David Easton’s System Approach

The notion of a political system has gained widespread acceptance due to its focus on comprehensively understanding political activities within a society. The behavioral school’s systemic perspective on political institutions and processes is responsible for introducing this novel concept. Throughout the history of Political Science, various institutions and processes have demonstrated both similarities and differences in explaining political dynamics. In contemporary times, a group of American political scholars have advocated for the systems approach as the most effective framework for this purpose.

The pioneers credited with applying this approach to Political Science are David Easton, G. A. Almond, and Morton A. Kaplan. This approach has proven to be a valuable tool for the macro analysis of political phenomena. However, proponents of this approach hold diverse interpretations of political phenomena within a system. The differences in their perspectives lead to varying visualizations of the political system.

Evolution

The origins of Systems Theory can be traced back to the 1920s, with Ludwig Von Bertalanffy recognized as one of its earliest proponents. Initially, Bertalanffy applied this theory to the field of Biology. However, it wasn’t until after World War II that social scientists began advocating for interdisciplinary collaboration using systems theory. While the abstract form of general systems theory had its roots in the natural sciences like Biology, its operational application found a place in fields like Anthropology. Subsequently, it spread to Sociology and Psychology.

Around the mid-1960s, systems theory gained prominence as a significant analytical tool and investigative approach in the realm of Political Science. Among political scholars, David Easton was among the pioneers in employing this theory for political analysis. It’s worth noting that the theoretical advancements in Social Anthropology exerted a profound influence on the field of Political Science. The contributions of two sociologists, Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons, stand out in this context as they made noteworthy contributions to the development of the systems framework.

In the domain of Political Science, David Easton and G. A. Almond applied systems analysis to the study of national politics, while Morton A. Kaplan extended its application to the realm of international politics.

Meaning of Political System

To comprehend the concept of a political system, it’s necessary to first grasp the idea of a system itself. According to Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, a system encompasses a collection of objects along with the relationships between these objects and their behaviors. Morton A. Kaplan characterizes a system as a collection of interconnected variables, set apart from the surrounding environment. Analyzing these definitions reveals that a system embodies the notion of a group of elements exhibiting certain interacting processes. In essence, a system signifies the interdependence of its components, and if one element within the system undergoes change, it influences all other components and the system as a whole. Therefore, a system refers to a collection of entities or entities that interact with one another and the surrounding environment.

Various types of systems exist, such as the solar system, social system, economic system, cultural system, organic system, mechanical systems, and more. However, a distinction can be drawn between the elements of social systems and those of other types of systems. In all other systems except the social system, the elements are fully integrated and involved. In contrast, within social systems, individuals are not entirely immersed. Only specific aspects of individuals participate, resulting in a partial involvement of the individual within the social system.

Pre-requisites

The general system theory relies on three fundamental prerequisites: (i) descriptive concepts, (ii) concepts that emphasize regulatory and maintenance factors within the system, and (iii) concepts that delve into the dynamics of the system.

Descriptive concepts encompass those that distinguish between open and closed systems, as well as between organic and non-organic systems. These concepts also encompass understanding the internal organization of the system, the concept of boundaries, and the inputs and outputs.

Concepts focused on regulating and maintaining systems deal with conditions responsible for overseeing and sustaining the system’s operation. This involves various process variables like feedback loops, repair mechanisms, reproduction processes, and the concept of entropy.

Concepts concerning the dynamics of the system pertain to changes within the system. This encompasses distinctions between disruptions, desolation, and breakdowns, as well as the study of concepts such as systemic crises, stress, strains, and decay.

Various scholars have attempted to provide precise meanings for the concept of a political system. A common thread among most of these views is the association of the political system with the legitimate use of physical coercion within societies. Max Weber defines the political system as a human community that successfully asserts the exclusive right to use legitimate physical force within a defined territory. He asserts that legitimate force is the underlying element that gives the political system its distinct quality, importance, and coherence.

Laswell and Kaplan view the political system as a mechanism for shaping and distributing power through the use of threats or actual application of “severe deprivations” to enforce compliance. Robert Dahl defines a political system as any enduring pattern of human relations that involves power, rule, or authority.

However, these definitions of the political system face criticism from Almond. He argues that Max Weber’s definition merely pertains to the state rather than the political system itself. Almond also finds shortcomings in the explanations provided by Lasswell and Kaplan, particularly in their handling of the concept of “severe deprivation,” which leads to a lack of distinction between political systems and other types of systems. Almond similarly critiques Robert Dahl’s definition for failing to effectively differentiate between political systems and other systems that also wield power.

Easton’s views on Political System

David Easton’s definition of a political system is articulated as “Authoritative allocation of values with threat or actual use of deprivations to make them binding on all.” A careful analysis of Easton’s definition reveals three key elements:

1. Allocation of Values: This refers to the distribution and determination of resources, benefits, and priorities within a society.
2. Authoritative Allocation: This highlights that the distribution of values is carried out with a certain degree of authority, suggesting that a recognized and accepted mechanism is in place for making these decisions.
3. Binding Nature: The allocations made within the political system are not mere suggestions but are binding on the entire society. This implies that individuals are obligated to adhere to these decisions.

In essence, Easton’s definition emphasizes that a political system involves interactions within a society that revolve around the authoritative distribution of values. This distribution is not only recognized as legitimate but also carries the weight of being compulsory for all members of the society.

Almond’s views

Almond defines a political system as “The system of interaction to be found in independent societies which perform the functions of integration and adaptation both internally and externally by means of the employment of more or less legitimate physical compulsion.” This definition highlights three significant aspects of the political system:

1. Comprehensiveness and Interdependence: Almond’s definition portrays the political system as a cohesive entity that both influences and is influenced by its environment. It employs legitimate force as a last resort measure. There’s a noticeable interdependence between roles and their execution within the system. This implies that the political system involves a wide array of interactions among various roles and structures. It encompasses both formal and informal institutions and processes.
2. Existence of Boundaries: The definition underscores the presence of boundaries that distinguish the political system from other systems. This demarcation serves to differentiate the unique functions and interactions of the political system within society.

In summary, Almond’s definition attributes three essential characteristics to the political system: comprehensiveness, interdependence, and the presence of boundaries. Comprehensiveness implies the inclusion of all kinds of interactions occurring among roles and structures. Interdependence signifies the interconnectedness of the components or elements within the political system, with changes in one element leading to ripple effects across others. The concept of boundaries emphasizes the distinction between the political system and other systems.

Eugene Mehan further notes that Almond’s definition amalgamates Max Weber’s definition of the state, David Easton’s concept of authoritative allocation, and Talcott Parsons’ perspective on the functions of the political system within society.

System and Sub-system

Before delving into the analysis of political systems, it’s crucial to establish a distinction between systems and sub-systems. According to Robert Dahl, a system can serve as an element or sub-system within another system. For instance, Earth is a sub-system of the universe. Similarly, the legislature functions as a sub-system within the political system, and the political system, in turn, is a sub-system within the broader social system. This hierarchical structure is essential to understand the relationships between different levels of systems.

In the context of political analysis, the systems theory has been applied in three distinct ways:

1. Guided Missile Analogy: Under this perspective, the political system is compared to a guided missile. It operates with the objective of achieving specific political goals. The system’s components function in a manner that automatically adjusts the system’s trajectory based on internal and external pressures, steering it toward its intended objectives.
2. Converter Function: This viewpoint regards the political system as a converter that transforms inputs into outputs. Inputs could be public opinion, demands, or resources, while outputs could be policies, decisions, or actions taken by the government. The political system plays the role of processing and translating these inputs into concrete outcomes.
3. Structural Function Analysis: This concept draws from Almond’s adaptation of Talcott Parsons and Marion Levy’s structural functionalism. It proposes that the political system consists of specific structures designed to perform distinct functions required for the system’s maintenance and operation. These structures and functions contribute to the stability and coherence of the political system.

In summary, the distinction between systems and sub-systems is important for understanding the hierarchy of systems within systems. The application of systems theory to political analysis offers different perspectives: viewing the political system as a guided missile pursuing goals, as a converter of inputs into outputs, and as a composition of structures fulfilling essential functions for system maintenance.

Characteristics of Political System

The political system exhibits several distinctive characteristics:

1. Boundary: The political system possesses a defined boundary that separates it from its environment. This boundary helps distinguish the scope and interactions of the political system from external influences.
2. Environmental Interaction: The political system operates within an environment, which includes both domestic and international factors. It interacts with this environment to obtain resources, respond to challenges, and adapt to changing conditions.
3. Open and Adaptive: The political system is considered an open and adaptive system. It is receptive to inputs from its environment and adjusts its processes, structures, and functions to accommodate changes and maintain stability.
4. Self-Regulation: The political system engages in self-regulation, maintaining a balance between its internal components and its environment. It employs mechanisms to ensure that its operations remain within certain boundaries and function optimally.
5. Comprehensive: The political system encompasses a wide range of interactions and functions within a society. It involves formal and informal institutions, processes, and mechanisms that collectively shape the allocation of values and resources.
6. Structured Functions: Within the political system, specific structures exist, each with designated functions. These structures work collaboratively to fulfill tasks essential for the system’s operation, such as legislatures, executives, judiciaries, and administrative bodies.
7. Interdependence: The parts of the political system are interdependent, meaning that changes or disruptions in one part can affect other components. The cooperation and coordination among these parts contribute to the system’s functionality.
8. Ongoing and Dynamic: The political system is an ongoing and dynamic entity. It is in constant motion, adapting to new challenges, responding to societal needs, and evolving over time. This dynamic nature reflects its ability to adjust and grow as circumstances change.

Collectively, these characteristics define the nature and functioning of the political system within a society, highlighting its interaction with the environment, its internal mechanisms, and its role in maintaining social order and governance.

Conclusion

The term “political system” is now preferred over “state” or “government” because it encompasses a broader scope, including both formal and informal political institutions and ongoing processes within a society. This concept emerged due to the systems approach applied to political institutions by the behavioral school of thought. Notably, David Easton, G. A. Almond, and Morton A. Kaplan are credited with introducing this approach to Political Science. However, the origins of systems theory can be traced back to the 1920s when Ludwig Von Bertalanffy applied it to Biology. This theory gradually extended its influence to fields like Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, and ultimately, Political Science.

David Easton was the pioneer among political scientists to adopt this theory in explaining political phenomena. Morton A. Kaplan further popularized its application to international issues. In line with this theory, political behavior is regarded as a system, and the political system is defined as “Authoritative allocation of values with threat or actual use of deprivations to make them binding on all.” It constitutes the network of interactions present in independent societies, responsible for internal and external integration and adaptation through the use of legitimate physical compulsion to some extent.

A political system exhibits several important characteristics, notably comprehensiveness, interdependence, and the existence of boundaries. Furthermore, a political system is characterized by its openness, adaptiveness, comprehensiveness, self-regulation, and ongoing nature. It comprises various structures, each fulfilling specific functions. These functions are categorized as inputs and outputs, which the political system performs to ensure its own maintenance and functionality.