Political Development and Political Decay Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes on Political Development and Political Decay. Class on Comparative Politics, lecture on political development...

Description

POL SC 270 COMPARATIVE POLITICS Huntington, S. P. (1965). Political Development and Political Decay. World Politics, 17(3), 386–430. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009286 

 







Likewise, he saw the expansion of literacy, education, urbanization, industrialization, communication, and virtually every other aspect of the modernization process as threatening to political order. Central emphasis, however, was placed upon the rapid increases in social mobilization and political participation, which Huntington described as “directly responsible for the deterioration of political institutions” (p.406) Many scholars tend to have a checklist or criteria on political development like Rustow and Pye Political development – share 2 related characteristics: 1. Poli dev one aspect connected to the broader process of modernization in a society 2. If PD linked with modernization it is a broad and complex process – no single scale for measuring dev (Lucian Pye) Many definitions of development. According to Huntington, these 4 sets of categories recur continuously: 1. Rationalization - involves movement from particularism to universalism, from diffuseness to specificity, from ascription to achievement, and from affectivity to affective neutralization 2. National integration – necessity for firmly delimited ethnic basis for the political community, “crisis of national identity”… Nation-building a critical aspect of poli dev 3. Democratization – pluralism, competitiveness, equalization of power, and similar qualities 4. Mobilization or Participation – mass mobilization means increased political participation; and increased participation is the key element of political development. Almond and Verba says a modern society is a “participant society” Many approaches to political development suffer from one or more of the following difficulties: 1. Identification with modernization – its relevance limited only to modern nation-states or the emergence of nation-states. Development is identified with only one type of political system, rather than as a concept that can be used to characterize any political system 2. The second problem with many definitions of political development is the obverse but also the corollary of the first – On the other, it is also broadened to include almost all politically relevant aspects of the modernization process – ("developing" countries-coups, ethnic struggles, revolutionary wars-becomes part of the process of development, however contradictory or retrogressive this may appear on the surface. Political development thus loses its analytical content and acquires simply a geographic one. 3. The third issue is that many definitions of political development fail to distinguish the empirical relevance of the components making up the definition - Concepts of "developed" and "undeveloped" as ideal types or states of being are confused with concepts of "development" as a process which are, in turn, identified with the politics of the areas commonly called "developing. 4. The difficulty is that there exist only one-way ideas and that their reversibility is not permitted - On the contrary, Huntington argues that any concept of political development should be reversible and that is should ideally define both political development and the circumstances in which political decay occurred. Defines political development as the “institutionalization of political organizations and procedures”.  The strength of political organizations and procedures varies with their scope of support and their level of institutionalization.

Institutionalization is the process by which organizations and procedures acquire value and stability. The level of institutionalization of any political system can be defined by the adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence of its organizations and procedure.  Thru institutionalization one can separate development from modernization and can be applied to the analysis of political systems of any sort, not just modern ones. One can also use qualitative methods not just quanti methods in measuring development.  The scope is the extent to which the political organizations and procedures encompass activity in the society, whereas the level of institutionalization in a political system is defined by the overall adaptability, complexity, and autonomy of a political organization o An organization is more highly institutionalized if: 1. ADAPTABILITY: Adaptable but if org is rigid less institutionalized - Adaptability is an acquired organizational characteristic and is a function of environmental challenge and age. For example, the more problems which have arisen in its environment and the older it is, an organization is more adaptable to change. Additionally, rigidity is more characteristic of young organizations than of old ones 2. COMPLEXITY: The more complicated an organization is, the more highly institutionalized it is – a political system with several different political institutions with diff purposes and multifunctional is much more likely to adapt – traditional societies overwhelmed mostly by the process of modernization, but for most complex traditional systems more likely to adapt. 3. AUTONOMY-SUBORDINATION: A third measure of institutionalization is the extent to which political organizations and procedures exist independently of other social groupings and methods of behavior – Political institutionalization, in the sense of autonomy, means the development of political organizations and procedures which are not simply expressions of the interests of particular social group . poli orgs which lack autonomy are said to be corrupt – institutions act based on the interests of all not the interests of families, clans, or class. 4. COHERENCE-DISUNITY: The more unified and coherent an organization is, the more highly institutionalize - requires substantial consensus on the functional boundaries of the group and on the procedures for resolving disputes on issues which come up within those boundaries.  Mobilization vs. Institutionalization: Public Interests, degeneration, and the corrupt polity 1. Mobilization and Institutionalization - Social mobilization and political participation are rapidly increasing in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These processes, in turn, are directly responsible for the deterioration of political institutions in these areas - Increases in literacy and education may bring more political instability. For example, countries in Asia such as Burma, Ceylon, and South Korea are highly literate but are relatively unstable politically. Additionally, literacy does not necessarily stimulate democracy as well. For example, Cuba was the fifth most literate country in Latin America but was the first one to implement a communist political system. Increased communication may generate demands for more “modernity” than can be delivered and stimulate a reaction against modernity and activate traditional forces. - It may also mobilize ethnic minority groups who were uninvolved politically, but who now acquire a self-consciousness and divide the political system along ethnic lines. Moreover, nationalism often stimulates political decay as opposed to national integration. - Institutional decay has become a common phenomenon of the modernizing countries. Coups d'&tat and military interventions in politics are one index of low levels of political institutionalization: they occur where political institutions lack autonomy and coherence. o In many states the decline of party organizations is reflected in the rise of charismatic leaders who personalize power and weaken institutions which might limit that power 

2. Samuel Huntington argues that differences that exist in mobilization and institutionalization suggest four ideal types of politics. 1. Modern and developed civic polities are characterized by HIGH levels of both mobilization and institutionalization. On the other hand, primitive polities are characterized by LOW levels of both mobilization and institutionalization. 2. The dominant political institutions of contained polities may be either traditional, such as monarchies or modern, such as political party systems. If they are the former, such policies may have great difficulties in adjusting to rising levels of social mobilization. The traditional institutions may ultimately collapse, and the result would be a corrupt polity with a high rate of participation but a low level of institutionalization. This type of polity characterizes much of the modernizing world 3. Political institutions and public interests – a society with weak political insti lacks the ability to curb the excess of personal and parochial desires. Without strong political institutions, society lacks the means of defining and realizing its common interests. Public interest approached in 3 ways: 1. The public interest has been identified either with abstract and substantive values and norms such as natural law, justice, or right reason; or with the specific interest of either individuals, groups, and classes. – lacks generality and concreteness thus deine public interest in terms of the concrete interests of governing insti 2. A society with highly institutionalized governing organizations and procedures is, in this sense, more able to articulate and achieve its public interests. 3. The public interest, in this sense, is not something which exists in natural law or the will of the people. Instead, it is whatever strengthens and forms governmental institutions .

 Degeneration and the Corrupt Polity – Most modernizing countries are buying rapid social modernization at the proce of political degeneration. More relevant in many cases would be models of corrupt or degenerating societies, highlighting the decay of political organization and the increasing dominance of disruptive social force.  Strategies for Institutional development – If decay of political institutions is a widespread phenomenon in the “developing” countries and if a major cause of this decay is the high rate of social mobilization, it encourages political scientist to incorporate these tendencies into any model of political change which we employ to understand the politics of such areas. 2 general considerations affecting probabilities of success in institution-building: 1. Psychological and cultural characteristics of peoples differ markedly and with their abilities at developing political institutions. 2. Potentialities for insti-building differ markedly from society to society, but in all poli organizations can be built. - Two methods of furthering societal development are that anything which slows social mobilization creates conditions favorable to the preservation or institutions, and that strategies can be applied directly to the issues of institution building. In conclusion, Samuel Huntington looks at the connection between political mobilization and institutionalization and the importance of institutional development concerning democratization. Huntington argues that modernization and rapid political mobilization result in political decay as opposed to the growth of political systems and increased political stability. Additionally, Huntington looks at the differing definitions of political modernization and concludes that all definitions share several common elements. Huntington also underscores the importance of political scientists and sociologists alike to examine the importance of the development and growth of political institutions in the developing world....