Political System Approach PDF

Preview

Summary

It forms another approach to studying different political systems. ...

Description

POLITICAL SYSTEM APPROACH The study of political systems emerged with the adoption of a structural functional approach. However, structural functionalism is based on systems theory. The approach aims to study politics as a phenomenon occurring within a system and is based majorly on the two different perspectives given mainly by David Easton and Gabriel Almond. While Easton is a proponent of the systems theory, Almond attempts to explain politics from both Easton’s perspective as well as a structural functionalist strand. In what follows an attempt has been made to explain political system approach through both their lenses, beginning with the systems theory. SYSTEMS THEORY: APPLYING SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: DAVID EASTON For Easton, the study of politics is concerned with understanding how authoritative decisions are made and executed for a society. That political life is a system of interrelated activities which influence the way authoritative decisions are taken and implemented. This system, is a self-contained entity, independent of the environment of which it is a part. He divides the environment into two parts: intrasocietal and extrasocietal. The first forms the segment of the society of which the political system is a component. Extrasocietal systems are those that are outside the given society. Internal or external disturbances to these environments cause stress on the political system and thus change it.

INPUTS

POLITICAL SYSTEM/ PROCESSES

OUTPUT

He also makes a distinction between a political system and other systems. A political system has certain identifiable properties such as units or political actions. Further, its boundaries are defined by all those actions that are directly

related to the making of binding decisions for a society. The existence of inputs and outputs is a major feature. Without inputs a political system cannot work. Without outputs we cannot identify the work done by the system. His work is largely focused on understanding the inputs and the forces that shape and change them, processes that transform them into outputs as well the relationship between outputs and succeeding inputs of the system. Among inputs of a political system, there are two basic kinds: demands and support. The reason for the emergence of a political system or why people engage in politics is that demands are being made by persons and groups in the society that cannot be fully satisfied. Demands arise either from the external environment or within the system itself. External demands are those emanating from the environment within which the system operates. Ecology, economy, social structure and culture, for instance are variables in the setting that help shape the demands that go into the system. However, some demands are internal. They emerge for alterations in the political relationships between the members of the system. For ex, in a representative system, demands may arise to establish equality between urban and rural voting districts. David Easton calls them “withinputs” because they impact political system more directly. An important aspect of his theory is about how these demands are turned into issues. Issue is a demand that members of the political system are prepared to deal with. Whether a demand becomes an issue is contingent on factors like power equations, timing of demands, public attitudes and so on. Thus, demands require special attention as a major type of input of political systems because they influence their behaviour in many ways. But, they alone do not suffice to keep a political system alive. Energy in the form of actions or orientations promoting or resisting a political system is equally important. This is what he calls support. It exists as actions promoting goals of another person i.e. in overt form. Or as internal behaviour, orientations or state of mind as opposed to external observable acts. Support is fed into the system in relation to three objects: political community, government and regime. Demands and supports could be material or political. By examining the changes in these inputs analysts can determine the effects of the environmental systems transmitted to the political system. Similarly, outputs help interpret the consequences flowing from the system. An output is a policy or a decision of authorities. They also determine each succeeding round of inputs which find their way back into the system. This he terms the feedback loop, consisting of outputs by authorities, people’s response to it, communication of their response to authorities and succeeding actions by authorities.

However, no common language exists to describe these boundary exchanges of inputs and outputs. Mitchell, for instance, uses the terms expectations and demands, resources and support for inputs, and social goals, values and costs and controls to express political outputs. Almond and Coleman also use a different terminology which will be discussed later. CRITICISMS Criticisms of systems analysis have focused majorly on its methodological weaknesses, lack of suitability for empirical research and strong political bias. Some claim that it is misleading because it assumes that reality really consists of systems. Further, identifying boundaries and variables in the system is difficult. Anatol Rapoport, for instance described how social systems are different from physical sciences, in that they are vague and less precise. Thus, formulating operational definitions and performing empirical research becomes hard. Finally, although inputs and outputs are identifiable, they have not been adequately studies. Bernard Susser indicates how Easton’s input-output analysis is used very little in research. The problem is, it is practically impossible to look at a system without studying its past. Without understanding a system’s development and its historical strengths and weaknesses it is difficult to tell whether an event is a crisis or a normal situation. STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM Although it predates systems theory, it still presupposes a systems view of the political world. Susser writes that both approaches focus on input-output analysis, consider political system striving for equilibrium and focus on feedback analysis. Yet functionalism is significantly different. Its roots can be traced back to Darwin’s theory, which conceived of survival in functional terms. Each function was crucial to the survival of the whole system. Social Darwinists also claimed that functional adaptability was required for survival. These ideas have been heavily drawn upon by political analysts, especially by Almond and Coleman. Whereas traditional functional analysis argued that all social patterns work to maintain the integration and adaptation of the larger system, Almond and Coleman, both reject adopt a more formal approach which examines relationships between elements. To define political system, they relied on Weber’s concept of state and Easton’s view on power. Easton delineated that a political system authoritatively allocates values by means of policies and that these allocations are binding on the society. To this, they added Weber’s notion of legitimate physical compulsion, thus viewing political system as the legitimate, order-maintaining

or transforming system in society. A system for, them, constituted properties interpreting social interactions. Systems analysis was comprehensive because it included all interactions, was interdependent because change in one subset of interactions would beget the same in others and that a political system consisted of boundaries. Political systems have common properties: 1) 2) 3) 4)

All have a political structure; All perform the same functions; All political structures are multifunctional; All systems are mixed systems in cultural sense.

Almond and Coleman identified 6 structures common to all systems: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Legislature Political parties Executive Courts Bureaucracy Interest groups

They also changed their assumption slightly by delineating that same structures can perform very different functions in different systems. For instance, Britain and China. They also listed various functions divided under three sub-groups of Process, system and policy functions. 1) Process functions- activities through which policies are made that include the following- interest articulation, interest aggregation, policy making, policy implementation and policy adjudication. All 6 structures perform these functions, although they differ from system to system. 2) System functions- indirectly related to policy making, include- political socialisation, political recruitment and political communication. 3) Policy functions- related to output of the system- regulation, extraction and distribution. Political communication, they believed, linked inputs to outputs in a way that provides the function of a feedback loop. Whereas Easton’s analysis deals primarily with demands and supports, Almond and Coleman’s categorization is much more extensive and has led to a multifaceted approach to study of politics. Neither the analysis of structures or functions is complete without the other. A structural analysis tells us the no. of political parties, or how the executive or legislature, for ex, are set up and by what rules they operate. A functional

analysis tells us how these institutions and organisations interact to produce and implement policies. CRITICISMS 1) One of the main criticisms is that its categories are too undifferentiated to be of real help in actual research. Although Almond’s taxonomy has greater specificity and serviceability than systems approach, it is not seen as more than a translation of familiar phenomena into blandly broad categories. 2) Another is related to the methodological approach used in functionalism. A list of functions is created deductively and then appropriate structures are identified. In some cases, this leads to empirical contortions. 3) Functionalism also harbours an ideological slant, as Bernard Susser says. It describes what exists thus maintaining status quo. 4) Levy also stresses how classification of functions or structures depends partly on point of view. What is function from one point of view may be structure from another. A clear definition is thus required. CONCLUSION The study of structural functionalism and systems theory had its heyday with the works of Easton, Almond and Coleman and the likes. A majority political studies therefore, use this framework. While few researchers resort to them today, the approach is still alive....