ADVERTISEMENTS:
Political culture approach has been very popular for conducting comparative studies and making empirical analyses of transitional societies. Scholars have liked to investigate political behaviour and processes in the context of their political cultures. Almond, Verba and Pye have been its pioneers. Borrowing concepts from Sociology and Anthropology, Almond has developed a methodology for comparative studies of political cultures.
He believes that all political cultures can be comparatively studied on that basis. For Almond, political system is a system of roles which can be empirically observed and understood scientifically. He studied, besides legal-institutions, family relations, mass-behaviour, electoral system, power, influence and the like.
The basis of his classification and analysis of the political systems is their structures and cultures. Both are related to each other. Political culture of a society is deeply influenced by its structures, and vice versa. For explaining relationship between them he picked up orientation of roles and political actions.
All political activity reflects attempts made to attain maturity. Attitudes, feelings and preferences are their indicators. To him, political system is an interactive set of roles or is a structure of roles. In some societies, degree of differentiation of role is more, while it is less in others.
The boundaries within which a political system operates to attain its goals and purposes make space of its culture. He discovered three models of political systems, which reflect attitudes of individuals towards political activity. They are like Weberian ideal-types. He measures political culture of a society on the basis of its orientation towards political action and political structures. Orientation of an individual involves cognitive understanding of political objects, events, acts and disputes; his emotional attachment; and methods and rules of evaluation.
An individual’s objective knowledge usually stands on under-mentioned four grounds:
1. Understanding of the whole system;
2. Input processes which are connected with transforming structures like political parties, bureaucracy etc.;
ADVERTISEMENTS:
3. Output processes include acts of executive offices, judiciary, bureaucracy etc.; and
4. Self which involves matters of personality, such as, rights, powers, possessions and obligations.
One can know political culture on the basis of these grounds.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
There is close relation between political culture and political system. Political culture is the basis of survival of all old and modern political systems. A political community, even without having ‘state’, can exist as a polity or political system. Whatever be the form of a political system – developing or developed, it does possess some form or pattern of political culture. Stateless political systems like the United Nations Organisation (UN), many international and regional organisations, are more or less, operating on the basis of some form of political culture.
Observing important and role of political culture for a political system, many scholars at advanced stage of theoretical sophistication, are trying to move ahead from political culture ‘approach’ to political culture ‘theory’. However, their attempts are being severely criticised. It has been observed that political culture is a new name for an old existing concept. Hardly there is consensus on its variables, indicators and methods of study and measurement.
One can know a lot about the political culture of a political system on the basis of his own insight or intuition. Political culture continues to grow, turn complex and appear more and more subtle. When it is said that political culture is the directing and determining element or force of political structures, and is also an outcome of cultural values, the whole argument looks circular. In fact, political culture approach is a by-product of modernisation and development theories. It is not certain whether they regard it independent variable or dependent variable, e.g., cause or effect. As such, the whole perspective happens to become conservative, static and anachronistic.
When looked from this view, ‘civic culture’ of Almond and Verba suffers, centring on the political cultures of USA or Great Britain, from bias and prejudice. Arendt Lipzart has pointed out that prevalence of homogeneous values is not an essential element of political cultures of Germany and Italy. He found institutional participation of the elites much more relevant. He calls them as ‘consociational democracy’.
Pateman too does not accept cause-effect relations between stability of a democracy and its political culture. D. Kavanagh finds the role of sub-political cultures as more important. In the past, Almond and Powell had also tried to rescue themselves from this plight by resorting to the concept of ‘secularization’. Thus, no final conclusion comes out.