ADVERTISEMENTS:
Origin of Systems Analysis and Development:
It is not at all difficult to trace the origin of general systems analysis which evoked a good deal of interest and enthusiasm in the minds of large number of political scientists. The chief cause of the emergence of general systems analysis is the widespread discontent against the traditional system of political analysis which mainly focused its attention on law, constitution, enactment of legislation, the application of law, the main functions of the three main branches of government and this overemphasis ultimately resulted in the negligence of the overall responsibility and crucial role of state in the entire milieu of social framework.
It was believed that the social, economic and political activities of men constitute a process and the society as a whole is made up of a series of processes. One type of function cannot be separated from another since they are all interlinked. The traditional way of emphasising the institution was found to neglect this aspect of human behaviour and social character.
In the traditional analysis of earlier epochs there was no place of any comprehensive investigation of political systems of different countries. This was felt essential during the mid-fifties of the last century. Davies and Lewis are of opinion {Models of Political Systems) that only a proper comparison among various systems can provide a basis for broad-based analysis.
Traditional political scientists did not treat political science in that light and this created a spectacular shortcoming in the entire analytical system of political science and after the Second World War (1939-45) some dedicated students of political science came forward to rectify the incomplete approach to the study of political science.
This opened the way of a new system of analysis commonly known as comparative study of politics. The pioneer of this new approach, among others, is Gabriel Almond. It was felt that only a comparative analysis is free from narrowness in outlook. A down to earth analysis of politics must encompass all its aspects and not alone institutions, parties and the organisations.
Davies and Lewis have observed that four “practical considerations” provided powerful impetus to the emergence of general systems theory. After the S. W. W. it was found that democracy (in Western sense) could not function properly and satisfactorily in some countries of Europe and prominent among them was Germany. The same also failed in Italy. It was felt that this situation was required to be explained. But the traditional method of analysing political phenomena was incapable of explaining it.
In the second place, the traditional political science dealt with the state systems of Europe which fell mainly in the category of democracy and its variants. But after the S. W. W. the colonies of European imperial powers began to achieve political independence and in many cases their political structures and administration provided ample scope for studying political science.
But the traditional method of political science proved quite inadequate and political scientists of the new age went out in search of new methods. The political systems of Britain, France, America, Switzerland proved in one way or other unsuitability for the social, political and economic conditions of the newly independent countries of Europe.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The political scientists of the post-S. W. W. period ardently desired to enter into the depth. This urge was so indomitable that some political scientists founded a new approach to the study, of politics.
In the third place, top ranking researchers and many serious students of political science were determined to construct a scientific foundation for the study of political science so that a theoretical analysis of the political, social and economic institutions of Asia and Africa could be done successfully. In a word, the researchers were eager to form an all-embracing model for analysis of political science.
Finally, towards the end of nineteenth century and in the first few decades of the twentieth century, Marxism and at the same time Marxian study posed a serious threat to liberal political system and the orthodox exponents of liberalism were determined not to pass Marxism unscathed. They decided to counteract Marxism academically and without a new approach and scientific method this could not be performed. This provided a powerful impetus for finding out a new approach to the study of political science.
Impact of Anthropological and Sociological Studies:
Two anthropological studies made by Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) and Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) and sociological study of Auguste Comte (1798-1857) created a tremendous impact upon the analysis of political science. The anthropological and sociological studies greatly emphasise that the study of society and that of the state cannot be separated from each other. These studies have also pointed out that any society as well as the state must be viewed in their totality.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
One aspect of state and society is not different from another aspect. After studying social development Comte arrived at the conclusion that the form of society and the various stages of its development have influenced the functioning and structure of state. Naturally a study of state cannot be done in complete isolation; Comte said that politics and state could not be studied by applying traditional methods of analysis since they were partial in their approach. Naturally a general system approach was necessary.
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown thought that all the parts of the society are closely connected and these parts could not be separated. This they have called the organismic character of society. The state also possesses the same character. Their opinion runs as follows. Only a general system approach can provide us with a fruitful way of studying political science.
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown have also demonstrated that the functions of each part of society and of the state are closely linked with each other and these in their turn influence the state and society in their totality. Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown have designated it as functionalism. In summary the general system approach stresses the notion that all the parts and aspects of society are linked and a comprehensive approach can reveal true nature of politics.
It is thus obvious that Comte, Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown all were seriously concerned with the integration and solidarity of society and state. Society and state are structured in such a way that their functions always contribute to the solidarity and maintenance.
If there were no effective and powerful co-ordination, integrative nature of state or society could survive. French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858- 1914) also drew our attention to the integrative nature of society and state.
All the anthropologists and sociologists have concluded that the functions of the various parts of society and state are performed in such a manner that each function of each part helps in number of ways the functions of other parts. In this process state and society progress. There are also conflicts and these are resolved by the parts of society and state. The parts function keeping the conflict in mind.
Any analysis of the impact of sociology upon the general systems theory will remain incomplete without any mention of Talcott Parsons who has brought about a revolution in the sociological thought system and its relation to the study of politics. His famous work The Social System was published in 1951. He has said that the study of politics cannot be treated in terms of a specifically specialised conceptual scheme. Precisely for the reason that political problems of social system is a focus for integration of all its analytically distinguished components, not of a specially differentiated class of these components.
In The Social System Parsons makes an effort to develop a conceptual scheme that will reflect the systemic interconnectedness of social systems. He further maintains that in the social system there are several actors and among them there are interactions and these interactions are ultimately institutionalised.
Parsons asserts that the interactions and the institutionalisation show the inter-relationship among actors and the interconnectedness among the various parts of society. How can a social system be explained? A social system, observes Parsons, must have a “Sufficient proportion of its component actors adequately motivated to act in accordance with the requirements of its role system.”
Bagehot and Wallas:
The works of two Englishmen, whose works influenced the General Systems Theory, are Sir Walter Bagehot and Graham Wallas. Bagehot’s famous work The English Constitution, published in 1865 (more particularly end of 1865 and beginning of 1866), contained the ideas, in embryonic form, of the General Systems Theory. What Bagehot said in this book is that the social conditions, which prevailed in Britain during the nineteenth century, influenced the formation of various political institutions. Side by side there were also unseen processes and influences that guided the activities of people—both general and in power.
Sometimes these influences and processes were unavoidable. He has further said that both the political institutions and invisible process and behaviour provided devices for all sorts of security and stability in the arena of politics. Bagehot makes the following observation: “There is a great difficulty in the way of a writer who attempts to sketch a living constitution- constitution that is in actual work and power. The difficulty is the object is in constant change”.
The point is social factors have positive influence upon the political institutions and processes. But they always fluctuate and the fluctuation is unpredictable. From this observation made by Bagehot the political scientists of the second-half of the 20th century have deduced the General Systems Theory.
Graham Wallas’ Human Nature in Politics, published in 1908, may be cited as another example. This book laid the foundation of socio-psychological aspects of political science and this in turn made quite easy the advent of General Systems Theory, Wallas has said that man’s thoughts and ideas are not always influenced by rationality and enlightenment but by social and other factors upon which he has hardly any control. We can thus conclude that human behaviour and sociological factors have positive influences upon the political institutions and organisations.
We can thus; following Wallas hold the view that what we call politics is, in ultimate analysis, a part of whole society. Needless to say that Wallas, attempt to view politics in the context of psychology created ripples in the academic circle and in the world of politics.
In conclusion it may be observed that on the cause of the rise of General Systems Theory and its development sociology and anthropology have positive parts. Walter Bagehot also had an important role to play. But the major part of credit should go to the former.
Some thinkers such as Davies and Lewis feel that the famous German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) devised a thought system for sociological studies and that provided a great clue for the preparation of a foundation of General System Theory. His theory or paradigm was chiefly meant for sociology but it indirectly helped political science in general and General Systems Theory in particular. In fact, this theory is indebted to sociology.
Definitions of Allied Concepts:
The analysis of the General Systems Theory contains certain uses and concepts which are unknown in the traditional political analysis. One such concept is political system. An important definition is to be found in Almond and Coleman’s book. According to Almond “the political system is that system of interaction to be found in all independent societies which perform the functions of integration and adaptation (both internally vis-a-vis other societies) by means of employment or threat of employment, of more or less legitimate physical compulsion.
The political system is the legitimate order maintaining and transforming system in the society”. In another well known book Almond has elaborated the term political system in the following way. “Political systems”, according to Almond are “a particular type of social system—namely one involved in the making of authoritative public decision….. Political system is a set of institutions such as parliaments, bureaucracies and courts that formulate and implement the collective goals of society or groups within it”.
In any society there are numerous institutions and all of them are in one way or other involved in relations and interactions. All these combinedly constitute the political system. From these two definitions we come to know that political system consists of many subsystems which are intrinsically related with each other.
In the opinion of Robert Dahl—political system is a “persistent pattern of human relationship that involves, to a significant extent, control, influences, power or authority”. Associations consist of different types of persons having different professions and occupations and in spite of this all the individuals are members of the association.
Now the association deals with various activities including political. Robert Dahl says that a political system is only a part of association. A political system is concerned with parliament, judiciary and bureaucracy. An association has also other aspects which do not enter into the political system.
Defining political system, Easton makes the following observation: Political system is empirical or concrete. He elaborates this in the following words—”all those kinds of activities involved in the formulation and execution of social policy, in what has come to be called elliptically in political science, the policy making process, constitute the political system.” Easton has offered us two concepts simultaneously.
One is political science and the other is political system. Social policies are adopted and then implemented. It is the responsibility of the political system to adopt and implement the policies. But the implementation of policies is not an automatic process, there is deliberate attempt behind the implementation and this again involves authority.
We shall now turn to a brief analysis of System. Oxford Concise Dictionary defines system as a complex whole or set of things working together as a mechanism or inter-connecting network. Hence a system consists of several parts and they are connected with each other. This makes the parts interdependent of each other. The interdependence or relationship among the parts is complex.
The system consisting of several parts works like a machine. The core idea about system is interconnectedness. If the interconnectedness is lost the system will have no meaning. The concept of interdependence of different parts of political system is derived from other sciences and even from sociology. This aspect is very important.
The term system is generally related with biology in which the concept is seriously used. A human being or an animal body consists of a large number of parts and all of them work combinedly. If one part of the organic body fails to discharge its allotted function that will considerably disturb the functions of other parts.
The noted biologist Ludwig Bertallanfy is of opinion that every organism represents a system by which term we mean complex of elements in mutual interaction. Each part and each individual event depends not only on conditions within itself but also to a greater or lesser extent or conditions within the whole.
We have already mentioned that a part of the organic body cannot work independently upon others. The interdependence is of prime importance. Though the system analysis is compared with human or animal body, the comparison should not be stretched too far. Comparison works within limitation.
Political System and Environment:
In general system theory environment forms a basic part because in the entire environment there are several systems and sub-systems. In one way or other the subsystems are interconnected and this interconnection does not depend upon the behaviour of any particular person. Niklas Luhmann is a well-known sociologist. He says that social system is a broad concept and political system is a part of the social system.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
As the individuals are interrelated with each other they, in a general way, through their relationship, build up a social system. But social system is limited and is a part of the environment. “All social systems exist in multidimensional environments, which pose potentially endless complexity with which a system must deal.” Thus the chain of relation is quite obvious. Political system, social system and environment all are interconnected. All are connected by a communication network.
The information or idea of a system or sub-system is communicated to another system or sub-system and the latter reacts and the reaction is again communicated to the former or to any other sub-system or any part of the social system. Naturally, the concepts of environment appear in our idea.
Davies and Lewis say that the concepts of system and sub-system invite the entry of environment because sub-system is a part of a larger system. The sub-system may have its separate existence but it cannot remain outside the larger system. Every subsystem and system must have its boundary. But the boundary of a system or subsystem is not fixed, it may change. This makes us to think about environment.
According to Davies and Lewis: “The environment of an object is constituted by anything that surrounds that object”. A political system may be a separate system but it is not detached from other aspects of social system. That is, a political system is a part of environment of society. In any society there are political, economic, cultural and other systems. Naturally political system is never capable of determining everything of society. There are also biological systems and sometimes they influence political system.
Conclusion:
From the above analysis we can reasonably frame a view that political system is an open system. Open in the sense that it is influenced by other systems as well as other systems also influence political system. A system analysis is not concerned with individuals as such but with their roles because an individual plays different roles and system analysis or political system mainly deals with the political role of the individuals. Mainly because sometimes political scientists consider the other roles of individuals.