Introduction:

Political culture is a distinctive and patterned form of political philosophy that consists of
beliefs on how governmental, political, and economic life should be carried out. It creates a
framework for political change and are unique to nations, states, and other groups. Political
culture refers to what people believe and feel about government, and how they think people
should act towards it. (Ahmed, 1989).

Political culture:

“Political culture”, it has been observed, “is one of the most popular and seductive in
political science; it is also one of the most controversial and confused” Elkins and Simeon
(1979:127).

The term was first employed by Lenin and White in 1979 and its first use in English can be
traced to Sidney and Beatrice Webb in the middle of 1939s. They used the term refer to the
role of political education and mass media in the Soviet Union.

Political culture can be defined as "The orientation of the citizens of a nation toward politics,
and their perceptions of political legitimacy and the traditions of political practice," and the
feelings expressed by individuals in the position of the elected offices that allow for the
nurture of a political society (Rahman, 2010).

Almond and Verba also saw political in terms of ‘’ … the political system as internalized in
the cognition, feelings, and evaluations of its population .’’

Lucien Pye , it is the psychological and subjective dimensions of politics which are
manifested in attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments associated with political action.

Almond and Verba (1963) in their classic study of political culture showed that the soul of
democracy lay in what they called civic culture – norms and values that encourage rational
activism in politics. It developed first in Great Britain and then flourished in the USA. the
pattern of political cultures of a country are the most important factors in the success or
failure of democracy.

Democracy requires the existing of middle class culture. It supports liberalism. According to
Huntington , democracy is the rule of middle class. India has a strong and stable democracy
because it has a educated middle class. In Pakistan and Bangladesh the middle class is very
weak and their fragile culture is reflected in the democratic culture. As a result the
democracy is failing to consolidate.
Characteristics of political culature:

Political scientist Sidney Verba, describes the characteristics of political culture as

 System of empirical beliefs, expressive symbols, and values, which defines the
situation in which political action takes place.

 Political culture is a distinctive and patterned form of political philosophy that consists
of beliefs on how governmental, political, and economic life should be carried out.

 It creates a framework for political change and are unique to nations, states, and other
groups.

A political culture differs from political ideology in that people can disagree on an ideology
(what government should do) but still share a common political culture.

 Some ideologies, however, are so critical of the status that they require a fundamental
change in the way government is operated, and therefore embody different political
culture as well.

 The political system as internalized in the cognition, feelings and evolutions of its
population.

 The political culture of a nation is the particular distribution toward political objects
among members of the nation”

( Gabriel and Verba,1965, p. 13)

Types of political culture:

To explain the historically emergent political culture of Bangladesh we can use three
theoretical paradigm

1. Atomism
2. patron-clientelism and
3. Neo-patrimonialism

Another types of political culture :

a. Parochial political culture

b. Subject political culture
c. Participant political culture
d. Semi- parochail

e. Mixed political culture

 1. Atomism:

The idea of the atomistic type of society has been mainly advanced in the context of
southeast Asia societies .

John Embree’s characterized Thailand as a ‘ loosely structured social system’. Social life
almost lacked formal organizations and social institutions provided little control over
individual and interpersonal behavior. A collectivity was a mere bundle of individuals who
had formalized rituals for face to face relationship, but could not establish or sustain long –
term solidarity.

Pye found that Indonesian society consisted of a large number of fluid groups where
individual interests predominate. The fluid social structure lay at the root of individualistic ,
competitive and violent social life .

A number of characteristic ate said to underlie atomism – unrestrained pursuit of self-

interest, lack of collective enterprise, inability to build durable institutions, pervading
hostility or fragility in interpersonal relationship.

In Bangladesh , there is no village by definition . The British administrators confirmed it that

there was not any Panchayet here. People are more individualist and want to maximize profit
. there is no cooperative in Bangladesh . This is atomism.

2 patron-clientelism

The concept of patron-clientelism has been a powerful conceptual framework for the study
of politics in both developed and developing countries.

Patron-clientelism refers essentially to an asymmetrical relationship in which a powerful

person provides reward to and protection for a weaker person or persons in return for loyalty,
service and support. It is a kind of relationship in which there is coercion, masked
exploitation and consent through the aura of fictive kinship or primordial loyalty.
Predominantly a feature of the simple or peasant society, it is also present in many modern
and modernizing societies. In its political form, clients form a support base and vote bank for
the patron in exchange for economic resources and other services that clients require.

patron-client system has an inherent tendency towards generating resources through

corruption or superimposing corruption circuits upon clientelistic networks.

3.Neo-patrimonialism:

The term patrimonialism was introduced by Max Weber (Weber, 1978;Islam, 2004) to refer
to a specific sub-category of traditional domination. It emerges in an agrarian society
when a ruler acquires a territory and has an administrative staff and a military force to
control over it. The ruler regards it as his personal property. All offices are regarded as
“part of the ruler’s personal household and private property” (Weber, 1978:1028-9).
When such a system becomes extremely arbitrary and the ruler becomes totally discretionary
in his behavior, it is called “sultanism”.

Eisenstadt the first scholars to use the term neo-patrimonialism in 1973. It refers to the co-
existing of patrimonialism and legal- rational domination in most third world countries.

Neo-patrimonialism, according to Medard, had two striking features.

First: it reduces public authority into private possession. Political and administrative
relationships turn into personal relationships.

Second: Under-neo-patrimonialism, the dominant class is basically a ‘state patrimonial –

bourgeois’ class which tends to function as a closed system and consists of the senior
echelons of the party ,the army , the administration and public corporations.

a.Parochial political culture - by parochial political culture we mean those people who
have little or no awareness of their political system. Such individuals are found in every
society. Their number is more in a traditional society or in backward society.

b.Subject political culture - Where citizens are aware of central government, and are
heavily subjected to its decisions with little scope for dissent.

c. Participant political culture - participant political culture exists in highly developed

societies where the people take an active part in political life.

d. Semi –parochial political culture: Semi- parochial political culture consist of somewhat
parochial and subjective.

e.Mixed political culture: individual with parochial and subject political culture may be
found in predominantly participant political cultures. A single individual may combine in
himself all the three aspect.

Pattern of political culture of South Asia:

Bangladesh :

Although Bangladesh began its transition to democracy through great popular uprisings and
with great hopes, it has not been able to consolidate its democracy even after four decades of
its independence. The reason of the political culture of non-participation in the decision
making by opposition and the rejection of election results. The politics is center around street
and it is non-functional. As a result, the democracy is not institutionalized.
Enemy discourse

The contentious politics between two major parties have been shaped by two
opposing discourses or more correctly by an enemy discourse. The political discourse
elaborated by the Awami League can be called the foundational discourse. It is based on
Bengali nationalism, the Liberation War, formation of the nation state and the central role
played by Bangabhandhu in it, secularism, populism and similar other signifiers. In contrast
the BNP has articulated the saviour discourse. It claims that it has saved the nation from an
autocratic regime poised for a dynastic rule. It is the only force that can guard the
sovereignty of the nation against the threat of India. It also asserts the centrality of Islamic
values in social life. It elaborates Bangladeshi nationalism as distinct from historically
shaped syncretistic Bengali culture. Thus The Awami League treats the BNP as ‘malevolent
other’ which is poised to destroy the spirit of War of Liberation, secularism and pluralism of
Bengali culture. The BNP, on the other hand, views the Awami League as the ‘authoritarian
other’ which treats the nation as its property. As such it cannot be a force for
progress and development of the nation (Islam, 2002a).

Ecological context and social fragmentation:

A crucial feature of Bangladesh society is a high level of atomism. There were structural
fragmentation among the political parties. The reasons are
 a. Personality clash
b. Ambition
c. Joining ruling party

Democracy could not be established in Bangladesh because

1. Failure of political parties

2. Lack of democratic values
3. Illiteracy
4. Imperialist conspiracy
5. Failure of government
6. Poverty
7. Intervention of army
8. Lack of commitment of the part of the parties
9. Bureaucratic conspiracy
10.Lust for power
11.Dependency of foreign aid

India:
India has the strongest democracy in south Asia. The factors are –

1. Developed bourgeois class which represents the middle class

Economic sector
Education sector
2. Congress developed as a dominant party over the long colonial period. As a result
army never dominated. Congress ensured that army is controlled by civil government.
3. Indian army consists of different castes and regions. Hence, they cannot take a unified
decision.
4. Nehru was a strong and dominant leader of congress.
5. India is a federal government and they run democracy centrally. They have reduced
disparity. In Pakistan regional disparity is extreme

Pakistan :
The pattern of political culture in Pakistan is also unique . Hamza Alvi brought the concept
of overdeveloped state. His argument is that colonial states were formed by following
metropolitan states. But the society was pre-capitalist. These newly independent societies
inherited the machineries of metro-politan states.

Civil society not developed, rather was pre-capitalist.

The bourgeois were weak and could not the feudal class. There was not any conflict rather
there was an alliance among

 Metropolitan Bourgeois
 Feudal land owing class
 Local bourgeois

These three classes formed ruling class in Pakistan.

These bourgeois were actually migrants from India. For example Adamjee, Ispahani. They
had no political cloud. So they allied with the Panjabi Bureaucracy. As a result industries
were developed. Hence, the civil bureaucracy of Pakistan was the feudal land owners.

Another problem of Pakistan was war with India. The political parties and leaders could not
safeguard their national interest.

According to Alavi , the unified military got support for military cope within the rank. Even
they got support from those who were not por Islam . Pakistan thus was ruled by army. The
democracy there was just a mere façade.

In Pakistan the class polarization was high. The business was actually migrants from Indian
coastal regions. They allied with military and civil govt. they were not direct bourgeois.
Rather it was a army directed indirect bourgeois.

In conclusion, it can be said that, India has the required elements to run a democracy
whereas Pakistan and Bangladesh failed to establish those elements for themselves..