Lapalombara e Weiner.pdf
Download Lapalombara e Weiner.pdf...
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 researcher’s 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
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: 3140), “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.
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
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
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 society’s 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
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 Kaplan’s 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 loosely–knit 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
support”. Encyclopedia Encarta (2001) notes: “Political Parties are organizations that mobilize voters on behalf of a common set of interests, concerns, and goals. In many nations, parties play a crucial role in the democratic process. They formulate political and policy agendas, select candidates, conduct election campaigns, and monitor the work of their elected representatives. Political parties link citizens and the government, providing a means by which people can have a voice in their government.”
Marxist view of political party on the other side is, indeed, an antithesis of its liberal counterpart. Contrary to the liberal emphasis on party as a ‘doctrine’, it gives the idea of a party as a ‘class’, which fights for initiating a new phase culminating in the era of communism. Lenin (1904) opines that “the proletariat has no weapon in the struggle for power except organization …..Constantly pushed down to the depths of complete poverty, the proletariat can and will inevitably become an unconquerable force only as a result of this: that its ideological union by means of the principles of Marxism is strengthened by the material union of an organization , holding together millions of toilers in the army of the working class .”
The communist party is, basically, declared by Lenin (1904:725) as the ‘vanguard of the revolution’ for the working class. The same view is reflected in the text of a resolution adopted at the Congress of Communist International in 1920 that said: “The communist party is created by means of the selection of the best, most class-conscious
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).
Lenin’s 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 party’s 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
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 ourselves in a vicious circle of
(1964), has noted “we find
: 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 19501962 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
representatives of their respective parties.
Finally, the term “placing” should be
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.
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
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).
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)
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
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 Duverger’s 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
political systems work with each other to form coalition governments. This had been a promising trend in the politics of Pakistan during the period under study.
The study of political development has its roots in the 1950s.The conscious conceptualization and systemization of this notion, however, took place mainly in 1960s. That decade, indeed, saw an epic outpouring of academic research on the meaning, components, sequences, crises, causes, consequences, dimensions, patterns, uses and the theories of political development. A series of bibliographical discussions of this literature include mainly the works of Hah and Schneider (1968: 359-92), Montgomery (1969), Deutsch (1961:493-514), Huntington (1971: 283-322), Packenham (1964:108-20) and that of Pye (1966).
The Main factor behind this outpouring was mainly the outcome of two main streams of scholarly activities. One was the expansion of area study programs in the 1950s. The second stream contributing to the study of political development stemmed from what is known as “behavioural revolution” in political science. Actually prior to World War II scholars of comparative politics limited their attention mainly to Western Europe and North America. After World War II, however, their interest shifted to the cold war against Soviet Union and then onto the American expansion policies and pursuits in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa. The behavioural revolution,
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.
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.
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).
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. ii. iii.
Historical; Typological, and; 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
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.
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).
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
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 society’s 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:
eyes of the elites of the new states therefore entails the dethronement of the rich and the
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.
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: 3345) 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
3). Political Development as Political Modernisation 4). Political Development as the Operation of a Nation State 5). Political Development as Administrative and Legal Development 6). Political Development as Mass Mobilization and Participation 7). Political Development as the Building of Democracy 8). Political Development as Stability and Orderly Change 9). Political Development as Mobilization and Power 10). Political Development as One Aspect of a Multi-Dimensional Process of Social Change.
Pye has dealt with the matter at length and has tried to cover the maximum aspects of the issue, but have declared them all insufficient to develop or evolve a theory of political development. The first theory that is “Political Development as the Political Prerequisite of Economic Development” was primarily based on the problem of economic development and their transformation towards self-sustainability. Buchanan and Ellis (1955), Baran (1957), Hirschman (1958), Higgins (1959), and Ward (1962), has applied this perspective on the study of political development. Pye (Op.Cit.: 33-34), however has declared this view of political development essentially negative. Basically, the pattern of development was naturally varying with the variation of nature, problems or situation of different societies. Secondly, economies manifestly change more slowly than political arrangements. Certain societies have even experienced substantial political change without any experience of industrial development or generous economic growth (Ibid: 34).
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.
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
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
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 nature’s 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
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 multidimensional 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.
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 development per 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 participation─ voting, 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
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’, ‘cooperative 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, Huntington’s (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
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:
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
positive with political institutionalisation and the political development, rather goes negative if superfluous, as considered by Huntington. He has seen the dynamic thrust as coming from negative factor i.e. ‘political participation’, that whether it results in political instability and decay or in political order and development depends upon the capacity of political institutions of a society to contend with it through their adaptability, complexity, autonomy and coherence. The Figure is showing the same correlation through a diagram given in the figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: Political Institutionalisation, political Participation and Political Development
Tolerable Range Order/
Instability / Decay
High Political Participation / demand
SOURCE: Huntington, Samuel P. (1968:79). Political Order in Changing Societies.
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 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: 401402).
Huntington’s 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’.
A number of scholars have explored in to the politics of Pakistan, but very few have focused on the politics of Punjab. A brief review of them all shows that they have studied the problems in different perspectives as per the difference of their approach to view the phenomenon. The works of these researchers can be categorised into four main approaches i.e. ‘Elitist Approach’, ‘Marxian Approach’, ‘Ideological Approach’, and ‘Praetorian Approach’. 1.5.1 ELITIST APPROACH i.
Robert La Porte
1.5.2 MARXIST APPROACH i.
1.5.3 IDEOLOGICAL APPROACH i.
1.5.4 PRAETORIAN APPROACH i. Simon P. Huntington ii.
K. B. Saeed
Hasan Askari Rizvi
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’
“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
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.
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. 46
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.
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 d’etre 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.
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
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 Pakistan’s 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.
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 country’s 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
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 state structures 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 Pakistan’s independence. She links domestic and regional factors with international ‘imperatives’ in the cold war era to explain Pakistan’s defense influenced state construction. She puts responsibility on the feudal domination of Punjabi society on the political structure of Pakistan’s economy.
Talbot (1999) has developed a sense of the Pakistan’s 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.
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.
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 Huntington’s 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.