B.A. (Hons.

) Political Science Semester-III

CORE COURSE
Paper-V : Introduction to Comparative Government
and Politics
Study Material : Unit 1-4

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Editor :- Prof. Tapan Biswal

Dr. Mangal Deo
Department of Political Science
 Graduate Course

Paper-V: Introduction to Comparative Government

and Politics
Contents
Pg. No.
Unit-1 : Understanding Comparative Politics Abhishek Choudhary 01
Unit-2 : Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics
(a) : Institutional Approach, System Approach, Structural-Functional Approach
Bhagyanagar Vineeth Srivatsava 14
(b) : Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics Political Culture Approach
Dr. Kamal Kumar 25
(c) : New Institutionalism Yerramadasu Udaykumar 35
Unit-3 : Historical Context of Modern Government
(a) : Capitalism: Meaning and Development: Globalization Dr. Robert Mizo 45
(b) : Socialism: Meaning, Rise and Development Nishant Yadav 59
Translated by: Narayan Roy
(c) : Colonialism and Decolonisation: Meaning, Context, Forms
of Colonialism; Anti-colonialism Struggles and Process
of Decolonisation J.S. Pathak 71
Unit-4 : Themes for Comparative Analysis
(i) : Comparative Study of Constitutional Developments and
Political Economy of Britain Sanjeev Kumar & Namreeta Kumari 80
(ii) : Comparative Study of Constitutional Development and
Political Economy in Brazil Baby Tabassum 88
(iii): Constitutional Developments and Political Economy
in Nigeria Dr. Robert Mizo 104
(iv) : China: A Study of Constitutional Developments and
Political Economy Dr. Kamal Kumar 120

Edited by:
Prof. Tapan Biswal
Dr. Mangal Deo

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Unit-1

Understanding Comparative Politics

Abhishek Choudhary

1. Introduction
The chapter has three-fold objective. First, it provides an overview of the sub-discipline of
comparative politics and seeks to examine its nature and scope. Second, it provides an
understanding about the rationale for comparing and unpacks the methods of comparison.
Finally, it addresses the problem of Eurocentrism and provides a way out of the trap.
Before examining these, it would be pertinent to understand what comparative politics
means. Scholars have understood comparative politics as one of the three main subfields of
political science, the other two being political theory and international relations. Comparative
politics has been defined in several ways. Some prominent definitions worth attention are as
follows:
Jean Blondel (1999) defines comparative politics as being concerned with “simultaneous
or successive examination of two or more political systems”. For Hague, Harrop and
McComrick (2016: 12), comparative politics is the “systematic study of government and
politics in different countries, designed to better understand them by drawing out their
contrasts and similarities.” However, comparative politics is more than just identifying
similarities and differences. Comparison allows one to go beyond “identifying similarities
and differences” to “ultimately study political phenomena in a larger framework of
relationships” (Mohanty 1975). This approach helps in deepening ones understanding of
given political phenomenon and therefore allows one to be in a position to have a better
explanation, it is felt, would help deepen our understanding and broaden the levels of
answering and explaining political phenomena.
2. Nature and Scope of Comparative Politics
A major definitional aspect relates to the question: what is to be compared? On one hand, if
two things are entirely different, there is no point of comparison. On the other hand, if two
things are entirely same, comparison would not be useful either. One important aspect is to
specify “functional equivalence” between concepts or indicators (Dogan and Pelassy 1990).
This aspect is based on two major ideas. First is the idea that “different structures may
perform the same function”. The second is that the same structure “may perform several
different functions” (Dogan and Pelassy 1990). By arguing in favour of functional
equivalence, it is asserted that instead of looking at institutional similarity, one can assess the
roles and functions performed by various institutions within and outside the politics. This
idea has been championed by scholars who fall under the category of ‘functionalists’. In
simple terms, it is the performance of ‘functions’ and the role played by different organs of
the society that matters. This may include non-political institutions as well. No institution can

1
be attributed to a single function exclusively. Similarly, no institution can be limited to a
single function too. For instance, the military may perform roles much more than that of
securing the borders in some states. Or, the function of the president may vary drastically in
two different countries.
2.2 Nature of Comparative Politics
Daniel Caramani (2011) seeks to provide answer to “what” is being compared in comparative
politics. He argues that “national political systems” are the main cases that are compared as
they happen to be the most important political units in world politics. However, they are “not
the only cases” that are analysed by comparative politics (Caramani 2011: 5). For instance,
comparative politics can analyse “sub-national regional political systems” like the states or
regions of India. Or, they can analyse “supranational units” like (a) regions (comprising more
than one country, like West Asia), (b) political systems of empires (like Roman, Ottoman,
Mughal, etc.), (c) international or regional organizations (like SAARC, EU, NATO, etc) and
(d) types of political systems (democratic versus authoritarian, etc.) (Caramani 2011: 5).
Comparative political analysis can also compare “single elements or components”. This may
include a comparison of party systems, electoral systems, structures of various instiututions,
policies, etc.
In general terms, comparative politics seeks to analyse and compare the political systems
operating in various societies. It also compares units within and beyond states. With its focus
on comparison and analysis, it takes into account political activity, political processes as well
as political power in various political systems.
The discipline of comparative politics has three traditions (Caramani 2011):
1. Oriented towards the study of single countries
2. Methodological
3. Analytical
The first tradition is oriented towards the study of single countries. It follows the initial
inclination of American comparativists who focussed on the study of political systems
outside of the US. This tradition reflects the Anglo-Saxon dominance over the subject and
studied foreign countries as ‘others’. This tradition often focusses on countries in isolation
without actually engaging in comparison. It is limited to providing detailed description of a
single case. Despite the criticism of this tradition, major contributions in the field of
comparative politics stem from detailed descriptive study of single countries.
The second tradition seeks to establish rules and standards for comparison. It focusses on
ways in which a better reservoir of comparative information, explanation and prediction can
be created. Understood in this sense, comparative method is a “method of discovering
empirical relationships among variables” (Lijphart 1971). Thus, ‘comparative method’ is one
of the traditions within comparative politics that is different from descriptive and analytical

2
traditions. By focussing on rules and standards, this tradition provides starting point for
analysis of countries or groups of countries.
The third tradition is analytical and provides a combination of empirical description with
method. Most of the work that nowadays are categorised as ‘works of comparative politics’
falls under this tradition. Comparative studies of political parties, regime types, social
movements, etc. in two or more countries are a few examples of this body of literature. The
works are mainly concerned with identifying and explaining “differences and similarities
between countries” and their “institutions, actors, and processes” by using the method of
“systematic comparison” of common phenomenon (Caramani 2011: 4).
2.2 Scope of Comparative Politics
The discipline of comparative politics has been criticised on different levels. It has been
considered as Eurocentric implying that the ‘western model’ is seen as better than the rest of
the world. This sort of parochialism leads to the perpetuation of the hegemonic nature of a
particular system. This further leads to the ‘self’ versus ‘other’ bias. Due to this, the ‘self’
gets defined in relation to the ‘other’. The first tradition mentioned above is subjected to this
criticism. Even the third tradition succumbs to this Eurocentric bias and the ‘non-west’ is
compared in a manner that presents the west as better and superior.
Roy C. Macridis (1955) in his seminal essay identified certain limitations of the
traditional approach. First, it has been called as ‘essentially noncomparative’ implying that
the reference point is the institutional structure of a given country. It has been alleged that
single case study is being passed as a comparative study. He further alleged that the
traditional approach is more descriptive and less analytical. This criticism stems from the fact
that the historical and legalistic approaches have their limitations. The historical approach
focusses on studying the “origins and growth” of certain institutions (Macridis 1955: 17). In
doing so, it does not make any effort towards evolving any analytical scheme. Thus, the focus
stays limited on the chronology of events within a country and the chosen institution of that
country. The legalistic approach focusses primarily on the study of powers of different
branches of the government. It does not try to analyse the factors that shape particular forms
of power in specific ways. Thus, they fail to provide any “general frame of reference” that
can be used in a truly comparative sense (Macridis 1955: 18).
Second, Macridis considers the traditional approach as ‘essentially parochial’. This
critique is related to the undue focus on institutions of Western European countries. Such a
focus significantly limited the scope of comparative politics and rendered other regime types
as less important. Third, Macridis called the approach as ‘essentially static’. This implied that
comparative politics ignored the ever changing factors that leads to change and growth.
Finally, he called the approach as ‘essentially monographic’ implying that the study remained
focussed on political institutions of a given system. It meant that focus of comparativists
remained on individual case studies. This critique is close to the critique that considers
comparative politics as descriptive and as lacking systematic formulation.

3
 Neera Chandoke (1996) builds up on Macridis’ critique and traces the crisis of
comparative politics. First, the disciple faced a general attack on grand theorization. It was
questioned for removing issues from contextual specificities. It further was accused of over
generalised regularities. The discipline was considered as reductionist. It was searching for
simple variables for the sake of comparison. It ‘reduced’ complex phenomenon of politics to
simple variables that could be compared with ease. The second indication of crisis stems
from the ethnocentric nature of the discipline and focus on studying the ‘other’ - other
societies, other regime types, other institutions. The third reason for the crisis of comparative
politics is the crisis of nation-state itself. The usual category of comparison, the state, faced
challenges due to external forces as well as internal autonomy movements.
A set of problems faced by comparative analysis relates to the methodological
dimension. There is often a criticism against any case study for having a “selection bias”
(Landman 2008). The choice of countries to do a comparative study might be based on the
bias of the comparativist. Another problem relates to the emphasis on a “behavioural
approach”. The behavioural approach in social science in general and comparative politics in
particular related to tendency to explain social phenomenon using scientific methods. It was
asserted by the behaviouralists that social reality can be observed, quantified and generalised.
Behaviouralists use methods of sampling, survey, interview, and statistical analysis to explain
social realities.
Example of these problems is the criticism levelled against the seminal work by Gabriel
Almond and Sydney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five
Nations (1963). The study was called ethnocentric as it favoured consensual democracy as
the most stable form. It is further pointed out that political culture of Mexico was deliberately
pitted against the political culture of the United States to prove that liberal democracies (like
the US) are better than one-party systems (like Mexico during those years). The study was
also called an attempt of behaviouralists to quantify political orientations to categorize
countries, ignoring the dynamic nature and contextual specificities of socio-political relations.
3. Why Compare?
Comparing two or more things is a natural attribute of human behaviour. Whether one has to
choose the subject to study after schools, whether one has to buy clothes, phones or any other
thing, there are constantly involved in comparison. Politics is an even more important and an
ever evolving domain that requires comparison to equate, differentiate and assess various
phenomena.
Todd Landman (2008) has identified four reasons for comparison: contextual
description, classification, hypothesis-testing and prediction.
(i) Contextual description:
It allows political scientists to know what other countries are like (Landman 2008). This
has been the primary objective of comparative politics wherein the focus is on ‘describing the

4
political phenomena and events of a particular country, or group of countries’ (Landman
2008: 5). It is important as it provides an outside observer to make sense of a system not
entirely known to him/her. This aspect is closer to the first tradition and provides the
comparativists with detailed information about a political system. While some critics assert
that single-country studies cannot be truly considered comparative, there are benefits of
studying a particular country or a group of countries. For instance, a detailed analysis of
political system of United Kingdom provides us with the information about benefits and
limitations of parliamentary system. This can help us assess other cases where similar - or
opposite - systems exist.
(ii) Classification:
It implies simplifying and organizing information so that it can be easily observed and
categorized (Landman 2008: 5-6). Classification allows grouping of categories that are not
same but have some level of similarity. For example, let us assume two countries where one
has a Parliamentary system while the other has a Presidential system. Both have very
different set of rules. But both can be ‘classified’ as democracies. Thus, the world of politics
is made less complex through classification (Landman 2008: 4).
One of the earliest known comparativists, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), used the same logic
while classifying 158 city-states into six categories: monarchy, aristocracy, polity, tyranny,
oligarchy, and democracy. Based on the ‘number of those who rule’ and the forms as good or
corrupt, Aristotle’s classification can be summarised through the following table:
Those who rule
One Few Many
Good Monarchy Aristocracy Polity
(kingship)
Form of Rule
Corrupt Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy (mob rule)

Source: Todd Landman (2008), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An

Introduction, New York: Routledge.

In similar way, one of the most prominent work on comparative social revolution, Theda
Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and
China (1979) provides a classificatory analysis of role of state structures, international forces,
and class relations. She uses this to explain and analyse the French Revolution, the Russian
Revolution and the Chinese Revolution.
(iii) Hypothesis-testing:
After describing and classifying information, the next logical step is to understand the
factors that explains what has been described and classified. This aspect has been called as
‘hypothesis testing’ and implies the search for factors so that better theories could be built.

5
This aspect is closer to the second tradition of comparative politics which is focussed on
analysis and seeks to establish relation among variables.
Comparative research is a focus on analytical relationships among variables validated by
social science, a focus that is modified by differences in the context in which we observe and
measure those variables. Arend Lijphart claims that comparison helps in testing
“hypothesized empirical relationships among variables” (Lijphart 1971). Comparative
analysis also leads to accumulation of more information that helps in having a better and
more complete explanatory theory. So, when comparing countries and testing hypothesis
allows the accumulation of a larger pool of information and improves ones knowledge about
the world.
(iv) Prediction
Comparison of countries and the generalizations based on such comparison allows one to
‘predict’ likely outcomes. The likely outcomes in other countries that are not included in the
original comparison can be made based on a robust theory. Also, prediction can be made
about outcomes in the future on the basis of certain factors and conditions. Predictability is an
excellent attribute of a good theory and it is asserted that a ‘good theory’ is able to predict
outcomes with better accuracy.
Other than these four reasons, comparison provides us perspective to understand the less
known political systems. It also helps to understand differences in outcome in different socio-
political settings. It also helps in understanding as to why countries develop the way they do
and why they are ruled the way they are.
Hague, Harrop and McComrick (2016) identify two major purposes of comparative
politics:
a) it broadens one’s understanding of the political world
b) it helps in predicting political outcomes.
Arguing on similar lines, Newton and Van Deth (2010) provide three important reasons for
studying comparative politics:
a) one cannot understand one’s own country without knowledge of others.
b) one cannot understand other countries without knowing the background,
institutions and history of other countries.
c) one cannot arrive at valid generalisations about government and politics without
the comparative method.
Thus, it can be argued that describing, analysing, predicting and generalizing are four major
attributes of comparative politics that makes it an important aspect of broader political
analysis.

6
4. Methods of Comparison
Kopstein and Lichbach (2005) have argued that focussing on ‘interests, identities, and
institutions’ are three ways that provide different paths of doing comparison. These variables
have an impact on how political systems operate.
(a) Focus on Interest
Some comparativists focus on interests. For them, the material interest of people is what
matter the most. People decide on the basis of rational calculations and organize politically in
order to maximize their interest. They support a regime type that ‘maximizes their life
chances’ (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). For instance, a group of people may organize
against a regime type or support it purely based on rational calculations. The calculations are
interest based and therefore, it may be possible that a particular regime type is supported in a
particular society but the same may be opposed in another social setting. However, an undue
focus on interest may be misleading. The next two paths downplay the relevance of interests
and consider interest being shaped by identities or institutions.
(b) Focus on Identities
Some comparativists consider identity as the most important factor. They argue that there
are no objective interests and one’s interest is defined by one’s identity. Two most common
forms of identities are religion and ethnicity (Kopstein and Lichbach 2005). People or groups
of people define their interests in terms of their identity. A simple example could be religious
support to a theocratic regime. Another example could be the rise of caste based or religion
based parties in India where the support to a particular political party is based primarily on
identity. While some identities are based on birth and place, modern societies also generate
newer identities. For example, the organising for issues like gender and environment leads to
creation on newer identities. Recent US elections (2020) showed that how historical identities
and newer identities interact and shape people’s choices.
(c) Focus on Institutions
Yet another group of comparativists argue that neither material interests, nor identities
determine how the politics of a country works. For them, the rules and procedures embedded
in institutions dictate the way power operates and countries work (Kopstein and Lichbach
2005). Institutions shape the working of a country either directly or indirectly. In particular,
Democracies have a diverse and complex set of institutions that define how a country would
shape up. For example, the institutionalised electoral system of the United States is based on
a ‘first-past-the-post’ system. On the other hand, Germany has a ‘proportional representation’
electoral system. Both the countries are democratic but the political life and political culture
of both democracies vary - and one major factor for this variation in the difference in
institutions. Comparativists who tend to focus on institutions, try to explain variation in
outcomes on the basis of variation in institutions. The aspect of ‘functional equivalence’ is

7
relevant here as same institutions may perform different functions and different institutions
may perform same functions.
Comparativists have proceeded in their task by focussing on one or a mix of the three
ways mentioned above. While one of the ‘ways’ may have its limitation, a mix of more than
one provides a broader understanding of the issues.
A different way to approach the question “how to compare” has been answered by
political philosopher James Stuart Mill. He provides five strategies for undertaking
comparison (Finn 2011):
a) Method of agreement: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are compared to
see what they have in common. That commonality is identified as the cause.
b) Method of difference: Two or more instances of an event (effect) are compared to
see what they all do not have in common. If they have all but one thing in common,
that one thing is identified as the cause.
c) Joint method of agreement and difference: A combination of the methods of
agreement and difference, the joint method looks for a single commonality among
two or more instances of an event, and the joint method looks for a common absence
of that possible cause.
d) Method of residues: all known causes of a complex set of events are subtracted.
What is leftover is said to be the cause.
e) Method of concomitant variations: correlations between varying events are sought,
that is, correspondence in variations between two sets of objects, events, or data.
Of these, the ‘joint method of agreement and difference’ is relevant to comparative politics as
it combines the method of agreement and difference. It seeks to look for a single
commonality among two or more instances of an event and common absence of a possible
cause (Finn 2011). J.S. Mill’s ‘method of difference’ is also known as the “most similar
system design”. It is used in comparing similar cases having dependent variables. His
‘method of similarity’ is also known as the “most different systems design” (Black 1966). It
is employed to compare dissimilar cases having independent variables. However while
comparing, one should be careful about what to compare and how to compare. There is much
greater value in comparing events and institutions that are in situated in similar time frame
than those that are widely separated in time. The comparison of societies or smaller groups
that are concerned with reasonably similar problems is more likely to lead to satisfactory
conclusions than comparisons between societies existing many centuries apart (Black 1966).
Thus, comparative research designs can either focus on similarities or on differences
(Caramani 2011). Daniel Caramani (2011) argues that it would not be correct to say that
comparative politics relies on a specific method. This is because different methods could be
employed based on the differences in number of cases chosen, type of data analysis used and

8
time period under study. Thus, the research method would depend on question that the
researcher is asking.
Another reason is that there can be different dimension under comparison. Therefore, a
single method will not be useful. The comparison can be (a) spatial or cross-sectional,
meaning that two political systems are compared as a cross section. For example, comparison
of federal systems of India and Canada. It can be (b) longitudinal, meaning that institutions
and systems could be compared across time. For example, comparison of the phase of
congress system in India with the phase of coalitional politics. It can be (c) functional or
cross-organizational, meaning that the object of study is not territorially different but can be
within a given political system. For example, comparison of government policies relating to
expenditure on military and education.
5. Going beyond Eurocentrism
As discussed in the section 2.2 on ‘scope comparative politics’, the discipline faces the
charge of being parochial and Eurocentric. There are methodological problems and it has
been alleged that comparative politics focusses on the “how” but ignores the “what” of the
problem (Lijphart 1971). The Eurocentric nature of the discipline limited its focus on Great
Britain, France, Germany and the Soviet Union.
Macridis’s critique of the discipline as parochial and Eurocentric did challenge the
contours but the efforts to redefine the discipline was still based on a deeply entrenched bias.
Thus, by addressing the “first crisis of the discipline”, a “second crisis” was invited
(Chandhoke 1996). The efforts to expand the scope of the discipline led to limiting of the
focus on the American and Western political systems and institutions. It was based on the
same worldview that ignored the worldviews of the ‘others’. This was the Eurocentrism of
the discipline which either (a) focussed entirely on the West and ignored the rest of the world,
or (b) even when any part of the rest of the world was studied/compared, it was considered
‘less civilized’, ‘exotic’, ‘different’ and ‘inferior’ than the European and American models.
Eurocentrism implies this superiority and bias in favour of the civilization, culture and race of
the West.
A “third world perspective” began to emerge during 1940s and 1950s but it remained
limited mostly to the Latin American experience. One of the earliest proponents of this
approach was Paul Baran who spearheaded the critique of modernization theory from a Neo-
Marxist perspective. Broadly called the ‘dependency perspective’, the ideas represented
‘voices from the periphery’ that ‘challenged the intellectual hegemony of the American
modernization school’ (So 1990). Before going into the critique, it would be useful to look at
some major theories of growth and modernization.

9
 Major Theories of Growth and Modernization
Paul Rosenstein-Rodan (1943) gave the theory of ‘big push’. He argued in favour of
industrial sector and advocated moving away from agricultural sector. He favoured the
industrial sector as it would generate greater levels of capital setting a self-perpetuating
motion of growth.

Ragnar Nurkse (1953) came up with the notion that is better known as the ‘trickle-down
effect’. He argued that poor do not save and therefore investment in industries was needed
to generate capital. Rich needed to grow, save and invest further and the fruits of capital
will eventually trickle-down to the poor sections as well.

Simon Kuznets (1955) argued that capitalist development would in fact lead to economic
inequality in short run. But it would eventually lead to a more equitable and prosperous
society. In Indian context, V.M. Dandekar and N. Rath (1971) argued that a higher rate of
growth was better than a lower rate of growth for all social groups, except for the poorest
10 percent. Thus, they challenged the effectiveness of the trickle-down effect and argued
for a ‘basic needs strategy’. They argued that from the viewpoint of the poor, fair
distribution of growth is more important than general growth.

W. Arthur Lewis (1954) began his argument by looking at a two-sector model - the
capitalist sector and the subsistence sector. While the capitalist sector has reproducible
capital and is more productive, the subsistence sector has low level of productivity. With
low rate of savings, the subsistence sector lacks accumulation of capital that can be
reproduced. Therefore, Lewis argued for emphasizing the capitalist sector for growth.

W.W. Rostow (1960) provided an ideological challenge to socialist models of development

by presenting his “Stages of Economic Growth”. Rostow divided the process of
development into five stages: (i) the traditional society; (ii) the establishment of the
preconditions for take-off; (iii) the take-off stage; (iv) the drive to maturity; and (v) the
epoque of high mass consumption. For the second stage, he emphasized the need to focus
on specific growth sectors that would function as engines for economic growth and lead to
establishment of such political, social and institutional frameworks that would utilize the
potential in modern sector.

For more details on theories of growth and modernization, See John Martinussen (1997),
Society, State and Market: A guide to competing theories of development, London: Zed
Books Ltd, chapter 5 and Alvin Y. So (1990), Social Change and Development:
Modernization, Dependency and World System Theories, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Paul Baran (1966) used Marxist theory of surplus and sought to focus on internal
conditions of backward economies. Baran identified four classes that had narrow self-interest
10
and had no interest in promoting industrialization. These four classes - the feudal aristocracy,
the moneylenders, the merchants and the foreign capitalists appropriated the surplus.
Therefore, it was necessary to have extensive state intervention to promote nationally-
controlled industrialization (Martinussen 1997: 87). It was Baran’s ideas that influenced later
dependency theorists like A.G. Frank, Samir Amin and Arghiri Emmanuel to provide a third
world perspective.
Andre Gunder Frank (1967) provided the idea of “Development of Underdevelopment”.
According to Frank, the Third World could never follow the path taken by the West because
of the differences in experience (So 1990: 96). The West did not experience colonialism
while most of the Third World countries are former colonies of the West. Thus, Frank
dismissed the ‘internal explanation’ of the modernization school and emphasizes the ‘external
explanation’. In simple words, the backwardness of the Third World was not due to feudalism
or aristocracy but was an outcome of the colonial experience and foreign domination.
A.G. Frank formulated a “metropolis-satellite model” to explain the underdevelopment
of the Third World. Colonialism created a link between the metropole (or the colonisers) and
the satellites (or the colony) in a way that to an unequal relation of trade. All the surplus was
appropriated by the metropole leaving the satellite poor. The local bourgeoise also
contributed to this underdevelopment by draining the surplus outside the satellite, not using it
for investment and development internally and keeping the international inequality in place.
Thus, what occurred was the development of underdevelopment due to the link with world
market. Only way out of this vicious cycle was to delink from the world market (So 1990).
Samir Amin (1976) provided the concept of ‘Centre and Periphery’. Unlike Frank, who
focussed on trade and exchange relations, Amin was more concerned with “conditions and
relations of production” (Martinussen 1997). Amin provided two ideal-type societal models -
the autocentric economy and the peripheral economy. The autocentric economy is self-reliant
but lack self-sufficiency. It relies on extensive international trade. The peripheral economy,
on the other hand, has an “overdeveloped export sector” producing goods for luxury
consumption (Martinussen 1997). One can see capitalism in circulation of capital but modes
of production remain pre-capitalist. The Centre is therefore able to extract resources and
cheap labour from the Periphery earning high profit. This relation of dependency is based on
unequal exchange and this asymmetric relationship leads to the continuation of dependency.
Dos Santos (1971) discussed three historical forms of dependency: (i) colonial
dependence, (ii) financial-industrial dependence, and (iii) technological-industrial
dependence (So 1990: 99). Santos identifies some limitations on the industrial development
of underdeveloped countries. The underdeveloped countries have to rely on foreign capital
leading to political dependence. They are in a monopolized market where raw materials are
cheap and industrial products are high. Therefore, the amount of capital leaving the
dependent country is much more than the amount entering. Also, the monopoly of imperial
centres over the technology makes the relation even more asymmetrical. The context of cheap
labour in combination with the presence of capital-intensive technology leads to differences
11
in the level of domestic wages. Thus, there is a “high rate of exploitation or
‘superexploitation’ of labour power” (So 1990). Thus the monopolistic control over foreign
capital, foreign finance and foreign technology leads to the economic backwardness and
internal social marginalization in the underdeveloped countries.
Other scholars like Arghiri Emmanuel (1972) and Geoffrey Kay (1975) also provided
somewhat similar theoretical understanding by looking at the unequal exchange and
exploitation of the peripheral economies. F.H. Cardoso (1974) posited the idea of
‘development in dependency’ and rejected the tendency of treating the peripheral countries as
single group of dependent economies. He focussed more on the internal conditions and
argued that external factors would have different results based “dissimilar internal
conditions” (Martinussen 1997). Due to such diagnosis, Cardoso was also against
recommending general set of strategies for all peripheral countries.
In general, the Third World perspective attempts at dismantling the Eurocentric bias of
comparative politics. It highlights the limitations of the ‘grand narratives’ and focuses on two
important aspects: the impact of colonialism and the cultural specificity of the non-West. It is
through such challenge that the discipline has been able to move beyond its Eurocentric
bubble.
Conclusion
Comparative politics is a broad sub-discipline that involves various traditions, methods and
approaches. It includes description, analysis, prediction and generalization of political
activity. Comparative politics has been accused of being Eurocentric, parochial, formalistic,
and excessively descriptive. Despite these limitations and problems, scholars have sought to
find solution and enhance the ambit of comparative politics. It is important to break the
ethnocentric nature and situate the political processes in context. In this regards, it is asserted
that one needs to situate analysis in historical, cultural and geographic contexts. It is
important to note that over-generalization is a problematic aspect of any theory. If one seeks
to explain a political activity in complete abstraction, it would be away from reality. If the
study is only looking at specific situations, it loses its relevance for broader context.
Therefore, a shift towards middle-level of grounded theory was advocated by scholars
(Blondel 1981). The narrowing of the scope of comparative political analysis also led to a
focus on case-oriented studies. Against the criticism that comparativists tend to universalize
concepts, there was a renewed focus on development of methods based on few cases.
However, this approach was also considered problematic as the hypothesis is not testable
when there are several factors at play. Despite these problems and narrowing of focus,
comparative political analysis remains a very important sub-discipline of political science. It
provides insight into contemporary national, regional and international politics by providing
descriptive, analytical and methodological frames of reference.

12
References
Black, C.E. (1966), The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History, New
York: Harper and Row.
Blondel, Jean (1981), The Discipline of Politics, Butterworths: London.
Blondel, Jean (1999), “Then and Now: Comparative Politics”, Political Studies, XLVII, pp.
152-160.
Caramani, Daniele (2011), “Introduction to comparative politics”, in Daniele Caramani (ed.)
Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chandhoke, Neera (1996), “Limits of Comparative Political Analysis”, Economic and
Political Weekly, 31 (4): 2-8.
Dogan, Mattei and Dominique Pelassy (1990) How to Compare Nations: Strategies in
Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Finn, V.K. (2011), “J.S. Mill’s inductive methods in artificial intelligence systems. Part I”,
Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 38: 385-402.
Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop and John McComrick (2016), Comparative Government and
Politics: An Introduction, 10th edition, London: Palgrave.
Kopstein, J. and M. Lichbach, (eds.) (2005) Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and
Institutions in a Changing Global Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-5;
16-36; 253-290.
Landman, Todd (2008), Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics: An Introduction, New
York: Routledge.
Lijphart, Arend (1971), “Comparative Politics and Comparative Method”, The American
Political Science Review, 65 (3): 682-693.
Macridis, Roy C. (1955), “Major Characteristics of the Traditional Approach”, in The Study
of Comparative Politics, New York: Random House, pp. 7-14.
Martinussen, John (1997), Society, State and Market: A guide to competing theories of
development, London: Zed Books Ltd.
Mohanty, Manoranjan (1975), “Comparative Political Theory and Third World Sensitivity”,
Teaching Politics, 1&2.
Newton, Kenneth and Jan W. Van Deth (2010), Foundations of Comparative Politics,
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
So, Alvin Y. (1990), Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency and
World System Theories, London: Sage Publications.

13
 Unit-2 : Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics

(a) Institutional Approach, System Approach, Structural-

Functional Approach
Bhagyanagar Vineeth Srivatsava

In the earlier unit, the scope and nature of comparative politics have been familiarised to the
readers. This chapter focuses on the various approaches that are dominant in comparative
political theory. In particular, we limit ourselves to three crucial approaches- Institutional
approach, Systems approach and structural-functional approach. This chapter aims not only
to engage in debates on approaches used in comparative politics but also to understand and
reflect the merits and demerits of each approach, its role in the development of the discipline
and its relevance for the researcher in their study. Before we move forward with the
discussion, it is essential to step back and ask what approaches are? In a narrow sense, if we
say that comparative politics is essentially comparing various forms of political life,
approaches are various ways to compare. For example, suppose we want to compare two
objects–A and B. In that case, we should have prior rules established on how should they be
compared, what characteristics of A and B are to be taken into consideration in comparison.
In comparing political systems, political culture and institutions approaches serve as ways of
comparison. Each approach evolved out of complex intellectual history and shaped by the
events of that particular time. It is therefore essential to keep in mind that every approach has
its particular relevance in the discipline.
The approaches used in the theory of comparative politics can broadly be categorised
into two–the traditional approaches and modern approaches. Without emphasising too much
on contrasting traditional and the modern approach, it suffices to hold that the traditional
approaches are concerned with a normative perspective of politics supplemented by the study
of formal structures, institutions etc. Some of the key proponents of this approach include
Aristotle, James Bryce, Harold Laski, Walter Bagehot, etc. The behavioural revolution in
social sciences attacked the traditional methods in political science and emphasised the need
for scientific criteria in comparative research. The modern approaches utilise these scientific
methods to study various political systems by understanding measurable aspects of the
system.
2.1 Institutional Approach
Before we begin with the discussion on the institutional approach, it is important to
emphasise what institutions mean. A consistent and organised pattern of behaviour or
activities established by custom or law can broadly be called an institution. Therefore, an
institution means not only bodies like Parliament and Judiciary but also customs and or any
other patterned behaviour of the society. You might be aware of the fact that marriage is an
institution in a sociological study. The disciplinary variations in the definition of the term
‘institution’ should not be surprising. It can, therefore, be argued that political science as a

14
discipline is the study of institutions. This tradition is not new at all and goes as back as to
Aristotle. The primary concern of the approach can broadly be understood as to how do the
institutions nurture the society, subjects or citizens for a better life. Aristotle compared as
many as 158 constitutions to understand the normative question-which institutions work
better. Machiavelli, for example, postulated advice to the institution of the Prince so that
there shall be proper control of the subjects. Even when Hobbes was writing Leviathan
(2009), he was concerned by the English civil war and therefore propagated for strong
institutions. This list of thinkers who were concerned with institutions is non-exhaustive and
need not be elaborated here, but it is essential to keep in mind that many thinkers since the
beginning were concerned with the institutions in one way or the other. However, the
institutional approach as a method became the mainstream much later with its leading
proponents Carl Friedrich, James Bryce, A. L. Lowell, Herman Finer and Samuel Finer.
Jean Blondel argued in this regard that James Bryce and Lowell are true founders of
comparative politics as a distinct branch of study within the political discipline due to their
prominent contribution to the field in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Bryce is known
for his contributions in his the American Commonwealth (1888) and Modern Democracies
(1921). In his work Modern Democracies, he tried to understand the workings of legislature
and its decline. Lowell studied France, Switzerland, Germany, etc., separately and sought to
conduct a comparative study of the referendum and its impact. His well-known works include
Government and Parties in Continental Europe (1896) and Public Opinion and Popular
Government (1913). Although scholars before them undertook the study of institutions, Bryce
and Lowell argued that such studies were incomplete and did not offer a nuanced argument.
They stressed that it is not only essential to study the theoretical bases of the government, but
it is equally important to highlight the ’practices of the government‘, which was missing in the
earlier accounts of the institutional approach. They argued that a researcher must focus both
on facts and theoretical arguments for a better understanding of the political system and better
comparison. They suggested using both qualitative and quantitative methods in the collection
of data.
The institutional approach was one of the main pillars of political science discipline till
the first half of the twentieth century. Many scholars tried to understand various institutions.
For example, Woodrow Wilson, former President of the United States of America, compared
governments of the USA and Europe and pointed to what the American government could
learn from European governments (Doig, 1983). The institutional approach has certain
specific characteristics that help us to understand the approach in details. Guy Peters (1999)
lists the characteristics of the institutional approach as follows
2.1.1 Characteristics of Institutional Approach
2.1.1.1 Legalism
The institutional approach gave law central place in a comparison of various institutions.
Even in the example of Wilson mentioned above, we can notice the prominence of law
through his emphasis on types of government. The prominence of law can broadly be

15
attributed to the fact that the law constitutes the basis of political life and affect the behaviour
of citizens in a significant way. Despite its centrality in the approach, scholars differ in their
explanation of the relationship between law and society. Guy Peters (1999) holds that the
study of law as the basis of political knowledge achieved its height in the Prussian State and
thereafter in Germany.
2.1.1.2 Structuralism
For the scholars of the institutional approach, the structure determined the behaviour.
Therefore, major institutional features, the ideal types of government- Parliamentary or
Presidential, various models of parliamentary government, and presidential governments
were extensively researched. The structures studied in this approach tended to be formal and
constitutional. The assumption made by the researcher by the study of structures is that one
could predict the behaviour of the system by identifying the salient aspects of the structure.
2.1.1.3 Holism
The researcher using the institutional approach tended to compare whole systems. Although it
is tougher to make generalisations as the researcher has to study large systems, it equipped
them with the complex nature of political life and the interplay of various aspects in affecting
political behaviour.
2.1.1.4 Historicism
The contemporary political institutions are undoubtedly embedded in their historical
conditions. The institutional approach consisted of a historical analysis of the institutions that
the researcher is set to understand and analyse. The understanding of historical conditions
helps the researcher to understand the pattern of development for appropriate prediction. The
historical conditions also consider the role of the complex relationship between society and
politics that offers a rich perspective of the political system.
2.1.1.5 Normativity
The institutional approach was normative in nature. It was concerned with the questions like
what life ought to be and the role of good government in achieving it. The normative analysis
of the institutionalists came under attack by the behaviourist scholars, which we will be dealt
in the later sections.
2.1.2 Criticisms
The institutional approach, although was dominant in the discipline, has drawbacks that were
pointed out mainly by behavioural scholars. The scientific revolution in the Political Science
discipline meant that the speculative nature of approaches was dismissed for fact-based
theories. We shall try to point few drawbacks that the institutional approach faces. As
mentioned earlier, the institutional approach gave the structure a prominent role in the
explanation of the political system. However, this structural nature of the approach did not
consider the role of the individuals or groups in nurturing the system except for few ‘great
men’. It is very evident from today’s globalised world that non-structural aspects of the state
16
like corporates and other non-state actors hold a strong influence on the system as well.
Further, Roy Macridis (1955) argued that the tendency of institutionalism to study formal
institutions led the approach to be very euro-centric and parochial in nature. Almond and
Coleman (1960) also pointed out that the institutional approach faced a crisis as it could not
comprehend the political systems of the third world countries where the institutions were less
or not developed like that of European counterparts.
The historicism and normative analysis of the institutional approach came under attack
with the behavioural revolution in the discipline. Behavioural scholars emphasised more on
the facts to understand the political system and predict future behaviour, rallied for separation
of fact from the norm, and engaged in understanding what is instead of the normative
question of what ought to be. Further, holistic research of the approach, which has many
advantages, makes it difficult not only to generalise but also compare. Macridis (1960) was
right in this regard when he pointed out that comparative politics is more descriptive than
comparative. To elaborate a little more on this, if we suppose research on the political system
of India and England, we try to understand the political system through a holistic approach
and study the formal institutions. This method describes the respective political systems
rather than comparing them.
2.1.4 Concluding remarks
Despite its shortcomings, it can be argued that the institutional approach forms one of the
pillars of political science research. The vast amount of research done even today on formal
institutions and their relationship with society is a testament to the prominence of this
approach. The behavioural revolution sure did point out the lacunae that approach has, but
some of the shortcomings are addressed by the rise of the new institutional approach, which
you will learn more about in the next chapter.
2.2 Systems Approach
The systems approach in political science has its origins in the critique of traditional
approaches of comparative politics. Proponents of modern approaches, including the systems
approach, rejected strict compartmentalisation of discipline, which was the result of
traditional approaches. They championed the cause of the unification of various disciplinary
methods. In particular, they argued the need to draw from natural sciences to understand
social phenomena objectively and make predictions more consistent through such objective
analysis. The origins of the systems approach, in general, can be traced to German Biologist
Ludwig Von Bertalanffy who pioneered the movement of unification of all the natural
sciences. It came to political science through its application in disciplines like anthropology
and sociology through the works of Emile Durkheim, Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons,
respectively. Although the definition of the word ‘system’ varies in different disciplines,
Bertalanffy (1956) described it as “a set of elements standing in interaction”. Mortan Kaplan
(1967), on the other hand, defines the object of system analysis as “a study of a set of

17
interrelated variables, as distinguished from the environment of the set, and of the ways in
which this set is maintained under the impact of environmental disturbances.”
2.2.1 Characteristics of the systems
David Apter (1978) characterised systems in the following way:
1. Systems are composed of functional inter-relationships among the elements based on
some sort of communication within its specified boundaries or environment. The
elements in such a system are not random aggregation, but their inter-dependence
allows the existence of the system.
2. There are sub-systems within a system.
3. Systems take inputs in the form of demands and supports. The system translates those
inputs into outputs in the form of laws and policies.
As explained above, the systems approach draws heavily from the other disciplines and
rejects the strict compartmentalisation of the disciplines. The concept of the system allowed
the approach to replace the excessive focus on the State, formal institutions and historicism
and allow us to understand extra-legal matters, including social and cultural institutions. It
thus forms a multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary approach to understand political systems.
This approach is extremely helpful in sorting out large data and understanding patterns of the
systems. It also enables the researcher to understand the direction of development of the
political system without emphasising too much on history or normative questions by
objectively studying said variables. However, the use of systems theory in social sciences has
to be done with utmost diligence keeping social realities in mind. Unlike natural objects,
which are stable in nature, social objects are much volatile, and this needs to be taken into
consideration while applying systems theory in understanding social phenomena. Kaplan
rightly pointed out in this regard that the social researcher should act as a ‘balancer’ between
natural science methods and the complexities of social reality.

Environment

Demands Political System Laws

Supports Policies

Feedback
A simple diagrammatic description of the Political System

18
2.2.2 David Easton’s Systems Analysis
David Easton pioneered the movement of systems analysis in the political science discipline.
His celebrated work, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965), provided “an original set of
concepts for arranging at the level of theory and interpreting political phenomena in a new
and helpful way” (Davis and Lewis 1971). Easton stood for a political theory that is capable
of explaining both national and international political systems that helps us more in
comparison. He rejected scholars of the traditional approach who were obsessed with
normative analysis and championed the cause of the need for scientific methods in
understanding the political system. Easton has extensively written on systems analysis in his
various works, and let us try to summarise his theory in a brief way.
David Easton coined new definitions for the terms ‘politics’ and ‘political system’
instead of using existing definitions that were prevalent in political theory. For Easton,
politics is “the authoritative allocation of values”. A Political system, therefore, is a “set of
interactions abstracted from the totality of social behaviour, through which values are
allocated for society” (Easton 1956). It should be kept in mind that the term values for Easton
are not similar to value-laden politics. Johari (2011) argues that the term value was probably
used in the economic sense meaning price or worth. Easton believes that those in power
determine the values, and politics becomes the allocation of values.
Natural and social systems have certain common properties, like a coping mechanism
that enables them to cope with disturbances that may be caused. Easton argued that the
political system has a ‘responding ‘and ‘self-regulating’ mechanism to correct, change and re-
adjust its process. The political system is therefore not simply static but a dynamic affair,
although each system tries to maintain its identity intact. This happens through a ‘feedback’
mechanism that transmits information from the environment to the political system.
However, Easton argues that a political system still may face challenges from the
environment, which he calls as stresses. There are two kinds of stresses- demand stress and
support stress. Demand stress may arise either if the systems fail to take feedback into
consideration or fails to meet certain demands. This is termed as “demand-input overload”.
Support stress arises when the members of the political system do not support the system
resulting in failure of the system. Therefore, there needs to be a proper balance between
inputs and outputs. Further, the political system also requires certain structural bases like that
of elections, political parties and political beliefs and attitudes of people for the survival of
the system. In short, the political system for David Easton, as Davies and Lewis (1971)
rightly pointed out, is an “input-output mechanism dealing with political decisions and the
activities associated with these conditions”.
2.2.3 Criticism
We have seen from the above discussion that the systems analysis in political science has
come from natural sciences. But general systems theory and the systems theory in political
science are not completely similar. We have also seen characteristics of the system and David
Easton’s, one of the prominent proponents of systems theory, contribution to the field.

19
However, David Easton’s systems theory has been criticised by many scholars for the
limitations of the approach in understanding political systems. We will briefly mention some
of the criticisms.
David Easton’s definition of the terms ‘politics’ and ‘political system’ is very broad and
abstract in nature that it either, on the one hand, “forces all phenomena into the framework of
a system” (Young 1968) or on the other hand it is too abstract to formulate any hypothesis
and propositions. Secondly, there is not much description of the political system, making it
very ambiguous in nature. The distinction between open and closed systems are too blurry as
well. Thirdly, systems theory takes only the present into account and ignores the historical
and social conditions that are necessary to predict the future of the political system. Fourthly,
Systems theory still does not overcome the problem of the parochial nature of traditional
approaches and views world and politics from only the western lenses. Lastly, Easton
criticised the traditional approaches for too much emphasis on formal institutions, and he
tried to understand the behaviour of the political system through the individual as an actor.
But it is evident from his analysis that Easton was only interested in the individual only when
they are part of the process of preserving the system. Although the word nation or the state
from traditional approaches have been avoided and replaced with the term system, the
emphasis is only on the system. In this regard, Varma (1975) rightly pointed out that Easton,
in his serious efforts to move away from the traditional approaches to the behavioural
approach, finds himself somewhere in the middle. Paul F. Kress (1969) argues that the
theory, like Easton’s systems analysis, so respectful of facts, lacks any substance and presents
to us as an ‘empty vision of politics’.
2.2.4 Concluding remarks
Despite the above critical remarks by various scholars, it cannot be denied that systems
theory in political science has had a considerable impact on the discipline. It provided a
macro analysis of the political system that could be studied objectively. It also broadened the
scope of the discipline by studying the political systems of the non-western world. Though
Easton was hanging in the middle between traditional approaches and behavioural
approaches, his emphasis on facts led to the scientific revolution in the discipline as we
witness it today.
2.3 Structural functionalism
Structural functionalism is the third approach in comparative politics that we discuss in this
chapter after outlining the institutional and systems approach. In a nutshell, structural-
functionalism means explaining the functions of political structures as a tool of investigation.
For example, if a researcher wants to compare the institution of the Prime Minister in India
and the United Kingdom, one could do so by understanding the functions performed by the
respective Prime Ministers of India and the United Kingdom and find out the similarities and
differences. But before we go on to a detailed discussion of the approach, we need a basic
understanding of what a structure and function are. It need not be emphasised here again that

20
the definitions for structure and function vary not only based on the discipline but also among
the scholars within the discipline. Arrangements within a political system that perform a
function or certain functions are broadly called as structures. These functions can be either
simple or complex. Further, it can be a case that a single structure can perform a function, or
a group of structures together perform a complex function. It should be clear from the above
discussion what a function is, but it is essential to define it in precise terms. Robert K. Merton
(1959) defines functions as “those observed consequences which make for the adaptation or
readjustment of a given system; and dysfunctions those observed consequences which lessen
the adaptation or adjustment of the system”. If system analysis considers the political system
as a cybernetic machine with inputs and outputs, functionalism gives space to the
‘organismic’ analogy.
The structural-functional approach in social science marked its moment in social science
by the mid-1960s. It became one of the dominant modes of explanation in political science.
Radcliffe Brown and Malinowski are two prominent scholars known for the introduction of
structural functionalism in social anthropology. Structural-functional approaches of Marion
Levy Jr., Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons in Political Sociology has a deep impact on
the political science discipline, after which there has been systematic development of the
structural-functional approach. It is not our purpose here to engage with Brown, Malinowski,
Levy, Merton and Parsons in detail. Instead, we focus specifically on structural functionalism
in the political science discipline.
We shall very briefly mention some of the scholars in the discipline to whom structural-
functionalism owes its conceptual framework. Since the focus of the chapter is only to
introduce the students to the structural-functional approach, we avoid an in-depth discussion
of each of the scholars mentioned below. David Easton can be regarded as one of the
prominent scholars in functionalist thought in political science. He was concerned with the
stability of a given political system. Much of his analysis was described in the earlier
sections. Another prominent scholar in this approach is William C. Mitchell. Mitchell, unlike
Easton, does not make the mistake of confusing the political system with the social system
and regards it as a sub-system of the social system which performs the function of mobilising
resources for meeting the goals of the social system. David Apter focused on the political
systems of African countries such as Uganda and Ghana and argued that the ’imported
systems ‘in Third World countries imposed by the colonial masters and therefore do not
function properly as western scholars predicted. He sought to understand the political systems
in Third World by understanding the functions of the government. Thus, structural
functionalism gave a conceptual framework to understand political systems belonging to
Third World.
Gabriel A. Almond is another political scientist who sought to understand the change in
political systems from traditional polities to modern. In the classification of the political
system, the efficiency of the political system was the key factor in Almond‘s classificatory
model. He categorised that traditional polities are less effective and move toward a modern
21
political system which is most effective. He believed that a researcher who seeks to
understand the political change in developing societies has to understand the political systems
of western societies for a proper analysis. For Almond, western modern political systems
form an ideal political system. He argued that a political system has four characteristics-
every political system has structures with varied specialisation; despite structural
differentiation, every political system performs some similar political functions; many
structures perform multiple functions, and; political systems have a culture of their own. You
will learn more about political culture in the next chapter. Almond shifted the focus of
comparison from observable institutional mechanisms to functions of the system.
2.3.1 Criticism
Structural functionalism became one of the dominant explanations in political science after
the behavioural revolution within the discipline. However, it has some severe limitations. We
will try to look at few shortcomings of the approach. As it can be noticed from the above
discussion on the structural-functional approach, like the systems approach, it focuses much
on the static relationships. It fails to take into account the dynamic relationships and historical
account of the political system. In their search for quantifiable methods to compare, political
science was reduced to static relationships instead of answering rich normative questions.
Secondly, the theories of Easton, Mitchell, Apter, Almond and other functionalist theorists
were broadly concerned with questions of survival of the system and sought to answer the
method of stable adaptation in the event of any change. In other words, structural-
functionalism tended to be status quo-ist and against any sudden change. This excessive
concern to maintain the status quo raised eyebrows among scholars of Marxist and critical
tradition. For example, Gouldner (1971) criticised functionalists as “sociological
conservation corps of industrial society”, and Bhambhri (1973) accused functionalists of
being “defenders of bourgeoise at home and of imperialism abroad”. Marxists emphasised the
need for a revolutionary change in the system where the masses are exploited by the
bourgeoisie with the help of political leaders. The functional approach, therefore, is seen as a
threat that hampers the revolutionary consciousness of the masses.
In the previous section, we saw how functionalism gave impetus to a conceptual
framework to study the political systems of countries belonging to the Third World.
However, this is not prone to criticism. Many pointed out the irony that scholars of the
functional approach developed frameworks to understand the developing societies in their
comfortable libraries and office rooms in Harvard and Chicago Universities that lacked
political reality. The extravagant concern for the quantitative methods led to validating
exploitative western society and accusing Third World societies of not being modern enough.
The parochial nature of theory could be seen in Almond‘s theory, as well as he believed that
the ideal society was modern western society and change can only be traditional to modern.
Despite the above-mentioned criticisms, it is no doubt that the structural-functional
approach has certain advantages in studying western democracies, but application in the case
of Third World countries has to be done with a certain caution. A researcher has to give
22
priority to political and societal realities instead of depending on an approach that might not
completely understand the political system.
2.4 Summary
This chapter introduced the reader to dominant approaches used in comparative politics. The
characteristics, merits and criticisms of the institutional approach were discussed in the first
section of this chapter. The development of approaches like systems analysis and structural
functionalism was introduced in the context of the behavioural revolution in social sciences
and the determination of scholars to do away with strict disciplinary boundaries that inhibited
knowledge about social and natural phenomena. We argued that each of the approaches
discussed in this particular chapter has their own merits and shortcomings. A researcher who
seeks to do comparative research should carefully plan which approach can possibly suit the
field of their research instead of fixating on a particular approach.
References
Almond, G and Coleman, J. S. (1960), The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Apter, David (1978), Introduction to Political Analysis, New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
Bertalanffy, Von Ludwig (1956), General systems theory, General systems, vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
Bhambhri, C. P. (1973), “Functionalism in Politics”, Indian Journal of Political Science, vol.
XXXIV, No. 4, October-December.
Bryce, James (1888), The American Commonwealth, London: MacMillan and Co.
Bryce, James (1888), Modern Democracies, New York: MacMillan.
Davies, Morton R. and Lewis, Vaughan A. (1971), Models of Political System, New Delhi:
Vikas Publications.
Doig, J. (1983), ‘if I see a Murderous Fellow Sharpening a Knife Cleverly…’: The Wilsonian
Dichotomy and Public Authority, Public Administration Review, vol. 43, pp. 292-304.
Easton, David (1956), A Framework for Political Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Easton, David (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gouldner, A. G. (1971), The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, New Delhi: Hiene-mann.
Hobbes, Thomas (2009), Leviathan, Oxford: Oxford University Publications.
Johari, J. C. (2011), Comparative Politics, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
Kaplan, Morton A. (1967), “Systems Theory”, in James C. Charlesworth (eds.),
Contemporary Political Analysis, New York: Free Press.

23
Kress, Paul F. (1969), “A Critique of Easton’s Systems Analysis”, in James A Gould and
Vincent V Thursby (eds.), Contemporary Political Thought: Issues in Scope, Value, and
Direction, New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Lowell, A. Lawrence (1896), Government and Parties in Continental Europe, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Lowell, A. Lawrence (1913), Public Opinion and Popular Government, New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co.
Macridis, Roy (1955), The Study of Comparative Government, New York: Random House.
Merton, Robert K. (1959), Social Theory and Social Structure, Illinois: Free Press of
Glancoe.
Peters, B. Guy (1999), Institutional Theory in Political Science: The ‘New Institutionalism’,
London: Pinter.
Varma, S. P. (1975), Modern Political Theory, New Delhi: Vikas Publications.
Young, O. R. (1968), Systems of Political Science, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

24
 Unit-2

(b) Approaches to Studying Comparative Politics

Political Culture Approach
Dr. Kamal Kumar

Introduction
The present chapter attempts to analyse the political culture approach in the field of
comparative politics. Approaches and methods are significant, especially in the context of
social sciences including political science, not just in developing an understanding about the
socio-political phenomena, but also in enabling the researchers and political scientists to offer
a solution to certain complex problems in any given time and context. In particular,
approaches hold a very important place in the field of comparative politics as they help us to
systematically explain the different political processes, political events and institutional
activities as well as social behaviours in a comparative manner. At the same time, they
encourage the scholars (of comparative politics) to predict the social and political outcomes.
In the preceding chapters, the analysis on different key traditional and modern approaches has
been offered. This chapter seeks to evaluate one of the significant modern approaches, that is,
political culture to the study of comparative politics. It begins with the discussion on the
meaning of the term ‘political culture’ and overview of key conceptions offered by its
principal proponents, especially the conception of Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. It will
be followed by its key limitations and criticisms.
Political Culture Approach
Society is an integral part of a political system including democratic system, and the study of
continuous interactions between the society and political system is the key concern of the
political culture approach. Scholarly interest in this modern approach is associated with the
emergence of behavioural science. As Andrew Bove (2002: 3) noted that “political culture
was brought in as ally of, and soon became a crucial term within, a behaviouralist science
whose basic mode is strict causal explanation, not interpretative description.” Instead of
emphasising upon the study of formal political institutions and processes, the behaviourist
political science—unlike the traditional approaches such as traditional institutional approach,
historical approach and philosophical approach among others—places the study of human
behaviour and interaction with natural world (political institutions and society in the context
of social sciences) at the centre of its analysis. With the increasing popularity of
behaviouralist methods and tools in social sciences, scholars began to attach more
significance to the sociological (cultural) aspects—in comparison to the structural and
historical aspects—in the studies of political science. Furthermore, it is observed that the
“political culture literature helped to provide political science itself with a sense of legitimacy
and authority after World War II” (Formisano, 2001: 397). In that sense, the political culture

25
marked the emergence of a new epoch in political science where sociological and behavioural
aspects gained the significance in the scholarly investigations.
The political culture approach attracted the attention of political scientists and researches
in the mid of twentieth century. Scholars though attribute its genesis to the writings of Johann
G. Herder, Alexis de Tocqueville and Montesquieu among others, but it was Gabriel Almond
whose ground-breaking work, entitled “Comparative Political Systems” (1956) credited to
popularise the concept in the field of political science during the modern times. For Almond,
“every political system is embedded in a particular pattern of orientations to political action”,
and he defined this pattern as “political culture” (cited in Formisano, 2001: 396). In that
sense, the latter concept is imperative to understand the people’s orientations (in terms of the
political actions) in any given political system.
The term political culture, in general, refers to the people’s behaviours, beliefs, attitudes,
opinions, and orientations towards the political system and its varied institutions as well
political processes and activities. In fact, in order to understand the “political tendencies in a
nation, one place to begin is with public attitudes toward politics and the citizen’s role in the
political system—what we call a nation’s political culture” (Powell, et al. 2015: 63). In this
regard, Alan A. Ball argues that the concept of “political culture is composed of the attitudes,
beliefs, emotions and values of society that relates to the political system and to apolitical
issues” (Ball, 1971: 56). In a similar vein, Almond and Verba (1963: 14) state that this term
denotes the “political orientations—attitudes towards the political system and its various
parts, and attitudes toward the role of the self in the system.” Furthermore, Roy C. Macridis
interestingly offers a slightly different understanding of the concept of political culture, he
asserts that it “constitutes commonly shared goals and commonly accepted rules of individual
and groups interaction in terms of which authoritative decision and choice will be made by all
the ‘actors’ within a political system” (cited in Kim, 1964: 331). In other words, the study of
human interaction with the government and its different formal political institutions is the
central objective of the political culture approach.
It is important to note here that the different communities, groups and members of the
society may have their own individual political culture indicating their peculiar political
understanding and orientations. However, it does not refer to the people’s opinions and
viewpoints towards individual political actors like head of the government (president in the
context of US and the Prime Minster of India) and political party leader. While evaluating the
key components of the political culture, Samuel H. Beer argues that “values, beliefs and
emotional attitudes” are the principal components (Kim, 1964: 324). In other words, people’s
values, beliefs and attitudes, for Beer, toward the political system and governance is what that
implies their political culture. Moreover, the nature of political culture varies according to the
degree of civic engagement in the political system. Owing to different socio-political and
economic contexts, citizens in some political system or some part of the country are likely to
be more active in the politics than the other. For an example; the voter turnout in 2019 Kerala
assembly elections (77.68%) is considerably higher than 2020 Delhi assembly elections

26
(62.82%) according to the Election Commission of India. Hence, the political culture of
distinct groups and communities in a society can be varied according to the context and
socio-political milieu.
Almond and Verba’s Conception of Political Culture
Many scholars like Lucian Pye, Edward W. Lehman, Edmund Burke, Samuel H. Beer, Roy
C. Macridis and Ronald Inglehart among others defined the theoretical underpinnings of
political culture from different standpoints. The ground-breaking work on political cultural
that inspired generation of researchers and scholars, has been presented by Gabriel A.
Almond and Sidney Verba in their landmark study entitled, “The Civil Culture: Political
Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations” (1963). They comprehensively defined and
explained the key elements of the political culture approach by following the comparative
methods and empirical tools. Almond and Verba’s analysis is based on the cross-national
survey and interviews carried out, during 1959-1960, on a large scale in five democratic
countries such as the United State, Italy, Britain, Mexico and West Germany. The primary
objective of their classic study was to identify the political culture that may help to sustain
and strengthen the liberal democracy. While explaining the rationale of their study in the
introductory chapter, Almond and Verba posed a question that “How can these subtleties and
these humane etiquettes [of liberal democracies] survive even among ourselves in a world
caught in the grip of a science and technology run wild, destructive of tradition and of
community and possibly of life itself?” (Almond and Verba, 1963: 7). In other words, they
had perceived a potential threat to the stability of democratic regimes in the cold war period,
and probably that was why, they were engaged in exploring the ways to consolidate the
institutions of liberal democracy.
While outlining the different types of political culture, Almond and Verba emphasised
upon the three types of political orientations (that primly exists among the individuals and
social groups) such as cognitive orientation, affective orientation and evaluational
orientation. The first orientation denotes the “knowledge of and belief about the political
system, its roles and the incumbents of these roles, its inputs and its outputs” (Almond and
Verba, 1963: 7). The affective orientation explains the “feeling about the political system, its
roles, personnel, and performance” (Ibid.). The third major orientation, evaluational
orientation, refers to the “judgements and opinions about political objects that typically
involve the combination of value standards and criteria with information and feelings” (Ibid.).
This three-fold classification of political orientation indicates the relationships between the
members of the society and the political system, and the degree of this relationship defines
the role of the people in politics that in turn, shapes their political culture, as discussed in the
following paras.
Based on their rigorous cross-national field-work and comparative research, Almond and
Verba classified the political cultures into following three main categories:

27
(i) Parochial Political Culture: This political culture refers to such societies where citizens
are neither aware of their political system nor interested in the political activities and
events. People, in parochial political culture, do not possess any expertise in the
political activities and processes that explicitly reflect in their political attitudes and
orientations. At the same time, people’s expectations from the politics are virtually none
and, therefore, they are not active in politics. For instance; the “political cultures of
African tribal societies and autonomous local communities” are perfect example of this
type of political culture (Almond and Verba, 1963: 14). It is also worth noting that
“parochial cultures have been rare in established democracies but elements can be
found in isolated rural communities” where the lives of common people appear
unaffected by the national politics (Rod and Martin, 2004: 89). In other words, citizens’
understanding of the political system, political processes and political leaderships is
very low or probably zero because of their complete ignorance about the political
system and its different affairs. Also, they are not eager to be part of the political
processes in order to influence the political outcomes rather occupied with their routine
lives.
(ii) Subject Political Culture: In this second type of political culture, citizens have a good
sense of the politics and government that governs them. People, however, are not much
interested in participating in the political activities since they consider themselves as the
“subject” of the political system rather than its active participant or agent. In this regard,
Almond and Verba state that the citizens here consider the governmental policies and
law as “something [they] obeys, not something [they] helps” shaping them (Almond
and Verba, 1963: 118). Subject political culture appears in tune with the character of
highly centralised and hierarchical political regimes like authoritarian regimes where
the people do have a good knowledge about the political system and activities, but they
are not often encouraged or legitimately allowed to participate in the politics (Rod and
Martin, 2004: 89). In other words, people unlike parochial political culture, are well
aware of the political system and government’s working as well as their political rights,
but they lack or have minimal opportunities to influence the political outcome and
decision-making process, and probably that is why, they are politically passive.
(iii) Participant Political Culture: The participant culture is one where the members of the
society, like subject culture, are highly informed of their country’s politics and the
political system. But unlike the subject culture, they are active participants of politics as
they as consider themselves as one of its significant stakeholders who cannot just
influence the political outcomes but can also shape the governmental policies and
decisions. In this regard, Almond and Verba (1963: 18) argue that the citizens “tend to
be oriented toward an ‘active’ role of the self in the polity…” Moreover, citizens as the
keen observers of politics have a very strong political opinion and view about the
politics and as a result, they do not hesitate to raise their voice against the government
while find any governmental decision and policy not in tune with the peoples’ demands.

28
 Participant cultures are seemingly most compatible to the democratic regimes because
of its vibrant nature.
While classifying the political cultures in above three categories, Almond and Verba
(1963: 19) state that their classification “does not imply homogeneity or uniformity of
political cultures. Thus political system with predominately participant cultures will, even in
the limiting case, include both subjects and parochials.” In that sense, all three political
cultures can be found coexisting in any given political system including democracy.
Civic Culture
In comparison to parochial and subject cultures, the participant culture undoubtedly appears
as the best suitable political culture for the stable liberal democracy where citizens are
encouraged to play an active and constructive role at the different levels of the government.
However, Almond and Verba rejected any of such propositions because, according to them,
the democracy would “prove most stable in societies blending different cultures in a
particular mix”, and they termed this mixture as the “civic culture” as illustrated in the figure
4.1 (Rod and Martin, 2004, 89). In other words, the mixed culture consisting of the elements
of all three major cultures—parochial, subject and participant cultures—appears ideal for the
stability of a democratic political system.
Figure 4.1 – Almond and Verba’s Analysis of the Civic Culture

In the civil culture, majority of the citizens are informed about the political system and
their political responsibilities, but it is “the passive minority, whether parochials, subjects or
both, [who] provide stability to the system” (Rod and Martin, 2004, 90). Furthermore, the
citizens (the participants) are not engaged in the politics to the extent that they refrain to
follow those governmental decisions and orders with which they do not agree and become the
source of chaos in a society. In other words, citizens in the civil culture are capable of

29
participating in the political activities and influencing political outcomes and decisions (like
they are in the participant political culture), but they often do not do so (like parochial and
subject political cultures). Therefore, the civil culture plays a significant role in maintaining a
balance “between popular control and effective governance” in a democratic system (Ibid). In
other words, the citizens have access to many platforms to influence the government’s
decisions and policy-making process on the one hand, and the political elites have flexibilities
to sometime take tough decisions on sensitive issues against the popular opinions on the other
hand. In their cross-national study of five democratic countries, Almond and Verba
concluded that the political culture in Britain and the United States—unlike of the Mexico,
Italy and West Germany—was in sync with norms of the civil culture, and thus, found best
suitable for stable democracy. Because in the both United States and Britain, the members of
the nation “felt they could influence the government but often chose not to do so, thus giving
the government its required agility” (Ibid).
Other Major Conceptions on Political Culture
Ronald Inglehart is one of principal proponents of the political culture approach. In his
popular work entitled “The Renaissance of Political Culture” (1988), he states that citizens in
different societies “are characterised by durable cultural orientations that have major political
and economic consequences” (Inglehart, 1988: 1203). In that sense, Inglehart—in contrast to
Almond and Verba—links the cultural factors (civic culture) with political stability as well as
economic development. He offers a somewhat fresh and interesting explanation of the term
‘civic culture’ and defines it as “a coherent syndrome of personal life satisfaction, political
satisfaction, interpersonal trust and support for the existing social order” (Ibid). For Inglehart,
the societies with a high degree of this syndrome have more probabilities than those with a
low, to be stable democracies. In other words, his cross-national analysis suggests that there
is a positive co-relation between personal and political satisfaction as well as interpersonal
trust and the stable democracy since these all factors constitute “a syndrome of positive
attitudes toward” the democratic institutions (Ibid., 1215). Hence, societies with a high
degree of such syndrome are to be expected to promote democratic ethos as well as
strengthen democratic institutions than those characterising by a low degree of such attitudes.
By the late 1980s, political culture approach had gained the prominence amongst the
historians. Most notably, two historians such as John L Brooke in his award-winning work
entitled “Society and Political Culture on Worcester County Massachusetts, 1773-1861”
(1989) and Daniel Walker Howe in “The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture in the
North during the Second Party System” (1991) followed this approach in their historical
inquiries. In fact, Howe extended the conceptual arena of political culture by including the
social movements and their struggle for political power. He emphasised that one had “to
define political culture to include all struggles over power, not just those decided by
elections” (Formisano, 2001: 416). For Howe, the people’s campaigns for gender justice,
environmental protection, racial justice and the rights of working class among others were
significant in the US politics, and their appropriate analysis was essential to develop a

30
comprehensive understanding about the locals’ political culture. In his way, Howe credited to
broaden the definition of ‘political culture’ as well as ‘politics’ by bringing the social
movements under its theoretical ambit.
Social Capital and Political Culture
In the latter decade of twentieth century, the political culture approach attracted more
popularity with the works of scholars like Robert Putnam. In his most prominent work
entitled “Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy” (1993), Putnam
studied the working of Italian regional governments by employing varied approaches and
empirical tools. David D. Laitin (1995) credited the latter work to mark a “stunning new
beginning for political culture research” (Formisano, 2001: 406). However, Putnam
employed the term ‘social capital’ to analyse the roots of people’s engagement in politics.
The term refers to “networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that
facilitate co-operation within or among groups” (Keeley, 2007: 103). According to Putnam,
social capital “may possibly be more important than physical or human capital” for stable
democracies and administrative efficiencies (Rotberg, 1999: 339). Since he hypothesised that
societies with a high degree of social capital encouraged people to participate in political
activities and processes that was considered significant for political stability and effective
governance. While analysing the interrelation between civic culture (Almond and Verba) and
social capital (Putnam), Robert I. Rotberg (1999: 341) argues that a “civic culture exists
because citizens have accumulated large amount of social capital… [In other words, the] high
levels of social capital contribute to the creation of political culture that is open, pluralistic,
deliberative, tolerant and democratic.” In this way, Putnam’s classic work encouraged the
researchers to further develop the concept of political culture approach. The positive co-
relation between the social capital and political culture is observed as the high degree of the
former is linked with the latter’s development. The next section sheds light on the major
criticisms and deficiencies of the political culture approach.
Political Culture and Ideology
During the 1960s and 1970s, scholarly work on political culture was primarily confined to the
behavioural aspects. However, neo-Marxist scholars like Louis Althusser offered an
alternative perspective (with emphasise on the concept of ‘ideology’) to analyse the role of
culture in politics. According to Althusser, the “state has two key components: repressive and
ideological state apparatuses” (Rosamond, 1997: 66). The repressive apparatuses include the
armed and law enforcement agencies like police and paramilitary forces (function via
coercion) while the latter include the family, educational institutions, religion, and culture
among others (operates ideologically). Interestingly, ideological apparatus becomes
significant to rule at times when the coercive ones could not function. From this standpoint,
“political culture becomes the prevailing value system and knowledge structure which is
dispersed throughout society by the dominant classes at any given time” (Ibid., 65). In other
words, political culture is not linked with the political attitude and orientation of the members

31
of the society, but it is a value system of dominant classes that favours the governing class to
maintain their political dominance (hegemony), thus stabilizing the political order.
Subcultures
Some of the scholarly writings on political culture highlighted the fact that the existence of
one political culture across the nation was nothing more than an idealistic assumption. It is
very likely that many “political cultures may co-exist within any given political system”
rather than a single national political culture (Rosamond, 1997: 67). To develop a
comprehensive understanding about the interconnection between the culture and political
system, it is important to investigate “the interaction of different subcultures and the impact
of that interaction upon the political system as a whole” (Ibid). The term ‘subculture’ refers to
distinctive identity of diverse social groups and communities in any given society. In the
context of political culture, it refers to the existence of different range of behaviours,
opinions, orientations and attitudes possess by the different communities and social groups
toward the political system. Dennis Kavanagh in his work entitled “Political Culture” (1972),
identifies “four distinct bases on which subcultures develop: elite versus mass culture,
cultural divisions within elites, generational subcultures and social structure” (Ibid). In this
way, these four bases produce different sets of sub-culture in a society that have different
social and political implications.
Limitation of Political Culture Approach
The political culture approach like any other approach of comparative politics has attracted a
stark criticism from the different political scientists. First and foremost, critics argue that the
proponents of this approach tend to depict a national political culture of a communities and
social groups in a given society. Rather, the scholars “should have focused more on
subcultures of race and class within the societies examined” (Rod and Martin, 2004: 90). For
an example, it may be possible that peoples within a community (based on race, class, caste,
religion and so on) may portray different political culture owing to their personal satisfactions
and way of lives. Furthermore, scholarly works on the political culture approach did not offer
a comprehensive account of its origin and evolution in social science, which in turn created
obstacles in a way of developing a historical understanding of the concept (Ibid). On the other
side, political culture as an analytical method and tool employed principally in the western
democracies, for many years, to study the individuals’ political beliefs and orientations
towards politics (Bove, 2002: 1). It did not only limit the scope of the political culture
studies, but also made its analysis western dominated.
Edward W. Lehman alleges that the political culture approach has a “tendency to
‘reduce’ cultural factors either to social system characteristics (especially to structure) or to
treat them as merely the statistical aggregation of the intrapsychic orientations of the
individual members of society” (Lehman, 1972: 362). This reductionist approach offers a
very narrow understanding of the cultural factors that shapes the national and local politics.
Furthermore, Lehman states that the cross-national survey method—employed by Almond

32
and Verba in their study of political culture in the five major liberal democracies as discussed
above—has inaccurately led us believe that “all the members of society have equal ‘leverage’
in determining the dominant cultural patterns or that all groups equally subscribe to them”
(Ibid). Studies like M. Mann (1970) have proven that people in a society act differently in a
political domain and at the same time, their individual capability to access the politics and its
different institutions varies.
On the other side, critics claim that political culture approach intended to maintain the
status-quo and thus favouring the interests of the ruling elites. Lowell Dittmer noted that “the
concept of political culture was too fixated on systemic stability, as if the absence of change
required explanation” (Dittmer, 1974: 577). In other words, critics found the approach
conservative in term of its political consequences and thus, rejecting the possibilities to bring
change in a society. At times, the change in social as well as political order is imperative to
promote democracy and its basic values like justice, fairness and equality etc. Nonetheless,
these critics do not undermine the significance of political culture approach in the study of
comparative politics. In recent years, scholars like Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel
(2003) have attempted to address these deficiencies and called for retaining this approach as a
significant comparative analytical tool in political science.
Concluding Observations
Political culture is one of the key modern approaches in field of comparative politics. It has
enabled the political scientists and researchers to empirically analyse the interactions between
the individual behaviours and political system on the one hand, and facilitated them in
exploring the significance of civic engagement in political stability and governmental
effectiveness on the other. It is also observed that the emergence of political culture approach
in modern comparative politics has supplemented the “behaviouralist analysis of individual
political decisions,” and thus offering realistic explanations about the political phenomenon
(Bove, 2002: 3). However, scholarly efforts are required to revise the components and scope
of political culture approach so that it stays relevant with time.
References

 Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sydney. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Ball, Alan R. 1971. Modern Politics and Government. London: Macmillan.
 Bove, Andrew. 2002. The Limits of Political Cultures: An Introduction to G.W.F. Hegel’s
Notion of Bildung. In: A Bove. eds. Questionable Returns. Vienna: IWM Junior Visiting
Fellows Conference, Vol. 12.
 Dittmer, Lowell. 1974. Political Culture and Political Symbolism: Toward a Theoretical
Synthesis. World Politics, XXIX, accessed on 21 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2577258

33
 Formisano, Ronald P. 2001. The Concept of Political Culture. The Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 31 (3), accessed on 04 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/207089
 Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin. 2004. Comparative Government and Politics: An
Introduction. 6th Ed. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Inglehart, Ronald. 1988. The Renaissance of Political Culture. The American Political
Science Review, 82 (4), accessed on 18 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1961756
 Inglehart, Ronald and Welzel, Christian. eds. 2003. Political Culture and Democracy:
Analysing Cross-Level Linkage. Comparative Politics. 63 (1), accessed on 21 November
2020, online available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4150160
 Keeley, Brian. 2007. Human Capital: How What You Know Shapes Your Life. 1st Ed.,
OECD: Paris.
 Kim, Young C. 1964. The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics. The
Journal of Politics, 26 (2), accessed on 04 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2127599
 Lehman, Edward W. 1972. On the Concept of Political Culture: A Theoretical
Reassessment. Social Forces, 50 (3), accessed on 21 November 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2577040
 Powell, G. Bingham, Dalton, Russell J. and Strøm, Kaare W. 2015. Comparative Politics
Today: A World View. 11 Ed. Harlow: Pearson.
 Pye, Lucien W. and Sydney, Verba. eds. 1965. Political Culture and Political
Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Rosamond, Ben. 1997. Political Culture. In: Barrie Axford. et al. Politics: An
Introduction, London: Routledge, pp. 57-81.
 Rotberg, Robert I. 1999. Social Capital and Political Culture in Africa, America,
Australasia and Europe. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 29 (3), accessed on 18
November 2020, online available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/207132

34
 Unit-2

(c) New Institutionalism

Yerramadasu Udaykumar

In the book they edited, Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative

Analysis, Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo remarked, “‘Political science is the study of
institutions,’ a senior colleague once remarked. ‘So what's new about the New
Institutionalism?’ he asked. This question reveals a scepticism toward the so-called new
institutionalism that deserves attention. Political scientists, sociologists, and economists have
studied institutions for a very long time. So what is all the fuss about?” (Thelen and Steinmo
1992) In its essence, the new institutionalism is a contradiction and a paradox. The concern of
the study of politics is, always has been and will remain institutions. Institutions are the heart
and soul of politics. It is not an exaggeration; if there are no institutions, there are no politics
either. Institutionalism is not an approach among the multiple approaches to politics. Instead,
the other approaches proceed from taking for granted the rule governing institutions. If we
take politics seriously, with the seriousness that politics deserve, the new institutionalism
attempts not to go back to institutions; to be fair, It attempts to go back to politics itself.
However, it is crucial not to overlook; not all institutions are political. Institutions,
sometimes, are resistant to what we conventionally call politics. Family, marriage, religion,
and numerous other institutions do not neatly subsume under politics. On the contrary, they
often seek to situate themselves outside the interference of politics. The passionate feminist
slogan, personal is political, in a way, is the rejection of the desire of the family to stay
outside the interference of politics. It might be helpful to reflect on what we mean when we
say something as politics or someone is doing politics. The prevalent use of the term made it
obscure. Politics is often used either as synonymous with power or interest. While this view
is widespread and has many supporters, it is also the most impoverished notion of what
constitutes politics.
For the sake of illustration, take a look at the slogan mentioned above for another time;
the personal is political. When politics are taken as interest and power, the slogan seems
contradictory. The slogan seems to suggest, the family and the personal are outside power
and interests, while that is absolutely untrue. Both the family and the personal are deeply
entrenched in power. The filial, the paternal, the fraternal and even the maternal, none of
them are outside the power. Instead, they are outside what Hegel defined and later, Derrida
reconceptualised the politics; it is neither interest nor power; it is the ethical difference
(Sittliche Differenz). Thus, politics is the contestation over ethics. The family and the
personal, if they are outside politics or if they seek to be outside the politics, they do not seek
to be outside power relations. Instead, they seek to live outside the ethical contestation, and
they seek to resist the ethical contestation over the power relation intrinsic to them. With this,
we made the concepts complex instead of simplifying. However, that is, unfortunately, the
35
only way to get to the bottom of things. The institutions are all entrenching and possibly
extend beyond politics, then what is new about this new institutionalism within political
science? Or, So what is all the fuss about?
Any meaningful account of the New Institutionalism is possible only on the condition
that we elucidate what is institutionalism in the first place and second what is new to the
extent that it is distinct and yet is prefixed to the institutionalism. Thus, it is unavoidable to
give at least preliminary remarks on institutionalism. There are two distinct ways in which
institutionalism or every political category is to be analysed. While not utterly dissociable
from one other, at least based on emphasis, every political category can be analysed
philosophically or historically. A philosophical approach or the conceptual approach
considers the essential meaning of the concept, in this case, the institution. It tries to
differentiate the institution from other categories, such as the opposing category, the
individual.
On the other hand, the historical approach considers the evolution or consecutive
changes that the institutions underwent. The historical approach privileges context over the
concept. Nevertheless, despite these differences, the historical approach can not dispense with
a preliminary understanding of the question, what is an institution? Thus, a preliminary
definition is indispensable. So, what is an institution? We know of the educational
institutions, military institutions, medical institutions, and the list is almost inexhaustible. An
institution is an aggregate of individuals. While the aggregate of individuals is the necessary
condition for an institution, it is not sufficient. An institution requires much more than a
collection of individuals. Mobs and masses are a collection of individuals, but they are not
institutions.
James March and Johan Olsen define the institution as, “An institution is a relatively
enduring collection of rules and organised practices, embedded in structures of meaning and
resources that are relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively
resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changing
external circumstances.” (March and Olsen 1984) It is visible from the above definition that
individuals and the idiosyncratic preferences of the individuals are exactly posed as opposing
one another. However, unlike the individual, an institution is resilient, enduring and resistant
to change. Maybe we might take a look at another well-known definition. Peter Hall and
Rosemary Taylor define institutions as “the formal or informal procedures, routines, norms
and conventions embedded in the organisational structure of the polity or political economy.
They can range from the rules of the constitutional order or the standard operating procedures
of a bureaucracy to the conventions governing trade union behaviour or bank-firm relations.”
(Hall and Rosemary 1996)
So far, we defined what an institution is, defined politics, and gave preliminary remarks
about the interdependency of politics and institutions. Next, we will look at the specific
conditions under which the new institutionalism emerged. Institutionalism as an approach to
politics faded into the background with the outburst of behaviouralism and rational choice
36
approaches that dominated social sciences in the 1960s and '70s. Institutionalism suddenly
started appearing outdated and metaphysical with the forceful entry of behaviouralism and
the rational choice approach. Though, both behaviouralism and rational choice approaches
disrupted the possibility of institutionalism to survive. They wanted to analyse observable
facts and predictable patterns. While institutions survive, they are seen as nothing but the
agents within which the self-seeking individuals participate rather than institutions
determining the individuals. The huge aversion of the behaviouralism and rational choice
approaches towards any theory based not on observable facts is self-evident.
However, to sustain their claims, both theories need metaphysical assertions to be the
foundation. Thus, both theories propagated and based on the metaphysics of the individual.
According to these theories, the individual is self-seeking, utility maximising, goal-oriented,
calculative, atomised, and, to be precise, narcissistic. Rather than a stable human attribute, the
atomised and narcissistic individual is a characteristic trait of the modern individual. Suppose
Foucault painstakingly presents that the army and the prisons with its investments in the
microphysics of power produce the free subject or what he calls the docile bodies. Thus, the
narcissistic individual is not a stable human condition. Instead, it is institutionally
constructed. This construal is the post-structuralist catchphrase, ‘the subject formation.’
“Institutions are not simply equilibrium contracts among self-seeking, calculating individual
actors or arenas for contending social forces. They are collections of structures, rules, and
standard operating procedures that have a partly autonomous role in political life.” (March
and Olsen 1984)
The new institutionalism is the escape from this outburst of behaviouralism and rational
choice approaches. Though the new institutionalism emerged from the theoretical impasse of
behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, it also deviated from old institutionalism.
More importantly, the new institutionalism is not one set of unified approaches. Instead, it
has multiple proponents and viewpoints. Considering the vast body of literature that emerged
from the rejection of behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, it is not advisable to
restrict them to a single body of literature. Despite the accepted redundancy of
behaviouralism and the rational choice approach, there is considerable disagreement among
the different strands of new institutionalism on the significance and insignificance of both
approaches. Thus, Peter Hall and Rosemary Taylor differentiate the new institutionalism into
three broad subgroups. According to them, these three subgroups within the new
institutionalism comprise Historical Institutionalism, Rational Choice Institutionalism and
Sociological Institutionalism. We will individually look at these three approaches to see both
the convergences and divergences. However, both Hall and Taylor remark that despite their
overlapping interests and goals, it is surprising that they seldom come together for a fruitful
collaboration.
2.1 Historical Institutionalism
To give a simple demonstration of historical institutionalism, we might look at Judith
Goldstein's article, Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy (1988). In this work, she
37
tried to explain protectionism in the United States. Unlike the common perception, she
noticed that rather than replacing one form of ideas with another, the contradictory ideas
about state policy such as Laissez-faire, protectionism and interventionism simultaneously
co-habit in the US. It is safe to suggest that this phenomenon might be true of other regions as
well. Based on this layering of ideas, she concludes, ‘a society embalmed in the “rule of law,”
legal constraints encourage the layering, rather than the replacing, of government
institutions.’ (Goldstein 1988) Instead of the efficient and rational approach replacing the less
efficient counterpart, her research suggests, the contradictory ideas tend to persist. Such an
analysis is made possible only by historical institutionalism. It evaluates the institutions over
a long period to observe the changes and continuities.
Before proceeding, it might be helpful to mention some of the significant contributors
and works that laid the foundations and continue to inspire historical institutionalism. A few
prominent figures include Suzanne Berger, Theda Skocpol, Douglas Ashford, Peter Hall,
Rosemary Taylor, John Ikenberry, Stephen Skowrone,k and Peter Katzenstein. These are
some prominent scholars who shaped historical institutionalism and gave new impetus to the
new institutionalism in political science. However, the list is not exhaustive. Historical
institutionalism is too broad to restrict it to a handful of academics. It might be helpful to note
a few notable works in the field as well. Peasants Against Politics: Rural Organization in
Brittany, 1911-1967(1972) and The French Political System(1974) by Suzanne Berger
deserves special mention. Small states in world markets (1985) and Cultural Norms and
National Security (1996) by Katzenstein, States and Social Revolutions (1979) and Social
policy in the United States (1995) by Skocpol, Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the
State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain (1990) by Peter A. Hall, Reasons of
State: Oil Politics and the Capacities of American Government (1988) by John Ikenberry and
Building a new American state (1982) by Stephen Skowronek are some of the critical and
unavoidable works on historical institutionalism.
What is historical institutionalism? Historical institutionalism emerged from the rejection
of behaviouralism and rational choice approaches. However, what is not clear is from where
historical institutionalism took inspiration? From where does the impetus come? “The idea of
socially and politically constructed preferences that figures prominently in the work of many
contemporary historical institutionalists echoes the writings of an earlier generation of
economic institutionalist-historians.” (Hall and Rosemary 1996) Peter Hall and Rosemary
Taylor mention two approaches that gave impetus to historical institutionalism. Among them,
one is group theories and the second, structural-functionalism. The group theories of politics
articulated the politics based on conflict, and such a conflict, in their view, is always based on
scarce resources. Thus, for the group theories, politics is essentially based on the contestation
over scarce resources. This mode of analysis made the group theories proximate to Marxism
and class analysis. However, historical institutionalism seeks to distance itself from both
Marxism and group theories on the grounds that while both theories deal with broad
contestations, they fail to explain the intermediate level conflicts. They tend to ignore the

38
national and institutional differences that affect both policy outcomes and space for
contestation.
Suppose, in her work, States and Social Revolutions (1979), Skocpol demonstrates the
inadequacy of the class analysis to explain the political dynamics of the states and social
revolutions. In her book, she tried to compare social revolutions in France, China and South
Africa. She notes, “Working strictly in terms of class analysis, it was difficult to
conceptualise, let alone adequately explain, the structure of the South African state and the
political role of the Afrikaners.” (Skocpol 1979) There is a remarkable distinction among
countries and how the working class in specific countries articulate their demands. Broad
theoretical generalisation, though it guides the analysis, the permutations and combinations of
the interest articulation and ‘the mobilisation of biases’ are outside the scope of Marxism.
“Criticising the ahistorical approach of traditional interest-group theories and Marxist
analysis alike, these theorists wanted to know why interest groups demanded different
policies in different countries and why class interests were manifested differently cross-
nationally.” (Thelen and Steinmo 1992) While the echo of Marxism is alive in the historical
institutionalism as a tool kit and a compass, the methods, micro-level tactics and 'the logics of
appropriateness' are incorporated anew. Marxism remained to inform the theoretical outlook,
while historical institutionalism made headway into the analysis of historical and regional
specificities. The influence of Marxism is evident in the vocabulary of the historical
institutionalists. For example, they emphasise the changes in institutions in terms of ‘critical
junctures,’ which cause disruption in the existing institutional structure by enabling a
‘branching point’ and pave the way for new institutional structures.
Apart from the Marxist class analysis, the emergence of historical institutionalism is
attributable to another legacy, structural-functionalism. However, unlike the class analysis,
structural-functionalism does not base the analysis on a conflicting class or group interest.
Instead, for structural-functionalism, the system is an aggregate of interacting parts or groups,
which brings it closer to the aims and goals of historical institutionalism. However, one
crucial qualificatory remark is necessary before comparing both. Historical institutionalism is
akin or proximate to structuralism rather than the functionalism of structural-functionalism.
Central to the approach is the question; it is well established that institutions mould, structure,
and to some extent, determine the individual behaviour, but how do institutions perform such
a role? To this question, Rosemary and Hall respond with two approaches within historical
institutionalism; one is the calculus approach and the other, the cultural approach.
2.1.1 The Calculus Approach
Between the two, the calculus approach takes into account individuals as strategic, calculative
and instrumental. However, these traits do not operate independently of the institutions.
Individuals are strategic but that strategy is confined within the parameters set by the
institutions. They calculate their actions in accordance with other actors and rules, codes and
persistent notions of the institutions. Moreover, the instrumentality is institutionally
mandated. Even though individuals and political actors are instrumental, they “organise
39
themselves and act in accordance with rules and practices which are socially constructed,
publicly known, anticipated, and accepted.” (March and Olsen 1984) One can even argue, the
instrumentality of an individual is socially constructed and publicly accepted. However, the
calculus approach is careful not to entertain such an opinion. Unlike the cultural approach, it
still emphasises individual calculation at the centre of analysis.
2.1.2 The Cultural Approach
Contrary to the calculus approach, the cultural approach characterises the individual as a
satisficer instead of a utility maximiser. “Taking preference formation as problematic rather
than given, it then also follows that alliance formation is more than a lining up of groups with
compatible (pre-existing and unambiguous) self-interests.” (Hall and Rosemary 1996)
According to the cultural approach, an individual follows ‘the established routine’ instead of
constantly seeking to maximise utility. It is not to say that individuals are not rational and
utility maximising. But such traits are part of the established routine rather than the conscious
goal-oriented activity of the individual. In other words, the institution demands the individual
through the established routine to be purposive and goal-oriented. Utility maximising is
demanded and enforced by the individual to be a part of an institution.
2.1.3 Criticism
The strength of historical institutionalism is its eclectic character. However, the eclectic
character is the source of its significant criticism as well. While eclecticism is its strength, it
is also its greatest weakness. Because of its ability to take and incorporate the new horizons
to understand institutions, it never developed a reliable model for interpreting the
interrelation between the individual and the institution as elaborately as the other
institutionalists.
2.2 Rational Choice Institutionalism
In the 1970s, scholars deeply engaged in the rational choice approach began to raise some
doubts and concerns pertaining to the efficacy of their approach. These doubts are specific to
congressional behaviour. The strict adherence to the notions of rational choice such as utility
maximising and strategic calculations are expected to result in the constant formation and
dissolution of the majorities in policymaking. If individuals in Congress are strategic, they
have no reason to participate in majorities where their interest is not placed. According to the
expectations, this pattern should cause a ‘cycling effect’ in which the possibility of any
observable majority is impossible. However, contrary to the expectations, the majorities in
the congressional legislature are reasonably stable. Rational choice institutionalism emerged
out of this impasse to account for the evident discrepancy in their articulation. Thus, these
theorists looked for explanations in institutionalism while simultaneously adhering to the
foundational notions of rational choice.
Control of choices and agenda setting are two essential components of institutions that
rational choice institutionalism considers along with the assumptions of the rational choice

40
approaches. Individuals are still strategic, calculative and utility maximisers. However, those
aspects of the individuals are either enhanced or diminished nonetheless, certainly structured
by institutions. Thus, institutions control the choices and set an agenda for the individual to
try and maximise their utility. In this direction, it took inspiration and tools from ‘the new
economics of organisation.’ By taking inspiration from these approaches, the rational choice
institutionalism postulates, the institution reduces transaction costs and uncertainties. Thus,
the utility maximising individuals is still operative, but in an institution in which the choices
are controlled, agendas are already set, transaction costs are immensely reduced, and
uncertainties are mitigated. However, a critical distinction with the other approaches to
institutionalism deserves mention here. Unlike the other approaches, rational choice
institutionalism still adheres to the notion that the individuals are driven not by impersonal
and unmeasurable forces of history or society. They are driven purely on rational and
personal motivation. Even when the individual is forced to collaborate and act according to
the institutionalist paradigm, the reasons are personal and strategic calculations. They are not
collective in essence. Thus, for rational choice institutionalism, institutions' formation and
continued existence are based on benefits that the institutions offer to the individuals. In this
sense, the institution is the voluntary formation of individuals.
In recent years, rational choice institutionalism expanded from congressional structure
analysis into more broad research areas. These areas include deliberations among the political
parties, the relationship between Congress and courts, the relationship between Congress and
regulatory agencies. It also expanded influence into the discipline of international relations.
This approach has been applied to international institutions, cross-national competitions and
negotiations.
2.2.1 Criticism
It is self-evident by now that rational choice institutionalism is akin to rational choice
theories, which suffer from the criticism of the characterisation of the individual. While its
theories are often applicable in broader frames, they tend to obscure when applied to smaller
samples.
2.3 Sociological Institutionalism
Unlike both historical institutionalism and rational choice institutionalism, to some extent,
sociological institutionalism is counterintuitive. It emerged as a countermeasure to destabilise
the notion that while bureaucratic institutions are rational and operate on efficiency, the other
aspects of society are mere culture. Sociological institutionalism problematises this
distinction. Bureaucracy indeed operates on the principle of rationality and efficiency, but
such an operation is cultural rather than rational. Rationality is as much part of the culture as
myth and ceremonies. While the premodern forms of organisation are based on myth and
ceremonies, the modern culture operates on rationality and efficiency. Thus, it argues that the
bureaucratic institutions' self-evident rationality ought to be elaborated and theorised in
cultural terms. Since the interpretations of bureaucracy by Weber, at least within sociology,

41
the bureaucratic rationality is not something that emerged from nowhere but deeply
entrenched inside the cultural forms that predated it. The bureaucratic rationality has its roots
in the western religious life where the rationality is already embedded. The practices of the
bureaucracy are neither formed nor sustained because they are either rational or efficient.
They are both formed and sustained because they have been culturally embedded in the
western cultural forms.
Sociological institutionalism emphasises, there are apparent symbolic and ritualistic
forms even the rational bureaucracy adheres to, and these forms ought to be considered for
the analysis in much broader terms. In their efforts to break down the distinction between
institution and culture, sociological institutionalists consider institutions in much broader
terms than traditionally defined by institutionalism. It takes into account ‘the frame of
meaning.’ The frame of meaning is a broad network of rules, procedures and norms and
symbolic and moral cognates. This way, it incorporates aspects not incorporated into the
definition of the institutions before and widens its scope and meaning. The institutions that
are not studied before and relegated as mere culture is incorporated and analysed. This
broadening is possible because of the widened definition attached to the institutions.
The second crucial intervention by sociological institutionalism is its emphasis on the
cognitive dimension. What is the cognitive dimension? We are acquainted with the idea that
institutions shape individual behaviour; however, the cognitive dimension is not just
normative but also cognitive scripts, models and categories for the individual actions.
Without such categories and models, individual action is impossible. In other words,
institutions, according to sociological institutionalism, not just offer appropriate and
inappropriate codes, and they do not just offer strategic avenues; they offer the very frames
from which the strategic, appropriate, and calculations work. The cognitive dimension
provides the necessary field for the action to be meaningful in the first place based on which
the individual roles are performed in an institution. The individual in an institution is not
merely embedded in it. The individual holds a position and is situated in a specific role.
Suppose a teacher in an institution is not an individual who performs the role of teacher.
Instead, the individual becomes the teacher, demands respect from the students, performs
duties of teaching and participates in the building of the institution. The teacher is more of a
role than a performance. Thus, the role already pre-establishes the expectations.
The actions of the individuals are neither strategic nor calculative. They are
institutionally structured roles. They prescribe the frames of advantage and disadvantage so
that individuals act within the given frame to either enhance or diminish. The frames are
already culturally specified so that individuals can act. Therefore, sociological
institutionalism is interpretative. It is not to suggest that individuals are not purposive,
strategic and goal-oriented. What is strategic and goal-oriented is already socially mandated
or socially constructed. Thus, if there are any institutional changes, they do not stem from
rationality and efficiency. They stem from the broader legitimacy of the cultural milieu that
the institution is functioning. Instead of the rationality and efficiency that bureaucracy hails,

42
sociological institutionalism emphasises legitimacy and social appropriateness. Change,
continuity and functioning of an institution are based on the changing yardsticks of
legitimacy and social appropriateness.
2.3.1 Criticism
The major criticism against sociological institutionalism comes from historical
institutionalism. Sociological institutionalism takes no account of the conflict and struggles
inherent within the institutions for power and resource control. Another major criticism is that
by emphasising the continuity between institutions and culture, sociological institutionalism
erases the historical ruptures that gave shape to the new bureaucratic institutions.
2.4 Conclusion
The new institutionalism is just the revival of the old institutionalism. By carefully
elaborating the interaction between the individual and the institutions, it revitalised the old
institutionalism. In that process, it gave new direction and impetus to the institutions. The
new institutionalism is a new space for dialogue among the competing tendencies and
theories within political science. It opened up space for dialogue with other approaches such
as behaviouralism, rational choice approach, structuralism, functionalism, Marxism, post-
structuralism and structural-functionalism. Despite the rational choice being one of its
constituents, the new institutionalism goes beyond the definition of an institution as a
collection of individuals voluntarily joined together to maximise their utility. An institution is
more complex and multifaceted than a mere aggregate of individuals. Historical
institutionalism is successful in bringing the conflict to the core of the institutional analysis.
Unlike functionalism, because of historical institutionalism, power, conflict, and struggle
became central features to conceptualise institutions. It also brought to light the unequal
power that some actors are able to mobilise over others.
The common phrase in the vocabulary of the old institutionalism, ‘the mobilisation of
biases’, has become the central component in the analysis and explanations of the new
institutionalism. Moreover, it has attained special status owing to the diverse fields with
which the new institutionalism engages over a long period. While Marxism and post-
structuralism analysed the broader historical and cultural variations, the new institutionalism,
in many respects, gave significant material support for those theories at the microlevel.
Though none of the three institutionalists agrees on familiar ground at the core, they have
considerable space to merge and dialogue with one another at the margins. Many rational
choice theorists are now less averse to cultural and historical analysis. There is greater
emphasis placed on working together across multiple strands of new institutionalism.
References
Collier, D and Collier, R. B. (1991), Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the
Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

43
Downing, Brian. (1992), The Military Revolution and Political Change, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Goldstein, Judith. (1988), Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy, International
Organization, Winter, 1988, Vol. 42, No. 1, The State and American Foreign Economic
Policy (Winter, 1988), pp. 179-217: The MIT Press.
Hall, A.P and Taylor, C.R.R. (1996), Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.
March, G. J and Olsen, P. J. (1984), The New Institutionalism: Organisational Factors in
Political Life, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 734-749.
Orren, K and Skowronek, S. (2004), The Search for American Political Development,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol, Theda. (1979), States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France,
Russia, and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol, Theda. (1996), Social policy in the United States: Future Possibilities in Historical
Perspective, New York: Princeton University Press.
Thelen, K and Steinmo, S. (1992), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in
Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44
 Unit-3 : Historical Context of Modern Government

(a) Capitalism: Meaning and Development: Globalization

Dr. Robert Mizo

Introduction
Capitalism is the key ordering institution of the economic and social life today. It has come to
encompass almost all countries, big or small, and societies. Capitalism is generally
understood as an economic system wherein the means of production are privately owned and
production is geared towards profit. However, it is much more than just an economic system.
It produces a social order of its own in which people are segregated into classes on the basis
of their relations to the forces of production. Therefore, the concept and practice of capitalism
needs an in-depth study in order to gain an understanding of its essence, origin and
expansion. That is what this chapter attempts to achieve. It opens by studying the varying
meanings of capitalism before moving on to an analysis of its origin and development. The
chapter then discusses the expansion of capitalism through various historical time frames.
The lesson delves into the relationship between capitalism and globalisation after discussing
the meaning and nature of globalisation. It finally engages with the various types of
capitalism and the challenges that lie on its path.
Definitions and Meanings
Capitalism is seen as an ideology and as an economic system depending on its usage. As an
ideology, capitalism encompasses principles of private property, self-interest and
meritocracy. It overlaps substantially with the ethos of classical liberalism (Heywood, 2013).
As an economic system, capitalism is a system of generalized commodity production solely
directed towards profit making. Sociologists see capitalism as a social system where social
structures, institutions and relations are woven around market. Just as capitalism means
different things to different people, the nature of capitalism in practice also differs. However,
it is possible to discern a few of its common intrinsic characteristics listed as follows.
- Private ownership of productive wealth.
- Economic life is organised through market principles such as the price mechanism,
demand and supply.
- Wage labour in place of bonded labour.
- Material self-interest and profit maximization provide the motivation for enterprise and
hard work.
- Freedom of enterprise as an inalienable right of all.
- Limited control or intervention of the government in the economic activities.
Various thinkers have offered different meanings of capitalism, each having their own
interpretation of its origin and nature. Maurice Dobb (1950) underlines three major
understandings of the meaning of capitalism. First, thinkers such as Warner Sombart and
45
Max Weber have found the essence of capitalism in its geist or spirit defined by calculation
and rationality coupled with the bourgeoise spirit of enterprise or adventure. Weber defines
the spirit of capitalism as the attitude which seeks profit rationally and systematically (Dobb
1950, p. 5). This spirit has inspired the whole epoch of capitalism just as different economic
attitudes reigned at different times.
The second understanding of capitalism refers to the practice of production for a distant
market. This idea was developed by the scholars of the German Historical School who argue
that capitalism embodies the distinction between the “natural economy” of the medieval
period and the “money economy” that succeeded it. Capitalism is contained in the process
where production and retail are separated in space and time by the intervention of a wholesale
merchant whose sole aim is the invest in purchase of the goods for resale at a profit. Bucher
sees the essential criterion of capitalism in the distance the goods travel in passing from
producer to consumer (Dobb, 1950). Nussbaum defines capitalism as a system of exchange
economy where people are differentiated into owners and property-less workers.
Thirdly, Marx sees capitalism as a “mode of production” – referring to the way in which
the means of production are owned in a society. It is an epoch or a historical phase wherein
human relations are determined by where they stand in relation to process of production. The
capitalist society is inevitably divided into two groups – the bourgeoise (owners of the means
of production) and the proletariat (property-less labour class). Capitalism is a system of
production where labour-power itself becomes a commodity, sold and bought on the market
while the sum total of productive forces and capital lies in the hands of the bourgeoise. While
liberals saw capitalism as the most efficient way of organising an economy and creating
wealth and prosperity, Marx and his philosophical followers saw it as inherently exploitative
and divisive. The economic system feeds on the exploitation of surplus value produced by the
labour class which becomes profit for the capitalist class. In fact, Marx argues that the value
of commodities is determined by the number of labour hours taken to produce them, or more
specifically, the number of labour hours deemed to be ‘socially necessary’ for their
production. Following his theory of class struggle, Marx argues that Capitalism contains the
seeds of its own destruction and would inevitably lead to a proletarian revolution which
would herald the onset of a socialist mode of production and ultimately leading to a classless
and stateless society – full communism.
Liberal Conception of Capitalism
Capitalism is rooted in the classical liberal ethos of individualism, enterprise and freedom. It
is an economic system that privileges private property, personal self-interest and meritocracy.
The liberal understanding of capitalism is most clearly elucidated in the works of Economist
Adam Smith who is widely known as the father of Economics. In his work An Inquiry into
the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith explained how the free market
system, or the Laissez-Faire was the reason why some nations are wealthier than others. This
is a system founded on the principle on non-intervention of government in economic affairs.
The doctrine believes that the economy works most efficiently when left alone by
46
government. It assumes that an unregulated market economy tends naturally towards
equilibrium through ‘perfect competition’ among free economic actors.1 Adam Smith
believed that the invisible hand of the market tended towards the prosperity of the whole. The
Laissez-Faire system is opposed to any form of governmental intervention unless it is
restricted to actions that promote market competition such as checks on monopolies and the
maintenance of stable prices. In effect, the state is expected to play no bigger role in the
economy than that of a night-watchman, whose primary responsibility is to maintain law and
order, protect private property and ensure the smooth functioning of the market. David
Ricardo furthered Smith’s conception of free market internationally in his work On the
Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. He argued that countries should seek
comparative advantage by focusing on trading goods they are most efficient at producing.
This will lead to mutual benefits for all trading partners.
Origin and Development Capitalism
Theorising the origin of capitalism depends on the different meanings ascribed to it. Thinkers
who attach capitalism to the acquisitive investment of money or the spirit of enterprise would
infer that some form of capitalism has been in existence nearly throughout all periods of
history. For instance, the use of money for exchange and the distinctive capitalist spirit of
entrepreneurship were recorded in classical Greece and Rome. However, understanding
capitalism as a historiography having a unique class system and socio-economic features is a
fairly modern conception. Of course, there are several stages of the development of
capitalism. We will study them briefly in the following passages.
Capitalism – A product of Modernity
Capitalism is an outcome of the period of Modernity that began in Europe after the medieval
ages. The period provided the philosophical and political background upon which capitalism
originated and developed. Some of these were seen in movements such as Renaissance or
Enlightenment, Reformation and the subsequent Industrial Revolution. Renaissance (which
means rebirth) spanning from 14th century to 17th century marked the beginning of the
modern period. This intellectual revolution was characterised by the emphasis on scientific
temperament and rationality, and the abhorrence towards religion, traditionality and
conformism. The enlightenment philosophy privileged empirical knowledge, the universality
of science and reason, individualism, secularism, equality of human beings, and opposition to
feudal and traditional constraints to individual freedoms. Enlightenment in essence presented
the unified change in the worldviews of Europeans towards God, the natural world and
human beings. The movement marked the mastery and control of humans over nature.
Similarly, the Reformation of Christianity which was a religious revolution in the 16th
century Europe had wide ranging social, political and economic effects on the society. Led by
remarkable leaders such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, the movement gave rise to the

1
Perfect competition refers to a market system which is free and open, consumers have perfect knowledge and
no producer is large enough to affect the price of goods.
47
formation of Protestantism which challenged the traditional authority of the Church and the
Papacy and proclaimed that the only source of authority was the scriptures. Anyone can
achieve salvation by reading the Holy Bible on their own. The reformation movement made
individualism more prominent in the western European world. It further gave rise to the idea
of sovereignty of the individual upon which were placed various other values of capitalism
such as self-interest, egoism, and freedom. Weber explains the beginnings of capitalism in the
context of modernity and reformation in his seminal work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism. According to him, the Protestant ethic refers to the values of hard work, thrift,
and efficiency in one’s worldly calling which were deemed signs of god’s blessings or eternal
salvation. Being hardworking, thrifty and enterprising would lead to prosperity which was
considered to be a sign of heavenly affection. This ethic of Protestantism laid the foundation
for capitalism to develop and grow.
Further, the Scientific Revolution (1500-1700 centuries) was instrumental in the
emergence of modern science and technological advancement which helped capitalism grow
and expand. The seminal discoveries and advancements in sciences, technology and medicine
transformed the way knowledge was gained and applied. The period heralded a phenomenal
advancement in the way in which commodities were produced and transported – furthering
the reach of the budding capitalist economic system. The Industrial revolution which
followed in the late 18th and early 19th century had critical economic and policy implications
towards the development of capitalism. The radical transformation it brought about in the
structure and organisation of industry caused the industrial revolution to be regarded to be the
birth pangs of modern Capitalism (Dobb, 1950).
From Feudalism to Capitalism: Decline and Transition
Capitalism can be said to have emerged from the dismantled structures of feudalism.
Feudalism which is commonly understood as serfdom was an economic system characterised
by the division of the society into two major classes – the feudal lords and serfs, with the
latter bound by the obligation to produce for the fulfilment of the economic demands of the
former. Spanning over the 9th and the 15th centuries according to most historians, the feudal
society was an agrarian based system in which economic and political power were
manipulated by the landowning class. Feudalism declined for various reasons beginning in
England and giving way for the capitalist system of economic organisation to take root.
First, 11th century England witnessed an important change in the agricultural system
through the advancement from the two-field system of crop rotations to the three-field
system. This led to increased productivity and other socio-economic effects such as the
introduction of the enclosure system, growth of urban populations and towns consequently
leading to the rise of cities and urban centres. These metropolises became sites for markets
and trading centres. By the 13th century, England began witnessing the emergence of
capitalist economic organisation through the growth of the Kulak class – the class of
capitalist farmers who rented out their lands to landless peasants -, and the substitution of
labour renting by money renting. These developments brought about changes in the way
48
agriculture was traditionally organised and, in its place, there emerged a ‘market feudalism’
(Suresh, 2010). The search for market and profit had become the guiding motive for
production. The newly emerging form of economic organisation let to rapid urbanisation as
swathes of landless labourers migrated from rural habitats for better livelihood opportunities.
These migrations were fuelled by the lack of accessibility to land due to new developments in
agrarian systems such as the ‘enclosure programme’. This legal process of enclosure of land
converted erstwhile common land into consolidated larger farms, the use of which became
restricted and available only to the owner. This caused a sudden increase in rural
unemployment and landless labourers who became attracted to move to urban centres where
manufacturing units in textile and minerals were developing. Further, as techniques in
agriculture advanced, leading to increased productivity per land unit, the value of land
decreased. On the other hand, the value of capital (other than land) increased as the nascent
industrial firms needed capital investment, thus making the capital owning class the most
powerful section of the population. Karl Marx saw in the emergence of cities the transition
from feudalism to capitalism; it signified the territorial shift in the concentration of capital
and means of production from rural to urban areas.
Secondly, the Black Death of 1348-1350 during which more than 100 million people
died in Europe due to varied plagues had also contributed to the decline of feudalism. The
Black Death resulted in a massive decline in the labour force in England which caused labour
to become a valuable commodity of production. This shortage of labour caused immense
exploitation of peasants which resulted in myriad peasant uprisings against feudal lords
across Europe from the late 14th to 16th centuries. Thirdly, the Hundred Year’s war between
France and England in 14th and 15th centuries inevitably strengthened the powers of the
monarchs and subsequently weakened the feudal lords. This centralisation of the King’s
powers, complete with his own standing army and robust economy, set the stage for the
development of a strong capitalistic state while enfeebling the feudal machinery. Thus, the
events leading to the decline of feudalism coincided with the rise of capitalism in England in
particular and Europe in general.
Expansion of Capitalism
The development of capitalism over the various stages of the modern period and through the
decline of feudalism reached its culmination in its establishment as a single capitalist world
order by the 19th century. The question as to how capitalism expanded and grew is of many
contending views. However, there are some most commonly accepted stages of capitalist
expansion which are discussed below.
Pre-competitive or Mercantile Phase of Expansion (1500-1800):
This phase of capitalist expansion is characterised by the scouring of Asia, Africa and South
America by European merchants for gold, spices, slaves and monopoly of existing trade
routes. Calling the practice nothing less than disguised looting and plundering, Paul Baran
argued that Europeans transferred the economic surplus of these regions to Europe to help

49
fund the industrial revolution (Hoogvelt, 2001). This drain of resources caused the overseas
economies to suffer arrested development and, in Walter Rodney’s words, a regressive
societal evolution.
Colonial Expansion (1800-1950):
Colonialism defined as the direct political control and administration of foreign territories by
another had led to the expansion of capitalism to regions outside Europe. The period saw the
spread of European rule to 85 per cent of the Earth’s surface area, primarily in Asia, Africa
and the Americas. This phase was marked by the internationalization of capital through
which billions of dollars were pumped into the colonial continents for building of railways,
ports, mines and factories (Hoogvelt, 2001). While these investments where justified under
the guise of development of the colonies, it was profit and the monopoly of capital which
were the actual imperial motives. Marxist thinker V.I. Lenin saw imperialism as the highest
stage of capitalism. Later Marxist scholars Immanuel Wallerstein and Andre Gunder Frank
point to imperial capitalist system for the underdevelopment of the colonial countries
(periphery and semi-periphery) because imperial powers (core) have exploited the wealth of
these countries for centuries and caused their impoverishment. This was achieved through the
imposition of unequal terms of trade, monopoly of overseas markets and transferring
economic resources. Thus, no matter how unfair the trade relations, colonialism was
instrumental in establishing the capitalist economic order in major parts of the world.
Neo-colonization or Late Monopoly Capitalism (1950-1970):
The decades after the Second World War was characterised by a wave of decolonisation
through which numerous European colonies in Asia and Africa gained independence. While
it marked the end of formal occupation and administration of colonies, this period heralded a
new phase of capitalist expansion known as neo-colonialism. It is the practice of exerting
indirect influence by the erstwhile colonial powers over the newly independent countries
through economic and cultural means. Neo-colonialism manifested in the continued
exploitation of developing countries through the combined efforts of the first world via
transnational corporations and global and multilateral institutions. Despite being independent
countries, the Third World remained dependent on their erstwhile colonial masters and
adopted the western conceptions of development and modernisation in their desire to catch up
with them. Neo-colonialism created a new form of extraction of surplus from the third world
known as technological rent. These are the lucrative profits western capitalists earn through
the sale of machines, equipment, and other patented knowledge to the technologically
backward third world markets (Hoogvelt, 2001).
Globalisation and Neo-Imperialism (1970 onwards):
The period from 1970 and beyond is characterised by the spread of this multi-dimensional
phenomenon known as globalisation. The period saw capitalism receive a new fillip to
become what James Fulcher called ‘remarketised capitalism’. Aside from the unparalleled
growth of market relations and multi-layered interconnections, the era of globalisation saw

50
the reinvigoration of the monetary capitalism especially in the US and the UK under the
respective leadership of Reagan and Thatcher. There was a definite rolling back of the state
as evident in the reduction of welfare activities and taxation. Neoliberal beliefs of free
market, competition and productivity came to be hailed again as the panacea against sluggish
economic performance of the past (Keynesianism). The state was under intense pressure to
facilitate the free market and be competitive by accelerating foreign investment, privatisation,
liberalisation and deregulation of their economies. They had to weaken labour and
environmental legislations and unions, and welfare policies in order to attract transnational
capital. This period also created a new system of transfer of economic surplus occurs through
debt patronage which was an undefined pledge to do service in repayment of the debt. It is
safe to say that the era of globalisation heralded a definitive phase in the development of
capitalism. We will discuss the relationship between capitalism and globalisation in detail in
the following sections.
Globalisation
Globalisation is the complex web of multi-dimensional interconnectedness that has come to
envelop the world especially in the post 1970s. It pertains to almost every sphere of human
experience such as the social, cultural, political, spiritual, technological, etc. Human
interconnection of the international kinds existed in centuries past, too, as evident in recorded
history, however, the extent, depth and complexity of the present-day globalisation is
unprecedented. Globalisation has been defined in different ways by many scholars. Anthony
Giddens defines globalization as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link
distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many
miles away and vice versa”. He speaks of it in terms of “time-space compression”. David
Held thinks of globalization as “a process (or a set of processes) which embodies a
transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transformations assessed in
terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact – generating transcontinental and
interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power”. These
complex processes are sometimes overlapping and interlocking, but also, at times,
contradictory and oppositional. Kenichi Ohmae (1989) sought to capture the essence of
globalisation in his idea of a ‘borderless world’ where in national borders have become
increasingly permeable, and divisions between people previously separated by time and
space, less significant and often entirely irrelevant.
Globalisation is multidimensional. The most significant ones are economic globalization,
cultural globalization, and political globalization. Economic globalisation is representative of
the capitalist global order where in no economy is an island but have been absorbed in an
interlocked global economy. It refers to the global economic system where production is
internationalised and there is a free flow of capital, finance, goods and services among
national economies. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc catalysed the
spread of economic globalisation in that many former communist states were absorbed into
the global capitalist system. Economic globalisation has resulted in the reduced capacity of

51
national governments to manage their economies and resist transnational forces attempting to
restructure them along free-market principles (Heywood, 2013).
Political globalisation implies the growing pre-eminence of multilateral institutions and
organisations. Such organisations emerged in the post 1945 era in the form of the United
Nations and its ancillary organs like the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade
Organisation, etc., the NATO, The European Union, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and many others. International organisations are
instituted to foster cooperation and concerted action among states without compromising
their sovereignty. However, such supranational bodies have the capability to impose their will
upon the nation-states (Heywood, 2013). Political globalisation has broken the exclusive link
between territory and political power. The international and transnational institutions
mentioned above have both linked sovereign states together and transformed sovereignty into
the shared exercise of power (Held and McGrew, 2002).
Cultural globalisation is perhaps the most visible aspect of globalisation. It is related to what
many have called ‘westernisation’ or ‘Americanisation’ of indigenous cultures. It is the
phenomenon whereby information, commodities and images produced in one part of the
world enter into a global flow that tends to homogenise cultural differences between nations,
regions and individuals. The scale, intensity, speed and volume of global cultural
communications today is unmatched, especially with the rise in the usage of social media.
Cultural globalization is fuelled by the ‘information revolution’, the spread of satellite
communication, telecommunications networks, information technology and the internet, and
global media corporations (Heywood, 2013). It is strengthened by the emergence of global
commodities of transnational companies. The English language which has become so
dominant, provides a linguistic infrastructure as powerful as any technological system for
transmitting ideas and cultures (Held and McGrew, 2002). It must however be noted that this
cultural globalisation is sometimes met with resistance in many parts of the globe by groups
keen to preserve and protect traditional ways of life.
Globalisation and the State
There is a general concern about the sovereignty of the state in the era of globalisation.
Globalists who support and believe in the idea of globalisation have argued that the state’s
power has seen a general decline due to globalisation while the sceptics of globalisation who
question and challenge globalisation argue that the state has managed to keep its power
intact. There are three discernible views on the issue of the state’s power in the era of
globalisation according to George Sorenson (2011).
First, the Retreat Scholars, who are essentially are globalists, believe that globalisation
has led to the erosion of state’s power in various ways. They argue that the growth of
international and transnational organizations such as the UN and its specialized agencies, and
international pressure groups and social movements have altered characters of both state and
civil society. The state has become a fragmented policy-making arena, permeated by

52
transnational networks and influence. Globalisation has broken the exclusive link between
territory and political power, resulting in what is known as the deterritorialization of power.
Kenichi Ohmae in his work the Borderless World argues that the nation state has become an
unnatural, even dysfunctional unit for organizing human activity and managing economic
endeavours. It represents no genuine shared community of economic interest; it defines no
meaningful flows of economic activity. Susan Strange in her work the Declining Authority of
the State points to the weakening authority of the state not only in the economic sphere but in
other spheres too. She writes, “the declining authority of states is reflected in a growing
diffusion of authority to other institutions and associations, and to local and regional bodies,
and in a growing asymmetry between the larger states with structural power and weaker ones
without it” (Strange, 2002). Further, scholars like John Naisbitt, go to the extent to argue that
modern states will break up into many tiny units as a consequence of new tribalism. All these
thinkers point to the retreat of the state in the era of globalisation.
Contradicting the claims of the globalists above, the State-Centric Scholars who are
sceptics of globalisation believe in the continued centrality and salience of the state’s power
and sovereignty even in this so-called globalisation era. These scholars are critical of the
hype that has been created around globalisation as they believe that there is hardly anything
unprecedented in economic integration and global trade. While these scholars agree that
states are to a certain extent influenced by international organisations and multilateral
processes, they still operate within the nation-states system. In this age of the nation-state, the
independence bestowed by sovereignty are still important to all states. Modern nation-states
are political communities which create the conditions for establishing national communities
and states are yet to be willing to give this up. The national political processes are still
actively practiced, political bargains can still be struck between governments and electorates,
and states continue to rule (Held and McGrew, 2002). Similarly, Robert Gilpin argues that
the nation- state remains the prominent actor in both domestic and international affairs, and
that the impacts of globalization are nothing more rather than consequences of technological
development.
David Held and Anthony McGrew represent the Transformationalist View of
globalisation. They tread the middle path in saying say that both the state centric and retreat
scholars are partly right in their own ways. They see globalization as a multi-causal
phenomenon which cannot be understood completely using only the economic logic. They
focus on the transformative character of globalisation as they believe that it transforms the
organization, distribution and exercise of power. Different epochs of globalisation have
transformed the exercise of power through specific patterns of global stratification.
Stratification, according to them has both a social (hierarchy) and a spatial (unevenness)
dimension. Social stratification of global units is hierarchical in nature whereas there is
unevenness in the spatial spread of globalisation. This is to say that there are asymmetries (or
inequalities) in the control of, access to and enmeshment in global networks and
infrastructures, while unevenness denotes the differential effects of globalization on the life
chances and well-being of peoples, classes, ethnic groupings and the sexes (Held and
53
McGrew, 2002). Through its transformative process, globalisation may cause the states to
become powerful in some domains and lose authority in others.
Globalisation and Capitalism
Globalisation, its economic aspect in particular, is seen as the spread of neoliberalism which
in turn contains the crux of the capitalist order. Globalisation, thus, is essentially the process
of expansion and entrenchment of capitalism in the 20th century. The linkage between
economic globalisation and neoliberalism has several reasons according to Andrew Heywood
(2013). First, globalisation induced intense international competition for capital and markets
forcing countries to deregulate their economies and reduce tax levels to attract transnational
investment. Countries were further forced to adopt neoliberal policies of reducing public
spending on welfare programmes or maintenance of full employment while prioritising the
control of inflation. Such Neoliberal policies were adopted in most countries worldwide by
the 1990s that it appeared to be the dominant ideology of the ‘new’ world economy.
Secondly, the transformation of the global economic institutions such as the World Bank and
the IMF in the 1990s along the principles of the ‘Washington Consensus’ (namely, ‘stabilise,
privatise and liberalise’) further expanded the reach of neoliberal capitalism to countries
which were yet to be incorporated. This forced developing and ‘transition’ economies
(constituents of erstwhile USSR) to pursue neoliberal policies such as free trade,
liberalization of capital markets, flexible exchange rates, balanced budgets and so on.
Third, this neoliberal growth model has at its core the financial markets and the process
of ‘financialization’ made possible by the unparalleled expansion of the financial sector of
the economy. This process of economic globalisation transformed capitalism into what came
to be known as ‘turbo-capitalism’ fed by expanded monetary flows, increased investment and
higher consumption worldwide. Another key character in understanding the link between
capitalism and globalism is the strong faith in open markets and trade liberalisation
encouraged by the creation of the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and a shift in global
division of labour. Developed countries who monopolised manufacturing shifted to services,
exporting manufacturing processes to developing economies. These developments in
international trade relations in the post 1970 period explain how capitalism was fed,
strengthened and expanded by the process of globalisation.
Types of Capitalism
Capitalism is a complex economic system with variations not only in conception but also in
practice. Andrew Heywood pointed out that despite having several common characteristics,
different societies construct their own models of capitalism depending on their particular
economic and political circumstances, and their cultural and historical inheritance. The notion
of a ‘pure’ capitalist system was always an illusion (Heywood, 2013). Capitalism must be
seen not to constitute a single economic form but, rather, a variety of economic forms. He
identifies three types of capitalist systems in the modern world namely enterprise capitalism,
social capitalism, state capitalism.

54
Enterprise capitalism also known as the ‘American business model’ is widely seen as ‘pure’
capitalism. This strand of capitalism is based on the ideas of classical economists such as
Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and modern theorists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich
von Hayek. At its core lies unflinching faith in free market competition based on the belief
that the market is a self-regulating mechanism in line with the principle of laissez-faire.
Enterprise capitalism keeps public ownership to a minimum and ensure that welfare provision
operates as a mere safety net. Businesses are essentially driven by the profit motive with
emphasis on high productivity and labour flexibility while trade unions are usually weak
(Heywood, 2013). The spread of economic globalisation since the 1980s has resulted in the
expansion of enterprise capitalism to other parts of the world.
Social Capitalism has drawn from economists like Friedrich List who, despite being a liberal,
believed in state intervention to protect small industries from the difficulties of foreign
competition. Central to this model is an attempt to marry the disciplines of market
competition with the need for social cohesion and solidarity. This idea gives rise to the
concept of the social market as opposed to the free market. A social market is one that is
driven by market principles and is largely free from government interference, operating
alongside a comprehensive welfare system and effective public services geared towards
social cohesion. The market is not an end in itself so much as a means of generating wealth in
order to achieve broader social ends (Heywood, 2013). This model of capitalism originated in
Germany and is evident in many central and western parts of Europe.
State Capitalism refers to capitalist economies in which the state plays a crucial directive
role. It first emerged in Japan after 1945 and was adopted by the East Asian tigers and China.
Also called collective capitalism, this model emphasises on cooperative, long-term
relationships among market players. Here, the economy to be directed not by an impersonal
price mechanism, but through what have been called ‘relational markets’ – a complex web of
close relationships between economic sectors such as finance and industry. Workers in
collective capitalism commit their loyalty and hard work to their employers and are in turn
rewarded with lifetime employment, pension and social protection. Teamwork and collective
identity building are emphasised and fostered through relatively narrow income disparities
between managers and workers. The state plays an important role in directing investment,
research and trading decisions (Heywood, 2013).
Capitalism has been classified differently by other thinkers, but they mostly correspond to the
above types. In their work, ‘Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism’, Baumol, Litan, and Schramm
identify four varieties of capitalism namely entrepreneurial Capitalism (USA), big-firm
capitalism (Europe and Japan), state-directed capitalism (China), and oligarchic capitalism
(Russia). Similarly, political economists Hall and Soskice (2001) in their book Varieties of
Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage identify two major
types of capitalist economies, the liberal market economies (LME) and the coordinated
market economies (CME). Examples of LMEs include US, UK, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, Ireland while CMEs are seen primarily in Northern European countries such as

55
Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland.
They position these two models at the poles of a spectrum, along which many nations can be
placed and warn that there exist significant variations even within these two types.
Challenges and Criticisms of Capitalism
Even as capitalism has emerged as the dominant economic system in the 20th century, there
are many inherent shortcomings which have invited scathing criticisms from thinkers of
various persuasions. Many have challenged its so-called triumph over rival modes of
production (socialism in particular) as was popularly proclaimed in the End of History thesis
propounded by Francis Fukuyama. One of the most prominent and original challenge to
capitalism was offered by Marx and the subsequent Marxist thinkers who see the system as
predominantly based on the exploitation of labour and appropriation of surplus value by the
capitalist class. Capitalism entails the commodification of labour which is bought and sold in
the market. Marx opines that the true value of commodities is determined by the number of
labour house required and taken to produce them. Labour is living capital and is the true
source of surplus value which the capitalists accrue as ‘profit’. This is nothing but systemic
exploitation, forming the basis of capitalism itself. In Marx’s words, “Capital is dead labour,
which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour
it sucks”. Marx argues that capitalism leads to alienation of the worker from the production
process in four ways – alienation from their product, from the act of production, from their
fellow workers and eventually, the self.
Lenin was another staunch critic of capitalism. In his work “Imperialism, the Highest
Stage of Capitalism” Lenin argues that imperialism was the outcome of the capitalists’ search
for profits outside their countries. This was extremely exploitative and unfair, leading to the
impoverishment of colonised societies outside of Europe, and the eventual creation of an
international proletariat class.
Dependency thinkers such as Paul Baran and Andre Gunder Frank locate the reasons for
the underdevelopment of third world countries (particularly Latin America) in the dynamic
and contradictory growth of the world capitalist system. The dependency theory contends that
the penetration of colonial capital in these countries had created distorted structure of
economy and society which resulted in their perpetual economic stagnation and
impoverishment. Similarly, Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory posits the
division of the world into a three-level hierarchy: core, periphery, and semi-periphery where
the semi-periphery and the periphery are locked in an unequal and exploitative systemic
relation with the core – the centre of capital accumulation.
The neoliberal capitalist resurgence in the post 1970s drew intense criticism, too. Critics
see neoliberalism struggle to maintain legitimacy as an economic doctrine because of its
association with increasing inequality and social breakdown. They argue that the rolling back
of the state while promoting market centric policies driven by self-interest has caused these
harmful social outcomes. Further, Robert Cox (1987) argued that ‘hyper-liberal globalizing

56
capitalism’ is rooted in major contradictions and struggles and has predicted that its
dominance is destined to be challenged and, eventually, overthrown. According to Cox,
contradictions are represented in the form of the ‘democratic deficit’ suffered by the states
that compels them to respond to the dictates of the global economy rather than domestic
public opinion, the growing pressure to protect the environment from the destructions caused
by relentless economic growth, and the surrender of state authority to corporate financial and
economic interests (Heywood 2013).
Conclusion
If we were to understand capitalism as the usage of money for exchange or profit, capitalism
may be said to have existed even in the ancient period. However, capitalism as an economic
system giving rise to specific class structures in relation to the forces of production is a
development that took shape in the modern era as feudalism declined. Several moments in the
period of the modern age have contributed to its development such as the enlightenment,
renaissance, reformation and the scientific and industrial revolution. The march of capitalism
gained momentum with the establishment of imperialism and the colonial period. Capitalism
took newer forms after decolonisation of the world through neo-imperial designs and
globalisation.
Capitalism varies in practice forming a spectrum from pure capitalism to state centric or
managed capitalism. Capitalism and economic globalisation go hand in hand to promote
neoliberal economic principles throughout the world, especially in the post-cold-war era.
Today, capitalism is seen too be the dominant economic system which has come to govern
economic organisation in all countries except a handful. However, capitalism faces staunch
resistance and challenge from sections within societies who see it is the major cause of global
injustice, social inequality, and ecological degradation. The challenge for capitalism today is
to find ways to humanise itself in order to be truly the path to prosperity for all as its
advocates ardently believed.
References

 Baumol, J. William, Robert E. Litan and Carl J. Schramm (2009) Good Capitalism,
Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity, Yale University Press,
Yale.
 Dobb, Maurice (2007) Studies in the Development of Capitalism, Kessinger
Publishing, Montana.
 Fulcher, James (2004) Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University
Press, London.
 Hall, P and Soskice, D. Eds. (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional
Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford University Press, London.

57
 Held, D., & McGrew, A. G. (2003) The Global Transformations Reader: An
introduction to the globalization debate (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK : Malden, MA
USA: Polity Press ; Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Pub.
 Heywood, Andrew (2007) Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, New Delhi.
 Hoogvelt, Ankie (2001) Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political
Economy of Development, Johns Hopkins University Press, USA.
 Sorenson, George (2011) “Globalization and the Nation-State” in Daniele Caramani
(ed.) Comparative Politics, Oxford University Press, London.
 Strange, Susan (2003) “The Declining Authority of the State” in Held, D., &
McGrew, A. G (eds) The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the
Globalization Debate (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK : Malden, MA USA: Polity Press ;
Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Pub.
 Wallerstein, Immanuel (2011) Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization,
Verso Press, London.
 Wood, Ellen Meiksins (2002) The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View, Verso Press,
London.

58
 Unit-3
(b) Socialism: Meaning, Rise and Development
Nishant Yadav
Translated by : Narayan Roy

Outline of chapter
• Introduction
• Meaning of Socialism
• The Rise of Socialism
• Socialism in Western Political Thought
• Utopian Socialism
• Scientific Socialism
• Development of Socialism: Other Popular Forms of Socialism
• Conclusion

Introduction
In the current era of democratic governance, it becomes necessary to have knowledge of
ideologies to evaluate the governance system and their policies. In the global scenario, we
become aware of two main political ideologies, namely liberalism and socialism. However, in
the course of ideological development, the continual rise of new branches in both these
political ideologies is also being seen. In the same development sequence, the rise and
development of Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism etc. within socialism have been understood
and tested as a principle of theoretical thinking and the operation of political power.
This chapter will be divided into three parts excluding the definition of socialism. The
first part identifies the features of socialism present in various scriptures. The only reason for
including the scriptures in the chapter is Machiavelli’s concept, in which he justifies the
presence of religion in individual’s life while keeping the state independent of religion and
points out that, from religion itself, the development of morality in human life happens.
Therefore, for society to be moral, it is necessary for religion to exist. At the same time, when
we explore the ideological origins of socialism, we find that morality is the basis of the
imaginative stream of socialism. And this stream hopes for socialism to flourish only on the
basis of morality. The second part of the chapter outlines the features of socialism in Western
political thought. In addition to this, the first use of the word socialism, the ideological father
of socialism, the different views of socialism and the different specific forms of socialism
will also be discussed in this part. The third part will explain the socialist concept prevalent in
Indian political thought. Modern Indian political thought will also be included in this section.
Meaning of Socialism
Socialism is a major ideology among the modern political ideologies. It is directly related to
the problems prevailing in human life. In this perspective, socialism is not just a socio-
59
economic philosophy but also a political theory and social movement which takes different
forms in different conditions, situations and periods. For example, in countries such as Russia
and China, it is displayed as a totalitarian right where every aspect of human life is tried to be
brought under a state control, by this totalitarian right. On the other hand, socialism also
defines itself as a welfare state by controlling the economy in other western countries. In a
nation like India, it is defined by political and social thinkers, like Mahatma Gandhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru, Ram Manohar Lohia, Jayaprakash Narayan, Narendra Dev etc. as
Gandhian socialism or democratic socialism.
Regardless of the differences in the definition of socialism, as a basic concept, it is the
production and distribution of natural wealth through the state or society. The properties
provided by nature have not been created for any particular individual or community; it is for
the entire society and mankind. Therefore, for the proper distribution of it, it should be
controlled by the state or society and exploitative evil like private property does not take birth
in human society. In modern day politics, socialism can be seen as the opposite of a non-
interventionist state or capitalist state, which supports the idea that resources and wealth
should be under the control of a social institution called the state, so that these assets can be
equally distributed in the society and the ideas like private property cannot arise. Equal
distribution of wealth, reward and honour has been considered the basis of a stable and just
society; Concern for the poor, oppressed and deprived of rights and the establishment of an
equal and just society has been the basis of intellectual thinking of socialism.
Har Babil’s statement illustrates the generality of socialism that “Socialism is indeed a
whole world of philosophy. It is an indicator of atheism in the field of religion, of an infinite
optimism in the state, of a naturalistic materialism in the field of spiritualism, and of almost
complete laxity of household ties and matrimonial bonds in the field of family.”
According to Wacker Coker, “Socialism is the policy or principle that aims at the better
distribution of wealth and the better production of wealth under it, than a system prevailing
by a democratic central authority.”
According to Bernard Shaw, “Socialism refers to the control of all basic means of
property. This control will not be by any one section of society but by the society itself and
will be gradually established in an orderly manner.”
Rise of Socialism
When we go through the history of socialism, we see that socialism did not originate in the
history of political thought, but it developed as a result of the reaction of individualist
ideology. It is considered to be the inevitable culmination of a certain developments, which
emerges as a separate ideology in the backdrop of the Industrial Revolution. Socialism is the
logical consequence of the backlash against both the political system and the individualist
system. In terms of equality of human beings or social system, the sources of this type of
ideology can be derived from very ancient times. Socialist sentiments can be traced in India’s
glorious past. If we look at the Indian religious literature, we find that from the beginning of

60
civilization there was a social sense of public welfare. The Rigveda condemns the giver’s
praise and greed and also emphasizes the equal distribution of wealth.
Such ideologies are also found in other religions. For example, in the Old Testament,
such mention is found in the speech of ancient Jewish prophets, which condemned the
atrocities of the Dhanikas and imagined a just society in which the king would punish the
Dhanikas and protect the interests of the poor. But it becomes necessary to say here that the
views of all these prophets or thinkers were religion-oriented, whose basis was religion rather
than society. That is, in religious terms, all are equal or all are children of the same God, so
one person should not do injustice to another.
Possibly the most obvious mention of equal distribution in Vedic literature is in the
Samajsanya Sukta. It is said in this, that the drinking place and the distribution of food should
be the same. It is said in this Suktam, while giving the ideal of the present socialists, which
“You all have to be a mind that moves together and have equally share food together.”
Gandhi writes, acknowledging, that not only socialism but communism is also evident in the
first mantra of the Isophanishad. The meaning of the mantra is that “Everything in the world
is created by God, so consume it while sacrificing on his name and do not be lustful for
anyone’s wealth.”
Socialism in Western Political Thought
The process of socialism in Western political thought begins with Plato. Although Sophist
and Socrates have contributed in political thought but they had never propounded or
interpreted socialist principles based on state governance principles or from ideological
points. Therefore, the process of socialism seems to be started from the Plato. The seeds of
socialism are embedded in Plato’s depiction of the ideal state in his great book, The Republic
(380 BCE). Plato introduced the idea of communism of personal property and family. The
premise of this idea was that personal property and family misguided the person from his
social life. Plato prohibits property and family for the first two classes of his ideal state, those
were the ruling and military classes. But communism of wives and property was saner, thus
Plato’s ideal society was directed from above and was unequal. Therefore, Plato cannot be
considered as a completely socialist.
After Plato, Sir Thomas Moore’s in his works ‘Utopia’ (1516), despite of its republican
tendency, conceived as an alternative to the present society and perhaps that is why Utopia is
considered as the primary socialist work. The principles which Moore has propounded and
had emphasized in his work were considered to be ideal. These principles were the abolition
of private property, the responsibility of all to the work, equal rights, right to wealth, state
administration, state control over the means of production, ending poverty and exploitation.
Taking a sharp sarcasm at the erstwhile unjust system of England, Sir Thomas Moore has
described the ideal system of an island called Utopia in which all persons keep the things
produced by their own labor in one place and from there they continually received according
to their needs. No one had personal property on this island of Moore and it had an empire of

61
peace, but such society which Moore had imagined seems like a dream country. He wants to
see everyone happy and happy in such a dream country. He highlighted the social chaos of
the erstwhile England and drew the attention of the people towards the principles of industrial
organization, reforms related to labor, agriculture, education, religion etc. However, Moore’s
works had laid down some prerequisites for modern socialism.
Socialism originally emerged as reaction towards the French and industrial revolutions,
which gave a decisive shape to human society and life. For the first time in history, there was
a great enthusiasm and hope that an equal and rational society will be created based on
technical and science. Industrial society gave birth to the hopes of a happy and high
production society but the concentration of wealth, and uncontrolled competition had lead to
poverty and crisis, whose only solution was to build a society based on equality, cooperation
and sociality.
The first signs of socialism after the French Revolution are found in the works of Fans
Noel Grax Beboof and Filippo Missel Bunaroti, inspired by the ideas of Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and by the Renaissance imaginists. Their original ideal was equality. Beboof not
only criticized the erstwhile society, but also suggested ways to organize a new society as an
alternative. He talked of overturning the present system in a conspiratorial manner as the
public was still under the influence of the exploiters. Beboof had said that through universal
education, people can self-rule with the help of self-selected institution. Beboof had
differentiated between the rich and the poor and economically criticized the society which
was based on personal property, similar to Rousseau, and in the logic of this criticism he cited
the example of social equality. Beboof’s contribution is important as It had revealed the
contradiction between the revolutionary declarations of freedom and equality. Independence
does not mean legal and civil rights only, but also the freedom of economic activity without
any hindrance. Independence was not only liberating from autocratic power, but it is an
important way to get rid of slavery, exploitation, poverty, and inequality.
Beboof believed that socialization of industries and land should be done so that the
revolution started in 1789 could be completed. Beboof emphasized universal right to work,
equal rights over the natural wealth of the earth and equality of human happiness. On the
other hand, Bunaroti said that all people have equal rights over the objects of this earth. The
source of inequality is private property that must be completely eliminated and wealth should
be divided among all, regardless of what they are doing. There should be neither succession
rights nor large urban cities. Everyone should contribute an equal degree of physical effort
and should remain equal. The idea of equality is associated with the idea of community. After
these primary socialists, if we look at the then socialist ideology, we come across two
branches of socialism: utopian socialism and scientific socialism.
Utopian Socialism
Jerome Blanqui in his works ‘History of Political Economy’ (1839), providing a detailed
description of socialism, described Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Saint Simon as the

62
primary socialists. The above three socialists had a moral and social attitude towards society
and emphasized the well being of the society and the happiness of the people. They refused to
accept the competition as a social system. Among these three socialists, Saint Simon was the
greatest intellectual. Saint Simon was very supportive of scientific planning and large-scale
industrial organization. He had hoped that the national states can be turn into big producing
corporations under the leadership of scientists and technicians. He laid great emphasis on
economic development, the spread of banks and railways in the Second Empire. He presented
the theory of industrial society. His economic ideas were similar to state socialism and it was
very different from the principle that every person should bear fruits according to his capacity
as a social worker.
Saint Simon was a person who highly believed in technology, he believed that a
progressive society can be built only by reforming the political system i.e. just and social and
economic equality. He was opposed to parliamentary democracy and modern voting system.
By system, he meant scientific, industrial and economic organization, in which there was no
military power or political power. He hoped that France would provide a new system to the
entire world. He emphasized peaceful relations between modern nations so that military
system of human society could not be used to serve some insignificant political objective. He
was a strong critic of the dilapidated condition of the working class in England. Saint Simone
made significant contributions to the history of socialism, such as planned economy for full
employment, expansion of purchasing power, and share according to work. Saint Simone had
a technical view of development in history. He was the first person to describe the conditions
that we today call the Industrial Revolution.
The father of British socialism Robert Owen (1771–1858) was a successful industrialist
as well as a social worker and social reformer. He criticized the present society ethically and
the basis of his moral outlook is religious humanism. In his book ‘A New View of Society’
(1813), he gave place to the ideas of society. Robert Owen’s approach to understanding social
problems was materialistic; he believed that changing external conditions also changes
human character. That is, a positive change in the environment in which the person lives and
resides also shows a positive change in human life. This is why, rather than competition and
oligarchy, Robert Owen emphasized the collective ownership of the means of production, a
market based on cooperation, classless and potential society, social justice, equality and civic
education. Robert Owen writes in his book ‘A New View of Society’ that present society is
full of selfishness, ignorance, hypocrisy, evil, hatred and hostility due to the current social
conditions, and to overcome this we need to build a new world, which would be based on the
belief that the character of a human would be for him and not by him. By accepting this
important reality, a basis for change in external social status will emerge, which will create
good human character.
Owen writes, “By using the right methods, any human community, even the entire world,
can be given a common quality, from the worst to the best, from ignorance to knowledge, and
these methods, to a large extent, are under the control of those who interfere in the affairs of

63
human life. Robert Owen believed that the character of a human is determined by the
situation and the environment, in which he lives. Bad situations give rise to bad people and
good situations to good ones. Owen successfully used this principle in his textile mills. In his
textile mills, Owen reduced work hours from fourteen hours to ten-and-a-half hours per day,
improved workplace conditions and established a model school and child center so that the
individual would be free from family worries and can freely dedicate himself to work. This
experiment of Robert Owen was a huge success and his annual profit also increased than
before. Owen writes that, “If good maintenance of your inanimate machines can lead to good
results, what can not happen with the same attention to living machines, which are built more
brilliantly?” “The social conditions of the day forced Robert Owen to lean towards social
service, which resulted in Owen establishing an ideal community called ‘New Harmony’ in
America and also playing a central role in England’s cooperative and trade union movements.
Charles Fourier (1772–1837), like Robert Owen and Saint Simon, is one of the early
modern socialists. With Saint Simon, he started the French socialist movement. Fourier was
the first thinker to criticize capitalist civilization in the context of materialistic vision of
human nature. Fourier believed that the capitalist class got benefited from major political
changes and its social dominance was concealed by liberal theorists. Fourier envisioned an
ideal European community called ‘phalanstère’ where the wishes of each person would be
fully developed and satisfied. In his creation, he gave ideas related to socialism. Fourier
proposes the idea that a certain amount of money should be set aside for every person from
the production of industries. Excess production should be divided between labour, capital and
capacity. Labour should get 5/12, capital 4/12, and the remaining 3/12 of capacity. By
changing the Saint-Simonist formula, Fourier propounded that, “from each according to his
ability, to each according to his labor, capital, and ability”. Fourier divided labour into three
parts - essential labour, useful labour, and preferred labour, and stated that essential labour
should receive the highest and preferred labour should receive the least income because the
preferred labour had the least sacrifice.
Charles Fourier used to say that social emancipation is not possible without economic
equality. Fourier accepted inequality of capabilities and payment according to work and
believed that this would gradually eliminate the privileges of the rich and end the class
conflict. Fourier not only supported the right to choose favourite work under the social
system, but also talked about freedom from the obligation to work. Fourier spoke of ‘social
minimum’ and a fixed annual income so that every person can get the right to work.
Scientific Socialism
Utopian socialism which presented a detailed critique of contemporary social reality, aiming
to go beyond the present imperfect society to establish a complete and harmonious human
order, which actively protects human freedom and seeks a social system that is free from
oppression and exploitation. But this early branch of socialism, which is emotionally devoted
to human emancipation, failed to provide any concrete solution or alternative to these
systems.
64
 It did not develop any clear principles or ideas related to the state that governs social
systems. Scientific socialism was born as a systematic theory to bring these characteristics of
utopian socialism to the ground of reality. Since Karl Marx had an immense contribution in
its rendering, it is also called Marxism. But it would be unfair to name the entire scientific
socialism as Marxism because in different countries the same scientific socialism is known
by different names due to its special needs and principles. It is only from the socialist
ideology propounded by Karl Marx and Engels that the systematic socialist socialism
originated.
Karl Marx had vehemently opposed social inequality, economic inequality, capitalist
system and class discrimination and presented a scientific explanation of these issues. Marx
also proposed practical philosophies to correct the anomalies existing in society. He
systematically described the process of establishing a classless and non-exploitative society
by mentioning the defects or imperfections of the capitalist system. On the basis of dialectical
materialism and economic interpretation of history, Marx presented a scientific approach for
the establishment of socialism, through which the desired society can not only be depicted
but also the situations through which the goal of this desired society can also be achieved.
Marx’s socialist ideology lies in his sympathy for the then labour (proletarian)
revolution. According to Marx, through capitalism, a class of individuals is born which
depends on its wages. In a capitalist situation, workers are used as commodities and are
forced to sell their labour. Marx believed that political relations such as power and law,
which control the social life of workers, are the result of the capitalist economic system. For
the unity of the workers, Marx gave the slogan ‘Workers of the world become one’ which
made the working class aware of the revolution.
Marx and Engels write in their book ‘Communist Manifesto’ that “free men and slaves,
rich and common people, land lords and land slaves, briefly oppressor and oppressed,
constantly oppose each other and there is continuous, whether hidden or openly, struggle
between these two classes. This struggle has resulted, every time, in a revolutionary
reconstruction of the society or in the end of the struggling classes. “Thus Marx believed that
after the revolution of the working class, the dictatorial system of the proletariat class will be
established, gradually by which, the last vestiges of the wealthier class will also be finished,
after which a classless and stateless society will be established”. In this new society, social
harmony and equality will prevail. It will be a just society in which individuals will work
according to their ability and in return of their work they will be able to get the benefits as
they needed.
Development of Socialism: Other Popular Forms of Socialism
• Collectivism
Collectivism is known by many names like Groupism and Holisticism. Collectivism was
founded as a result of the reaction of radical socialism, as it seeks to establish genuine
socialism through revolution, violence or opposition. Collectivism holds that revolution

65
generates counter-revolution and it is not possible to establish lasting peace. This is the
reason why collectivism wants to establish socialism by peaceful, liberal, democratic, and
statutory measures. According to this approach, nationalization of industries can remove the
defects of the capitalist system, as nationalization ends the meaningless competition.
According to collectivism, the main goal of the state is to use the gains from
nationalization, for the public interest so that exploitation can end. According to collectivist
beliefs, the central government will manage the subjects of national importance in the social
system, but the local institutions will manage the subjects of local importance. The
government will determine the minimum wage of workers. The individual economic sectors
act as a complement to each other, not as rivalry of each other. Through the tax system, the
government will attempt to lesser the gap/division between rich and poor. It will be the
responsibility of the state system to arrange employment for all the citizens of the country.
The responsibility of the distribution of essential commodities will be under the government
so that it can be equitably distributed.
• Labour Unionism
This form of socialism, which promoted the interests of the workers, was founded in
opposition to capitalism. It was founded as a result of the working class movement in France.
George Sorrells is considered to be the main exponent of this theory. We can consider this
theory to be the result of the reaction to the French Revolutionary ideal of freedom, equality
and fraternity because after the French Revolution, the occupational and manufacturing
classes took control over the system of governance, which hindered the freedom of workers
to work. As a result, workers did not get the freedom to adopt economic and political
measures. The democratic system of France also did not fully support the interests of the
workers, because of which the workers of France became conjointly powerful, and then they
abandoned both the trade union and political socialism and sought to find their way to
liberation by class struggle, strike and subversive means. In this way, the workers of France
pioneered workers from all over the world to unite and the result of this effort is labour
unionism.
• Fabianism
This form of socialism was founded by English intellectuals in England in 1884, due to which
it is called a movement of intellectuals. The main objective of this theory was to present the
principles of socialism to the educated masses so that a socialist society could be established
through democratic, orderly, non-violent and peaceful means. Early proponents of this theory
were scholars such as Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas
and G.D.H. Cole .The goal of this principle is to restructure society by freeing land and
industrial capital from personal ownership and handing them over to society for the public
interest, so that the natural and acquired wealth of the country can be distributed fairly among
the people. This principle seeks to establish public interest, in place of personal gain, as the
prime goal in the regulation of production, distribution, and service. According to the

66
Fabianist thinkers, the state should establish its authority with all its power over all the
departments and organs of production so that the benefits derived from it can be distributed in
the society in a fair manner and the society can get rid of the vicious cycle of economic
inequality.
George Bernard Shaw wrote, “Those who believe in Fabianism were the least
revolutionary among the Socialists and were not advocates of any form of violence. In a
sense, their socialism is general socialism, which means that the rights of the state are
broadened so that the license of the seller of goods is a direct example of the advancement of
socialism and the existence of a policeman proves that we live in a communist society. There
are some differences with respect to the work area of the state. Socialism is a journey whose
final destination is not fixed. They strongly believe in expanding the franchise and voting
papers.” The biggest feature of Fabianism is that it tried to establish socialism through
statutory measures. It is also noteworthy that Fabianist thinkers have only explained the
objectives of socialism, without rendering any particular theory. Because of this, Fabianism is
a policy, measure and instrument that seeks to achieve the goals of real socialism in peaceful
ways.
• Category Socialism
Category socialism is, in fact, the English socialist ideology of the early 20th century that
seeks to mould the qualitative form of medieval hierarchy, French federalism and
evolutionary socialism to establish a social order, under which the control of industries, free
from external pressures, should be in the hand of the workers and the industrial system should
be operated for the productive, consumer and collective society. Dissatisfied with the Fabian
ideology of socialism, thinkers like G.D.H. Cole, A. J. Penty, S.G. Hobson provided a new
socialist ideology to eliminate the shortcomings prevailing in the then economy, which is
called category socialism.
G.D.H. Cole, defining category socialism, writes that, “Category socialism is based on
the partnership of producers and the control of industries by the state. Without industrial
independence, the entire change in the structure of society will be only a hoax. The real and
influential power should be in the hands of the workers.” Category Socialism is not satisfied
with mere social ownership of the means of production, but it also wants the control and
operation of industries and businesses in the hands of the workers, so that they can experience
complete freedom in their region. Similarly, the benefit of production should not be personal
but should be compatible with social utility so that there is no possibility of human
exploitation by other human beings. The goal of this socialist ideology is to establish a
democratic social organization.
 Communism
It can be described as the principle of state abolition, which probably could never be achieved
in real politics. In principle, communism involves the abolition of the state system and private
property and the creation of a classless and self-governing society. After the end of the

67
Czarism, the then rulers of the USSR tried to implement these communist goals but could not
even come close to these values, but instead wiped out many pre-existing and necessary pre-
requisites for behavioral communism, such as a strong civil society etc. Therefore, for most
socialist thinkers, communism has always been the norm that would follow the creation of a
socialist state. In this context the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), it was argued
in its constitution that “a developed socialist society is an essential stage on the road of
Communism” and the Soviet state aims to lay the “foundation of a classless communist
society in which there will be public, communist self-government.” But even by the 1980s,
the USSR was far from achieving this goal. Although despite the increasing international
pressure of globalization, in 1989, Chinese leaders claimed that their country was moving
towards the achievement of “real” socialism. However, in practice it can be seen that at that
time China was moving fast towards becoming a free market system.
 Leninism
Lenin dreamed of ‘One Country One Socialism’ instead of Marx’s ‘Workers of the world
become one’. Leninism argues that the possibility of a proletarian revolution in Europe was
less, and with the rise of a relatively small section of the rich workers, this probability of
revolution would further decrease, so Marxism would have to adapt or to be fit in the new
conditions. Marx argued that revolutionary socialism would come to industrialized countries
through the efforts of workers, but Lenin believed that it could also emerge in less
industrialized countries such as Russia if peasants, ethnic minorities, and other aggrieved
groups mobilized. In this way Leninism added many basic ideas to socialism, which are as
following:-
• Vanguardism
Lenin argued that a dedicated and professional vanguard must promote revolution on behalf
of the proletariat and promote revolutionary consciousness between the labour movement and
propaganda (or demonstration). In contrast to Lenin, other European Marxist thinkers
believed that before revolution Russia would have to move forward industrially and because
of which they criticized Lenin for trying to implement this process. Critics also argued that
his vanguard would simply replace the old elite with a new elite and it would reduce the
possibility of a social-worker revolution. They were proved right when the vanguard party
became a permanent and elite feature of the Soviet system.
• Democratic Centralism
For the Vanguard Party to succeed, Lenin argued that free political discussion and free
elections between the political parties should be organized around the idea of democratic
centralism. In which each level of the party will hold the election of the next highest and
decisions will be passed through the ranks. The party will control every other organization
and social unit, from family to school. This principle often blamed, to lead to Stalin’s
totalitarian rule.

68
• Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism
Lenin spoke of the need for a worldwide struggle against capitalism and tried to explain why
rebellion, as Marx predicted, did not occur in Western countries. He argued that the profits of
colonialism made the capitalists able to calm down workers by paying better, which
postponed the revolution. At the same time, imperialism was making class exploitation and
polarization a global phenomenon. Under which, Lenin predicted that, the colonies would
understand and accept this exploitation before finally fighting for their freedom. The struggle
against capitalism would be widespread in Europe when the concessions given to workers
from the profits of colonialism would be abolished.
 Maoism
While Marx focused only on the labour revolution and argued that farmers would have no
role in it. While Lenin encouraged and united the peasants for the Russian Revolution but he
received support mainly from urban workers. Whereas, the proletarian revolution in China,
by contrast, was fostered by the educated and trained peasant army by Mao Tse Tung (1893–
1976) to promote revolutionary consciousness among the workers. Some countries, such as
China, were far from Marx’s idea of an industrial-capitalist society, but Mao did not allow
the revolution to fall short of any level, affecting humanity all the way. Mao’s major
contribution to socialist theory was to make Marxism- Leninism in harmony with rural and
agricultural societies and to develop a populist and radical form of Marxism with some
specific Chinese influences. For example, China had long regarded foreigners as barbarians.
It was an idea that heightened Mao’s resentment against imperialism, and against anyone
dealing with foreigners. He argued that the people should be questioned and criticized by the
authority, and he attempted to make communism less dependent on the bureaucratic elite, as
it was in the USSR under Stalin. He emphasized communalism, small-scale social and
economic units, and the rejected the aristocracy. Mao emphasized reform and discretion,
considering the state’s Chinese views as the supreme teacher. For example, to discourage
aristocracy, he ordered that students, professionals and other urban dwellers also be sent
occasionally to work in farms and factories.
Thus Maoism was more radical than Marxism and applied Marxism to rural societies. It
also made it attractive for nationalist movements in Asian, Latin American, and sub-Saharan
African states. Mao argued in the 1920s that “political power flows out from the barrel of the
gun” and he used a peasant army and the revolutionary guerrilla war to take power in China.
His methods inspired Fidel Castro in Cuba and Ernesto “Che” Guevara in Bolivia. It inspired
nationalist movements. It also prompted some American foreign policymakers to easily link
nationalism with communism, prompting them to withdraw support from nationalists and
support repressive right-wing regimes because they were non-communist. The best example
of this can be seen in Vietnam-war when the United States and its allies refused to help the
newly independent North Vietnam in 1954, because its leader Ho Chi Minh was a
communist. Here the United States moved forward supporting the government of South
Vietnam, causing America to join one of the most tragic and costly wars in history.
69
Conclusion
In the light of the above facts, we see the idea of socialism is very old, but it emerged as the
theoretical basis of a systematic ideology, movement and policy-making with the aim of
facing the economic and social inequality, which has increased due to capitalism, after the
industrial revolution. Although Marx, considering his predecessor socialism as imaginative,
and claimed his principles to be established on scientific basis. But socialism has a special
meaning under Marxism; Socialism comes into existence when the working-class revolts and
end capitalism and establishes the ownership and control of the proletariat over the principal
means of production. At this stage, attempts are made to erase the remnants of capitalism.
The forces of counter-revolution are crushed and the powers of production are developed, so
that the path of communism, that is, classless and stateless social order can be prepared. In
other words, according to this view, the temporary stage after the fall of capitalism and before
the rise of communism is called socialism.
But the mainstream of socialism does not consider it as a temporary condition, but rather
sets a goal of social change and motivates it to move forward continuously. Since many
branches and sub-branches of socialism define its goal in its own way, it is sometimes
referred to as a periphrastic ideology. In view of the same ideological position of socialism C.
E. M. Joad, it defines that, “Socialism is a hat that anyone can wear”. Despite all these
ideological differences, some common universal goals of socialism must be recognized. In
short, socialism supports equality, especially equality of opportunity for humans and seeks to
abolish privileges which are not based on one’s own merit and diligence. Since the
opportunities available to an individual in the industrial age are dependent on the system of
ownership of the principal means of production, socialism seeks to abolish the private
ownership of these means and establish public ownership of it, so that few people do not use
them for personal gain. In any case, the goal of socialism is not to establish literally equality,
in the area of income, wealth, and respect because it will destroy all incentives and in the
absence of encouragement people will not be ready to give their best contribution to society.
References
 Thili, Frank (2016). History of Western philosophy. New Delhi: Anamika Publications.
 Lejak Kolakowski (1978); Main Current in Marxism, London; Oxford press
 Mukherjee, Subrata and Ramaswamy Sushila (1999). History of socialist thought. New
Delhi: Hindi Medium Implementation Directorate, University of Delhi.
 Sabine, .G. (1977). History of political philosophy. New Delhi: S.K. Chand and
Company Ltd.
 McCormick, John (2009). Comparative Politics in Transition.

70
 Unit-3

(c) Colonialism and Decolonisation: Meaning, Context, Forms of

Colonialism; Anti-colonialism Struggles and Process of Decolonisation
J.S. Pathak

Introduction
Colonialism and decolonisation have impacted the history of the world in numerous ways
than we can imagine. It has shaped the current social, political and economic conditions of
states which have been a part of the process either partially or directly, for both the coloniser
and the colonised.
The objective of this chapter is to understand colonialism, its context and the different
forms of colonialism. This chapter would briefly explain what is meant by colonialism, its
different forms, stages and characteristics. As we try to understand these concepts, we will
also engage with concepts such as imperialism, new imperialism and neo-colonialism.
Followed by a discussion on what we understand by decolonisation, discuss its historical
context and then engage with the implications of both colonialism and decolonisation.
Colonialism and decolonisation have to be understood in the context of the growth of
industrialism in the eighteen century Europe. As Europe began to industrialise, there was an
urge to ensure a steady supply of raw materials and a market to sell the manufactured goods.
The need for raw materials and markets led to colonial expansion, therefore leading to a
scramble for territories between the European powers to ensure a protected market. The
European colonial powers divided Asia, Africa and South America amongst themselves,
which was achieved through either military conquest or political dominance. The competition
for colonies led to great power rivalry in the international system, in which the powerful
European states competed amongst themselves in their quest to expand their empire. The
struggle for colonies was influenced by events at the international level and certain
developments at the domestic level which had implications for both the colonised and the
coloniser. For instance, in India, the fight for territory led a series of battles between the
British and French. The course of British and French rivalry in India was shaped by events
outside India. Events such as the outbreak of Seven Years War in Europe in 1756 between
the French and British forces, had an impact on the Carnatic Wars in India. The rivalry
between these countries, however, culminated into the consolidation of the British empire in
India. Similarly, there was a scramble for territorial possession between the European powers
in the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia through a series of battles and diplomatic
negotiations.
Colonialism: Context and Forms
The term colonialism refers to a large-scale political and economic system that allows one
geopolitical entity (such as a nation-state or city-state) to establish controls beyond its

71
traditional geographic borders in the service of increased profit or power (Ahuja 2014:237)
Specific to the character of colonisation is the nature of the unequal relationship between
coloniser and the colonised. Such a relationship is based on disproportionate economic and
political rights, often solely to the advantage of the coloniser. In history, we have seen
examples when countries would occupy colonies to fulfil their economic requirements at the
cost of the host country.
The term imperialism refers to a process whereby a country occupies another country’s
territory and has complete control not just over the economic aspects of the colony but also
cultural, social and political aspects of life. Also, colonialism is constructed on the notion of
white man’s burden, which is based on the assumption that it was the alleged duty of the
European colonial powers to manage the affairs, culture and civilisation of the colonised
population since the coloniser had a superior sense of governance and civilisation as opposed
to the indigenous cultures of the colonies. Such a discourse had set the pace for racism,
exploitation and domination of the indigenous communities in the occupied territories. The
very fact that there is an obsession with fair skin in many post-colonial societies, for like in
the Indian scenario with a blooming industry for fair skin products, could be attributed to
colonialism along with other factors. Colonialism has influenced our world view of what we
consider as the ideal and of the highest standard. Therefore, with the onset of the
decolonisation process, post-colonial studies have made an attempt to critically reflect upon
the implications of colonial rule on the colonised territories.
New Imperialism, on the other hand, refers to the period when new colonial powers
started their colonial expansion by the late nineteenth and twentieth century. It is
characterized by the domination of Western European powers, the United States, Russia and
Japan as new colonial powers for territorial expansion, especially in Africa and Asia.
In historical context, scholars have tried to categorize different forms of colonialism, by
identifying a certain pattern for each of the forms. However, these forms may overlap
depending upon the social, economic and political condition of the coloniser and the
colonised. Nature of colonialism may vary from being exploitative, settler, surrogate, internal
colonialism and neo-colonialism. In settler colonialism, large scale immigrant takes place for
economic and social benefits. Scholars identify such patterns of colonialism in Australia and
the United States. In exploitative colonialism, a few people would occupy and settle in
another country with a motive for acquiring vast economic gains either through the
exploitation of natural resources or using the labour of the native population. In surrogate
colonialism, a colonial power may support projects for the settlement of a population in
another country. Internal colonialism refers to an unequal economic and political relationship
between the centre (the metropolis) and the periphery. In the context above, metropolis refers
to the developed state and periphery refers to the less developed satellite states of the imperial
powers.

72
Neo-Colonialism
Neo-colonialism is a form of colonialism in which a country seeks to influence the economic
and political conditions of a country through conditional aid and financial support. The term
was used by Jean-Paul Sartre in 1956 while it was used by Kwame Nkrumah, who was a
former president of Ghana (1960-66) to describe the decolonisation process in African
countries in the 1960s. It was in the context of the cold war that the superpowers from the
two opposing blocs, would make interventions in the many de-colonised states in Asia and
Africa, and used these states as a base to wage proxy wars.
It is different from the earlier forms of colonialism as unlike the earlier form of
colonialism where political control and military control were the most common methods to
acquire dominance over the occupied territory, however, neo-colonialism thrives on politics
of globalisation and financial aid, which is conditional in nature and as a result of which there
is an unequal relationship of dependence and debt obligations towards the donor country. In
the current situation, foreign capital, either in the form of developmental aid and support is
used to extract economic benefits by the colonising country. Huge aid either in the form of
developmental aid, infrastructure projects and through setting up multinational corporations
are new forms of economic and political domination through which states like the United
States and China have been expanding their clout in the Asian and African countries.
Features of Colonialism
One of the major features of colonialism is that it is based on unequal economic relations,
despite the exposure of the colonised territories to the world market system. Although
colonialism has led to the integration of many societies with the world capitalist market
system, such an integration has encouraged exploitation rather than the development of the
colonial states. The proponents of the dependency school argue that the objective of
integrating the colonial states with the world capitalist system was aimed at serving the
interest of the imperial states, or the metropolis at the cost of periphery states. For instance,
the Indian state although integrated with the world capitalist market during the British rule, it
suffered immense economic stagnation due to the exploitative character of the British rule.
The colonial period led to the systematic destruction of the indigenous industries and as a
result India faced economic stagnation. The objective of the colonial rule in India was to turn
the country into a captive market for sourcing raw materials and selling foreign goods, which
would serve the interest of the British colonial rule.
The systematic drain of wealth from the colonial states was another feature of
colonialism. A lot of economic resources and surplus was drained out the country either in
the form of salaries and other administrative expenditure to maintain the colonial empires,
which was taken out of the country. For instance, the high salaries to maintain civil servants
was taken out by the country by the European officers. The early moderates made an
economic critic of the colonial rule in the nineteenth century and it was one of the most
significant contributions to the Indian nationalist struggle. (Chandra et. al 1989). Also, one of

73
the earliest commentator’s like Dada Bhai Naoroji in 1867 had systematically analysed the
nature of the colonial rule and its adverse impact on Indian state and economic, in his famous
‘Drain of Wealth’ in his book 'Poverty and Un-British Rule in India.
Political domination and hegemony of foreign rule is another fundamental characteristic
of colonialism. Colonialism was characterised by unequal political relations, in which the
imperial powers maintained a position of political dominance over the occupied territories.
Imperial dominance was maintained either through direct military intervention or political
intervention. For instance, we could see that the British rule in India was entrenched through
a series of battles, administrative and political interventions as well.
Many colonial territories had undergone modernisation projects such as the development
of transportation and infrastructure, with a view to enhance the extractive apparatus of the
imperial administration. It was not just infrastructure projects, but the colonial administration
would introduce many taxation policies and new forms of land use patterns to enhance the
extractive capacity of the colonial administration. For instance, railways were introduced in
India to reach the remote parts of the country to extract resource from the frontiers in the
fastest means possible rather than guided by the motive to introduce an even developmental
process in the country.
Identification of the people of the occupied territories as subordinate and less humane.
Ideas of cultural and racial superiority had formed one of the most striking features of the
colonialism. For instance, most of the European colonial powers treated the colonial subjects
as the dehumanised other, who were not capable of governing themselves. Such assumptions
were often backed by science that justified the racial inferiority of the subjects. The education
system and public culture were used to project the western civilisation as the superior one as
opposed to the civilisation and culture of the colonial subjects. For instance, for the longest
time, the cultures of many African countries were looked down by the imperial powers as
opposed to the culture of the white people.
Also, colonialism is characterised in stages, scholars have identified mostly three stages
of colonialism. The first stage is identified as the period of monopoly, trade and plunder. This
stage was characterised by the monopoly of trade as the foremost objective of the traders.
Making profit was the main objective of the traders. In the process, the local and markets and
also the competing powers for the markets were kept out through carefully planned military
and diplomatic interventions. The monopoly of trade led to drain of wealth, as was in the
Indian case as elucidated by many Indian commentators, some of them being Dadabhai
Naoroji in 1867 and further analysed and developed by R.P. Dutt, and M.G. Ranade.
The second stage is characterised by an era of free trade: In this stage, the bourgeoisie
industrialist encouraged political, administrative, social and cultural changes of the colonies
so to retain and enhance the extractive potential of the colonies. Since the metropolis viewed
the colony as an important source of raw material and place to sell the manufactured, it
became important to introduce modernisation and development in the colonies. The colonies

74
were to be integrated with the world capitalist system and trade was to be used in a way
which would ensure the appropriation of wealth from the colonies. The idea behind the
introduction of modernisation was to ensure that the source of raw material and market for
manufactured goods does not collapse due to stagnation. Exports were to be maintained from
the colonies so that they retain their economies to buy manufactured goods from the imperial
powers and also so that their source for buying raw material do not vanish.
The third stage is referred to as the era of finance capital. This stage was marked by an
intense struggle for power and competition amongst the colonial powers to maintain their
colonies for raw materials and sell the manufactured goods. Investments for the
modernisation and development of the colonies became major means to retain the colonies.
However, the colonies could not respond to the modernisation and developmental process
positively, as overexploitation of the economy in the earlier stages had already hindered the
economies of the colonies adversely, therefore underdevelopment became a major feature of
this stage, however, many scholars are of the few the third stage could not take off.
Then several strands of scholarship, for instance, the proponents of dependency theorists,
have highlighted the role of capitalism, as a world system, have impacted colonialism. They
argue that the unequal relationship between the metropolis and the periphery, have been
greatly responsible for the backwardness and underdevelopment of the colonised territories.
Also, the role of various struggles for self-determination and independence in many occupied
colonies is fundamental to our understanding of how colonialism, was challenged. However,
when we speak of decolonisation it is important to note how we want to identify with the
process of decolonisation. Do we define decolonisation as a process in which the colonial
powers wilfully gave up their colonial possession or was it a result of various struggles for
independence which was actively fought by the people of the occupied colonies (Kennedy
2016).
Decolonisation: Context and Forms
Decolonisation has been widely referred to as a process in the latter half of the twentieth
century when colonialism was receiving a setback, as a result of which the colonial powers
had to withdraw from their occupied territories. It denotes a period, especially in the context
of Asian, African and South American states started gaining independence from the European
and western powers. The term decolonisation has two different connotations. Decolonisation
is referred to a process in which the colonial powers gave up their control over their
territories, often wilfully at a moment when they deemed that their colonial subjects had
finally arrived at a position for responsible self-governance. The other connotation of the
term, decolonisation refers to a process when the occupied territories could achieve autonomy
for self-rule from their colonial rulers, through struggles which finally led to their
independence. The second definition refers to a process, mostly in the form of mass
movements that was responsible was overthrowing colonialism in the occupied colonies.

75
 However, the term decolonisation was used by the German economist Moritz Julius
Bonn in the 1930s to describe the process through which colonies had attained self –
governance (Reinhard 2001). One of the core features of the decolonisation is right to self-
determination and it is one of the fundamental rights identified by the United Nations. Also,
the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has stated that there cannot be any
other alternative for the coloniser but to agree to a process of self-determination. The United
Nations General assembly declared 1900-2000 as the International Decade for the
Eradication of Colonialism the United Nations along with a specific plan of action. Then, in
2001, a Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism was declared too,
while period 2011–2020 the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism
(The United Nations).
Decolonisation during Various Stages
The process of decolonisation and colonial has been closely linked, and as the history of the
world suggest that process of decolonisation have not been even or smooth for all countries.
There have been various forms and processes through which different colonies have achieved
decolonisation. Decolonisation signifies a process through which the colonial empires
transformed into nation-states, through different political, economic, social and cultural
trajectories.
The classic phase of decolonisation is usually associated with the late twentieth century
when the colonies of the European powers began to assert their right to self-determination.
Factors such as the high cost of great power rivalry and the world wars led to economic and
political hardships for the colonial powers to maintain their faraway territories or to even
suppress the revolts against the foreign rule. The economic burden of maintaining the
colonies, the struggle for independence and mass movements for self-determination have
been instrumental in accelerating the process of decolonisation in several Asian, African and
American states in the course of history.
Decolonisation as a process could be traced to a period when the colonies of the
European empire had started demanding right for political autonomy in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth century in North and South America around 1776 and 1826 in context of
the Atlantic revolutions. The early American struggles were creole revolutions for
independence, which emerged amongst the descendants of European settlers in America. As a
consequence, the European colonies in America had reduced drastically after this after the
culmination of the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Then another wave of decolonisation began in
Britain’s white dominion’s, which was around 1840–1931 (Reinhard 2001). The British
settler colonies started demanding political autonomy in Canada, New Zealand and South
Africa.
The period between the first and second world wars are considered another significant
phase for decolonisation since the wars had induced several economic and political
ramifications for both the coloniser and the colonised territories. Therefore, the

76
decolonisation process and breaking of empires began with 1914 and around 1940' and 1950's
massive phase of decolonisation began with the end of second world war. For instance, India
gained independence in 1947 from the British, Philippines in 1946 from the United States, the
French gave up Vietnam in 1954. By the 1960's many African colonies started gaining
independence. Events such as the end of the Portuguese colonies in 1974–1970’s, especially
in Africa and the end of white minority rule in South Africa, the disintegration of the Soviet
empire in 1975 to 1991, were significant developments in the decolonisation process.
Decolonisation and Its Types
The process of decolonisation has been peaceful and gradual for some colonies while for
some it has been violent. In history, different events have facilitated the decolonisation
process in Asia, and Africa. Some decolonisation process has been non-violent while some
have been violent or a combination of different strategies to achieve self-determination. For
instance, India achieved independence through a national mass movement which was
fundamentally based on non-violent methods of resistance under the leadership of Mohandas
Karmachand Gandhi. While there were leaders who also spoke of self-determination through
revolutions. Frantz Fannon (1925-1961), spoke in revolutionary terms in his work The
Wretched of the Earth. Also, the colonisers often used a language to portray the struggles of
decolonisation as illegitimate and passed draconian laws to curb them, often citing these acts
of resistance as terrorism or rebellion while the leaders' tried to resists suppression by giving
it the name of a revolution, for instance (Klose 2014) . While during other instances,
decolonisation has been achieved through external interventions, for instance, the
involvement of foreign powers or super big powers in the international system and the United
Nations has been instrumental in facilitating the decolonisation process. The United
Nations Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, or
the Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24), is a committee of the United
Nations General Assembly that was established in 1961 and is exclusively devoted to the
issue of decolonization (The United Nations).
Different Approaches
There are different approaches towards understanding the history of decolonisation. The
process of decolonisation cannot be attributed to just one factor but a combination of multiple
factors. Factors such as contradictions within the imperial powers, the rise of struggles for
independence in the colonies or the Nationalist approach, and international developments
within the international structure have led to the culmination of factors which prompted the
de-colonisation process around the world during different phases. The Nationalist approach
states that the anti-imperial struggles against the colonial rule was a fundamental factor for
decolonisation and not a direct implication of colonial rule. The international approach states
that developments in the international system such as the world wars and the rise of new
powers challenged the old imperial system. The world wars depleted the economic might of

77
the European colonial powers while rising powers like the United States did not have an
interest in sustaining the old system of imperialism. Then a third approach the domestic
constraint approach suggests that the maintain the colonies had become a burden for the
colonial powers. However, there was also debates around this argument, whether it was
constraints of the colonial powers or the resistance offered by the colonial territories which
made imperialism difficult.
Colonialism and Decolonisation: Implications
Colonialism has disrupted the economies of the colonies therefore with the process of
decolonisation the colonies had to revive and build an economic system that would bring
them out of underdevelopment. However, a weak economy and other challenges in the these
newly gained independence states, made these states dependent on the western powers for
economic assistance, often taking the course of neo-colonialism, even after a formal end to
colonialism.
Apart from economic challenges, political and state-building challenges was a task for
the post-colonial states. Many of these states in Asia and Africa are still grappling with
challenges which have been a result of policies implemented during the colonial rule, for
instance, border disputes, communal tensions.
However, factors such as the introduction of modern education, infrastructure and certain
social reforms did introduce a few reforms in these states. For instance, the banning of Sati
1829 by the then Governor-General Lord William Bentinck in India was a progressive step
for social reform in India.
Summary
In this chapter, we have learnt about the definitions and meanings of various concepts such as
colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism and decolonisation. We could see how these
processes are interlinked with each other and have shaped the history of world history in
various ways. The history of colonialism reflects how the European and western civilisation
based on the edifice of industrialisation and capitalism has impacted the history of the world
in many ways, especially the Asian, African and South American States. However, the
internal contradictions of colonial rule had instrumental in accelerating the decolonisation
process. We could see how various colonies in Asia and Africa started asserting their right to
self-determination often guided by the educated middle-class elite, for instance in India it was
guided by the educated middle-class elites who had received western education.
Even today, many African and Asian states continue to grapple with the challenges
which had surfaced as a result of the colonial rule, for instance, border disputes, economic
underdevelopment, state-building and communalism. It has not only impacted the economy
but also the politics, social and cultural aspects of the colonies. On the other hand,
decolonisation has been instrumental in breaking certain assumptions about racial superiority
and white supremacy by the western powers and also challenging other assumptions on what

78
the European hegemony has been sustained on, for instance, the European often justified their
rule over their colonies based on a superior sense of governance while the colonies' were
regarded as the uncivilised barbaric other incapable of self –governance. It also reflects a
discourse of resisting the western worldview which often made the colonised feel inferior
about their culture, identity or way of life.
However, even today after the formal end of colonial rule in many countries, new forms
of economic and political dominance have emerged, often entrenching such influence through
the politics of aid and development. Therefore, such developments also reflect how the
history of the world is often influenced by the role of the powerful states and in different
phases of history, while the history of colonialism and decolonisation also demonstrates there
are always instances of resistance to counter dominance by powerful states in the
international system shaped by both internal and external conditions of a state.
References
Ahuja, Neel (2014), ‘Colonialism’, URL: https://cpb-us-
e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.ucsc.edu/dist/f/396/files/2014/11/Ahuja-Colonialism.pdf
Chandra, Bipin et.al (1989), ‘India's Struggle for Independence, 1857-1947’, Penguin Books.
Kennedy, Dane (2016), ‘Decolonization: A Very Short Introduction’, Oxford
University Press
Klose, Fabian (2014), Decolonization and Revolution, European History Online, URL:
http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/europe-and-the-world/european-overseas-rule/fabian-klose-
decolonization-and-revolution
Reinhard,W. (2001), ‘ Colonization and Colonialism’ International Encyclopedia of the Social 
& Behavioral Sciences, 2240-2245.
Thomas, Martin and Andrew S. Thompson (2018), ‘Rethinking Decolonization: A New
Research Agenda for the Twenty First Century’, The Oxford Handbook of the Ends of Empire
United Nations, ‘Decolonisation’, URL: https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-
depth/decolonization.

79
 Unit-4: Themes for Comparative Analysis

(i) Comparative Study of Constitutional Developments and

Political Economy of Britain
Sanjeev Kumar & Namreeta Kumari
Introduction
The United Kingdom is made up of four distinct countries: England, Wales and Northern
Ireland. However, ‘Great Britain consists of three regions i.e. England Wales and Scotland.
England and Scotland were united in 1707 and Wales came in the union to form Great Britain
much later. Ireland became part of the union in 1801 and Ireland in 1920. “There are several
levels of government in Great Britain. The supreme legislative body is Parliament, which
meets in Westminster (London). Headed by the Sovereign, it has two chambers: the upper
chamber, or House of Lords, and the lower chamber, the House of Commons. Currently,
around 790 members are eligible to take part in debates in the House of Lords; the majority
of these are life peers. Although there are over 800 hereditary peers, since 1999, only 92 have
been eligible to sit in the House of Lords. No peers are currently directly elected, although
House of Lords reform has been on the political agenda since the late 1990s. All 650
members of House of Commons (which includes representatives from Northern Ireland) are
directly elected” (Catto, Davie and Perfect 2015).
Catto and others further note that “while subject to the British Parliament, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland also have their separate parliaments or assemblies. The Scottish
Parliament was restored in 1999 after nearly three centuries, while the National Assembly for
Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly were set up in 1998. All three bodies have elected
members. The Scottish Parliament is responsible for ‘devolved matters’, including education
and training, health and social services and local government; and the UK Parliament in
Westminster holds responsibility for “reserved matters” such as defence, foreign policy and
employment. There is a similar distinction in Wales between ‘devolved’ and ‘reserved’
powers, although more powers are reserved to Westminster in the National Assembly for
Wales than in the Scottish Parliament. In September 2014, a referendum on whether Scotland
should become an independent country was conducted; 45 per cent voted in favour and 55
per cent against, thus Northern Ireland is excluded from the remaining discussion, first
because it is not part of Great Britain, but also because it has its own very complicated
history, resulting in a particular political and legal situation. The role of religion is crucial in
Northern Ireland but is utterly different from that in Great Britain. There are other significant
differences between England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other.
Scotland has a separate system of education, and a distinctive legal system which is partly
codified; England and Wales, in contrast, are subject to a common law system based on
judicial precedents. Important differences also exist in terms of religious establishment as
discussed below. To avoid confusion, the rest of this article focuses on the situation in

80
England and Wales, unless otherwise stated (Catto, Davie and Perfect 2015). Thus, the
parliamentary and constitutional development of Great Britain has a unique history.
Bogdanor highlights that “the fundamental feature of British constitutional development,
then, is the long tradition of continuous and undivided parliamentary sovereignty, which has
no parallel on the Continent” (Bogdanor 2016: 164). The chapter traces a history of
constitutional development and the political economy of Britain.
Constitutional Development in Britain
The study of any country’s constitutional development and political economy is rooted in its
history of political traditions and legacies. Over the centuries the model of Britain political
system is of political stability. All the political institutions and structures of Britain are
related or connected with its political traditions. There are five sources which are resulted on
the constitutional development of Britain which are Great Charters, Statues, Conventions,
Common law, Judicial decisions and Legal Commentaries.
To understand the constitutional development of Britain it is fundamental, to begin with,
the basic foundation of Kingship in Britain. In the second half of the 5th century, the Roman
Empire rule came to an end in England. Anglo-Saxon was a period when the roots of the
monarchy were being laid in Britain. Anglo Saxons were not autocrat completely and the
king was advised by a council of elders known as Witagenmot, in the conduct of
administration. Therefore it is apt to say that kingship is a tradition of England.
The most important date in English history is 1066 when “the invading army of Norman
army of William the Conqueror defeated the Anglo-Saxon forces of King Harold at the Battle
of Hastings. Britain has not been invaded since 1066. The Spanish Armada was repulsed in
1588, as were Hitler’s forces in 1940. The Britons are proud of having preserved their
sovereignty against foreign invasion for more than 900 years” (Rutland 2005, p.42). Despite
being autocrat Normans couldn’t be faced difficulty conducting administration in the absence
of an advisory council. In such a context it necessitated the birth of Magnum Concilium and
Curia Regis which was an advanced version of Witagenmot. Magnum Concilium was a great
council and 3-4 meetings were convened by the king every year. Due to the large size of
Magnum Concilium, a smaller council was formed which was Known as Curia Regis to
seeking advice for effective administration.
A feudal democracy was established in England during the Norman period. During the
regime of King John, not only the public but the feudal lords also turned against him. The
rebellion of barons arose due to taking away the traditional rights of the barons, taxes were
imposed which created difficulty for heirs of barons. The barons led rebellion forced King
John to sign a Charter of Demands on 12th June 1215 which is known as Magna Carta and a
source of constitutional development in Britain. The charter of demands was an agreement
between the king and the feudal lords but many of the clauses dealt with the rights of the
barons as the charter of demands is a detailed document with 63 articles accepting the feudal

81
rights of the feudal lords. This charter is the basis of modern democracy in England. It was
the first step towards limited monarchy and constitutional government in Britain.
The parliamentary system started evolving in the late 12th and early 13th century in
Britain. Simon de Monkford has to be credited for his effort for making British parliament
more representative as in 1265 he convened the parliament and called for two representatives
from 20 main cities. In 1295 when the Parliament was convened under the leadership of
Edward I, it was called Model Parliament as two members each from the Shire, Borough and
City were called to attend it. For some of the members an election procedure was followed
and for the first time principle of representation was adopted in the British Parliament. In this
Parliament three types of representative were called to attend it- Barons, Bishops and
Commoners. The members of Parliament were representatives from three different interests
but the Parliament was divided into two parts and became two houses of Parliament later
known as The House of Lords and House of Commons.
After the establishment Parliament in Britain, there was a conflict between the
Parliament and King which came in open when there was a struggle between Stuart kings and
the parliament which eventually resulted in Civil war. The theory of Divine Rights of the
king was asserted by Stuart kings followed by James I. This theory was also supported by
Charles I which was rejected by Parliament. All his efforts failed to establish his supremacy
over the Parliament and as a result imposed taxes and collected money from the people
without the approval parliament. He eventually had to sign, The Petition of Rights in 1628
but did not follow it and as result, he dissolved the Parliament. The Petition of Rights was a
landmark development in Britain’s political tradition after Magna Carta. No session of
Parliament was held for the next 11 years. Charles, I was awarded the death sentence in 1649
and was succeeded by James II. James II regime witnessed the Glorious Revolution of 1688
which was revolution according to primary importance to the Parliament followed by the
king. “William of Orange deposed the Catholic King James II and took office as a
constitutional monarch who accepted that ultimate sovereignty rested with the Parliament”
(Rutland p.40). The Bill of Rights 1689 was the foundation to establish a parliamentary
government in Britain and the constitutional or limited monarchy was accepted. The
parliament was made the central point and its approval for all the decisions including law-
making was made central. The Bill of Rights 1689 is called the Great Charters as it
regulated the relationship between the King and the Parliament. It proclaimed the supremacy
of the parliament and demarcated the spheres in which the monarch could exercise his/her
power. It marked the beginning of constitutional monarchy with sole sovereignty with
Queen-in-Parliament. Since the sovereignty was given to the parliament the monarch could
not reject any laws passed by the parliament. The taxes couldn’t be levied on people without
the approval of the Parliament which protected the Civil rights of people of Britain. The
parliament should be an elected body and members of Parliament had full freedom of speech
and expression.

82
 The charters are an agreement between the people and the king for protection of the
rights of the people. The charters were integral to the development of constitution in Britain
and the oldest among them comprises Magna Carta of 1215, Petition Rights of 1629, and the
Bill of Rights 1689 which played an important role in the development of British
constitution.
The British constitution is an unwritten constitution but important developments which
have resulted in constitutional development in Britain are the Statues. This is the second
source of the constitution of Britain. Since Parliament is supreme in Britain the law enacted
by the parliament is called statues which accommodate laws pertaining to constitutional
structure and ordinary laws. The statues are those laws which are of important laws like laws
related to the extension of the franchise, age of franchise, election system, rights and liberties
of people, etc. There were statues which were the sources of the constitution of Britain, The
Reform Act 1832 and 1867, 1884, 1918, 1928 and 1969 as these laws were related to the
extension of franchise and right to franchise.
The British constitution is unwritten is based on constitutional conventions.
Conventions are unwritten customs and practised which are accepted due support of the
strong public opinion. These conventions don’t have sanctions of laws behind them.
The constitutional convention which receives sanctity of courts becomes a Common
Law, which is an unwritten law of the constitution. Common law is validation given to
conventions which are recognized by the courts in Britain.
Judicial decisions and Legal commentaries on the constitution also had an essential
role in the development of the constitution of Britain. The judiciary by giving interpretations
to constitutional laws of the country fixes its direction. It also defines the limits of the
charters and the statues which influence constitutional practice. The commentaries of eminent
legal jurist are an important source of the constitution as these are often the clear
interpretation of the laws. These commentaries are also used by the courts for deciding
complicated cases.
Features of the Constitution
The evolution of the British constitution cannot be caged into one single source and has a
long history which is also an evolving constitution. The powers of different bodies are
defined and the rights of the citizens are protected through the constitution of Britain. The
following features of the British constitution which explain how the British constitution is
unique.
1. Evolved Constitution, Unwritten Constitution and Flexible Constitution
The British constitution is evolved as it is a result of evolution as there is no system in
the British constitution which does not has its root in the ancient systems and legacies.
It was never promulgated by a King nor enacted by a constituent assembly on a
definite date. Britain’s constitution is the oldest in the world is neither written nor
enacted. It contains well-thought laws, statues, decisions, precedents, usages and
83
 traditions. The parliament is supreme in Britain and can enact or amend ordinary and
constitutional laws and the Supreme Court doesn’t have any power to declare the laws
null or void. There are no special procedures for the amendment of laws. The ordinary
laws and constitutional laws can be amended with a simple majority of parliament.
2. The British Constitution is a Child of Accident and Design
The evolution of the British constitution was not planned as it gradually evolved
according to the circumstances and accordingly the principles and systems developed
and that’s why it’s often referred to as ‘child of an accident’. Since the constitution is
premised on unwritten conventions it doesn’t mean that all the laws and systems
developed accidentally. A part of the constitution is premised on laws which were
framed a planned manner, for instance, various parliamentary acts, the Acts of 1911
and 1949.
3. Supremacy of Parliament
Parliament is supreme in Britain as it has unlimited authority and is omnipotent. It not
only makes laws-constitutional, financial and ordinary but the executive is also
answerable to House of Commons. The parliament is sovereign in all spheres and its
decisions can’t be questioned as the courts doesn’t have the authority of judicial
review whatever is legal is constitutional. Parliament is not bound and cannot be
restrained by the Acts of earlier parliaments similarly it cannot restrain the actions of
future Parliament.
4. Gap Between Theory and Practice
There is a gap between the theory and practice of the British Constitution. They have
maintained their traditions even though they might have changed according to the
circumstances. That’s why even after a change in the procedure of working, nature
and aims of many systems and institutions the form remains the same. King is
powerful in all spheres legally but in reality, all the functions of the king are
performed by his ministers who are representatives of the people and respond to them
through parliament.
Political Economy of Britain
The discourse of political economy in England can be understood largely emerging from the
17th century when the kingdom was involved within wars with various European nations such
as France, Spain and their allies. It was the time when the promotion of trade and
manufacturing was considered as the way to increase national prosperity. Such an
understanding encouraged support for Naval fleet, naval power and merchants. It was also the
time when the state patronages for domestic production, foreign trade got an early boost and
such acts were termed as ‘Mercantilism’ by Adam Smith.
In the eighteenth century, the doctrine of free-trade had become prominent and the policy
of British protectionism had taken place. Under such development, the British government
abolished the Navigation Acts and Corn Laws to promote its protectionist policy. In the
nineteenth century, Britain adopted imperialism as the most important tool to raise its

84
political-economy. The focus of Britain was pointed towards forcing colonies and defeated
powers to open their markets for free trade. The policy of free trade remained the central
economic policy during the 19th century as well, Tucker argues that, by such policy of free
trade, the richer countries such as Britain managed to stay ahead and poorer colonies
remained poorer. Bagchi notes that “this policy was often backed by actual military
intervention or the threat of such intervention” (Bagchi 2014: 553). The rationale of such
policies has been explained by Tucker that, “(a) the richer country, with better implements,
infrastructure, a more extended trading network and more productive agriculture, would be
more productive overall; (b) it would be able to spend more on further improvements, and (c)
the larger markets of the richer country would provide scope for greater division of labour
and a greater variety of products.
Furthermore, “Tucker also pointed to the advantages a richer country would enjoy in
terms of human resources and the generation of knowledge: (a) it would attract the abler and
more knowledgeable people because of higher incomes and opportunities; (b) it would be
better endowed with information and capacity for producing new knowledge; and (c) a
greater degree of competitiveness gained through higher endowments of capital, knowledge,
ability to acquire more knowledge and capital and the energy of people with more capital and
ability to generate more capital and knowledge in the richer country would make products
cheaper. Finally, the larger capital resources of the richer country would lower interest rates
and render investable funds cheaper.” (Bagchi 2014: 553).
Thus, there have been various interpretations related to British political economy, but
largely the economic policy of Britain had started taking various shifts from 17th century in
the wake of the industrial revolution and the emergence of liberal thought in the sphere of
economy and polity. In other words, the major developmental shift of political economy of
Britain can be largely traced back to the phenomena of industrial development.
The industrial revolution in Britain dates back to the 18th century which resulted in the
creation of two classes- the business middle class and the labourers which were left out of
from the parliamentary system. It was the first country to witness the industrial revolution
and became “the workshop of the world, selling its manufactured goods throughout its global
trading network” (Putland). Later the tradition of gradualism resulted in broadening of the
franchise through different acts of parliament. The effort to accommodate working-class in
enfranchisement resulted in the creation of the Labour party in 1906 which was a party of
the working class people whereas the Conservative Party. The conservative party drew most
of its members from the middle-class merchants and businessmen. There were demands
because made by the working class to a stable political system. In the reign of liberal party
government (1906-1914) elements of the welfare state were introduced like public health,
school meals, and public pensions. World War I was a major challenge for the British state to
maintain its integrity. It was only US intervention which saved the British state otherwise it
would have lost the war and the British economy suffered a lot.

85
 World War II brought much more damages unlike the world war I. “Although the
economic aid by the United States-sponsored Marshall Plan eventually aided the economic
recovery in Britain, an important price that the country paid was the loss of many of its
colonies in Africa and Asia” (Wood p.109) and lost its status as an imperialist power. World
War II marked the collapse of the imperialist order. After these wars, the economy was
completely broken and the British state played an interventionist role to revamp the economy.
The British state followed the Keynesian welfare state formulated by British economist John
Maynard Keynes.
After the war, the collective consensus both parties consensus over establishing a
welfare state continued until 1960. The Beveridge Report of 1942 was accepted by both the
parties before the war ended “promising full employment and state-provided health care,
insurance, and pensions” (Rutland p.65). There was a change in government as the voters
turned down Churchill as a prime minister in 1945 as this much was not enough to satisfy the
voters.
In 1960’s the efforts of the government to reduce inflation in the country and increase
economic growth resulted in economic crises in 1970 and labour party losing its membership
in Britain and was succeeded by Conservatives with Margaret Thatcher as their leader in
1979. She was influenced by writings of Friedrich Hayek and monetarist Milton Friedman
Thatcher privatized business and industry and set the stage for neoliberalism by promoting a
market economy in Britain. She rejected the Keynesian model and minimized state
interference in the economy. She began by controlling the trade unions and breaking their
power. “Tax rates were cut: The top personal income tax rate fell from 90 per cent to 40 per
cent. Workers were encouraged to opt-out of the state pension system and invest some of
their payroll taxes in a private retirement account” (Rutland p.68). In 1988 she introduced
“New Steps Program” which focused on the way services were delivered by the state. This
was a reformative program which outsourced public services to private agencies and firm so
that the costs are reduced. The Thatcherism (1979-1990) period saw a rise in a GDP but the
gap between the rich and poor increased. Thatcher resigned and was replaced by John Mayor
who followed her policies.
The conservative party lost to the Labour party in 1997 election with Tony Blair as its
leader. It was a new Labour party which offered a “Third way” which was different from the
old labour party and the conservative party which was a “centrist way”. “Tony Blair
described New Labour as a “pro-business, pro-enterprise” party, albeit one with a
compassionate face. He stressed the values of community and moral responsibility in contrast
with Thatcher’s brazen individualism” (Putland p.71). Blair was succeeded by Gordon Brown
in 2007. By 2010 the third way of labour party was faced by challenges and the conservative
party and liberal democrats headed the coalition government with David Cameroon as its
Prime Minister. The conservative party gained back its majority in 2015.

86
 Thus, the analysis of British political economy highlights that a country’s economic
system is also dependent on the kind of ideology of the political party ruling the government
and according to the economic policies of the state are framed.
References
Bagchi, A. K. (2014). Contextual political economy, not Whig economics. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 38(3), 545–562.
Bogdanor, V. (2016). Britain and Europe. Zeitschrift Für Staats- Und Europawissenschaften,
14(2), 157–165.
Catto, Rebecca. Davie Grace and Perfect David. 2015. State and Religion in Great Britain:
Constitutional Foundations, Religious Minorities, the Laws and Education. Insight
Turkey, Winter 2015, Vol. 17 No. 1 Religion and State in Europe Secularism,
European Law, Education, Islamophobia, 79-96.
Dudley, C. (2013). Party politics, political economy, and economic development in early
eighteenth-century Britain: Political Economy and Economic Development. The
Economic History Review.
Edlin, D. E. (2016). The Rule of Recognition and the Rule of Law: Departmentalism and
Constitutional Development in the United States and the United Kingdom. American
Journal of Comparative Law, 64(2), 371–418.
Flinders, M. (2009). Constitutional Anomie: Patterns of Democracy and ‘The Governance of
Britain.’ Government and Opposition, 44(4), 385–411.
Gambles, A. (2000). Free Trade and State Formation: The Political Economy of Fisheries
Policy in Britain and the United Kingdom circa 1780–1850. Journal of British
Studies, 39(3), 288–316.
Myers, B. L. (2016). How Did Britain Develop? Adaptive Social Systems and the
Development of Nations. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic
Mission Studies, 33(2), 136–147.
Rutland, Peter. (2005). “Britain.” In Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and
Institutions in A Changing Global Order, edited by Jefferey Kopstein and March
Lichbach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weill, R. (2006). Evolution vs. Revolution: Dueling Models of Dualism. The American
Journal of Comparative Law, 54(2), 429–479
Wood, Ethel. (2015). Comparative Government and Politics: An Essential Course Book.
New York: Wood Yard Publications.

87
 Unit-4

(ii) Comparative Study of Constitutional Development

and Political Economy in Brazil
Baby Tabassum

Introduction
Brazil is a country of continental size with a long history of building a national state and, in
recent decades, a more democratic system of government. The transition to democracy,
however, coincided with an explosion of civil society activism and mobilization. “The
expansion of voting rights and the involvement of gender and ethnic groups, urban social
movements, and environmental and religious organizations in Brazilian politics have greatly
expanded the range of political participation”.2 Just the same, political institutions have failed
to harmonize the demands of conflicting forces.
On 5 October 1988, Brazil enacted a new constitution containing a total of 315 articles.
“In Brazilian politics this was the result of twenty months of discussion and debate of 559
members of the Constituent Assembly. It is the eighth Constitution of Brazil since
independence in 1822. As it replaces the 1967 Constitution, it is again amended in 1969,
which was imposed by the military regime that governed between 1964 and 1985. However
Brazilian political commentators call it a Keystone for the country’s democratic
consolidation”.3 Brazil has emerged as an inward-oriented industrialized country in the world
over the last three decades due to its new competitive position. Its huge economy is now
more interconnected with other markets in this globalized world than at any other time in the
country’s history.
The Brazilian state adjusted to changes in the distribution of power; the rise of new,
politically active social classes; and the requirements of development. Power shifted regularly
between the central and subnational governments. These swings between centralizing periods
and decentralizing ones punctuated critical junctures of Brazilian politics.
“Brazil’s economic history is characterized by significant economic volatility in the
world until 1994. Between the return to democracy in 1985 and 1994, the critical economy
eventually underwent through spells of hyperinflation, recessions and brief intervals of
relative stability under ultimately unsuccessful economic plans. Inflation peaked at 2950

2
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, Sixth edition (United State of
America : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013),414.
3
Bruneau, Thomas C. “Constitutions and Democratic Consolidation Brazil in Comparative Perspective”.
(California : Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, 1989), 1. Accessed October 12, 2020,
https://www.apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a208224.pdf.
88
percent in 1990”.4 Macro-economic turbulence gave rise to a strong short-term focus of
economic agents. This situation was most detrimental to the poor section, who were not able
to protect themselves against inflation. This only changed with the 1994 Real plan, which
established a crawling currency peg, limited public spending and undid much of the existing
inflation indexation. Brazil entered the 2008 global crisis with significant buffers to enact
countercyclical policies and initially showed strong resilience, with economic growth
rebounding strongly in 2010.
Historical Background : An Overview
The Brazilian Empire (1822-1889) : Critical Junctures
Brazil survived a violent wars of independence as a Portuguese colony. Brazilian
independence was declared peacefully by the Crown’s own agent in the colony in 1822. “To
control its dispersed territory, the Brazilian centralized authority in the emperor, which
functioned as a moderating power, mediating conflicts among the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of government and powerful landowning oligarchy”.5 This centralization
contrasted with other postcolonial Latin American states, which suffered numerous conflicts
among territorially dispersed strongmen (caudillos).
The Brazilian country reflects many characteristics of representative democracy: regular
elections, alternation of parties in power, and scrupulous compliance with the constitution.
“Liberal institutions, however, only regulated political competition among the rural,
oligarchical elites, leaving out the mass of the Brazilian population who were neither
enfranchised nor politically organized”.6
The Rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism (1964-1985)
“The military government installed what the Argentine political sociologist Guillermo
O’Donnell termed bureaucratic authoritarianism (BA)”.7 Such a type of regimes can only
deal with severe economic crises and are led by the armed forces and key civilian allies,
especially seen by professional economists, engineers, and administrators.
The military government first planned a quick return to civilian rule and even allowed
limited democratic institutions to continue. After being purged in 1964 of the BA’s
opponents, the national congress continued to function, and direct elections for federal
legislators and most mayors (but not the president or state governors) took place at regular
intervals. “In November 1965, the military replaced all existing political parties to establish

4
“OECD Economic Surveys : Brazil”, OECD (2018):8, Accessed October 18, 2020,
https://www.oecd.org/economy/surveys/Brazil-2018-OECD-economic-survey-.
5
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, Sixth edition (United State of
America : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013),388.
6
Alfred P., “Brazil”, 388.
7
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, 8th edition (United State of America
: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013),376.
89
the National Renovation Alliance (ARENA) and the Brazilian Democratic Movement
(MDB)”.8 The ARENA was the party of military government’s, while MDB was the
“official” party of the opposition. Former members of the three major parties joined one of
the two new parties.
The military reinforced the previous pattern of state interventionism in economic
policies. “The government promoted state-led economic development by adopting a strategy
of building hundreds of state corporations and investing enormous huge sums in established
public firms. By adopting such strategies Brazil implemented one of the most successful
economic development programs among newly industrialized countries”.9 Often called the
“Brazilian miracle”, these programs demonstrated that, like France, Germany and Japan in
earlier periods, a developing country could create its own economic miracle.
The Making of the Modern Brazilian State
The Transition to Democracy and the First Civilian Governments (1974-2001)
After the oil crisis of 1973 set off a wave of inflation around the world, the economy began to
falter. Increasing criticism from Brazilian business led the last two ruling generals, Geisel and
Figueiredo, to begin a gradual process of democratization. In their early stages, these leaders
envisioned only a liberalizing, or opening, of the regime to allow civilian politicians to
compete for political office. As was later the case with Gorbachev’s “glasnost” in the Soviet
Union, however, control over the process of liberalization gradually slipped from military
hands and was captured by organizations within civil society. “At the same time in 1974, the
opposition party, the MDB, stunned the military government by increasing its representation
in the Senate from 18 to 30 percent and in the Chamber of Deputies from 22 to 44 percent”.10
The party did not have a majority, but it did capture a majority in both chambers of the state
legislatures in the most important industrialized southern and southeastern states.
In later years, the military wanted to retain as much control over the succession process
as possible and expressed its consent to elect the next president through a restricted electoral
college. But mass mobilization campaigns demanded the right to elect the next president
directly. The Diretas Ja! (“Direct Elections Now!”) movement, includes a comprising an
array of social movements, opposition politicians and labor unions, which have expanded
substantially in their size and influence in 1984. Their rallies exerted tremendous presuure on
the military at a moment when it was not clear who would succeed General Figueiredo. “The
military’s fight to keep the 1984 elections indirect alienated civilian supporters of the
generals. Many former supporters broke with the regime and backed an alliance (the liberal

8
Alfred P., “Brazil”, 376.
9
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, Sixth edition (United State of
America : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013),392.
10
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, 8th edition (United State of America
: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 377.
90
front) with Tancredo Neves, the candidate of the opposition PMDB, the Party of the MDB”.11
Neves’s victory in 1984, however, was marred by his sudden death on the eve of the
inauguration. Vice President Jose Sarney became the first civilian president of brazil since
1964.
A chance for fundamental change appeared in 1987 when the national Constituent
Assembly met to draft a new constitution. Given the earlier success of the opposition
governors in 1982, state political machines became important players in the game of
constitution writing. The state governments petitioned for the devolution of new authority to
tax and spend. Labor groups also exerted influence through their lobbying organizations.
Workers demanded constitutional protection of the right to strike and called for extending
this right to public employees. The constitution also granted workers the right to create their
own unions without authorization from the Ministry of Labor.
Soon after sarney’s rise to power, annual rates of inflation began to skyrocket.The
government sponsored several stabilization plans, but without success. By 1989, the first
direct presidential elections since the 1960s, Brazilian society was calling for a political
leader to remedy runaway inflation and remove corrupt and authoritarian politicians.
“Fernando Collor de Mello, became president after a gruelling campaign against Lula da
Silva, the popular left wing labor leader and head of the workers party (Partido dos
Trabalhadores, or PT)”.12 To counteract Lula’s following, Collor’s rhetoric appealed to the
poor, known as the descamisados (“shirtless ones”), with his attacks against politicians and
social problems caused by bureaucratic inefficiency.
In July 1994, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, his minister of finance implemented the “Real
Plan”, which created a new currency, the real. Cardoso rode the success of the Real Plan to
the presidency, beating out Lula and the PT in 1994 and again in 1998. He proved adept at
keeping inflation low and consolidating some of the structural reforms of the economy.
Brazil after September 11, 2001 Scenario
The incident of 11 September of the same year and the collapse of the argentine economy
produced a fundamental crisis of confidence in Brazil. In particular, the realization of the
Argentina’s crisis was threatening instability on real. Meanwhile, Washington’s war on terror
led to a situation threatened to displace social and economic priorities in Brazil’s relations
with the United States.
The election of Lula da Silva as president in October 2002 reflected how far Brazilian
democracy had come. “He passed major social security reforms in 2003 and 2004, but similar
to his predecessor’s difficulties, his reforms became stalled in congress during the run-up to
municipal elections in late 2004. PT leaders surrounding Lula were implicated in a second

11
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, Sixth edition (United State of
America : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 393.
12
Alfred P. “Brazil”, 393.
91
scandal involving the purchase of votes in the congress for reform legislation”.13 However,
Lula won reelection in 2006 anyway and he continued to garner high presidential approval
ratings well into his second term. Lula’s successor in 2010 was his chief of staff, Dilma
Rousseff became Brazil’s first women president. As much as Rousseff’s government sought
to build on the successes of Lula, neither the economy nor political institutions proved so
accommodating.
In the post 9/11 world, Brazil’s politics are less affected by the themes of the war on
terror or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, than other countries that emphasize security. In
Brazil, development and democracy continue to dominate the agenda of domestic and
international policy.
Constitutional Development : A Historical Perspective
The Constitutional Founding of Brazil : Transition or Revolution?
In the mid-1980s, Brazilians were unsure about their political future. “A dictatorship was
declining – even the leaders of the authoritarian regime recognized as much – but what would
take its place remained unclear. Some believed politics would return to its old course, with
traditional civilian elites reclaiming their rule over a de-politicized majority of citizens; the
military leaders themselves hoped to see reestablishment of this scenario”.14 But this was a
minority view.
For the most part, “people understood that deep structural changes were undergoing
Brazilian society. Under twenty years of military rule, Brazil had moved from 55% rural to
74% urban”.15 New political elites saw a possibility, never before as concrete, to seize power
from those who had ruled the country for our entire republican history. “Old political elites
understood that they would have to reinvent themselves if they wished to reclaim power.
Political leaders in the opposition carefully crafted the connection between congressional and
popular struggles for the return of democracy, and mobilized the population in the largest
social movement in Brazilian history: the Diretas Já16, or the movement for direct elections,
which took millions to the streets.”
“In a newly established political tradition, popular mobilization tipped the scales,
severely undermined the legitimacy of the executive, which began to cave to popular appeals
for a new, democratic Constitution. General political analysis of the composition of the

13
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, 8th edition (United State of America
: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 379.
14
Cavalcanti, Ana Beatriz Vanzoff Robalinho. “Brazil in Comparative Perspective : the Legacy of the Founding
and the Future of Constitutional Development”. Journal of SciELO 6, no.1(2019):15, Accessed October 12,
2020, https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2359-56392019000100011.
15
Data available at the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). See -
https://seriesestatissticas.ibge.gov.br/.
16
Cavalcanti, Ana Beatriz Vanzoff Robalinho. “Brazil in Comparative Perspective : the Legacy of the Founding
and the Future of Constitutional Development”. Journal of SciELO 6, no.1(2019):15-16, Accessed October 12,
2020, https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2359-56392019000100011.
92
Brazilian Constituent Assembly reveals that the majority of its members held conservative
and elitist views, detached from the appeals of the general public”.17 Meanwhile, “the
military government sought to minimize damages by exerting pressure in strategic points of
the debate within the Assembly, most famously in forcing the approval of a presidential form
of government, when a clear majority was in favor of a parliamentary system”.18 The
paradoxical features of our founding have crowded constitutional theory and practice in
Brazil with diverging conceptions of the true identity of our system, with profound
consequences for the legitimation of constitutional evolution. The dominant traditional
narrative has been one of elite dominated continuity, but popular influence and rupture have
been increasingly featured in narratives about the founding.
Constitutional Narrative and Constitutional Development
A Constitution is defined by its narrative. “The narrative informs the animus that holds it
upward and pushes it forward. In describing the importance of narrative, Robert Cover
claimed that every version of the constitutional framing creates a new text”.19 Thus, the
narrative has the upper hand, the text needs to be changed to adapt to it and not the other way
around. The idea of narrative is rich because it embodies more than a story about how the
Constitution came to be, sometimes fifty, sometimes two hundred years in the past. It
informs, moreover, a compromise, a project, that extends over time. It tells us why we
committed ourselves to something – and not just what we committed ourselves to – thus
helping to justify why we stick to it.
A constitutional narrative is therefore part of the constitutional culture, a set of
extrajudicial beliefs that provides guidance and constraints upon constitutional law.20 It
constrains because it provides for a certain way to do things, built upon experience extending
sometimes for decades, sometimes centuries. In this sense, narrative and culture relate deeply
to the patterns of constitutional legitimacy. Frank Michelman defined “legitimacy as respect-
worthiness and asserted that in a constitutional system, people experience pressure to support
laws they do not agree with”.21 The varying layers of narrative provided by the different
efforts at rationalizing constitutionalism on a world level, therefore, have far greater
consequences that mere reclassification on the comparative sphere. “Some constitutional
systems, by virtue of factors that escape the traditional boundaries of geography, common
culture or language, are more compatible with one another because they are informed by a

17
Hagopian, Frances. “ Democracy by Undemocrtic Means? Elites, Political Pacts and Regime Transition in
Brazil”, Comparative Political Studies 23, no.2(1990):147-170.
18
J. Linz, Juan and Stepan Alfred. “Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe,
South America and Post-Communist Europe”. (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 170.
19
Cover, Robert M. “The Supreme Court, 1982 Term - Foreword : Nomos and Narrative”. Yale Law School
Legal Scholarship Repository 1, no.1 (1983):4, Accessed October 19, 2020,
https://www.depauw.edu/site/humanimalia/issue%2017/pdfs/The%20Supre.
20
Post, Robert C. “Fashioning the Legal Constitution: Culture, Courts, and Law”. Harvard Law Review,
vol. 117(2003):4.
21
Michelman, Frank I. “Is the Constitution a Contract for Legitimacy”. Review of Constitutional Studies, vol. 8
(2003):128.
93
similar legitimating logic”.22 That is the problem Ackerman identified in Europe, where a
novel exercise at cross-continental constitutionalism must overcome the incompatible
constitutional heritages that spring from histories of the different nations seeking to be united
under one constitutional system.
Furthermore, the consequences of narrative re-telling are also deep within the national
sphere. “The way a country understands its own Constitution will have profoundeffects on
the way it will struggle to maintain the system’s legitimacy over time. It will affect the way
legal arguments are made, the way the Constitution can be altered, the substance of
constitutional developments”.23 As new stories are told about the Constitution as a project,
new goals will be set.
Both aspects of this analysis influence Brazil’s constitutionalism.“The ambiguous nature
of our constitutional founding allows no easy categorization to be sketched regarding our
place in a worldwide constitutional order. To make matters worse, our two chief
constitutional fathers – the systems from which we draw heavier influences – are modeling
opposites in the discussed scenario: Germany is a clear elite construction case, while the
United States is a paradigmatic contender of revolutionary constitutionalism”.24
Within our own constitutional history, we can hardly grasp what is our precedent for
constitutional evolution and development. “Are we a classic elite construction model, built on
the sensibility of elites and in the absence of popular mobilization? Or is our unconventional
model of non-partisan popular mobilization an expression of revolutionary
constitutionalism?”25 As we go forward and face the political turmoil that threatens our
young democracy, it becomes paramount to grasp what kind of constitutional practice or
process we are likely to embrace in a new moment of crisis.
Brazil could be such a case. Our founding document is filled with promises for
democracy, progress, equality and social justice that can be inspired into reality or read as
dead letter. These achievements lie in the text and in the spirit of the Constitution – rightly
understood – and await an interpretative attitude compatible with the task of realizing them.
The judiciary in the last decade, the general trend continues to point towards containing the
effects of the constitutionalizing revolution of law that have resulted from the combination of
the abstract comprehensiveness (and progressive character) of the Constitution and the rise of
the judiciary to the center of political consequence.
Until we can reconcile the ongoing exercise of responsiveness the Constitution must
undertake in a democratic setting with our true sources of founding legitimacy, our

22
Cavalcanti, Ana Beatriz Vanzoff Robalinho. “Brazil in Comparative Perspective : the Legacy of the Founding
and the Future of Constitutional Development”. Journal of SciELO 6, no.1(2019):27, Accessed October 12,
2020, https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2359-56392019000100011.
23
Robalinho. “Brazil in Comparative Perspective”, 27-28.
24
Robalinho. “Brazil in Comparative Perspective”, 28.
25
Robalinho. “Brazil in Comparative Perspective”, 28.

94
constitutional development will continue to fall short in both theory and practice. “If the last
thirty years of constitutional development are faced with an eye on the binding precedents
and ideals of previous regimes, we will continue to be unable to justify the direction and
scope of our constitutional evolution”.26 But if we can understand 1988 as an enterprise that
tried (and partially succeeded) in breaking with the past, we may learn to interpret and apply
our Constitution in ways that redeem the revolutionary commitments of the Brazilian
founding.
Constitutions and Democratic Consolidation Brazil in Comparative Perspective
The Brazilian experience in drafting a new constitution has been more extreme than the
Portuguese. As the transition controlled from above went out of control, so did the
Constituent Assembly. On the other hand, the Constitution itself is not a political issue in
spain, except for some of the Basques. This continues in Porttugal and substantial political
instability continued until a majority government was elected in 1987. “Brazil is not too
worried about politicization of the 1988 constitution; rather, it can be considered irrelevant
due to its tenure and not being fit between the economic, political reality and context of the
country it purports to guide”.27
The 1988 docoment provides something to all citizens with the exception of Brazil’s
millions of poverty stricken landless peasants. Earlier Brazilian constitutions were not fully,
implemented nor, for that matter, were sections of the Portuguese constitution of 1976.
Brazil’s transition from a military to civilian regime is unique in that the role of the armed
forces has diminished minimally, if at all. Article 142 stipulates, in part, “Their (the armed
forces) purpose is to defend the fatherland, guarantee the constitutionally established power
and – upon the initiative of any of said power – law and order”.28 “The armed forces in Brazil
came into the country through the transition unscathed and began a modernization program
with the inception of the civilian regime”. “They lobbied effectively in the Constituent
Assembly and their prominence and prestige increased as President Sarney, with little
political base of his own, relied upon them for support”.29 Thus in reality remain at the center
of power in fact and in terms of the constitution.
The Brazillian Constitutional Problem and the Constitutional Reform Agenda
“Constitutional changes is not always a sign of the structural transformation of the polity, but
might be a mere outcome of constitutionalized policies”.30 The Brazilian Charter of 1988 is

26
Robalinho. “Brazil in Comparative Perspective”, 29.
27
Bruneau, Thomas C. “Constitutions and Democratic Consolidation Brazil in Comparative Perspective”.
(California : Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, 1989), 31-32. Accessed October 12, 2020,
https://www.apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a208224.pdf.
28
Thomas C. “Constitutions and Democratic”, 27.
29
Thomas C. “Constitutions and Democratic”, 27.
30
Couto, Claudio G and Rogerio B. Arantes. “ Constitution, Government and Democracy in Brazil”. World
Political Science Review 4, no.2(2008):30, Accessed October 21, 2020,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250148031_Constitution_Government_and_Democracy_in_Brazil.

95
characterized for having formally constitutionalized several provisions that actually exhibit
characteristics of government policies, with strong implications for the functioning of the
Brazilian political system. In the first place, “the constitutionalization of public policies poses
the need for succeeding governments to modify the constitutional framework to be able to
implement part of their government platforms. In the second place, building sweeping
legislative majorities becomes the basic condition to overcome the restraints to which the
government agenda was submitted by the constituent delegate, something particularly
difficult in the constitutional context of a federative State and a multiparty and bicameral
presidential regime as is the Brazilian”.31 Last but not least, this special type of Constitution
tends to cause significant impact on the functioning of the justice system, to the extent that
the Judiciary, and especially its higher body – the Supreme Federal Court –, is increasingly
urged to rule on the constitutionality of laws and other normative acts, not always related to
fundamental constitutional principles, yet again frequently related to public policies.
Melo’s analysis is revealing in itself of a fundamental aspect of that which we are calling
the Brazilian constitutional problem. After all, why should the success or failure of a process
of constitutional revision be contingent upon the interests of “government”, the presence or
absence of policy advocates, the negative effect (“devastating”) of “contextual” factors, by
the political “juncture” and by the “electoral calendar”, if not for the fact that such
Constitution is itself a Charter than encases many typically governmental provisions? “That
is, the factors identified by Melo to explain the failure of the 1993/94 constitutional revision
are the very confirmation of our argument that the Constitution created a modus operandi for
the production of laws that ties the conjunctural interests, of government and policy
advocates, to the constitutional framework”.32 It is for that reason that the Brazilian political
agenda continued to be a constituent assembly agenda in the post-1988.
Throughout the twenty years in 2008 that the 1988 Constitution has been in force, a total
of 62 constitutional amendments were passed, six during the aforementioned revision process
(1993-1994) –Constitutional Revision Amendments– and another 56 as common
Constitutional Amendments. Of the latter, 35 were approved during the Fernando Henrique
Cardoso government (between the years of 1995 and 2002) and 17 during the Lula
government. They were, mostly, proposals by initiative of the Executive Branch, focusing
predominantly on matters that composed a typical government agenda, yet not necessarily
constitutional, in the most rigorous sense the expression may contain.
Political Economy and Development
Brazil’s politics like other developing countries, has always been shaped by the pursuit of
economic and social development. Globalization has made the Brazilian economy highly
dependent on the country’s strategic position in world markets. Without the state-led

31
Arantes. “ Constitution, Government”, 4-5.
32
Arantes. “ Constitution, Government”, 8.
96
development that guided Brazil during the last half century, the country faces a crossroads in
its model of economic growth.
Moved from Import-Substitution to Market-Oriented Reform
State and Economy
Before the formation of new state, Brazil’s economic development prior to depended on
export-led growth, that is, on the export of agricultural products. Whereas, during the Old
Republic, international demand for Brazilian coffee gave Brazil a virtual global monopoly.
The decline in international demand for coffee during the 1930s made the state more
interventionist. As exports declined, imports of manufactured goods also fell drastically.
These forces prompted a model of import substitution industrialization (ISI) development in
Brazil, which promoted domestic production of previously imported manufactured goods.
“At first, Brazil did not need large doses of state intervention. During the 1950s Brazil was a
prime example of ECLA-style developmentalism, the ideology and practice of state-
sponsored growth.33 To cope with this economic instability, the state promoted private
investment by extracting and distributing raw materials for domestic industries at prices well
below the international market. Other firms that were associated with the sectors of the
economy receiving these supports would benefit in a chain reaction.
The failures of ISI model during the 1960s prompted many Brazilian academics to adopt
the view, that recently popularized as the “dependency school,” that underdeveloped or
“peripheral” countries could not achieve sustained levels of industrialization and growth in a
world dominated by “core” economies in North America and Western Europe. “ISI’s failures,
it was argued, were due to the ill-fated attempt to adjust marginally the inherently
exploitative structure of world markets”.34 In order to confront this situation, the dependency
school advocated delinking Brazil from the world economy. While this view was widely
popular among leftist economists in Brazil and elsewhere, it did not become a basis for
policy.
Partially due to the slowing down of ISI and the accumulation of debt and higher
inflation, the democratic governments after 1985 turned to a more market-oriented or market-
friendly approach, dubbed neoliberal policies. Liberalization of markets in this globalized and
liberalized world opened up Brazilian industry to increased foreign competition, as a result
the competitiveness of domestic firms emerged as a core problem. “These involved reducing
tariffs on imports, deregulating parts of the economy, and privatizing some large companies
in sectors such as steel, telecommunications, and transport. As export prices for commodities
such as soy, oil, and iron ore increased during the 2000”.35 The end of this commodity boom

33
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, 8th edition (United State of America
: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 382.
34
Alfred P. “Brazil”, 383.
35
Alfred P. “Brazil”, 383.
97
after 2011 coincided with low growth and corruption investigations involving many of the
private and public firms that benefited the most during the boom period.
The Fiscal System
The Brazilian economy became more complex after the 1960s, in such circumstances new
opportunities for evading taxation were emerged. “The new constitution of 1988 allowed
states and municipalities to expand their collection of taxes and to receive larger transfers of
funds from Brasília. Significant gaps then emerged in tax collection responsibilities and
public spending. Although the central state spent less than it collected in taxes between 1960
and 1994, Brazil’s 5,564 municipal governments spent several times more than they
collected”.36 Subnational governments also gained more discretion over spending, since the
destination of most funds was not predetermined by the federal government. The governors
also used public banks held by the state governments to finance expenditures, thus expanding
their debt.
The Collor administration began to reverse some of the adverse effects. But the Cardoso
administration’s efforts to recover federal tax revenues and reduce the fi scal distortions of
Brazil’s federal structure made the greatest difference. “The Fiscal Responsibility Law of
2000 set strict limits on federal, state, and municipal expenditures, but its enforcement is still
in doubt. With large civil service payrolls, governments are hardpressed to implement the
law. Despite these problems, improved tax collection and economic growth have reduced the
public debt from 60 percent of GDP in 2002 to 43 percent in 2010”.37
The Welfare System
In a country of startling social inequalities, welfare policy plays a remarkably small role.
Although welfare and education expenditures constitute about 11 percent of the GDP, among
the highest levels in the world, the money has not improved Brazil’s mediocre welfare state.
The Cardoso administration laid some of the groundwork for reversing poverty and
inequality.
The Lula administration focused even more on social reform. In the fall of 2003, the
government passed a social security reform that raised the minimum retirement age, placed
stricter limits on benefit ceilings, reduced survivor benefits, and taxed pensions and benefits.
Issues including the taxation of social security benefits for judges and military officers and
the reduction of survivor benefits for the latter group became stumbling blocks in cross-party
negotiations. The government made concessions on these and other issues, but the total
annual savings were less than half of the original target.

36
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, Sixth edition (United State of
America : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013),399.
37
National Development Bank of Brazil, Searchable Database of Documents on Brazilian Economy and
Development, https:\\www.bndes.gov.br/siteBNDES/bndes/bndes_en/.
98
Agrarian Reform
Landownership remains in the hands of only 1 percent of the landowning class. The landless
poor have swelled the rings of poverty around Brazil’s major cities. “During the 1950s and
1960s, the growth of industry in the south and southeast enticed millions to migrate in the
hopes of finding new economic opportunities”.38 By 2015, 86 percent of Brazil’s population
was living in urban areas.
The federal government subsidized communication and transportation in the poorer
regions and created new state agencies to run regional developmental projects. The poor
regions increased their share of GDP. The economic gap between regions narrowed, but
social and income disparities within the underdeveloped regions increased. Industrialization
in the poorer regions was capital intensive and therefore labor saving, but it did not create
jobs. Only the most skilled workers in these regions benefited from these changes. Poor
agricultural management, ecological destruction, the murder of native Brazilians in order to
expropriate land for mining and agriculture, and corruption all weakened the distributive
effect of these policies. The northern and northeastern regions remain much poorer today than
those in the south and southeast.
Brazil in the Global Economy
Brazil has maintained strategic relations with the global market. Unlike the other large Latin
American countries, Brazil initially rejected the reform agenda proposed by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Although the Collor and Cardoso governments implemented some of
this agenda by reducing tariffs and privatizing some state companies, Brazil’s economy
retained much of its autonomy in the global market.
Nevertheless, Brazil’s commitment to the international free-trade system will likely
expand with the continued importance of its export sector. “Maintaining a healthy trade
surplus will continue to be a major component in the country’s formula for growth, especially
as commodity prices for soy, oranges, wheat, coffee, and other products recover. At the same
time, Brazil cannot depend on the occasional “commodity boom” to sustain growth”.39 It is
becoming one of the major manufacturing and agrindustry nodes in the globalized system of
production and consumption with ties to East Asia becoming more important as a target
market for exports and also outward-oriented Brazilian companies such as the airplane
manufacturer, Embraer.

38
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, Sixth edition (United State of
America : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013),403.
39
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, 8th edition (United State of America
: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013),389.
99
Recent Development and Ongoing Reform Initiatives
Brazil reformed its insolvency law in 2005. The reform aimed at providing creditors with a
more rapid liquidation of distressed firms and allocated higher priority for secured creditors
vis-à-vis workers and tax authorities. It resulted in credit expansion and business investment
growth, especially in high productivity firms (Arnold and Flach, 2018). However, “Brazil’s
insolvency procedures continue to be less efficient and more costly than those found in
OECD and in peer Latin America countries (Figure 1). A typical bankruptcy resolution takes
4 years in Brazil, compared to 2.9 years in LAC countries and 1.7 years in OECD
countries”.40 Since assets of distressed companies tend to lose value quickly, “it is not
surprising that Brazil’s recovery rate on debt with insolvent companies is only 15.8 cents on
the dollar, while it is 31 cents in Latin America and Caribbean and 73 cents in OECD high-
income countries”.41

Figure 1. Insolvencies are slow and recovery rates low

Source: World Bank (2017), Uma ajuste justo - Analise da eficiencia e equidade do gasto
public no Brasil, Volume I: Sintese November 2017. StatLink –
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933656042.
Since 2016, the following reforms have been implemented:
 An expenditure rule requires a freeze of real federal primary expenditure growth over
the next 20 years.

40
Raising Investment and Improving Infrastructure, UN iLibrary, Accessed October 18, 2020, https://www.un-
ilibrary.org/sites/eco_surveys-bra-2018-4-en/index.html?itemld=/conted/component/eco_surveys-bra-2018-4-
en#wrapper.
41
“Raising Investment and Improving Infrastructure”.
100
  A financial market reform will align directed lending rates with market rates within at
most 5 years.
 An education reform was passed in 2016.
The reform has reduced the number of mandatory subjects, providing more options and more
room for tailoring teaching content to less academically inclined students. This is likely to
help reducing drop-out rates.
 A new immigration law was passed in 2017.
The new law streamlines work visa application processes and enables workers already in the
country to switch jobs without applying for another visa.
 A labour market reform has removed obstacles to stronger formal employment
growth.
“The reform has allowed firm-level agreements to take prevalence over the law, which
provides a legal basis for long-standing practice and reduces legal uncertainties”.42 At the
same time, essential employee rights have remained non-negotiable.
Concluding Remark
Improving Governance and Reducing Corruption
During the Brazilian winter (the North American summer) of 2016, as the world became
transfixed on the Olympic Summer Games, the Senate was preparing to convict President
Dilma Rousseff of “crimes of responsibility” for her mismanagement of the federal budget.
The uncovering of massive corruption in Brazilian politics by constitutionally-protected
investigatory and prosecutorial bodies is reshaping the country’s democracy. To illustrate
how fundamental these revelations are, the press dubbed the release of the testimony of 77
Odebrecht executives in 2017 as simply “The End of the World.”43 The lack of accountability
and democratic responsiveness that the corruption scandals and Rousseff’s impeachment
reveal, map onto the larger socio-economic inequalities that are evident in Brazil.
The Brazilian state is a mixture of professionalism and clientelism, and both of these
dimensions have persisted even as the country has democratized and developed. Brazilian
democracy has strengthened law enforcement as the prosecutorial, oversight, and
investigative functions of the state have become more adept at detecting corruption. “If the
Temer government is able to survive corruption investigations, it may succeed in keeping the
political system governable before the next presidential election in 2018”.44 As globalization
and democratization have made Brazilian politics less predictable, older questions about what

42
“OECD Economic Surveys : Brazil”, OECD (2018):10-11, Accessed October 18, 2020,
https://www.oecd.org/economy/surveys/Brazil-2018-OECD-economic-survey-.
43
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and Changing
Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, 8th edition (United State of America
: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013),407.
44
Alfred P. “Brazil”, 413.
101
it means to be Brazilian have reemerged. Brazil highlights the point made in the Introduction
that political identities are often reshaped in changed circumstances.
“Brazil now enters the 21st century as one of the main emerging powers in the world”.45
“One way Brazil has gotten involved internationally is through joining many organisations
such as BRICS, G-15, G-20, G-24, G-5, G-77 international groups. Its economy has risen to
be in the top ten internationally and Brazil has started to make a name for itself on the
international stage”.46
Reference
Bruneau, Thomas C. “Constitutions and Democratic Consolidation Brazil in Comparative
Perspective”. (California : Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, 1989), Accessed October
12, 2020, https://www.apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a208224.pdf.
Cavalcanti, Ana Beatriz Vanzoff Robalinho. “Brazil in Comparative Perspective : the Legacy
of the Founding and the Future of Constitutional Development”. Journal of SciELO 6,
no.1(2019), Accessed October 12, 2020,
https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2359- 56392019000100011.
Cover, Robert M. “The Supreme Court, 1982 Term - Foreword : Nomos and Narrative”. Yale
Law School Legal Scholarship Repository 1, no.1 (1983), Accessed October 19, 2020,
https://www.depauw.edu/site/humanimalia/issue%2017/pdfs/The%20Supre.
Couto, Claudio G and Rogerio B. Arantes. “ Constitution, Government and Democracy in
Brazil”. World Political Science Review 4, no.2(2008), Accessed October 21, 2020,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250148031_Constitution_Government_and
Democracy_in_Brazil.
Centracchio, DI Francesca. “Brazil’s Soft Power as a Tool For World Power Emerging
Process”. Centro Studi Internazionali 18, (2016), Accessed November 3, 2020,
https://www.cesi-italia.org/en/articoli/506/brazils-soft-power-as-a-tool-for-world- power-
emerging-process.
Data available at the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). See -
https://seriesestatissticas.ibge.gov.br/.
Hagopian, Frances. “ Democracy by Undemocrtic Means? Elites, Political Pacts and Regime
Transition in Brazil”, Comparative Political Studies 23, no.2(1990).

45
Rodrigues, Gabriel. “Putting the B in the BRIC : Brazil’s Rise as a Major Emerging Power”. Cornell
International Affairs Review 3, no.1, (2009), Accessed November 3, 2020,
https://www.journals.library.cornell.edu/index.php/ciar/article/view/379.
46
Centracchio, DI Francesca. “Brazil’s Soft Power as a Tool For World Power Emerging Process”. Centro Studi
Internazionali 18, (2016), Accessed November 3, 2020, https://www.cesi-italia.org/en/articoli/506/brazils-soft-
power-as-a-tool-for-world-power-emerging-process.
102
J. Linz, Juan and Stepan Alfred. “Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation:
Southern Europe, South America and Post-Communist Europe”. (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1996).
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and
Changing Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, Sixth
edition (United State of America : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013). Michelman, Frank
I. “Is the Constitution a Contract for Legitimacy”. Review of Constitutional Studies,
vol. 8 (2003).
Montero, Alfred P. “Brazil”. In Introduction to Comparative Politics : Politics Challenges and
Changing Agendas, edited by Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger and William A. Joseph, 8th
edition (United State of America : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013).
National Development Bank of Brazil, Searchable Database of Documents on Brazilian
Economy and Development, https:\\www.bndes.gov.br/siteBNDES/bndes/bndes_en/.
“OECD Economic Surveys : Brazil”, OECD (2018):8, Accessed October 18, 2020,
https://www.oecd.org/economy/surveys/Brazil-2018-OECD-economic-survey-.
Post, Robert C. “Fashioning the Legal Constitution: Culture, Courts, and Law”. Harvard Law
Review, vol. 117(2003).
Raising Investment and Improving Infrastructure, UN iLibrary, Accessed October 18, 2020,
https://www.un-ilibrary.org/sites/eco_surveys-bra-2018-4-
en/index.html?itemld=/conted/component/eco_surveys-bra-2018-4-en#wrapper.
Rodrigues, Gabriel. “Putting the B in the BRIC : Brazil’s Rise as a Major Emerging Power”.
Cornell International Affairs Review 3, no.1, (2009), Accessed November 3, 2020,
https://www.journals.library.cornell.edu/index.php/ciar/article/view/379.
World Bank (2017), Uma ajuste justo - Analise da eficiencia e equidade do gasto public no
Brasil, Volume I: Sintese November 2017. StatLink –
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933656042.

103
 Unit-4

(iii) Constitutional Developments and Political Economy in Nigeria

Dr. Robert Mizo

Introduction
Nigeria, the largest country of Africa, is an ideal one to include in the study of comparative
politics because it embodies many of the typical problems of a post-colonial state. Is a
relatively young country trying to develop a unified national identity despite the multifarious
ethnic and religious divisions. These demographic differences have affected its political
development and leading to the oscillation of power between civilian and military
governments which have ranged from authoritarian to progressive. Nigeria has witnessed the
transition of power from colonial to the postcolonial civilian government and long years of
military dictatorships. There have been three civilian governments and five successful,
mostly bloody, military coups and several attempted failed ones. It was under the military
regime for a total of 30 years since its independence in 1960. Nigeria since 1999 is
experiencing its longest period of uninterrupted civilian government. Economically, Nigeria
has had a chequered history from being a promising oil-rich economy to one that has
completely failed to industrialise. The malady lies in its over reliance on oil, the prices of
which are determined by the global market forces.
Nigeria is ethnically and religiously plural as mentioned above. The three biggest ethnic
groups are the Hausa-Fulani in the north who make up 30 per cent of the total population, the
Yorubas in the southwest who form about 20 per cent of the total population and the Igbo in
the southeast forming about 17 per cent of Nigerians. Attempts to make these disparate
groups to think beyond ethnic lines and as Nigerians instead have failed. Wole Soyinka, the
Nigerian novelist and Nobel laureate therefore dismissed the idea of the Nigerian nation as a
“farcical illusion”. Additionally, Nigeria is comprised of different religious groups – more
than fifty per cent of Nigerians are Muslims who dominate the northern regions mostly, while
Christians who dominate the south make up 30 per cent and the rest follow traditional
religions. The north aspire to see the introduction of the sharia law over the region and have
witnessed religious tensions repeatedly escalating into violence. Nigeria is also regionally
differently endowed. The north is dry and poor with savanna or semi-desert type terrain while
the south is richer in resources and infrastructural conditions. Oil reserves are concentrated in
the southeast or off the coast of Nigeria in the south and yet the profits have gone to the
political elites of other regions (McCormick, 2010). This inherent inequality of resources has
been a point of distrust and enmity among the ethnic groups of Nigeria.
This chapter presents an analysis of the political and economic development of Nigeria.
It begins by tracing its political history from the pre-colonial period to the present fourth
republic through the years of military regimes. Following this, the chapter analyses the
constitutional developments of the Nigerian state. The chapter then seeks to understand the

104
nature of political culture that defines the citizenry of Nigeria from which we proceed to
study the role of ethnicity in Nigerian politics. The chapter closes with an analysis of
Nigeria’s political economy which is undoubtedly an important part of understanding the
country.
Political Development
The long turbulent process of Nigeria’s political development could be attributed to its
colonial history. Apart from the colonial spoils the British accumulated, they also left behind
a fractured political system. In more than 60 years of independence, Nigeria has remained a
troubled state with corrupt state apparatuses and has failed to tap into its rich natural and
human resources. However, it is unwise to put the blame of underdevelopment squarely on its
colonial legacy without inquiring within the multicultural narratives. Nigeria’s political
development from its pre-colonial period to the present is best studied in historical phases
such as Precolonial Era (900 B.C.–A.D. 1851), the Colonial Era (1861–1960); Independence
and the First Republic (1960–1966) Military Government I (1966–1979); the Second
Republic (1979–1983) and Military Government II (1983–1999) and finally, the Fourth
Republic (1999–date).
Pre-colonial Nigeria – 900 BC – 1851 AD
Nigeria was under the occupation of the Nok from 900 BC to AD 200. They built a rich and
advanced culture having discovered the process of smelting iron. The Nok civilisation
disappeared by the 2nd AD heralding what is known as the ‘silent millennium’ in Nigeria’s
history because very little information is available from the period. The first half of the 2nd
century AD saw the emergence of several rich and powerful independent kingdoms with
unique political structures, culture and social traditions (Philips 2004, 30-32). By about the
700 BC, Muslim traders had arrived in the region. The two most important ethnic groups of
Nigeria the Hausa-Fulani emerged in northern Nigeria between 1000-1200 AD when the
Hausas initially formed city states and gradually the Fulanis began intertwining with them.
By the 14th century, the region of Nigeria came to be dominated by the kingdoms of Mali,
Ghana and Kanem-Bornu. Nigeria became came well connected by trade routes up to Europe
and the Middle East. What is now the northwest part of Nigeria became part of the Songhai
empire by the 16th century, and the southern Nigeria came under the influence of the rich
Benin culture (McCormick 2010, 438).
The city of Lagos was founded in the 15th century by the Portuguese who were the first
European colonialists to explore the region. They introduced an expansive slave trade in
cooperation with Benin, shipping slaves to the Americas for labour in mines and sugar
plantations. Other European trading companies from France, Britain and the Netherlands
arrived in Nigeria by the 17th century, each building up trading centres and garrisons to
protect their respective business interests. The British eventually became the biggest slave
traders in the area. When slave trade was banned in Britain in 1807, they Queen’s Navy was
deployed in Nigeria to enforce the ban thereby signalling the beginning of formal

105
colonialism. Slave traders turned their interests to ivory and palm oil while explorers forayed
deeper into the interior regions of the region. This was followed by the arrival of Christian
missionaries (McCormick 2010, 439).
The Colonial Era – 1861-1960
Britain’s colonial interest in Nigeria in part sprang from the imperial competition among the
Europeans which had come to be known as the ‘scramble for Africa’ in the 19th century.
Concerned with the French expansion of colonial influence across the Sahel and North
Africa, Britain annexed Lagos in 1861 and then occupied rest of today’s Nigeria. They ruled
over Nigeria as two divided colonies – north and south – with different administrative
systems. In the north, they ruled indirectly through the traditional Muslim emirates which
were hierarchical, authoritarian, and bureaucratic, whereas in the south, they established a
direct rule through an advisory Legislative Council (McCormick 2010, 439). This divide and
rule tactic of the British further deepened when in 1939, Nigeria was split into three
provinces based on different cash crops: peanuts in the north, cocoa in the west and palm oil
in the East. These divisions coincided with the major ethnic groups, prompting Nigerians to
think in regional rather than national terms (ibid.). These colonial administrative
arrangements had far reaching consequences for state and nation building in Nigeria.
The origins of Nigeria’s demand for independence from the British can be seen in the
formation of the National Congress of British West Africa in 1920 with the aim to demand
for greater political participation for Nigerians. The heralded the formation of political parties
such as the Nigerian National Democratic Party led by Herbert Macaulay, popularly known
as the father of Nigerian Nationalism. In 1944, Dr. Nnami Azikiwe helped set up the National
Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons. This was followed by the establishment of several
ethnically based political parties by the Hausas, Yorubas and the Igbos. The aftermath of the
second world war and its consequences on Britain’s economy let Britain to make way for
Nigeria’s independence. In 1954, the Lyttleton Constitution was published creating the
Nigerian Federation. It established a federal parliament with half the seats allocated to the
North. There were regional elections wherein several regionally based political parties
contested. The national elections were held in 1959, electing the first national government of
Nigeria. On October 1, 1960, Nigeria was declared independent under Prime Ministership of
Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa who was a Muslim Hausa-Fulani (McCormick 2010,
439).
The First Republic (1960–1966)
Independent Nigeria adopted a parliamentary democracy mirroring the Westminster system.
Although independent, it was yet to be a republic; the Queen remained the head of state until
1963 when the post of the president was created. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe was the first president
of republic Nigeria. Regardless, ever since independence, the legislative power was vested in
a bicameral parliament, the prime minister and his cabinet held the executive power while
judicial authority was exercised by a Federal Supreme Court. The newly instituted

106
governmental structure in Nigeria was quickly confronted with ethnic and religious conflicts
which the young state was unable to resolve. The Hausa-Faluni led Northern People’s
Congress of the northern Nigeria dominated the new parliament and were accused of
promoting a policy of ‘northernisation’ of resources and infrastructure. Groups and parties of
other regions such as the Igbos’ led National Convention of Nigerian Citizens in the east and
the Action Group controlled by Yorubas in the south were vehemently opposed to this
development. This inequal regional representation was because of the allocation of
parliamentary seats to each region on the basis of population drawn by the census. No later
than a few years into independence, Nigeria witnessed the outbreak of inter-party squabbles
reflecting ethnic and religious tensions. These were compounded by a general economic
dissatisfaction of workers and allegations of political corruption. Both the national elections
in 1964 and the regional elections in the west in 1965 were conducted under intense civil
unrest. The growing failure of the civilian government to control the political and economic
developments in the country caused immense concern and frustration to the increasingly
advancing and Africanised military.
Military Government I (1966–1979)
The inefficient and crippled civilian government was overthrown by the military through a
coup on 15th January 1966 – a first of the many to happen. This coup was carried out by a
group of Igbo officers led by Major Jhonson Aguiyi Ironsi. The bloody coup involved the
suspension of the constitution, the federal structure and the killings of senior national and
regional political leaders including Prime Minister Balewa. Even under military rule,
regionalism and ethnic politics still remained core determinants of Nigeria’s politics. In the
north, the Hausa-Faluni groups feared the political domination of the Igbos and retaliated
through beatings and killings of northern Igbos. Divisive as the Igbo led military regime was,
it was toppled by yet another countercoup in July 1966, staged by Northern military officers
under the leadership of Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon (a Christian from Nigeria’s
Middle Belt). In this coup, Major Ironsi was murdered along with other officers. The new
regime restored the federal structure and promised to return to civilian rule once a new
constitution was agreed upon by all parties.
The dissatisfaction of the Igbos against the Nigerian state and the northerners reached its
heights when in 1967, the Igbo dominated Eastern region declared a new independent state of
Biafra. This secessionist expression led by Lieutenant Colonel Odemegwu Ojukwu resulted
in the outbreak of a civil war. The Biafrans were convinced that the Northern Muslims were
determined to exterminate them and hence fought tenaciously throughout the civil war which
lasted till 1970. While Biafra received some international assistance from sympathisers such
as France, Spain, South Africa and Israel, it could not sustain the fight upon being subjected
to a naval blockade. After 27 months of fighting and approximately 2 million deaths, Biafrans
were practically starved into submission and their leader Ojukwu went into exile. Nigeria was
once again reunited, however was far from being healed despite efforts undertaken by
Gowan. As part of the national reconciliation policy, Gowon divided the three regions of

107
Nigeria into twelve states and also strengthened the military by more than two folds from its
capacity in 1966.
By the early 1970’s, Gowon’s tardiness in returning to democracy and inability to affect
economic stability was becoming evident. He failed to control inflation, economic
maladministration including the oil proceeds. These weaknesses let to another coup, a
bloodless one for a change, by reform-oriented officers. Gowon was succeeded by Brigadier
Murtala Muhammed who was a Hausa-Fulani. Muhammed announced the return to civilian
government in four years and undertook a cleansing operation within the military, dismissing
those charged with corruption. Muhammed made enemies through his reform actions and was
assassinated in a countercoup by Gowon’s followers trying to regain power. However, the
coup ended in a failure for the Gowon camp and Muhammed was succeeded by Lieutenant
Colonel Olusegun Obasanjo becoming the first head of state of Nigeria from the Yoruba
ethnic group. He upheld Muhammed’s timeline for returning to civilian government and
ceded power to one in 1979.
The Second Republic (1979-1983)
Despite myriad allegations of electoral malpractices and intimidation, the elections held in
1979 produced a new civilian government in Nigeria. The new constitution came into force
which adopted the US presidential system in place of its older parliamentary system. It had a
directedly elected executive in the President, a bicameral National Assembly – the Senate and
the House of Representatives, and a separate and independent Judiciary. The constitution
provided for a system check and balances and clear division of powers among the three
organs of government. The Supreme Court had the power of judicial review as well. The new
civilian government was headed by Shehu Shagari and his National Party of Nigeria, who
won the elections by a clean majority. Shagari’s political support base was mainly drawn
from the northern parts of the country. Shagari announced the shifting of the capital from
Lagos to Abuja located in the geographical centre of the country. He was praised for
pardoning previous leaders Ojukwu and Gowon and allowing them to return from exile
signalling efforts to ameliorate ethnic differences. However, mistrust, ethnic antagonism
continued to prevail under his regime. In the economic sphere, Shagari was unable to
maintain control when global oil process dropped in the early 1980s. Elections were held in
1983 as scheduled in which Shagari won a second presidential term. However, allegations of
ballot-rigging and outright clashes among party supporters marred the elections. Shagari’s
second term was heralded by the breakdown of parties along ethnic and regional lines.
Military Government II (1983-1999)
The weaknesses of the Shagari government gave way to yet another military coup in Nigeria
on December 31, 1983 in which he was ousted. Led by Major General Muhammadu Buhari, a
northern Muslim, this military regime however quickly lost admiration when it refused to
pledge a quick return to democracy and failed to revive the economy. Buhari’s
authoritarianism and ineffectiveness let to his ouster by yet another coup in August 1985.

108
Major General Ibrahim Babangida, a Middle Belt Muslim, became the new leader and
announced transition to democracy under the constitution of the Third Republic. Political
parties were re-legalised in 1989, state and national legislative elections were held between
1990-92 while a presidential election was held in June 1993. The presidential election was
apparently won by Chief Moshood Abiola of the Social Democratic Party. However, driven
by the desire to perpetuate his power, Babangida annulled the election on alleged grounds of
election-rigging and refused to declare its results. The major public outcry that followed
forced Babangida to resign from office in August and passed on power to an interim civilian
government led by Ernest Shonekan. This potential third republic was quickly ousted on 17
November 1993 by Brigadier Sani Abacha, the defence minister. Observing the unfolding
political high drama, Abiola, the legitimate president-elect defiantly proclaimed himself as
president only to be jailed, and his wife murdered.
Sani Abacha began his reign with a promise to quickly restore civilian government but
continued to rule till his death. Abacha sentenced Olusegun Obasanjo in 1995 to life
imprisonment on charges of collusion to a coup. The Abacha regime was characterised by
continuing political instability and blatant disregard for human rights which was evident in
the execution of political activists including Ken Saro-Wiwa (McCormick, 2010, 443). This
is far reaching international repercussions on Nigeria including its suspension from the
British Commonwealth. Abacha’s political ploys to ensure his own victory in the impending
elections were cut short by his untimely death due to a heart attack in June 1998. Mehsood
Aboila, the president in the wings, also lost his life to a heart attack a month later. General
Abdulsalam Abubakar thus took charge and worked promptly towards the reestablishment of
a civilian government, making way for the fourth republic.
The Fourth Republic (1999 onwards)
The elections held in 1998-99 established a civilian government in Nigeria after 16 years of
uninterrupted military rule. Olusegun Obsanjo, the erstwhile military ruler won the
presidential election on the platform of the centrist People’s Democratic Party. Beginning
with promises of working towards democracy, ethnic reconciliation, economic prosperity and
elimination of corruption, Obsanjo rule was chequered at best. Economically, Obsanjo south
to renegotiate Nigeria’s debt repayment schedule and mend relations with its trading partners
and loan providers. Locally, fatal ethnic strives continued to trouble Obsanjo’s government as
people of different communities fought over resources such as land and job opportunities. On
the political front, Obsanjo was faced with the same governance problems that crippled
governments before him. He had to undertake some tough measures to break the power of
elites and clamp down on the corruption among the powerful and flourishing bribe culture.
On the issue of the relationship between the centre and the local governments given in the
new constitution, critics called for a looser association and weaker central government
(McCormick 2010, 444). Obsanjo was respected for his military leadership during which he
proved to be the least corrupt

109
Civilian and Military Leaders of Nigeria
Date Head of Government Ethnicity/ Religion Type of Reason for
Region Government Leaving
Office
1960 Sir Alhaji Abubakar Hausa-Fulani Muslim Civilian Killed in coup
Tafawa Balewa
1966 (Jan) Johnson Aguyi- Igbo Christian Military Killed in coup
Ironsi
1966 (July) Yakubu Gowon Middle Belt Christian Military —
Coup
1975 Murtala Muhammed Hausa-Fulani Muslim Military Killed in coup
1976 Olusegun Obasanjo Yoruba Christian Military Retired
1979 Shehu Shagari Hausa-Fulani Muslim Civilian —
1983 Shehu Shagari Hausa-Fulani Muslim Civilian Coup
1984 Muhammadu Buhari Hausa-Fulani Muslim Military Coup
1985 Ibrahim Babangida Middle Belt Muslim Military “Retired”
1993 (Aug) Ernest Shonekan Yoruba Christian Interim “Resigned”
1993 (Nov) Sani Abacha Northerner Muslim Military Died in office
1998 Abdulsalam Abubakar Northerner Muslim Interim
1999 Olusegun Obasanjo Yoruba Christian Civilian —
2003 Olusegun Obasanjo Yoruba Christian Civilian End of term
2007 Umaru Yar’Adua Fulani Muslim Civilian Died in office
2010 Goodluck Johnathan Ijaw Christian Civilian End of term
2015 Muhammadu Buhari Hausa-Fulani Muslim Civilian Incumbent

Adapted from McCormick, 2010

Who actually fulfilled the promise of returning to civilian government. But his first term as a
civilian president was a failure given the continuing economic problems, widespread
corruption, heightened ethnic and religious violence and urban crime. Despite this, Obsanjo
won the elections held in 2003 beating Muhammadu Buhari, and continued to rule a second
term till 2007.
The year 2007 marked the first successful transition of power from one civilian
government to another in Nigeria when Umaru Yar’Adua from the northern state of Katsina
won the presidential election. President Obsanjo’s attempts at extending his presidency by
altering the constitution had been defeated in the Senate in 2006. Like most other elections of
the past, the 2007 election was also marred by violence and irregularities including the
murder of voters and candidates. Yar’Adua’s nomination was called into question as he was
seen to be a proxy candidate of the outgoing president Obsanjo who forced all other
candidates to withraw from the race a day before the election. Opposition parties called this
election a façade and demanded it to be annulled. Despite its controversial beginning,
110
Yar’Adua’s presidency was genuinely civilian in style and outlook. He upheld and enforced
judicial rulings unlike his predecessors. After his demise in office in 2010, Yar’adua was
succeeded by Goodluck Jonathan through yet another peaceful civilian transition. By the first
decade of the new millennium, Nigeria seemed to be moving along the path to democracy.
This fact was further strengthened by yet another relatively peaceful election in 2015 when
Muhammadu Buhari was elected president. The fourth republic produced the most enduring
constitution and political stability that independent Nigeria has experienced.
Constitutional Development
Nigeria has had seven constitution of which three were under the British rule named the
Richard’s Constitution of 1947, the Macpherson constitution of 1951, and the Lyttleton
constitution of 1954. While the first two were flawed due to lack of involvement of Nigerians
in their creation and the entrenchment of regionalism, the third was an improvement in that it
included the inputs of Nigerians, created a federal system and paved the way for self-
government. The independence constitution of Nigeria 1960 was amended in 1963 when
Nigeria declared itself a republic, instituting a Nigerian head of state in place of the British
Queen. The Fifth constitution under the second republic in 1979 was built on the American
model which was suspended with the arrival of the military rule 1983. The constitution for
the third republic promulgated in 1989 under Babangida could not be enforced because
another military regime by Abacha took over even before the third republic could be
established. The establishment of the fourth republic in 1999 unveiled the new constitution
which is functional till today.
Political System under the Fourth Republic
Nigeria’s new constitution is a product of all its predecessors. The Nigerian constitution is a
long and detailed written one with 320 articles, several schedules and lengthy lists
demarcating powers between the levels of government. The length and detailing were a
deliberate effort by its framers to avoid misinterpretation and ambiguity of its provisions. The
new constitution pledges to promote a national unity of Nigeria which it describes as
“indivisible and indissoluble”. It entrusts the state with the responsibility to foster a feeling of
belonging so that loyalty to the nation overrides all sectional loyalties. In order to avoid the
domination of the national government by one organ or ethnic group, the new constitution
has mandated that the president must win at least 25 per cent of the vote in two thirds of
Nigeria’s 36 states, and the federal government must draw its cabinet ministers equally from
all the states (McCormick 2010, p. 449).
Presidential System: Under the fourth republic constitution, Nigeria follows a presidential
system with federal division of powers between the centre and its states (McCormick, 2010,
448). The chief executive, the president, is elected through a direct election for a four-year
term and is eligible for re-election for a second term. The president’s cabinet, appointed by
him, must include at least one member each from the 36 states.

111
Bicameral legislature: It has a bicameral national legislature with the senate and a house of
representatives. The senate has 109 seats allocated equally among its 36 states (3 each) and
one for the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja. The senators are elected from single member
constituencies for a period of four-year terms. The house of representatives has 360 seats and
similar to the senate, its members are elected from single member constituencies for a four-
year term.
Independent Judiciary: The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court consisting a Chief
Justice and 15 judges. The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President on the
recommendation of the National Judicial Council which is a 23-member independent body of
federal and state judicial officials. The appointments are subject to confirmation by the senate
and serve until the age of 70. The legal system in Nigeria is governed by a mix of the English
common law, traditional law and Islamic law in the 12 northern states (CIA World Factbook,
2018). The judiciary in Nigeria is gaining independence under the fourth republic as evident
in the landmark decisions it took regarding, for instance, the overrule of the 2001 election law
which effectively prohibited new parties from contesting general elections.
Rights of the citizens: The Nigerian constitution under the fourth republic lays down thirteen
articles outlining the fundamental rights of its citizens including the right to life, expression,
right to privacy in communications and homes, freedom of thought and religion, right to
assemble and form associations, right to own property and the right to a fair trial. The
constitution protects the rights of citizens from torture, slavery and inhuman treatment while
also promoting equality among ethnic, religious and linguistic groups, gender and disability.
In return, citizens have a set of responsibilities towards the state as spelled out in the
constitution. Given the tumultuous history of ethnic and religious conflicts in the country, the
pronouncements of these rights and their implementation is crucial, although difficult, for the
political stability and maturity of the state in Nigeria.
Federal structure: In an attempt to placate ethnic tensions, Nigeria has adopted a federal
structure which gives rise to a three-tiered governance system comprising the centre, the
states and the local governing units. The constitution lays down designated lists demarcating
the respective areas of jurisdiction between the centre and states. The federating units have
the prerogative to make laws on matters contained in the state list, albeit within the
limitations posed by the constitution and federal laws. The practice of federalism in Nigeria
however has been severely crippled by years of misgovernance and military authoritarianism.
There has been a tendency for the centre to appropriate power from the states who are
typically weak both politically and economically.
Political Culture
The multicultural nature of the Nigerian society and its troubled historical political
development makes it difficult to identify the indigenous political culture from those adopted
from its colonial masters. Nigeria’s history of slavery and colonialism has given rise to a
culture of corruption, violence, and mistrust. Despite these unfortunate elements in

112
characterising the nature of Nigerian politics, there are some common themes which can be
identified as part of its national political culture (McCormick 2010, p. 444) as discussed
below.
Democracy: Democratic institutions such as a republican government, free press and political
representation through parties and civil organisations have been among the ideals upheld and
aspired for in Nigeria. Despite the multiple failures of civilian governments and their
interruptions by military rules, democracy has always been sought after. This is evident in the
fact that almost all military leaders who came to power would promise a quick return to
democracy. Those who failed to fulfil this promise eventually found themselves in trouble as
were in the cases of Gowon, Babangida, or Abacha. Democracy is therefore an integral part
of the modern political culture of Nigeria and the country is making notable efforts to
strengthen it under the fourth republic.
Multiethnicity: Nigeria is prominently characterised by its multiethnicity which has
determined the nature of its politics significantly. Traditionally, Nigerians belonged to
separate ethnic groups and regions from where they drew their sense of identity and
belonging. The colonial enterprise of nation-state has failed as people view the state with
suspicion and mistrust while preferring to look to their communities for stability and order.
There is a strong sense of ethnonationalism among the people of Nigeria which plays an
important role in the domestic politics.
Corruption: Nigeria has come to develop a culture of institutionalised corruption and
nepotism so palpable that its locals call it “the Nigerian factor”. This is primarily because of
the heavy centralisation of power and the lack of healthy democratic institutions to check the
excesses committed by the rulers. Nigeria has routinely found itself among the bottom
countries on the Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index – it stood at 146
out of 198 countries in 2019, while it was at the bottom in 2000 (Transparency International,
2020).
The Dominance of the State: The state plays a very important role in Nigeria despite it being
utterly mismanaged and corrupt. Because control over the instruments of the state guarantees
economic and political security, the fight for the state’s power has been a so crucial for the
Nigerian political elite. Those competing for it use every method available to win the state’s
power and perpetuate themselves. This trend has continued till the beginning of the 21st
century but the country seems to be seeing a more orderly competition for power in the recent
years.
Ethnicity and Politics in Nigeria
Ethnicity has influenced and defined political developments in Nigeria ever since it became a
unified entity under the British colonial rule. Nigeria was originally a land of disparate
groups of people who drew a sense of identity from their unique ethnicities. They had lived
autonomously on the basis of a workable balance and relatively free from outside
interference. The creation of Nigeria was a colonial design which forced ethnically self-

113
governing groups to live together under a common system of administration and shared
political power. There emerged a state of mutual hostility among the groups at they were
pitted against one another in the competition for power and resources while having to
preserve their identities (McCormick 2010, p. 446). It is therefore evident how this colonial
invention was the root of ethnic insecurity in modern Nigeria.
Ethnicity is a slippery concept which revolves around symbols, cultural moorings and
values, customs, and historical experiences (McCormick, 2010, p. 446). All these elements
serve as foundations of identity and community for societies. Nigerians have always
perceived themselves as either Yorubas, Hausas, Fulanis, Igbos, etc. before they consider
themselves as Nigerians. It may be said that Nigeria is a nation of nationalities- multicultural
and plural. This plurality of identity affiliations has rendered very difficult the establishment
of stable modern nation-state and a strong economy despite many post-colonial attempts.
These ethnic differences have been at the cause of all political enmity which has led to
multiple regime changes and military coups. As seen in the preceding sections, civilian
governments have been brought down and replaced by military regimes primarily due to
ethnic interests and the fear of being subjugated by another ethnic community. The same
reasons have prompted counter coups leading to forcible regime changes from one military
rule to another. Those who seize power seek to perpetuate dominance of the state
mechanisms for their ethnic group threatening the others into reactionary politics. Nigeria has
thus seen numerous ethnic conflagrations and unrest throughout its independent history.
In addition to ethnic tensions, Nigeria has witnessed the rise of terrorism since 2009
when the Boko Haram group retaliated to government’s efforts to clamp them down. The
group, whose members actually prefer to be known by their Arabic name – Jama’atu Ahlis
Sunna Lidda’awati Wal-Jihad – meaning ‘People Committed to the Propagation of the
Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad’, has become a source of major insecurity in Nigeria (Adibe,
2013). They have carried out several attacks and suicide bombings since 2010 onwards. The
threat posed by the Boko Haram came to international limelight with the kidnapping of over
two hundred girls from their school in April 2014. It also highlighted the government’s
inability to control the organisation. Following negotiations between Boko Haram and the
Nigerian government, brokered by the International Committee for the Red Cross, 103 girls
have since been released. Again, in February 2018, more than one hundred students were
kidnapped by a faction of Boko Haram known as the Islamic State West Africa (Global
Conflict Tracker, 2020). Many scholars have sought to understand the motivations behind the
development and growth of terrorism in Nigeria especially the case of the Noko Haram
networks. Some scholars of state theories and post-colonial studies understand the group as a
symptom of Nigeria’s failing state. Sociologists and social anthropologists attribute its rise to
poverty. Politicians of the southern states blame Northerners’ domination of the state.
Counterterrorism and security experts focus on the international linkages of the group and the
threat that poses to the stability of Western Africa (Mantzikos, 2013).

114
 One of the major challenges before the Nigerian state is to formulate a universally
acceptable notion of the Nigerian nation above all ethnic identities. The constitution under the
fourth republic lays down the endeavour of nation building as one of its major goals. It places
the responsibility on the state to foster a feeling of belonging among the people so that loyalty
to the nation overrides sectional loyalties. Nigeria has a long way to go in order to arrive at a
workable solution to the ethnic problem which seems to be deepening with the rise of
terrorism. It will require a conscious political determination and moral courage by all groups
and the willingness to adopt a pan-Nigerian identity over and above narrow albeit authentic
ethnic loyalties.

Case study: SARS: An abuse of power

The year 2020 witnessed thousands of internet posts originating from Nigeria carrying
the hashtag #endsars. This was a cry of the civil society and youth for help and protection
from the excesses and brutality of a branch of the Nigerian police called the Special Anti-
Robbery Squad or SARS. Created in 1992 with the intention of controlling the incidence
of crime and robberies in the cities of southern Nigeria, especially Lagos, the Squad has
come to usurp its powers and became a source of fear and terror for the citizens. By 2002,
the organisation spread to all 36 states of the federation as well as the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja. It came to be counted as one of the 14 units under the Nigerian Police
Force Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department. The mandate for SARS
included arrest, investigation and prosecution of suspected armed robbers, murderers,
kidnappers, hired assassins and other suspected violent criminals. This legitimisation
emboldened the SARS force and began moving beyond their covert functions to setting
up road blockades and outright extortion of money from the citizens. Their non-
uniformed officers started carrying arms in public. The unit became involved in
widespread human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests, and
unlawful detention. SARS officials would routinely arrest young men for alleged
cybercrime or internet fraud, simply on the evidence of their owning a laptop or
smartphone, and then demand excessive bail fees to let them go. A 2016 report of the
Amnesty International about its visit to one of the SARS detention centres found 130
detainees living in overcrowded cells and being regularly subjected to methods of torture
including hanging, starvations, beatings, shootings and mock executions (Al Jazeera
2020).

The protests have forced the Nigerian to promise the disbanding of SARS. However, the
youth are still dissatisfied and are suspicious of the government’s commitment as this
was the fourth time it has promised to do so. This is a case of the blatant disregard of the
state’s machinery to respect the laws of the land and the fundamental rights of the
citizens enshrined in the constitution of the fourth republic.

Political Economy
Nigeria’s economy at its independence held promises of self-sufficiency and growth. It was a
major producer and exporter of food items and rich in natural resources. The country had a
well-connected railway and road networks and harbours built by the colonial British. Major
115
reserves of low-sulphur oil were discovered in the 1950s setting Nigeria to become one of the
major exporters of oil to the international market (McCormick 2010, p. 470). Nigeria
however failed miserably to capitalise its oil resources for the prosperity of the general
populace. The corrupt nature of governance and divisive ethnic relations had resulted in the
concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite while the majority of the society
remained mired in poverty. The oil price surge of the 1970s led to an exponential increase in
Nigerian oil export and revenue totalling $26 billion in by 1980.
Nigeria’s dependence on oil proved to be a major hindrance towards its political
development. The oil reserves are concentrated in the eastern region of the Niger delta
representing about 8 per cent of the geographical area. This proved to present a classic case
of distributive justice. The indigenous inhabitants of the Niger delta saw no logic in sharing
their resources and wealth with the rest of Nigeria given that sectional loyalties mattered
more than national belonging. The political elite in return failed to recognise their claims or
shared the proceeds to them proportionately, and the region remained poor despite being
endowed in resource. The fight for monopoly over oil let to secessionist movement of the
Biafrans and the resultant civil war. Oil also proved to have incentivised power capturing by
the military and corruption among the ruling elites. Further, the 70s saw Nigeria investing
huge sums of money in large-scale industrial development projects and oil fields while
agriculture and manufacturing sectors were ignored. This prevented the diversification of the
economy and proved fatal when the global oil prices plummeted in the 1980s. Nigeria’s
experience with oil and the politics surrounding it have made analysts to see it as suffering
from ‘resource curse’. The inability to manage the proceeds of the resource and distribute
them equitably among its people caused innumerable problems and stunted Nigeria’s political
development. It has remained a poor country despite being rich in resource.
The oil crisis of the 1980s caused alarming inflation and a widespread economic
recession forcing the Nigerian state to seek monetary assistance from international agencies
such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. International intervention came
with structural adjustment programmes requiring Babangida’s Nigeria to adopt austerity
measures, privatization of government owned firms, and reduction in governmental subsidies.
These measures aimed at restructuring the economy had deep impact on the general
population as they lost their social safety nets. These structural adjustment measures failed to
revitalise the economy.
The fourth republic brought some hopes of economic revival in Nigeria with the
unveiling of the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) by
the new leader Obsanjo. This was a medium-term planning strategy aimed at wealth creation,
employment generation, poverty eradication and value reorientation. The provinces also
developed economic strategies on similar lines called State Economic Empowerment and
Development Strategies (SEEDS). However, despite its promising character, NEEDS was not
very different from earlier economic strategies under the long-term plans in practice and was
largely in line with the desired economic restructuring plans of the international bodies

116
representing developed capitalist economies (Dhanda, 2019, 160). Nigeria today suffers from
weak manufacturing sector and low levels of international investment which are key to
growth for any economy within the capitalist global structures.
Nigeria’s failure to industrialise throughout its years of independence may be rooted in
its neopatrimonialism (Kohli, 2004). It refers to a typically clientelist, inefficient, and corrupt
method of economic management where the leadership chooses to prioritise personal and
sectarian goals above public interest at large. The state’s policies and decisions failed to
percolate down to the masses who remained largely disconnected from the elites.
Neopatrimonialism has come to occupy a more important place in Nigeria’s political-
economic governance instead of a sound ideological foundation. Additionally, there has been
an urban bias in Nigeria as a result of the state’s neglect over agriculture. In an attempt to
satisfy the needs for cheap food prices of the urban populace, the Nigerian state held down
prices of farm produce thereby making agriculture an unattractive avenue of livelihood
(Mundt and Aborisade, 2000). This has led to the lure of the cities enhancing the urban crises
as a result.
Conclusion
Nigeria’s political development through its pre-colonial to post-colonial states shows the
long-lasting colonial imprint it carries. From being a land of disparate autonomous ethnic
groups to a struggling modern-nation state, Nigeria’s is a story of colonial manipulations that
have endured. The colonial empire of Great Britain unified the region to serve their colonial
interest and created Nigeria, leaving behind in its wake, a legacy of ethnic separatism and
intensified social cleavages. While it is argued that Nigeria has a lot to blame itself for its
failure as a state, one cannot obliterate the fact that colonialism’s excesses had damaging role
to play in shaping its future.
Post-colonial Nigeria inherited an intensely fractured sense of nationalism, inefficient
leadership, and a stunted economy. This was the foundation upon which the parliamentary
form of modern government was established. This was not to hold for long given the myriad
ethnonational differences and corruption that came to grip the country. The political system
quickly shifted through a series of military regimes most of whom were ethnically charged.
Return to the second civilian rule did not last long as the state descended to military regimes
again. It was no earlier than 1999 when Nigeria saw the reestablishment of a civilian
government one which would endure till today. However, the fourth republic still faces the
continuing challenges of ethnic division and the relatively new but vicious terrorism.
It is not surprising, given the dramatic nature of the transitions of power between military
and civilian regimes that Nigeria has had seven constitutions till date. The latest one
established under the fourth republic is an attempt at constitutional engineering – a deliberate
effort to change Nigeria’s political and social behaviour though rules and goals contained in
the constitution. The constitution guarantees fundamental rights to its citizens and underlines

117
the importance of fostering a sense of belonging to Nigeria over and above sectional
loyalties.
The economic development of Nigeria has been as unfortunate and mismanaged as its
politics. It has failed to transform the lives of its people despite being an oil rich country. It
had neglected its agricultural sector which must have been the foundation of its economy. It
is still weak in terms of manufacturing and infrastructure even as the state is attempting to
make advances in these sectors today. Nigeria’s weak economic growth trajectory is
explained through its neo-patrimonial leadership and ethnic mistrust among regional groups.
Nigeria still has the potential to be an influential country in Africa and also at the global
stage. However, it must settle a few glaring issues before it. First, it must find a durable
solution to the ethnicity problem. The people of Nigeria must learn to see themselves as
Nigerians first before anything else. However, this is easier said than done. The state and
people’s representatives have a humungous task in this regard. Secondly, Nigeria must
overcome its malady of corruption. Good governance and accountability need to be
strengthened at every level of governance for this to be realised. Third, in the economic
sector, Nigeria needs to step out of its outdated economic management style and policies. It
must diversify its economy, strengthen its agriculture, and encourage innovation and
entrepreneurship among the youth. Nigeria must build its image as a country that is stable and
well managed to attract international investment and market relations in this globalised
world. A strong and stable Nigeria is vital not only for its people but also for the rest of
Africa.
References
Adibe, Jideofor (2013) What do we Really Know About Boko Haram in Boko Haram in
Ioannis Mantzikos (ed.) Boko Haram: Anatomy of a Crisis, E-international Relations, Bristol
https://www.e-ir.info/publication/boko-haram-anatomy-of-a-crisis/ accessed 30 Oct 2020
Al Jazeera (2020) “Nigeria’s SARS: A brief history of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad”
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/10/22/sars-a-brief-history-of-a-rogue-unit accessed
20 Oct 2020
Council for Foreign Relations (2020) Global Conflict Tracker – Boko Haram
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/boko-haram-nigeria accessed 1 Nov,
2020
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2020) The World Fact Book – Nigeria
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ni.html accessed 25 Oct
2020.
Dhanda, Praveen (2019) “Nigeria: The Troubled Giant of Africa” in Pushpa Singh and
Chetna Sharma (eds.) Comparative Government and Politics, Sage, New Delhi

118
Kohli, Atul (2004) State Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialisation in the
Global Periphery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mantzikos, Ioannis (2013) Boko Haram: Anatomy of a Crisis, E-international Relations,
Bristol https://www.e-ir.info/publication/boko-haram-anatomy-of-a-crisis/ accessed 30 Oct
2020
McCormick, John (2010) Comparative Politics in Transition, Wadsworth, Boston.
Mundt, Robert J and Oladimeji Aborisade (2000) Politics in Nigeria in Gabriel Almond and
G.B. Powell (eds.) Comparative Politics Today: A worldview. Pearson Education, Delhi.
Philips, Doughlas A (2004) Nigeria, Chelsea House Publishers, Philadelphia
Transparency International (2019) Corruption Perception Index: Nigeria
https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/nigeria accessed 26 Oct 2020

119
 Unit-4

(iv) China: A Study of Constitutional Developments and Political Economy

Dr. Kamal Kumar

Introduction
China in recent years has emerged as one of the world’s fastest growing economies because it
has consistently registered economic growth in double figures since the 1980s and made a
remarkable progress in every sector of the economy including infrastructure, energy,
transportation, industries and telecommunications. It is also widely known for its innovative
and affordable technologies throughout the world. The Chinese state however could not
repeat the economic success story in the political domain. The People’s Republic of China
(PRC), according to the constitution adopted in 1982, is officially defined as the “socialist
state under the People’s Democratic Dictatorship” with a commitment towards the Marxist-
Leninist philosophy. This chapter seeks to critically analyse the historical evaluation of the
Chinese constitution and political economy since 1949 that marked the establishment of
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rule under the leadership of Mao Tse-Tung. The chapter is
primarily divided into three parts. The first part deals with the historical evolution and
development of the Chinese constitution and politics. It then outlines the key features of its
latest 1982 Constitution. The third and last part examines the Chinese political economy with
a special reference to its economic transformation from the socialist planned economy to
capitalist market economy. This is followed by a discussion on the contemporary socio-
economic problems and environmental challenges caused by its swift economic development.
Nature and Evolution of Political and Constitutional Development in China
The mid-nineteenth century holds a special significance in the context of Chinese political
system for twofold reason; first, this period marked the triumph of the CCP over the
nationalist forces backed by the United States in the Chinese civil war that led to the
establishment of the PRC in 1949, and second, China adopted its first ever Constitution in
1954. However before analysing the evolution and development of its constitution-making
process, it is imperative to shed a light upon the critical junctures of the Chinese politics in
order to develop a comprehensive understanding about the political factors that structured and
shaped the trajectories of constitutional development in China.
Political Dimension
For a very long period (from 221 BC to 1921), the nation “was ruled by a series of family-
based dynasties headed by an emperor” (Joseph, 2019: 657). During this period, the
geographical terrain of China was extensively increased and many significant changes were
observed in other areas as well. However, the socio-political domain largely remained
unchanged (Quigley, 1925: 9). One of the significant characteristics of the then Chinese
empire was the presence of the national bureaucratic structure that was developed “much

120
earlier and on a much larger-scale than similar government institutions in Europe. Imperial
officials were appointed by the emperor only after they had passed a series of very difficult
examinations…” (Joseph, 2019: 657). By the 19th century, the imperial government reached
on the brink of collapse due to several internal factors (such as mis-governance, corruption,
overpopulation, economic crisis, poverty, unemployment, local conflicts and so on) and
foreign “aggression by European powers, including the Opium War (1839–1842), which was
fought over British demands that they be allowed to sell the narcotic in China” (Ibid., 658).
However, a number of initiatives and measures were taken to maintain the imperial rule but
those “efforts were not enough to save the 2,000-year-old imperial system, and in 1912, a
revolution toppled the ruling dynasty and established the Republic of China” (Ibid).
After the collapse of Chinese empire, Dr. Sun Yat-sen became the first president of the
newly emerged the Republic of China. In this period, Sun’s socio-political philosophies
shaped the contours of the Chinese politics and became the basis of the governance (Fairlie,
1931: 1019). He though could not remain in the office for a longer period as the country was
engulfed in internal conflicts and breakdown. Soon after becoming the president, Sun led
foundation of the “Nationalist Party” with a purpose of re-unifying the nation and on the
other side, some of the local “intellectuals, inspired by the 1917 Russian revolution,
established the Chinese Communist Party” in 1921 to counter the former’s political
domination (Joseph, 2019: 658). Both political groups had different approach towards
addressing the prevailing national challenges and problems. While the influence of
communists was confined to the certain ruler areas, Nationalists ruled the nation without
facing any major challenge for nearly one and half decades. In 1937, the Japanese occupation
of China had begun that led to civil war later. Nationalists miserably failed to stop the
Japanese troops from capturing the northern and eastern parts of China, and on the other side,
the communists under the leadership of Mao successfully defeated the Japanese forces from
entering into their seized northwest region. The courageous portray by the CCP against Japan
popularised the party and its ideology amongst the local masses.
As soon as Japan admitted its defeat in 1945, the civil war in China swiftly began. The
CCP secured “a decisive victory over the US-backed Nationalists who were plagued by poor
leadership, faulty military strategy, and corruption”, and the foundation of PRC was laid
down by Mao Tse-Tung on October 1, 1949 (Joseph, 2019: 659). Under the leadership of
Mao, the Chinese state undertook a major task of re-building the nation by following the
socialist doctrines. To address the key national and local problems, numerous initiatives were
taken in the key areas like land reform, women empowerment, poverty eradication, socio-
economic equality, agriculture, and human trafficking among others. The communist regime
however often relied upon the autocratic and violent mechanisms to attain its objectives and
suppress the rivals. Yet surprisingly, the popularity of the CCP kept growing amongst the
masses on account of its political and economic achievements.
With the demise of Mao in 1976 and the rise of Deng Xiaoping in national politics, the
Chinese state thrown away the Maoist philosophy and shifted its focus from socialism to

121
capitalism. In economic domain, the socialist model was replaced with the market-dominated
capitalist model in the late 1970s. As a result, the state intervention in the economic domain
was lessened and the market forces were given a free hand in managing the economic affairs.
Soon, this new economic model yielded a higher level of growth and put the Chinese
economy on the path of swift development and progress. The economic achievements
provided a further legitimacy to the Chines autocratic communist regime in the political
domain. However the state, like earlier, continued to rely upon the violent mechanisms to
achieve its governmental agendas and deal with the dissents (Joseph, 2019: 660-661). Hence,
China, throughout its history, has been ruled by an autocratic political system. In the distant
past, everything was done in the name of the ‘emperor’ and since 1949—when the power
shifted from the Nationalists to the Communists—it has been done in the name of
‘communism’ and ‘socialism’. The Chinese state still relies upon the traditional authoritarian
practices for ruling the nation as well as mobilizing the people.
Constitutional Development
In the context of constitutional development in China, the constitution-making is precisely a
modern phenomenon as the 2,000 year-old imperial government never cared to develop a
single legal document or constitution to govern the people rather the rule was based upon the
old-aged customs and practices. It was Mao who first realised the significance of having a
written constitution to rule the nation. For this purpose, he constituted a drafting committee
under his chairmanship in 1953. Following the recommendations of the drafting committee
and few amendments in line with popular opinions, China adopted its first ever written
constitution in September 1954. The constitution was very lengthy document, consisted of
106 Articles. It is important to note here that this constitution was highly influenced by the
constitutions of its allies such as “Soviet Union and the Eastern European people’s
democracies” (Cohen, 1979: 62).
It was widely anticipated that the 1954 constitution would usher “a new era of stability
and economic growth” in China (Ibid., 64). To achieve the latter objective, the country
adopted a unitary system of government with a commanding presidential office and
unicameral legislation. The National People’s Congress (NPC) “became the highest organ of
state power. Its Standing Committee, like the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, was expected
to exercise effective legislative power between the infrequent sessions of the parent body”
(Ibid, 63). Like any other constitution, the Chines constitution “established the basis for a
strong, unifying national government and allocated responsibilities among different agencies,
bringing greater clarity and order…” (Ibid) Furthermore, several provisions pertaining to
citizens’ fundamental rights and duties were also incorporated in the constitution. Such
provisions though largely remained on paper only as very little efforts were made to
implement them on the ground. In other words, many such constitutional provisions were
never in the priority list of the government owing to its non-democratic political orientation.
Not surprisingly, the judiciary was not empowered with any major power so that the
authoritarian regime could continue ruling the nation without any judicial limitations and

122
constraints. Like many other countries, the judicial system in China lacked tangible authority
to protect the citizen’s rights as well as restrict the government from violating the
constitutional values.
In the early 1970s, the Constitution of 1954 appeared insignificant to cope with emerging
new socio-political scenario especially after the emergence of the Cultural Revolution in
1966 under the leadership of Mao. More specifically with “the terror of the Red Guards
receded and the People's Liberation Army restored order” in the early 1970s, the pressure was
exerted on the CCP from different parts of China to adopt a new constitution (Cohen, 1979:
66). Many people anticipated that the new constitution would take the country into a new era
of political stability, economic progress, nation building, and human rights protection.
Keeping people’s expectations and sentiments into account, the Chinese state adopted its
second constitution in January 1975. The latter constitution was thoroughly revised in many
ways, for example; the provision was incorporated to lay emphasis “upon the leadership of
the Communist Party of China over the state... And, most importantly, it inserted the crucial
and unique provision that the chairman of the Party Central Committee ‘commands the
country's armed forces…” (Ibid., 67). Furthermore, the 1975 constitution declared the
Chinese state a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in place of the “people’s democratic
dictatorship” as proclaimed by the Constitution of 1954. The political turnaround caused by
the demise of popular communist leader Chou En-lai in 1976 and CCP Chairman Mao in
1976 resulted into a power struggle within the party that “led many observers to wonder
whether the triumphant pragmatists would translate their victory over the radicals into a new
government constitution…” (Ibid., 69). In 1977, the CCP adopted a new Charter in order to
provide a direction to party as well as the nation in the post-Mao period by adopting a new
constitution.
Against this backdrop, the third constitution was adopted in March 1978. This new
constitution was consisted of 60 Articles. It was largely projected that the promulgation of
1978 constitution would mark “the end of the Cultural Revolution and the beginning of a new
period of development that required a new fundamental law to meet its needs” (Cohen, 1979:
69-70). Nonetheless, it expressed its complete “faith in the ideology of Marxism-Leninism
and Mao Tse-Tung’s thought” (Priya, 2017: 10). In fact, in its Preamble, the 1978
constitution recognized the leading role and contribution of Mao in founding and building the
PRC. Unlike its predecessors, it placed CCP at the centre of the Chinese politics and granted
it a constitutional status. At the same time, the party’s Central Committee was “given a key
role in determining the choice of high ranking officers of the state including the Premier”
(Ibid). This constitution was highly influenced by the 1980s global economic order and
therefore, it advocated “the need for liberalisation in economic policies” (Ibid., 8).
Furthermore, it “further extended the list of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the
Chinese” and now it came to include the right to “speak out freely, air the views fully and
hold great debates” (Ibid., 9). However, nothing was changed on the ground with respect to
the people’s accessibility to the basic democratic rights.

123
 Yet again, the 1978 constitution also could not remain in operation for a longer period.
With the rise of Deng Xiaoping in the Chinese politics, the need for a new constitution was
strongly felt to move ahead of Mao’s political legacy and lead the country in the emerging
new global order. The NPC approved and promulgated the fourth constitution on December
4, 1982. Unlike the both 1975 and 1978 constitutions, the latest one is a very detailed and
comprehensive document that is consisted of 6 Chapters and 138 Articles. However the 1982
constitution, like its predecessors, exhibited its faith in the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, but it
also recognised the need for “liberalisation, decentralization, modernisation and market-
socialism…” (Priya, 2017: 12). It therefore called for liberalising the economy and attaching
more importance to the market forces and private sectors. It is important to note that this
constitution is comprehensively amended on five occasions till date. The 1982 constitution is
significant for many reasons and its various characteristics are discussed in the following
section.
Silent Feature of Chinese Constitution
The promulgation of 1982 constitution has marked the beginning of a new era in the Chinese
politics and constitutionalism. It thus expresses its commitment towards the Marxist-Leninist
ideology, but it is well synchronized with the requirements of contemporary capitalist global
order. The silent features of the constitution are discussed as following:
Socialist State: The constitution begins with an explanation of the nature of the state, and
declares China a socialist state “under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the
working class”. Article 1 further states that the socialist system is the foundation of the
nation’s politics as well as the society. Hence, no individual and organisation is allowed to
act against the latter system. The promotion of socialist values at all levels is unquestionably
the one of the significant functions of the governmental organisations as well as the CCP.
Democratic Centralism: The concept of democratic centralism was first advocated by Mao in
his various writings while the Constitution of 1975 was the first legal document that granted
it a constitutional status. Article 3 of 1982 constitution states that the state machineries of
PRC “apply the principle of democratic centralism”. More specifically, the NPC and the local
bodies or “the local people’s congresses are constituted through democratic elections” at
different levels. Furthermore, the powers and autonomy of the local bodies are the gift of the
central government so the former is required to act under the guidance and supervision of the
NPC. In other words, this provision intends to promote democracy to a very limited extent so
it does not contradict with the Chinese authoritarian regime.
Minority rights: Unlike its predecessors, the 1982 constitution contains a special provision
on monitory rights (Article 4). It does not only grant the equal rights to all minority
communities and groups, but also recognise their distinctive cultural identities. Any attempt
to violate their rights is a punishable offense. Moreover, the administrative autonomy is
granted to the areas “where people of minority nationalities live in concentrated
communities” in order to politically empower them. The constitution also directs the state

124
authorities to make efforts to save and preserve the minority customs, lifestyles, dialects,
knowledge systems and so on.
Market economy: The constitution limits the state’s interference in the economic sphere by
allowing the market forces to play a leading role. Article 11 emphasises upon the
government’s responsibility to protect “the lawful rights and interests of the non-public
sectors of the economy”. The development and expansion of private sectors is to be
encouraged by the state authorities. Furthermore, it allows “foreign enterprises, other foreign
economic organizations and individual foreigners to invest in China…” (Article 18). It is the
first instance when the Chinese constitution includes any of such provision on foreign
investments (FIs). It is not coincidental that the FIs were granted a constitutional status while
the market capitalism was dominating the world economic order. Hence, the 1982
constitution attempts to transform the socialist economy into a market economy.
Fundamental Rights: A very detailed section is incorporated on citizens’ fundamental rights
and duties in the Chapter II (Article 33-56). The constitution recognizes many important
rights like freedom of speech, religious freedom, right to education, equal rights for women
and among others. At the same time, it recognizes the five major citizens’ duties such as
upholding the constitution, safeguarding national unity, defending and honoring the
motherland and paying taxes. If one looks at such provisions, the 1982 constitution appears a
modern and progressive document at least in the context of citizens’ fundamental rights.
However it is debatable that to what extent, these rights are practically enjoyed by the people
as the news of people’s campaigns and demonstrations for demanding the basic human rights
keeps publishing in different global newspapers and scholarly works.
Unicameral Legislature: The constitution outlines the Chinese unicameral legislative system
in Chapter III (Article 57-78). The National People’s Congress (NPC) is the supreme organ
of the state, and it meets once in a year to discuss and deliberate. Nonetheless when it
necessary or the emergent situation arises, its “session may be convened at the anytime”. The
NPC is “composed of is composed of deputies elected from the provinces, autonomous
regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the special administrative
regions, and of deputies elected from the armed forces”. The members of NPC are “elected
for the term of five years”. Its functions and powers are very wide-ranging like appointing
officers to key governmental positions, approving the budget, enacting a law, amending the
constitution and among others. The Standing Committee of NPC is the body which
practically exercises the legislative power of the state. Its members are elected by the NPC
for the term of 5 years.
Local Governments: According to Article 105, the institutions of local governments are to be
formed at different levels to act as the local administrative bodies under the guidance of the
central authority. The term of such institutions is same as that of NPC. They are given many
powers ranging from administrative, financial, judicial, urban and rural development to
public security. But it is important to note that these local governments in China, unlike India,
do not possess administrative and political autonomy as they just act as the subordinate
125
agencies of the central government at the local level, and their powers can be curtailed at any
time by the higher authorities.
Judicial System: According to Article 127, the “Supreme People’s Court is the highest
judicial” institution in China. While Article 126 ensures the judicial interdependence to the
Supreme Court, the Article 128 makes it responsible to the NPC. These two provisions
appear self-contradictory as making the judiciary responsible to the legislature does not
ensure the judicial independence rather it makes judiciary a subordinating agency to the law-
making body. At the same time, the Chinese judiciary—unlike many developing countries—
does not have the power to invalidate any law even if it appears against the constitutional
values. In other words, the Supreme Court does not exercise any control over the
government, perhaps as a result of the authoritarian political system.
Political Economy of China
After the establishment of the PRC in 1949, the CCP under the leadership of Mao sought to
reconstruct the economy through rapid industrialization and wished to catch up economically
with the West by following the model adopted by its allies like the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe. This model of economic growth and development revolved around a centralized and
planned economy with a predominant role of the state. With the help of swift
industrialization, the Chinese state planned to dedicate resources and efforts to achieve
equality and meet the basic needs of the people, especially those of the marginalized and the
vulnerable. It thus socialized the economy, where the state controlled the means of
production, distribution and exchange. However, a major shift took place during the late
1970s when Deng Xiaoping in 1978 offered a wide-range of economic reforms to revive the
economy (Dillon, 2009: 23-28). Large-scale and radical economic reforms were introduced
by adopting an open door policy and transforming the command economy into a market-
oriented economy. Since then, the Chinese economy has consistently achieved astounding
economic progress and currently, its economy is the second fastest growing economy in the
world. Its per capita income is also doubling every ten years.
Richard Walker and Daniel Buck offer a fascinating historical analysis of the
transformation that took place in China from socialism to capitalism during the latter half of
the twentieth century. They argued that the successive heads of the party and government
during this period encouraged a blossoming of the private industry via domestic and foreign
investments as discussed above in the section on 1982 constitution. Walker and Buck (2004:
61-62) rightly point out:
The Chinese leadership has systematically liberalized the economy under the
close guidance of the State Council and the Communist Party. The notable
factor here… [is that] this transition has reconfigured the form of the state in a
way that has unleashed the powers of capitalism. The transformation has
brought a metamorphosis in which property, markets and capitalists break out
of the cocoon of the socialist state, and a bourgeois social order, economy and

126
 state unfold from the old mode of production… [hence] the central
government has managed the transition to capitalism every step of the way,
issuing a series of directives in the shape of formal laws, policy declarations
and general pronouncements.
The government policies thus stimulated the transition to capitalism in China. Likewise,
Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett’s (2005) study presents a well-grounded study of the
Chinese state from the Marxists perspective and explains how a major post-revolutionary
society turned away from socialism and moved towards capitalism. In 1978, the Chinese
government had introduced a ‘market-based reforms’ process apparently designed to
reinvigorate socialism but as it turned out, it led the country in an opposite direction, towards
capitalism and foreign dominated development path (Hart-Landsberg and Burkett, 2005: 34-
35). Once the path of market reforms, each subsequent step in the reform process they
decided to pursue was largely driven by the puzzles and contradictions generated by the
reforms themselves. Hart-Landsberg and Burkett (2005: 40) explain:
Each stage in the reform process generated new tensions and contradictions
that were resolved only through a further expansion of market power, leading
to the growing consolidation of a capitalist political economy. Thus, rather
than using capitalism to build socialism as reformers argued would be the
case, the reality has been that market socialism ‘used socialism to build
capitalism’.
In other words, the Chinese government had launched a process of economic transformation
that evolved into an economy which had little to do with socialism, in turn was opposed to be
the constant historical mandate of the CCP since its establishment. The drivers of the Chinese
economy now followed a capitalist path of development. This is evident “not only in the
country’s industrial structure that is increasingly defined by the operation of private, profit-
making firms, but also in accompanying transformation in social relations and realities that
shapes the working and living conditions of the majority of Chinese working people” (Hart-
Landsberg and Burkett, 2005: 65). Likewise, Pranab Bardhan argued that the economy of
China is chiefly capitalist wherein the capitalist class is providing “the dominant mode of
organizing social and economic life through their drive for profit-making” and capital
accumulation (Bardhan, 2010: 79). By introducing these economic reforms in 1978, China in
recent years has emerged as a leading driving force of the global capitalist economy.
While analysing the nature of the Chinese political economy, Harry Magdofff and John
Bellamy Foster argue that the government stimulated the growth of private sectors and
industries in the name of market socialism. While initiating the economic reform process, it
was proclaimed by the government that the path of market socialism would pave the way for
“speedy growth of material production, a growth of riches that would inevitably trickle down
to all social sectors” (Hart-Landsberg and Burkett, 2006: 8). China’s new path of
development has indeed directed country toward massive increase of production and gross
national income. But the benefits of rapid growth and development have not been very far-
127
reaching. Magdofff and Foster point out that the outcome of rapid growth is very rich for the
upper strata of society and comfortable for the middle class, but for the rest it is characterized
by “poverty, insecurity, unemployment and a decline in education and medical care.” (as
cited in Hart-Landsberg and Burkett, 2006: 9).
Socio-Economic Inequalities
Since the process of market reform introduced in 1978, there has been rising unemployment,
economic insecurity, worsening income inequality, deteriorating working conditions,
declining health and education, unstable prices—the brunt of what is mostly bear by the
working classes and the peasantry. Hart-Landsberg and Burkett highlight the growing
struggles of the Chinese workers to demand better working conditions and to “protect
themselves from some of the worst forms of exploitation” under the capitalist economy,
which emerged after the reform process (Hart-Landsberg and Burkett, 2006: 27).
Ching Kwan Lee and Mark Selden (2008) highlight the contradictions of the Chinese
state since its independence, whereby the Communist Party that constituted the government
had sought to establish an egalitarian society but on the other hand, its policies and reforms
programs exacerbated the socio-economic inequalities. Though such inequalities had been
there since the beginning of the reforms in the late 1970s but by 1995, China had become one
of the most unequal societies in Asia (as cited in EPW 2010: 21). They believed that Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) had “repeatedly used the eradication of inequality [merely] as a
means to consolidate political control over society” (Ibid., 34). In the early 1990s, massive
unemployment, labour rights violations and exploitation of working classes by the profit-
making private and foreign firms had been responsible for the mounting activism of the
labours classes. In fact, as soon as their movement spread to other nation-wide workers
communities and organizations, the state deployed the coercive means to suppress the
movements (Ibid., 39). Such coercive attitude towards the working class highlighted the
contradictory and bourgeois nature of the Chinese state that favoured the capitalist classes
and exploited the working classes. Apart from the socio-economic costs of the capitalist path
of development, it has erased the past egalitarian achievements and created gross inequality
and ecological destruction.
Environmental Challenges
Since the early 1950s, China never really had any clear policy for maintaining its ecological
efficiency and enhancing the environmental stability. Since industrialization was always the
foremost priority for political leaders starting from Mao to Deng Xiaoping, they viewed
natural resources purely from an instrumental standpoint (Larus, 2012: 268). In the early
1990s, China implemented a new environmental policy to protect the ecosystem from further
destruction, but it failed to bring out any substantive changes. On the whole, environmental
protection in China has not proved to be commensurate with its high rates of economic
growth and progress. In fact due to its bad environmental conditions, the World Bank in 2006

128
placed China at the 16th position among the twenty most severely polluted and
environmentally deteriorated list of cities in the world (Shiuh-Shen and Mu, 2007: 185).
In a similar vein, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED)
reported that although “China was the fourth-ranked economy in the world in 2007 but its
environmental performance was close to that of the world’s poorest countries” (Tan, 2011:
30). In the wake of state’s failure to protect the environment and cope with resulting
environmental problems, a number of environmental protests across the country have been
taking place for exerting pressure on the government to adopt a more environmental-friendly
policies and models of development since the early 1990s. However, most scholars attribute
the genesis of the environmental movements in China to the latter half of the 1980s when it
adopted the capitalist market model of development.47
Concluding Observations
Since its formation, the People’s Republic of China has adopted four different constitutions
and the 1982 Constitution is the latest one which guides the government and its actions. The
constitution has been last amended by the NPC in 2018. After introducing the economic
reforms on a large-scale in 1978, China soon became the one of the word fastest growing
economies in the world, but in their pursuit to grow rapidly, they have overlooked critical
socio-economic and environmental concerns resulting in exploitation of working class and
rapid degradation of the environment. And, yet when people started protesting and mobilizing
support through demonstrations and social movements, the ruling authoritarian regime in
Beijing reacted with an iron fist.
Reference
 Bardhan, Pranab. 2010. Awakening Giants, Feet of Clay: Assessing the Economic Rise of
China and India. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press.
 Cohen, Jerome Alan. 1979. China's Changing Constitution. Northwestern Journal of
International Law & Business, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 57-121.
 Dillon, Michael. 2009. Contemporary China- An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
 Economic and Political Weekly. 2010. China after 1978: Craters on the Moon,
Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.
 Fairlie, John A. 1931. Constitutional Developments in China. The American Political
Science Review, Vol. 25 (4), pp. 1016-1022, accessed on 20 December 2020, online
available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1946623
 Hart-Landsberg, Martin. eds. 2005. China and Socialism: Market Reforms and Class
Struggle. New York: Monthly review Press.

47
For details see, Phillip Stalley and Dongning Yang, (eds.), (2006), “An Emerging Environmental
Movement in China?,” The China Quarterly, accessed on 8 March 2013, p. 4 and also Peter Ho, (2001),
“Greening without Conflict? Environmentalism, NGOs and Civil Society in China,” Development and
Change, no. 32, p. 914.

129
 Joseph, William A. 2019. China. In: Mark Kesselman. et al. Introduction to Comparative
Politics: Political Challenges and Changing Agendas, 8th Ed., pp. 653-700.
 Larus, Elizabeth Freund. 2012. Politics and Society in Contemporary China. London:
Lynne Rienner Publisher.
 Priya, Tanvi. 2017. Constitutional Development of China. Political Science Notes,
accessed on 20 December 2020, online available at:
https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/china/constitutional-development-of-china/1402
 Quigley, Harold S. 1925. Constitutional and Political Development in China under the
Republic. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 122,
pp. 8-14, accessed on 20 December 2020, online available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1016445
 Shiuh-Shen, Chien. and Mu, Yang. eds. “China Facing an Environmental Crisis”. In:
Wang Gungwu and John Wong. 2007. Interpreting China’s Development. Singapore:
World Scientific Publishing Co.
 Tan, Rong. 2011. Reforming China’s Land Policy for its Green Target. Science and
Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 53 (6), pp. 25-35.
 Walker, Richard. and Buck, Daniel. eds. 2004. The Chinese Road: Cities in the Transition
to Capitalism. New Left Review, Vol. 46 (8), pp. 39-66.

130