Scribd
Upload
831 views4 pages

Political Development - Concept

Political development is a complex concept that is difficult to define and measure. It has been explained in various ways by different theorists. Lucian Pye categorized the different interpretations of political development into three main aspects: equality in participation and standards, the capacity of political institutions and effective governance, and the differentiation and specialization of political structures and processes. Political development involves tensions between these dimensions as societies progress from homogenous to heterogeneous systems with the ability to address changing needs.

Uploaded by

Kotha Sarker
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
831 views4 pages

Political Development - Concept

Political development is a complex concept that is difficult to define and measure. It has been explained in various ways by different theorists. Lucian Pye categorized the different interpretations of political development into three main aspects: equality in participation and standards, the capacity of political institutions and effective governance, and the differentiation and specialization of political structures and processes. Political development involves tensions between these dimensions as societies progress from homogenous to heterogeneous systems with the ability to address changing needs.

Uploaded by

Kotha Sarker
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Political Development

Political development is a more elusive concept than economic development.


It is more controversial in normative terms and more difficult to measure in
empirical and operational terms. It is used frequently by both normative and
non-normative or existential thinkers. Normative theorists stress that a political
system develops as it approaches the good political order.

They devote less attention to systematic statement of conditions which give


rise to and maintain political development, and are more concerned with
specifying ends and justification for having such political development. The
existentialists spend more time on specifying the characteristics of what they
regard as politically developed systems and the conditions and processes
which give rise to them. Lucian W. Pye has vividly examined diversity in the
explanation of the concept of political development.

Political development has been variously explained as:


1. Political prerequisite of economic development;

2. The politics typical of industrial and advanced societies;

3. Political modernisation under which advanced nations are regarded as


pace-setters;

4. The operations of a nation-state;

5. Administrative and legal development, it includes all colonial practices and


authoritative structures;

6. Mass mobilisation and participation involving new standards of loyalty and


demagoguery;

7. The building of democracy;

8. Stability and orderly change;


9. Mobilisation and power; and

10. One aspect of a multi-dimensional process of social change regards it


unnecessary to isolate political development from other aspects coming under
the total process of modernisation.

There are other interpretations also, such as, national self-respect, attainment
of dignity in international affairs, etc. But according to Pye, most of them
create confusion. According to him, these various interpretations share some
broad characteristics, which can provide the basis of agreement.

He categorises them under three aspects and interlinks them in the form
of development syndrome:
(a) Spirit or attitude towards equality:
It includes participation, universalistic nature, standards of achievement etc.;

(b) Capacity of political system:


It is related to outputs: economy, performance of government, effectiveness
and efficiency, rationality in administration, and secularisation of public
policies; and

(c) Differentiation:
It involves increase of structures, institutions, division of labour, specialisation,
followed by ultimate sense of integration. Thus, political development,
according to him, is a three-dimensional process of equality, capacity, and
differentiation. He admits that these do not necessarily or easily fit together.

Rather, acute tensions and problems are generated by them. Pressure for
greater equality can challenge the capacity of the system, and differentiation
can reduce equality by stressing the importance of quality and special
knowledge. His development syndrome is also unilinear. Problems of equality
relate to political culture and sentiments about legitimacy and commitment to
the system.

Capacity-problems involve the performance of authoritative structures of


government. Problems pertaining to differentiation strike at the performance of
the non-authoritative structures and the general political process in the society
at large. In any case, political development revolves around the relationships
between political culture, the authoritative structures, and the general political
process.

Mehta opines that Pye interprets development by incorporating almost every


conceivable feature of the American political system. Pye finds the
development-process as evolution of society from incoherent homogeneity to
coherent heterogeneity, with capacity to solve developmental problems.

Alfred Diamant conceives it as a ‘process by which political system acquires


an increased capacity to sustain successfully and continuously new types of
goals and demands and the creation of new types of organisation.’ For this
process to continue over time, a differentiated and centralised polity must
come into existence. It must be able to command resources from and power
over wide spheres and regions of the society.

Almond visualises it as the acquisition by political systems of a new capability,


in the sense of a specialised role structure and differentiated orientations,
which together give a political system the possibility of responding efficiently,
and more or less, autonomously to a new range of problems. Both Almond
and Powell reiterate that political development shows the formation of new
capabilities, with specialised role-structure and differentiated orientation which
enables the political system to deal with new challenges.

Hagan also finds it as ‘the formation of new structures and patterns which
enable a political system to cope with its fundamental problems.’ Samuel P.
Huntington characterises political development as ‘institutionalisation’ which
can be applied both to past and present. For him, it is the development of
institutions to meet people’s demands. According to him, this process of
institutionalisation can go forward and breakdown and can decay as it has
happened many times in the past.

He wants to use it as a ‘value-free’ concept, applicable to all types of


societies. However, Pennock and Smith put a caution that it should not be
measured in terms of the ability of political systems to survive only but also to
satisfy the demands of those who are subject to its rule. The system has to
satisfy them with ‘political goods’. Riggs also concurs with him and observes
that political development opens a number of choices to satisfy political goals.

You might also like