Introduction

Like any other form of evolutionary process, comparative government/politics evolved into its
present form over a period of time. When you study the evolution of comparative governments,
you study how political systems and procedures vary across countries and across time periods.
The actual evidence of undertaking such a study came to prominence in the 1950s, but its roots
are even older. Aristotle can be called the ‘ancestral father’ of the study of comparative politics,
since the methods that he used in assigning politics among the sciences and problems and
questions that he raised are still prevalent in current political studies.

It is now generally felt that a pragmatic evaluation of the government and politics or political
system of one’s own country is made possible by recognizing the governmental processes of
other countries or their political systems. A comparative study of governments not only
streamlines the progress of objective and rational judgement about political systems, but at the
same time disperses the dangerously ambiguous form of ethnocentrism, that one’s own country
is superior to any other.

The study of governments is a significant part of the study of politics. The structure and
behaviour of government makes an exciting and challenging area of concern for the students of
political science. Modern governments are rising more and more as essential instrumentalities of
versatile development, particularly in the developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
They also act as active forces in the formation of economic, social and environmental conditions.
The world’s political systems include a vast variety of institutions, processes and interactions and
no two governments, past or present, have been the same. In other words, governments have
varied in complexity. Instances can be multiplied at random to confirm the rather simplistic view
that different societies require different kinds of government to realize their particular needs.

Concept of Comparative Politics

Comparative politics is the study and appraisal of domestic politics across countries.
Comparative politics has a long and very eminent history dating back just before the origin of
systematic political studies in ancient Greece and Rome. Even ancient people, compared their

1
situations with those of other people's with whom they came in contact. The ancient Greeks
performed the earliest systematic comparisons of a more modern and secular.

Comparative politics is key area in political science, pigeonholed by an empirical approach based
on the comparative method. To put it in another way, comparative politics is the study of the
domestic politics, political institutions, and conflicts of countries. It often encompasses
comparisons among countries and through time within single countries, emphasizing major
patterns of similarity and difference. Many political theorists like Arend Lijphart argued that
comparative politics does not have a functional focus in itself, instead a methodological one
(Lijphart, Arend,1971). In simple form, comparative politics is not defined by the object of its
study, but by the method it applies to study political phenomena. Peter Mair and Richard Rose
gave modern definition of comparative politics and stated that comparative politics is elaborated
by a combination of a substantive focus on the study of countries' political systems and a method
of recognising and explaining similarities and differences between these countries using common
models (Peter, 1996).

According to M. G. Smith, ‘Comparative politics is the study of the forms of political

organizations, their properties, correlations, variations and modes of change.’

According to Roy C. Macridis and Robert Ward, ‘Government is not the sole concern of students
of comparative politics.’ Comparative politics, no doubt, has to be concerned with the
government structure but at the same time it has to take note of the following:
 Society, historical heritage and geographic and resource endowed
 Its social and economic organizations
 Its ideologies and value systems
 Its political style
 Its parties, interests, and leadership structure

According to M. Curtis, ‘Comparative politics is concerned with significant regularities,

similarities and differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviour.’

2
According to E. A. Freeman, ‘Comparative politics is comparative analysis of the various forms
of government and diverse political institutions.’

All these definitions provide a basis for the study of comparative governments in its
contemporary term. It involves a comparative study of the institutional and mechanistic
arrangements along with the empirical and scientific analysis of non-institutionalized and non-
political determinants of political behaviour.

Nature of Comparative Politics

The nature of comparative politics seeks to analyse and compare different political systems that
work under different societies. Therefore, it takes into account all the three associations of
politics which are as follows:
 Political activity
 Political process
 Political power

Political Activity deals with the activities involved in the resolution of conflict or in the struggle
for power. The basis of conflict resolution is the authoritative allocation of values; hence, it
involves an analysis of the process by which the authoritative values are made and implemented.
In this sense, politics stands for political power. It involves the study of all government as well as
non-state agencies, through which the political process is made operational.

The Political Process depends upon the signals and information which it receives from non-state
agencies. It further transforms these signals and information into authoritative values. Politics,
hence, involves the study of power and power relations in society since it is a struggle for power
and a process of conflict resolution through the use of legitimate power.

Political power is the major topic in comparative politics. The term power has been defined by
different writers. Friedrich described power as a certain kind of human relationship. Whereas
Tawney explained power as a capacity of an individual or group of individuals to modify the
conduct of other individuals in a manner which he desires (J. C. Johari, 1982).

3
Characteristics of Comparative Politics
The study of contemporary comparative politics is characterized by the following
features:
1. Analytical research: Great stress is laid on analytical research when it comes to the
study of contemporary comparative politics, as it is no longer confined to descriptive
studies. Empirical analytic research, thus, works on providing a clearer view of the actual
activities of the governments along with their structures and functions.

2. Objective study of political science: This deals with the empirical study of the various
processes of political study in different environments. Since political science is a social
science, it takes into account only those values whose validity can be demonstrated
scientifically.

3. Study of infrastructures: Comparative politics also analyses the actual nature of

individual, groups, structures, systems and subsystems, in relation to the environment in
which the behaviour manifests. The study of the dynamics of politics and its actual
operation in the environment is regarded as an essential component of comparative
politics.

4. Study of developing and developed societies: Earlier, comparative politics was only
confined to the study of the political systems of developed societies. However, it has
evolved in contemporary times and it stresses on the study of political systems of
developing nations as well. In fact, modern political scientists like David Easton and
Sidney Verba, besides many others, are of the opinion that emphasis should be given to
the study of politics of developing nations.

5. Inter-disciplinary focus: Comparative Politics focuses upon interdisciplinary approach.

It studies politics with the help of other social science like psychology, sociology,
anthropology and economics.

4
These added features of contemporary politics make us see comparative politics from a different
point of view. It has completely rejected all old norms and parochial nature of traditional
comparative politics. Now, it is a more realistic study of politics which is capable of explaining
and comparing the phenomenon of politics all around the world.

Scope and Approaches of Comparative Politics

The study of comparative politics is so interesting because of the different approaches, methods
and techniques used in the realization of ‘political reality’. A number of significant writers hold
contrary viewpoints and adopt different strategies. The results, however, seem to be interrelated
or synonymous. With the passage of time, some approaches have become stringent and have had
to give way to new and contemporary methods.

With a view of highlighting the meanings of different themes used in the sphere of contemporary
political analysis, David Apter defines some of them in the following manner:
 Paradigm: It is a framework of ideas that establishes a general context of analysis.
Fundamentally, paradigms combine a mixture of philosophical assumptions and criteria
of valid knowledge. The resulting combinations are sharply distinguished from each
other.
 Theory: It is a generalized statement summarizing the real or supposed actions of a set of
variables, whether dependent, or independent, or intervening. Parameters represent the
conditions within which independent variables operate. A macro or micro theory may
deal with large or small groups or units. Moreover, it may be abstract, or formal or
notational, or concrete.
 Method: It is a way of organizing a theory for application to data. Thus, methods are
known by the names of conceptual schemes. They may be of many types like
comparative, configurational, historical, simulative and experimental.
 Technique: It links method to the relevant data. It represents various modes of
observation and ways of recording empirical information. As such, techniques vary in
appropriateness, sampling, public-opinion testing, interviewing, regression analysis,
factoring, scaling and testing.

5
  Model: It is a simplified way of describing relationships. It can be constructed from a
paradigm, a theory, a method or a technique. It may be typological, descriptive, formal,
mechanical, organismic, biological, etc.
 Strategy: It is a peculiar way of applying one or more combinations of the above type to
a research problem. It is required that quality and integrity should be combined in a
strategy. A good strategy fits a problem, theory, methods and techniques together in a
systematic and coherent way.
 Research design: It converts strategy into an operational plan for field work or an
experiment. It is a prospectus or an outline from which research is carried forward. It is a
final stage in professional research preparation.

The Traditional Approaches

The traditional approach to the study of comparative governments emerged as a response to
historicism of the 19th century. It stressed the historical examination of Western political
institutions from the earliest to the modern times. The traditionalists, either theoretically
philosophized about democracy and other subjects, or made a formal and legal study of
governmental institutions. The analysis was basically configurative and each system was treated
as a unique entity. The approach was heavily descriptive rather than problem-solving,
explanatory, or analytic in its method, and its description was incomplete and limited to forms of
government and of foreign political systems.

Roy Macridis, author of Modern Political Regimes, has very systematically and clearly
summarized major features of the traditional approach. He briefly points out that the approach
has been essentially non-comparative, descriptive, parochial, static and monographic. Similarly,
Almond and Powell have identified three major premises that have dominated the criticism of the
approach to comparative government feature of the pre-World War II period. These premises are
as follows:
 Its parochialism
 Its configurative analysis
 Its formalism

6
Characteristics of Traditional approaches:
 Traditional approaches are mostly normative and stresses on the values of politics.
 Prominence is on the study of different formal political structures.
 Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory and research.
 These approaches consider that since facts and values are closely interlinked, studies in
Political Science can never be scientific.

There are many types of traditional approaches that are as follows;

1. Philosophical approach:
Philosophical approach is conventional approach to study politics. Customarily, the study of
politics was subjugated by philosophical reflections on universal political values that were
regarded as essential to the just state and the good state. The oldest approach to the study of
politics is philosophical. Philosophy "is the study or science of truths or principles underlying all
knowledge and being." It entails that philosophy or philosophical approach tries to explore the
truth of political incidents or events. It discovers the objective of political writings or the purpose
of political writer.

Main aim of philosophical approach is to evaluate the consequences of events in a logical and
scientific manner. Van Dyke opined that "philosophy denotes thought about thought. Somewhat
more broadly it denotes general conceptions of ends and means, purposes and methods." The
purpose of philosophical approach is to explain the words and terms used by the political
theorists. The enquiry started by the philosophical approach removes confusion about the
assumptions.

2. Historical approach:
This approach states that political theory can be only understood when the historical factors are
taken into consideration. It highlights on the study of history of every political reality to analyse
any situation. Political theorists like Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning believed that politics and
history are strongly inter-related, and therefore, the study of politics always should have a
historical viewpoint. Sabine considered that Political Science should include all those subjects
which have been discussed in the writings of different political thinkers since Plato. History

7
defines about the past as well as links it with the present events. Without studying the past
political events, institutions and political environment, the analysis of the present would remain
largely imperfect.

Main attribute of historical approach is that history as a written or recorded subject and focuses
on the past events. From history, researchers come to know how man was in the past and what he
is now. History is the store-house of events. From the profiles, autobiographies, descriptions by
authors and journalists investigators know what event occurred in the past.

3. Institutional approach:
There is a strong belief that philosophy, history and law have bestowed to the study of politics
and it is in the field of institutional approaches. Institutional approaches are ancient and
important approach to the study of Political Science. These approaches mainly deals with the
formal aspects of government and politics. Institutional approach is concerned with the study of
the formal political structures like legislature, executive, and judiciary. It focused on the rules of
the political system, the powers of the various institutions, the legislative bodies, and how the
constitution worked. Main drawback of this approach was its narrow focus on formal structures
and arrangements. In far-reaching terms, an institution can be described as 'any persistent system
of activities in any pattern of group behaviour. More concretely, an institution has been regarded
as 'offices and agencies arranged in a hierarchy, each agency having certain functions and
powers.

The study of institutions has been dominant not only to the arena of comparative politics, but to
the political science field as a whole. Many writers have argued that institutions have shaped
political behaviour and social change. These authors have taken an "institutionalist" approach
which treat institutions as independent variables.

The institutional approach to political analysis emphasises on the formal structures and agencies
of government. It originally concentrated on the development and operation of legislatures,
executives and judiciaries. As the approach developed however, the list is extended to include

8
political parties, constitutions, bureaucracies, interest groups and other institutions which are
more or less enduringly engaged in politics.

4. Legal approach:
In the realm of traditional approaches, there is a legal or juridical approach. This approach
considers the state as the central organization for the creation and enforcement of laws.
Therefore, this approach is associated with the legal process, legal bodies or institutions, and
judiciary. In this approach, the study of politics is mixed with legal processes and institutions.
Theme of law and justice are treated as not mere affairs of jurisprudence rather politics scientists
look at state as the maintainer of an effective and equitable system of law and order. Matters
relating to the organizations, jurisdiction and independence of judicial institutions become and
essential concern of political scientists. This approach treats the state primarily as an
organization for creation and enforcement of law (J. C. Johari, 1982).

The supporters of this approach are Cicero, Bodin, Hobbes, John Austin, Dicey and Henry
Maine. In the system of Hobbes, the head of the state is highest legal authority and his command
is law that must be obeyed either to avoid punishment following its infraction or to keep the
dreadful state of nature away. Other scientists described that the study of politics is bound with
legal process of country and the existence of harmonious state of liberty and equality is
earmarked by the rule of law (J. C. Johari, 1982). The legal approach is applied to national as
well as international politics. It stands on assumptions that law prescribes action to be taken in
given contingency and also forbids the same in certain other situations. It also emphasizes the
fact that where the citizens are law abiding, the knowledge of the law offers an important basis
for predictions relating to political behaviour of people. Though it is effective approach but not
free from criticism. This approach is narrow. Law include only one aspect of people's life. It
cannot cover entire behaviour of political actions (J. C. Johari, 1982).

Criticism of Traditional Approaches:

The traditional approaches have gloomily unsuccessful to identify the role of the individuals who
are important in moulding and remoulding the shape and nature of politics. In fact, individuals

9
are important players of both national and international politics. The focus is directed to the
institutions.

It is astounding that in all the institutions, there are individuals who control the structure,
functions and other aspects. Singling out institutions and neglecting individuals cannot be
pronounced as proper methods to study politics. The definition politics as the study of institution
is nothing but an overstatement or a travesty of truth.

Other political researchers argued that traditional approach is mainly descriptive. Politics does
not rule out description, but it is also analytical. Sheer description of facts does not inevitably
establish the subject matter of political science. Its purpose is study the depth of every incident.
Investigators want to know not only occurrence, but also why a particular incident occurs at a
particular time.

The standpoint of the traditionalists is limited within the institutions. Political researchers in
modern world are not motivated to limit their analysis of politics within institutions. They have
explored the role of environment into which is included international politics multinational
corporations, non-governmental organisations or trans-national bodies.

It is assumed that traditional analysis is inappropriate for all types of political systems both
Western and non-Western. To recompense this deficiency, the political scientists of the post-
Second World War period have developed a general system approach which is quite
comprehensive. The outstanding feature of traditional approaches is that there is value laden
system.

The Modern Approaches:

The political philosophers later on realized the need to study politics from a new viewpoint.
Thus, to overcome the paucities of the traditional approaches, various new approaches have been
promoted by the new political intellectuals. These new approaches are considered as the "modern
approaches" to the study of Political Science. Many theorists regard these approaches as a
reaction against the traditional approaches. These approaches are mainly concerned with

10
scientific study of politics. The first innovation in this regard comes with the advent of the
behavioural revolution in Political Science.

Characteristics of Modern Approaches:

 These approaches draw conclusion from empirical data.
 These approaches go beyond the study of political structures and its historical analysis.
 Modern Approaches believe in inter-disciplinary study.
 They stress scientific methods of study and attempt to draw scientific conclusions in
Political Science.

1. Political-Economic approach:
Economics and politics are vital arenas of social science and in several respects they are closely
related. In the prospectus of universities of India and many other countries a few decades ago,
economics and political science established a single subject which suggests the close relationship
between the two. This signifies that in the study of politics, economics has great importance.

When evaluating the economic approaches, it is established that the policy formulations of
economic nature and determination of the principles of planning which has recently become a
part of the governmental activity are done by the government. In majority of the countries, public
issues are economic issues and sometimes the only actors are the personnel of the government
such as the prime minister, president and other ministers. This obvious relationship between the
two subjects has placed the economic approach in a suitable position.

2. System approach:
This approach falls in the category of modern approach. The notion of Systems Theory was
emerged from ancient time, dates back to 1920s. Ludwig Von Bertallanfy is considered as the
earliest advocate of the general systems theory. He utilized this theory for the study of Biology.
It is only after the Second World War, the social scientists claimed for the amalgamation of
sciences for which they took the help of the systems theory. However, when the general systems
theory in its abstract form traced back to natural sciences like Biology, in its operational form,
they are found in Anthropology. Then it was embraced in Sociology and Psychology. In the

11
decade of sixties, the systems theory became an important tool to evaluate and investigate key
factors in Political Science. Among political scientists, David Easton has been the first to apply
this theory to political analysis.

This approach describes the relationship of political life with other aspects of social life. The idea
of a system was initially borrowed from biology by Talcott Parsons who first promoted the
concept of social system. Later on David Easton further developed the concept of a political
system. This approach signified that a political system operates within the social environment.
Consequently, it is not possible to analyse political events in isolation from other aspects of the
society. To put in other way, influences from the society, be it economic, religious or otherwise,
do shape the political process.

3. Behavioural approach:
Behaviouralism is considered as contemporary approach to the study of political science. But this
approach was emerged during 20th century. An important consideration of Behaviouralism has
been the study of political behaviour, as an area of study within Political Science. It concentrates
is on the individual as voter, leader, revolutionary, party member and the influences of the group
or the political system on the individual's political behaviour.

Behaviouralism stresses upon scientific, objective and value-free study of the political
occurrences as conditioned by the environment, firmly the behaviour of the individuals involved
in that phenomena. As such, it focuses on the role of the behaviour of the individual at various
levels and the scientific analysis. Behaviouralism is the development of method against
traditional political science which did not take into account if human behaviour as an actor in
politics.

4. Structural functional approach:

According to this approach, the society is a single inter-related system where each part of the
system has a definite and distinct role to play. The structural-functional approach may be
considered as an offshoot of the system analysis. These approaches accentuate the structures and
functions. Gabriel Almond was an advocate of this approach. He described political systems as a

12
special system of interaction that exists in all societies performing certain functions. According
to him, the main attributes of a political system are comprehensiveness, inter-dependence and
existence of boundaries. Like Easton, Almond also believes that all political systems perform
input and output functions. The Input functions of political systems are political socialization and
recruitment, interest-articulation, interest-aggression and political communication. Almond
makes three-fold classifications of governmental output functions relating to policy making and
implementation. These output functions are rule making, rule application and rule adjudication.
Therefore, Almond believes that a stable and efficient political system converts inputs into
outputs.

Theories of Comparative Politics

General Systems Theory
The most well-known among these are a number of systematic approaches, which stem from the
general systems theory. The systems theory had its origins in natural sciences, but on the whole,
the theory originated in movements aimed at amalgamation of science and scientific analysis.
The advocates of the theory wanted to find a unifying element, which would offer a broader
perspective for creative analysis. In the period after World War II, this resolved itself around the
concept of systems, which Von Bertalanffy, the German biologist, defined as a set of ‘elements
standing in interaction’. This concept is based on the idea that objects or elements within a group
are in some way related to one another and in turn, interact with one another on the basis of
certain identifiable processes.

The term ‘system’ is useful for organizing one’s knowledge about many social objects. The use
of the ‘systems’ approach to politics allows one to see the subject in a way that ‘each part of the
political canvas does not stand alone but is related to other parts’. The operation of the one part
cannot be fully understood without referring to the way in which the whole system operates.

David Easton, one of the first political scientists to propose the utility of systems analysis for the
study of politics, defines a political system as that ‘behaviour or set of interactions through which
authoritative allocations (or binding decisions) are made and implemented for society’. A system
is marked by separation and integration. The chief function of a political system is making

13
authoritative decisions that allot advantages and disadvantages for an entire society. At the core
of this concept lies decision-making, which is the essence of the political system. The proponents
of the systems theory identify three primary constituents of every political system, namely the
political community, the regime and the political authorities. The political community comprises
all those persons bound together by a political division of labour. The regime makes up the
constitutional legal structures, political processes, institutional norms, as well as basic values.
The political authorities are those individuals who exercise power as agents of the state for any
given time. For example, we may regard the Indian people as one such political community.

Decision-Making Theories
Decision-making in certain respects is the least successful of all new approaches to the study of
government and politics. Politics is a process of allocating values through the making of
decisions. Process refers to the sum of techniques, methods, procedures and strategies by which a
given decision is made. A political system is a mechanism for decision-making. The efficiency
of a political system can be measured in terms of its ability to make decisions that are widely
accepted. The interplay between social configuration, ideology and governmental organs
constitute the dynamics of politics, the making of decisions.

Conclusion
To summarize, the comparative study of politics and government scans political institutions from
constitutions to executives to parliaments to parties to electoral laws and the processes and
relationships that account for constancy and change in political economy, culture, conflict,
government, rights and public policy. Comparative Politics encompasses the systematic study
and comparison of the world's political systems. It describes differences between as well as
similarities among countries. In contrast to journalistic reporting on a single country,
comparative politics is mainly interested in discovering patterns, processes and regularities
among political systems. It looks for trends, for changes in patterns and it tries to develop general
hypothesis that define these trends. It seeks to do such comparisons thoroughly and
systematically, without personal, biased, or philosophical axes to grind. It involves hard work,
clear thinking, careful and thorough scholarship, and (hopefully) clear, consistent, and balanced
writing.

14
References
Almond, Gabriel Abraham. 1970. Political Development: Essays in Heuristic Theory. Boston:
Little Brown Publishers.
Charlesworth, James Clyde. 1967. Contemporary Political Analysis. New Jersey: Free Press.
Dogan, Mattei and Ali Kazancigil. 1994. Comparing Nations, Concepts, Strategies, Substance.
Black well.
Easton, David. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishing
House.
Eckstein, Harry and David Apter. 1963. Comparative Politics: A Reader. New York: Free Press.
Johari, J. C. 1982.Comparative Politics. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. Ray, S. N. 2000.
Modern Comparative Politics. New Delhi: PHI Learning.
Palekar, S. A. 2009.Comparative Politics and Government. New Delhi: PHI Learning. Caramani,
Daniel. 2011.Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15