IGNOU M.a. (Political Science) Free Solved Assignments of June 2011

IGNOU4U.BLOGSPOT.COM

INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY COMPARATIVE POLITICS: ISSUES AND TRENDS (MPS-004) TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT Course Code: MPS-004 Assignment Code: MPS-004/Ast/TMA/2010-11 Marks: 100 Answer five questions in all, selecting at least two questions from each section. Each question is to be answered in about 500 words. Each question carries 20 marks. SECTION- I

1.

Describe and evaluate Gabriel Almond’s Structural Functional approach.

2.

Describe the Marxist perception of state in developing societies. How is it different from Liberal perspective?

3.

What do you understand by civil society? Describe the main trends that describe the relationship between state and civil society.

4.

Critically examine the impact of Multinational Corporations on the developing nations.

5.

Write short notes on the following:

(a) Modern concept of Nationalism (b) The U.S. model of Constitutionalism. SECTION- II

6.

Analyse the concept of cultural deprivation as an inducement to ethnicity.

7.

Do you agree with the observation that in the relationship between bureaucracy and politicians generally bureaucracy dominates? Give reasons for your answer.

8.

Analyse the relationship between social structures and federalism.

9.

Describe and evaluate the current thinking on the concept of human development.

10. Write short notes on the following (a) Debate on Gender and Development (b) Globalisation of Science and Technology Page 1

1

Page 2

Answers 1. Desc ribe and evalu ate Gabr iel Almo nd’s Struc tural Func tiona l appr oach. Ans.: Struc tural Funct ional appro ach is a form of syste mic analy sis whic h looks at politi cal syste m as a coher ent whol e whic

h influe nces and is in turn influe nced by their envir onme nts. A politi cal syste m is held toget her by the prese nce of legiti mate force throu ghout the syste m. Almo nd relied upon Max Webe r and Talco tt Parso ns in conce ptuali sing the politi

cal syste m’s actio ns and turne d to conce pts like struct ure and role repla cing the legal voca bular y of instit ution, group or organ isatio n. Almo nd and his colla borat ors intro duce d new conce pts of comp arativ e politi cs. The conce pt of politi cal syste m repla ced

the state and its legal appar atus. Struc ture repla ced instit ution, role took the place of office and functi on substi tuted for powe r. Almo nd sugge sted that all politi cal syste ms have four chara cteris tics: All politi cal syste ms have struct ures.

z T h e sa m e

p ol iti c al fu n ct io n s ar e p er fo r m e d in al l p ol iti c al s y st e m s.

z A ll p ol iti c al st ru ct ur es ar e m ul ti fu

n ct io n al .

z A ll p ol iti c al s y st e m s ar e m ix e d in th e c ul tu ra l se n se . Almo nd then outlin ed his own functi onal categ ories classi fying them

Into input s and outpu ts:

z In p ut fu n ct io n s:

z P ol iti c al s o ci al is at io n a n d re cr ui t m e nt

z In te re st ar ti c ul at io n

z In te re st a g gr e g

at io n

z P ol iti c al c o m m u ni c at io n O ut p ut F u n ct io n s

z R ul e m a ki n g

z R ul e a p pl ic at io n

z R ul e a dj u di c at io n

The outpu ts are gover nmen t functi ons and corres pond to the traditi onal legisl ative, execu tive and judici al functi ons. They show a bias towar ds Amer ican

and Euro pean conce ption s of gover nmen t showi ng traditi onal orient ation of comp arativ e politi cs. Almo nd, howe ver, argue d that input functi ons are cruci al in chara cteris ing the politi cal syste ms of devel oping count ries. These input functi ons consti tute the ingre dients of the syste

m: who recog nises, delib erates and resol ves probl ems and issues . Spiro called this a proce ss of “poli cy flow” and Easto n interp reted it as consi sting of dema nds and suppo rts for actio n. Almo nd says that politi cal social isatio n takes place throu gh the famil y, schoo

l, churc h, trade union , party and even gover nmen t agenc ies. It also invol ves recrui tment of peopl e from differ ent social group s into politi cal partie s, civil servic e etc. Intere st articu lation is the expre ssion of politi cal intere sts and dema nds for actio n. Intere st aggre

gatio n is the comb ining of those intere sts and dema nds whic h are articu lated by intere st group s and politi cal partie s. Politi cal com muni catio n helps all these politi cal functi ons. Politi cal social isatio n, recrui tment , articu lation and aggre gatio n occur throu gh com

muni catio n. Gabri el Almo nd says that politi cal cultur e is dualis tic, not monis tic. Politi cal syste ms may be repres ented as mode rn and traditi onal, devel oped and under devel oped, indust rial and agrari an. Politi cal syste ms have evolv ed throu gh stages of devel opme nt.

Struct ures beco me more differ entiat ed as politi cal syste ms reach highe r stages of growt h. Almo nd divide d them into primit ive, traditi onal, transit ional and mode rn syste ms. Less devel oped syste ms displa y ‘tradit ional’ styles of diffus eness, partic ularis m, and ascrip tivene ss.

The more devel oped syste ms displa y ‘ratio nal’ styles of specif icity, unive rsalis m, achie veme nt and affecti ve neutra lity. Yet this proce ss of mode rnisati on is never compl ete. Almo nd called his theor y as “prob abilist ic” theor y sugge sting “that politi cal syste ms may be comp ared in

terms of the proba bilitie s in perfor manc e of specif ied functi ons by the specif ied struct ures.”

He argue d that 2

his conce ption of politi cal syste m deals with interd epend ence whic h does not mean

harmony. He claimed that his theory was dynamic as it conceived of “developmental patterns”. He connected his framework of system with his concept of political development. Almond incorporated force levels of functions in his model. One level consists of conversion functions: Interest articulation, interest aggregation, political communication, rule making, rule application and rule adjudication. These functions relate to input demands and supports and to output decisions and actions as internalised within the political system. Demands are formulated through interest articulation and are transformed into alternative courses of action through interest aggregation. Rules are drawn up through rule making. They are enforced through rule application and sometimes judged by rule adjudication. Communication serves all these functions. A second level consists of capability functions: regulation, extraction, distribution, and symbolic response. These activities relate to the environment. Almond said that in democratic systems, “outputs of regulation, extraction and distribution are more affected by inputs of demands from groups” and these systems therefore have “a higher

responsive capability.” Totalitarian systems are less responsive to demands, regulate behaviour through coercion, and extract maximum resources from their people. Symbolic capability relates to the symbol flow from a particular system into the informational environment i.e. its image in the community of nations. A third level of functions is related to maintenance and adaptation of political system. They include political socialisation and recruitment. According to Almond, a theory of the political system can be based on understanding the relations among these three levels and the relations of the functions at each level. The influences that shaped Almond’s approach are similar to those which influenced Easton’s System analysis. His perspectives also emanated from the works of Radcliffe - Brown and Malinowski and the writings of Parsons and Easton. Because of Almond’s concern with the whole system, it can be called a pattern of macrostructural functionalism. Another influence on Almond’s thought relates to the traditions of pluralism and liberalism exemplified by the works of Arthur Bentley, David Truman and Robert Dahl. Because of its concern with a plurality of interests

2. Describe the Marxist perception of state in developing within the system, it may be called a pattern of micro-structural functionalism. Although Almond restated Parsonian concept of functionalism, two aspects of Parsons’ scheme have influenced Almond’s own formulation. Those are the theories of action and social system. Besides, like Parsons, Almond was also interested in the topics of personality and culture. Almond used the concept of “pattern variables” proposed by Parsons. These were: (1) Affectivity vs. Affective Neutrality, (2) Self-orientation vs. collectivity orientation, (3) Universalism vs. Particularism, (4) Achievement vs. Ascription, (5) Specificity vs. Diffuseness. Almond used them to relate political culture to political system. The idea of interaction and equilibrium was inherent in the middle-range theory of Almond’s structural functionalism; the association of a pluralistic process and equilibrium was proposed early in Arthur Bentley’s Process of Government and restated in David Truman’s work in the Governmental Process. Almond assimilated pluralist theory into an explicitly functionalist framework. This reduced Almond’s approach to the status of partisan apologists, an ideological interpretation of Western liberal political system.

societies.

How is it different from Liberal perspective? Ans.: The return of the state to political theory has been a marked feature of Marxist political theory. Most rigorous and sophisticated debates concerning the nature of the state took place in the decades of 1970’s and 1980’s before the decline of Marxism as a philosophical position in the aftermath of collapse of communism and rise of neo-liberalism as the ‘mainstream’ political theory. Most of these debates have revolved round the interpretations of the views of Marx and Engels. The presence of wide range of the Marxist theories can be related to the discontinuities and disjunction in their works on state resulting in the lack of coherence among the different Marxist interpretations. Neither Marx nor Engels presented a comprehensive, systematic and complete theory of state. As a result, the Marxists have been forced to theorise state through Marx and Engels’ fragmented and unsystematic series of philosophical reflections, contemporary history, and journalism and

3

incidental remarks. These themes have been capable of independent theoretical interpretation and development. The lack of a grand theory of state in the writings of Marx and Engels also resulted in the emergence of different approaches in the Marxist theory regarding the nature of the state. Though they are often combined with varying degrees of consistency and mutual qualification, they are based on different assumptions, principles of exploitation and political implications. Thus we have a theoretical position which argues that state should be analysed as Lenin analysed it i.e. based upon Marxian political and economic analysis. There are others who emphasise the autonomous character of state to be found in the historical works of Marx and Engels. The classical theory of state as an instrument of class domination is crucially linked with the Marxist explanation of the materialist conception of history. In the German Ideology Marx and Engels saw the state as the epiphenomenon i.e. simple surface reflection of the system of property relations and resulting economic class struggles. Marx and Engels argued that the state develops within the social division of labour and is the form

in which the ruling class asserts its common interest. The state remains the reflection of the economic base and also reflects the needs of the economy as well as the balance of economic class forces. Marx presented similar ideas in his work The Poverty of Philosophy while discussing the tenets of political economy. He argued that the relations of production are the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The above trend of thought on the nature of the state and the correlation between economic substructure and political formations finds its most explicit expression in the famous formulation of the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels argued that ‘political power, properly so called is merely the organising power of one class for oppressing another’. Further, ‘the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affair of the whole affair of the whole bourgeoisie. This version of the Marxian theory of the state leads to its conceptualisation as being in origin and nature, in purpose and function, a class organ, an organisation for oppression of one

class by another. Besides the official Marxism under the patronage of the erstwhile Soviet Union the contemporary western Marxists like William Domhoff and Fred Block, among others concurred with such a position. Significantly Marx in his historical works concerned with the concrete structure of the political conditions in France, Germany, Austria and Russia had put forward a conception of state that had life of its own, separated from civil society, with a bureaucracy that did not act in society’s interest, but in the private interests of the state itself. Such a situation arose either when there was a balance of class forces i.e. Bonapartist France and Bismarckian Germany or there was an absence of a dominant class i.e. Maternich State in Austria and Czarist State in Russia. The contemporary Marxists like Nicos Poulantzas, Hal Draper and Ralph Miliband have held that the relative autonomy of state, even if it is of high order, does not reduce its class character. The relative autonomy of state makes it possible for the state to play its class role in an appropriately flexible manner. If it really were the simple instrument of the ruling class it would be fatally inhibited in the performance of its role. State elite needs a

measure of freedom in deciding how best to serve the existing social order. Very briefly, the fundamentals of the Marxian formulation of the state can be succinctly put in the words of Miliband, while the state does act, in Marxist terms, on behalf of the ruling class it does not for the most part act at its behest. The state is indeed a class state, the state of the ruling class, but it indeed must have that high degree of autonomy and independence, if it is to act as a class state. It follows that the notion of state merely as an instrument does reveal the crucial property of the state, namely its relative autonomy from the ruling propertied class and from civil society at large. The liberals have sought to explain the growing centrality of the state to the modern society by focusing upon the administrative, coercive and ideological functions of the state since the 1960’s. In the pluralist theory of state, the state has come to be viewed increasingly by the liberals as a political association distinct from the government that encompasses all public bodies and exercises impersonal authority on the basis of the assumption that it represents the

4

permanent interests of the society, rising above the partisan interests. The liberal thinkers argue that the state is a neutral arbiter amongst competing groups and individuals in the society; it acts as an umpire or referee, capable of protecting each citizen from the encroachment of the fellow citizens. The pluralists have viewed the state as a neutral entity, acting in the interests of all and representing what can be called the common good or public interest. The central argument of the Pluralism is that political power is dispersed amongst a wide variety of social groups rather than an elite or ruling class. Under such an institutional understanding of the state its foremost function is considered to uphold order and provide social stability. The neo-pluralists such as Charles Lindblom and J.K. Galbraith have, however, argued that the advanced industrialised states are both more complex and less responsive to popular pressures than what the classical pluralists had assumed. While still holding the state as the custodian of common good or public interest they argue that it is impossible to portray all organisations as equally powerful since in a

capitalist society business enjoys advantages which other groups clearly cannot rival. Pertinently although, the neopluralists do not view business as an ‘elite group’, capable of dictating to government in all areas, still less a ruling class’, they do concede that a liberal democracy is a ‘deformed polyarchy’ in which business usually exerts pre-eminent influence, especially over the economic agenda. New right ideas and theories have become increasingly influential in the last three decades. Despite drawing their theoretical fundamentals, like pluralists, from the classical liberalism, as initially expounded by Hobbes and Locke, the neo-liberals or libertarians express strong antipathy towards government intervention in economic and social life, emanating from the belief that the state is a parasitic growth which threatens both individual liberty and economic security. For them the state is no longer an impartial referee but has become a self-serving monster, a nanny or leviathan state, interfering in every aspect of life. New rights theorists have made an attempt of identify the forces that have led to the growth of state intervention and which, in their view, must be countered. In effect liberals increasingly treat

considered to be parts of civil

society

include

churches, neighbourhood

the stale as governance. Such an institutional understanding of the state, however, does not allow us to explain the dissimilarity among the states in terms of their accumulation, articulation and exercise of political power. 3. What do you understand by civil society? Describe the main trends that describe the relationship between state and civil society. Ans.: Civil society is a domain parallel to but separate from the state. It is a realm where citizens associate

according

to

their own interests and wishes. It is “the realm of organised social life that is

voluntary,

self-

generating, largely selfsupporting, and bound by a legal order or set of shared values.” Outside of their

households,

the

members of society form a

large

variety

of

intermediary organisations

for

the

purpose of safeguarding and

promoting

their

interests. There is no unanimity on the question of which types

of

social

organisations should fall within the scope of civil society.

Yet,

conventionally organisations

that

are

associations,

private

charities, grassroot groups and local clubs - all those social organisations that are open, voluntary, selfgenerating,

autonomous

from the State, and yet bound by a legal order. Civil society does include independent mass media and the broader field of autonomous cultural and intellectual activity. The Universities, theatres, film societies, houses

publishing and

the social

think tanks are important components

of

civil

society. In fine, it is an intermediary phenomenon standing

between

the

private sphere and the State.Civil Society needs to be distinguished from the broader concept of ‘society’ in general, as it involves

behaving

and

acting collectively in a public sphere, to express their interests, ideas and preferences

to

achieve

collective goals and make demands on the state. Thus all of social life is not subsumed in civil society. Parochial society represented by individual and

family

inward-looking

life

and group

activity such as religious

5

worship, spirituality etc. does not fall within civil society.

Similarly,

economic society in the form of profit making enterprise of individual business firms is outside the scope of civil society. Also, civil society needs to be distinguished from political

society

represented,

in

a

democracy, by political parties

and

campaign

groups and organisations that primarily aspire for winning control of the state.

Democracy and civil society are twins: they are integrally related to each other. A healthy liberal democracy needs the support of a public “that is organised for democracy, socialised to its norms and values, and committed not just to its myriad narrow interests but to larger, common civic end”. To quote Larry Diamond, “such a civil public is only possible with a vibrant ‘civil society’.” One has to trace back in this context to Alexis de Tocqueville whose classic writings on American politics laid the foundation of democracycivil society nexus thesis. Tocqueville thought, America’s democracy was sustained by the richness and diversity of its voluntary associations. In his view, voluntary

associations assisted in the development of democratic values such as trust, tolerance and compromise. New generations of neoTocquevillians, prominent among whom is Robert Putnam, have, since the 1990s, revived the concept of civil society as the bedrock of democracy. Putnam’s work on the political development of the Italian regions - the prosperous North vis-a-vis the impoverished South sought to explain superior institutional performance in the former in terms of flourishing ‘social capital’ which stands for “features of social organisation such as trust, norms and networks”. The propensity of individuals to join private, voluntary associations, according to Putnam, contributes to the effectiveness of democracy because of its ‘internal’ and ‘external’ consequences. Internally, associations “install habits of cooperation, solidarity, and public spiritedness”. Externally, a dense network of secondary associations “contributes to effective social collaboration”. The Putnam thesis is simply this: where there is no social capital, democracy could not flourish.

For the most comprehensive theoretical assessment of the virtues of civil society in the context of

democratic transition and consolidation, one has to refer to Larry Diamond’s recent work on Developing Democracy. Civil society, in Diamond’s view, serves the “development, deepening and consolidation of democracy”. As Diamond explains the process, civil society provides the basis for the limitation of state power, supplements the role of parties in stimulating political participation, increases the political efficacy and skill of democratic citizens, educates the masses in democracy, structures multiple channels, beyond the political party, for articulating, aggregating, and representing interests, empowers the powerless to advance their interests, generates a wide range of cross-cutting interests, mitigates thereby the polarities of political conflict, recruits and trains new political leaders, develops techniques for conflict mediation and resolution, gives citizens respect for the state and positive engagement with it, and facilitates the spread of ideas essential for economic reform. Diamond has, however, laid down certain conditions that must be fulfilled for civil society to perform the democracy building functions. First, a stable democracy has a good prospect if civil

society does not contain “maximalist, uncompromising interest groups or groups with anti-democratic goals and methods”. Second, another feature of a strong civil society is what Diamond has called the “level of organisational institutionalisation”. As he argues, “where interests are organised in a structured, stable manner, bargaining and the growth of cooperative networks are facilitated”. Third, the other important requirement is the “internally democratic character” of organisations as defined by “decision-making, leadership selection, accountability and transparency”. Following Diamond’s presents, five distinct features of civil society which can be identified as under:

z Civil

society is concerned with public ends rather than private ends.

z Civil society and state are related to each other in such a way that it does not seek to win control over the state. To reform the structure of power rather than to take power themselves as organisations is the goal of civil society.

z

6

Civil society encompasses pluralism and diversity.

all co m pe tit A or ny s, or vi ga ol ni at sat es io th n e th pl at ur se ali ek sti s c to an m d on m op ar oli ke se t po ori w en er te an d d na oc tur cu e py of th ci e vil po so liti ci ca et l y. sp zac C e as a m on op oli st di sal lo wi ng

creates a general perception among people that it will make life easier. Globa unhealthy. Multinational corporations promote a certain kind of consumerist

4 .

A n

z C

One recurring trend has been to place the state at the centre of things. This stat reign of unregulated market for the promotion of individual enterprise, unfetter

7

m o

G l