When we talk about “Political Development,” we’re diving into the complex and dynamic process through which political systems evolve over time. This concept encompasses the formation, change, and maturation of political institutions, norms, and behaviors within a society. Political development isn’t just about the structure of governments; it also involves the way citizens interact with the state, how political power is distributed, and how policies are shaped to reflect the needs and aspirations of the population. Understanding political development is crucial because it helps us grasp how societies transition from traditional governance to more modern, inclusive, and democratic systems.
Table of Contents
Meaning of Political Development
Political Development is a very comprehensive and multifaceted subject that can hardly be precisely defined. Its definition depends on the nature of growth modernization and progress of the developing states. However, definition given by a fairly known scholars deserve our attention.
Rostour and Pye write that Political Development is the “growth of institutions and practices that allow a political system to deal with its own fundamental problems more effectively in the short run, while working towards more responsiveness of the regime to popular demand in the long run”.
According to Almond, it is “the acquisition of the new capability, in the sense of a specialized role structure and differentiated orientation which together give a political system the range of problems”.
For Eisenstadt, Political Development is the ability of a political system to sustain continuously new types of political demands and organization.
Alfred Diamond regards it, as “a process which creates is institutional frame work for soling an ever widening range of social problem”.
Features of Political Development
A careful analysis of various definitions of “Political Development” presents certain common features of it, which according to All-round are:
- Presence of clearly differentiated structures;
- Unending process of change in the pattern of political life towards progress.
- Specialization of rules, and
- Ability of the political system to regulate new challenges.
Clarity on the concept of “Political Development” would be more easier if we look into the analysis of different scholars on this problem. Of these scholars, a brief probe is made into the views of Almond and Powell, Lucian Pye, Eisenstadt, Riggs and Huntigton in the succeeding paragraphs.
Almond’s Views
Almond and Powell’s concept of “Political Development” focuses on four key challenges: State Building, Nation Building, Political Participation, and Distribution and Welfare.
- State Building refers to the creation and enhancement of political structures, ensuring that the state becomes more differentiated and capable of managing complex governance tasks. This process is crucial for the stability and efficiency of political systems.
- Nation Building emphasizes the cultural dimension of political development. It involves the gradual transfer of loyalty and commitment from smaller, localized institutions to a central political authority, fostering a sense of national identity and unity among diverse groups within a society.
- Political Participation involves developing the necessary infrastructures, processes, and attitudes to enable citizens and elites to actively engage in the political process. It is about creating opportunities for people to be involved in decision-making and ensuring that their voices are heard and respected.
- Distribution and Welfare focus on the fair allocation of resources, benefits, and opportunities within society. This aspect of political development aims to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the nation’s wealth and opportunities, promoting social justice and equity.
Together, these four components outline a comprehensive framework for understanding how political systems evolve and respond to the needs and aspirations of their citizens.
Lucian Pye’s Views
Lucian Pye identifies three key characteristics—equality, capacity, and differentiation—that are central to understanding political development. Coleman later referred to these as a “developmental syndrome.”
For Pye, equality encompasses the demand for political participation, the universal application of laws, and fairness in the recruitment process. This concept aligns with Almond’s ideas of political participation and distribution.
Capacity in Pye’s framework has two aspects:
- How the political system interacts with and is influenced by its environment, and
- The performance of the political system, measured by its scope, scale, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Differentiation refers to the specialization of tasks within the political system, where distinct structures perform specific functions. This concept is closely related to Almond’s notion of state-building.
Eisenstadt’s Views
Eisenstadt, in his analysis of “Political Development,” identifies four key features:
- Creation of Differentiated Structures: The development of specialized political structures that deliver specific political goods.
- Expansion of Central Authority: The territorial and functional extension of administrative and political activities at the central level within society.
- Broadening of Political Power: The continuous spread of political power to various groups and ultimately to individuals.
- Modernization of Elites: The replacement of traditional elites with modernizing ones, alongside their legitimization.
Eisenstadt emphasizes that the spread of power across various groups is a distinct indicator of political development. His focus is on restructuring the political system and the attitudes that govern it. This restructuring involves several aspects:
a. Equality in social, economic, cultural, and political spheres.
b. Merit-based Recruitment: Recognizing merit in the recruitment process.
c. Political Participation: Involvement of political parties and pressure groups.
d. Openness and Democratization: Ensuring the political system is open and democratic.
e. Economic Advancement and Social Change: Providing facilities for economic improvement and social transformation.
f. National Allegiance: Ensuring loyalty to the national government.
These elements together define Eisenstadt’s vision of political development, highlighting the need for a comprehensive transformation of both the political system and societal attitudes.
Riggs’ Views
Riggs argues that achieving political development requires maintaining a balance between equality and capacity. Without this balance, a “developmental trap” can occur, leading to political decay. According to Riggs, maintaining this balance helps preserve the level of differentiation within the political system, which in turn promotes greater equality and capacity. If a political system advances in only one of these areas, it risks heading toward breakdown.
Huntington’s Views
Huntington views political development as the institutionalization of political organizations and procedures. He defines institutionalization as “the process by which organizations and procedures acquire value and stability.” The level of institutionalization within a political system is determined by the adaptability, flexibility, and coherence of its organizations and procedures. Similarly, the institutionalization of any specific organization or procedure can be assessed by its adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence.
Huntington argues that in many developing countries, what we see is not political development but political decay. This decay occurs because the rapid pace of modernization in these countries outstrips the ability of political institutions to properly institutionalize, leading to instability and dysfunction.
Stages of Political Development
Political development progresses through different stages, and various scholars have attempted to formulate general theories to study these stages. Notable among them are Coleman, Daniel Lerner, Talcott Parsons, E. A. Shils, Karl Deutsch, Phillips Cutright, Lucian Pye, Kenneth Boulding, and David Apter. Evaluating their work reveals two major models for understanding political development:
a) Continuum Model
b) Stage Model
The Continuum Model suggests that political development should be measured using quantifiable indicators such as gross national product, per capita income, the percentage of the adult population, political participation rates, and levels of industrialization.
The Stage Model posits that development occurs in three distinct stages, with each stage representing a transition from one phase of development to another. These stages, identified by social scientists, are:
- Traditional Stage: Characterized by a rural society and agrarian economy with corresponding political structures.
- Transitional Stage: Marked by the early phases of industrialization and the transformation of the political system to reflect these changes.
- Modern Stage: Defined by an urban society, a fully industrialized economy, and a capable, modern political system.
These models provide frameworks for analyzing how societies evolve politically, either as a continuous process or through distinct stages.
Marxian Approach
A discussion on “Political Development” would be incomplete without considering various approaches such as Marxian, Communist, Totalitarian, and Third World perspectives on the subject.
The Marxian theory of political development emerged as a reaction against the industrialized West. Marx introduced a materialistic approach to development, viewing political development as a shift in the ownership of the means of production, driven by societal contradictions. Marx argued that societal inequality leads to the formation of classes, which in turn results in class conflicts. According to Marx, these conflicts are both normal and necessary for political development.
The Communist theory builds on the ideas of Karl Marx and, under Lenin’s leadership, considers the Communist Party as the sole instrument for achieving political development. This theory advocates for state control of the means of production and the equitable distribution of resources under the party’s control. According to this view, socialism is the inevitable outcome of the conflict between the working class and the middle class.
The Totalitarian theory of political development draws heavily from Nazi and Fascist ideologies. It emphasizes a rigid ideology supported by society and advocates for a single, mass-based party controlled by a single leader as the driving force behind development. The ruler monopolizes communication and the use of force to maintain control and administer the state. In this model, political development is achieved through a centrally controlled economy, facilitated by bureaucratic coordination.
Dependency Model
The Third World countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have found that Western models of political development do not adequately address the unique challenges they face. In response, scholars like Paul Baran, André Gunder Frank, Paul Sweezy, and Rajni Kothari developed their own theories of political development. They argue that development in these regions can only be achieved by utilizing their own resources.
The Indian School, led by Rajni Kothari, and the Latin American School, represented by Paul Baran, André Gunder Frank, and Paul Sweezy, advocate for a Dependency Model to achieve political development. Kothari focuses on state-building and nation-building as key strategies for development, while the Latin American model emphasizes economic development as the foundation for achieving broader social goals.
The Dependency Model of Political Development is a theory that emerged primarily from scholars in Latin America as a critique of traditional development theories, particularly those influenced by Western perspectives. The Dependency Model suggests that underdevelopment in Third World countries is not merely a stage before development but is actually a condition created by the global economic system, in which wealthy, developed nations (the “core”) exploit poorer, underdeveloped nations (the “periphery”).
Key Concepts of the Dependency Model:
- Economic Dependence: Developing countries are economically dependent on developed countries for markets, investment, and technology. This dependence keeps them in a state of underdevelopment, as they are often relegated to providing raw materials and low-wage labor, while the value-added activities are concentrated in the developed world.
- Exploitation and Unequal Exchange: The model argues that the global trade system is structured in a way that benefits the developed nations at the expense of the developing ones. Terms of trade are often unequal, with developing countries receiving less for their exports compared to what they pay for imports from developed countries.
- External Control: Political and economic decisions in developing countries are heavily influenced or even controlled by external forces, such as multinational corporations, international financial institutions (like the IMF and World Bank), and foreign governments, leading to a loss of sovereignty.
- Development of Underdevelopment: The model posits that the development of the core countries actively contributes to the underdevelopment of the periphery. This relationship hinders the autonomous development of the peripheral nations, keeping them trapped in a cycle of poverty and dependence.
- Alternative Path to Development: Dependency theorists advocate for breaking away from this exploitative relationship. They suggest strategies such as reducing dependence on foreign capital, promoting domestic industries, pursuing economic self-reliance, and fostering regional cooperation among developing nations.
Application in Political Development:
In terms of political development, the Dependency Model suggests that true political autonomy and development in Third World countries can only be achieved by reducing their dependency on external powers. This involves strengthening state institutions, building national industries, and focusing on internal development rather than relying on foreign aid and investment, which often come with strings attached that perpetuate dependency.
Conclusion
In conclusion, political development is a complex and multifaceted process shaped by various factors unique to each nation. It involves the evolution of political institutions, the expansion of political participation, and the establishment of a stable and effective governance system. The trajectory of political development is influenced by socio-economic conditions, historical context, cultural values, and the adaptability of political systems to changing circumstances. While there is no one-size-fits-all model, the pursuit of political development remains essential for fostering inclusive governance, ensuring social stability, and achieving sustainable progress.
References
- E.A. Shils, Political Development in the New States.
- James C. Charlesworth (Ed.), Contemporary Political Analysis.
- David E. Apter, The Politics of Modernization.
- Gabriel Almond and James S. Coleman (Eds.), The Politics of Developing Areas.
- Lucian Pye, Communication and Political Development.
- Political Culture and Political Development.
- Samuel P. Huntington, Political Development and Political Decay.
