Modern political system (Types of political system)

Modern political system (Types of political system)
They are differentiated from each other on the basis of the principles of
1). Democracy 
2). Modernity. 
A political system is said to be democratic if its political subsystem, like political parties or interest groups, enjoy autonomy with regard to the decision-making governmental system. If not, it is a traditional political system. Hence there are four types of political systems, as under
1). Traditional non-democratic political system.
2). Traditional democratic political system.
3). Modern non-democratic Political System.
David Easton
The first political scientist to apply systems analysis to politics in his book, The Political System, which he wrote in 1953. The concept of political system was very formally the sold by the political scientist. Easton defines a political system is that system of the interactions in any society through which binding or authoritative allocations are made and implemented. Authoritative allocations relate to the values or objects or resources of human needs and desires. They can be roughly translated as laws or acts of policy.
Easton’s model of the political system consists of two main parts the environment and the political system as such. The political system consists of 
(1). The conversion process, 
(2). The inputs, 
(3). The outputs, 
(4). The feedback. According to Easton, there are, besides the political system, two other political systems. One of them is bellow it, which he called Para-political system, e.g. political panics, pressure groups, etc. and the other is above it, namely the international political system. But it is the national political system which is political system par excellence because it alone makes and implements authoritative decisions allocating values or goods and resources to individuals, and groups, in the society.


Advertisements

Definition of party system

Definition of party system: 
A political party has been defined as an organized body of people who stand for certain principles and policies in political life of the country, by whose co – operation they seek to promote the interest of the country as a whole. According to,
(I) Edmund Burke: 
A political party is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they all are agreed.”
(II) Stephen Leacock: 
By a political party we mean more or less an organized group of citizens who act together as political unit”
(III) Gilchrist: 
A Political party is an organized group of citizens who professes to share the same political views“

Theory of the separation of powers

Theory of the separation of powers
Since the ancient day of Aristotle, political writers have recognized the threefold distribution of governmental functions or powers. They are 
(1). The law making or legislature power.   
(2). The law-enforcing or executive power.  
(3). The law adjudicating or judicial power. Each power is exercised by its own department or organ of government.

Montesquieu theory
Montesquieu explained his theory in this word: “in every government there are three sorts of power: Legislative, Executive and judicial. The liberty of individual required that neither all these powers nor any two of them should be placed in the hands of one men or one body of men. 
(1). When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body , there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise that the king, who is also law maker, might  make and enforce the laws in a tyrannical manner. 
(2). If the judicial power is joined with the legislative , the life and liberty of the subject will be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. 
(3). Where the judicial power joined to the executive power, the judge might behave violence and oppression. 
(4). There would be an end of everything if the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, were to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of enforcing them and of trying the cases of individuals 

Relationship of political science with history and sociology.

Q.3. Relationship of political science with history and sociology.

Political science and history: 
There is closed and intimate relationship between political science and history. The relationship between political science and history is beautifully explained by.
John Seeley. “History without political science has no fruit and political science without history has no root”. To quote the same author again,
“Politics is vulgar when not liberalized by history and history fades into mere literature when it loses sight of its relation to politics”.
Freeman. “History is past politics and politics is present history “. They are complementary to each other.
Montesquieu and Bryce made use of historical materials to study political science.
Lord Bryce claims that, political science stands midway between history and politics, between the past and the present. It has drawn its materials from the one; it has to apply them to the other.
History deals with past events, movements revolutions, national struggles etc. and gives information about the origin and development of political institutions and thought. When various issues, concepts and terms, ideologies, are discussed in political science, their historical development is also taken into consideration.
Political science and sociology:
Sociology is the root of all social sciences. 
Auguste Comte is the father of sociology. Sociology is the study of Society. Political science and sociology are inter-related political scientists and sociologists contribute mutually for the benefit of whole society. For example, the institution of marriage and related problems after that, namely divorce are within the domain of sociology. How to solve these problems in a harmonious way for better standard of life is within the competence of political science.
What was once a sub-field of sociology has now takes the form of “political sociology” which is now a legitimate subfield of political science.
Historical method of political science
The present is the gift of the past. This is the reason why we seek help of history, when we study the origin, development and the present nature of such political institution as the State and the Government. The historical method supplements the experimental method. Montesquieu, Saving, Seeley, Maine Freeman and Laski are some of the eminent exponents of historical method. Sabine and other traditional writers attached great importance historical approach. “A political theory” according to Sabine is always advanced in reference to a pretty specific situation”. It is therefore essential to understand “the time, place and circumstances in which it was produced”.   
 Historical approach: When international political order is studied with reference to its past, it is known as historical approach. The historical approach to the study of international political order emphasizes the following:
1. Domestic and international political order is not static but dynamic in nature.
2. Historical background of every nation is important in analyzing the present international political order.
Institutional approach
This chapter is about the international political components that one has to understand from both historical and institutional perspectives. For a better understanding, the chapter is divided into two major parts.
The first part explains the term international political order from both historical and institutional framework.
In the second part, international and regional organizations are explained in detail to illustrate how far they were successful in maintaining international political order.
Students of political science must remember that international political order is not a static one but dynamic in nature. In the context of present globalized economic order and communication revolutions we live in a different world of political order.
The history of international political order is written in terms of continuity and change in domestic and international political relations. As a step in the direction of understanding such continuity and change, this chapter explores some ideas drawn from an institutional perspective. An institutional perspective is characterized in terms of organized and formalized efforts in order to bring the desired political order at regional and international level. Students of political science try to understand how and when international political order are created, maintained, changed, and abandoned.
Many of the key questions belong to a wider class of difficult questions about the dynamics of social order and development. How can order develop out of anarchy? What stabilizes an order? When and how does a stables order fall apart? How does peaceful change occur? Why do peaceful relations sometimes find themselves drawn into less peaceful confrontations? How is the search for order among collectivities linked to the search for order within them?
This chapter explains such questions. It considers a few distinctive ways of thinking about the history and existing international and regional political organizations and elaborates some of them as an example, the League of Nations, UNO, NAM and SAARC, which could be called an institutional approach to such thinking.

Austin’s theory of sovereignty (monistic view)

Austin’s theory of sovereignty (monistic view)
In the 19th century the theory of sovereignty as a legal concept was perfected by Austin, an English Jurist. He is regarded as a greatest exponent of Monistic Theory. In his book ‘Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) Austin observed’ “if a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society and that society (including superior) is a society political and independent.” To Austin in every state there exists an authority to which a large mass of citizen show compliance. This authority is absolute, unlimited and indivisible.
Austin’s theory of sovereignty depends mainly upon his view on nature of law. According to Austin “Law is a command given by a superior to inferior” the main tenets of Austin’s theory of sovereignty are as follows-
1. Sovereign power is essential in every political society.
2. Sovereignty is a person or body of persons. It is not necessary that sovereign should be a single person.
Sovereignty may reside in many persons also. Austin explains that a “Sovereign is not necessarily a single person, in the modern western world he is rarely so; but he must have so much of the attributes of a single person as to be a determinate.” To Austin state is a legal order, in which there is a supreme authority, which is source of all powers. Sovereignty is concerned with man, and every state must have human superior who can issue commands and create laws. Human laws are the proper subjects of state activity.
3. Sovereign power is indivisible. Division of sovereignty leads to its destruction. It cannot be divided.
4. The command of sovereignty is superior to over all individuals and associations. Sovereign is not bound to obey anyone’s order. His will is supreme. There is no question of right or wrong, just or unjust, all his commands are to be obeyed.
5. Austin’s theory says that the obedience to sovereign must be habitual. It means that obedience should be continuous. He also includes that is not necessary that obedience should come from the whole society. It is sufficient, if it comes from the lay majority of people. Obedience should come from bulk of the society otherwise there is no sovereign.
In brief we can say that sovereignty according to Austin is supreme, indivisible and unquestionable. Like all other theories of sovereignty Austin’s theory is also not free from criticism. The first criticism is regarding sovereignty residing in a determinate superior. Even sovereign’s acts are shaped by so many other influences, such as morals, values and customs of the society.

Political system


Political system

From Institutional to systemic Approach: 
Institutional approach in the study of politics has been common in the past. Political science was believed to be mainly, even exclusively, concerned with the study of such political institutions as the state and government, their various activities, pans and functions. In this approach, no attempt was made to see any relationship or effect both within and outside an institution. However this approach began to change at the end of the nineteenth and in the beginning of the twentieth century. It was brought about by a new approach to the study of a politics, which is known as system analysis. It was also due to the need for comparing different kinds of states and governments in the world, especially after the World War II.
System Analysis
From about 130 and especially since the behavioral revolution in 1950 the study of politics has been influenced by the concept is derived from biology and physical sciences, in which the focus is on systems. System is bounded regions in space-time, involving energy interchange among their parts, which are associated in functional relationship. In simpler words, it means that every living and non-living body consist of two or more parts, which are constantly acting and interceding with each other as well as with the environment around it, as a single operating whole, or as a system. Examples of such operating wholes or system are countless, for the whole universe is full of them. Some are very small and other immense in dimensions. The atom is a system, and so are molecules, crystals, viruses, clocks, engines, ocean fleets, animals (including humans), small groups, like families or schools, societies (including state or political systems), planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. If, however, we restrict ourselves to living systems, they are really behavior systems, which extend from viruses and animal to human societies and political system. Moreover, a system consists of two or more subsystems. For instance, human body, which is in itself a system, consist of several subsystem, such as the nervous system, the digestive system, the circulatory system, etc.
Definition of a system
A system is a structural functional organization of two or more separate but interdependent parts, which form an integrated whole o achieve some objectives. Each system has two or more subsystems within it, while it is itself a subsystem of a larger system, which forms its environment. For example, a family is a subsystem of the society, or a political party is a subsystem of the state which is itself a political system.
Every system has the following characteristics
(1). Inter-dependence
It means that the functioning of a system depends on the proper functioning of each one of its component parts. 
(2). Dynamic Equilibrium 
A system maintains itself throughout a limited period of time. If anything goes wrong in it, some regulatory mechanism comes into operation to restore equilibrium. 
(3). Activity 
A system is a flow process it exist to convert inputs into output. 
(4). Dependence on external environment
A system maintains itself by constantly interacting with the environment around it. Such a system is known as an open system.
Definition of political system 
A political system means a network of individuals, groups and organizations whose interactions, and relationships help to determine, enforce and interpret the rules and policies governing the behavior of the society. It includes not only the governmental institutions, such as legislature, courts, or administrative agencies but also all structures in their political aspects, as Almond says. Every political system exists with a social system or society, of which it is, a subsystem. The society around the political system is its environment, from which it is separated by its boundaries. The political system may be described as follow.
1). International political system – Which is the international community – IGO, INGO, etc.
2). National political system – The individual national system and individual states and gov:
3). Decision making sub system – Which is includes form of government constitution, political party, interest group etc…. 
4). Citizen as a voter which demand and support.



Legislature

Executive:

It is one of the three branches of government as given above. State functions through the executive, the namely the government. It is the duty of the executive or enforce the laws passed by the legislature.
The executive who exercise real power is the real executive. The executive who has nominal power is the normal executive. The President of India is the nominal executive. The union council of ministers led by the Prime Minister of India is the real executive. Parliamentary executive is chosen from the legislature and is responsible to the legislature. The executive in India is parliamentary in its character.
Powers and functions of executive are:
1. Enforcing law.  
2. Maintaining peace and order. 
3. Repelling aggression. 
4. Building friendly relations with other states. 
5. When necessary to wage war to protect the country. 
6. Making appointments to higher posts.
7. Raising money and spending them. 
8. Convening the sessions of the legislature and conducting business.
9. Issues ordinances whenever the legislature is to in session. 
10.Implement schemes and projects to improve he social and economic conditions of the people. 
11. Power to grant pardon, reprieve or remission of punishment.
Legislature: The legislature is the law making branch. The legislature has an important role in the amendment of the constitution. The legislature is a deliberative body where matters of social, economic and political concerns are discussed, debated and decided. The British parliament is said to be “the mother of parliaments”. It is the oldest legislature in the world. According to Prof. Laski, law- making is not the only function of the legislature but its real function is to watch the process of administration to safeguard the liberties of private citizens. The legislature of the union is called the parliament in India. It consists of two chambers.
1.The House of the People or the Lok Sabah as the Lower House. 2. The Council of State or the Rajya Sabah as the Upper House
The functions of legislature are:
a) Enact laws 
b) Oversee administration 
c) Pass the budget
d)Hear public grievances. 
e) Discuss subjects like
1)Development plans 
2) National policies 
3) International relations.
Judiciary:
Judiciary is the third important organ of the government machinery. Its main function is to interrupter laws and administers justice. Lord Bryce has said that there is to better test of excellence of government than the efficiency of its judicial system. The welfare of citizens depends to a larger extent upon the judiciary. Judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy. Its interpretation ensures justice, equality and liberty to all its citizens. An independent and impartial judiciary is an essential feature of a democratic setup.
The Supreme Court of India consists of a Chief Justice and other judges. The Supreme Court has its permanent seat in Delhi. According to 
Justice Hughes, “we are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is”.
Functions of judiciary:
1. Administration of justice. 
2. To determine what is law and what is the cope and meaning of it. 
3. To give advisory opinion on matters referred to it. 
4. To issue orders or writs for the purpose of preventing violation of rights and laws. 
5. to acts as guardian of the constitution.