Qn. 3. How is the modern comparative politics approach different from the traditional legal- institutional approach? (2010/II/1a/20m)
Joh Blondel defines the Comparative politics as “the study of patterns of national governments in the contemporary world”. The traditional legal-institutional approach to comparative politics studies formal institutional structures and legal processes. Modern approaches sought value neutrality and include political system, political economy, political sociology, behavioural, psychological, quantitative, simulation and Marxian approaches, etc. As the concept of ‘political system’ replaced ‘political state’, emphasis shifted from traditional methods to modern functional methods.
Traditional legal-institutional approach or structural approach or institutional-functional approach denotes the study of formal structures of a political organisation, such as executive, legislature, judiciary, party system and interest groups. Its adopters were Aristotle, Polybius, Laski, Bryce, Finer, Bentley, Duverger, Sartori, Truman, Latham, Bagehot, Ogg, Munro, Crick etc. The legal approach or juridical approach or formal-legal approach is the study of legal processes and institutions – here, political scientists see the state as a maintainer of an effective and equitable system of law and order. Juridical analysts include Cicero, Bodin, Hobbes, Bentham, Dicey, Sevigny, Grotius, Jellinek and Maine. Traditional approaches were criticised for being Euro-centric, noncomparative, descriptive, parochial, static and monographic (Macridis). Modern approaches of comparative politics, with emphasis on fact-laden politics, is marked by empirical investigation of relevant data. It was fuelled by the need for more integration, which was not hinted at by traditionalists. Studies of developing nations were called for. Political scientists like Easton and Almond focused on the concept of ‘political system’, instead of the limited ‘political state’. The boundaries of political enquiry became more fluid and non-specific. The focus was on function, role, structure, relevance etc. of political aspects e.g. structural functional approach. Major modern approaches would be political system, political economy, political sociology, behavioural, psychological, quantitative, simulation and Marxian approaches, etc.
Differences between traditional and modern approaches: Normative traditional approaches gave way to scientific modern approaches. To study developing areas, the focus shifted from text to context. Study of constitutions was not enough to understand politics. While traditional methods studies governments, modern approaches studied politics. As ‘system’ replaced ‘state’, emphasis shifted from the traditional legal-institutional approach to modern functional methods. Function substituted power, role substituted office and structure substituted institution. This substitution was claimed to be the solution to the problem of studying different categories of political systems.
The claim was the limitations of institutional approach would be overcome by identifying universal characteristics – that different political systems essentially perform the same function. Traditional approaches studied the relatively uniform west, where there is less social and cultural variety.
Comparative features will not be found. Political structures in developing countries are multifunctional and culturally ‘mixed’, allowing better comparative studies. Modern approaches recognize this, while traditional ones were not comparative in the true sense.
Conclusion: As the limitations of outdated traditional methods became prominent, precipitating a crisis in the discipline of political science, modern approaches emerged. The modern comparative approaches sought to comprehend the various political aspects needed for becoming truly comparative. It increased the scope and enriched comparative politics.