This document provides an overview of an introductory comparative politics course. The course aims to teach students how to compare political systems and understand comparative methodology and theories. It will cover topics such as the scope and meaning of comparative politics, methods of comparison, and selected theories. The course objectives are to expose students to the fundamentals of comparative politics and help them understand the context, essence, and purpose of the field.

1. 1
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY LAFIA
Course Title: Introduction to Comparative Politics
Course Code: POl 224
Course Credit Load: 2
Semester: Second Semester
COURSE OBJECTIVE AND OUTLINE
This course as an introductory one is expected to expose students to the rudiments of
Comparative Politics. A major objective of this course is to teach students how to compare
political systems. At the end of the course, students are supposed to understand the context,
essence and purpose of comparative politics, in addition to aspects of comparative
methodology and theories. The course will cover the following:
 Scope of Comparative Politics
 Meaning of Comparative Politics
 Why do we study Comparative Politics?
 Understanding Politics and political system
 Methods in Comparative Politics
 Basic concepts in Comparative Studies
 Selected Theories of Comparative Politics.

Module One
1.0 Introduction
A discussion on comparative politics is one of the most difficult and oldest
aspects of political inquiry. Its origin can be traced to when Aristotle made the
first recorded attempt at describing in some details the characteristics of
tyrannies, oligarchies, and democracies which prevailed in various parts of the
world during his time. Since Aristotle, many political scientists have attempted

2. 2
to classify political systems. The most elaborate effort was made by
Montesquieu in his book titled ‘The Spirit of the Law’ in 1748. Prior to World
War Two, the dominant approach to the study of comparative politics was the
traditional approach.
Comparative Politics has grown over the years from its fixation on national
governments to its present status as a dynamic Political Science discipline
dealing with comparing of political systems. This growth has witnessed its
tremendous transformation from narrow focus on normative issues such as what
should be ideal government to empirical and concrete developments within each
political system using interdisciplinary approaches. It is a product of a quest for
understanding of political reality by means of new techniques and approaches.
The subject matter of Comparative Politics cannot be distinct from that of
politics. One of the tasks that confront the student of Comparative Politics is
how to identify the social forces in contention within a political system and
make analyses as to whether they play dominant or subordinate roles in
pursuing their interest at the present moment.
Comparative Politics has acquired great significance because it is amenable to a
great deal of experimentation that is now going on with new approaches, new
definitions, and new research tools (Johari, 2011). It is a departure from the
traditional descriptive approach.
1.1Defining Comparative Politics
As the name suggests, this course essentially deals with making political
comparisons. It is, as earlier stated, a dynamic field of political science that has
made invaluable contributions to the scientific study of the discipline because of
its empirical inclination. We shall enrich our knowledge the more and in the
process gain penetrating insight when we consider the views of other scholars
on the subject. Let us examine the view of some notable scholars in the field on
what Comparative Politics is. Almond, Powell, Strom and Dalton (2001:11)
simply define Comparative Politics as “…the study of political systems, not as

3. 3
isolated cases but through generalizations and comparisons” this definition
clearly indicates the domain of comparative politics by emphasizing that it is the
study of “political system” but with a caveat that political systems should not be
studied in isolation but by generalizing and comparing the systems.
On their part, Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and W.A. Joseph in their book
Comparative Politics at the Crossroads, say the term ‘comparative politics’
refers to a subject matter, a field of specialty within the academic study of
politics (that is, political science) and method of approach to the study of
politics. The subject matter of comparative politics is the domestic politics of
countries or peoples. But this domestic politics of countries must be studied in
comparative terms.
In the words of Patrick O’Neal in his book Essentials of Comparative Politics,
Comparative politics is a sub-field that compares this struggle across countries.
By studying a wide variety of countries, comparativists hope to shed light on the
countries under study as well as on our own political systems.
In a more detailed form, R.H. Chilcote in his book, Theories of Comparative
Politics, explained that comparative government usually refers to the study of
institutions and function of countries or nation-states in Europe with attention to
their executives, legislature and judiciaries as well as such supplementary
organizations as political parties and pressure groups. Comparative Politics, in
contrast, studies a broader range of political activity and organizations, not
directly related to national government for example, tribes, communities,
associations, and unions.
We view Comparative Politics as the field of Political Science that deals with
the study of domestic politics within a political system of countries for the
purpose of comparing how they work. It is, therefore, concerned with
presenting insight into the workings of the political system of countries with the
objective of comparing how they work or fail to work. Political system is
distinct from social and economic systems. It is essentially what concerns the

4. 4
comparativist. As Woods cited in Johari (2011:14) says, “The only reason for
including the term comparative in the designation of the field is to emphasize
that the responsibility which the field has to the discipline of political science is
to treat the political systems existing in the world as units for comparison in the
general quest of theory building and testing in political science”.

5. 5
Module TWO
1.2 NATURE AND SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS
1.3 Why Do we Study Comparative Politics?
It is pertinent to ask ourselves some fundamental questions as to why we study
comparative politics. Why do we study political system, behavior and values of
other countries? Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to improve on our
understanding of our political system rather than to divert our attention to
governments that we cannot influence or control? These questions are best
answered by considering what political scientist hope to gain from the study of
comparative politics.
According to Johari (2011), comparative politics helps you to go around the
world without leaving your room. By this token, it provides you with tools to
build models. Such verified theories or models would not only help the desire to
understand more fully who controls governmental power but will also aid in
anticipating the probable effects of various policies and decisions guided by
such knowledge. With the use of comparative politics, political scientists could
evaluate projected political action and thus offer more valuable advice. More
importantly, they could more wisely propose structural and procedural reforms
for particular political system which could make that system to perform its
function more effectively.
Studies of foreign political systems are especially helpful in advancing theory
building because it allows researchers to generalize more confidently. Gathering
data from different political systems also help to reduce the possibility that the
same intervening variables will continue to be present to mislead the researcher.
A political scientist can be more confident if he discovers that relationships are
really valid cross-nationally if they are based on studies which examine more
than one country. This is so because the field of comparative politics requires
comparative analysis and not parallel description. Comparative studies, whether
replicative or simultaneously analytical of more than one system helps to

6. 6
strengthen political science confidence that discovered relationships are not only
merely accidental but they specify by accumulating data from additional
instances in which discovered regularities hold.
But before we can study politics comparatively we need to understand the
nature and character of politics. If we understand the meaning of politics the
task of understanding political system becomes easier to enable us to properly
locate the domain of political system.
2.1 Understanding Politics
What is politics? Like Grigsby (2005:1) says, “the world of politics can be full
of surprises, challenges and interpretative dilemmas. Complexities, is thus, an
inescapable attachment to politics which we must strive to find meaning”. In
doing this we need to follow the observation by David Easton that politics
involves change. Change can be global in its consequences, as in the rise and
fall of world powers such as the Soviet Union. Change can be primarily
domestic as when one political party defeats another in a country’s election. In
an increasingly interdependent world, however, even those changes that appear
essentially domestic in nature may resonate with international significance
(McCormick, 1995).
In spite of these difficulties we can still view politics as essentially dealing with
power, authority or rule. According to Nnoli (1987), politics is all activities
relating to acquisition, consolidation and use of state power. Oakeshott
(1952:15) defines political activity as “an activity in which human beings
relates to one another as members of a civil association, think and speak about
the arrangements and the conditions, try to persuade others of the desirability,
make proposals about changes in these arrangements and conditions, try to
persuade others about the desirability of the proposed changes and act in such a
manner as to promote the changes”. All these take place within a political
system as distinct from economic and social systems.
In comparative politics the term ‘politics’ has three connotations:

7. 7
 political activity
 Political process and
 Political power.
Political activity consists of the efforts by which conditions of conflict are
created and resolved in the interest of the people. Political activity is
believed to emanate from a situation of predicament – a form of human
behavior in which the interests of persons, more than one, clash or interact
for the purpose of having an allocation of binding values in their respective
favours. Resolution of conflicts can be achieved through peaceful means of
reasoning, persuasion, adjustments, diplomacy or compromise or by violent
means of force and coercion.
Political process is essentially an extension of the sense of political activity. It is
the function of agencies that have their roles in the decision making process.
The study of politics is broadened to include even non state agencies. For
instance, a study of the way groups and associations operate shows that they are
not free from political struggle for power. They have internal agencies to deal
with internal conflicts and tensions. It is important here to note that these non-
state associations influence the government of the country for the sake of
promoting and protecting their interest.
Political power is another connotation of politics. The term ‘power’ has been
given different interpretation by different political scientists. Yet, it remains the
defining element of the discipline of political science. Some see it simply as
ability to compel obedience and even disobedience. It is also defined as capacity
of an individual, or a group of individuals, to modify the conduct of other
individuals or groups in the manner in which he desires. Power as participation
in the making of decision is an interpersonal relation. Power affects how
resources are distributed, how countries interact, whether peace or war prevails,
and how groups and individuals pursue their interests; that is, power affects the
myriad of topics studied by political scientists (Grigsby, 2005). Consequently,

8. 8
politics connotes a special case in the exercise of power – an exercise in the
attempt to change the conduct of others in one’s own direction. This is largely
the essence of politics both at domestic and international levels. Johari believes
that it is the study of politics from the standpoint of power that has widened the
scope of comparative politics so as to include the infrastructure of the political
system. What then is political system?
Module Two
2.2 Political System
Understanding the political system is very important in the study of comparative
politics. It is different from the larger social system. It is a ‘system’ in that there
are interrelationship within a complex whole and ‘political’ in that these
interrelationships relate to the distribution of power, wealth and resources in
society (Heywood, 2007). A political system is thus a structure that performs
the function of making legitimate policy decisions for society. Although it has
close affinity with economic and social systems it is, however, different in
function. How does it perform this function? According to David Easton,
political system allocates values by means of its policies that are binding on the
society by virtue of being authoritative. Its power is authoritative when there is
a prevailing feeling that it must be obeyed and that its policies, whether formal
or effective, are accepted as binding. That is why Dahl (1995) defines a
political system as any persistent pattern of human relationship that involves, to
a significant extent, control, influence, power or authority.
Political system directs attention to the entire scope of political activities,
process and power within a society, regardless of where in the society where
itmay be located. The political system includes not only governmental
institutions such as legislature, courts and administrative agencies, but all
structures in their political aspects.

9. 9
2.3 Characteristics of the Political System
Political system possesses characters that distinguish it from other systems of
the society. Gabriel A. Almond outlined five of such characters:
1. Universality of a political system: this implies that all political systems,
whether primitive or modern, developing or developed, have political
structures. They have a legitimate pattern of interaction by means of
which internal and external orders are maintained. A student of
comparative politics is, therefore, concerned with a study of all political
systems.
2. Universality of Political Structures: All political systems have same
structures that perform same functions, though with varying degrees of
frequency. The articulative, aggregative and communicative functions
may be performed diffusely within the society or intermittently through
the lineage or kinship structure. It is essential that an adequate analysis of
a political system locate and characterize all of these functions and not
only those performed by the specialized political structures. The tendency
to emphasize the specialized political structures like the executive,
legislature and the judiciary has led to the stereotyped characterization of
the traditional and primitive systems as static because their structures are
not easily differentiated.
3. Universality of political functions: All political structures perform
functions. Therefore, the focus of a student of political science should not
be on the structure but on the function. He should not be concerned with
the superficial study of the legislative, executive and judicial department
of a political system. How the functions are performed should be his
focus. The study of the political infrastructure of the political system like
the political parties, interest groups, factions, elites, mass media agencies
etc is very fundamental. They play very important role in any political
system.

10. 10
1. Multi-functionality of political structures: All political
structures, irrespective of the degree of specialization in point of time or
space, are multi-functional. According to Johari (2011), the model of the
western political system has over-stressed the functional specificity of
political structures, while the traditional system over-emphasized the
undifferentiated and diffuse character of the political and social
structure. Almond advises that the concern of the student of comparative
politics should be the fact that courts not only adjudicate, but also
legislate; that bureaucracy is one of the most important sources of
legislation, that legislative bodies affect both adjudication
andadministration; that political parties and pressure groups initiate
legislation and participate in national administration; that the means of
communications represent interests and affect the working of the three
departments of a political organization. He observes that two very
important things should be noted in this regard. First, what is particular
to modern political system is its high degree of differentiation in the
form of the emergence of legislatures, executives, bureaucracies, courts,
election systems, political parties, organized interest groups and means
of communication with each structure tending to perform a regulatory
role for that function within the political system as whole. Two, a
political system does not eliminate intermittency and traditionality,
rather it tends to regulate and control it.
2. Culturally Mixed Character of Political Systems: All political
systems are culturally mixed.
Some Kinds of political structures usually thought to be peculiar to primitive
political systems are also found in modern political systems. It could therefore
be said that all political systems have formal and informal structures.
In the preceding topics, we have been able to define comparative politics,
politics, and political system with the objective of making clear explication

11. 11
of the subject matter and its domain. We shall now turn our attention to the
character of comparative politics and the method of studying it.
2.4 Characteristics of Comparative Politics
According to Johari (2011) latest phase of comparative politics has these main
characteristics:
1. Analytical and Empirical Investigation: The new phase of comparative
politics has moved from its normative orientation paving the way for a study
that is fact-laden and descriptive. Comparative politics has evolved from its
evaluative concern about governmental forms to analytical categories. In this
context, concept like democracy has been loosened to include a congeries of
actual governmental forms and socio-political conditions.
2. Study of the Infrastructure: Comparative politics is not confined to the
study of formal governmental structures alone. This was the focus of
traditional political studies. One major characteristic of comparative politics
is its interest in inquiry into matters of public concern, with behavior and
acts that may concern a society as a totality or which may ultimately be
resolved by exercise of legitimate coercion. Modern comparative politics is
concerned with crystallized patterns of behavior with practices since these
are parts of the living structures of government. In this manner, the role of
political parties and pressure groups are as important as the role of legislators
and executives.
3. Emphasis on the Study of Developing Societies: Comparative politics
has attained relevance over the years because of its divorce with fixation on
western political systems to a more embracing study of developing societies.
It is no longer a study of selected European or American governments. It is
now a study of developed western governments as well as those of
developing political systems.

12. 12
4. Focus on Inter-Disciplinary Approach: the resort to inter-disciplinary
approach has greatly enriched comparative politics discipline. Comparativist
have used tools borrowed from disciplines like sociology, psychology,
economics, anthropology and even non-social science disciplines like
biology to build theories and models. For instance, systems analysis with its
two derivatives in the form of structural-functional and input –output
approaches owe their origin to biology. Political scientist like David Easton,
sociologists like Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton borrowed from other
disciplines to develop their theories that have made comparative politics a
doyen of the fields of political science.
5. Value-Free Political Theory: ascension of empirical approach in the
study of political science over normative or traditional approach is an
expression of the fact that value-free political theory has replaced value-
laden theories. The concern of comparative politics is no longer with things
as they ought to be in their ideal forms, but with what they are. Scholars in
the field believe that there is hardly any field for the rules of history and
ethics as they have been replaced by the rules of sociology, psychology and
economics (Johari, 2011)

13. 13
Module Three
3.0COMPARATIVE METHOD IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS
The field of comparative politics, as we earlier stated, is concerned with
comparing political systems. Comparison is done in a way that it covers
both macro and micro aspects or vertical and horizontal aspects of the
political system. As applied to the field of comparative politics, the
comparative method has three essential characteristics (Johari, 2011):
 Definition of Conceptual Units: In comparative politics, the units to be
compared are conceptual units because they are the objects of the
definitions to which the real phenomena we say are comparing more or less
conform. It is not sufficient to compare or look for differences between two
governmental systems, the macro units, i.e. the entire political systems
which perform functions for large and complex societies need to be dealt
with. Apart from looking at the three formal structure- legislature, executive
and judiciary – it is also important to study the role of the legislators, the
behavior of voters, operational form of the political parties and pressure
groups. The emphasis being made is that units of lesser scope that constitute
the infrastructure of a political system should be given attention.
 Classification: Taxonomy (classification) is a very important place in
the study of comparative politics. It facilitates the making of broad general
judgments as to the characteristics of a very complex phenomenon. The
work of theory building and testing conclusions becomes easier when a
student of comparative politics draws tables and charts to categorise
different political systems on the basis of division of powers (between
federal and unitary systems) or liberties of the people (between democratic
and totalitarian systems), etc.
 Hypothesis Formulation and Testing: Comparisons are
done in a way that hypotheses are formulated and then tested so
that the requirement of verifying and applying them is fulfilled.

14. 14
The concern of the comparativist is to ask question as to how
political system, as a unit of study, operates. These questions
include: what determines the degree to which political systems
will be responsive to popular demands? What determines the
degree to which the out puts of a system will be sufficient to
meet the threats of external pressure or domestic crisis? What
determines the degree of support which the system will receive
and extract from the populace, whether in the form of voting,
taxpaying or personal service in times of crisis? What determines
the degree of institutional stability within the system? What
determines the level of internal violence which the system must
withstand?
4.0 BASIC CONCEPTS
Concept refers to the general attributes possessed by things
instead of the specific thing.In this section we shall look at some
basic concepts used in comparative politics. Those to be
examined are class, class struggle, social force, variable,
hypothesis and theory.
4.1Class: According to Lenin, classes are large group of people
occupying a particular position in a historically determined
system of social production relations. This system of
production is historical – from the primitive band to the slave
owning system, feudal system and capitalism. To define
class, therefore, we do so in a historical system of social
production. The relation of these groups to the means of
production is usually fixed in law. This relation has basically
two dimensions: you either relate to the means of production

15. 15
as the owner the non-owner. It is this position that determines
what wealth one acquires or disposes.
Classes are groups, one of which can appropriate the labour of
the other due to the different positions they occupy in the social
production/economy. This has the implication that classes are
not defined exclusively in terms of economic relation but in the
totality of social relations – political, economic and ideological.
Classes are not defined in terms of individuals but in terms of
social division of labour – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
We also define classes in terms of interest, but the interest is not
individual interest but group interest. This is because the interest
of the class is not the sum total of agents of the class. Individual
subjects are mere agents and supporters of classes. Like we
mentioned earlier, they are distributed into these classes by the
social division of labour and they are mere bearers of the interest
of classes and class-linked groups.
4.2 Class Struggle: Classes coincide with specific practices and
the struggle amongst these classes for their interest is what we
refer to as class struggle. Class struggle is a Marxian concept
used to explain conflict between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie. There are three moments of the class struggle
corresponding to three major divisions of the social divisions of
labour – economic, political and ideological struggle. It must be
understood that each of these moments does not exist as a frozen
category that can be studied independent of the other. They have
to be studied in their unity. For example, bourgeois ideology has
always insisted that workers should be interested in economic
and not economic strands of idea that is dominant. When you
define a class it has certain economic, political and ideological

16. 16
practices that coincide with it. A class cannot exist without
struggle.
4.3 State: According to Claude Ake, a state may be defined as a
specific form of class domination. It is that form of domination
in which the institutional mechanisms of domination have been
so differentiated and separated from the dominant class and from
other social classes and the society as a whole that they appear as
an independent force standing above or side by side the rest of
the society. This definition which is one of the strands of
Marxian perception of the state provides us with a good
framework for understanding the state.
The state exists to mediate in the class struggle in the society and
as such should play the role of an arbiter without taking side with
any of the classes in society.
4.4 Theory: A set of interrelated concepts. Concepts make up theory. Theory is
a set of inter-related concepts suggesting certain relationships in the empirical
world and which is testable, at least in principle, by reference to empirical
reality. First, it makes claims that certain relationships exist in the empirical
world. It thus precedes scientific enquiry and not the end product of same like
positivists would argue. A good theory corresponds to available evidence. It is
accurate, falsifiable, has explanatory power, productive and consistent.
Module Four
4.1 DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS IN COMPARATIVE
CONTEXT
A major problem associated with the study of comparative politics has been
how to identify what to compare and what to be compared. In most cases,
students of comparative politics are left to do country by country comparison
that makes comparative politics look more like the study of international

17. 17
politics. In this manner, the study of political system which is the focus of
comparative politics is ignored. This problem seems to have been well
addressed by EllenGribsby in a 2005 book “Analysing Politics”. Comparative
politics is pre-occupied primarily with the study of how governments, political
groups, political procedures, and citizenship vary across countries or time
periods. This definition clearly delineates a political system from other systems
like economic and social systems and brings to focus the domain of comparative
politics. The implication is that comparing specific countries will not be
sufficient without adequate attention to those units that make up the political
system. According to Gribsby (2005) a student of comparative politics is
expected to pay attention to the following:
 Governmental system (regime type) democracy and non-democracy
 Interest groups
 Political parties
 Elections
 Legislature
 Executive and
 Judiciary
Governmental System
Under governmental system or regime type we have to consider whether
the system to be compared is democratic or non-democratic. This is because one
of the most basic ways of comparing countries involves classifying
governments as democratic or no democratic. There is no government that is
completely democratic or non democratic. We can identify a democratic
governments based on how the people and the government are connected; in
other words, the people are self-governed. Non democratic government can also
be classified based on how the people are unconnected with the government.

18. 18
The origins of the ancient Greek words demos (“the people”) and kratein (“to
rule”) 2 when the demos and the process of ruling are brought together through:
(1) Elections in which the people are free to select and reject government
officials,
(2) Ongoing access to the government by the people between election,
and
(3) The enactment of laws and policies reflecting the interests of a self-
governing people, then it is clear that the people and the government are
connected in terms of inputs (the demos shapes and influences the government)
and outputs (law and policies coming out of government and affecting the lives
of the demos reflect the interest of the demos as defined by the demos). It is
clear in such cases that the government is democratic.
However, when studying and comparing actual governments, political scientists
quickly discover that few clear-cut cases of perfect democracy exist. In such
cases, political scientists often find it useful to speak of degrees of democracy.
From this perspective, you can think of democracy as a set of processes or
arrangements to which actual countries may conform to varying degrees.
Countries may, at various times, be in transition, moving toward or away from
democracy. Moreover, a government that may look democratic form one
standpoint may look undemocratic from another. Given these complexities, it is
helpful to think of democracy in disaggregated terms, that is, in terms that
isolate the individual components of the demos-kratien connection. We have
adopted the work of Gribsby with little modification in the rest of the section of
this topic for its clarity and power of explication in addressing this very
fundamental aspect of the course.
Following Gribsby, democracy may be viewed as consisting of five
components:
1. Participation,
2. Pluralism

19. 19
3. Developmentalism
4. Protection
5. Performance.
Citizens’ Participation in selecting government officials is one of the most
obvious ways in which people can be connected to their government. Indeed,
the existence of elections in which all eligible citizens are free to vote,
campaign, debate, and otherwise participate is a basic element of democratic
politics. From the standpoint of this component of democracy, a country would
look highly democratic if, in elections, voters freely chose between alternative
parties and candidates and voted in high numbers. In contrast, low voter turnout,
corrupt elections in which some group enjoy undue influence, bogus elections in
which the outcome is rigged by a dominant party or clique, or the absence of
elections altogether indicate low levels of democracy from the standpoint of
participation.
The term pluralism refers to the multiplicity, diversity, or plurality of opinions
and groups free to express themselves within a political system. Pluralism’s
relationship to democracy is crucial: democracy requires that all the people with
all their differing ideologies, opinions, values, and so forth-be free to connect to
government. Ideally, pluralism requires that no single group have a special
claim to be hard before any others or to silence any others. In this sense,
democracy affirms that all groups and opinions in a society must be free to
compete for attention and for followership. If some opinions and groups are
suppressed, this would be indicated by lower levels of pluralism, then the level
of democracy drops.
Developmentalism is a subtle component of democracy, difficult to define and
measure with precision. The term refers to the extent to which the people
develop their human potential sufficiently to possess an awareness of their
actions as part of the democratic process, including an awareness of their civic

20. 20
such as voting. From a developmental democracy perspective we can ask, if the
people in a country vote in high numbers and have exposure to a wide range of
groups and opinions, but act without awareness of what they are doing, can we
say that democracy exists in a meaningful way? To be blunt: if self-governance
(that is, democracy) be possible? If not, then could we not say that interactive
entities (such as computers) are capable of democracy? Would we not have to
conclude that robots are capable of democracy, if we were to disregard the
developmental dimension of democracy, if we were to disregard the
developmental dimension of democracy, because after all robots could be
programmed to carry out the function of voting even if they lacked awareness of
what they had been programmed to do? These are the kinds of questions raised
when we begin thinking of what it means for a people to govern itself, from a
developmental democracy perspective.
The protection component of democracy is democracy’s commitment to
limiting government power so that government does not become tyrannical. For
democracy to be authentic, the demos must be protected from excessive
governmental regulation and control inconsistent with the democratic principle
of self government. Democracies have much option for limiting governmental
power. Governmental power may be restrained through constitutional
protections of freedom of speech, press, association and region; through checks
and balance that protect against the possibility of one branch of government
becoming all-powerful; and through fixed terms of office for politicians, which
protect against the rise of a governing elite who could proclaim themselves rules
for life. When comparing governments from the vantage points of protection,
political scientists often evaluate systems as highly, moderately, or minimally
democratic, depending on whether those systems have effective mechanisms
such as constitutional bills of rights, fixed terms of office, or other provisions,
for protecting individual’s liberties. Government lacking well-defined

21. 21
safeguards against the expansion of governmental authority into the lives of the
demos receives low rankings on protective democracy.
Democracy also include performance component. If a government is
democratic–if it is reflecting and serving the demos –them the demos should be
living as well as possible given the resources available within the territory of the
state. If not, one might ask whether the government is performing in a
democratic (demos-oriented) manner. In the fifth century B.C, the Athenian
leader principles (c. 495-429B.C) recognized the performance dimension of
democracy. Athenian democracy, he explained, was characterized by many
attributes, including rule by the people and equality under the law, but also by a
standard of living that sustained the people’s happiness. Today, levels of
democracy, in this sense might be measured by examining the quality of life of
the people, insofar as the quality of life is influenced by governmental laws and
policies. Political scientists who study countries from the standpoint of
performance democracy might examine such factors as income levels, literacy
rates, life expectancy, access to medical care, vulnerability to crime, and other
quality-of –life issues. High rates of poverty in a country rich in both natural
resource and the technology needed to develop them, for example, might raise
the question of whether government policies reflect and serve the interest of a
self-governing people.
It must be noted that democratic forms are very diverse. Some
democracies have written constitutions, whereas others do not, in some
democracies the judiciary has the power of overturning acts of the legislature,
whereas in other democracies courts lack such authority. Some democracies
crate executive branches that are independent of legislatures (presidential
system), whereas others merge the executive and legislative branches
(parliamentary system).

22. 22
The diversity of democratic arrangements is also evident when one compares
democracies that appear to be stable with those so new that their stability
remains uncertain. That is why Gribsby observes that stable democracies are
not necessarily very old democracies. Germany, for example, is presently a
stable democracy but was a fascist state as recently as the 1940s. In addition to
Germany, the United States, Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Iceland, France,
Britain, Australia, and New Zealand are examples of democracies generally
considered by political scientists to be stable. Democratic processes are stable in
these countries, insofar as elections are held regularly and are competitive,
political parties and interest groups organize openly, and civil rights and civil
liberties are protected by law. Stable democracies also tend to share certain
economic characteristics. These countries tend to be among the most affluent in
the world. Average income levels tend to be high by global standards. These
societies are home to some of the most highly developed public education
systems, the most advanced medical facilities, and the most sophisticated
technological resources.
Other democracies include countries that have recently and/or partially
democratized. South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, the Czech
Republic, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, and Slovenia are often cited as
examples of new or transitional or partial democracies. The economies of these
countries generally produce lower average incomes and lower levels of access
to education and health resources than do the more developed economies of the
stable democracies. As you can see, a comparison of democracies may yield as
much dissimilarity as similarities.
4.2Comparing Democracies
Participation: The United States and Switzerland

23. 23
In this part of the lecture we are going to attempt a comparison between the
United States and Switzerland as analysed by Gribsby (2005), using
participation as one of the components of democracy.
To a large extent, voting defines participation in politics.It may be
subjected to analysis from different, some of which are discussed. Let us first
examine the concept of an electorate.Gribsbydefines electorate as consisting of
those people who are eligible voters. The way a country defines its electorate
has profound implications for participatory democracy. For example, in the
early and mid-1700s the electorate in the United States was defined very
narrowly. Voting rights were denied to such “ineligibles” as slaves, women,
apprentices, minors, servants, and males older than age who were still living at
home with their parents. What made these groups ineligible for inclusion in the
electorate? In part, they were considered ineligible because they were deemed
“dependents.” Dependents were viewed as individuals who had no economic,
social, or moral basis for governing themselves; as such, it was assumed that
they were dependent on others to make decisions for them. Women, for
instance, were seen as needing the guidance of fathers or husbands, just as men
who were not independent of their parents, by age 21 could be viewed as too
weak or immature to be self-governing.
In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment of American Constitution
expanded the electorate to include women. Women had been fighting for voting
rights for almost 100 years by the time this amendment was ratified. The
women’s suffrage movement began in 1848, and between 1848 and 1920
women formed numerous interest groups (the National Women’s Suffrage
Association, the American Woman’s Suffrage Association, the National
American Woman’s Suffrage Associations the National Association of Colored
Women, the Women’s Political Union, and the Congressional Union, among
others), lobbied both major politicians in state and federal governments on

24. 24
behalf of voting rights. In 1971, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment secure voting
rights for 18-year-old citizens. To put this amendment in perspective, it is
important to realize that before ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment,
18-year-old men were considered old enough to serve in the military even
though they were regarded as too young to vote, but many of them were serving
in the Vietnam War. Voting rights were further broadened in 1982, when
Congress passed legislation providing for the use or bilingual ballots in
elections.
Thus, depending on your race, your gender, your age, your economic
class, and/or your language, the United States may start to look democratic from
the standpoint of voting rights in, perhaps, 1920, 1964, 1965, 1971, or 1982.
Even with the expanded electorate, however, U.S voters still govern themselves
only indirectly, insofar as their votes select the political leaders who actually
write and implement the laws of the land.
In Switzerland there seems to be a more direct form of participation in the
governing process. Specifically, Swiss democracy is one in which citizen’s vote
in elections to choose officeholders and in national referenda to determine the
details of public policy. A referendum is an actual proposal that citizens vote
directly for or against. Whereas referendum voting takes place in state and local
elections in the United States, in Switzerland referendum elections are held at
the national level. To a greater extent than almost any other democracy,
Switzerland uses the national referendum process to decide important political
issues. Thus, a comparison of Switzerland and the United States illustrates
contrasting ways in which democracies approach the participation component of
democratic politics.
Switzerland uses compulsory and optional referenda. A compulsory
referendum is used to review all proposed constitutional amendments. That is,
any amendment offered as a possible addition to the Swiss constitution must be
submitted to Swiss voters for approval or rejection through a referendum. In

25. 25
addition, referenda are optional means of reviewing all laws passed by the
legislature and all international treaties. For example, if Swiss citizens wish to
exercise the option of reviewing a law r treaty by means of the referendum
process, 50,000 citizen signatures (drawn from a population of 6.7 million) 28
in favor of the referendum must be collected. Once these signatures are
obtained, the referendum is conducted. Moreover, citizens may use their voting
rights to introduce their own constitutional amendments; the voting procedure
of initiating amendments-referred to as constitutional initiative-stipulates that
amendments can be proposed directly by voters on the collection of 100,000
citizen signatures in support of such initiatives. Once proposed, citizen
initiatives must ultimately be reviewed by the same process governing all
proposed amendments-that is, by referenda. If a referendum decision against all
proposed at al later time. In fact, a September 2000 referendum decision against
imposing a quota on the number of foreigners allowed into the country was the
sixth such vote taken on immigration quotas in a 30-year period.
Under Swiss democracy, therefore, when the electorate was expanded
through constitutional amendments, Swiss voters were directly involved in the
process. In a 1971 referendum, Swiss voters included women in the national
electorate; in 1991, a referendum vote expanded the electorate to include 18-
year-olds (previously the voting age was 20 years old.) Notice, however, that
both groups-women and 18-years-olds-were granted voting rights later in
Switzerland than in the United States.
Which country looks more democratic from the standpoint of
participation? The answer is not clear-cut. On the one hand, U.S women and 18-
year-olds were long accustomed to voting by the time their Swiss counterparts
won similar rights. On the other hand, once groups are enfranchised in
Switzerland, they have a more direct influence in policymaking than do citizens
in the United States. Indeed, by means of recent referenda and initiatives, Swiss
voter have directly participated in political decision making on policies as

26. 26
diverse as immigration levels, the rights of conscientious objectors, abortion,
the legal age of sexual consent, nuclear power plant closures, prohibiting cars
on Swiss roads on certain days, the number of paid vacation days offered by
industry, the length of the work week, price controls, whether the Swiss army
should be abolished, and whether Switzerland should join international
associations such as the International Monetary Fund and the European
Community
Module Five
6.0 THEORIES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Comparative politics is amenable to scientific study. In fact, its reliance on
empiricism is an expression of its value-free character. It thus, relies on
theories as framework of analysis. We shall in this section look at the
following theories:
 System theory (input-output)
 Structural-functionalism,
 Elite theory
 Modernisation theory
 Marxist theory
 Power theory
6.1 Structural-Functionalism: Implications and Basic Assumptions
Structural functionalism is an offshoot or a derivative of systems analysis. It is a
means of explaining what political structures perform, and the basic functions
that are in the political system, and it is a tool of investigation. Social theories
subscribing to this approach lay emphasis on the point that, indeed, no society
can survive or develop unless it has a political system performing such a

27. 27
function. The survival and maintenance of a social system require that society
must be having a well-functioning economic system, a legal system, a system of
values and so on. The political system would appear in this case appear as that
sub-system performing the distinctive function of making legitimate policy
decisions.
Johari (2011) outlines the assumptions of structural functionalism as:
1. It takes the society as a single inter-connected system each element of
which performs a specific function. The basic feature of such a system is
the interaction of its components for the maintenance of its equilibrium.
Functional analysis seeks to understand behaviouralpattern or a social-
cultural institution in terms of the role played in keeping the given system
in proper working order and thus maintaining.
2. If society is a system as a whole, it has its parts that are interrelated. A
social system has a dominant tendency towards stability that is
maintained by virtue of build-in mechanism. If there are deviations or
tensions, they are resolved. Thus, change in a social system is not sudden
or revolutionary but gradual and adjustive.
3. Underlying the whole social structure there are broad aims and
principles that are observed by the members of the society. Thus, comes
the factor of value consensus with its on-going usefulness.
As its very name suggests, the structural-functional analysis revolves
around two key concepts-structures and functions.
It is proper that we look at the key concepts of the theory as clearly
outlined by Johari ( ).
Concept of Structure: While functions deal with the consequences involving
objectives as well as processes of the patterns of actions, structures refer to
those arrangements within the system which perform the functions. A single
function may be fulfilled by a complex combination of structures, just as any
given structural arrangement may perform functions which might have different

28. 28
kinds of consequences for the structure. For instance, a political party is a
structure within the political system that performs many functions, including
those of communicating the wishes of the electorate to the government,
informing the electorate on important political issues and allowing for wider
participation by more people in the political system. The party helps to maintain
the system because it performs these tasks, but other structures such as pressure
groups or formal institutions of the government may also carry out these
functions.
Concept of Functions: Three basic questions are involved in the concept of
functions-what basic functions are discharged in any given system?, by what
instruments those functions are performed?, and under what conditions the
performance of these functions are done? According to Young, functions deal
ultimately with objectives consequences, but they may be perceived as
objectives, processes, or results from various points of view and for various
purposes. Merton defines functions as those observed consequences which
make for the adaptation or readjustment of a given system; and dys-functions as
those observed consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the
system.
The structural-functional analysis having its prominent place in the
discipline of sociology is based on the ‘intellectual foundations’ of the concept
of a ‘system.’ It “is nothing if it is not the analysis of social patterns as parts of
larger systems of behaviour and belief. Ultimately, therefore, an understanding
of functionalism in sociology requires an understanding of the resources of the
concept of ‘system.’ ” as borrowed by theorists belonging to different social
sciences, the functionalist approach in all its forms, while studying a given
social or political system, is not how a pattern of behaviour may have originated
so much as what part it plays in maintaining the system as a whole.
6.2 System Theory (Input-Output Analysis): Interpretations of David
Easton and Gabriel A. Almond

29. 29
David Easton is the first major political scientist who has developed a
systematic framework on the basis of the systems analysis approach for the
study of politics instead of merely adapting it from anthropology or sociology
(Johari, 2011). He has selected political system as the basic unit of analysis and
concentrate on the intra-system behaviour of various systems as principal areas
of social science research and investigation. He has defined political system as
‘a set of interactions’ and politics as ‘making authoritative allocation of values’.
According to him: “I have been exploring the utility of the systems as the major
unit, focusing on political life as a system of behaviour operating within and
responding to its social environment as it makes binding allocation of values.”
(Johari)
The input-output analysis of Easton has three main variables in the forms
of demands, supports and feedback.
1. Demand: Easton defines demand “as an expression of opinion that an
authoritative allocation with regard to a particular subject matter should
or should not be made by those responsible for doing so.” It means that
the people as ‘actors’ make demands upon their political system that sub-
serve their specific interests. Thus, the political system undergoes
‘demand stress’ sometimes; the weight of the stress is considerably
enhanced either on account of quantitative excesses what Easton calls
‘volume stress’ or due to the burden of qualitative elements what he term
’content stresses. However, both situations create what he designates the
‘overload’. The function of the structures of the political system thus
becomes to convert these demands, correctly stated as ‘inputs’, into
authoritative decisions, correctly stated as ‘outputs’. Thus, there occurs
the conversion process in which some demands are fulfilled, some are
weeded out also. Since the political system has to operate in a way that its
stability is maintained, it becomes essential that there should be four
regulatory mechanisms. First, there should be, structural mechanisms’ to

30. 30
play the role of ‘gatekeepers’ it means that certain structures of the
political system should look towards the regulation of demand making
their weight on the makers of the decision. Secondly, there should be
cultural mechanisms in the shape of firm beliefs and attitudes of the
people in their political system in order to establish influential criteria of
appropriateness for the articulation of demands. Third, there should be
‘communication mechanisms’ in order to keep the ‘actors’ informed of
the latter about made nature and intensity of the demands made by their
people. Finally, there “should be the process of ‘reduction mechanisms’
have specific procedures for the collections, intra-system gate keeping
procedures, and the requirement that general demands be converted into
specific issues for purposes of political procession.”
2. Support: It is another variable dealing with the inputs. “Supports refer to
the remaining input transaction between a system and its environment
after demands have been subtracted.” It is overt when an action is clearly
and manifestly supportive, it is covert when it refers to the supportive
attitudes As one basically interested in the stability and maintenance of
the system, Easton refers to ‘support stress’ that may be due to the output
failure. If there is a decline or erosion of political support, resort must be
taken to some devices. For instance, structural regulation should be
revised by changing structural elements of the system. Changes in the
system of representation or in the operation of the party system may be
cited as clear examples in this regard. Another device is to engender
diffuse support that refers to the use of various processes for developing
the ‘sense of community among the people.
3. Feedback: Easton tells us that the outputs of a political system are the
authoritative decisions and actions of the system’s leaders that bear on the
allocation of values for it. These outputs “not only help to influence
events in the broader society of which the system is a part, but also in

31. 31
doing so, they help to determine each succeeding round of inputs that
finds it way into the political system. There is a feedback loop, the
identification of which helps us to explain the processes through which
the system may cope with the stress. Through it, the system may take
advantage of what has been happening by trying to adjust its future
behaviour.
The idea of feedback means that if the actions of the authorities are taken
to satisfy demands or create conditions that will do so, information must
be fed back, at least to those authorities, about the effect of each round of
outputs. Without information-feedback about what is happening in the
system, the authorities would have to operate in the dark. Easton, further,
says that the feedback loop itself” has a number of parts worthy of
detailed investigation. It consists of the production of outputs by the
authorities, a response by the members of the society to these outputs, the
communication of information-feedback, and reaction by the authorities
is set in motion, forming a seamless web of activities. What happens in
this feedback thus has a profound influence on the capacity of a system to
cope with stress and persist.
The input-output analysis of Easton shows that a political system is
operated by the forces of environment that appear in the form of demands
on it and the rulings of the men in power who take decisions in order to
allocate binding values for them. That is, while the inputs refer to the role
of ‘demand’ made on the political system, output are ‘decision’ having an
authoritative character for the purpose of allocation of values for it.
Naturally, the outputs “are the results of the conversion process acting
upon a great variety of demands and supports and can be conveniently
divided into verbal statements and concrete performances.

32. 32
Module Eight
6.3 MODERNISATION THEORY:
Modernisation theory is anchored on the assumption that developing countries
of the Third World can attain development by adopting economic, political,
social, cultural and technological practices of the western developed countries.
The theory gained prominence after the Second World War when the American
government started giving economic and technological aids to countries ravaged
by the war. It was initially a development plan but transformed to strategic
objective to curtail Soviet expansion during the Cold War.
APTER’S PARADIGM OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
David Apter is of the view that while the liberal capitalist solution poses the
problem of inequity, the Marxian socialist requires coercion. And yet the
struggle for political modernization persists because development embodies
hope.
Like political development, political modernization also takes place
where it is most easily accepted or wanted. Thus, it signifies the ‘transfer of
roles from metropole to periphery. Moreover, it has its stages, each having its
own predicaments. According to Apter, four stages may be earmarked in this
regard.
1. Stage of Contact and Control: It began with a few hardy and
enterprising individuals with a particular strong sense of mission, or
greed, or zeal, or desire for adventure. They paved way for innovation.
Since it happened in the advanced countries of Europe in the seventeenth,
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this stage found its start in the
adventures of the British, French, German, Dutch, Portuguese and Italian
colonialists. Hence, the first stage of development represented a process
by means of which the then new wealth of Europe and new technologies,
by creating opportunities for trade, effected not only the settlement of

33. 33
trade centres but the acquisition of territory as well. It was of dependent
people must be changed. It was marked by the consolidation of the alien
rule, erection of a stable system of authority and the beginning of
urbanization, health and schooling for an elite occurring at the end of this
stage.
2. Stage of Reaction and Counter-action: It showed the effects of Western
colonialism. Innovative foreign elites of the bureaucrats, missionaries,
traders and the like created new urban centres or renovated the old ones
and the native persons drew closer to them. Rules and regulations
required local authorities to assist in carrying out the dictates of the
colonial regimes. What prospered even more were the cultural and racial
notions of superiority used to justify alien domination. In this way,
primitive countries were opened up to the benefits of civilization, trade
and commerce not always to their enhancement. At the same time,
exploitation of the dependent peoples became more severe the most
heinous type of which we find in the slave trade of the African people.
The notable feature of this stage was that local and foreign elements
interacted; new forms of association developed; and new interests arose.
At the same time, nationalism led by elite grew. The nationalist leaders
demanded more participation in public affairs. The colonial masters
played the strategy of winning over the nationalist elites to their side and
repressing those who could not be tamed for their purpose.
3. Stage of Contradiction and Emancipation: with the growth of new
elites, complex associations in politics arose. The base of the nationalist
movement widened. Elites developed in the rural and semi-urban areas
and the nationalist leaders sharpened the pace of their struggle. Attacks
on colonial authorities combined with the demand for sharing power and
the events of revolution independence of 1776 and French revolution of
1789 became the source of inspiration. To face the challenge of the

34. 34
growing nationalism, the colonial powers devised the strategy of
introducing their own democratic systems in degrees. Such responses,
mass stimulated political organizations, mass movements, demands for
greater independence, and other forerunners of the impending break with
the colonising power. Intellectuals fomented rebellion, providing
ideological arguments and alternatives. Charismatic or near-charismatic
leaders promised a new unity with independence.
4. Stage of Search for a New Generative Solution: It occurred after the
advent of independence and, as such, it was marked by the inauguration
of the second revolution in the social, economic and technological
spheres. Thus, the main problem before the developing countries is to use
political independence to produce more viable and effective communities
without becoming ensnared in neo-colonialism. This is partly a matter of
prompting economic growth, partly an awakening to the predicaments or
uneven change. To avoid such predicaments of modernization, some
political leaders opt for developmental socialist solutions. Each proposed
solution, however, and each type of political system soon generates its
own problems and difficulties. Some rely on force at the expense of
liberty. These spend large sums on police and army fire power. Other
which emphasise liberty soon find themselves at the mercy of the claim
access to politics (and supply a good many of the politicians) at the
expense of the poor. One striking point at this stage is that the nationalist
leadership of the well-known nationalist figures loses its charismatic hold
and the imported democratic system is replaced by some authoritarian
model provided by the only ruling party or military junta.
It is fundamental to note that the analysis of Apter is based on the
dichotomy of ‘tradition’ represented by the native forces and ‘modernity’
brought about by the alien masters. The process of conflict between the
two begins with the gradual establishment of the Western colonial

35. 35
system. At the same time, a sort of unique reconciliation develops with
the passage of time. The processes of synthesisation and contradiction
flow simultaneously with the result that the natives not only emulate and
imitate the ‘political culture’ of their masters, they also cry for
emancipation. When national independence is achieved, they struggle for
suitable courses so as to realize the aim of establishing social and
economic democracy in the country.
6.4 Marxist Theory
The contribution to socialist ideology made by German theorist Karl
Marx (1818-1883) is vast and complex that his theory of socialism has come to
be known specifically as Marxism. Marx was well versed in political theory and
completed a doctorate in classical Greek philosophy from the University of
Berlin in 1841. Marx was greatly influenced by German philosopher George W.
F. Hegel (1770-1831), who believed that historical development takes place
through a series of dramatic changes producing increasingly comprehensive
systems of knowledge. With each epoch of historical development, new and old
ideas clash and compete. New ways of thinking and conceptualizing reality
emerge from the conflict, according to Hegel. One finds in Marx’s work many
parallels with Hegel, not the least of which is the notion that history moves
forward from the push and pull of conflict and that each new period of history is
a creative response to what has gone before. As abstract as this sound, these
ideas are important in providing glimpses of some of the most concrete
dimensions of Marx’s theory.
Although Marx is known as a socialist, the majority of his writing focuses
on analyzing capitalism. This is not surprising when one realize that Marx lived
under a capitalist system and, as a student of politics, wrote primarily about
what he could observe. With his friend and collaborator Frederick Engels, Marx
analyzed many facets of capitalist society. The better one understands

36. 36
capitalism, Marx contends, the more clearly one sees the rational basis for
socialism.
How does Marx analyze capitalism? He begins by noting that capitalism
is an economic system in which most people come to be members of one of two
large classes.
The two prominent classes under capitalism are the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie. The proletariat is the class that lives primarily by selling its labour
power (laboring ability) for a wage. The bourgeoisie is the class that lives
primarily by purchasing the labor power of others and using this labour to
operate the factories and business owned by the bourgeoisie. Thus, generally,
the proletariat consists of people who work for wages and the bourgeoisie
consist of people who own businesses and hire employee. Very important, Marx
was aware that many members of the bourgeoisie also work; indeed, business
owners often have interminable workdays and remain at the office longer than
any single employee. However, if an individual’s economic position is premised
on the ability to hire workers and run a business through the employees’ labor,
then this individual is a member of the bourgeoisie.
Marx has not defined class in terms of income levels. He has not come
up with a formula for determining how much money one needs in order to
qualify as rich or poor. Rather, he has defined class in terms of functions. If
person ‘A’ functions in society by selling her labor power in return for a wage
may be. In contrast, if she functions as someone who operates a factory by
employing wage laborers, she is a member of the bourgeoisie, whatever her
income level. This potion is crucial to remember because when Marx later
speaks of abolishing class, it is necessary to remember how he defines class.
Because he does not define class in terms of income levels, he does not define
the abolition of class in terms of eradicating income differentials.
According to Marx, under capitalism conflict between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat is inevitable. This is the case because both classes are

37. 37
rational. Both pursue what is in their respective interests. Consequently, the
bourgeoisie and proletariat clash over the price of wage labour. It is in the
interest of the bourgeoisie to lower the price of labor, whereas it is in the
interest of the proletariat to raise it. Neither class can afford to abandon its
interest, according to Marx. For example, if a capitalist pays a higher wage than
that paid by rival capitalists, the generous capitalist will be unable to compete
with his or her peers and will be ruined. Thus, the rational capitalist will pay
subsistence wages to the employees. Subsistence wages are defined by Marx as
the lowest possible wage for inducing sufficient numbers of capable workers to
fill job openings. That is, the rational capitalist will pay only so much as he or
she must in order to recruit qualified workers to come into the business and do
the jobs. All capitalists will be motivated to compete successfully with their
peers, so each will be inclined to pay subsistence-level wages. For the
proletariat, of course, this means that every possible employer is operating
according to an identical logic, one that is not exactly favorable to the
proletariat.
Moreover, unless a capitalist holds back a part of the value created by
employees through their labor, the capitalist will have nothing for him or
herself. Therefore, the capitalist keeps some of the value created by workers;
this value is called surplus value (it exist as surplus above and beyond what is
returned to the workers in the form of wages) of profit. Yet the existence of
profit is testimony to the fact that the workers have created a value in excess if
that paid to them in wages. They are creating more wealth than the amount
reflected in their pay-checks, and because their existence depends on their
ability to earn these pay-checks, their lives are insecure as long as wages are
meager. We can see from just this short discussion that both proletariats and
capitalists live or die by the decisions surrounding the price of wages.
According to Marx, the state plays an important role in preventing the
conflict between the classes from erupting into daily riots and rebelling. If

38. 38
workers rise up and attempt to take over a factory and demand higher wages, the
state’s law enforcement officers will suppress their rebellions. The state’s
judicial officers will prosecute, and the state’s legislative officials may even
respond by writing new laws to prevent future rebellions. In short, the state will
work to prevent class conflict by enforcing law and order, which, under
capitalism, indirectly supports the bourgeoisie’s continued pursuit of profit
through the payment of subsistence wages to workers. Logically, Marx points
out, one can see that the class that benefits most from the status quo also gains
most from the state’s protection of the status quo.
For Marx, however, capitalism is an entire social system. It involves more
than states, wages, and profits. Capitalism also includes certain ways of thinking
about the world and psychologically responding to it. For example, Marx
believed that life under capitalism became an emotional ordeal for many
proletarians/workers. Alienation is a term he used to describe the emotional,
cognitive, and psychological damage done to the proletariat by capitalism.
Alienation means loss. According to Marx, workers are vulnerable to different
kinds of alienation. One type of alienation is alienation from the self. A worker
alienated from his or her self has lost a sense of self-awareness and identity.
Such a worker may go through the workday “on automatic pilot,” barely aware
of him-or herself as an individuals with a mind, with thoughts, with a history,
with feelings. Workers such as this live through the day, but they do not
experience the day any more than the machines in the factories experience it.
Proletariats are also likely to suffer alienation from the work process, from other
workers, and from society, according to Marx. The creative, productive, and
collaborative dimensions of working and living are lost to the proletarian, who
has become almost as lifeless as the tools he or she uses. Not only has life
become joyless, but the alienated worker does not even know any more that it is
not supposed to be this way.

39. 39
Just as capitalism affects the psyche, it also influences the intellect. Marx
asserted that intellectual systems (ideologies, for example) are shaped by the
political and economic system in which they arise. In other words, the existence
of capitalism makes some ideas useful and therefore, renders them means of
obtaining and holding power. As Marx put it, each political-economic system
needs its own ideology to justify itself as moral and “natural.” In a capitalist
society, the prevailing ideology will be one that proclaims private property as
natural (because the bourgeoisie can use this idea to help legitimize its class
power). The prevailing ideology will also uphold individual freedom as a
fundamental right. The idea of individual freedom is useful to the bourgeoisie
because it allows the bourgeoisie to argue that making profit is simply an
element of individual freedom. In addition, the bourgeoisie can always justify
paying the proletarians less than the value created by the proletarians by
proclaiming that if the proletarians do not like working for them, the
proletarians have the individual freedom to quit and find other jobs. That is, the
ideology of individuals’ freedom is used to distract attention away from
question about fairness, social needs, and basic economic equality, ideology is
used to justify the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie.
As a student of Hegel, Marx saw in all these dimensions of capitalism as
evidence of tension and strain, but also eventual progress. On the one hand,
capitalism is inherently contradictory, according to Marx, and thus doomed to
fall apart as a consequence of its own clashing pressure. For example, as
capitalists pursue their self-interest and pay workers subsistence wages, they set
in motion a logic whereby most people (wage earners) are paid so little that they
cannot purchase the goods and services produced by capitalism itself.
Underconsumptionis a danger and forces capitalists to compete for foreign
markets. On the other hand, capitalism is much more than a system in which
contradictory forces threaten disorder and chaos. Capitalism, according to Marx,
is also progressive. It has given humanity many wonderful gifts and has inspired

40. 40
innumerable positive developments. Has Marx begun to contradict himself in
praising capitalism like this? Absolutely not, he assures his readers; he is merely
viewing capitalism in all its complexity.
6.5 Elite Theory
Elite theory became very popular in the United States after the Second World
War. It was based on the idea that every society is made up of two broad
categories of people: (1) the selected few, who are capable and, therefore, have
the right to supreme leadership (2) the vast number of people who are destined
to be ruled. It first started in Central and Western European countries as critique
of democracy and socialism. It was adopted in the United States by a number of
writers to explain their political processes as they existed in their country and
for that matter any democratic country. Its European origins posits that within
those who constituted the ruling class, in addition to a ruling elite, there was a
counter-elite, which could be raised by the masses if the ruling elite lost its
capacity to rule.
The theory gained prominence from the works of Vilfred Pareto, Roberto
Michels, and Gaetano Mosca. It is anchored on the belief that every society is
ruled by a minority that possesses the qualities necessary for its necessary
ascension to full social and political power. Those who get on top are always
the best. They are known as the elites (Varma 2003). They consist of those who
rise to the top in every occupation and stratum of society. There is an elite of
lawyers, an elite of mechanics and even elite of thieves and elite of prostitutes.
Within the elites Pareto distinguished “governing elite” and “non-
governing elite”. Governing elite is one that holds power and non-governing
elite is the one that constantly strives to replace it by showing ability and
excellence. Behavior of elite is characterized by persistent struggle between
governing and non-governing elites. It results in what is called “circulation of

41. 41
elites”. Aside from intelligence and talent, Pareto said the elite also posses
courage and cunning characters. One of the assumptions of the theory is that
masses have no chance of entering the ranks of elite.
To Gaetano Mosca, people are necessarily divided into two groups – the
ruler and the ruled. He said the ruling class controls most of the wealth, power
and prestige in society. The ruled are not competent to replace it. No matter the
kind of political regime in a society, it is this tiny minority of ruler that
exercises all power.
Mosca defines this ruling class as a political class that represents the interest of
the important and influential people. The ruling class usually invokes moral and
legal principles in order to win the consent of the ruled. Mosca argued that the
dominance of the ruling class was essential to provide proper organization for
the unorganized majority. On his part, it is the constant competition between the
lower and upper class that leads to ‘circulation of elites’. While Marxian class
theory holds that the division of society into classes is based on exploitation
elite theory believes that the division of society into elite and masses plays
positive function by compensating each other in social organization (Gauba,
2003:259)
Robert Michels, popularly known for his ‘Iron law of oligarchy’ also
made significant contribution to further development of the elite theory. He
holds that every organization no matter its aim is usually reduced to ‘oligarchy’
(rule of the chosen few). This, according to him, is because majority of human
beings are apathetic, indolent and slavish. Consequently, they are incapable of
self government and rely on their leaders for pursuing their social objectives.
He points out that organizations may be set up with democratic
objectives but as it grows in size and complexity its management is left for the
professional experts. These leaders or experts become indispensable to the
organization. They rely on their manipulative skills, oratory, persuasion and
playing upon sentiment of the people in order to perpetuate themselves in

42. 42
power. Through this process they become so entrenched that it becomes
difficult to replace them at periodic re-election. With their power they are able
to set aside the original aim of the organization.
Module Nine
Revision
Sources
Almond G. et al. (2000) Comparative Politics Today: A World View. Pearson Education, Inc.
Gauba, O.P. (2003).An Introduction to Political Theory. India: Macmillan.
Gribsby, E. (2005). Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Thomson
Belmont: Wadsworth.
McCornmic, J (2005).Comparative Politics in Transition. New York:Wadsworth.
Varma, S.P. (1975).Modern Political Theory. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.