind, in any manner, therefrom. It is suggested that to avoid any doubt the reader should cross-check all the facts, law and contents of the publication with original Government publication or notifications.

For binding mistake, misprints or for missing pages, etc., the publisher's liability is limited to replacement within one month of purchase by similar edition. All expenses in this connection are to be borne by the purchaser.

KP-P-l-12198 1

€>2004,GhaiK.K.

Seventh Revised Edition

2013

TYPESETTING AT

(GHAI-l 3-MAJOR-GOVT)

Gautam Graphic Printers Mai Hiran Gate, Jalandhar

ISBN 978-93-272-2907-3

PRINTED IN INDIA

Ajit Printing Press, Delhi

and Published by Mrs. Usha Raj Kumar for Kafyani Publishers, New Delhi-110 002.

( PREFACE

SEVENTII EdmoN

I have the pleasure to present the thoroughly revised and updated Sixth edition of Major Governments. All the components of the Political Systems of six countries (UK, USA, Russia, France, Switzerland and China) have been analysed and compared in a systematic and comprehensive way. Latest facts have been added and the style of presentation has been modified to enable the students to quickly grasp all the basic facts and features.

I am sure; the book will continue to receive the patronage of the teachers and students.

I place on record my heartfelt thanks for M/s Kalyani Publishers for undertaking the publication of this edition and ensuring its release well in time.

Suggestions for improvement are solicited from teachers and students.

2013K.K. GHAI

ChaptersTopicsPages

1.COMPARATIVE POLITICS : INTRODUCTION1-15

2.CLASSIFICATION OF STATES AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS16-35

3.LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC, AUTHOTARIAN AND

TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS36-48

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

THE UNITED KINGDOM

1.BRITISH POLITICAL SYSTEM : LEGACY AND TRADITION3-16

2.BRITISH POLITICAL SYSTEM:17-37

(i) Nature of the Constitution (ii) Salient Features (iii) Conventions

3.BRITISH MONARCHY: THE KING AND THE CROWN38-50 Monarchy, Crown, Survival of Monarchy

4.BRITISH EXECUTIVE :51-80

(i) Parliamentary Government

(ii) The Cabinet (iii) The Prime Minister (iv) British Civil Service

5.THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT :81-120

(i) Sovereignty of Br. Parliament

(ii) House of Lords

(iii) House of Commons

(iv) The Supreme Court of UK and Other Courts Rule of Law

6.RULE OF LAW AND BRITISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM121-12

7.BRITISH POLITICAL PARTIES, PRESSURE

GROUPS AND POLITICAL PROCESS129-150

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

3-10 11-34

1.POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE USA : LEGACY AND TRADITION

2.THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM :

(i) Salient Features

(ii) Conventions

(iii) Method of Amendment

(iv) Sources and Evolution

35-40 41-73

74-106

107-119

120-138

(v) Separation of Powers

3.THE US FEDERAL SYSTEM

4.THE US EXECUTIVE :

(i) The Presidential Form

(ii) The President (iii) The Presidential Cabinet (iv) The Vice-President

5.THE US CONGRESS :

(i) House of Representatives (ii) Senate

6.THE US SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM Federal Courts The Supreme Court Judicial Review

7.US POLITICAL PARTIES, INTEREST GROUPS AND THE ELECTION SYSTEM

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

RUSSIA

1.COLLAPSE OF USER AND BIRTH OF RUSSIA CONSSITUTION

OF THE RUSSIAN SALIEN

FEATURES3-14

2.FUNDAMENTALS OF THE RUSSIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM15-17

3.RUSSIAN BILL OF RIGHTS18-24

4.THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION25-30

5.PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION31-36

6.GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA; COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

AND THE CHAIRMAN OF GOVERNMENT37-^0

7.RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT: THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY41-46

8.THE RUSSIAN JUDICIARY: THE CONSITTUIONAL COURT, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT OF ARBITRATION47-50

9.RUSSIAN POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTIONS51-52

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

FRANCE

1.FRENCH CONSTITUTIONALISM'3-17

2.THE FRENCH PRESIDENT18-28

3.THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT: COUNCIL OF MINISTERS &

PRIME MINISTERS29-37

4.THE FRENCH PARLIAMENTS : NATIONAL ASSEMBLY & SENATE 38-51

5.FRENCH JUDICIARY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL52-59

6.FRENCH PARTY SYSTEM, PRESSURE GROUPS AND

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL60-65

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

SWITZERLAND

1.SWISS POLITICAL SYSTEM : INTRODUCTION

LEGACY AND POLITICAL TRADITION3-15

2.SWISS BILL OF RIGHTS : BASIC CIVIL AND SOCIAL

RIGHTS OF CITIZENS16-20

3.THE SWISS FEDERATION21-33

4.THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT34-47

(i) The Senate

(ii) The House of Representatives

5.SWISS PLURAL EXECUTIVE :

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT/FEDERAL COUNCIL48-60

6.SWISS JUDICIARY : THE FEDERAL COURT61-69

7.SWISS DIRECT DEMOCRACY70-78

8.SWISS POLITICAL PARTIES, PRESSURE GROUPS

AND ELECTIONS79-89

Ht»n

POLITICAL SYSTEM OF

PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA

1.THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION AND

REVOLUTIONARY LEGACY3-11

2.CONSTITUTIONALISM SINCE 1949 AND

THE.CONSTITUTION OF 198212-27

3.NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS

AND ITS STANDING COMMITTEE28-35

4.THE PRESIDENT, STATE COUNCIL & PREMIER OF CHINA36-43

5.CHINESE JUDICIAL SYSTEM : PEOPLES COURTS

AND PEOPLES PROCURATORATES44-47

6.PARTY SYSTEM, POLITICS OF MASS CAMPAIGNS

AND POLITICS OF REFORMS48-64

7.PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY :

ROLE IN CHINESE POLITICAL SYSTEM65-68

QUESTION BANK

COMPARATIVE

GOVERNMENT/POLITICS :

INTRODUCTION

Comparative Politics is as old as Political Science. Aristotle, the father of Political Science, used comparative method for comprehending and analysing principles, issues and problems of Greek City States of his times. He used the knowledge gained for building his theory of politics. Following Aristotle, several political thinkers began using the comparative method for analysing and presenting their views and conclusion about politics. Thus, it can be legitimately observed that comparative politics had its origin with Aristotle. Harry Eckstein has rightly observed : "Comparative Politics has a particular right to claim Aristotle as an ancestor because of the primacy he assigned to politics among the sciences and because the problems he raised and the methods he used are similar to those still current in political studies."

In contemporary times, Comparative Politics stands recognised as a primary and essential dimension of the study of Politics. A large number of political scientists even regard it as an autonomous discipline because of its vast scope and importance for a comprehensive understanding of politics in all societies. The comparative approach has emerged as a very useful and highly popular approach for the study of Politics. Comparative study of Political Systems forms an integral part of the study of Politics.

Evolution of Comparative Politics

Since times very ancient, Comparative Politics has been a very popular and useful subject of study within the broad ambit of Political Science. Aristotle observed the working of 158 constitutions and used the knowledge for answering such questions as : Which is an ideal state ? Which can be the best practicable state? Which is the best constitution? Aristotle's path was followed by his admirers, and the tradition still continues. It can be stated with certainty that right from the days of Aristotle, comparative study of political institutions, governments and processes has been developing as a major and popular area of investigation with a large number of political scientists. After Aristotle, several political thinkers—Cicero, Polybius, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, J.S. Mill, Bagehot and others, used the comparative method in a highly productive way.

In the 20th century, the ancient tradition received a systematic use and development at the hands of a large number of political scientists, particularly, Ogg, Zink, Munro, C.F. Strong, Herman Finer, Almond, Powell, Blonde!, A.R. Ball, Colelman, David Apter, S £

2COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

Finer and others. In the Western world, Comparative Politics came to be regarded as an autonomous discipline. Several scholars of the Third World countries (New States) got engaged in Comparative Politics studies and the exercise still continues. Comparative Politics continues to be a very popular area of study. The increase in the number of sovereign independent states has made the task more interesting as well as challenging.

In fact, in contemporary times, the importance of Comparative Politics has increased tremendously. The existence of 193 political systems and some non-state political entities in the world has greatly enlarged the scope of Comparative Politics. The need to build a scientific theory of politics and the potential of Comparative Method to serve this end has been mainly responsible for its increased importance.

In the 19th century, Comparative Politics studies {Popularly designated as Comparative Government) were used by the political scientists for arriving at correct and valid conclusions regarding the nature and organisation of state and government through a comparative study of organisation, powers and functions of various political institutions working in various states. The basic objective was to enquire into the historical and legal similarities and dissimilarities among the various forms of government and their political institutions for getting answer to two main questions : Which form of government was the best?, and Which types of political institutions were the best? Comparative study was regarded as the key to the understanding of politics and consequently the key to provide answers to these two question. A comparative normative-prescriptive study of political institutions was conducted for answering these questions. The features, merits, demerits, similarities and dissimilarities of political institutions were compared and an attempt was made to identify the best political institutions. This focus continued to remain popular up till the end of the 19th century.

In the 20th century, the study underwent revolutionary changes. The traditional focus (Comparative Governments) got replaced by a new direction. Now the study of actual behaviour of political institutions and political processes came to be the adopted as the main area of study. For this purpose, several new concepts and approaches were developed. The building of a scientific theory of politics through comparative studies of politics came to the objective.

The dissatisfaction with the traditional approach and scope of Comparative Government due to its lack of comprehensives in scope, unrealistic nature and unscientific methodology led to the birth of the need for developing a new science of Comparative Politics capable of explaining all phenomena of politics in all parts of the globe as well as for building a scientific theory of politics. The increased opportunity for comparative politics provided by the rise of several new political systems in Asia and Africa, and the increased necessity for building a scientific theory of politics capable of guiding the path of the organisation of political institutions in the new states, gave an added importance to the attempts at the development of the new science of Comparative Politics, Political Scientists now adopted Comprehensiveness, Realism, Precision and use of scientific methods as the new goals for the study of Comparative Politics.

With the passage of time, the experience and knowledge gained helped the development of Comparative Politics as a vitally important and popular subject of study. Several developments of the post-war era greatly revolutionised this area of study. Consequently, it

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

3

came to be regarded as an autonomous subject, of course, within the broad ambit of Political Science. The traditional objective of deciding the best forms of government came to be replaced by the objective of systematic and comparative politics studies for comprehensively, realistically and precisely analysing and explaining all the processes of politics. From a legal-institutional study Comparative Politics came to be transformed into a behavioural, process-oriented, functional and scientific study of all political systems in terms of their structures, functions, environments and development processes. This attempt continues even today and Comparative Politics continues to be a popular and highly productive area of the study of politics.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT: THE TRADITIONAL VIEW

Traditionally, the comparative study of politics stands entitled as Comparative Government and it includes the study of features and legal powers of political institutions existing in various states, particularly in the European states.

In simple words, Comparative Government can be defined as the study of state and other political institutions in terms of their legal powers, functions and positions on a comparative basis. "Study of powers, functions, positions and relative merits and demerits of political institutions is traditionally referred to as Comparative Government."

G.K. Roberts defines Comparative Government as "the study of states and their governmental institutions and processes on a comparative basis."

According to Jean Blondel, "Comparative Government involves a study of the patterns of national governments in the contemporary world."

While defining Comparative Government, Edward Freeman writes "it is comparative analysis of the various forms of government and diverse political institutions." "By comparative government I mean comparative study of political institutions and forms of government."

REVIEW OF CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT

Let us discuss the various characteristics of the traditional approach, which have been discussed by Prof. R.C. Macridis.

1.Essentially Non-comparative The vast majority of publications in the field of

comparative government deal either with one country or with parallel descriptions of the

institutions of a number of countries. The majority of the texts illustrate the non-comparative

character of this approach.

2.Essentially Descriptive Studies Undoubtedly the description of political institutions is

vital for the understanding of the political process and that it leads to comparative study.

However mere description is not enough. Hardly ever can any real comparison between the

particularly institutions described. A reading, for instance, of one of the best texts,

"Governments of Continental Europe" edited by James T. Shotwell, reveals that as we pass

from France to Italy, Switzerland, Germany and the U.S.S.R., there is no common thread, no

criterion of why these particular countries were selected and no examination of the factors

that account for similarities and differences. The same generally applies to Frederic Oggs

and Harold Zink's "Modern Foreign Governments" and to Fritz M. Marx's "Foreign

Governments."

A

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

3.Historical-Legalistic-Institutional Approach There are two typical approaches in the descriptive study of political institutions. The first is historical and the second is legalistic. We trace the origin of the British parliamentary system to the Magna Carta and then study its development through successive historical accounts of the evolution of the French Parliament or the German Representative Assemblies which indicate similarities and differences. The second most prevalent approach is what we might call the legalistic approach. Mere, the student is exposed primarily to the study of the 'legal powers' of various branches of government and their relationships with reference to the existing constitutional and legal prescriptions. This is almost exclusively the study of what can be done or what cannot be done by various governmental agencies with reference to legal and constitutional provisions. Hence the traditional approach has been legalistic.

4.Essentially Parochial The great number of studies on foreign political systems have been addressed to the examination of Western European institutions. Accessibility of the countries studied, relative ease of overcoming language barriers, and the availability of official documents and other source materials, as well as cultural affinities, account for this fact. The traditional approach has been parochial because it has concentrated only upon European political systems.

5.Essential Static In general, the traditional approach has been ignoring the dynamic factors that account for growth and change. It has concentrated on what we have called political anatomy. After the evolutionary premises of some of the original works in the nineteenth century were abandoned, students of political institutions apparently lost all interest in the formulation of other countries in the light of which change could be comparatively studied.

6.Essentially Monographic The most important studies of foreign political systems, apart from the basic texts, have taken the form of monographs that have concentrated on the study of political institutions of one system or on the discussion of a particular institution in different systems. Works such as those by John Marriott, Arthur Keith, Joseph Bartheiemy, James Bryce, Ivor Jennings, Harold Laski, A.V. Dicey, Frank Goodnow, W.A. Robson, Abbott L. Lowell, Woodrow Wilson, and several others were addressed generally to only one country or to a particular institutional development within one country.

In other words, the main characteristics of Comparative Government have been

(1)Emphasis upon the study of political institutions of various countries.

(2)Main focus on the study of major constitutions of the world.

(3)Emphasis upon the study of powers and functions of various political institutions working in different states.

(4)Legal Instutionalism i.e. formal study of the organisation and powers, description of the features of the constitutions and political institutions, and legal powers of political institutions, form the basic contents of Comparative Government study.

(5)Building a theory of ideal political institutions constituted the objective.

With all these features, Comparative Government remained a very popular area of study unto the 1st quarter of the 20th century. Thereafter, a large number of political scientists got greatly dissatisfied with its narrow scope, unscientific methodology, formal legalistic-institutional istic and normative approach. They revolted against it and came forward to adopt comprehensiveness, realism, precision and scientific study of the processes of politics as their new goals. Their efforts came to be designated as Comparative Politics.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

5

COMPARATIVE POLITICS: CONTEMPORARY VIEW

All modern comparative politics studies are very essentially governed by the objective of understanding the processes of politics at work in all the political systems. For this purpose, the political scientists use several methods. As Macridis and Ward observe, "The ways of comparative politics are many. Comparison is like a guided tour of foreign lands. It shows that human beings living in different societies differ in their political behaviours. They differ in the political values they hold dear, in the ways in which they apprehend each other and the outside world, in the manner in which they solve similar problems.^ Though the study of comparative politics is very old, yet its importance has increased only in recent times.

In contemporary times, all the political scientists accept that for a proper understanding of all political systems, a comparative study of their structures and functions is essential.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS : MEANING AND DEFINITION

The study of comparative politics involves conscious comparisons in studying political experience, institutions, behaviour and processes of the systems of government in a comprehensive manner. It includes the study of even extra-constitutional agencies having their immediate connection, open or tacit, with formal governmental organs. It is, therefore, concerned with significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and in the patterns of political behaviour.

In simple words, we can say, Comparative Politics involves a comparative study of various political systems either as a whole or through a comparative analysis of their structures and functions.

Some popular definitions of Comparative Politics:

"Comparative Politics is the study of the forms of political organisations, their

properties, correlations, variations and modes of change."M. G. Smith

"Government is not the sole concern of students of comparative politics. Comparative

Politics, no doubt, has to be concerned with the government structure, but at the same time,

it has to take note of: (i) society, historical heritage and geographic and resouces endowed,

its social and economic organisations, its ideologies and value systems, and its political

style; and (ii) its parties, interests and leadership structure."Macridis and Ward

"Comparative Politics is the study of patterns of national governments in the

contemporary world." The term patterns of government refers to the 3 parts of study (i)

government structure, (ii) behaviour i.e. the study of how a particular political structure or

in titutio® mfafa, and (iii) the laws."Jean Blondel

"Comparative Politics is concerned with significant regularities, similarities and

differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviour."M. Curtis

"Comparative politics is identification and interpretation of factors in the whole social

order which appear to affect whatever political functions and their institutions which have

been identified and listed for comparison."Braibante

Comparative Politics involves a comparative study of not only the institutional and

6COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

mechanistic arrangements of government but also an empirical and scientific analysis of non-institutional and non-political determinants of political behaviour such as the pattern of culture or the socio-economic environment within which the political systems operate. Empirical study of political processes, structures and functions forms the core of Comparative Politics studies. Its aim is to build a scientific theory of politics capable of explaining all phenomena of politics.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS : NATURE/FEATURES

Comparative Politics seeks to analyse and compare the political systems operating in

.various societies. In doing so, it takes into account all the three connotations of politics:

political activity, political process and political power.

yThe political activity consists of all the activities involved in conflict-resolution or in the

cstruggle for power. Since the basic means of conflict-resolution is the authoritative allocation

cof values, it involves an analysis of the process by which the authoritative values are made

fand implemented in all societies. In this sense, politics stands for political process. It involves

Ithe study of all formal as well as non-formal structures, the governmental and non¬

governmental structures through which the political process gets operationalised. The

f.political process receives information and signals from the environment and then transforms

pthese signals and information into authoritative values. Finally, politics being a struggle for

npower or a process of conflict-resolution through the use of legitimate power, involves a

irstudy of power or power relations in society. Lasswell describes Politics as the process of

c<shaping and sharing of power. Robert Dahl holds that Politics involves power, rule and

authority to a significant extent. Hence the study of Politics naturally involves the study of

3jpolitical power.

stComparative Politics involves a comparative study of political activities, political

diprocesses and struggles for power in various political systems. It seeks to analyse and

Bcompare political systems in a holistic way as well as through a comparative analysis of their

"structures, functions, infrastructures and processes.

gf

Features of Comparative Politics

(1)Analytical and Empirical Research Comparative Politics focuses on analytical empirical research. It is no longer confined to descriptive studies. It seeks to analyse, empirically and analytically, the actual activities of the governments and their structures and functions. It stands for scientific studies of politics.

(2)Objective Study of Politics Comparative Politics involves a value-neutral empirical study of the various processes of politics in their environment. Only those values are admitted whose validity can be scientifically demonstrated. It basically concentrates upon the study of what is and not what should be. It rejects the normative-prescriptive approach of the comparative government. It aims at developing an empirical and objective theory of politics capable of explaining and comparing all phenomena of politics.

ore(3) Emphasis upon the study of Infra-Structure of Politics Comparative Politics now

jnsseeks to analyse the actual political behaviour of individuals, groups, structures, sub-systems

coiand systems in relation to the environment in which their behaviour manifests. It is now not

neconfined to the study of formal institutions of government in terms of their legal powers and

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICSj INTRODUCTION _________„_ 7.

functions. It seeks to analyse the actual behaviour of all political structures in the environment. To study the dynamics of politics i.e.its actual operation in the environment, is regarded as the key focus of Comparative Politics. The study of the decision-making process in a given environment, for example, forms an integral part of Comparative Politics.

(4)Inter-disciplinary Focus Comparative Politics accepts the desirability and need for adopting inter-disciplinary focus. It accepts the need to study politics with the help of the knowledge of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and other social sciences. Political behaviour is a part of the general social behaviour, and is intimately related to all other aspects of human behaviour. As such, it can be systematically analysed only with reference to other social sciences. Further, the study of political structures can be studied only in relation with the soeial structures. This again makes it imperative for the students of Comparative Politics to adopt an inter-disciplinary focus.

(5)Study of Political Processes in both Developed and Developing Countries

Whereas in its traditional form, it involved only the study of the governments of the developed societies, in contemporary times, it places great stress on the study of the political systems of developed as well as developing societies. The biased and parochial nature of traditional studies stands replaced by all-embracing studies of developing as well as developed political systems. Study of political systems of Asia, Africa and Latin America enjoys equal importance with the study of American and European political systems. Modern political scientists, like Almond, Coleman, Sidney Verba, David Easton, Powell and Edward Shills, have given considerable importance to the study of politics in developing societies. It has been accepted by all the political scientists that Comparative Politics must include all political systems of our times, developed as well as developing, European as well as non-European, and major as well as minor. Each political system is a laboratory which can provide useful insights into the processes of politics and lead to the collection of data which can provide valuable threads for knitting a theory of politics.

(6)Horizontal and Vertical Comparisons Comparative Politics involves both a comparative study of the political structures and functions of national political systems of various states and also a comparative study of the political structures at work within a single state. The former is called horizontal comparative studies and the latter vertical comparative studies. Traditionally under comparative government, emphasis was placed only upon horizontal comparative studies. In contemporary comparative politics studies however, equal importance is given to both types of comparisons.

(7)Scientific Theory-Building as the Objective The objective of the study of Comparative Politics is not only to make comparative studies of the similarities and dissimilarities of different political systems but also to build a theory of politics. Scientific theory-building is its objective. David M. Wood observes, "The word 'comparative' is used with the purpose of laying stress on the fact that it is the responsibility of political science that for the purpose of comparison, the different political systems should be taken as a unit so that a special theory is formulated and tested". The purpose is to develop concepts, approaches and theories which can be used for scientific theory-building in politics.

(8)Conceptualisation of Politics as Political System. Comparative Politics has adopted the concept of system for the study of Politics. The concept of Political system has

8

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

virtually replaced the concept of state. It stands adopted as a new analytical tool which has enabled political scientists to study politics comprehensively, realistically and empirically. It is used both for macro and micro, and horizontal and vertical studies of politics. It is a very useful tool for comparative studies of political systems in terms of their structures, functions and processes.

With all these features, Comparative Politics is almost a new science of politics. It has rejected the non-comprehensive scope, formal character, legal and institutional framework, normative and prescriptive approach and parochial nature of the traditional comparative studies of politics (Comparative Government). It now involves a comprehensive, precise and realistic study of politics which is capable of explaining and comparing all phenomena of politics in all parts of the globe.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS AND COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT

In order to be clearer about the nature of Comparative Politics, it is essential that we should understand the difference between it and Comparative Government. These two terms are often used loosely and interchangeably, yet there exists a subtle distinction between the two.

Comparative Politics has a wider scope, analytical approach and scientific theory-building as its objective. It stands for analysing the political activities and process in all political systems—European, Asian, African and Latin American. As against this, Comparative Government is the traditional way of concentrating upon the study of legal powers and functions of political institutions. Its scope is narrow and approach is normative.

Explaining the difference between Comparative Politics and Comparative Government, Sidney Verba has remarked, "Z/i Comparative Politics, we look beyond description to more theoretically relevant problems; look beyond the single case to the comparison of many cases; look beyond the formal institutions of government to political processes and political functions; and look beyond the countries of Western Europe to the new nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America".

A. Difference in Scope

Comparative Government is a limited field with an emphasis upon the study of formal political institutions in terms of their legal powers and functions. As against this. Comparative Politics is a broader field that includes the analysis and comparison of the actual behaviour of all political structures, formal or informal, governmental or non-governmental, strictly political as well as non-political which directly or indirectly affect the process of politics in all political systems.

In other words, the scope of Comparative Politics is broader than the scope of Comparative Government. In the words of Geoffrey K. Roberts, "Comparative Politics can usefully be distinguished from the term." Comparative Government as being a wider and inclusive area of study. Not only is it concerned with the comparative study of the state and its institutions and processes, but also it includes in its field the wider rank of political structures, functions and values found in both the state and non-state political context, such as leadership, political socialisation, the resolution of political conflict, bargaining, decision¬making in political institutions and political communications.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

9

B. Difference in Approach

Besides its wider scope, Comparative Politics has an approach which is different from Comparative Government. The latter involves descriptive studies with a legal-institutional framework and normative-prescriptive focus. As against it, Comparative Politics stands for an analytical empirical study with a process—oriented or behavioural focus and scientific methodology. Comparative Politics seeks to empirically analyse and compare the actual behaviour or activities or functions of political structures. It accepts interdisciplinary focus. Comparative Politics is, therefore, concerned with significant regularities, similarities and differences in the actual functioning of political institutions and political behaviour. Under Comparative Government, vertical comparisons enjoy lesser importance than horizontal comparisons, in contrast Comparative Politics gives equal importance to both horizontal and vertical comparisons.

Major Differences between Comparative Government and Comparative Politics

(1)Comparative Government is older than Comparative Politics. Comparative Government is the traditional and Comparative Politics is the modern way of studying politics.

(2)Comparative Government is normative and prescriptive; Comparative Politics is analytical and largely value neutral.

(3)Comparative Government has a narrow scope. It involves the study of the state and formal political institutions. Comparative Politic;: has a very wide and comprehensive scope. It involves the study of all structures, functions and processes of politics at work in all parts of the globe.

(4)Comparative Government depends upon historical, legal, institutional and philosophical approaches and methods. Comparative Politics depends upon scientific-empirical methods of study.

(5)Comparative Government fails to give due place to the study of the environment of political institutions. Comparative Politics gives due importance to the study of the environment and infra-structure of politics.

(6)Comparative Government ignores the importance of interdisciplinary focus. Comparative Politics fully accepts the importance of interdisciplinary focus and strongly advocates the use of such a focus.

(7)While description has been the goal of Comparative Government, explanation and prediction have been the goals of Comparative Politics.

(8)Comparative Government has been parochially oriented towards European political systems. Comparative Politics accepts the need for the study of all political systems—European and Non-European, Western and Eastern, and developed as well as developing.

(9)Comparative Government seeks to build a theory of ideal political institutions. Comparative Politics seeks to build a scientific theory of politics.

As such. Comparative Politics has a wider scope and analytical approach whereas Comparative Government stands for a limited and descriptive study of formal governmental institutions.

Michael Curtis has rightly observed : "Comparative Politics in concerned with the significant regularities, similarities and differences in the working of political institutions

10

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

and in political behaviour. It uses the scientific method of study. Comparative Government, on the other hand stands for descriptive and theoretical studies of political institutions of the state." Scholars like A.R.Bali, however, advocate that the gap between comparative Politics and Comparative Government has been getting reduced day by day. Both have been placing greater stress on the study of non-formal political processes than upon formal political institutions of the state. However, most of the contemporary political scientists persist in making a clear distinction between Comparative Politics and Comparative Government,

COMPARATIVE POLITICS : SCOPE

The scope of Comparative Government has been limited parochial and confined to the study of constitutions and political institutions in respect of their features, powers and positions. It has been parochial in the sense that it involves a study of only European constitution-a standard constitution for measuring the worth of all other constitutions. The emphasis has been upon the study of governments and institutions. As R.C. Macridis has observed that "Students of Comparative Government are more concerned with studying foreign government than with comparative politics. Their efforts stand directed tc the collection of facts rather than to testing of hypothesis about political behaviour."

Comparative Politics has come out of the parochialism and limited scope of Comparative Government. It has come to acquire a very wide scope. It now includes the analysis and comparison of the political processes, political activities, political functions, and political structures of all political systems, developed as well as developing and European as well as Asian, African and Latin American. After the end of the Second World War, revolutionary changes took place in its scope and methodology.

Modern Political Scientists observed the shortcomings of the traditional studies and decided to eliminate formalistic- legal-institutionalism, crude-empiricism and normativism of the traditionalists. They accepted that these must include all the processes of politics and not only legal institutions. The actual functioning of all political structures, formal as well as non-formal political structures like interest groups, pressure groups, political parties and political elites should also form a part of the scope of comparative politics. They came forward to develop new tools, concepts models and theories of political processes for comprehensively and realistically analysing and comparing the behaviour all political systems. They borrowed several concepts from other social sciences, and even some from natural sciences, for analysing, explaining and comparing all phenomena of Politics. Consequently, there appeared a revolutionary change in the scope and nature of contemporary comparative politics studies.

Consequently, Comparative Politics has come to own a very wide scope. It includes all that comes within the purview of politics—all political processes, political activities and power relations found in every part of the globe. A comparative study of the regularities, similarities and differences among the structures and functions of all political systems forms the core of its scope.

The following are the main subjects included in the scope of Comparative Politics:

(1) All Political Structures. The scope of Comparative Politics includes the study of all structures, formal and informal, governmental and extra-governmental, which are directly or

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENJ/POLITICS_: INTRODUCTION _ _____„_11

indirectly involved in the struggle for power taking place in each state. It is not confined only to the study of the three formal governmental organs-legislature, executive and judiciary. Along with these. Bureaucracy, Interest Groups, Pressure Groups, Elites, Political Parties and all other political groups of human beings form a part of the scope of Comparative Politics.

(2)Functional Studies. Comparative Politics seeks to study politics less from the point of view of the legal institutions in terms of their powers, and more from the point of view of the functions which constitute the political process and their actual operation in the environment. It studies the functions of interest articulation, interest aggregation, political communication, rule-making, rule-application, rule-adjudication, socialisation, decision¬making, policy-making and the like.

(3)Study of Political Behaviour. Another important part of the scope of Comparative Politics is the study of the actual behaviour of the people in the process of politics. Voting behaviour, political participation, leadership recruitment, elite behaviour, mass politics, populism etc. form an integral part of Comparative Politics.

(4)Study of Similarities and Differences. Comparative Politics also undertakes an analysis of the similarities and differences among political processes and functions. However, the approach is not descriptive, legalistic and formalistic. It is on the basis of the actual functioning of political structures and processes that the similarities and dissimilarities are empirically explained, analysed and compared. The objective is not to decide which is the best process or system. The objective is systematic explanation, understanding, and theory-building.

(5)Study of all Political Systems. Comparative Politics seeks to analyse the actual behaviour and performance of political systems-Western as well as non-Western. Political Systems are analysed and compared in terms of their structures, functions, capabilities and performances. Here again, the objective is not to decide which political system is the best. The actual working of various political systems is analysed with a view to gather systematic knowledge for theory-building.

(6)Study of the Environment and Infrastructure of Politics. The study of Politics demands a study of the psychological, sociological, economic and anthropological environment, in fact, the social environment as whole, in which each political system operates. For studying this, modern political scientists have developed concepts like political culture, political socialisation, political modernisation etc. The study of the political culture of various political systems forms a very popular focus in comparative politics. Study of the Infra-structure of politics forms an integral part of the scope of Comparative Politics. This concept has definitely enhanced the ability of political scientists to explain and compare the behaviour of various political systems in their environments. It has further helped them to analyse the differences in the working of similar political systems and the gaps between micro-politics and macro-politics.

(7)Study of Political Culture. Political Culture is composed of attitudes, beliefs, emotions and values of a society that relate to the political system and to political issues. These beliefs and values greatly influence the functioning of each political system. The study of Political Culture is an important part of the scope of Comparative Politics. Political Culture constitutes the psychological environment of each political system and hence deserves full attention.

12COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

(8)Study of Political Socialisation. Political Socialisation is the process by which an individual acquires his Political Culture. Its is also included in the scope of comparative politics because the behaviour of each political system depends to a large extent on this process. It is the process by which Political Cultures are maintained and changed.

(9)Study of Political Participation Political participation is a universal fact. The only difference is that in some states, it is limited while in others it is wider. Political participation provides legitimacy to the government and administration, and brings stability in it because a system which is based on the consent and will of the people and where the participation of the people is wider, always more efficient and stable. The students of comparative politics seek to know how political participation influences the functional aspect of poltical systems in different states. Moreover, they also try to know the factors which determine political participation and their role in politics.

(10)Study of Pressure Groups and Interest Groups Organised groups are found in every political system. Some of them are formed voluntarily by individuals for fulfilling some special and common objectives e.g., Political Parties, Interest Groups and Pressure Groups, etc. Besides, there are some groups which come into existence suddenly due to a particular event and remain in existence for a short period. These groups reflect the wishes of the people through public meetings, symbols, programmes, demonstrations, etc., and try to influence the working of the political system. Political Parties contest elections, form government, criticise government and perform other such function. There is one-party system in communist countries (China); there are at work two-party systems in countries like the USA and the UK and in some countries like India, France and Switzerland there are at work multi-party systems. The nature of the party systems and the number and activities of interest groups always exercise a deterministic role in the working of a democratic political system. Therefore, the students of Comparative Politics have to evaluate minutely the structure, working and policy-programmes of these groups.

(11)Study of Power, Influence, Authority and Legitimacy. Modern political scientists lay special emphasis on the study of 'Power.' 'Influence', 'Authority' and Legitimacy. They use these concepts for a classification of political systems on the basis of the nature of authority relations and struggle for power. As such, the study of the concepts of Power. Influence, Legitimacy and Authority occupies an important place in the scope of Comparative Politics.

(12)Study of Political Processes Political processes like Decision-making, Policy-making, Judicial Process, Leadership recruitment process and others, are always at work in all political systems. The actual working of a political system depends upon these processes. Therefore, a comparative study of all the political processes is also an integral part of the scope of Comparative Politics.

Thus, the scope of Comparative Politics has become very comprehensive. It includes I everything that falls within the purview of political activity and political process. It seeks to study all mechanisms of politics with a view to build a science of politics capable of explaining and comparing all political activities, processes, and systems. It involves a study of all structures and functions, which directly or indirectly, vigorously or passively affect the political processes in all states. Political Behaviour, Political Culture, Political Socialisation,

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENJ/POLITICS^: INTRODUCTION ____1_3_

Decision-making, Power-struggle, Interest Groups, Political Parties, Elites, Direct Action, Public Protests, violence, urbanisation, modernisation, power influence authority etc., are all included in the scope of Comparative Politics.

In the words of P.Sharan, "Comparative Politics aims at studying the political processes and institutions in a truly comparative manner for the purpose of answering common problems and questions. In so doing, it broadens the scope of comparison to as many political systems as possible." It involves conscious comparisons in studying political structures, political behaviours, political processes and political activities of all political systems. It rejects the parochialism, institution alison and formaiism of the traditional studies of Comparative Government. Comparative Politics is guided by comprehensiveness, realism and precision as its three main objectives.

New innovations in the discipline of Comparative Politics have been well summarised by Gabriel A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. as follows:

1.The Search for a more Comprehensive Scope. The effort is: (/') to break out of parochialism and ethnocentrism, (ii) to give equal importance to the study of non-western governments and political processes along with studies of political systems, and (Hi) to make comparative politics studies comprehensive by including the efforts of all political scientists and area specialists for theory-building in political science. Past as well as present political systems form an integral part of contemporary studies of comparative politics.

2.The Search for Realism. It means rejection of all formalism and the dominant concern with law, ideology, and governmental institutions. It includes an examination of the structures and processes involved in politics and policy-making. The study of governmental processes, viz rule-making, rule-application, and rule-adjudication, political parties, interest groups, electoral processes, political communication and political socialisation processes dealing with the European and non-Western areas is included in its scope. It emphasises the study of the dynamic forces of politics.

3.The Search for Precision. Like other social sciences, particularly psychology, economics, sociology and anthropology, there have emerged voting behaviour and electoral behaviour studies in political science also. Studies through precise measurement and controlled observations have started becoming very popular with American., European and non-western, non-European political scientists. A large number of political scientists have produced "studies of electoral trends based on voting statistics, studies of factors affecting voters" choices based upon sample surveys; studies correlating quantitative social data and the characteristics of the political system, studies of political culture and socialisation based on sample surveys, clinical case studies, and anthropological field observations, quantitative studies of political elite recruitment; quantitative content analysis of political communication, observational studies of political of judicial decisions; and the development of mathematical models for the analysis of political processes. Organisation and analysis of opinion polls and exit polls and social surveys have become important features of modern comparative politics studies. All these attempts have been directed in the direction of securing precision in comparative politics studies.

4.The Search for a New Intellectual Order. The above three tendencies have strained the traditional theoretical frameworks and conceptuational vocabularies beyond their capacity

14COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

to codify and assimilate the new insights and findings of political science research. Concepts such as the state, the constitution, representation, rights, duties etc., cannot codify such activities as the extra-constitutional activities of political parties, pressure groups, and the media of mass communication. Theoretical experimentation, relying primarily on sociological, psychological and anthropological concepts and frameworks, has become common, and new concepts such as political culture, political elite, political socialisation have already become very popular. Comparative Politics has developed and is still developing a new intellectual order.

These four directions have greatly revolutionalised the contemporary comparative politics studies. These have been definitely directed towards the buildings of a science of politics.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS STUDIES

We are confronted with several difficulties in the way of conducting Comparative Politics studies. These difficulties have nicely been analysed by Jean Blondel in his well known book: "An Introduction to Comparative Government." It is worthwhile to discuss the same as under:

1.Inter-connection between Norms, Institutions and Behaviour In the first instance, there are difficulties arising from the inter-connection between norms, institutions and behaviour which stem from the fact that some governments exist naturally and others are imposed. Traditionally, this question was examined through the study of gap between constitution and 'real' political life, this gap is important, as no constitution will ever be fully implemented. But the problem is more general. Constitutions are only one type of normative arrangement under which countries can be organized. Constitution-makers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries attempted to modify societies in a certain way, generally in order in increase the liberal content of government. To that extent, they tried to impose rules Constitutional rule is therefore, a form of imposed system of government. But other types of impositions also occur, though by different means and in the name of different principles. The distinction between natural and imposed arrangements is thus a problem for all political systems.

2.Range of Variables The analysis can become precise only when it is possible to list and weigh the numerous variables which enter into the 'definition' of a political system. The list of variables is impressive and the task in impossible to calculate as many of these variables lack quantitative formalization. Economic conditions, social conditions, the climate, physical geography and some others, all seem to be a part of the "explanation" of political system and all have been used at one period or another by political scientists anxious to

explain' the norms, institutions and behaviours of nations. Since the range of variables of politics is very large it is not possible to empirically and comprehensively analyse all these.

3.Paucity of Information. Cross-national analysis is made particularly difficult because

in several countries, particularly where the system is 'imposed', information is often lacking.

Totalitarian countries refuse access to much information. Admittedly, even the most 'open"

country does operate limited and indirect censorship on numerous processes. In many

circumstances, lack of information poses a serious hindrance in the way of comparative

politics. Many governments are not willing to let the political scientists have a look into their

records and files.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENJ/POLITICS_: INTRODUCTION _____15

4.Problems in the way of using Scientific Method are also problems of Comparative

Politics. Hindrances in the way of application of Scientific Methods to Social Science

Research are also hindrances in the way of Comparative Politics. These are:

(a)The problem resulting from complexity of social data.

(b)The problem of using empirical methods in the study of human political relations and interactions.

(c)The problem of verification and prediction making in politics.

(d)The issue of explanation and prediction in politics.

(e)The problem arising from dynamic nature of the social phenomena.

(/) The problem of applying the scientific method to a highly complex and dynamic political phenomena. All these hindrances combine to create a big hindrance in the use of the scientific method in Comparative Politics studies. However, gradually political scientists have' been overcoming these difficulties. Comparative Politics studies are now becoming quite well-organised and systematic.

5.Problem of Empirical Study. Comparative Politics stands for scientific and empirical study of all phenomena of polities. It gives rise to the problems associated with the observation and collection of facts. In particular, this problem becomes bigger when one is to collect facts about the operation of authoritarian and totalitarian political systems.

6.Dynamic Nature of Politics. Politics is an aspect of human behaviour and like all other aspects of human behaviour, it is also highly dynamic. Further, a big gap is always present in the theory and practice of all political systems. This always acts as a big hindrance in the way of every realistic study of politics.

7.The Problem of Objectivity. Scientific and empirical study of Politics demands objectivity in the observation, collection and analyse of the facts of the processes under study. It demands an ability to keep ones values and biases away from the universe of the study. For this, the researcher has to maintain a high level of alertness and commitment to maintain, objectivity. This requirement also acts as a source of big hindrance in the way of Comparative Politics studies.

Thus there have been present several problems and hindrances in the way of Comparative Politics studies. However, these are being gradually overcome through conscious efforts on the part of modern political scientists.

To conclude, we may say, as M.Curtis has observed, "the study of Comparative Politics is at the heart of contemporary political science. It has undergone several meaningful developments in recent years. Its nature has been becoming more and more systematic and its scope has been becoming comprehensive. However, it is still developing."

H

E :::::::: |>::::::: ::

liliiiiiiHiiiiiiiiijji

CLASSIFICATION OF STATES

AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Need for Classification of States

Every State has four essential elements—Population, Territory, Government and Sovereignty. The presence of all these is essential for statehood. In fact, these constitute the set of elements for determining whether an organisation/association is a state or not. The presence of all these four elements qualifies an organisation to be accepted as a state. The absence of even one of these leads to a denial of the status of a state to that organisation/association. Hence, all states are alike in their nature as all involve the same elements. There can be differences in the size of the population and territory or in respect of the form of government, but these elements have to be present along with the element of sovereignty and only then can a state really qualify to be a state. All states are sovereign, equal and independent entities. As such there can be no real classification of states.

What is called classification of states is, basically a classification of governments or political systems working in all states. The states can differ only in respect of the forms of their governments or nature of politics. Some states have democratic governments, while others have monarchies, aristocracies or autocracies or dictatorships. Some states have federal systems, (as for example, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, and the USA) while others have unitary systems, (as for example in the United Kingdom, China & France). Still some others have a mixture of federal and unitary systems, as for example India. Moreover, some have parliamentary governments (India, UK, Japan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and others) while others have Presidential governments (The USA). Some states have adopted a parliamentary-presidential mixed form (Switzerland and France). As such classification of states can be done only as classification of the governments or the political systems. This has been actually done by a large number of modern political scientists.

EARLIEST CLASSIFICATIONS: CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES OF HERODOTUS, PINDAR, THUCYDIDES, & PLATO

In all the earliest classification schemes formulated by Herodotus, Pindar, Thucydides, Socrates and Plato, the states were basically classified into: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. Monarchy was taken to mean the rule of a person for promoting the good of all. Its bad form (Perverted or Deviant Form) was identified as Tyranny i.e. rule of one man promoting his selfish interests and dominating the people. Aristocracy meant the rule of few persons or a class of persons. Its perverted form was Oligarchy, in which the rich ruled and

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENJ/POLmCS_: INTRODUCTION__^ ___17

wealth constituted the basis of their rule. Democracy was considered by them as a bad form involving the rule of ignorance and numbers (Mob Rule). Polity was defined as rule of the people or a majority of the people.

Classification of States in Ancient Times

Let us discuss the classifications of states a suggested by Pindar, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato and Aristotle.

In Ancient Greek, philosophers were aware of the need to study all the states. In fact Pindar and Thucydides studied all the existing states (called City-states or Polis). They broadly classified the states into several forms Monarchy Aristocracy, Democracy, Polity, Tyranny, Oligarchy and Extreme Democracy. These classifications were done on the basis of the number of rulers (one, few. many or all) and as to whether the states obeyed laws or not. Further, the states were classified on the basis as to whether there was rule of knowledge (i.e. Virtue) or not. The state with imperfect knowledge but ruled by laws, and the states with lack of knowledge i.e. state of ignorance, where laws existed and but were not obeyed. Plato lamented that there was no state based on knowledge, and that is why he undertook the exercise to build a scheme of Ideal state in his work the Republic. Such an ideal state could be a monarchy i.e. the rule of an all-wise king or an Aristocracy i.e. rule of the best, or an ideocracy i.e. the state of supreme reason.

In general, however, several ancient thinkers classified the states into Monarchy, Tyranny, Aristocracy. Oligarchy, Polity (Moderate Democracy) and Democracy (Extreme Democracy). Aristotle offered a six fold systematic classification of states. Let us discuss in detail the classification schemes given by Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle.

I.Classification Scheme of Herodotus

Herodotus classified the constitutions (states) into Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. In Monarchy and Aristocracy, governments were based on the principles of birth rather good birth and breeding, while democracy involved the rule of ordinary people. Herodotus, however, held that these forms always ultimately lead to tyranny. Monarchy becomes a tyranny because the king becomes intoxicated with power. Aristocracy becomes tyranny because of infighting for supremacy among the nobles. Democracy too becomes a tyranny when the persons who lead the people to revolt against ignorance and corruption (key results of democracy) assume all powers and become a group of tyrants.

II.Classification Scheme of Plato

In his work the Republic, Plato conceptualized the ideal state as the state ruled by the philosopher king i.e. Ideal Monarchy or rule of philosopher i.e. aristocracy of intellect and knowledge or rule of men who personified reason/wisdom/knowledge. In his work Politics, Plato classified the constitutions (states) into seven types. For doing this he made the number of rulers as the primary basis for the classification. The principle of obedience vs. non-obedience of law as the second basis of classification. Platonic classification can be presented as follows :

18COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

A. Rule of One

LAWJS

nBEYiP———" '^ea' Monarchy (Best Constitution) AWIgOBEYEDLega|Monarchy

LAW IS

^0T" OBey^n"""" Tyranny (Worst Constitution)

LAW IS0§§^£2Aristocracy-Normal Rule of few

B. Rule of Few

B. Rule of Many

LAW ^cTcl3lYEEr~" Oligarchy-Perverted Rule of few

LAW isOBEVEDLegal or Moderate Democracy

^W'SNoTo§EyED~~ArDitrary or ^xtreme Democracy

Platonic classification served as a basis for Aristotle's classification of states. In fact, Aristotle was in a position to improve the classifications done by Herodotus, Plato and others. He systematically classified the states and initiated the process of classification of states by all latter scholars. His classification scheme is still basically followed by several modern political thinkers.

III. ARISTOTLE'S CLASSIFICATION OF STATES

The credit for attempting the first systematic and comprehensive classification of states belongs to Aristotle. In his famous work 'Polities' he classified the states on two bases:

(«) The number of persons in whom the sovereign power was vested, i.e. number of rulers—A Quantitative Basis. On this basis, Aristotle held that either the sovereign powers could be in the hands of one person, or few persons or all/majority of persons.

(b) The end to which the conduct of the rulers was directed i.e., the ends that the State served—A Qualitative Basis. The power holders could rule either for promoting the good of all (normal or correct or pure or good form) or for their selfish interests (perverted or deviant or abnormal form).

In other words, Aristotle held that one person or few or many could govern a community either for the common good or for their own selfish or class interests. The first type of constitution (state) was a normal one, and the second a perverted one. In a normal state, the rulers try to secure the good of all while in a perverted state the rulers rule for their selfish interests. Taking these two bases together, Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that the States could be classified into six possible forms—Monarchy (Normal form) and its perversion Tyranny ; Aristocracy (Normal form) and its perversion Oligarchy ; Polity (Normal form) and its perversion Democracy.

In Monarchy (1), the sovereign power is exercised by one person for promoting the good of the community. Its perverted form is Tyranny (2), in which one person rules in accordance with his own will and for promoting his selfish interests. In Aristocracy (3) the power is exercised by some persons for promoting the normal ends, i.e. good of all. Aristocracy is a rule of few people or a class with a recognized capacity and ability. The ruling class enjoys a superior status. Its perverted form is Oligarchy (4), in which the ruling group of few persons

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

19

exercises power for promoting its selfish interests. Polity (5) is the rule of all or majority for the good of all. Its perverted form is Democracy (6), in which the rulers exercise power for their selfish ends. It is a sort of mob rule.

ARISTOTLE'S CLASSIFICATION OF STATES

2. Qualitative Basis

The ends that the rulers serve

II

Normal States

which serve the good of all

Perverted-which serve

Statesthe selfish

interests of the rulers

1. Quantitative Basis.

Rule of One

1. Monarchy

2. Tyranny

Number of

persons in whom the sovereign power is vested i.e. Number of Rulers, i

Rule of Few

Rule of All or Majority

r

3. Aristocracy

5. Polity ▼ (Moderate Democracy)!

4. Oligarchy

6. Democracy | (Mobocracy or Extreme Democracy

Aristotles Cycle of Change

Aristotle classified the states into six forms and believed that these kept on revolving in a cyclic order in a state. The cycle begins with Monarchy as the normal form which soon gets perverted into Tyranny. Tyranny in turn gets replaced by Aristocracy i.e. the rule of few wise and able people who exercise power for promoting the interests of all. However, Aristocracy soon gets perverted into Oligarchy i.e. the rule of the rich who start exercising the sovereign power for promoting their selfish interests. Oligarchy then gets replaced by the rule of the

Monarchy

Democracy

Tyranny

Polity

Oligarchy

Aristocracy

State

people or the majority i.e. Polity. In Polity, the sovereign power is again exercised by the people for promoting the good of the whole community. Polity, however, gets perverted into

20

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

Democracy i.e. the mob rule in which power is used by the rulers for promoting their selfish interests.In the final turn of the cycle, Democracy again gets replaced by Monarchy and the cycle begins all over again.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ARISTOTLE'S CLASSIFICATION

Points of Criticism :

1.Classification of Governments and not of States. What Aristotle has really given is a classification of governments and not of states. He has not made any distinction between state and government. However, it must be said in defence of Aristotle that during his times no difference was really made between state, society, government and nation.

2.Unscientific in Nature. Critics point out that Aristotle's analysis is unscientific in so far as it is primarily based on quantitative basis i.e. number of persons who exercise sovereign power. His scheme is a quantitatively conceived classification and hence is not scientific. However, even this objection is not fully valid because Aristotle's classification also takes into account the quality of the rule of the rulers i.e. whether they exercise power for promoting the good of the community or they do so for promoting their selfish interests. Hence, this charge too cannot be fully maintained against Aristotle.

3.Not Applicable to Modern States. Aristotle's classification of states was based upon his Greek experience only. He did not take into account all the states. His analysis does not help us to classify all states. It gives no place to such modern forms of governments as Unitary, Federal, Parliamentary, Presidential, Dictatorship etc.

4.Aristotle's Cyclic theory is Unhistorical and Wrong. Aristotle held that constitutions of the states keep on changing from one form to the other till one cycle is completed and that after the completion of one cycle, the second cycle begins with monarchy again. This view is not supported by facts of history. Constitutions do not change in cyclic order. Changes in environment often lead to constitutional changes but such changes do not take place in the cyclic order as suggested by Aristotle. Monarchy, for example, can get directly replaced by Democracy, (ft has recently happened in Nepal)

5.No Real Distinction between Oligarchy and Aristocracy. Aristotle makes a distinction between Aristocracy and Oligarchy. However, in actual practice no real distinction exists between these two forms. Each involves a class rule.

6.Aristotle's classification of Democracy as a perverted form is wrong. Aristotle was conservative enough to regard democracy as a perverted form. Actually, he should have named Polity as Democracy. He wrongly used this term to denote the rule of the mob.

7.Inadequate Classification. Bluntschli holds the view that Aristotle's classification, even when judged from the traditional point of view, is incomplete. He failed to record the existence of Theocratic states which regarded God/Religion, and not the people as the centre of all power.

8.Rule of One Man is not always Monarchy. Aristotle's view that rule of one man is Monarchy, whether normal or tyrannical, is not correct. Rule of one man can be a dictatorship also.

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

21

Thus, there are several limitations of Aristotle's classificatory scheme. However, it must be stated that being the first person to attempt a systematic and comprehensive classification of state, Aristotle was not cent per cent successful. He had all the limitations which always characterise the first step that a person takes in any field. We cannot deny the due importance of his scheme as the best for his times and the one which is still regarded as the basis of all modern classifications of states and governments. Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy are still held to the three basic forms of government.

SOME OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF STATES

Of the several other classificatory schemes given by eminent political scientists, the following are some of the more popular ones.

1.Classification of States according to Montesquieu

The French political thinker Montesquieu classified the states into three types: Republican, Monarchical and Despotic. If all or a large part of the people possess the sovereign power, the form of the state is Republican. In a Monarchical state, there is a rule of one single person, but he governs only in accordance with the accepted, recognised and established rules or laws. In a despotic state, on the other hand, there is again a single person who rules but without being bound by laws. He conducts every thing according to his will and caprice. This form has neither virtue nor honour. It is based on fear which suppresses both courage and ambition among subjects.

2.Classification Scheme Suggested by Rousseau

Rousseau classified governments as—Monarchies, Aristocracies and Democracies. He subdivided Aristocracy into three forms—Natural, Elective and Hereditary. He considered Elective Aristocracy as the best and Hereditary Aristocracy as the worst form. Ideally, he regarded Direct Democracy as the best form. He also admitted the possibility of mixed forms of government.

CLASSIFICATION OF MODERN STATES

1. Classification Scheme Suggested by Marriot

J.A.R. Marriot classifies governments on a three fold basis. He broadly accepts Aristotle's classificatory scheme but also tries to complete it. First, on the basis of distribution of the powers of government, he classifies governments into two parts : Unitary and Federal. In the former, there is centralisation of powers in the hands of a single central government whereas in the latter the powers stand divided between one central government and several governments of the federating units (Provinces or states). Secondly, on the basis of the nature of amending process of the constitution, he divides the constitution in two categories: Flexible and Rigid. In the former, the method of amendment is easy while in the latter it is difficult. Thirdly, on the basis of the nature of relationship between the legislative and executive organs of the government, he classifies the governments into three parts : (1) When the executive is superior to the legislature, the form of government is Despotic. (2) When the executive is subordinate to the legislature as in England, the form of government is Parliamentary. (3) When the executive is coordinate in power with the legislature, as in the United States, the form of government is Presidential.

22COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

Marriots Classification Scheme Unitary Government

' All Powers with the Centre Government

I. Distribution of Powers

Federal Government

Division of Powers between one

Central and several provincial/state governments

Rigid Constitution

>- II. Nature of Amending Process

Basis

Difficult Method of Amendment

Flexible Constitution

Easy Method of Amendment

Despotic Government

. Relationship between the Legislature & Executive

Executive is superior to Legislature

(i) Executive is subordinate to Legislature Parliamentary Government

(ii) Executive and Legislature are coordinate in Power Presidential Government

2. Leacock's Classification of States and Governments

Stephen Leacock has suggested a classification of states and governments which includes all the existing forms of governments. His classification scheme can be shown in the tabular form as below.

Modern States

Despotic

Democratic

Limited Monarchy

i

1

Republic

Unitary

Federal

Unitary

Federal

II I1 I1 I1

Presid¬ential

Parlia-Presid- Parlia-Presid- Parlia-Presiden- Parlia-

mentaryential mentaryentialmentarytialmentary

Despotic state is one in which sovereign power is concentrated in the hands of one person who rules according to his will. Democratic state is one in which sovereign power resides with the people who exercise it either directly or indirectly through their elected representatives. A Democratic state can be either a Limited Monarchy i.e. a state ruled by a king with nominal powers, or a Republic i.e. a state headed by an elected head of state for a

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENJ/POLITICS_: INTRODUCTION _____23

fixed term. Each of these two types can be either a unitary or a federal state. Description of unitary and federal system is the same as given by Marriot. Each of these two can be either a parliamentary or a presidential form. In the case of former, the executive is responsible to the legislature, while in the latter it is not.

Let us try to classify some of the states on the model suggested by Leacock. India is a democratic (indirect) republic and a federal polity with a parliamentary form of government. England is a Democracy (indirect), limited monarchy, and a unitary state with a parliamentary form. So is the case of Japan. The USA is a democratic (indirect) republic, and a federal polity with Presidential System. China is a democratic (Communist/ Socialist/Proletarian) republic with a unitary structure and a parliamentary type of government. Several western scholars, however, place China, and in fact, all other communist states under the head Despotic States (Single Party dictatorship/rule). France is a democratic (indirect) republic and unitary state with a parliamentary-presidential mixed form of government. Switzerland is a democratic (Direct Democracy) republic with a federal system and parliamentary type of government.

R. W. Brewster suggests a modern classificatory scheme on a three fold basis :

(1)On the basis of source of ultimate legal power—Autocratic, Aristocratic and Democratic states.

(2)On the basis of method of selecting and controlling the actual chief executive— Parliamentary and Presidential governments.

(3)On the basis of method of establishing geographical divisions of governing authority—Unitary and Federal.

A Modern Classification Scheme Suggested by CF Strong

CF Strong agrees with most of other writers that the states can be classified only on the basis of the structural differences in their governmental organisations. He suggests five bases for classification of states in terms of their constitutions :

I. The nature of the State to which the constitution applies II. The nature of the constitution itself

III.The nature of the Legislature

IV.The nature of the Executive

V. The nature of Judiciary

I. On the first basis i.e. the nature of the state to which the constitution applies, the Strong makes a classification between : Unitary and Federal States.

The Unitary State : i.e. state with a single central government possessing all the powers in which the local governments depend and operate in accordance with the will of the central government. There is a single legislature, single executive and a single judiciary for the whole state. The UK, France, Belgium and China are unitary states.

A Federal state is one in which a number of coordinate states unite to form a single soverign state. In it, a division of powers is made between one central government and several states (federating units) governments and each exercises powers in the area demarcated for it by a written, rigid and supreme constitution. The USA, Canada, and Australia are federal states. India is basically a federation but with some unitary features.

24

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

COMPARATIVE GOVERNS

II. On the second basis i.e. the nature of the constitution itself, a distinction can be made between states with written or unwritten constitutions and the states with Rigid and Flexible constitutions. When the constitution of a state is specifically written in the form of a book it is called a state will a written constitution e.g. constitution of India, USA, France, Switzerland, Japan and several others. However, if the constitution is not written and stands scattered in several documents— charters and statutes, it is called an unwritten constitution. The UK has an unwritten constitution.

When the constitution of a state can be easily amended, it is called a state with a flexible constitution and when the procedure of amendment of a constitution is very difficult it called a state with a rigid constitution. In Britain the constitution is very flexible. It can be amended by simple law-making by the Br. Parliament. In the USA the constitution is very rigid. It can be amended only when the US Congress passes an amendment by a 2/3rd majority in each of its two houses and then it secures ratification by at least 3/4th of the states of the US Federation. Indian constitution is partly rigid and partly flexible. Some of its provisions can be amended by a 2/3rd majority of the two houses of Union Parliament with the concurrence (ratification) of at least one-half of the states of Indian Union, while several other provisions can be amended only by an act of Union Parliament passed with a 2/3rd majority in each House.

-

CF STRONG'S : CLASSIFICATION OF MODERN STATES

Ground of DivisionFirst TypeSecond Type

I. The Nature of the State to which the Constitution appliesUnitary

Federal or Quasi-Federal

II. The nature of the Constitution itselfFlexible (Not necessarily unwritten)Rigid (Not necessarily fully written)

III The nature of the Legislature(/) Adult SuffrageQualified Adult Suffrage

Single member constituencyMultimember Constituency

(it) Non-elective second chamberElective or partially elective Second Chamber.

(Hi) Direct popular checksAbsence of such checks

IV. The nature of the ExecutiveParliamentaryNon-Parliamentary or Presidential

V. The nature of the JudiciarySubject to the Rule of Law (in Common Law States)Under Administrative Law (in Prerogative States)

III. On the third basis, i.e. the nature of the legislature, a distinction can be made between a bi-cameral legislature i.e. legislature with two houses, and a unicameral legislature i.e. a legislature with a single house. It can also be done on the basis as to whether both the houses are elected or not, or whether one house (the upper houses) is hereditary or nominated, permanent or a quasi-permanent house or not. In the USA, both the houses of the legislature (US Congress) are directly elected houses. In the United Kingdom, while the upper house— the House of Lords is a nominated-hereditary house, the lower house—the House of

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

25

Commons is a directly elected house. In India, while the Lok Sabha is a directly elected house, the Rajya Sabha is an indirectly elected house.

IV.On the fourth basis i.e. the nature of Executive, a distinction is made between the

Parliamentary Executive and Presidential Executive. In the former, the executive is closely

related to the legislature. It is constituted by the majority party in the legislature, and

ministers continue to be legislators as well as heads of executive departments. Further the

Executive is directly and continuously responsible before the legislature for all its work. The

legislature can remove the executive by passing a wote of no-confidence and the executive

can get the legislature dissolved for getting a new mandate from the people.

Non-Parliamentary Executive or the Presidential Executive i«? totally separate from and independent of the legislature. It is not responsible to the legislature. It has a stable and fixed tenure, and similar is the case of the legislature. In other words, there is iparatipn of powers between the legislature and the executive. Both are coordinate in their organisation and working.

India, UK, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Australia have Parliamentary Executives. The USA

has a Presidential Executive.'

V.On the fifth basis i.e. nature of the Judiciary, CF Strong suggests a distinction

between states which follow the Rule of Law, (under which the ordinary citizens and civil

servants are equally under the jurisdiction and protection of common law courts), and the

states which have a system of Administrative Law which lays down a special way of trying

the cases involving civil servants. Rule of Law is a feature of the British Political System

while France has a system of Administrative Law.

Classification of States : Views of Dr. Appodoroi

Dr. A. Appodoroi, one of the leading contemporary Indian political scientists, in his book 'The Substance of Polities', suggests a classification which incorporates the ideas of Bryce, Marriot, Strong and Lindsay. He has tabulated his scheme as follows :

Basis of DivisionAB

I1The conception regarding the Sphere of the StateLibera!Totalitarian

(a)Communist

(b)Fascist

IIThe Nature of Political Organisation

2.The Nature of the StateUnitaryFederal

3.The Nature of the ConstitutionFlexibleRigid

4.The Nature of Electorate(/) Adult suffrage (if) Single member Constituency(i) Restricted suffrage (//) Multi-member Constituency

5.The Nature of LegislatureBicameral

(a) Elective or partially

elective second chamberUnicameral

26

COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT/POLITICS : INTRODUCTION

COMPARATIVE

GOVERN!

(b) Non-elective second chamber

6.The Nature of ExecutiveParliamentaryNon-parl iamentary

7.The Nature of JudiciaryRule of LawAdministrative Law

Democratic States

Clarifying the scheme, Dr. Appodoroi offers three explanations :

() The classification is based on two major bases : I. The conception regarding the sphere of the state, whether liberal or totalitarian. The life of the people in liberal states has a quality of its own, different not only in degree but also in kind from that of the people in totalitarian states. The totalitarian states in themselves fall into two types—the communist and the fascist, the former abolishing and the latter retaining private capital. II. The nature of political organisation. Under this heading three differentials are noteworthy, viz. the nature of the state (unitary or federal) ; the nature of the constitution (flexible or rigid) ; and the structure of government (the electorate, the legislature, the exec