Also by Alan R.

Ball
British Political Parties (2nd edition) Modern Politics
Pressure Politics in Industrialised Societies (with Frances Millard)
and Government
Also by B. Guy Peters
American Public Policy (5th edition)
Comparative Politics

SIXTH EDITION

Alan R. Ball
and
B. Guy Peters
 Contents
© Alan R. Ball 1971, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1993
© Alan R. Ball and B. Guy Peters 2000
- 520003
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of
this publication may be made without written permission.

No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or

transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with
the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988,
or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court
List of Tables ix
Road, London W 1 P OLP. Preface xi
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this
publication may be liable to c riminal prosecution and civil PART I THE .NATURE OF POLITICS
claims for damages.±

First edition 1971 The Study of Politics 3

Second edition 1977 The problem of boundaries 4
Third edition 1983 Traditional approaches 6_
Fourth edition 1988 Comparative studies 10
Fifth edition 1993 áiIUOTECA C ENTRAC
Sixth edition 2000
Transitional approáches 12
&N M. Further developments _, }:. 15
Published by Political studies and practical politics 20
MACMILLAN PRESS LTD Summary 22
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS
and London
Companies and representatives
throughout the world 2 Politics, Power and Authority 27
Sources of political conflict 30
ISBN 0-333-73746-6 hardcover Means of reconciling political conflict 31
ISBN 0-333-73747-4 paperback Political power 34
A catalogue record for this book is available Political power and influence 37
from the British Library. Distribution of power 39

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 3 Classification of Governments 47
Copy-edited and typeset by Povey—Edmondson Aims of classification 47
Tavistock and Rochdale, England Problems of classification 51
Systems of classification 54
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Classification of political structures 61
Creative Print & Design (Wales) Ebbw Vale Summary 65

v
vi Contents Contents vii

4 Political Culture 68 PART III STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT

The nature of political culture 68
Foundations of the political culture 71 8 Assemblies 173
Aspects of the political culture 76 The nature of assemblies 173
Symbols and political culture 79 Assembly—executive relations 176
Development of a political culture 82 Legislative functions 182
Political socialisation 83 Representative functions 184
Agencies of socialisation 84 Internal organisation 186
Socialisation and the political system 88 Second chambers 190
Summary 89 The decline of assemblies? 193

9 The Political Executive 197

PART II PARTIES, PRESSURE GROUPS
Area of study 197
AND REPRESENTATION
Chief executives 200
95 Origins and stability of chief executives 205
5 Political Parties and Electoral Systems
95 Functions and powers of chief executives 209
Political parties
96 Chief executives and the political process 211
Definition Cabinets 214
Functions of political parties 97
Party structure 103 10 The Public Bureaucracy 219
Determinants of party structure 107 Scope of government administration 219
Party systems 110 Structure 221
Change and party systems 114 Functions 224
Electoral systems and political parties 116 Control of the bureaucracy
121 229
Summary Recruitment and training 233
Changing the bureaucracy 236
6 Pressure Groups 125
Summary 238
Pressure group analysis 126
Determinants of pressure group methods 130 11 The Courts and the Political Process 243
Levels of pressure group activity 135 The nature of law and the political process 246
Determinants of pressure group influence 140 Legal structure and recruitment 249
Functions of the judiciary 252
7 Representation, Elections and Voting Control of the judiciary 258
Behaviour 145 Conclusion 260
Theories of representation 146
Liberal democratic theories of representation 148 The Military and Politics 264
Collectivist theories of representation 151 Characteristics of the military 265
Functions of elections 152 Limited interference in the political process 268
Voting behaviour 156 Direct interference 273
The role of the mass media 164 Military control 276
Summary 167 Conclusion 282
viii Contents

PART IV POLITICAL CHANGE
List of Tables
13 Change in Political Systems 287
Problems of analysis 287
Political stability 290
Political change 292
Causes of political change 293
The East European revolutions, 1989 302 1.1 Government revenue as a percentage of Gross
Retrograde political change? 305 Domestic Product 4
Change in industrialised democracies 306 4.1 National identification in Spanish regions 69
Summary 308 4.2 Major political identification in Belgian regions 70
4.3 Principal identifications in Swiss cantons 74
Index 312 4.4 Citizens' confidence in American institutions 76
5.1 Examples of types of political parties 102
6.1 Degree of corporatism in twelve European
countries 129
6.2 Group membership in industrialised democracies 133
7.1 Dealignment: declining identification with
political parties 158
8.1 Sources and success of legislation 182
8.2 Size and representative basis of legislatures 191
10.1 Relative size of public bureaucracies 221
13.1 Changing support for European Union
membership 307

ix
Preface to the Sixth
Edition

Nearly 30 years have passed since the publication of the first

edition of this book. They have seen dramatic changes both in
the real world of politics and in the ways in which it is studied
which have been reflected by the original author, Alan Ball, in
successive revised editions. His retirement from active univer-
sity teaching prompted the idea of adding Guy Peters as co-
author for the sixth and subsequent editions.
Despite the change in authorship, the basic purpose of the
book remains the same. As stated in the Preface to the First
Edition, the intention is to provide a wide-ranging introduc-
tion to politics, and to the study of politics. Although no
individual countries are discussed in great detail, the approach
is inherently comparative, and attempts to demonstrate how
politics plays out in a wide range of different settings. Also, as
before, a variety of political phenomena are discussed, ranging
from voting and public opinion to the formal actions of
governments. There is an attempt to show how these institu-
tions and political behaviour all influence the actions of
government.
Although there is a great deal of continuity, this sixth edition
has been very substantially revised, rewritten and updated to
take account of the changing political world about which we
are writing. Democratisation h as brought about major changes
in many countries of the world, as has the effect of reduced
government involvement in the economy and the advent of a
new more market-influenced — form of public management.
In Europe the continuing development of the European Union
and the declining role of the nation state in some aspects of
policy-making are transforming politics in the fifteen member
countries, and potentially in an even larger number of poten-

xi
xu Preface to the Sixth Edition

tial members. These several changes in politics are posing new

analytical and practical questions about politics. Finally, add- PART ONE
ing a new co-author with different interests and a different
academic training has inevitably altered the focus of the book
somewhat. In particular there has been an attempt to make the
text reflect contemporary debates in political science and the The Nature of Politics
intellectual questions that now drive the discipline.
We would like to thank our publishers, Steven Kennedy in
Britain and Bob Gormley in the United States, for their
patience, encouragement and numerous suggestions. The book
is much better because of this edito ri al advice. We also want to
thank our families for their support and understanding as we
prepared this edition.

ALAN R. BALL
B. GUY PETERS
 1
The Study of Politics

Politics is one of the oldest activities of humanity. As soon as

people began to live together in groups there was a need to
devise ways to govern those societies. From modest beginnings
the elaborate institutions and procedures of modern govern-
ment have grown. Despite the increased formality and struc-
ture, many of the same issues exist in contemporary politics as
existed when governing a band of hunter-gatherers. Who has
the power, and do they exercise that power appropriately? Are
the institutions of government stable, or are they subject to
rapid changes of leadership? Are there processes for the average
member of the society to influence government, or does it
remain the domain of a few powerful individuals?
As well as being an important and sometimes amusing
activity, politics is also a mechanism for achieving societal
•

goals. In many modern societies more than one-third (and in

some cases approaching — or even exceeding — a half) of what is
earned in the economy is taken as taxes and then recycled
through the public budget to achieve a variety of public
purposes (Table 1.1). People in all countries depend upon
government for protection against foreign enemies and domes-
tic criminals, for some management of the economy, and
public services such as roads. Citizens in most countries now
depend upon government for their health care, for the educa-
tion of their children, and for their own livelihoods during old
age. Governing is about more than elections; it is also about
providing for the collective welfare of the people. Further, a
major political choice is what goods and services will be
publicly provided and which will be left to the market or to
other private organisations to provide.

3
 The Nature of Politics The Study of Politics 5

Table 1.1 Government revenue as a percentage of Gross public. When these students of political behaviour do look at
Domestic Product (most recent year available) government institutions, it is in order to examine how the
individual members behave in office. For example, rather than
Argentina 14.4 being concerned so much with the content of Supreme Court
Australia 23.7 decisions in the United States there is now a long tradition of
Canada 36.5
Czech Republic studying the behaviour of individual judges, the consistency
41.3
France 40.7 with which they vote along ideological lines, and attitudes that
India 34.3 can be inferred from that behaviour? This is very far from the
Japan 22.6 traditional study of constitutional law, yet both studies can
Kenya 19.6
Sierra Leone enrich the other.
9.7 The emphasis on the science of politics often has led to crude
Sweden 46.8
United Kingdom 38.7 and confused analogies with the method of the natural sciences.
United States 33.6 Nevertheless, Professor W.J. M. Mackenzie pointed to some
advantages of the term `political science':
Note: Government expenditures are often higher than their
revenues, given the tendency to use deficit finance.
Source: International Monetary Funds, Government Finance Yearbook So far as I can judge, `political science' is still the name
and International Financial Statistics (both Washington, DC, which carries meaning to the general public ... The word
annual). science here indicates simply that there exists an academic
tradition of the study of politics, a discipline communicated
from teacher to pupil, by speech and writing, for some 2,500
years now. It does not mean that this discipline claims to be
The problem of boundaries a `natural science', or that it could be improved by copying
the methods of physics and chemistry exactly?
If there is agreement that politics is an important activity then
there is a marked lack of agreement on what constitutes the Although certainly not as formalised as the natural sciences,
best approach to the study of politics. The bewildering array of political science is now being studied much more scientifically
titles of degree courses in the English-speaking world illustrates than it was at the time that Mackenzie wrote, and there is a
some of the confusion: names such as Government, Politics, large body of quantitative, replicable analysis of political
Political Institutions, Political Science are umbrellas protecting behaviour and political institutions 4
the various specialisations of Public Administration, Political However, even with agreement on a title, or at least a
Theory, Political Philosophy, Comparative Government, Na- recognition of where the disagreements lie, there still remains
tional Politics, Public Policy and International Politics! The the problem of the content and orientation of the subject. This
Oxford English Dictionary defines politics as: `The science and art difficulty has been underlined by the dominance of American
of government: the science dealing with the form, organisation political scientists, especially since 1945, and their emphasis
and administration of a state, or part of one, and with the first on quantitative methods and later on form al models
regulation of its relations with other states.' There has also been a more extensive borrowing of methods
The restriction of the study of politics to a concern mainly and concepts from other soci al science disciplines, such as
with public institutions and state activities is certainly disputed economics, sociology and psychology, with varying degrees of
by most contemporary students of the subject, who are more success. These new developments which have been superim-
likely to emphasise voting behaviour and the attitudes of the posed on traditional approaches to the subject have led to
 I he ,Nature of Politics The Study of Politics 7

confusion of terminology as well as method, producing appar- tions of Greek city-states, and Machiavelli's political advice
ent confusion about what really constitutes the most appro• resting on his observations and participation in the govern-
priate ways of discussing political phenomena. ments of Italian Renaissance states. But the seekers after the
The apparent conceptual confusion in political science also perfect state did base their answers on oversimplified assump-
results partly from the political changes in the twentieth tions over a wide variety of matters; thus Thomas Hobbes, wit h
century, in which the certainties of liberal democracy were a generalised view of human nature, could speak of, `a generall
assaulted by the rise of popularly supported totalitarian re- inclination of all mankind, a perpetual) and restlesse desire of
gimes. The fall of many of those regimes has, in turn, created a Power after power, that ceaseth only in Death'?
new wave of thinking about types of viable political regimes The classical political theorists are still important even in
and the nature of governing. It is understandable that students regard to the nature of the questions they posed, and certainly
fresh to the subject may feel rather uncertain as to what ignorance concerning them isolates any student of politics from
actually constitutes the study of politics. At the risk of promot- some of the communication that passes among political scien-
ing greater confusion, we will begin by briefly surveying the tists. Moreover, the descriptive work of these political philoso-
various approaches to the academic study of politics before phers, no matter how shaky their grand edifices may be, did
examining, in Chapter 2, the nature of political activity itself. supply the first explorations of the field of comparative govern-
ment. Aristotle, for example, began to classify political systems
in typologies in a manner not dissimilar to that used in
Traditional approaches contemporary political analysis, and the empirical evidence
associated with normative problems provides a way to begin to
Before 1900, the study of politics was largely dominated by understand the ways in which government functions.
philosophy, history and law. To use the label `traditional' is Also, there is significant interplay between the political
neither a criticism nor a refutation of the obvious fact that they theories and the nature of the society and its politics in which
still play important roles in modern political studies although the theory originates. We can learn a great deal of the English
no longer monopolising the field. The modern student of revolution of 1688, its origins, the character and political aims
politics is still faced with the works of great philosophers such of the men who controlled and guided it, by reading the
as Plato or Hegel that require textual analysis and new political philosophy of John Locke. The nature of the Amer-
interpretations, but the search for universal values concerning ican constitutional settlement of 1788-9 becomes clearer after
political activity tends to be avoided in most contemporary examining the propaganda of the Federalist Papers. No student
political analysis. At present `ought' questions are not fashion- of the government and politics of the Soviet Union could avoid
able in political science, although not all critics of traditional reference to Lenin's reformulation of Marxist philosophy, nor a
political philosophy would travel as far as T. D. Weldon in his student of those of China ignore the works of Chairman Mao.
reduction to trivia and linguistic misunderstandings such A student interested in feminist politics would do well to start
ancient political concepts as freedom, justice, obedience, lib- with Simone de Beauvoir or Mary Wollstonecroft.
erty and natural rights. Given these par ticular approaches to political studies, it is
It could not be thought that traditional political philosophy easy to see why the histori an played such a significant part in
was concerned only with a priori deductions, that is, conclusions the discipline. The historical-descriptive technique examines
reached with little observation of political facts. Plato's search past events through available evidence and draws tentative
for his philosopher king, or Hobbes's `leviathan', an all-power- conclusions about some aspect of contemporary political activ-
ful government that would end civil disorder, may be balanced ity. The sources vary from memoirs and biographies of im-
by Aristotle's exhaustive collection of studies of the constitu- portant statesmen to journalistic accounts of par ti cular events.
 1 ne ✓vature of Politics The Study of Politics 9

The historian becomes a synthesiser, using his own intellectua The strongest legacy that philosophy, history and law have
judgement and common sense to fit the various parts of th(be ueathed to the study of politics is in the field of descriptive
jigsaw into a coherent pattern. It is clear that many of thtand institutional approaches. Political scientists still, despite
political institutions and political practices of the present day recent developments, concentrate chiefly on examining the
are explicable in terms of history, but past evidence leave major political institutions of the state such as the executive,
alarming gaps, and political history is often simply a record 01 legislature, the civil service, the judiciary and local govern-
great men and great events rather than comprehensive ac- ment. These examinations yield valuable insights about the
counts of total political activity. organisation and reform of political institutions. However,
In British political studies, Sir Ivor Jennings, with his studies despite the point that all description involves some conceptua-
of parliament and cabinet government, favoured this ap- lisation, no wide-reaching theories emerged from these studies.
proach, digging deep into nineteenth-century history to trace Bernard Crick's Reform of Parliament is representative of the
the growth of the office of prime minister or the rise of modern British approach in this field, and Stephen Bailey's Congress at
political parties. Robert McKenzie's pioneering work on Brit Work offers an early American example. They sought to
ish political parties Iays great stress on their historical evolu - explain how various political institutions work, and from that
tion. In American political science Stephen Skowronek's study description come tentative proposals on how to remedy possi-
of the American executive and public administration enhanced ble faults and inefficiencies.
understanding of contemporary institutions? Likewise, Nelson There can, of course, be various different approaches within
Polsby h as gone a long way in explaining the current state of this descriptive—analytic field. If one were to study the con-
the American Congress by Iooking at its pattern of develop- trasting examinations of the role of the president within the
ment. American system of government one could travel from the leg al
The study of constitutional law formed the third cornerstone formalism of Edward Corwin's The President — Office and Powers
of traditional political studies. There is now a closer relation- to the invigorating emphasis on informal processes in Richard
ship between the study of law and politics in the con tinental Neustadt's Presidential Power. Both, however, are concerned
European tradition; in Anglo-Saxon countries the divorce has with the analysis of the president's role in American politics
become more complete. Before 1900, a British student of and seek to support their conclusions by citing case histo ri es,
politics would have devoted a major part of his energies to personal observations and documentary evidence. They seek to
the study of legal institutions, and Dicey's Law of the Constitu- show how that particular political institution works. It is
tiom,, first published in 1885, loomed large on any politics interesting to note that some major contributions to this
reading list. Although arguments on such topics as the leg al approach have been made not only by political scientists
sovereignty of the British parliament, the rule of law and the confined to their university desks, but by men actively engaged
separation of powers are no longer regarded as of first im- in public affairs. Walter Bagehot, for example, was a practising
portance, the links between law and politics are not completely journalist when he wrote The English Constitution in 1867, but he
broken, the gap being bridged by bringing aspects of the produced a classic analysis of the working of the political
judicial system firmly into the field of the political process. If process, an analysis that still has contemporary relevance;
anything, the role of the European Court of Justice has Woodrow Wilson's studies of politics — American and corn-
brought legal questions back to the centre of British politics. parative — represented the work of someone who was both an
Of course, the importance of the Supreme Court and its academic and a major practitioner of governance .i
judgements in American political life means that any student The study of institutional and policy processes continues to
of American politics needs more than a nodding acquaintance be a major component of political science. What has happened,
with constitutional law 1 0 however, is that the study has shifted from descriptive to more

- . .u, uj 1- 0 U tI cs The Study of Politics 11

analytic studies of those processes. For example, Charles Jonyet there may be some comparable features. Robert Dahl
has presented a `stages' theory of the policy process that poinattempted a comparison of political oppositions in various
to the steps through which a policy must go before it can be paiberal democracies, and reached the conclusion that it is a
into efect. 12 Following from that, there have been a number concept that has ap articular meaning and relevance in the
- (
theoretical and empirical studies of the various stages of thBritish system of government .' 6 Still, all democratic countries
process, from agenda-setting through to evaluationl3 All odo haveopposition parties that function as alternative govern-
.

these studies have pointed to the role that process has irments.
determining the final solution of policy problems. The attempted transfer of European political institutions to
former colonial territories, especially on the African continent,
has illustrated the difficulty of comparative politics in a
Comparative studies practical way. Parliamentary procedures, competitive party
systems, neutral civil servants and soldiers grow out of inte-
Comparative government and politics was to provide the hill grated relationships and cannot be individually exported and
between the traditional approaches to political science and th expected to function in a manner similar to that found in the
more recent developments in the discipline. We have ahead) exporting country. That having been said, the more recent
noted that the comparative method is a very old one; its on n experience of building democracies in the former socialist
and development can be traced from Herodotus and Aristotlf systems in Eastern Europe reveals that institutional transfers
through Bodin and Montesquieu. Yet despite the lon evitd can be made to work in some settings 1 8
comparative political studies, many problems remain. It is ynot Of ~course, the comparative method does not necessarily
simply the difficulty of collecting enough relevant facts about mean that the comparison must be cross-national to be re-
different political systems but the organisation of the informa warding. The existence of fifty American states with some
tion gathered. Comparative politics has been mainly degree of con the federal
independence of 19 government provides a
cerned with European and North American states, but the fertile field for comparison. Even the apparent uniformity of
widening of horizons to countries referred to as `develo in ' English local government allows some scope for comparison2 °
what usnitNor does the comparative method imply a disinterest in the
and `transitional' states has led to greater scrutiny o f
should be compared. 14 political processes of one's own country; on the contrary it may
The geographical expansion of comparative politics led to be the most rewarding means of discovering information about
the development of some theories that were so general as to be the politics of one particular state. However, the recent
meaningless. For example, structural-functionalism arued advances in the theory and methodology of the political
that every government would have to perform certain requisite sciences have resulted partly from the fact that the basic
functions, and comparisons could be made according to how questions of the comparative approach, such as `Why do
they were performed. Therefore, Joseph LaPalombara, among certain types of political institutions and political activity exist
others, advocated the development of `middle range theories' in certain states?', are still largely unanswered.
that would be a5pplicable to a more limited range of countries To some extent it h as been in response to these problems that

or institutions.' A comparison of formal institutions such as political science h as attempted to formulate general or partial
legislatures and executives can be done across a range of theories and advance certain models in some way comparable
countries, albeit still carefully. One cannot extract a particular to those used in the other social sciences. Indeed, we could
political institution from its context and compare it with' argue that comparative politics is the crucial component of
institutions in other countries without taking intoaccount accou _ political -science' Unlike the natural sciences, political science
the whole political system in which that institution is set but does not have the possibility of doing experiments. There are

--- .....se. ..4 ' vJ [ UWi ll aS The Study of Politics 13

some natural experiments, e.g. New Zealand changing ¡raised, but Wallas did car ry the important message that to
voting system while retaining the other formal aspects of tlunderstand the political process one must examine how people
political system, but these are rare. Therefore, comparisoactually behave in political situations, not merely speculate on
becomes the fundamental method by which political scientish
ow they should or would behave.
test theory and develop the science in political science. The other pioneer who symbolised new stirrings in political
studies was Arthur Bentley. He too has been widely criticised,
but nevertheless his pragmatic realism and his demand for
Transitional approaches measurement and facts succeeded in weaning the discipline
away from political philosophy and descriptive formalism. His
The publication of Graham Wallas's Human Nature in Politiw
aim was not to describe political activity but to provide new
and Arthur Bentley's The Process of Government, both in 1908, tools of investigation, and he believed that he had found these
;

symbolised the beginning of a change in political studies. Wit! in the study of groups in politics: `When groups are adequately
these changes there would be a greater emphasis on tht stated, everything is stated' 2 3 He was therefore prepared to
informal processes of politics and less on state political institu•nore almost completely formal political institutions. His
lions in isolation 2 2 There also would be freer borrowing from
iouraiism owed much to sociology, and he pointed the
behav
other social science disciplines of sociology and psychology, and way to the study of the roles of pressure groups, parties,
the new empirical orientation of political studies was ulti• elections and public opinion in the political process.
mately to lead to an examination of such political concepts These new orientations have produced several dangers for
as power, authority and political Bites. It should be remem- political science. First, politics has been seen as a subsidiary, a
bered that these new approaches have been neither uniformly satellite of sociology, in that political activity and institutions
accepted nor universally applied, nor should we ignore the reflect the nature of society and are determined and patterned
nineteenth-century predecessors such as de Tocqueville or even to a large extent by divisions within society. Politics in this
Bagehot, who foreshadowed much of what is contained in this sense can be seen as dependent on forces outside the political
empirical aim of examining politics in action to discover what system, and as such ceases to have a major role as an
makes the machine tick. independent social science. Thus the way people vote is seen
Graham Wallas, an Englishman with practical political to depend particularly on class, ethnic and religious divisions in
experience, was to emphasise a demand for a new realism in society a d the activities and programmes of political parties
political studies. His central theme, borrowed from psychology, and of' governments are considered less important. Giovanni
was that humans were not rational creatures whose political Sartori h as strongly argued for a re-emphasis on the mutual
actions were totally guided by reason and self-interest. Human contributions ofolitics and sociology and recognition that
nature was far too complex for simple explanations. Wallas Political factors Pas manifested in governments and political
was, therefore, attacking not only the deductive reasoning of Parties —independently affect political behavior2 4
the political philosophers, but also the approach of the classical A second danger is that political sociology tends to empha-
economists that explanations could be found in man's eager- sise only the `inputs' of the political system, by which we mean
ness to follow rationally his own economic self-interest. Wallas emphasis on the role of political par ti es, pressure groups, voting
demanded facts and evidence, claiming that advances in the behaviour, political communication and public opinion, to the
discipline should be attempted quantitatively not qualitatively detriment of other political factors such as governments,
It is true that many of Wallas's methods and conclusions were legislatures administration and judiciaries Linked to this is a
extensively criticised and that political science's enthusiasm for third danger, which is that of examining only those aspects of
psychology was not to bear the fruit that these early hopes had the Political system that are amenable to measurement or
 15
s ne ✓Nature of Politics The Study of Politics

quantification. It has been part of the search for a pure sciennd was ultimately to blossom into the studies of communities
of politics in which the findings and conclusions would de end power in the 1950s with the arguments over methodology
not on subjective judgements but on measurable factohat they entailed. 28
Quantitative methods would allow description and values
political studies to be banished at least from the reseaii
laboratories. Further developments
The quantitative approach to politics has been of immen
advantage in some fields of political science, especially votit?ollowing the Second World War, there were other major
behaviour and elections, in which mass behaviour could lhifts in the direction of political science. One of these was the
more readily analysed by these tools. Sample surveys used extension of behavioral and quantitative analysis to a degree
opinion pollsters have illuminated many aspects of politicprobably unanticipated by the early pioneers in this form of
behaviour undiscoverable by other means, and used correcthnalysis. This was clearly seen in areas such as voting beha-
in skilled hands have enriched the discipline. However, thuviour, with a number of major studies in the United States and
are tools of analysis that can only be usefully employed iothers coming somewhat later in Britain 29 There was also an
certain fields, and their findings have to be treated with canextension of behavioural analysis to the members of major
The polling failures in the 1992 election pointed out tlrinstitutions, including legislatures and the courts. In addi-
problems that even well-managed and well-funded sampltion, there were a number of new theoretical departures
surveys can encounter 2 5 The problem is that for some scholarreflecting in part the felt need to make political science more
quantification becomes an end in itself meticulous care is oftecapable of coping with the development of newer governments
taken to discover the class readership of newspapers and thin the former colonies.
political views of the editors before the more important ques
tion of whether newspapers actually influence political opinion Systems analysis
is discussed.
The search for a science of politics and the fashioning of ner'<David Easton published The Political System in 1953, claiming
tools of analysis and more sophisticated concepts was donai that he was attempting to construct a theory to embrace all the
nated after the First World War by American scholars. Thei social sciences 3 1 He was emphasising the need to theorise
lines of inquiry took them into the fields of psychology and t}t about the whole political process, not simply about related
empiricism of quantitative methods. Political power becan aspects of it. Since then, Easton has become one of the
one of the key concepts of political scientists. The two giants o prominent supporters of the application of `general systems'
this approach were Charles Merriam s and Harold LassweII,2 1 theories to political science, 32 and one of the few to come from
who spoke of the `science of power' and widened the discussio8 within the discipline rather than from the other social sciences.
of such concepts as political 'elites. It is interesting to note that, Briefly, Easton focuses on the system — that is, a pattern of
the development of the discipline from Merriam to his pupl related structural and behavioral elements that are interde-
Lasswell is also an indication of the relative failure of liberal Pendent. He defines the political system as `that system of
democratic systems of government, especially in Europe, and interactions in any society through which binding or author-
the rise of totalitarian regimes of the fascist and communist' 'tative allocations are made' 3 3 Authoritative allocations may
varieties. Of course, a study of political power was not pre be roughly translated as policy-making, although 3the term
viously foreign to political science, and intellectual forerunner may have somewhat broader, symbolic implications.
may be found in Machiavelli and Hobbes, just to mention twa There are in this political system inputs from the various
but the new approach was far more rigorous and systematic. environments and these are converted into outputs, i.e. author-
 io 1 ne ✓vature of rotztzcs 1 he Study of Politics 17

itative decisions. Feedback mechanisms put outputs back intarry out these same functions, and in other political systems
the system as inputs, thus completing a complex, cyclic)ther structures may carry out the functions in the absence of
operation. Many demands will be made, or `articulated', bnstitutionalised political parties. A particular function may
some are lost in the conversion process and do not reach thot be recognised or intended by the participants, and this is
output stage. If there are too many demands, or particulralled a latent as opposed to a manifest function.
types of demand, stress arises, and the channels are thf The structural-functional approach was more widely
overloaded. There are various regulatory mechanisms to co,dopted in the field of comparative government because it
trol demands and minimise overloading: firstly, the structur)rovides standard categories usable for analysing markedly
mechanisms, `the gatekeepers', e.g. pressure groups, politidjifferent political systems 3 7 The approach has been criticised,
parties; secondly, cultural mechanisms, the various norm part because it was concerned centrally with systems main-
which consider the appropriateness of the demands; thirddtenance, and, as such, tended, it was argued, to justify the
communications channels, which can be increased. Fourthhtatus quo. Even if not completely conservative, the structural-
demands may be controlled in the conversion process itself Functional approach did appear to have an implicit bias in
the legislators, executives and administrative bodies. Autháavour of Western-style democratic systems. One of the criteria
itative decisions that displease too many members of the systeadvanced for development in this approach, for example, was
will lose support for the system. the differentiation of subsystems, something akin to developing
The model is far more complex than described here, but tl utonomous political institutions. 38 Some of the criticisms
outline is sufficient to indicate the systemic approach. It is acould be met if the claims of the structural-functionalists had
attempt to provide a framework for organising and conceptunot been exaggerated, and it has become recognised that this
lising information. The approach has been variously criticistapproach, while rewarding, cannot provide a general theory
for failing to accommodate adequately major concepts such ¡for all aspects of political science.
political power, or for being unable to handle mass politic
behavioural aspects such as voting3 5 Further, it says virtuallOther theoretical developments
nothing about the `withinputs' of the system, or the institution '

of conversion that had been central to most previous comparNew approaches in the theories of political science have been
tive politics. Still, it may be said to be one of the mor borrowed from the technical advances of electronic commu-
;

ambitious attempts to construct a theoretical framework fr'otnications and large-scale computer). Karl Deutsch is one of the
within political science. foremost advocates of communication theory, and his ap-
Structural-functionalism is an important off-shoot from geiProach is clearly set out in his book The .Nerves of Government:
eral systems theories .36 It is a means of explaining whaModels of Political Communication and Control. This book,' says
political structures perform which basic functions in the poiDeutsch, `concerns itself less with the bones or muscles of the
tical system, and it provides a set of general questions febo dy politic than with its nerves — its channels of communica-
investigation. A political party is a structure within the poion and decision. This book suggests that it might be profit-
tical system that performs many functions, including thoseáble to look upon government somewhat less as a problem of
communicating the desires of the mass electorate to thower a and somewhat more as a problem of steering; and it tries
government, informing the electorate on important politiCO show that steering is decisively a matter of communica-
issues, and allowing for wider participation by more people r h°n•^ 39 He then proceeds to talk of channels, loads, load
'

the political system. The party helps to maintain the syste ,PacitY, flows, lag, etc., as these concepts have relevance for
because it performs these tasks, but other structures such ?. study of political phenomena. The main point made was
pressure groups or form al government institutions may a15 ' tñat communications limits the capacity of any organisation,
.'
 a nc ✓ . u.aUIG Uf 1 0 111. '1a

i ne atuay of rouncs 1 y

including political organisations, to make good decisions ai Political science in the 1990s is left in a rather confused
implement them, and therefore this process should be analysrituation. Any enthusiasm for functionalism and systems ana-
intensely. ysis in comparative politics has long since passed, and the
Emphasising the necessity of steering foreshadowed latimits of behaviouralism have become very evident. Likewise,
development of ideas concerning `governance' a concept alational choice approaches are demonstrating more appeal to
closely related to the idea of government steering its societechnicians than to people genuinely interested in political
Governance is a vague term and it can be construed to mearphenomena. Policy analysis continues to attract some atten-
number of different things, including self-mana ement don, and political scientists are directing more of their energy
societies through networks and other social actors. Howevdoward understanding what governments do, and the conse-
governance is conceptualised, this approach to politics emphquences of government policies. This direction may involve a
sises that the basic function of government is to make polia'eturn to organisational theory, as well as a wider investigation
and to influence the situation in the surrounding econonpf the constraints on policy-making and policy alternatives.
and society. Changes in Latin America and above all in Eastern Europe
In the search for new theoretical approaches, it may be sarand the former USSR have also led to renewed interest in the
that the wheel has turned full circle, and the latest en husiasrfactors affecting the development of democratic government 4 ,

is for application of economic theory to politics. This approacand the work of Robert Putnam and others has revived some
is titled variously `new political economy 41 to distinguish iinterest in political sociology and the importance of civil society
from the political economy of the classical nineteenth-century promoting effective democracy5 0
liberal economists, or `rational choice' 4 2 The attempts u A major set of challenges to the existing c anon of political
apply economic models to the study of politics are particularlscience comes from changes in the international environment,
associated with the names of Anthony Downs4 3 J. M. generally discussed in terms of `globalisation' and `regionalisa-
nan and G. Tullock, 44 and more recently with scholars such a'tion'. The international economy and the creation of regional
Kenneth Shepsle 5 and George TsebeIis 4s The essence of th`political and economic blocs such as the European Union are
approach is the view of the political process as a process , tending to erode the power of national governments and to
exchange; the vote, for example, is a type of money that can b make governance more difficult. These movements may be
exchanged for something else. Politics is a market place. Tb exaggerated by some advocates of the ideas, but it is also clear
political economist sees the behaviour of individuals am that national governments are not the only actors involved in
organisations as rational, and as the pursuit of self-interest making public pólicies, and that political science needs to find
He or she is inclined to stress the co-operative elements in th ways of including these emerging patterns in our analrses of
political process as opposed to the conflict approach. Politics i both developing and more-developed political systems.
concerned with the allocation of resources, and the optimisinl The new institutionalism is one of the more important
of social welfare, and thus choices within the political proces reactions to the perceived excesses of rational choice analysis
are concerned with government finance, budgets, types or ^dm ^^^°
taxes, and the effect of these choices on political structures above, the new institutionalism is less concerned
The application of economic models in competition wig with describing organisations than with developing theoretical
political sociology has resulted in an ironic state of affairs fa means for understanding political outcomes and processes.
the study of politics. In the words of W.J. M. Mackenzie Although discussed in the singular, the `new institutionalism'
`Hence a curious situation. Sociology and economics have boll is actually a variety of different approaches, some focusing on
occupied the traditional territory of political science: but whs the role of norms,5 while others are more concerned with the
is left to arbitrate their dispute — except political science.47 effects of structure on the choices made by individuals5 4 Still
 Die Study of Politics •i

other institutionalist approaches study the effects of init1902, and Hitler's Mein Kampf, written in 1923, are superb
policy choices and the `path dependency' of institutions5 5 examples of mixtures of political theory, political strategy and
All of these various institutionalist approaches, howevaolitical propaganda.
move political science away from an emphasis on individu American political scientists appear to be more willing to
^

and back — at least in part — to its roots in the study [nvolve themselves in practical politics than are their European
structure. These approaches also promote the necessity counterparts. Zbígniew Brzezinski was an influential foreign
thinking about the interaction of individual behaviour olicy adviser to President Carter in the late 1970s; Jeane
the formal structures within which they function. For examlKirkpatrick
pl taughtht political science in Washington before
where do the preferences of the members of the institutiabein p chosen by President Reagan in 1980 to be American
come from? Are they the result of their own previous socialisambassador tote United Nations. Donna Shalala, formerly
tion or the result of values being inculcated from within ti resident of of theWisconsin,
Universitybecame Secreta of
Secretary
institution? Also, are individual leaders capable of transfornHealth and Human Ser ces in the Clinton Administration.
ing institutions or are the transformations only the product tProminent British political scientists, such as Anthony King
longer-term, and impersonal, processes of change? and Ivor Crewe, were actively engaged in advising the British
Social Democratic Party, founded in 1981. However, this level
of involvement appears pallid when compared to that of the
Political studies and practical politics American political scientists of the Progressive era, the first two
decades of the twentieth century, with their confidence in the
Aristotle once said that `the end of politics is not knowledge ba future of liberal democracy, and their determination to set the
action', and certainly an overview of political studies mus world to rights. Woodrow Wilson not only wrote two impor-
acknowledge the links between the academic approach ant taut books on the nature of the American system of govern-
practical activity. There is, of course, a danger of being accuse ment, but was president between 1913 and 1920. Charles
-

of political and social engineering in that the labours of th Merriam was a passionate and eloquent advocate of personal
political scientist may be applied to normative ends. This i political involvement by political scientists amongst others, and
especially dangerous when university departments come to rel!; was heavily involved himself in the politics of Chicago until 1920
more and more on direct grants and particular private funds is as a political reformer, a passion reflected in his academic work.
conduct research, a danger more acute in the United States Some professional political scientists argue that personal
But the history of political studies has illustrated the benefit involvement in practical politics can only harm the work of
received from practising politicians and the returns that poli the political scientist. In this view, he or she will not achieve
tical science has been able to repay. Machiavelli ma not have objective understandings of the nature of the political process
secured the post in the Florentine government which he hoped without dispassionately standing aside. However, this raises the
would follow the dedication of The Prince to the Medici, but the more important question of how neutral can s the study of
realism of that treatise owes much to his former public service politics be? The question of the political scientists involvement
The founding fathers of the American constitution are a fore in practical politics has become a central question of the so-
most example of a mixture of political theory and practical called `post-behavioural revolution'. This movement is mainly
realism; they wanted their system of government to embody a'reaction to the post-1945 American behaviouralist school; as
certain political principles, but they also wanted it to work a one political scientist has remarked: `It is rumoured that the
endure. Herbert Morrison utilised his political and ministerial positivist-behavioural political science is moribund if not dead.
experience to provide valuable insights into the working d It 'is said that we now live in the post-behavioural period of
British governments. Lenin's What Is to Be Done?, a pamphlet of political science.'ss
 : 'eu r u4441 e UJ ! UGLGLGJ 1 lie atuay of rotzzzcs hJ

The post-behavioural approach accepts the need to ma The eclecticism of our approach may appear to reflect an
political science relevant to re al political probl ems; it is suslxnwillingness to make a difficult choice, but in fact it reflects a
cious of the traditional defences of American pluralism, abvillingness to utilise all the tools available to us to understand
emphasises that political scientists should perhaps seek someind interpret a crucial aspect of human life. Unlike the natural
their inspiration in traditional political philosophy5 7 Tllciences, where new theories often dismiss and supplant the old,
reaction against behavioralism has also included a conceany study of human behaviour must have strong roots in
about the role of government in making public policies. If traditional concerns such as political philosophy. We need to
go back to early scientific studies of politics, scholars such understand the moral basis of politics, not just the technical
Lasswell were concerned about policy, but that was lost in tiaspects of procedure and behaviour, if we are to understand
concerns about explaining individual political behaviour. )what actually drives many of the participants in the process,
political science returned to think more about `relevanctand if we are to be able to make our own judgements about
policy concerns came back on to the agenda. politics.
The `new institutionalism' discussed above has been anotht As well as being somewhat eclectic, we will stress the
reaction to the dominance of behaviouralism and rationsimportance of comparison in political analysis. Although much
choice theories in political science. This approach seeks 4of the writing in political science tends to focus on individual
remove the focus in the discipline from individuals and tcountries, the only real source of generalisation is comparison.
return it to structures. The several versions of institutionaliszAs important as comparison is, it also introduces a number of
all attempt to point to the ways in which individuals have the difficult interpretative and methodological issues. As we discuss
political values and their political actions shaped by th institutional and behavioural factors in politics we will point to
institutions to which they belong. This approach argues tha some of those issues and possible means of resolving them. Even
individual preferences are not the result of their social back if the methodological issues, such as the cultural element
grounds, or of their calculations of self-interest, but rather are: inherent in most comparisons, are not totally resolvable we
result of social interactions. still believe that the study of politics can only make progress by
being explicitly comparative in its focus.

Summary
Notes and references
Defining the nature and scope" of contemporary politica
science is a difficult undertaking. If we focus excessively of See B. Crick, `The Tendency of Political Studies', New Society, 3
recent theoretical and methodological issues we run the risk o I. November 1966, for a brief survey of the position in Britain.
devaluing the roots of the discipline and the need of content 2. Harold Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model 2nd edn
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)
porary students to understand those roots. On the other hand
.M. Mackenzie, Politics and Social Science (London: Penguin, 1967)
excessive emphasis on the formal institutions of government 3. P ' 7
and on the ideas of the traditional canon of political theoll 4. For a review of the current state of the discipline, see R. E. Goodin and
may lead us to ignore important contemporary developments H.-D. Klingemann (eds), A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford:
A self-conscious blend of these various approaches to politiú Oxford University Press, 1996). For a more American view, see Ada
Finifter (ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline, H (Washington,
and political science is likely to achieve a richer and m on DC: American Political Science Association, 1993).
powerful understanding of the political than would the simpler 5 . See G.A. Almond `The History of the Discipline', in Goodin and
course of a commitment to one path or the other. Klingemann, A New Handbook.

1 he Study of f olztzcs 43

6. T. D. Weldon, The Vocabulary of Politics (London, 1953) (Chicago: University of Chicago

6. Charles Merriam, New Aspects of Politics
7. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Everyman's Library edn, London, 191 Press, 1925) and Political Power (New York: Collier, 1934).
p. 49. Harold Lasswell, Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (1936, reprinted
:7.
8. See B. Guy Peters, Comparative Politics: Theory and Method
(Londo Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1951) and with A. Kaplan,Power and Society: A
The
Macmillan, 1998). Framework for Political Enquiry (London, 1952). Bernard Crick,
9. S. Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of Natia American Science of Politics, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1959)
Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi chs 8 and 10, provides a discussion of the work of both Merriam and
Press, 1982). Lasswell.
10. L. Epstein and T. G. Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing Amerir28. On the community power literature, see Nelson W. Polsby, Community
1963).
Institutional Powers and Constraints (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1998). Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press,
11. Wilson's works include Congressional Government One of the earliest studies was P. F. Lazarsfeld, B. Berelson and H.
(1882), a plea for refon29.
of American government, and The State (1887), a comparative institi (New York: Columbia University Press,
Gaudet, The People's Choice
tional analysis of major governments at his time. 1948). For perhaps the defining study, see A. Campbell et al., The
12. Charles O. Jones, Introduction to the Study of Public Policy,
3rd ed American Voter (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Survey Research
(Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1984) . See also B. Guy Peters, Amara Center, I960). In Britain the Nuffield Studies of every general election
Public Policy, 5th edn (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1999). since 1955, conducted by David Butler with various colleagues, have
13. John S. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policie.5 been the standard studies of voting behavior.
2nd ea` (New York: Free Press, 1966)
(Boston: Little, Brown, 1993). 30. K. Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government
14. The end of colonialism and the creation of numerous new countri p. xxvii.
during the 1950s and 1960s was associated with this expansion in ti 31 . D. Easton, The Political System (New York: Knopf, 1953).
Young,Systems
domain of comparison. See G.A. Almond and J. S. Coleman,Politics i 32. For a brief discussion of general systems theory, see Oran
Developing Areas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958). of Political Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969) ch. 2.
15. Joseph LaPalombara, `Macro-Theories and Micro-Applications: 33. David Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Widening Chasm', Comparative Politics, 1 (1968) , pp. 52-78 . Prentice Hall, 1965) p. 50. Also D. Easton, `Systems Analysis in Political
16. Robert A. Dahl, Political Oppositions in Western Democracies
(New Haven Science Today', Political Science Review, 19, 1 (1980) pp. 1-25.
Yale University Press, 1966). 34. See The Political System (New York: Knopf, 1953) for Easton's famous
17. M. Laver, and K. Shepsle, Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets ae definition of politics as `the study of the authoritative allocation of values
Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer in a society'.
city Press, 1996). 35. See Young, Systems of Political Science, pp. 37-48, and Mackenzie,
Politics
18. L. Diamond, `Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors, Instrument and Social Science, pp. 102-10, for a brief appreciat i on of Easton s
and Issues', in A. Hadenius (ed.), Democracy's Victory and Crisis (Cam work.
bri dge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 36. For a description see G. W. Stocking,Functionalism Historicized (Madison:
19. See V. Gray, H. Jacob and R. Albritton (eds), University of Wisconsin Press, 1980) . Although largely discredited there
Politics in the America
States: A Comparative Analysis, 5th edn (GIenview, IL: Scott, Foresman . are still some reasons to consider functional analysis. See R. Lane,
1990) . `Structural Functionalism Reconsidered: A Proposed Research Model',
20. See James Alt and Alec Crystal Political Economies (Berkeley: Uni 37 Comparative Politics, 26 (1994), pp. 461-77.
versity of Califo rn ia Press, 1970). . See particularly G. A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell Jr., Comparative
21. See B. Guy Peters, Comparative Politics. Politics, System, Process and Policy, 2nd edn (Boston, MA: Little, Brown,
22. See Arthur F. Bentley, The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressurla 197B). and G.A. Almond and J. Coleman (eds), The Politics of Developing
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908). For a good summary d 38 Areas (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960).
the theory developed since that time, see F. R. Baumgartner and B.L . At - the extreme this could even be seen as resembling the American
Leach, Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Politic; ser tion oft powers doctrine. Most of the developers of the approach
Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998). ppen tobeAmerican.
23. Bentley, The Process of Government, p. 77 3 9ch u , =The Nerves of Government.
24. Giovanni Sartori, Comparative Constitutional Engineering 410 J• Kooiman, Modern Governance (London: Sage, 1993).
(New York: Neil
York University Press, 1994). See W. C. Mitchell, `The Shape of Political Theory to Come: From
25. David Sanders, `Why the Conservatives Won - Again', in A. Political Sociology to Political Economy', inPolitics and the Social Sciences,
Kinget aL, ed. S.M. Lipset (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969).
Britain at the Polls 1992 (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1993).
26 The Nature of Politics

42. See R. Czada, A. Herder and H. Keman, Institutions and Political Chas
The Limits of Rationaliy (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1996). F/*
43. A. Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (Chicago: Rand-McNa
1957).
44. J. M. Buchanan and G. Tullock, The Calculus of Consent (Ann Ar h p0
`` itjC 5 = power and
11
^
University of Michigan Press, 1962).
45. Laver and Shepsle, Making and Breaking Governments K. Shepsle, `Stu •
ing Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approá^
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1 (1989), pp. 131-47.
uthority
46. George Tsebelis, Nested Games (Berkeley: University of Califo rn ia PD
1993).
47. Mackenzie, Politics and Social Science, p. 152.
48. Charles O. Jones, An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy 3rd e
(Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1984); Wayne Parsons, Public Pm
(Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1996).
49. See Chapter 13.
'olitics is certainly an important human activity, but except
50. R. D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work (Princeton: Princeton Univen
Press, 1993); V. Perez-Diaz, The Return of Civil Society (Cambridor politicians, soe members of the media, and of course
Harvard University Press, 1994). )olitical scientists
sts it is rarely a primary concern. Thus Quintin
51. See Janet Weiss, The Myth of the Powerless State (Oxford: Polity, 199ogg, defining the attitude of British Conservatives towards
52. James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, `The New Institutionalgolitics, said: `Conservatives do not believe that political
Organizational Factors in Political Life', American Political Science Reá truggle
is the most important thing in life ... The man who
78 (1984), pp. 734-49. ?uts politics . first is not fit to be called a civilised being,let alone
53. March and Olsen, ibid.; Rediscovering Institutions (New York: The i1
Press, 1989) . i n.
Christia
American responses to survey question s reveal a
54. A. Hertier, `Institutions, Interests and Political Choice', in R. Cztather minor, and generally declining, interest in politics?
A. Herder and H. Keman (eds), Institutions and Political Choice: The Leven efforts to `rock the vote' by music television channels
of Rationality (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1996). ippear unable to excite much interest in politics among
K. Thelen, T. Longstreth and S. Steinmo, Structuring Politics: Hista P
ounger Americans.
g
Institutionalism in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge The evidence on political interest in
versity Press, 1992). urope shows a lesser, but still significant, decline 3
56. Ellis Sandoz, `The Philosophical Science of Politics: Beyond Behai However, thi s casual approach to political activity does tend
alism', in The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science,ed. G,o raise some problems for the analyst, s and for society. First, it
Graham and G. W. Carey (New York: David McKay, 1972). S often assumed that politics is only concerned with the public
57. See H. S. Kariel, Saving Appearances: The Re-establishment of Political
(Amertherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1972). Siector, with parliaments, elections, cabinets, and has little
-elevance
to other spheres of human activity. Second, there is
he danger of confusing politics solely with party politics, that
A is somehow concerned with having a political opinion, or
hat it at least implies a distaste with the intrigues and tricks of
•
party politicians seeking power. Political activity is, on the
ntrary, a
far more universal phenomenon. It involves dis-
:agreements
.th and the reconciliation of those disagreements, and
erefore can occur at any level. Two children in a nursery
with one toy which they both want at the same time presents a
political situation. There is conflict and there is the need to

27
 L. ., ¡te iv acure oJ rotztzcs Politics, Power and Authority 29

resolve that conflict. The two children could resort to violencunnatural, by treating the symptoms not the cause. George
with the stronger claiming the toy, or the mother could appeWashington, the first American president, at the end of his
and use her stronger position to arbitrate between the quarnsecond term of office criticised what he called `the baneful
ling children. effects of the spirit of party', but the factionalism of the young
Although the possibilities for resolution are numerous, tconservative United States stemmed partly from disagreement
essence of a political situation remains: that of conflict and non how wide the powers of the national federal government
resolution of that conflict A Hapsburg emperor, Charles 'should be over the individual states. The parties were expres-
once said of his relations with the French King: `Francis I arsing this disagreement. The new political institutions and
I are in complete agreement. We both want Milan.' 'Igrowing political parties were successful means of reconciling
attempts to resolve this particular `agreement' alternafthose differences while preserving the unity of the country. The
between military clashes and summit conferences. It does rardisagreement was the cause of party growth. When the parties
the interesting point of whether physical force is the end and other political institutions failed to continue to reconcile
politics, or the continuation by other means It also points tthat par ti cular disagreement in the middle of the nineteenth
the alternative strategies available to actors in internation2 century, the result was civil war.
domestic and more localised political situations. Single-party states do not signify an end to disagreement
The failure to recognise these basic elements of politics giv among political leaders. Khrushchev was overthrown by his
rise to various confusions and misconceptions even if w own Communist Party colleagues in 1964 because, amongst
concentrate our attention on the arena of public affairs. Briti other things, they disagreed with his foreign policy and his
civil servants are said to be politically impartial, but this da"economic policy. Internal conflicts within the Communist
not mean that they do not make political decisions, Party in China were in part the cause of the cultural revolution
decisions that resolve conflicts. Nor does it mean that they w``and the political turmoil following the death of Chairman Mao
not sometimes apply their own standards and values in read Tse-Tung. Even the military-dominated regime of Saddam
ing a decision. Political neutrality, in the context, merd, Hussein has encountered internal opposition based on both
implies that they will not openly support or favour one ,lpolitucal ambition and religious differences, although the re-
other of the political parties by means other than votir gime has managed to suppress most of the discontent.
Judges are in a similar position. Their political neutrality, Even in multi-party democracies crises tend to suppress
one sense, is a vital source of the confidence people sha disagreements. $ritish political parties buried most of their
in their competence, but this does not mean that conflic disagreements between 1940 and 1945 because of the demands
resolving decisions are not made by judges within the discs of total war, but some conflicts persisted even at parliamentary
tion allowed to them by written laws. This role is especiaD level, on such issues as personal liberties, social welfare and the
apparent in societies such as the United States and German nature of the governments to be supported in former enemy-
where the courts play major roles in resolving social conflict °c cuPied territories.6 Politicians have long known that one way
The constant demands for an all-party government in soli to divert attention from domestic problems, and to create at
countries or the desire to turn government functions over 4 Least short-lived unity, is to create an external political crisis.
;

individuals who have displayed competence in other field.-hold belief that a general interest exists is held by those who
such as business men, is again evidence of these misconcepti0 that the promotion of certain interests and opinions is for
good of a ll not recognising the sectional nature of those
about political activity. Competing parties or factions interests. It may result from a deliberate attempt to confuse
evidence of policy disagreements, not causes of those disagr Y P
ments, and coalitions and all-party governments are attem^ People to the selfish aims of a particular group by disguising
fi
to cure an illness, if political conflict could be regarded , those claims. Usually, this concept of the general interest is a
,
 At. I ✓ rC41141c uJ L OtZiiC'S Politics, Power and Authority 31

criticism of the political process, and a failure to understant o say that all differences are a source of potential conflict at
that political activity is concerned with conflict and concilipublic level; the differences between tall men and short men do
tion. Thus the Duke of Norfolk, criticising the party electinot give rise to political conflict. Some differences are more
neering before the 1970 British general election, said: `This important than others, and there will be variations between
not a ti me for politicians to get at one another's throats. idifferent countries. However, economic differences appear to
must be clear that in the interests of the nation they must con provide a universal source of political disagreement.
together with reasoned consideration and sane appreciation( The diversity that gives rise to conflict need not have an
all problems ... We must not be divided and embattled, lx objective b as e such as economic or racial differences. Opinions
think of the nation and what we can do together to help ti not directly linked to objective social differences may form the
nation.' 8 This seemed to be a plea not merely to take politic source of political activity. Non-smokers have been engaged in
out of general elections, but really to substitute one form, t campaigns to eliminate smoking in all public places, and to
political activity for another, simply to change the arena of th eliminate tobacco sales entirely. Religious diversity substitutes
political conflict. for race and social class as the chief basis for political conflict in
some societies, and in the form of debates over moral issues
such as abortion has become more central in a number of other
Sources of political conflict countries.' ° The personality of leaders may be a factor in the
political mobilisation, such as Hitler's desire to impose his will
Politics arises from disagreements and conflicting interests, an on others, irrespective of his views on German nationalism,
those differences arise from a number of sources. Economics an Jews or class differences; at a less extreme level the personalities
a common source of these disagreements, but in this age then of leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Charles de Gaulle and
is no country that is not afflicted by other social cleavages / Clinton have been major political issues. The degree of
Even for countries that have not been divided by languagr diversity in a society may vary, but diversity of some form is an
race or religion, continuing immigration and the developmer inherent feature of every society. It is a permanent feature, and
of cleavages along lines of gender and `lifestyle' produo therefore political activity is not an abnormal aspect of human
conflict. The problem that these social cleavages present i behaviour. It is the process of accommodating the conflict that
that they are not as bargainable as readily as are cleavage stems from that diversity.
based on money.
Political activity may result from the scarcity of resource
An expensive space research programme may only be possible Means of reconciling political conflict
;

at the cost of ignoring social problems such as housing

education and the relief of poverty. An increased road-buildifl At public levels there are various means of reconciling political
programme may necessitate increased taxation. Political actit conflict. An election decides which of the competing parties or
,

ity results from the necessity of choosing and reaching individuals may translate their programme into public policy.
decision about alternative policies when only one is economic A debate in the legislature or in a legislative committee allows
ally possible. Differences between individuals and groin opponents to express their views and provides an opportunity
provide reasons for disagreements. The poor may be jealo to try to defeat unwelcome legislation. A revolt in a political
of the rich and form groups and political parties to work fort party or a cabinet crisis may force the resignation of a
more equal distribution of wealth. Men may wish to perPt particular leader and reversal of his policies. A constitutional
tuate the inferior position of women in society, and strugg court may have the authority to declare certain government
may ensue for the political emancipation of women. This is actions or legislative enactments unconstitutional. Pressure
 ✓ ,ccc u/c uf 1 OL GGZGS Politics, Power and Authority 33

groups, such as business organisations or trade unions, they refused. Parker then threatened a smaller tax which
m
effect a change in government policy, or seek to balance would be pushed through the state legislature whether the
at
defeat the counter-claims of opposing groups by aiming ccompanes agreed or not. The combined opposition of the
closer relations with political leaders.
co mpanies collapsed, and in return for their agreement Parker
The above political institutions and political processes pn not only promised not to raise the level of the tax in the future,
vide a framework within which political conflict may but even allowed representatives of the larger companies to
channelled and reconciled and decisions reached. Howevedraft the proposed legislation imposing the tax. Unfortunately
there must be agreement that these are acceptable means 'for Parker, the state legislature was not committed to the
accommodating disagreements. If some groups are barred fragovernor's `gentleman's agreement' with the companies, and
participating, or feel that a particular political institution is wanted a higher tax imposed. Whereupon Parker called the
means of frustrating their political demands, they may see legislative leaders and company representatives to a meeting
change by acting outside the recognised political channel. h ch actually took place on the steps of the governor's home,
illegally or unconstitutionally, and attempt to provoke vie and various concessions and compromises were proposed and
fence, or seize power by a coup d'état. accepted. The tax was limited: it was not to be increased for a
A comparison of national and international politics provide set period, and part of the proceeds of the tax were directed to
an interesting contrast in this respect. There is more stabilityi,h elp the constituencies the legislators represented. As Professor
national politics because of a greater willingness to wor'Williams observes: `Every party to the controversy got some-
through the existing institutions, and to recognise the legit thing, and everyone seemed satisfied.' 12
macy of existing political processes. Relations between stair Political activity is simply a means of reconciling differences.
are more anarchic, and the efforts to reconcile conflicts b I n itself it is neither good nor bad. Particular politicians or
institutional means such as the United Nations are less succes political methods of achieving certain goals may be disliked,
ful. This difference, of course, partly stems from reasons ( but politics itself is neutral. However, this should not lead to
historical development, and from the inability to import .-the acceptance of the liberal view of political activity, which
sanctions, short of war, at international level. Some aspect. hold s that governments are neutral and merely referee between
of international politics, e.g. international trade regulate( competing interests in society. Governments are composed of
through the World Trade Organisation or finances controller different opposed interests, and may be dominated by one
through the International Monetary Fund, are however at ' particular interest. Certainly governments generate interests of
4 quiring substantial control over national policies 1 1 their own, even if it is simply that of preserving the status quo.
It is important not to overemphasise the formal and instita Organisations in government tend to embody those interests
tionalised aspects of the political process, such as elections '" and often compete amonn themselves for resources and for
cabinet meetings and parliamentary debates. The reconcilia control over policy areas!
tion of conflict may be achieved at various levels, which ag If political activity is based on diversity, and is the attempt
accepted but not formalised. Ad hoc arrangements may equal( to reconcile conflicts flowing from that diversity, through, at
be a necessary part of the political process. Professor T.li public level, a political framework of accepted political institu-
Williams has provided an interesting and informative exampl tions and processes, political activity is then universally applic-
of the settlement of political conflict in Louisiana in the 192a able to all types of governments. No political regime has
Governor Parker had promised in his election campaign th• succeeded in suppressing differences, none has established a
he would impose a tax on private companies such as Stands uniformity of behaviour^ nor have any ended disagreement; the
Oil which were exploiting the natural resources of the state. It Franco regime in Spain was able to suppress disagreements for
asked the companies, informally, to agree to a small tax, _ Some time but the differences certainly did not disappear.
 J7 t he JV ature of Politics Politics, Power and Authority 35

Therefore politics cannot be confused with liberal freedobefore the threat or application of sanctions 17 Thus Robinson
such as the rights of individuals in society, or denied to sociaCrusoe had no power until the arrival of Man Friday on the
or fascist states. Politics is an activity, not a moral prescriptidsland. The actors in a power relationship may be individuals,
it is a universal activity. The propaganda myths that propgroups, or institutions. If political power implies a relationship,
the end of conflict with the realisation of certain social ait is important to discover who or what has power in relation to
economic changes should not be accepted as the actual crewhom or what. The claim that a Secretary of Education in the
tion of a conflict-free society. 14 central government is more powerful than the chairman of a
local authority education committee is a different type of
statement from that which concludes that the British Prime
Political power Minister is more powerful than the American President. The
first statement is clearly concerned with decision-making in the
So far in the discussion we have avoided any direct reference; field of education. The second could refer either to the ability
the concept of political power. It is a key concept in the stud of the Prime Minister and the President to change the beha-
of politics: for if politics is the resolution of conflict, tl`viour of a third party, say the Prime Minister of Canada, or to
distribution of power within a political community determin their respective power relationships with their own cabinets,
how the conflict is to be resolved and whether the resolution assemblies, or civil servants.
to be effectively observed by all parties. However, there al It is also important to compare like with like. The claim that
numerous terminological difficulties, for political scientni modern British cabinets do not control the decision-making
disagree on the definitions of such terms as `power', `authority Processes of modern government as effectively as nineteenth-
and `influence'. 15 century cabinets, where all major decisions were considered,
Political power may be broadly defined as the capacity t ignores the limited scope of cabinet decision-making a hundred
affect another's behaviour by some form of sanction. Sanctiot years ago. Then government responsibility was confined chiefly
may take the form of coercion or inducement: power may 6 to matters of foreign policy, defence and internal order, not to
backed by the carrot or the stick and it may be exercised in economic regulation or the wide field of social welfare. These
positive or negative fashion. 16 Thus, political leaders ma later additions to government responsibilities involve many
acquire compliance with their wishes by promising wealth Q more actors and complex patterns of implementation that may
,

honours to their supporters; or they may threaten to deny sud limit the apparent power of political leaders. Indeed, as
rewards to their opponents. Most exercises in political power governments shift to third-party delivery systems of various
include both elements. The negative penalties for opposing 6 sorts they have increased that complexity and reduced their
holder of power may be extreme, such as imprisonment á control over outcomes of their policy choices.
death. These penalties are usually in the hands of those ww There are further problems in deciding who or what has
control the institutions of the state, and those who control el power. The individual, group or institution may be initially
state usually wield the greatest political power. However, it i. unwilling to act in the manner desired by the wielder of power,
the fear of these coercive sanctions which promotes obediena and obviously there can be no agreement between the actors in
not the coercion itself. Indeed, too frequent use of the¢' the relationship. Thus, if a p ri me minister asks for the resigna-
penalties may be an indication of the weakening of gpolitic/
P tion of a member of the cabinet and the resignation takes place
power. with little or no political damage to the prime minister, we can
Political power must also be seen as a relationship: ^ Say that in relation to the resigning member of the cabinet, the
Prime tester h as politicalgg power. However, if the cabinet
holder of political power has the capacity to make anoti1t
behave in a manner that he, she or it was unwilling to d^; mem ber resigned for other reasons and it was a coincidence
'

ice ✓ vature 01 Politics
/
Politics, Power and Authority
)

that his resignation occurred at the same time as therinossible or potential power of groups, individuals or institu-
minister's request, we have no evidence either way about dons that asyet have not emerged as opponents of the power-
21s
power of the prime minister in this relationship. Similarly, Molders. Yet although the power relationship is not overt, it
trade union threatens industrial action in order to compellifficult to claim that a power relationship does not exist.
government to agree to policy changes, and the governmeurther, some political cultures place greater emphasis on
successfully resists the union's demands, we cannot claim dachieving consensus than in exercising power than do those
union is powerful if; as a result of theconsequent industririf the United Kingdom or the United States, so that power
action, there is economic dislocation. The union is not powerbften remains potential 2 2
as a result of consequences it did not primarily intend.
Political power cannot be measured satisfactorily. An
attempt to measure the amount of political power that indiriPolitical authority and influence
duals or groups hold must be a very careful exercise. Th
relevant questions involved in this exercise include the followObedience secured solely by the threat of sanctions is unstable.
ing: How many times has A effected a change in the behaviou,Politicalower P is usually accompanied by authority. Political
of B in the manner intended? Did B's behaviour chan authority is the reco nition of the right to rule irrespective of
dramatically, or was B almost at the position that A desired the sanctions the ruler may possess. Another way of saying this
Was the change in B's behaviour relatively permanent or did' is that power is the ability to get things done in spite of
quickly return to the position previously occupied before A` opposition; authority is the ability to get things done without
exercise of power? Was A trying to change only the behavioa opposition. Governing is rarely so easy that there will no
of B at the time or were there attempts to change the behaviou disagreement, but possessing authority may prevent overt
of C, D and E? What were the political costs to the actor opposition to the policy. David Easton's famous definition of
a society'
involved? If A induced a change in B's behaviour at enormo politics as the `authoritative allocation of values for
3
political costs to A and few costs to B, then A's power is leg emphasises the importance of authority in governing?
than if the reverse was the case. As Pyrrhus, the ancient kind Thus a ruler may be obeyed because of the belief that he was
Epirus, remarked: `One more such victory over the Romany chosen b divine authority, and obedience to the ruler is
and we are utterly undone.' obedience to God's laws. Supporters of the theory of the Divine
Measurement of political power is not the only difficulq Right of Kings could seek verification in the New Testament:
facing the political scientist. There is also the problem of non.Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is
decisions 1 9 An actor may be powerful enough to keep certain no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
issues off the political agenda. A political élite may have Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the ordi-
sufficient political power to keep out of the political debau nance of God. .. ,24 Shakespeare's distorted view of King
any issueMost
whichanalytic approaches
would provide a threat to
to power
its own and decision'
power and:. III was that of a man who monopolised the coercive
the élite may attempt to restrict political conflict to `safe' .'
Powers of the state, but whose right to rule was disputed
issues. Most >r because he had usurped power. The challenge to his authority,
making are ill-suited to situations in which one or more actors because of that usurpation, was the reason for his ultimate
:

are seeking to prevent those decisions from being made. . Thomas Hobbes's prescription of strong government
, d oW
The complex issue of potential power presents yet more to end the civil wars was a concentration on the coercive
analytic difficulties. Those with power may act in such a waY °W of governments, but Rousseau was nearer the truth
underlyin
"

to avoid creating political opposition; they anticipate the, .

g political stability when he observed: `The strongest
hti
 .Le waeure of rolatacs Politics, Power and Authority

is never strong enough to be always master, unless he traehavioural change is not reluctant. Naturally, it is often
forms strength into right, and obedience into duty. 25 ifficult to in clearly the degree unwillingness on
The German sociologist Max Weber suggested a three} i e part o f those whose behaviour is change changed.
classification of the sources of political authority in the mod
state. First, traditional authority is the right to rule resul ,
from the continuous exercise of political power. Heredit tri
' be n of power
ruling families fit into this classification. Second, charism, ii • al power is not distributed evenly in any political system.
authority results from exceptional personal tic p that
teristi he richpossess more political resources than the poor in
the political leader, e.g. Hitler or perhaps Charles
Charles de Gat ey can finance election campaigns, bribe supporters and
Third, there is legal-bureaucratic or legal-rational, in wk ;e" as a
' and purchase other political advantages such
authority emanates from the political office the individ^ ood education. The rich may be individuals or they almay be
holds, not from the individual who holds the office. T'corporate bodies. Some individuals have more political skills
American president is obeyed because he is the Ameriathan others in that, like Hitler or Lloyd George or John
president, not because of the particular individual holdiK
that office; the emphasis is on the acceptance of
enn edy, they may be able to influence audiences by their
a tutioiOrato or political intelligence. Prestige gained in non-poli e
rules. Weber recognised that none of these categories existed. cal activities such as the army and the church may be
categories
pure form. The British political system provides an example translated into political power. Even those in possession of
a mixture of traditional and legal-bureaucratic sources certain olitical skills and resources may or reluctant to turn
authority. American presidents often combine charisma! them into p
political assets. However, all theories concerned with
authority with the legal-bureaucratic 2s distribution of political power agree on one main point:
the
We have noted that political power may be divorced fro political power in all political systems is unequally distributed.
political authority in that the right to exercise political po^aNevertheless, there are key differences between the various
may not be recognised. Some political leaders may posse models of how political power is distributed.
political authority but be unable or reluctant to translate
into political power. General de Gaulle's authority was recá Pluralism
nised in German-occupied France, but the coercive powers
the German and pro-German French governments prevents An influential approach to the distribution of political power in
the conversion of that authority into political power. Politic Inodernpolitical systemsis that adopted by the plura lists. The
authority is buttressed and perpetuated by the use of symbd pluralists hold that political power in liberal democracieseen is
such as the use of the national flag or a coronation ceremorl widely distributed, that there is continual competition bet
w
but a important basis of political authority can be found i groups and that new groups constantly emerge. Decisions are
the pattern of political ideas. Yi seen as the outcome of bargaining between influential groups ,
Political influence, like power and authority, implies . l; and although political power is not equally distributed, no one
ability to change the behaviour of other actors. However h^ group has a monopoly, especially when different policy areas
the cause of the behavioural change is not the application i are <considered 2 7 The membership of the groups overlaps and
sanctions or the acceptance of the authority of those seeking the leadership interacts to produce an overall consensus on the
system and the methods for maintaining
change in the behaviour of others. The change in behavi! ol aims of the political
resulting from influence is the result of rational persuasion on :Political stability; there is élite consensus. The resolution of
conflict tends to be non-violent, taking the form of bargaining
mutual recognition of the advantages of co-operation. Ink,and procedural devices such as elections.
ence differs from power in the sense that with the former d!
 .UJ, t vww ....•..... -----•--
4U The Nature of Politics EUt -^

Modern pluralism is partly the result of the behavioPes not exist. Pluralists unfairly distinguish between legiti-
late rule and illegitimate protest, and term `extremist' those of
revolution in political science that emerged in America e
the Second World War. However, there are many varieti:hom they disapprove. Above all, pluralists are criticised for
ults in their methodology that their approach intended to
pluralism. Some early pluralists adopted what came to
known as the `balance of power' theory, implying a dyna:void: namely the adoption of an approach that favours their
equilibrium between competing groups 2 8 Dahl , the I'wn political preferences.
35

influential of the American pluralists, however, has never b

such views and he is far more explicit on the relations)
between political and economic inequality: some are Wlitism
equal than others. 29 Another area of disagreement ame
litist models of the distribution of political power share many
pluralists is concerned with the degree of neutrality of E
modern state; whether the state is a passive mediator betwf the characteristics of pluralist approaches. However, all dite
competing interests or whether the state has interests oftheorists accept one key element which separates them from the
own. 3 The return to concern with the state in Ameriluralists and brings them close to Marxist views: all societies
0
-divided into two groups, the rulers and the ruled. The
political theory has tended to emphasise the existence are
Further, theresmaller group, the political élite, controls the majority. Mosca,
interests of the state in policy and politics3 1
an understanding that pluralism has become more organan early twentieth-century originator of modern dite theories,
In all societies . two classes of people appear — a class
and better structured as government organisations attemtsaid: -
' that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the
ensure greater control over their political environments3
A variety of the pluralist model was also implemented less numerous, performs all the political functions, monopolises
certain socialist states during the 1970s and 1980s. Tithe second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled
as The wishes
pluralism, recognised that in a modern, differentiated socif'bythe first in a manner that is more or less legal.
of the `smaller group generally prevail over the wishes of the
even a dominant Communist Party had to reach some acco^ rnajort
y, 37 and the élite is cohesive and united on most
modation
i w th increasingly diverse social and economic inú important issues. This closed nature of the political Bite and
ests. In the late 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev himself began its common social background is common to all political
use the term `socialist pluralism', and as his reform programff systems, although there are certainly marked degrees of open-
unfolded, it came to include greater freedom of association ness in:;recruitment as well as in the degree of social mobility
expression and finally, in 1990, the acceptance of multip at within societies3
$
politics. Thus, it appears that as societies modernise there is There are several important differences between the 'dite
capacity to maintain political uniformity and homogenity theorists; élite models do not agree on the sources of power of
The pluralist approach to the distribution of political pow, ; th e elite, whether it is
economic, social, the possession of certain
particularly in liberal democracies, has been widely critics psychological characteristics such as the will to power, and/or
It ignores non-decisions, it ignores social class as a basis for the ability of the élite to organise. The major division among
rule: `The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the hea ved élit e the ori es is whether thepower of the élite stems from the
chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.^ 4 Pluralists, Itt, oceúpatiion of certain political offices, such as party or military
alleged, have tended to isolate important decisions, but t! leadership, or whether élite power stems primarily from eco-
methodological approach tends to create a criterion of `^^«` nomi c.and social bases. However, whatever these differences,
portance' which underpins the pluralist conclusions. Cn elitists ;differ fro m the pluralists on the crucial point of the
argue that the alleged balance of groups, countervailing p
 ✓ a vccocw
politics, rower ana ziaanwi cy T.l

concentration of power; they differ essentially from the Miticisms levelled at this explanation of the distribution of
fists over the sources of that Bite power. alitical power. The Eastern European `revolutions' of 1989
Elite models, like those of the pluralists, are criticised kid the collapse of the USSR in 1991 fuelled the view that
flawed methodological approach; a concentration on tdarxism was discredited, not only as a model of development
assumed to have political power will result in the conclutut also as a tool of political analysis. It is important to
that they do indeed have political power. Pluralists will emember that no approach to the study of power is value
accept that power is cumulative; as Robert Dahl has obserree; the analysis of political power is generally not a neutral
`Neither logically nor empirically does it follow that a gmccupation.
with a high degree of influence over one scope will necessa `
have a high deree of influence over another scope withinúorporatism
same system. Also, élitists have been criticised for ins
quately dealing with the problem of political change in soo orporatist approaches emerged (or re-emerged) in the 1970s
ower
ution he distrib cracies
li p in bl demo.
and, importantly, the problem of identifying the elite yse itself-° anal of
ples where cor rati st
Germany and Austria were seen as exam
po
Marxism mechanisms had proved highly successful, and though this
view appeared more questionable from the mid-1980s, the
As with pluralism and élitism, there are numerous vannew post-communist government in Czechoslovakia self-con-
Marxist models of the distribution of political power. Howexsciously prepared to adopt a form of corporatism. Corporatism
the essential basis of all Marxist approaches is that lstresses the incorporation of certain (largely economic) groups
economic order of society determines how political poweri n s ociety into the decision-making process. The state benefits
distributed; political power is concentrated in the hands ¿ from the co-operation and expertise of the groups, such as
ruling class as a consequence of the concentration of econom:'naustrialsts and trade unions, in the implementation of
power in the hands of the few. The state is a coerci political decisions, while the groups gain a share in political
mechanism designed to keep the ruling class in ower. Mai power and the recognition of their monopoly as representatives
ism recognises divisions within the ruling class, and as a res4 of certain societal sectors4 2 As a result of this incorporation of
of these divisions the state has a degree of autonomy ao key groups, large areas of the decision-making process are
regulates political and economic conflicts. Moreover, to mall depoliticised; that is, the formal bodies such as cabinets and
tain the stability of the ruling class domination, the state `assemblies appear to make the decisions, but they are in effect
attempt to mitigate the worst consequences of the division' only endorsing decisions reached by other means. Corporatism
political power, and to appease those who may seek to dishy implies that the state is not, as the Marxist claims, a repressive
the status quo. means of coercion but a mechanism for engineering consent.
Marxism in all its varieties offers a rich and con1P14There are many different emphases among corporatism
o A , theorists, and none claim that it is a complete theory of the
explanation of the distribution of power. Unlike elitism it
a more persuasive explanation of change in political sociebf distribution of power, nor that it can be applied to all political
However, there are serious divergences between Mare systems. The empirical foundations of corporatism are
disputed and there are serious divergences on the role of
approaches 4 1 The concentration on the importance of sod, , fate. To some, corporatism is merely `a variety of plural-
themselves and many trenchant criticisms of the Mare ^e
ism' ?-4 Further with the continuing fiscal crises of government
class, the conflicts over the nature of the state, a monoca ^ ^_ many countries interest groups found that all they were able
approach to the nature of political change and the inablhry ;^
test certain Marxist assumptions empirically are some of , to do was to participate in distributing cuts, rather than
 Politics, rower ana Away Iv
1J
,

distributing benefits to their members. We will explore. In the United States this has come to be known as the `Wag the Dog'
various dimensions of corporatist theory later when we di scenario, after the movie of that name portraying a president using a
faked war to divert attention from a domestic scandal.
the role of interest groups in the political process.
The Times, 3 June 1970. Modernization and Cleavage in
On the concept of cleavage, see E. H. Bax,
Power distribution in modern societies
Dutch Society (Aldershot Avebury, 1998).(London: Macmillan, 1998); M.
E. Lee, Abortion Law and Politics Today
The student of politics is faced with competing and cony • Dillon, Debating Divorce: Moral Conflict in Ireland Today (Lexington, KY:
models seeking to explain how political power is distribu University of Kentucky Press, 1994).
^
The World Trade Organization as an International
They all agree that power is not distributed equally 1• Anne O. Krueger,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).
disagree on whether it is concentrated in the hands of an"i2 Organization (London, 1970) p. 144.
T. H. Williams, Huey Long
or ruling class, or whether it is more widely distribu3
See Junko Kato, The Problem of Bureaucratic Rationality (Princeton, NJ:
between competing elites. The debate is of crucial importa Princeton University Press, 1994).
for the
since the whole approach of the political scientist will 4 `See B. Crick, In Defence of Politics, 3rd edn (London, 1982),
argument that `Politics is the way in which free societies are governed
coloured, unconsciously or not, by the ideological assumpt
implicit in the competing models. Politics is concerned (p..5). Dahl,
5 Th e cl assi c . statement is Robert A.
conflict and the resolution of that conflict, but how 2O1' 15e Also RpHeinemann,
American Behavioral Scientist, 2 (1957), pp.
resolution takes place and the consequences of that resoluti Authority and the Liberal Tradition (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction,
will be coloured by the investigator's `bias'. The difen 1993).
Sticks and Prayers (New Bruns-
institutions of the state, executives, bureaucracies accPmN16. See Ray C. Rist, Ernst Vedung^ Carrots ,
and ick J- Transaction Books 1998).
judiciaries, plus parties, pressure^_ ^^ y
^ and WC P' °,17. The c lassic stat ement of this p
dural devices such as elections, are analysed within ea Power' (see no te
political investigator's ideological preferences, raise the q0 1 8. D. F. Kettl, Government by Proxy: ( Mis)Managing Federal Programs
tion of whether political study cannot be completely gvalue fn (Washington, DC: CQPress).
American
19 See P. Bachrach and M. S. Baratz, `Two Faces of Power',
Political Science Review, 56 (1962) pp. 947-52. y
20. - Ibid; Also see a case study in the area of non-decisions, M.A. Crenso
Notes and references The Un-Politics' of Air Pollution (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

1. 19 59) Hogg
n Th
eCase CoAPte'
21. See1971).
D. Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951).
C
for onservatism, 2nd edn (London:
1959) pp. 12-13. 22. Japan and the Scandinavian countries are obvious examples. See
2. For example, Gary Orren, `Fall from Grace: The Public's Loss of 7 p N. Elder, A. H. Thomas and D. Arter, The Consensual Democracies?,
in Government', in J. S. Nye, P.D. Zelikow and D. C. King (eds). rev. edn (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988).
People Don't Trust Government (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univr 23. D. Easton, The Political System (New York: Knopf, 1953) p. 2.
Press). 1 and 2.
3. Max Kaase and K. Newton, Beliefs in Government 25. The Social Contract (Everyman's Library edn, 1913) p. 6.
(Oxford: (D
University Press, 1995). 26. See Max Weber The Theory of Social and Economic Organisations, trans.
,

4. This echoes von Clausewitz's maxim that `War is the continuadost A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1947).
politics by other means.' 27. That is, doctors may be extremely powerful in health policy but
5. See W. Tompson, `The Fall of Khrushchev', virtually impotent in agricultural policy.
Soviet Studies, 43, 6 (1 28. For a discussion of pluralist theory see Nicholas Rescher, Pluralism
especially pp. 1109-I3.
6. For an interesting account of the opposition to the policies o (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
National government during the Second World War, see A. C 29. 'See R. A. Dahl, Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy (New Haven: Yale
The People's War (London: Heinmann, 1969). University Press, 1982).
 ' ' ✓ ULU/ c UJ L MUMS .

30. See Earl Latham, The Group Basis of Politics (Ithaca: Corwell Unil
Press, 1952) p. 390. He depicted the state as a body which `refer)
group struggle'.
31. See Gabriel Almond, `The Return to the State' ,American Political i

of
'

Review, 82, pp. 853-74.

32. Edward P. Weber, Pluralism by the Rules (Washington, DC: Geor '`l aSS1f cation
University Press, 1998).
33. See S. Soloman (ed.), Pluralism in the Soviet Union (London: Maori O Jernm ent5
1983). See also D. Hammer, USSR. The Politics of Oligarchy, 2nd
(Boulder, CO: Westview, 1987).
34. E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People (Homewood, IL: I .

den, 1960) p. 35.

35. For criticisms of the pluralist approaches, see W. Connolly (ed.);- ,

Bias of Pluralism (New York: Atherton, 1969); R. Miliband, The Sú

Capitalist Society (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973); P. Dunk
and B. O'Leary, Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal rhaps the first step to understanding comparative political
Detnoe
(London: Macmillan, 1987) pp. 59-70. ehavtour,
haviour is to assign'political systems, and types of behaviour,
36. Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939)px
For a general view of élite theories, see G. Parry, Political El ites (Loco usable .categories. Categories area way of placing the rather
1969). ónfusin range of political activity into more usable group-
37. See R. Michels, Political Parties (Glencoe, IL, 1958 reprint) p. 418 fan gs , Those groupings then can be used to develop further
famous depiction of élite rule in his `Iron Law of Oligarchy'.
theories about politics, or at a minimum simply to understand
38. Although the evidence is somewhat dated the basic conclusi oe nature of several .different political systems. Unto we can
H. Eulau and M. M. Czudnowski remain valid. See their Elite Rao the
merit in Democratic Politics (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976). classify
classify them, however, all political systems and all political
39. For examples of the `positional élite' argument, see Mills, The Power is really the same.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1956) and E. Nordlinger , ,',
Autonomy of the Democratic State (London, 1981).
40. R. A. Dahl, `Critique of the Ruling Elite Model', in F. G. Castlesd Aims of classification
(eds), Decisions, Organisations and Society (London, 1971).
41. There is not the space to identify the wide literature, but see Karl
and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (London edn, igAttempts to produce a classification of political institutions can
B. Jessop, The Capitalist State (London, 1982); R. Miliband, Marxisn e dated back to the beginnings of the study of political
Politics Merlin (London, 1977). s cience. Aristotle made one of the earliest attempts to classify
42. For corporatist theories, see P. Schmitter and G. n: (^ overnment structures. Hoe distin he uidetwee
bn states ruled
Trends Towards Corporatist Intermediation (London: Sage, ly
Sage, one person, by the few and the many — monarchy,
O. Newman, The Challenge of Corporatism (London, 1981); H. Wi
Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great `Ism' (Armonk, 0}nstocra cy and mixed government. His intention was not only
M. E. Sharpe, 1997). descri be but to evaluate governments, and thus he extended
43. See M. Heisler `Corporate Pluralism Revisited: Where is the This : Classification scheme to their `perverted' forms which he
Scandinavian Political Studies, 2 (new series), 3, 1979, pp. 285ff ed tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. He realised, how-
44. G. Almond, `Corporatism, Pluralism and Professional Memory', ^^
Politics, 35, 2 (January 1983) p. 251. that these types did not exist in their pure forms, thus
ri g that classification in political science is a search for
i
^ typ es.
r
Bodin, writing his Six Books on the Commonwealth in the
tenth century, pushed Aristotle's classification further.

47
 ico ✓ r ucuu c vJ ! UZZZZGS

tilass Jzcaazon oJ uvuenciitcicca

Although he was still primarily concerned with the gut; classification in the natural sciences; it is to simplify, to
`Which type of constitution is best?', his immense arse n5ure the grouping of like with like, to allow for significant
facts on contemporary constitutions and his insistence tha nparison and thereby extend our understanding of the
type of government depended on economic and geograplenomenon in question.
factors as well as political factors, allowed him to It is important to re mm, eberhoeve,w th all clifii on
significant advances in the study of politics. There was the social sciences is somewhat arbitrary; r at the classification
the emphasis on legal sovereignty that was to be the hallrbeme depends on what aspect of the political system one
of political science until the twentieth century? ishes to isolate and emphasise. Because of the numerous
Montesquieu, a French philosopher of the eighteenth riteria-that' could be applied, no one scheme of classification
tury, produced one of the most famous schemes of classifim be suitable for all purposes. It is important to ask the
governments: `There are three sgecies of government: re estion: `What is the purpose of a particular scheme of
lican, monarchical and despotic. Montesquieu's classificatassiúcation?' Although the conclusions arising from a system
differed from Aristotle's in that aristocracy and democf classification can only be tentative, the mark of good
were part of his republican type of government, butategorisation is its simplicity. A categorisation scheme should
categorisation was firmly in the classical mould since the to sufficiently transparent for it to be replicated, and the logic
of government depended
ended on the number ofeo le holáf a country'beinglocated in one group ou or another made clear.
power. Republican government divides power between Several examples will illustr illustratetheimportance of the ques-
many or the few; 'the more an aristocracy borders on denion being asked. We noted Weber's classification of different
racy the nearer it approaches perfection: and in proportioypes of political authority in Chapter 2, but like other simple
it draws towards monarchy, the more it is imperfect'! Mtaxonomies it has its limitations; it only provides answers to the
archy is a system of government in which power, althou gluestion that it asks and it is concerned solely with the sources
the hands of a single person, is regulated by fundamental .la political authority. Robert Dahl has emphasised this point:
and by the power of other groups in the society. DespotisXven as a scientific classification, however, Weber's typology
the worst form of government since power is in the hands of gems deficient since it makes no place for a number of
man. There is in Montesquieu the important recognition ofi nstinctions that most students of politics would regard as
relationship between the type of government and the typteresting and significant.'s If one were concerned to empha-
society. Education, morals, patriotism and the level ofpconeise civil liberties, one might distinguish liberal democracies
is equality all help to determine the type of government, aom non-liberal democracies and discuss the emphasis that
most important variable is the extent of the state's territorycertain civil freedoms appear to receive in political systems of
large empire supposes a despotic authority in the person i,pe former type. However, if one wanted to examine the degree
governs', a monarchical state possesses moderate territory, f executive independence of the legislature, it would be
`It is natur al for a republic to have only a small territi7ewarding at some stage to compare presidential systems of
otherwise it cannot long subsist.6 he type found in the United States and the parliamentary
These brief glimpses at early attempts to produce schern stems prevalent in most of Western Europe. Even that
classification help to illustrate some of the difficulties inj1 mgly clear distinction, however, does not account for the
construction. Classification is essentiallyy an attempt to iso yb ods such as `semi-presidential systems' (France and Is-
the most important characteristics of the political ssystem Irael ) not for marked differences in types of parliamentary
ystem
the less important. Classification presupposes a compara gimes.
approach, and is fundamental to comparison? Further, cl If we asked questions concerning the degree of public
fication in political science is no different in terms of its cipation in the decision-making process, we would find a

Classification of vovernments J1

i .w ^ ru a uf G of 1- 01Z U cs

distinction between presidential and parliamentary systderdevelopment. This also argues that advocates of liberal
most unrewarding; even a distinction between democrinocracy would do well to promote economic development
regimes and non-democratic regimes would produce ding with democracy.
ties. There is a distinction betweenartici ator s stemsiBarrin ton Moore developed this link between the type of
as the United States and non-participatory
systems suciiitical system and other socio-economic factors 1 4 He isolated
Saudi Arabia. The former communist systems of the Utree types of political system: the democratic or parliamen-
such
and Eastern Europe placed great stress on popular partiáry, such asstain France and the United States; the fascist,
tion, and many authoritarian systems utilise mass participatch asre-1945 Germany and Japan; the communist regimes,
as a means of attempting to demonstrate their legitimacy tach as the Soviet Union and China. He allowed for types of
rest of the world. Further, different types ofartici atiolitical system that do not follow this threefold pattern of
voting as compared with more direct interventio ns in poievelopment, giving India as the main example of this hybrid
making — may vary significantly across democratic systempe. Moore argued that the interaction of lords, peasants, the
The classification scheme may point to interrelations addle class and government bureaucracies will tend to pro-
tween different variables. The connection between the t uce in certain circumstances a particular type of political
political system and the socio-economic structure isr rstem. Theda Skocpol has built on this work, examining the
important one in this respect. The French writer Alexisgects of socio-economic factors on the revolutions in France,
Tocqueville emphasised this relationship when examining tussia and China.' 5
basis of American democracy in the early nineteenth cents The number of typologies and taxonomies of political sys-
ems is very large, and the choice of an appropriate scheme will
Among the lucky circumstances that favored the estabePend on the type of variables that are being considered.
ment and assured the maintenance of a democratic repvóvlore importantly, the choice of schemes depends heavily on
in the United States, the most important was the choice nature of the comparative questions being asked. Before
the land itself in which the Americans live. Their fatldy',particular scheme is adopted the aim of the classification
gave them a love of equality and liberty, but it was trust be clear, as well as the range of cases to which it will be
who, by handing a limitless continent over to them applied. Even with this qualification in mind, however, there
them the means of long remaining equal and free. Genes still innumerable problems of methodology that must be
prosperity favors stability in all governments, but partidentified before moving to the adoption and use of any
larly in a democratic one.t2 a -particular schemes for classification.

This relationship between socio-economic development a!

the type of political system has been echoed by S. M. Lips'IProblems of classification
He has argued that a liberal democratic system is only poss!one aim of all schemes of classification is simplicity, although
where relative social and economic equality produces p
oli ^^the.choiee of what aspects of political systems to highlight may
stability, and where economic and industrial development 1 arbitra de endin on the nature of the question being
produced a high level of material prosperity 1 3
is a relationship, in his view, betweenBasically, the capitalist tbd'mod
ked yetp qualifications
even
given these q to the utilisation of
ti
production and liberal democracy, nd there is the resut ar cular typologies, there are certain fundamental problems
tion that liberal democracy is noty consistent
ere p t are withcommon
ap to all schemes of classification. There is the
e Problem of defining the concepts being used civil liberties
therefore be ae product of econo t different things 'in the United States and the former
authoritarian regimes, ma ythere

• 4.....14,1G vJ .1 ULULGLJ .

G'lassification oJ
, vove'rntiterata JJ

Soviet Union, while countries with a predominantly Is!?cribe, categorise and analyse the political institutions, but to
culture also have a different conceptual understanding oft_dicate preferences. To a certain extent all political scientists
and freedoms. Giovanni Sartori talks about this problere culture-bound: they use the political institutions and the
terms of concepts that do not `travel' well beyond thee poblitical processes with which they are familiar as a yardstick
context within which they were developed!' To make elith which to measure others. They seem to state preferences
fications useful we will need to be clear about our conce '.(most unconsciously; they see types of governments they
also have concepts that are usable in a variety of politi alislike as resting on force or fraud. Political descriptions then
cultural settings. ecome full of words of abuse. Bernard Crick has pointed out
The use of quantification may complicate the aline difficulties of using the word `democratic', given the desire
difficult question of conceptualisation. Weber's concept the part of practising politicians and political scientists to
`charisma' provides an illustrative example here; <hnsecrate different regimes with this holy description:
does one measure charisma? If one claims that the sours
a leader's authority is charismatic rather than legal-bun Democracy is perhaps the most promiscuous word in the
cratic, how much charisma is necessary before this clan world ofp ublic affairs. She is everybody's mistress and yet
made and how is it measured? Hitler was certainly obc somehow retains her magic even when her lover sees that her
because he had outstanding powers of leadership, but he' favors are being, in his light, illicitly shared by many
also appointed chancellor in a legal manner by the Gen another. Indeed, even amid our pain at being denied her
president; how are we accurately to estimate the differ exclusive fidelity, we are proud of her adaptability to all
contributions to his authority over the German people? Ag sorts of circumstances, to all sorts of company. How often has
Sartori is concerned with this problem as he discusses one heard: `Well, at least the Communists claim to be
dangers of `degreeism' and the arbitrary use of a cut-off lx democrati c'? But the real trouble is, of course, that they do
to define the presence or absence of an attributer not pretend to be democratic. They are democratic in the
The problem over labels is another difficulty in the dal not historical sense of a majority actively willing to be
cation of political systems. Political institutions with the ruled in some other way. 19
label may perform similar functions in different polis
systems.' $ Take for example the familiar term `execu tir The dangers are, in some cases, unavoidable, but awareness
The British monarchy has similar political functions ,that value judgements often may interfere with a more objec-
political influence to those of the German president. give analysis helps in weighing the utility of the process of
French president of the Fifth Republic has more politi classifying political systems
power than either. The president of the United States A further difficulty in the development of typologies is the
bines, in some respects, the political features of the BriP`failure to recognise that regimes change; any system of classi-
prime minister and the British monarchy. We will see fication must allow for the processes of change, avoiding
Chapter 5 that the labels of multi- or two-party systems` excessive rigidity. The collapse of the communist systems of
be most confusing in terms of how the party system actu ''he USSR and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s produced
works. Thus it is very important and often Y k` Orm ous
ver difficult in Tpolitical, social and economic changes in these
c, as have been
construction of typologies to make sure that like is Co tries. The changes P and drama ti
g were rapid
compared with like. those of other democratising regimes 2 0
;'
The political scientist
Another difficulty concerns value judgements. Classiñca4 must now adjust the classification schemes to take these
is sometimes used to praise or condemn a par ticular re ' ;011angel into account. Yet the present political fluidity in these
Regimes are labelled `democratic' or `autocratic' not simp_r Communist political systems and the uncertainty as to

•••. .' G vJ l ueeeú(.)
CiaSSZJZG atWU uJ Iv•
'".l v11VG 1

future political developments in these countries make There are periodic elections based on universal franchise.
classification to encompass the changes hazardous?' 'i Pressure groups are able to operate to influence govern-
developments provide a clear warning against rigid sys ment decisions. Associations such as trade unions and other
of classification. voluntary organisations are not subject to close govern-
ment control.
. Civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of
Systems of classification religion, and freedom from arbitrary arrest, are recognised
and protected within the political system. This assumes
Many of the methodological problems of classifying pot that there is a substantial amount of independence and
systems can be appreciated by examining particular exarq; freedom from government control of the mass media, i.e.
of classifying political systems and political institutions. radio, television, newspapers {even though government
have already seen in Chapter 1 that the political syy may own and operate some components of the media).
includes all types of political activity within a society, not p7 . . There "is some form of separation of powers - i.e. a
the formal political institutions. We also saw that the cone: representative -assembly has some form of control over
of a political system implies the interdependence of the van i the executive, and the judiciary is independent of both
parts of the system and that changes in one aspect of the sy executive and legislature.
will affect other parts. There are man different ways in wé`_
political systems have been classified,,2 but for the purposThis broad description of commonly accepted attributes of
underlining the difficulties associated with typologies as wdliberal democracy bristles with conceptual and methodological
indicating some of the advantages, the following broad typ dangers. The difference of degree becomes very important and
ogy would be sufficiently representative: the measurement of this degree difficult, as we saw earlier with
Liberal democratic systems.civil liberties. A major problem is the relative importance of
1. the different variables. For example, South Africa always had a
2. Communist systems.
-competitive party system, but given the police powers used to
3. Post-communists y stems.
control the majority of the population who were excluded from
4. Authoritarian systems.
`:legitimate political competition, civil liberties for the majority
Each of these categories may also have sub-categories that h+
were non-existent . Yet one-party states to the north in A frica,
to clarify the meanings of the category and to enhance and such as Zambia were transformed in the late 1980s to re la-
standing of the term. .twely competitive systems in a peaceful manner by the exercise
As we begin to use these categories, we can use the `lib of rights within the existingpo litical structures.
democratic system' as an example. This system could' On another continent, critics of the government of Indira
p y Gandhi after the declaration of the state of emergency in 1975
characterised as follows: argued that the government's control of the press and
1. There is more than one political party competing ; 'Imprisonment without trial of political opponents no longer
political power. v--retitled India to be categorised as a liberal democracy. But
2. The competition for power is open, not secretive, 41-ere we meet the problems of change and the fact that few
based on established and accepted procedures, inclu ütical systems are static. India has since returned to being a
elections. rghly •
competitive party system. The British government
3. Entry and recruitment to positions of political power possessed the most far-reaching powers during the Second
relatively open. old War, includi ng p owers of •imprisonment without trial,

,&L J r UtUf e uf Uuczezcs Classification of Governments J J

to ban newspapers, to direct labour, to seize property byfany scholars traditionally saw the communist regimes as a
procedures; there was, moreover, a postponement of elect b-category of totalitarian systems, which aimed to exercise
and an electoral truce between the political parties. Did all)tal control of the lives of their citizens. The most widely
imply that Britain ceased to be a liberal democracy? Of core characterisation of totalitarian systems was that of
ce ted
the nature of the emergency, the agreement of all the Friedrich and Brzezinski, who stressed the features of a domi-
political parties and the apparent consent of the British Peant official ideology, a single mass party, a monopoly of
to these draconian powers were very important consideratintrol of communications and the use of force, widespread
yet the example does underline some of the diff^cultiels e of terror, and central direction of the economy? 6 However,
classification. ' d
üfficulties abound with the concept of totalitarianism, an
There is no doubt that the problems are formidable. ,J tieisr^ proliferated with the post-war evolution of the com-
Blondel has observed: `Liberal democracy is ... difficuf unist states 2 7 The term has some historical relevance, parti-
define, as the major components of the combined indexularly to the regimes of Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s, while
elections, existence of an opposition, etc.) seem to defy rigo4ome would also add Cambodia under the leadership of Pol
operationalisation.i 15 However, in spite of all the problems,pot. Moreover, its strong normative overtones and its inability
concept of liberal democracy is fl exible enough to be Alto explain change were major disadvantages, and other labels
group together various systems by emphasising certain essenuch as socialist or communist became widespread.
characteristics and usefully to contrast these systems with di The term `communist political system' also has certain
broad categories of political system. The political systermdisadvantages, not least that it reflects an aspiration to corn-
n
Britain, France, Sweden, the United States, Germany, etc.cr unism rather than its achievement. Yet it is widely under-
be grouped together under the label `liberal democratood and can be characterised in the following manner:
thereby stressing certain important characteristics these p
tical systems possess in contrast to other political systems. 1. There is an official ideology linked in some fashion to the
This general category of `liberal democracy' is useful, l; writings of Karl Marx.
may be more useful if it is differentiated further. Arc'2. The political system is dominated by one political party.
Lijphart, for example, differentiates between majoritaR 3. There is centr al planning of the economy and a relative
and consensu al democracies. In the former category - t absence of private ownership.
the United Kingdom and many other Westminster demo 4. Freedom of association and expression are limited by
cies — the institutions are designed to produce governor control of organisations and the censorship of a state-
through a dominant party. The other type of democor owned press.
typified by the Low Countries and the Scandinavian co 5 There is no concept of the separation of powers and,
tries, 23 focuses on the creation of broad political consensus i consequently, limited judicial independence.
the involvement of as many actors as possible in the prod
governing. Also, although they are certainly liberal demos Historically this category has been quite large. It persists in
cies, several countries such as Sweden and Japan have fr , 1998 with only China, Cuba, North Korea, and Laos provid-
dominated by a single political party 2 4 Another group, mg, 'clear examples.2 8 However, countries formerly in this
countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium can be ck'. ca lory have been subject to recent major upheavals. Before
acterised as 'consociational' involving élite consensus to okt- 1989 the category included not only the USSR and the
come social divisions in the mass public25.countries of Eastern Europe,but balso Afghanistan, Angola,
The second category, that of communist systems, pro. and Ethiopia. The revolutions in Eastern Europe, the disin-
greater operational problems than that of liberal demo is ri tion of the USSR, civil war in Afghanistan and foreign
 JV

j ne ivature of Politics Classification of vovernments

pressures on Angola and to a lesser extent Ethiopia brougiardcular characteristics dividing them from other types of
their wake a rejection of communism. In Cambodia dpoli tical system. These characteristics could include:
foreign intervention and a continuing civil war have results The state is weak and viewed with suspicion.
a somewhat shaky democratic regime.
systems are weak, with numerous parties competing
It should be remembered that even before the upheave Party ,
1989-90 the category of communist systems embraced r for power with thinly articulated programmes and a
siderable diversity. There was a great deal of private owne reluctance to compromise.
in Poland, for example, while East Germany and Pol. Civil liberties generally enjoy little regard, especially con-
continued to permit some non-communist parties to fund cermng the protection of minorities.
The autonomy of organisations like churches or trade in:- There is extens tec ve ti ate ownership, but the aim is to move
was very varied within different communist systems. Chaff. There is a capitalist economic system.
a a `low civic culture', and a relatively small
were under way in a number of states such as Hungary bet)*^' number of the civic organisations that would support
the `revolutions' occurred. Poland led the way with the est
lishment of the independent trade union, Solidarity, in 1 nu mb democracy 3 0
In particular, the level of economic development difft The fourth category, autocracy, probably gives rise to more
enormously before 1989-90. Since the more industrialifliculties of conceptualisation than either liberal democracy
states have now renounced their communist character, br communist systems. It becomes a heterogeneous collection of
most important characteristic of the current communist stall the political systems that cannot be fitted into the other
is their economic underdevelopment. three categories. Furthermore, the political systems that can be
The third category, that of post-communist systems, is a'liclassified as autocratic are often unstable and likely to change
one resulting from changes in the communist world. Tmore rapidly than others, and therefore the examples are often
accession of Gorbachev as party leader in the USSR wasrsoon dated. Descriptions such as `modernising regimes' or
important milestone in this process. By the end of 114third world states' are useful in some exercises, but tend to
communist regimes in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, emphasise only certain aspects of the political system. The level
Germany and Romania had collapsed. Bulgaria and even 4of socio-economic development, the nature of the party system,
hard-line communist bastion of Albania followed. Old stL.and the role of the military are all important variables; but the
have disappeared. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1 aclassificatiRn cannot rest on these alone. Certainly, character-
resulted in fifteen successor states, while the break-upsticssuch as limitations on open political competition, the role
Czechoslovakia and civil war in Yugoslavia also producedar of ideology, the overt deployment of coercion, weakly sup-
number of new states. All of these states have had to devrPorted civil liberties, lack of judicial independence and the role
their own ways of governing, often with a strong emphasist`' of traditional or military elites are important and perhaps
meeting rather severe demands of democratisation and 'wo?jd allow .a way forward. Thus, oligarchic or authoritarian
creation of modern welfare states in a short period of ti T es as opposed to liberal democratic or socialist regimes
Of course, given the rapidity and the contemporary nat ^be classified as follows:
of these changes, categorisation of the new regimes is fra '°

with difficulties. Many observers feel that given the econ x conservative regimes:
and social P roblems facing .
) Traditional monarchies, with traditional ruling
g the new regimes, a form of au z and little political institutional infrastructure,
-

itarian populism is likely to emerge, as it already has in s groups
..^ , P
countries. 49 Yet the post-communist states appeared to rn' a e . g . Sa udi Arabia, Morocco and Nep al .
 1
- • uJ 1 VL U ZCS

classification oj uovernments 0

(b) Conservative dictatorships where the personalitClassification of political structures

the leader is important and there are few institutit
forms of legitimacy, e.g. Malawi before recentAttempts to classify particular elements of the political system
tempts to create an effective democracy. are fraught with the same difficulties outlined above. We shall
(c) Theocracies, revolutionary regimes that attemptsee this more clearly when we examine different types of party
mobilise mass support. The few examples can be dnsYstems in Chapter 5. However, if we recognise such limita-
from the Islamic states such as Iran and Af hanist do , the comparison of different structures or processes assists
2. Facade liberal democracies where there are etistudents of politics in understanding the working of various
omp
elections but restrictions on the opposition and hid Pe of the system, especially in terms of the relationship of
liberties. Examples in this category could include MaF'tne separate parts to the whole. The division between a federal
sia, Peru and (decreasingly so) Mexico. and a unitary system, or that between parliamentary and
3. Military regimes: presidential systems, can serve to illustrate the advantages of
(a) Direct military rule. The military has usually sen such an approach.
power in a coup, and there are no elections (or Federal and unitary division cuts across the fourfold typol-
sham elections), and there is a poor level of econofl ogy outlined for political systems. A federal form of govern-
development and often a marked degree of polim ment is one in which political power is divided between the
instability. Examples are to be found in contempors central federal government and the constituent states or pro-
federal
Pakistan, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republx_ nces that compose the federal union. Further, in a
the Congo. system the constituent units have some right to existence, and
(b) political stability than
Civilian—military thoseThese
regimes. regimes withfar
portray direct
má :to
' perform certain functions, that are guaranteed by a con-
stituúon or other basic law. Indeed, the constituent units often
tart' rule, but the power relationship between :predated the central government, e.g. in the United States or
civilian and military within the government is di` Austr alia, and that central government resulted from a coin-
be
cult to assess, and subject to constant change. becoming a par
best example of this type of regime is Peru id ticular form of federal or confederal system
President Fujimori, and Egypt and Syria also welt ovenwhich the constituent units retain an even larger share of
fit into this category. power than usual, although the creation of the Economic
(c) Radical military regimes. This provides a most and Monetary Union moves the system more towards a federal
troversial category since there is considerable entity,
e federal structure can lead to significant differences in
the hway m which the political process works. We shall see in
between this and categories (a) and (b) above
even with the socialist systems. Tentative)Y' one coa l
put Algeria into this category. si
ater chapters that federalism affects the working of the party
Petri, the operation of pressure groups, the relationships
M b etween ;assemblies and executives the status of the judiciary
Certainly, it would not be difficult to quarrel with any. ,
these categories, nor with the examples chosen to illus and the organisation of the bureaucracy. Therefore, for certain
them. This exercise illustrates the advantages of attemp r patterns of interrelationships, the division between the federal
gYstems of the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany
some form of explicit classification, and also underlines ' ::' pg,t]1e one :hand and the unitary systems of Great Britain,
pitfalls. All systems of classification should be tentative
flexible and possess a clear idea of the purpose of the class 'exaed e.n and France on the other is an advantage in the
tion exercise. ininations of individual systems and the comparison of

v 4 t rLG ✓ r u4[t/ c UJ t ULLLLLJ 1, tuaayautwit UJ VUUGrlLNL6fl' v✓

these systems 3 2 The former Soviet Union was characterised u preme. The number and type of political parties will have
such a high degree of centralisation that many obserportant consequences for the operation of these systems.
regarded its federal character as a sham. This is an exagge The chief characteristics of the presidential type of govern-
tion; but the erosion of the centralising forces of the Commitment are as follows:
Party and the system of central economic planning led
constituent Soviet republics first to demand a profound rel. The president is both nominal and political head of state.
gotiation of the federal arrangements and then, increasingly,2. The president is not elected by the legislature, but is
reject the federal structure for full national independence, directly elected by the total electorate. (There is an
Another useful division is that between presidential systt electoral college in the United States, but it is of political
and parliamentary systems 3 3 A comparison of the two patta, significance only in that each states votes as a unit and
of relating the executive and the legislative powers iii= hence the system tends to disadvantage small parties.)
government throws up certain important distinctions betw3. The president is not part of the legislature, and he cannot
the two, emphasises the essential characteristics of each fa be removed from office by the legislature except through
and, moreover, further underlines the limitations of any fa the legal process of impeachment. 4
of classification. 4. The president cannot dissolve the legislature and call a
The major characteristics of the parliamentary type general election. Usually the president and the legislature
government could be listed as follows: are elected for mixed terms.

1. There is a nominal head of state whose functions are chiahe' outstanding example of the presidential form of govern-
formal and ceremonial and whose political influencianent is that of the United States. Most other examples are
limited. This head of state may be a president, as 'imitations of the American presidential system, found chiefly in
Germany, India and Italy, or a monarch, as in J apCentral and South America.
Sweden and the United Kingdom. ` The division between presidential and parliamentary re-
2. The political executive (prime minister, chancellor, a *álmes can be most useful for comparison. There are numerous
together with the cabinet, is part of the legislature, selea." exa mples of political scientists using a comparison of, say, the
by the legislature, and can u -United be States and Britain, in terms
removed by of thethis division in order to
legislat
the legislature withdraws emphasise "significant aspects
its of both systems. Other scholars
support.
3. The legislature is elected for varying periods
by, hays argued that presidentialism is a danger for developin g
electorate, the election date being chosen by the fori : entries, given that it may be more subject to instability3
head of state on the advice of the prime mimst The assumption is that presidentialism focuses too much on the
ersontY
pab and capacity
paci of a single
chancellor. g individual, so when that
Individual is undermined the system as a whole is also under-
There are significant differences within parliamentary
government. The legislature may consist of one chamber or th ere are serious limitations
mitations to this approach. Wee have
and there are variations in the methods of selecting the M . s Y
; hinted at one difficulty: the small size, and somewhat
chamber if it exists; there are variations in the power p nature, of the sample of presidential systems. Also, all
executive to dissolve the assembly and call an election, an t '
Pies come from liberal democratic systems. Although
bare a number of new
in the capacity of the parliament to dismiss the executive, > , exam examples,
full
y are not yet fully
they
may be a supreme court to interpret the constitution, realised, Gorbachev attempted to introduce a presi-
position may be that of Britain, where the legislature is I Ystem into the USSR, and Boris Yeltsin also accrued
 VT 1 1W ✓ v uzuie oj rutuzcs Classification of Governments 65

considerable executive powers in his role as president of Russia. diametrically opposed to one another. Thus, classification
In Poland, the example of France proved an attractive one to remains a very useful means of approaching understanding of
President Lech Walesa, whose efforts to increase his own political systems, but care must always be exercised, and the
powers referred frequently to the French presidency as a model degree of variance that exists within each category must also be
to be emulated.
recognised.
France of the Fifth Republic is a good example of the Further, classification may be the beginning rather than the
limitations of this approach. France adopted a new constitu- end of the process of comparison. Once a country or an
tion in 1958 after the accession of de Gaulle to power. Formerly institutional arrangement has been classified, that provides a
under the Fourth Republic (1946-58), French political institu- beginning for comparing it with others, but only a beginning.
tions could be firmly classed as `parliamentary'. The constitu- Even if two political systems are explicitly parliamentary, for
tion of the Fifth Republic strengthened the political power of example, they may still have different conventions about how
the president and he ceased to be merely the ceremonial head parliamentary government is to function. For example, both
of state. Basically, the new constitution demoted the National Italy and Norway are parliamentary but have very different
Assembly, as the president is not dependent on its support but histories of dissolutions of government and instability, and
is elected for a fixed term by the whole electorate. French somewhat different conceptions about the role of government
political institutions are no longer parliamentary, but the in society.
political structure cannot be clearly classified as a presidential Í
type of system on the American model. The system can now be
classified as `semi-presidential', having some aspects of the Summary
presidential regime but retaining some of those of a parlia-
36
mentary system. Classification and categorisation are essential parts of the
These examples serve to highlight some of the empirical scientific process, whether in the natural sciences or the social
difficulties we encountered in attempts to compare political sciences. Although basic, classification is not easy and fre-
systems or their constituent elements. Few political systems fit quently involves the use of judgement as much as hard,
neatly into any one pigeon-hole. Categories are elaborated in `scientific' evidence. We may say, for example, that we want
terms of general, abstract characteristics, while each political to distinguish democratic from non-democratic systems, but
system is in some respect a unique combination of particular how much democracy is needed to fit into the more virtuous
features. Thus, the more clearly defined a category, the more category? Decisions about what to include and what to exclude
difficult is the problem of empirical fit. This factor has led in a measure of democracy will determine what countries are
many political scientists to succumb to the temptation to democratic, and may in turn influence any analysis of demo-
proliferate their categories by adding further divisions and cratic politics.
sub-divisions. 37 To carry this process to its logical conclusion Further, in political science there is no single scheme of
would be to obviate the purpose of classification, for it would classification that conveys all the information that is needed
result in a separate category for each political system. about a political system. In biology, for example, the hierarchy
It appears more useful, therefore, to accept the utility of of class, phylum, genus and species places all living things in an
various types of classification, recognising the fluid nature of accepted position vis-a-vis all other cases. In political science
political systems, and accepting that for some purposes it will there is little or no agreement on how to classify and therefore
be useful to treat certain countries as having crucial simila- there are almost as many classification schemes as there are
rities, while for others the systems concerned will appear scholars interested in classifying systems.
 The Nature of Politics Ulass fzcatzon o j governments b/
66
25. Arend Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation (Berkeley: University of
Notes and references California Press, 1968).
26. C. Friedrich and Z. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, 2nd
trans. with an introduction by Ernest Barker edn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965) p. 22.
1. The Politics of Aristotle, 27. For wide-ranging discussion of the usefulness of the concept of 'totali-
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946) particularly Book IV.
A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century tarianism', see, inter alia, C.J. Friedrich, B. R. Barber and M. Curtis,
2. See J. W. Allen,
(London: Methuen, 1957) ch. 8. Totalitarianism in Perspective: Three Views (London, 1969); L. Schapiro,
trans. T. Nugent (London, Totalitarianism (London, 1972); R. Burrowes, `Totalitarianism: The
3. Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws,
1966) bk II, ch. 1, p. 8. Revised Standard Edition', World Politics, vol. 21, no 2 (Jan. 1969)
pp. 272-89; R. Cornell (ed.), The Soviet Political System (Englewood
4. Ibid, bk II, ch. III, p. 15.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970).
5. Ibid, bk VIII, ch. XIX, p. 122. 28. See S. White et al., Communist and Post-Communist Political Systems
6. Ibid, bk VIII, ch. XVI, p. 120. Journal of
See Giovanni Sartori, `Comparing and Miscomparing', (London: Macmillan, 1990) pp. 1-35.
7. 29. D. Nelson, `The Comparative Politics of Eastern Europe', in S. White,
Theoretical Politics, 3 (1991), pp. 243-57.4th edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Modern Political Analysis, J. Batt and P. Lewis (eds), Developments in Eastern European Politics
8. R. A. Dahl,
Prentice-Hall , 1964) p. 30. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993).
Presidential Institutions and 30. Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
9. See, for example,(Baltimore:
Kurt Von Mettenheim,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997).
Democratic Politics University Press, 1993).
Semi-Presidential
M. Duverger, `A New Political System Model: 1980 31. For a discussion of the problem of classifying radical military regimes,
10. 8 (1980 pp
Government', European Journal of Political Research, see J. Markakis and M. Waller (eds), `Military Marxist Regimes in
See R. D. Putnam, `Democracy in America at Century's End', in Africa', Journal of Communist Studies, vol. 1, nos 3 and 4 (Sept./Dec.
11. (Cambridge: Cambridge 1985).
A. Hadenius (ed.), Democracy's Victory and Crisis
University Press, 1998). 32. On federalism, and the variety of ways in which it functions, see
Democracy in America (London, 1968) p. 345. E. Ahmad, Financing Decentralized Expenditures: An Institutional Comparison
12. Alexis de Tocqueville, (London: Faber, 1963). of Grants (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1997); C. Bolick, European
Lipset, The First New Nation
13. See especially S. M. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (London: Federalism: Lessons from America (London: IEA, 1994).
14. Barrington Moore, 33. See R. Kent Weaver and Bert A. Rockman (eds),Do Institutions Matter?:
Methuen, 1967).
and Social University Press,
Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad (Washington, DC:
taChia (Cambridge:ut Cambridge p The Brookings Institution, 1995).
15. F a nc e, Russia and
34. The celebrated attempt to impeach President Clinton brought this
1979).
Giovanni Sartori, `Concept Misinformation in Political Science', possibility to the attention of the world in 1998. See also R. Berger,
16. 64 (1970), pp. 1033-41,
American Political Science Review, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press).
17. Sartori, `Comparing and Miscomparing'. Comparative Politics: System, Process 35. Riggs, The Survival of Presidentialism in the United States: Para-
18. See G. A. Almond and G. B. Powell, Cons titutional Practice', International Political Science Review
and Policy, 2nd edn (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978). 9(1988),
(London, 1964) p. 56. 247- 78.
19. B. Crick, In Defence of Politics
Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolida- 36. Maurice Duverger, `A New Political Systems Model: Semi-Presidential
20. A. Stepan and J. J. Linz, (Baltimore:
Government', European Journal of Political Research 8(1980), 165-87; see
tion: Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). also, J. Nonsianen, 'Bureaucratic Tradition: Semi-Presdential Rule and
But see P. C. Schmitter and T. L. Karl, `The Conceptual Travels of Parliamentary Government: The Case of Finland', European Journal of
21. Go?',Slavic
Transitionologists: How Far East Should They Attempt to Political Research, 16, pp. 221-49, 1988.
Review, 53 (1994), pp. 3-28. 37. See, for example, the work of COCTA - the Committee on Conceptual
Contemporary Political Systems: Classi- and Terminological Analysis of the International Political Science
22. See A. Bebler and J. Seroka (eds),
fications and Typologies (Boulder, CO: Lynn Reinner, 1990). Association.
Modern Welfare States: Politics and Policies in
23. E. S. Einhorn and J. Logue,(New York: Praeger, 1989).
Social Democratic Scandinavia
Democracies: s: The One-Party Dominant
24. T.J. Pempel (ed.)), Uncommon
ersity
Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University
Uiv Press,