lapalombara e weiner.pdf

8/11/2019 Lapalombara e Weiner.pdf

1/49

6

Chapter 1

POLITICAL PARTIES AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

Political parties are an intriguing phenomenon. They intrigue the interests of the people in

organizing political parties (Duverger, 1964: 155; Lenin, 1904: 74), in enhancing political

participation (Disraeli, quoted by Cline, 1939: 509-512; Blake, 1966: 247-248;

Conancher, J. B. 1971), in decision making (Crotty, 1970: 294), in striving to acquire

power (Neumann, 1955: 403), in promoting national interest (Burke, quoted in Langford,

Paul 1981), in protecting their rights (Madison, see Morgan, 1981:613-625) and in

contributing their due share in the process of political development (LaPalombara and

Weiner, 1972: 399-438). The research on parties includes abundant writings whose

rationale lies primarily in a researchers desire to approach the study of parties from a

distinctive or simply better perspective than that of the other researchers. Like Disraeli

(Op.Cit.), viewed party as an organized opinion. Similarly, Benjamin Constant (see

Howard, 1980:10-20) wrote that a party is a group of men professing same political

doctrine. Maclver (1947: 298) defines a political party as: an association organized in

support of some principle of policy which by constitutional means it endeavors to make

the determinant of government. Lord Bryce (1921: 99) defines political parties as:

organized bodies with voluntary membership, their concerted energy being employed in

the pursuit of political power. Weber (1904-1905; trans. 1947: 31) defines political party

as: a voluntary organization of propaganda and agitation, seeking to acquire power in

order to procure chances for its active militant adherents to realize objectives, aims or

personal advantages or both. Edmund Burke (1790:16) thought of a party as a group of


2/49

7

men who had agreed upon a principle by which the national interest might be served.

Leon D. Epstein (1967: 127) says: any group, however loosely organized, seeking to

elect governmental officeholders under a given label. According to Leacock (1913: 31-

40), By party we mean more or less an organised group of citizens who act together as a

political unit. They share or profess to share the same opinion on public questions and by

exercising their voting power towards a common end, seek to obtain the control of the

government. Gettel (2004:274)states: A political party consists of a group of citizens

more or less organized who act as a political unit and who by the use of their voting

power aim to control the government and carry out their general policies Gettel and

Dnuuing, 2004: 274-290). To Gilchrist (2000: 640), A political party may thus be

defined as an organized group of citizens who prefer to share the same political views

and who by acting as a political unit try to control the government.

Variety of definitions has driven the task to a contradiction: that it seems difficult

to present a universally acceptable definition or theory of parties; yet it is essential too.

This dichotomy begins with the view of party organization as a Stratarchy. An Italian

sociologist Robert Michels (1959: iii-ix) offered his iron law of oligarchy that within

any larger organization, there is a tendency to devolve in to the hands of a small,

cohesive, tight-knit elite for the decision making. Michels argues that any large

organization is diarchical and is necessarily led by a small number of individuals who can

not be responsible to the rank-and-file membership, in any meaningful and effective way.


3/49

8

On the other side, Eldersveld Samuel (1959: 133-136) suggested an alternative

image of the party as a Stratarchy. Stratarchy stands as a special type of hierarchy in

which the ruling groups, power prerogatives and the exercise of power are diffused.

Contrary to the centralized unity of command, Stratarchy has numerous strata commands

which operate with varying but a considerable degree of independence.

A number of researchers have explored other fields, searching the structure,

functions, types and nature of political parties and the party systems. They all have

divergent views with different conclusions about the role of parties in political stability

and the political development. Thus, Duverger (1968: xv), and Barnes (1968: 105-138),

seem right to say that any general theory of the party or of any of the political institutions

or process does not now or never will exist. Numerous theories of the party are there

which may be more or less powerful, useful or reasonable but no theory is relevant for all

the times.

Absence of any pertinent theory has made the study of political parties

amorphous. Its varying limits have made it more or less subjective to the nature of

respective studies. The researchers generally pick and choose among literally thousands

of books articles, paying special attention to the one dealing with some specific aspect of

the party activity. Or, they may choose instead to concentrate on those items in the

literature that are pathfinders in their applications of new tools, new perspectives and new


4/49

9

dimensions to the study of parties. Similarly one may choose, as the present researcher

has done, to encompass a broad ranging spectrum of the role of political parties in the

process of political development. Very few researchers have explored this aspect directly,

their works will, however, be reviewed in the forthcoming pages in detail.

The role of political parties in political process instead of political development is

generally observed by various scholars with reference to the nature of the parties,

whereas, a liberal view appreciates the role of parties as the agencies of organized public

opinion with the help of which a political system operates. On the other side, Marxian

view examines the role of parties within the framework of class antagonism. Even

though, the liberals view the role of parties further in two divergent ways. The English,

French and Italian writers lay emphasis on the factor of principles lying in the

foundation and naturally the functions of a party. Whereas, American scholars view the

role of party as machine or a platform for a political strive to attain power on democratic

lines. Representing the English view Burke (1756:16) signifies the role of a political

party in the promotion of national interest on some particular principles to which its

members are all agreed. Jupp (1968: 2) quotes Disraeli reiterating the same view of

pursuance of certain principles by the parties. Similarly, Duverger (1964: xiv) quotes

Benjamin Constant stressing upon the commonly shared political doctrine of a party.

The American scholars (Henderson, 1976; Abbott and Rogowsky, 1978; Ippolito and

Walker, 1980; Blank, 1980), on the other side, deliberately avoid this reference to the

sanctity of principles and evaluate the parties simply as the competitors in the struggle


5/49

10

of power. For instance, Schattschneider (1942 : 35-37) uses a new phraseology that first

of all a political party is supposed to launch an organized attempt to get power, but it is

equally just to say that parties are held together by the cohesive power of public plunder.

This view regards political party as a vote catching machine or an agency to mobilize the

public support for a candidate at the elections, or an instrument aggregating the interests

that demand their voluble articulation, as Neumann (1955: 396) suggests: we take a

political party generally as the articulate organization of societys active political agents,

those who are concerned with the control of governmental power and who compete for

popular support with another group or groups holding divergent views. As such, it is the

great intermediary which links social forces and ideologies to official governmental

institutions and relates them to political action within the larger political community.

David E. Apter (1963: 328) has referred Dean and Schuman observing the same notion of

political party making it hardly distinguishable from a pressure or interest group. They

opine that parties have become essentially political institutions to implement the

objectives of interest groups. More or less a similar element is found in the

interpretation given by Crotty (1970: 294), who sees a political party as a formally

organized group that performs the functions of educating the public that recruits and

promotes individuals for public office, and that provides a comprehensive linkage

function between the public and governmental decision makers. It is distinguished from

other groups by its dedication to influencing policy making on a broad scale, preferably

by controlling government and by its acceptance of institutionalized rules of electoral

conduct more specifically capturing public office through peaceful means. Epstein

(1967: 9) also treats political party as any group seeking votes under a recognized


6/49

11

label. Jupp (Op.Cit.: 3), refers to Lasswell (1936), who observes: For many purposes, it

is enough to define a political party as an organization specialized with regard to

presenting candidates and issues under its own name in elections. Sartory (1976: 62) has

also quoted Lasswell and Kaplans work (1950), Framework for Political Enquiry

sketching the role of a political party as a group formulating comprehensive issues and

subjecting candidates in elections. Riggs (1970: 580)has also taken a structural view of

the role of a political party and has identified it as any organization which nominates

candidates for election to an elected assembly. Schumpetes (1942: 283) is indeed the

one who had laid the foundation of this prevalent notion of political parties held by some

American scholars declaring that a party is not a group of men who intend to promote

public welfare upon some principles on which they all are agreed. As Burke (1975, 16)

says Political party is, rather, a group whose members propose to act in concert in the

competitive struggle for political power. A refined version of the same notion is

available in the narration of Myron Weiner and Joseph la Palombara (1966: 3), who say

that by political party we do not mean a looselyknit group of notables with limited and

intermittent relationships to local counterparts. Our definition recovers instead, (1)

continuity in organization that is organization whose life-span is not dependent upon the

life-span of current leaders; (2) manifest and presumable permanent organization at the

local level with regularized communications and other relationships between local and

national units; (3) self-conscious determination of leaders at both national and local levels

to capture and to hold decision-making power alone or in coalition with others, not

simply to influence the exercise of power, and (4) the concern on the part of the

organization for seeking followers at the polls or in some manner striving for popular


7/49


8/49

13

most self-sacrificing and far-sighted workers..the communist is the lever of political

organization, with the help of which the more progressive part of the working class

directs on the right path the whole mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat along

the right road (Degras, 1956:28).

Lenins theory of party goes further to declare that: the communist party stands

for the principle of democratic centralism. Maurice Duverger (Op. Cit.: 155), critically

observes: The idea of Lenin seems to concern not only the leaders but also the

militants. In practice, in so far as the latter are maintained by the party, they are

naturally given position of control, because they alone dispose of sufficient leisure to fill

these positions effectively. To create a class of professional revolutionaries is

equivalent to create a class of professional leaders of revolutionary parties, an inner

circle which stirs up the masses and which is founded upon the official duties performed

within the party; it is equivalent to creating a bureaucracy, but is to say an oligarchy. If

the posts of partys permanent officials were strictly elective, bureaucracy could coincide

with democracy. Practically, however this is not so and can not be so: the militants who

are capable of filling a permanent position and are willing to do so are not very

numerous: the leaders of the party are anxious to keep close control of them so as to be

certain of their technical ability and of their political trustworthiness: the leadership is

largely made up of permanent officials already in office. Thus, there is born an authentic

oligarchy which exercises power, restrains it, and transmits it by means of co-option. In

spite of all this criticism Duverger (Ibid: xv) has observed that the role of the Marxist


9/49

14

schema is true in one respect: the bourgeoisie and proletariat do not perhaps

constitute two classes, defined in strictly in economic terms, but they characterise two

states of mind, two special attitudes and two ways of life, the distinction between them

throws light on certain problems concerned with the structure of parties.

After the debate of political parties Duverger (1964), has noted we find

ourselves in a vicious circle of : a general theory of parties will eventually be

constructed only upon the preliminary work of many profound studies; but these studies

cannot be truly profound so long as there exists no theory of political parties. In the

absence of any general theory of political parties an International Comparative Political

Parties Project was initiated in 1967 for the purpose for conducting the first empirically

based, comprehensive, and comparative analyses of political parties through out the

world. The project focused 158 political parties working in 53 countries during 1950-

1962 and traced their providence through 1978. In studying these political parties the

project selected the set of organizations that pursued a goal of placing their avowed

representatives in government positions (Janda, 1968; Janda, 1969; Janda, 1970). The

project defined a political party as an organization entailing frequent interactions

among individuals with some distribution of work and role differentiation. Different

organizations may have multiple goals but to qualify as a political party an organization

should necessarily have as one of its goals that of placing its avowed representatives in

government positions. Furthermore, such individuals must also be avowed

representatives of their respective parties. Finally, the term placing should be


10/49

15

interpreted broadly to mean through the electoral process (Ibid, 1980: 5). Keeping these

very characteristics of the political parties the present study has opt the definition of

political parties as given in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. It

is noted as Political Party means a body of individuals or an association of persons

setting up an organizational structure or collecting funds or owning property, with the

object of propagating political opinions or indulging in any other political activity. This

is the same definition which primarily was given by the Political Parties Act 1962.

However the act of indulging in any other political activity in this definition will be

interpreted as placing which further is taken by the International Comparative Political

Parties Project as signifying through the electoral process.

1.1 HISTORY OF POLITICAL PARTIES

The origin of political parties can be traced in the western world where it is closely

associated with the development of the modern state and representative democracy.

Initially, the parties evolved through a struggle between the contending groups to grasp

control of the power of government (Milbrath, 1965: 120-22; Putnam, 1966:640-55;

Verba, 1965: 467-98). Such struggle for power initiated within legislatures, which were

formed initially to advise monarchs. By seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many

legislative bodies had started claiming for independent power bases and privileges of

their own (Latham, 1952:376-398; Krislov, 1963: 694-721). The earliest model of the

modern party system evolved in Britain in the eighteenth century. Subsequently, the party

system also evolved in the United States in 1788, after the ratification of the Constitution


11/49

16

of the United States (Beer, 1965:105-38; Chambers, 1967: 3-32; Converse and Dupeux,

1962:1-23). Competition between political parties, in both Britain and the United States,

undermined the traditional conceptions of politics. This conception was, indeed, rooted in

classical notions of virtue and public service. Under this tradition, political leaders were

supposed to place the common good above the interests of a fraction of the society.

Leaders striving to benefit only themselves or a limited portion of the society were

predominantly considered as corrupt. The party competition, however, put the public

figures to follow a contrary set of assumptions. First, that politics naturally involves

conflict and division, and second, that the true goals of politics are to secure the

economic interests and political influence of groups divided along lines of class,

ethnicity, race, and religion (Abramson, 1971: 131-55; Adrian, 1961: 251-63; Eckstein,

1968:33-43). Far from corrupting a society the party competition has measurably

strengthened and integrated it by providing a way to include and represent different

groups and interests, at varying times( Barnes, Op.Cit.: 105-38).

With the wide extension of voting rights to the adult male citizens, all through

Europe and the United States, the legislators had to appeal to a much larger segment of

their national populations. Political parties grew radically in size in the form of

independent, popularly based organizations, no longer serving merely the interests of

narrow elite in the 19th century (Hennessy, 1968: 1-44).


12/49

17

1.2 PARTY SYSTEMS

Notwithstanding the political party is difficult to define, it is relatively much easier to

describe and to identify the party system. The study of political system is, basically, the

study of political and para-political organizations of a society. According to Duverger

(1964: 5-17) it includes even the organizations that play the role of indirect parties. If

so, the scope of study is wider so as to include every political party whether big or small,

operating at the national, regional or local level with ideological commitment or

neutrality, and all the like more. Most of the writers have referred to three kinds of party

systems i.e. one party system, two party or bi-party system and the multi-party system.

There are some countries which have no party or the party systems so are declared as

nonpartisan. In a nonpartisan system, neither any official political parties exist, nor does

the law permit it. Every candidate for the office runs on his or her own merits in

nonpartisan elections. Resultantly, no typically formal party alignments exist within the

legislature in nonpartisan legislatures. Despite claiming nonpartisan voting, most of the

members have consistent and identifiable voting patterns. Founding fathers of the United

States intended the government to be non-partisan. Eventually, the first few sessions of

the United States Congress and the administration of George Washington were

nonpartisan. The unicameral legislature of Nebraska is the example of nonpartisan state

government body in the United States. So much so, many city and county governments

are also nonpartisan. Having legal prohibitions against political parties, factions within

nonpartisan governments generally evolve into political parties. (Burnham, 1970: 88-97)


13/49

18

In Single Party Systems, only one political party is legally allowed to hold power.

Although, minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they however, are legally bound to

accept the leadership of the dominant party. This party may not always be matching to

the government, whereas sometimes positions within the party may be more important

than the positions within government (Fainsod, 1968:221-46).

In Dominant-Party Systems, opposition parties are allowed. There may be even a

deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have

no chance to gain power. Sometimes, social, economic and political circumstances, and

public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries

with less established democratic traditions, it is possible that the dominant party will

remain in power by using patronage or sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the

definition between Dominant and single-party system becomes rather indistinct.

Examples of dominant party systems include the Peoples Action Party in Singapore and

the African National Congress in South Africa. One party dominant system also existed

in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the 1880s until the 1970s

and in Mexico with the Industrial Revolution Party until 1990s (Eckstein, 1968:436-53).

Two-Party Systems in which there are two political parties dominant to such an

extent that electoral success under the banner of any other party is extremely difficult as

in the United States and in Jamaica. One right wing coalition party and one left wing


14/49

19

coalition party is the most common ideological breakdown in such a system but the

political parties in two-party states are traditionally catch all parties which are inclusive

and ideologically broad. The relationship between the two-party system and the voting

system in practice was described by Maurice Duverger and is known as Duvergers Law.

Multi-Party Systems are the systems having various parties. In Canada and the

United Kingdom, there are two strong parties; with a third party that is an electoral

success. The party may repeatedly get second place in elections and pose a threat to the

other two parties frequently, but has still never held government formally (Ford, 1898:

21-32). However in times of minority governments, their support is often necessary to

either support or defeat a government. It means that they may have considerable

influence under the favorable circumstances. Only in some rare cases the nation may

have an active three-party system, in which all three parties routinely hold top office. It is

very rare for a country to have more than three parties who are all equally successful, and

all have an equal chance of independently forming government, as is there in Finland

(Dahl, 1966: 51-75).

Political systems having many parties but no one with the majority position are

called Mixed Party Systems. More commonly, in mixed party cases there are numerous

parties, no one party often has a chance of gaining power. The parties in such kind of


15/49


16/49

21

on the other side, initiated an effort to combine theoretical rigor and empirical research

with the aim to test generalizations through systematic cross-national comparisons. This

tendency led the behaviourist political scientists to adapt some concepts like structure,

function, input, output, feedback and system from the leading contemporary schools of

sociological analyses. Gabriel Almond, James S. Coleman and their associates took lead

in applying these concepts to analyse and compare the politics of different countries in

their work The Politics of the Developing areas, published in 1960. The behavioural

revolution also made a major contribution by introducing more precise and statistical

measurements of political phenomena (Russet, 1964). These potentialities of quantitative

research in the field of political development were first exploited significantly by Daniel

Lerner in his analyses of The Passing of Traditional Societies,published in 1958.

1.4 APPROACHES OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

A wide survey of the literature of this formative phase of the newly born domain of

political development reflects that at least three major schools of political development

analyses existed. Huntington and Dominguez (1975:1-96) have categorized them as:

i- System Function Approach.

ii- Social Process Approach.iii- Comparative History Approach.


17/49

22

The system-function approach combined the elements of system theory and

structure-functionalism approach. It was derived and heavily influenced by the work of a

sociologist Talcot Parsons (1951, 1961, 1969, and 1971). The scholars applying this

approach in their works include David Easten (1953, 1965a, 1965b), Leonard Binder

(1962), Fred Riggs (1964), David Apter (1965, 1971), Levy (1966), Gabrial Almond and

G. Bingham Powell (1966), and Almond (1970).

The social process approach attempted to relate political behaviour and processes

to social processes such as industrialization, urbanisation and increasing media

consumption through comparative quantitative analyses of different societies. It can be

observed in the works of Lerner (1958), Deutsch (1961), Phillips Cutright (1963),

Hayward Alker (1966), Michel Hudson (1968), Martin Needler (1968), etc.

The comparative history approach represents a blend of a more traditional

approach with concentrated efforts at systematic and logical exactitude. It can be

observed in the works of Cyril Black (1966), S. N. Eisenstadt (1966), Seymour Martin

Lipset (1963), Barrington Moore (1966), Dankwart Rustow (1967), Reinhard Bendix

(1964), Samuel P. Huntington (1968), and Lucian W. Pye (1966).


18/49

23

Each of the aforementioned approaches has its advantages, limitations and

delimitations. In permutation they shed substantial new light on the phenomena of

political development.

Another researcher Chowdhury (1988: 8-11), has classified the approaches for the

study of political development into the following three perspectives:

i. Historical;

ii.

Typological, and;iii. Evolutionary.

Chowdhury narrates the contours of these perspectives as the historical

perspective presumes that the forces of history progress in a unidirectional way. Karl

Popper (1944), for instance defines historicism as an approach to the social sciences

which assumes that historical prediction is their principal aim, and which assumes that

this aim is attainable by discovering the rhythms, or the patterns, the laws or the trends

that underlie the evolution of history.. Some other writers, like Comte, Hegel, Maine,

Spencer, and Durkheim also opine that development advances towards the Western

model. Marxist view states that all societies pass through five stages before coming to

attain communism i.e. primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and

socialism. This viewpoint of nonlinear growth has had an incredible impact on the study

of political development. W. W. Rostow ( 1960: 4-11) followed the footprints of Marx to

delineate his five stages of economic growth as: traditional society, preconditions for

take-off, take-off, drive towards maturity and the age of high mass consumption. In his


19/49

24

later research, Politics and the Stages of Growth, Rostow (1971: 230-266), includes

another stage named as the search for equality. Tagging on Rostow, A. F. K. Organski

(1965) demarcates four stages of development i.e. the politics of primary unification, the

politics of industrialization, the politics of national welfare and the politics of abundance.

This concept of political development implies that all the underdeveloped countries will

have to follow the same path which the developed countries had passed through, long

ago. This concept of a single course development is, however not universally applicable

in the presence of various patterns of development. Rostow and ward (1964) have also

rejected the unilinear stage theory in their work Political Modernization in Japan and

Turkey. They have proved that Japan and Turkey experienced development quite

differently. They further argue that the environmental conditions determine the patterns

and rates of development in a society.

The typological perspective of political development assumes that the developing

countries will have to follow the Western model of political development. These

ethnocentric tendencies developed in political science mainly due to the influence of the

sociologists like Weber, Parson and F. K. Sutton. Mannheim (1954) however attributes

these ethnocentric propensities to the value system of the elites in Western societies.

Almond and Pye have studied political development in this framework. Political activities

of the community elites in the developed countries also reflect the same notion.


20/49

25

Both the aforementioned perspectives become critical due to their insistence on

homogeneous and overlooking heterogeneous or reversible process of political

development. That is why, Coleman (1971: 73), has introduced another viewpoint i.e.

evolutionary perspective. This perspective looks political development as an inbuilt

capacity of a system to improve and transform itself. This approach is basically based

upon the idea that political development is a continuous interaction among the process

of structural differentiation, the imperatives of equality, and the integrative, responsive

and the adaptive capacity of a political system (Ibid: 74). Coleman further argues that

these three variables i.e. differentiation, equality and capacity constitute the development

prototype. Sidney Verba (1971), points out that all societies confront certain crises of

identity, legitimacy, participation, distribution and penetration in their attempt to realize

differentiation, equality and capacity. If a country, however, can resolve its identity crises

first, it can easily tackle with all the other crises of legitimacy, distribution, participation

and penetration (Ibid: 10).

Such a high concern with political development led the political scientists to

define the concept of political development. The definitions proliferated at an alarming

rate. Mainly because the term political development had positive connotations and the

scholars tried to apply it to the happenings, which looked important or desirable to them.

Resultantly, there was a large and often impressive body of literature that could only be

classified as political development studies. Political development is defined as the

emergence of mass participation in politics and the elaboration of political institutions

capable of responding to or directing such mass participation (Huntington, 1968).


21/49

26

Almond and Powel (1966:19-23), have defined political development as the

increased differentiation and specialization of political structures and the increased

secularization of political culture. Rustow (1967: 230-266) defines political

development as (1) an increasing national political unity plus (2) a broadening base of

political participation. According to Riggs (1970: 580), political development refers to

the process of politicization; increasing participation or involvement of the citizen in state

activities, in power calculations and consequences. Some other writers use the terms of

political development and political modernisation interchangeably. Coleman (1968:

395-396) defines political modernization in the following words: Political

modernization refers to those processes of differentiation of political structure and

secularization of political culture which enhances the capability, the effectiveness and

efficiency of performance _of a societys political system the interactions

characteristics of a traditional polity are predominantly ascriptive, particularistic and

diffused, those of a modern polity are predominantly achievement oriented, universalistic

and specific. Political modernization is viewed as the process of movement from the

traditional pole to the modern pole of the continuum.

Shills (1963:8) points out that the politics in the newly born states is elitist,

however the ruling elites are committed to equalitarianism and modernization. He

describes outlook of the elites in developing nations as follows: Modernity in the

eyes of the elites of the new states therefore entails the dethronement of the rich and the


22/49

27

traditionally privileged from their positions of preeminent influence. It involves land

reforms i.e. the breaking up of large private states, especially those which are owned by

absentee landlords. It involves universal suffrage, even if suffrage is exercised primarily

as acclamation. It involves breaking the power of the traditional interests of chiefs,

sultans and priesthoods. To be a modern democracy, according to the prevailing

conception in the new states implies that the rulers should be answerable to the people for

what they do. Where they are not in fact answerable to them through a legislature which

is popularly and periodically elected, then they allege that they exercise a stewardship on

behalf of the people and that they are answerable to the collective will, the high will is

more real then the empirical will of their people.

Hagen (1962) regards political development as the growth of institutions and

practices that allow a political system to deal with its own fundamental problems more

effectively in the short run, while working towards more responsiveness of the regime

popular demand in the long run. Eisenstatd (1962; 1967:252) considers political

development as the ability of a political system to sustain continuously new types of

political demands and organization.

"Political development may be defined in terms of the capacity of the political

system to satisfy the changing needs of the members of the society". (Park, 1984:58)

Harry Eckstein defines political development as the growth that occurs "in politics as

such", and elaborates what this growth looks like and how it arises.


23/49

28

All the aforementioned definitions show that there is a considerable difference

among the social scientists on the meaning, description and explanation of political

development. Actually, the stress of the contemporary social sciences on the knowledge

to be grounded on purely empirical investigation restricted many social scientists to pass

judgments on the political development in strange and unknown societies, which were

making new experiences in this domain. Resultantly, they deem it fit to follow the almost

euphorically hopeful view of the possibilities for rapid development in the new states,

which were so common a few years ago. So the guiding considerations which tried to

give a direction and discipline to the social sciences were challenged by the paradoxical

complexities and challenges of political development. Outcome was the visible level of

confusion, ambiguity and imprecision in the characterization of the term political

development.

That is why; Pye had to declare it helpful to elaborate some of the confusing

meanings generally attached with the term of political development. He (Pye; 1966: 33-

45) has enlisted ten definitions of the term with the purpose to eliminate a situation of

semantic perplexity which, he declares cannot help but impede the development of

theory. The enlisted definitions are:

1). Political Development as the Political Prerequisite of Economic Development.

2). Political Development as the Politics Typical of Industrial Societies


24/49


25/49

30

The next view of Political Development as the Politics Typical of Industrial

Societies is also closely tied to economic considerations. It involves the politics of

already industrialized and highly advanced economies. In this perspective the industrial

societies, whether politically developed or not, set certain standards of political behaviour

and performance. These standards constitute the stage for political development as a

model for all the other societies to follow. Rostow (1952; 1960), has emphasized the

relationship between the process and stages of economic growth and the patterns of

political activity. The cyclical pattern of development of this approach, quite like the

previous one, becomes the dearth of this approach too. So, to tie political development

firmly to economic activity would be to overlook much that is of vivid importance in the

developing countries.

The view of Political Development as Political Modernisation, is basically the

extension of the previous two approaches. Industrial nations lay the fashions and set the

patterns in the phases of economic and social life. Consequently, many people expect the

same to be applicable in the political sphere as well. Cultural relativists like Lipset

(1959), Coleman (1960), and Deutsch (1961), however challenge the validity of

identifying the industrial experiences as the contemporary and universal standards for all

the societies.


26/49

31

To view Political Development as the Operation of a Nation State, however,

removes these objections to some extent. This view point is, indeed, based on the

assumption that historically there have been many types of political systems. The

political system of every community had its own political framework which had to make

structural and functional adjustments with the new model of modern nation-state. The

politics of traditional societies, therefore, must give way to the politics appropriate to

produce an efficient nation-state. The political development in this view involves the

development of a capability to establish and sustain the desired level of public order, to

mobilize resources for collective enterprises and to make and endorse the international

commitments and responsibilities. Political development then involves the growth of

potential to establish and sustain a certain level of public order, to generate resources for

a specific array of cooperative enterprises and to develop and efficiently uphold the

international obligations. This view suggests two main parameters to measure the level of

political development. First of all, the establishment of a specific set of public

institutions, that constitutes the basic infrastructure of a nation-state. Second parameter is

the controlled political expressions of the society in its experience of nationalism. Shills

(1962), Silvert (1964), and McCord (1965), have applied these parameters in their

narration of political development as the politics of nationalism or that of the nation

building.

The view of Political Development as Administrative and Legal Development

underlies the philosophy of the innovative colonial experiences. Strong bureaucratic

establishments and administrative structures are considered the bases of political


27/49

32

community in the European modus operandi. Weber (tr. 1947), and LaPalombara (1964),

associate the administrative development with the spread of rationality, secularization

and evolution of the legal concepts which in turn set the stage for political development.

While over emphasizing, this approach overlooks the vital aspects of the problems of

citizenship training and popular participation in the process of political development.

The concept of Political Development as Mass Mobilization and Participation,

involves another role of the electorate and new standards of allegiance and participation.

In some societies this becomes the popular view an end in itself in the pursuit of political

development. All the segments of those societies feel a significant level of advancement

with the intensity and frequency of public demonstrations with mass mobilization and

collective participation. Hoselitz (1952), Emerson (1960), and Greetz (1963), have

supported this view of political development. Shills (1963), however, has criticized this

view due to its stress on the hazards of either sterile emotionalism or debasing

demagoguery.

Political Development as the Building of Democracy, is the view that takes

political development as synonym to the establishment of democratic institutions and

practices. LaPalombara (1964), criticises this view with the argument that the political

development is embedded only in the strengthening of a set of democratic values and to

pretend that this is not the case in self-deceiving. Further argument in this case is that

democracy is a value-laden term while development is more value-neutral. Using the


28/49

33

edifice of democracy as a key to political development can thus be seen as an attempt to

impose American or the Western values upon others.

The perspective of Political Development as Stability and Orderly Change is

based upon the capability for purposeful and orderly change. Stability generally,

promotes stagnation and an arbitrary support of the status quo, which is not exactly

development except if its alternate is evidently a worse state of affairs. While attaching

stability with development, Deutsch (1963), however, declares that one way or the other

social and economic advancements more often than not depend mainly on orderly, sound,

stable and controlled environment. The main argument of this approach is that in modern

societies man reins nature for his purpose while in conventional societies man had to

adapt to natures orders. Political development thus can be conceived as depending upon

a aptitude to either control social change or be controlled by it. Riggs (1964), however

questions the questions the level, purpose and direction of change or of stability and

order. He also declares that the maintenance of order stands second to getting things

better.

The definition of Political Development as Mobilization and Power, leads to the

concept that political systems can be assessed in terms of the level and degree of absolute

power, which the system is capable to mobilize (Almond, 1963; Parson, 1964; Coleman,

1971). When political development is conceived in these terms of mobilization with an

amplified empowerment of the society, it becomes quite possible to differentiate between

both the purpose for development and the variety of characteristics linked with


29/49

34

development. These characteristics in turn may facilitate the preparation of indices to

measure the level and nature of development. This, however, generally applies to the

most developed and modern societies.

To view the Political Development as One Aspect of a Multi-Dimensional

Process of Social Change, is embedded in the perspective that it is somehow intimately

interlinked with some other aspects of social and economic change. This view is shared

by Lerner (1958) and Millikan and Blackmer (1961). This view declares that all types of

development are interlinked and interdependent. So, multiple social, economic and

political factors impinge upon each other one way or the other. Then various multi-

dimensional local and foreign influences are also there to determine the level and nature

of political development in a society.

Pye (Op.Cit: 45-46), has also noted certain other possible interpretations of

political development i.e. a sense of national self-respect and dignity, post-nationalism

perspective etc. Finally, without asserting any of these philosophical orientations or

theoretical frameworks, he refers to the themes identified by the Comparative Politics

Committee of the Social Science Research Council. These broadly shared themes include

equality, capacity,and differentiation. Even he does not declare these three dimensions to

fit easily together.


30/49

35

An encyclopedic review of all the different concepts of development has paved

the way for the researcher to devise a theoretical framework for the appropriate

operationalistion of the concept of political development in the present study. It

obviously requires finding a criterion or set of criteria to serve as a frame of reference to

determine the level of political developmentper se. It would be natural not only to expect

the criterion to be an idealized version of what prevailed or was supposed to prevail in the

society during the period under study, but also to be quantitatively measurable directly or

indirectly. Further, if the concept of political development is to be treated autonomous

than the criterion for it should at least be different from what are supposed to measure,

say, economic, social or cultural development. This limitation of a different and certainly

a pure political criterion is necessary to avoid indulging into the matrix of the

interrelationship between these different realms and whether development in any of them

presupposes any development in the others also. A standard political criterion to measure

political development for that matter is, therefore, the extent to which the members of any

society participate in the political exercise. Certain societies may be legally or actually

deprived of the right to participate in this process, while some others who have the right

to participate may not choose to do so. If the extent of the formal right of participation in

the political process is concerned with the total whole, then the actual exercise of the

right may be taken to determine the degree of political development. McClosky

(1965:254-255) has counted the five indexes of participationvoting, political interest

and awareness, expressed party affiliation, sense of political competence with more

concentration on voting. Further, Verba, Ahmad, and Bhatt (1971:29) have noted that

participation is not a single undifferentiated entity. There are alternative modes of


31/49

36

participation that differ significantly in the ways in which they relate the citizens to their

government. Besides voting which is accepted almost without exception as the standard

political act, they have mentioned three other modes: Campaigning activity, co-

operative activity, and citizen-initiated contacts (Ibid: 29-32). By declaring the act of

voting as the standard political act they have made it convenient for the present

researcher to focus, only the act of voting. This will be the second limitation of the

present research. Thus, a purely political act of participation through its standard political

mode of election is selected as a criterion of political development per se.

Such interrelationship between participation and political development is not a

rare one but is already traced by many researchers like Banks and Textor (1963), Pye and

Verba (1965), Pye (1966), Kaminka (1966), Almond and Coleman (1966), Riggs (1968),

Huntington (1968), Inkeles (1969), (Dahl (1970), Brunner and Brewer (1971), Verba,

Ahmad and Bhutt (1972), and Arendt (1973) in a wide variety of ways. Huntington

however, has seen it in the tension between participation and what he calls political

institutionalisation as a clue to both political development and political decay.

Of all the aforementioned aspects, dimensions or definitions, Huntingtons (1968:

55), formulation seems more suitable for the nature and demands of the present study. He

(Ibid. 1968: 8-12), indeed, conceptualises the concept of political development in terms

of institutionalisation. The level of institutionalisation, he declares can be defined in any


32/49

37

political system by adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence of its

organisations and procedures. The more adaptable and an organisation or system is, the

more well institutionalised it is and the less adaptable or more rigid it is, the lower is its

level of institutionalisation. As an acquired organisational character, adaptability is a

function of environmental challenge and age. Age, in turn, can be measured in three ways

i.e. simply chronological age; generational age and the functional age. Complexity is the

second criterion of measuring the level of institutionalisation in a political system or any

organisation. The more complex an organisation is, the more exceedingly

institutionalised it is. Complexity involves generally both the multiplication of

organisational subunits and differentiation of their various types. Relatively primitive,

simple and traditional systems are usually plagued and shattered in the modernisation

process. The more complex systems, however, are more likely to adapt such new

demands. A third measure of institutionalisation is the extent of autonomy which a

political organisation may sustain independently. At its more concrete level autonomy

involves relations between social forces on one side, and between political organisations

on the other. In this sense political institutionalisation means the growth of political

organisations and procedures which are not merely the reflections of the interests of any

particular social group. Coherence in the structure and functions of any organisation is

the fourth criterion to measure the level of institutionalisation in it. Coherence and

institutionalisation are directly proportional to one another. The more coherent and

integrated an organisation is, the more well institutionalised it be. Huntington has gone

further and has tried to show the interrelationship between participation and

institutionalisation through an equation as:


33/49

38

Political Participation

= Political Instability

Political Institutionalisation

The equation relates political instability directly to political participation and

inversely to the political institutionalisation. It in other way shows that the less there is

political participation the less chance there will be for the political instability in a

country. Certainly, Huntington treats political participation as a ratio between political

participation and political institutionalisation, but with the axiomatic logic that if the

political participation exceeds the level of political institutionalisation, it will culminate

into instability. However, if the institutionalisation is more than political participation it

will result other wise. To see the same logic in another way let us assume that the term of

political instability is the opposite of political order or of political development as

Huntington himself has dealt with both, it would follow the pattern as:

Political Institutionalisation

Political Development =

Political Participation

Here political development is directly proportional to political institutionalisation

and inversely proportional to political participation. It means that if political

institutionalisation is occurring more than political participation in a society it will

reinforce political development, but if it is lagging behind it will exacerbate the process

of political development. So the notion of political participation does not go always


34/49


35/49

40

The figure 1.1 shows that political development must be measured by political

institutionalization. Through this diagram Huntington asserts that political development is

not an inevitable path of progress however political decay is always a possibility. He

further argues that political organizations and procedures must have acquired valuein the

perspective of the society, and a certain level of stabilityto endure momentous pressures.

Finally, Huntington considered the political parties as political institutions and has

declared that The principal institutional means for organising and expansion of political

participation are political parties and the party system (Ibid: 398). Focussing properly on

political parties and the party systems he opines that the parties regulate political

participation and the political systems have an effect on the pace at which participation

expands. The strength and the stability of a party or a party system depend upon both its

level of participation and its altitude of institutionalisation. A high level of participation

along with low levels of political party institutionalisation generates anomic politics with

violence. On the other hand a low level of participation is also likely to weaken political

parties in comparison with other political and social institutions. It is desirable for party

leaders to inflate political participation in the interest of their own party organisation. A

party having mass support is but stronger than a party with restricted support (Ibid: 401-

402).


36/49

41

Huntingtons this formulation of political development suits better to the present

study because it has taken political parties as an important institution of the political

system. The same is taken as hypothesis of the present study taken in the context of

Punjab. It is therefore hypothesised that the political parties could not institutionalise

themselves at a pace of expansion of political participation in Punjab which affected the

strength and stability of political parties and in turn culminated into the instability of the

political system. Such a state of anomic politics posed a colossal challenge to the political

development in Punjab.

Furthermore in his model of institutionalisation Huntington has given a criterion

for evaluating the role and contribution of the political parties in the political

development of any system. A number of scholars have explored in to the phenomenon

of political development mainly in Pakistan which is also applicable on the various trends

of political development in Punjab. A brief review of them all shows that they have

studied the problems in different perspectives as per the difference of their approaches to

view the problem. The works of these researchers can be categorised into four main

approaches i.e. Elitist Approach, Marxian Approach, Ideological Approach, and

Praetorian Approach.


37/49


38/49

43

1.5.4 PRAETORIAN APPROACH

i. Simon P. Huntington

ii. K. B. Saeed

iii. Keith Callard

iv.

Rafiq Afzal

v. Lawrance Ziring

vi. Hasan Askari Rizvi

vii. Raunaq Jahan

viii. Aysha Jalal

ix. Muhammad Waseem

x. Ian Talbot

1.5.1 Elitist Approach

The scholars studying the political history of Pakistan in the elitist approach are of the

view that Pakistan inherited a very strong military and bureaucracy. Both of these

institutions had been playing a significant role in the policy making. As a part of the

colonial legacy they were having a superior and supervisory position in the newly born

state of Pakistan. They always favoured the status quo in their own better interest and

never let the political institutions like that of political parties get flourish. Consequently

they destroyed the political culture, political institutions and the whole political system,

indeed.

Robert LaPort, Jr, (1975), was the first one to use elitist approach in his Power

and Privilege: Influence and Decision-Making in Pakistan. Referring to the la Michels


39/49

44

Iron Law of Oligarchy, he opines that regardless of the democratic nature of the

organisation an elite class emerges to guide the masses. Elite groups in Pakistan,

however, are categorised by him into three main categories i.e. political elite, economic

elite, and social elite. The epitome of political elite in Pakistan is the top-level military

and the civilian bureaucrats, whose social base is traditional wealth and power. He again

attaches wealth and power with land in Punjab and Sindh and tribal leadership (and land)

in Balochistan and Northwest Frontier. Through the course of his study covering the

period from 1947 up to 1975 LaPort, Jr, (1975) opines that pre-Ayub period actually

paved the way for military rule along with the cohesion of civil bureaucracy. Military and

bureaucracy was the hub of political activity then and also in the times to come. He

concludes that the decision making processes in Pakistan tend to be highly centralised

and personalised in the chief executive. He assumes the Z. A. Bhutto regime initially

permitted a greater level of political expression along with a commitment to reshape the

power of certain elite groups. This change, however, was not accepted by the civil and

military bureaucracy who supported the status quo and they ultimately maintained it.

The second researcher to use the elitist approach was Mynor Weiner (1962;

1986). He concisely pointed out the major problem in the developing courtiers is that of

scarcity of resources. The nature of political system in any country is determined by the

fact that who controls, allocates and distributes these resources. The societies where

political institutions were established with the empowerment of the political elites could

overcome the military establishment and civil bureaucracies. Putting resources in the

hands of political institutions led such societies at the way to political development. In


40/49

45

the case of Pakistan he declared that in the first period from 1947 to 1951 all the

resources were transferred from colonial masters to the native elites including civil and

military bureaucracy. This was the period of transition. During the second period from

1951 to 1958 the civil and military bureaucracy established its hegemony on the political

system of Pakistan. This hegemony could not be broken by the political parties. That is

why the political institutions could not establish properly in Pakistan.

Finally using the same elitist approach, Wolpert (1998) studied the

situation from a different angle and accentuated that Muhammad Ali Jinnah had used the

vehicle of the All India Muslim League (AIML) to establish a country. The AIML was

established in 1906 primarily with the object to protect the interest of the Muslims of

India and to develop cordial relations between the British government and the Muslim

community. During the period from 1937 to 1947, Jinnah had successfully transformed

the party into a national movement. Though the party had penetrated down to the root

level of the society but Jinnah could neither pay much attention to the formal structure of

the party nor could he prepare second row of the party leadership who could replace him.

Eventually both the party as well as the newly born country fallen a victim to the

leadership crises. He further revealed four factors: i) Regional Diversity; ii) Relatively

Small Bureaucracy; iii) Fear of India and a Rapid Growth of Pakistan Military; and iv)

Adoption of 1935 Act and the Vice-regal System, which lead to establish a dominance

of civil and military bureaucracy over the political system of Pakistan.


41/49

46

1.5.2 Marxist Approach

Tariq Ali (1970) opines that the elite class has joined hands with the international power

brokers, especially with that of the USA and UK. US had a considerable influence on the

ruling class of Pakistan through out its containment policy. During the decade of fifties

ruling class in Pakistan was following the same police on the recommendations of

America. A significant influence of the British was also visible. Feudal class and the

political leaders were being steered by the British. On the other side civil and military

bureaucracy were following the instructions of the American Lobby. In such a state of

affairs objectives were met by weakening the party democracy and the democratic were

finally wrapped up by the Martial Law regime. Thus only the internal strife was not

responsible for political decay rather external forces played more significant role in

derailing the democratic and representative institutions in Pakistan. Following the same

approach Dr. Mubashir Hassan, Hamza Alvi, and Dr. Mubarak Ali has declared the

imperialistic character of the political institutions and the political leadership responsible

for decay of the political and representative institutions of the country. Ruling class

actually was divided in to three main groups i.e. the feudal, the capitalist and the elite

class. Proponents of this school of thought consider that all theses three classes were

established by the imperialist powers to meet their own targets during the colonial era.

These very three classes were at the helm of affairs in the post colonial period. They

however joined hands with the two axes of power named the civil and military

bureaucracy in the post independence period. Such a close collaboration of all the ruling

classes with the ruling forces did not let the democratic and representative institutions

flourish. Natural outcome of this political experience was a class conflict which also

bears negative implications of the political development of the society.


42/49

47

1.5.3 Ideological Approach

Both the proponents of the ideological approach, Leonard Binder (1961) and Asif

Hussain (1979) have pointed out some ideological controversies as principle problems in

the way to political development in the society. These principle problems include: i) state

of religion in the newly established ideological state of Pakistan; ii) role of religious

groups in the political system; iii) place of religious clergy in the structure of the state;

and iv) the influence of the religious leadership on the political development of the

country. While reviewing the pre-military hegemonic period from 1947 to 1958, Binder

(Ibid) declares three main groups of the modern secularists, the traditionalists, and the

fundamentalists as the trend setting forces in the political culture of Pakistan. Difference

of opinion between these varying groups posed severe challenges to the political

development of the society of pluralistic footings.

Hussain (Ibid) has declared that the landlord elites, political elites, religious elites,

industrial elites, the professional elites and the military elites were the main contenders of

power in the political system of Pakistan. Declaring Pakistan an ideological state he

argues that religious clergy had a deep rooted support in the traditional society of

Pakistan. He also affirms that the political development in the country should be on the

religious grounds not the feudal footings. To him the initial problem of Pakistan was

more of administrative nature that that of political. In that phase religious leadership

could have played a very important role. But they were not given due space in the

political structure of the state. Even then they contributed significantly especially in the

formulation of the constitution of the religious footings. He concludes that when the

popular forces of the society were not given their due representation in the political

system, the civil and military bureaucracy and the feudal classes got a chance to establish

their hegemony on the state structure. This in turn caused a big damage to the political

development in the society.


43/49

48

1.5.4 Praetorian Approach

The figure 1.1 shows that political development must be measured by political

institutionalization. Through this diagram Huntington Asserts that political development

is not an inevitable path of progress, however political decay is always a possibility. He

further argues that political organizations and procedures must have acquired value in the

perspective of the society, and a certain level of stability to endure momentous progress.

Khalid B. Saeed (1967) has studied the political system of Pakistan, right from its origin

up to 1965. Studying politics of Pakistan from 1947 to 1958, he has declared it the

politics of conflict. He traces the reasons of these conflicts in the constitutional autocracy,

military and bureaucracy alliance, the raison detre of Pakistan i.e. Islam, politics of

regionalism and the political parties. Apparently these conflicts were between the civil

and military bureaucracy and the political leaders but their causes were embedded deep in

the political culture of Pakistan. All the political parties and the political leaders of East

Pakistan had no clarity and uniformity on the point of provincial autonomy. Similarly, the

politicians of West Pakistan had no consensus on different political problems and were

segmented into different groups, protecting their own vested interests. Politicians of

Punjab and Sindh had the feudal conflicts also, which culminated in turn into the political

feuds. Such a state of affairs had its impacts on the society which left the political system

unable to maintain and strengthen its institutions and to face the challenges from military

and civil bureaucracy.


44/49

49

Keith Callard (1968) opines that Pakistani idealised democracy but did not know

how to materialise it. He declares the initial period of Pakistan as the period of change

and uncertainty. There had been certain fixed ideas and few institutions whose validity

had never been open to question. Political parties have waxed waned and suffered eclipse

in Pakistan. Religious leaders have laid their claim to complete authority and superiority

and have achieved almost none. The state on the other side, has largely been run by the

Civil Service, backed be the Military. Military and bureaucracy mainly from Punjab have

carried much in the state of Pakistan as they did before its creation. Political leaders and

political parties were, however, unable to set the system right.

Lawrence Ziring (2003) also labels the responsibility of the weaknesses of party

politics in Pakistan on the political leaders, factional politics and the structural

weaknesses of the political parties. The creation of a civil society, to him, continued to

elude the nation and the socio-political balance was still maintained by a steel frame of

civil-military administration. The parties on the other side were not yet the disciplined

expressions of societal aspirations. The Punjabis dominated the political life, the

administrative structure, the military establishment, the economy and the general decision

making process in the country. This basically was an extension of the colonialism legacy.

Then the externalities of the political experience in Pakistan are another negative factor in

the development of political equation. The vast majority of Pakistanis are a gullible

congeries of factions, clans and tribes. Manipulation of these all by the traditional, as well


45/49

50

as, contemporary power brokers remains the central focus of the political experience in

Pakistan and gives space for the interference of civil and military bureaucracy.

Rounaq Jahan (1972) has studied Pakistans failure in national integration. The

study mainly focuses the Ayub period that is 1958-1969. While addressing the problem

of national integration in Pakistan she argues that that East West imbalance and the

problem of sub-regionalism in West Pakistan hampered the process of national

integration in Pakistan. Then the political leaders could neither evolve nor strengthen the

existing political institutions in the formative phase of 1947 to 1958.In the absence of the

political institutions and organised political parties the civil-military bureaucracy

assumed de facto political power and dismissed the politicians as superfluous and as

impediments to modernisation. She has referred the view of C. B. Marshall (1959:253),

that West Pakistan is governmental, whereas East Pakistan is political. West Pakistan

especially Punjab has contributed more to the civil-military administration. Such

assimilation, however, was opposed by the Bengalis. Vernacular elite especially Bengalis

already deprived of their due representation were further restricted from military and

bureaucracy nonetheless the decision making. Nationalist politicians of West Pakistan

and bureaucracy empowered the nationalist elements which in turn damaged the process

of national integration of Pakistan.


46/49

51

Rafiq Afzal (1976) opines that a long experience of Muslim leadership with the

British parliamentary institutions principally determined the possible political framework

of Pakistan. The period from 1947 up to 1958 represents the first experiment with the

parliamentary form of democracy. The main causes for the military intervention were the

immature and baloney politics of the political leaders and unorganised structure of the

political parties in action. Punjabi-Bengali political tussle gave birth to factions and the

politics of forward block in Pakistan weakened the party politics and the political culture

of Pakistan.

Hasan Askari Rizvi analyses the early period of Pakistan and assumes that

Pakistan was lacking in the organised political parties and their leadership. Regional,

factional and prejudiced political forces were engaged in political bargaining. Such

violations of political norms undermined the political culture. Resultantly political

institutions could not be established. This whole state of affairs left the political parties

unable to compete with the Punjab based civil and military bureaucracy. Political elites

on the other side could not take up the situation properly rather they themselves became

stooges in the hands of apolitical forces.

Waseem (1989) studied the politics of Pakistan with the view that the authority

structure of the state as inherited from the British India provided a focal point for the

countrys politics. Though apparently the political community seemed to dominate the

political scene through ideological movements, ethnic violence, election campaigns and

legislative activity etc. but it was the structure of the state which was primarily

responsible for shaping the political events throughout the post independence period. In


47/49

52

this way primarily the Punjabi legal and constitutional authority occupied the central

stage while the political actors had a propensity either to seek support from it or

otherwise to restrict its legitimizing potential.

Jalal (1969) had conducted a comparative and historical study of the interplay

between politics and authoritarian states in the post-colonial South Asia. She elucidated

how a common British colonial legacy led to the essentially contrasting patterns of

political development military authoritarianism in Pakistan and Bangladesh and

democracy in India. The study unfolded that how in spite of having differences in forms,

central political authority in each state came to confront broadly comparable threats from

linguistic and regional dissidence, religious and communal strife, along with the caste as

well as class conflicts. After comparing and contrasting the political processes and statestructures the researcher had evaluated and redefined citizenship, nation-state,

sovereignty and democracy. Finally she has recommended a more decentralized

governmental structure better able to arbitrate between ethnic and regional separatist

movements. Another work by Jalal (1990) contains much detail on Punjabi politics

during the first decade of Pakistans independence. She links domestic and regional

factors with international imperatives in the cold war era to explain Pakistans defense

influenced state construction. She puts responsibility on the feudal domination of Punjabi

society on the political structure of Pakistans economy.

Talbot (1999) has developed a sense of the Pakistans history by examining the

interplay between colonial inheritances and contemporary socio-economic and strategic

environments. The same importance he has given to the analyses of politics at regional as

well as national levels. Reaction of the state towards demands for augmented political

participation and devolution of power has also been of vital importance. Similarly the

sensitivity of minorities about the Punjabisation of Pakistan is also not ignorable.

Finally, Talbot focuses the long-standing problems of weak institutionalization and

viceregalism which are rooted in the colonial legacy of the state.


48/49

53

1.6 METHODOLOGY

The authenticity of the present research rests on the scientific method, it follows. The

researcher has observed competing approaches to social science research based on

different philosophical assumptions about the purpose of science and the nature of social

reality. The three established alternative ideal-type competing approaches to social

science are Positivism, Interpretive Social Science, and Critical Social Science (Benton,

1977; Blaikie, 1993). Each approach is associated with different traditions in the social

theory and diverse research techniques. This linkage among the broad approaches to

social science, social theory, and research techniques is basically not stringent (Bredo and

Feinberg, 1982). These approaches are indeed similar to a research programme or the

scientific paradigm (Lloyd, 1986). A paradigm is an idea introduced by the philosopher

of science Thomas Kuhn (1970). It stands for the basic orientation to theory and research.

A scientific paradigm is a whole system of thinking. It includes basic assumptions, the

principle questions to be addressed, and the research techniques to be used (Eckberg and

Hill, 1979: 937-947; Masterman, 1970: 59-90). The positivist approach is used in the

present study to answer the basic questions of the present research. Richard Miller

(1987:4) observed that Positivism is the most common philosophical outlook on

science. Though positivism is broadly defined as an approach of the natural science,

positivist social science however is also widely prevalent.


49/49

Positivism is associated with many social theories. Its best linkage is nevertheless

to the framework of structural-functional theory. As the same framework of structural

functionalism is used by Huntington (1977), so the present research done in the

Huntingtons framework has applied the very same framework of structural

functionalism. Positivist researchers prefer precise quantitative data and often use

experiments and statistics. They seek rigorous exact measures and objective analyses by

testing hypotheses and carefully analysing numbers from the measures (Keat and Urry,

1975: 25). Following the same footprints the present research is relying mainly on the

quantitative type of data and is using election statistics for an objective analysis of the

participation of voters and the political parties in the political system of Punjab.

Furthermore positivism sees social science as an organised method for combining

deductive logic with precise empirical observations of individual behaviour in order to

discover and confirm a set of probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general

patterns of human activity (Longino, 1990: 62-82). As per the nature of the present

research, the deductive logic of enquiry is used for an empirical observation of the

political behaviour of the society determining the universe of the study. The same

criterion is applied on the behaviour of the political parties under observation.

lapalombara e weiner.pdf

Documents