Lucien w pie,  definitions of Political development, Lucien Pie concept, Fundamentals of political development
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Lucien w pie, definitions of Political development, Lucien Pie concept, Fundamentals of political development

on

  • 2,095 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,095
Views on SlideShare
2,095
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
27
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Lucien w pie,  definitions of Political development, Lucien Pie concept, Fundamentals of political development Lucien w pie, definitions of Political development, Lucien Pie concept, Fundamentals of political development Presentation Transcript

  • Narrated by MahrukhChaudry Roll # 456
  •  this view of political development seeks to conceptualize it in term of economic growth. Political development is regarded as “that state of the polity which might facilitate economic growth”.  Critique :  In most underdeveloped countries people clearly are concerned with far more than just material development, they are anxious about political development quite independent of effect on the rate of economic growth.
  •  This view of development is based on the assumption that industrial life produces a more or less common and generic type of political life which any society can seek to approximate whether it is in fact industrialized or not. Industrial societies set certain standards of political behavior and performance that constitute the state of political development.  This, view, as such, holds that political development involves; certain patterns of presumably “rational” and “responsible” governmental behavior; an avoidance of reckless action; some sense of limitations on politics; an appreciation of the values of orderly administrative and legal procedures, an acknowledgement that politics is rightly a mechanism for solving problems and not an end in itself, a stress on welfare programs, and finally an acceptance of some form of mass participation.
  •  political development is idealised politics of industrial societies and that political development is synonymous with political modernization.  Just as to consider that advanced nations are pace-setters for others, likewise modernization is the pace-setter for political development.   T his is again a parochial view of political advancement which cannot be operationalized because almost all political institutions of the world bear the persuasion of western institutions thus it becomes difficult on he basis of this view, to classify political system on the basis of the nature and levels of their political development.
  •  This view holds that political development consists of the organization of political life and the performance of political functions in accordance with the standards expected of a modern nation-state.  The test of political development is, first, the establishment of a particular set of public institutions that constitute the necessary infrastructure of nationstate, and secondly, the controlled expression in political life of the phenomenon of nationalism. Political Development, in this view is: “The politics of nationalism within the context of state institutions”, or that “political development is nation-building.”
  •  The fifth view of political development, as discussed by Lucian Pye, is the view which interprets political development as process of institution-building and citizenship development.  No one can deny that political development involves legal and administrative development; however, it is hard to connect the former with the latter.
  •  This view links political development with political awakening of the people. The bigger the mass mobilisation and participation in politics, the greater is the degree of political development of the political system.  Critique : This is yet again a slender view of political development because it can lead to the acceptance of a political system characterized by many demonstrations, mass responses to elite manipulation, populist movements, etc., as a politically developed system.
  •  This view places political development as synonymous with the establishment of democratic institutions and practices. Building of democracy is the process of political development. According to this view, development has meaning only in terms of the strengthening of some set of values. “It, thus, presents an ideological and value-laden view of political development. Development is fundamentally different from democracy and that the very attempt to introduce democracy can be a positive liability to development”.
  •  This view seeks to define political development in terms of the ability of the political system to remain stable and possess the capacity for purposeful and orderly change.  A political system which can refrain from becoming a helpless victim of social and economic forces and which on the other hand regulates the process of social change by making it purposeful and orderly, is a politically developed system.  However, a major weakness of this approach is its failure to define the level of stability and capacity for orderly change that may be regarded as the standard for analysing political development.
  •  This view links political development with the capabilities of a political system, i.e., the ability of the political system to mobilise the resources, exercise power and to use the resources to the fullest advantage. Coleman, Powell and Talcott Parsons have analysed political development in terms of these variables.  The view involves the concept that political system can be evaluated in terms of the level or degree of absolute power which the system is able to mobilise. “It is a useful premise; however, it cannot be regarded as the standard for measuring political development. It fails to take into account the fact that some political systems deliberately avoid full mobilisation of resources and exercise of power.”
  •  This view of political development holds that all forms of development are related. Development is much the same as modernisation and it takes place within a historical context in which influences from outside the society impinge on the processes of social change just as changes in different aspects of a society-the economy, the polity and the social order-all impinge on one another.  This approach has been advocated by Max F. Millikan and Donald L.M. Blackmer. They advocate that political development is some how intimately associated with other aspects of social and economic change. This view merits attention, but it again fails to identify what really is the nature of political development which comes as part of the all-embracing process of social change
  •  Besides these ten different approaches to the conceptualisation of political development, there are other possible interpretations. As Lucian Pye holds, it can be taken to mean commonly a sense of national self-respect and dignity in international affairs or the view that political development should refer to a post-nationalism era when nation-state will no longer be the basic unit of political life.  All these views of political development highlight fully the difficulty in offering a definition of this concept. The way out lies in analysing the common characteristics of political development on the basis of all these views. This task has been successfully undertaken by Lucian Pye.