Unit 1st

MEANING NATURE AND SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS

INTRODUCTION

The subject of comparative politics virtually constitutes a study in the direction of the ‘expanding horizon
of political science’ wherein we seem to have emerged from the ‘plains of doubts and darkness’ to a
‘higher plateau’ to see what our passionate endeavors, particularly of the skeptical decade of the 1950s
and the ‘determined decade’ of the 1960s, “have produced, in which the earlier high points of the
discipline have lost some of their erstwhile importance or at least are now seen in a new light, and those
whose significance suffered by neglect, have emerged in our perspective and awareness in the vale of
political knowledge, which contains both rushing torrents (i.e., political process as a whole) as well as
limped pools (i.e., speculative political thought)”. What has played the role of a motivating force in this
important direction is the quest to study ‘political reality’ through new techniques and approaches in a
way so that the entire area of ‘politics’ may be covered. As a result, not only study of the ‘government’
but the ‘governments’ has become the central concern that implies the taking of ‘decision’ whether “in the
United Nations, or a parish council, in a trade union or a papal conclave, in a board room or a tribe.”
Comparative politics has appeared as a subject of momentous significance on account of this vital reason
that a great deal of experimentation “is now going on with new approaches, new definitions, and new
research tools. Perhaps the main reason for the present intellectual ferment is a widespread feeling of
disappointment and dissatisfaction with the traditional descriptive approach to the subject.”

MEANING AND DEFINITIONS

The term ’comparative politics’ is of recent origin and came into vogue in the fifties of the present
century and is indicative of the expanding horizon of political science. The political scientists made a bid
to study political reality through new techniques and approaches. The old concepts were also seen in a
new light. One of the main reasons which encouraged the development of a new approach for the study of
politics was dissatisfaction with the traditional descriptive approach to the subject. The scholars laid
greater emphasis on the informal political process rather than political institutions and state. They
borrowed several ideas and concepts from other social sciences and provided political studies with a new
empirical orientation. Before we proceed further to distinguish between comparative government and
comparative politics, it shall be desirable to define comparative politics;

1. According to goldsmith: “comparative politics is the study of the forms of the political
organizations, their properties, correlations, variations and modes of change”
2. According to E A Freeman: “comparative politics is the comparative analysis of the various
forms of the government and diverse political institutions”
3. Michael Curtis: ‘comparative politics is concerned with the significant regularities, similarities,
and differences in the working of political institutions and political behaviors.
4. John blonde: comparative politics is the study of patterns of the national government in the
contemporary world’.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Although two terms ‘Comparative Politics’ and ‘Comparative government’ are used loosely and
interchangeably. There is a point of distinction between the two. Which are as follows?

1. A comparative government consists of institutions responsible for making collective decisions for
society. More narrowly, according to some thinkers, government refers to the top political level within
such institutions. Whereas, comparative politics defines as a process whose opinions or interests are
initially divergent, reach collective decisions that are generally accepted as binding on the group, and
enforced as common policy. For Miller, the political process typically involves elements of persuasion
and bargaining together with a mechanism for reaching a final decision.

2. The comparative government covers a comparative study of different political systems with special
emphasis on their institutions and functions. While as comparative politics emphasizes all that comes
within the purview of the State as well as non-State activities

3. The comparative government covers only in rulemaking, execution, and adjudication while
comparative politics not only deal with political activities but also takes help from Anthropology,
sociology, and Psychology.

4. Comparative government is concerned with significant activities of political institutions only while as
comparative politics is concerned with significant regularities, similarities, and differences in the working
of political institutions and political behavior.

5. Edward freeman attempts to bring out a distinction between the two in these words “By Comparative
government means that the study of political institutions and forms of government, while comparative
politics deals with micro as well as macro aspects of the political system”.

NATURE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Comparative Politics seeks to analyze and compare the political systems operating in various societies. In
doing so, it takes into account all the three connotations of political activity, the political process, and
political power. The political activity consists of all the activities involved in conflict resolution or the
struggle for power. Since the basic means of conflict-resolution is the authoritative allocation of values, it
involves an analysis of the process by which the authoritative values are made and implemented in all
societies. In this sense, politics stands for the political process. It involves the study of all formal as well
as no formal structures through which the political process gets operationalised. The political process
receives information and signals from the environment and then transforms this information and signals
into authoritative values. Finally, politics, being a struggle for power or a process of conflict resolution
through the use of legitimate power, involves a study of power or power relations in society. Laswell
describes politics as the process of shaping and sharing of power, Robert Dahl holds that politics involves
power rule and authority to a significant extent. Hence the study of politics naturally involves the study of
power. As such comparative politics involves the study and comparison of political activity, political
process and struggle for power in various political systems. It seeks to analyze and compare political
systems in a holistic way as well as through a comparative analysis of their structures, functions,
infrastructures and processes.
Comparative Politics nowadays characterized by several features. Some important features are:

Analytical and Empirical investigation

The analytical and empirical method adopted by the writers belonging to the latest phase has enlarged the
field of our inquiry as it ‘has cleared up the mist in which many helpful distinctions within the framework
of political studies lay obscured’. Eckstein has referred to the late decades of the 19 th century as a period
in which political science, influenced by ‘primitive positivism’ affected a divorce between its normative
and its descriptive concerns. By and large, they retained the analytical categories developed by their
predecessors but began to shape their meanings to fit descriptive rather than normative purposes.

Study of infra-structure

The study of comparative politics is not confined to the formal structure of the government as was the
trend with the traditional political scientists. Here a student is concerned with inquiry into matters of
public concerns, with the behavior and acts that may concern a society as totality or which may ultimately
be resolved by the exercise of legitimate coercion.

Study of both developed and developing countries

What has added more to the significance of the study of comparative politics is the emphasis of more
writers on the ‘politics of the developing areas’. It has occurred as a realization that the subject of
comparative politics must include all the government along with their infrastructure that exist in the
contemporary world and where possible references to government throughout time. It is, thus no longer
confined to the study of the selected European and American governments.

Focus on the inter-disciplinary approach

What has enriched the field of comparative politics and at the same time, made it a complex subject’ is
the focus on the interdisciplinary study? Writers have made more and more use of tools that they had
borrowed from the disciplines of sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, and even from natural
science like biology. For instance, system analysis owes its origin to the discipline of biology that has
been borrowed by leading American political scientists like David Easton from sociologists like Robert
Merton and Talcott Person.

Value-free theory

Finally, the subject of political science has lost its normative aspect and assumed empirical dimensions in
the sphere of comparative politics. The result is that value-free political theory has replaced value-laden
political theory. The concern of the students is not with the things as they ought to be in their ideal form;
it is with what they are. There is hardly any place for the rules of history or ethics in the field of
comparative politics as the entire field has been covered by the rules of other disciplines.

Quest of theory building

The subject of comparative politics is necessarily concerned with the study of the political system both
macro and micro aspects of government. But it is not limited to this; comparative politics also build up
new theories.
Use of scientific method

Another feature of the comparative politics is that it is base on scientific method. It may use of new
concepts and techniques develop by the sociological anthropology. It proceeds based on quantification
and develop theories.

Emphasis on data collection

Comparative politics is a realistic, empirical, relevant, and comprehensive study of political systems. Its
approach is scientific and to proceed scientifically upon data collection. It is an important and essential
feature of comparative politics because without data it cannot proceeds its study comparatively
realistically, logically, and scientifically.

Avoid formalism

Contrary to the traditional approach, the modern comparative approach denies formalism; formalism
means a legal and historical description of the government institution alone. Modern comparative
approach on the other hand emphasizes the study of the political behavior of the individuals, groups,
culture, values, etc.

Development of new concepts

The development of the new concept is another characteristic of comparative politics. It has discarded the
study of old concepts such as state legislature, executive, judiciary, etc. The new concepts include
political systems, political roles, political culture, political socialization, modernization, political
development, etc. it still a continuing process and more.

Horizontal and vertical comparison

Comparative politics conduct studies at the multidimensional level. It not only studies the political
systems and institutions of various states but also political systems established within a state. The former
is called the horizontal comparative study the later is called vertical comparative study.

SCOPE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Traditionally, the scope of Comparative Politics was limited and parochial. It was confined to the study of
constitutions and political institutions and political institutions in respect of their features, powers and
positions. It was ‘parochial’ in the sense that it is involved a study of only European constitutions.
Amongst the European Constitutions, the British constitution was regarded as the mother constitution and
standard constitution for measuring the worth of all other constitutions. The emphasis was upon the study
of governments and institutions.

In contemporary times, comparative politics has come out of the parochialism and limited scope of
comparative government. It has come to acquire a wide scope which includes the analysis and comparison
of the political processes, political activities, political functions, and political structures of all political
systems, developed as well as developing and European as well as Asian, African and Latin American.
After Second World War, it has undergone revolutionary changes in respect of its scope and
methodology.
Modern political scientists realized the shortcomings of traditional studies and decided to eliminate
formalistic, legal institutionalism and extreme normativism of the traditionalists. They accepted that it
must include all the process of politics and not only legal institutions. The actual functioning of all formal
as well as informal political structures like interest groups, pressure groups, political parties and political
elites should also form the part of the scope of comparative politics. They came forward to develop new
tools, concepts, models and theories of political processes for analyzing and comparing the behavior of all
the political systems. They borrowed several new concepts from other social sciences, and even some
from natural sciences, for analyzing, explaining, and comparing all political phenomena. Consequently,
there appeared a revolutionary change in the scope and nature of comparative politics studies.

Today, comparative politics has secured a very wide scope. It includes all that comes within the purview
of politics--the study of all political processes, political activities, political relations and power relations
found in every part of the world. A comparative study of the regularities, similarities, and differences
among the structures and functions of all political systems forms the core of its scope.

The following are the main subject matter included in the scope of comparative politics

All political structures

The scope of comparative politics includes all structures, formal and informal, governmental, and extra-
governmental. These structures are directly or indirectly involved in the struggle for power. It is not
confined to the study of three forms of governmental organs—legislature, executive, and the judiciary.
Along with these, bureaucracy, interest groups, pressure groups, elites, political parties, and all other
political groups of human being forms a part of the scope of comparative politics.

Functional studies

Comparative politics seeks to study more from the functions which constitute the political process and
their actual operations in the environment. It studies the functions of interest articulation, interest
aggregation, political communication, rulemaking, rule application, rule adjudication, socialization,
decision making, policymaking, and the like.

Study of political behavior

Another important part of the scope of comparative politics is study of the process of politics. Voting
behaviour, political participation, leadership, recruitment, elite behaviour, mass politics etc. form an
integral part of comparative politics

Study of similarities and differences

Comparative politics also undertake similarities and dissimilarities between various political processes
and functions. However, the approach is not descriptive and formalistic. It is on the basis of actual
functioning of political structures and processes, the similarities and dissimilarities are explained and
compared. The objective is not to decide which is the best process or system. The objective is systematic
explanation, understanding and theory building.

Study of political systems

Comparative politics seeks to analyze the actual behavior and performance of political systems-western as
well as non- western. The political systems are analyzed and compared in terms of the structures,
functions, capabilities and performances

Study of environment

The study of comparative politics demands a study of the psychological, sociological, economic and
anthropological environment. For this study, the political scientists have developed concepts like political
culture, political socialization, political modernization etc. The study of the political culture of various
political systems forms a very popular focus in comparative politics. This concept has definitely enhanced
the ability of political science to explain and compare the functioning of various political systems. Thus,
the scope of comparative politics has become very broad. It includes facts within the purview of political
processes and activities. It seeks to study all mechanisms of politics.

Study of power, influence and authority

Comparative politics is a study of ‘power’, influence and authority. These three concepts differentiate one
political system from the other system.

Comparative study of political systems

Comparative study of different political systems and their analysis determines the scope of comparative
politics. Different political system can be compared in respect of their performance, stability, change and
processes. It was David Easton who gave a model of political system on the basis of which different
political system can be compared with one another.

Easton tries to explain as to how a political system manages to survive. He pleads that a political system
has its own boundaries. It has the criterion of using legal force. It is surrounded by environment. The
political system and its environment send certain inputs into the system itself. Inputs include demands for
the allocation of goods and services. Demands cannot, however, be met in the absence of supports.
Support is given in the form of obedience to law and payment of taxes. However, sometimes demands
may be put in access and support withdrawn. This leads to stress and strain on the political system. The
political system gives output in the shape of policy decision, which forms feedback. In this way we can
compare various political systems with respect to the volume of demands, inputs, conversion out puts and
feedback. We can also find out how system experience stress and strain and how do they overcome them.

Classification of political systems

Closely related to Easton’s system approach, Almond has given structural and functional approach for the
classification of the political systems. Almond believes that political systems can be classified as
traditional, transitional and modern on the basis of the degree of the inputs functions perform by them in
term of political socialization and recruitment, interest, articulation, interest aggregation and
communication; and output function of the rule making, rule application and rule adjudication.
Comparison can be made by keeping in view the fact as to which structure performs which functions. On
the basis of fusion or differentiation of the structures, classification of the political system can be made. In
his revised version of structural functionalism, he added capability also as a criterion for comparing the
performances of political systems.
Role of modernization

Almost all the political systems have set before themselves the goal of modernization. Modernization
involves progress in attitudes, values, and aspirations of the people. From the political angle,
modernization involves wider participation, nation-building, state-building, and differentiation of
structures, functions, and rules and also the rationalization of the authority. Based on these criteria, we
can compare the political process in different countries of the world.

Huntington is of the opinion that the process of modernization in the under developed countries is leading
to instability and breakdown. The people have grown high hopes of better participation, better standard of
living, etc. but institutions do not grow to that extent. This leads to crisis of legitimacy, identity,
participation and nation-building.

Study of developing societies

In contrast to the parochial approach made by the traditional comparative politics, modern comparative
politics makes a universal approach. The study of comparative politics no longer concerned with a study
of selected European or American government alone. It is as much a study of the developed as those of
the developing political system of the poor and backward countries of the afro Asian world. More
attention is being paid to the study of the politics of the developing societies with a view to make this a
subject of universal study. Almond and Powell holds that more and more methods and theories have been
developed by those scholar engaged in the study of non western countries rather than by those engaged in
the study of western countries.

Determination of casual Factors of variations

The necessity of comparative politics is aroused out of the desire to explain why diversity and variations
occur in the same political process and phenomena in different countries, or at different places in the same
country. We find that in India coalition politics has failed in almost in all the states except Kerala where it
has stood the test of time. The Party system in the UK is highly centralized, organized and disciplined but
in the USA it is highly indiscipline and loosely structured. In countries such as UK and USA there is a bi-
party system but in France, there is a multi-party system. Pakistan has experienced the failure of
parliamentary democracy while in India it is succeeded. It is through the science of comparative
government and politics that we get a proper explanation for these variations and diversities. It thus
compares political phenomena to find out the universal casual factors by sorting out the uniformities and
differences and lay down valid theories for the explanation of variations.

Study of political culture

Political culture is a part of the general culture of the people. Political culture refers to the attitudes,
values, beliefs and emotional attachment of the people to the political system, political issues and political
processes. It is these beliefs and attitudes that determine the success or failure of a particular political
institution or process or the political system itself.

Study of political socialization

Political socialization is the learning process by which norms and behavior acceptable to a well-running
political system are transmitted from one generation to another. The political socialization aims to train or
develop the individuals in a way that they become well-functioning members of the political community.
Political socialization is thus ‘the gradual learning of the norms, attitudes and behavior acceptable to an
ongoing political system’. Since it seeks to introduce values, norms, orientation in the minds of the
individuals, it lies within the scope of comparative politics.

Study of political participation

Political participation refers to a voluntary act of the individual in involving himself with the socio-
political activities of his political system. It varies from one political system to another. The political
system where political [participation is wider, will be more legitimate and stable. The job of the student of
comparative politics lies in understanding how political participation influences the functional aspect of
the political system in different political systems.

Study of political ideologies

Political ideology is the end sought to be realized through the means of a particular political system.
There are various ideologies such as socialism communism democratic socialism, liberalism, totalitarian,
etc. comparative politics studies the comparative worth of these ideologies.

Study of political group

In every political system particularly the democratic ones, various kinds of interest groups play their role.
Every group has an interest of its own to promote. So it has sometimes to use pressure tactic also when it
assumes the form of a pressure group. This group does not themselves enter politics but to a great degree
influence politics. They aid and support a particular political party that lends support to its cause.
Comparative politics has to study working and indulge in comparing the working of pressure groups in
various political systems.

Study of new concepts

The various new concepts are interlinked with the study of the political system. These concepts include
power, influence and authority. When we make a study of various political systems, a study of these
concepts also becomes necessary.

Study of new political phenomena

With the change in emphasis on actual political processes, the study of new political phenomena such as
the role of political elites, recruitment, political violence and political corruption has become a necessary
part o comparative politics. Study of political processes, decision making, judicial etc. continues to
engage the attention of the political elite in every kind of political system. It is because the success or
otherwise of the political system are lies on these processes. It is therefore, natural for comparative
politics to make a comparative study of such processes in different political systems.

Study of conditions for maintaining peace

There is always a tug of war between different political systems to establish its own supremacy. We find
that there are two blocs – soviet and American- after the end of the Second World War. Both of then
continued their struggle for supremacy resulted in cold war. With the disintegration of the soviet Russia
only USA has remained as a super power on the earth.

Study of the role of bureaucracy

With increase in the role of the state, the role of the bureaucracy has also increased. It is in fact,
bureaucracy which serves as a guide for the formulation and execution of various policies, especially in a
democratic country where the minister are usually amateurs. It is this increasing role of bureaucracy that
tempted Max Weber and Riggs to give their own model of democracy.

Study of political activities

There is no denying the facts that politics is a universal activity. But it can also not be denied that the
nature, content and form of political activities is not the same everywhere. It is because various factors
influence political activities. Comparative politics take note not only of the political activities but also of
the factors shaping them.

THE COMPARATIVE METHOD

Scholars are not agreed on the comparative method, its nature, and scope. Some of them like A.N.
Eisenstadt, argue that the term does not properly designate a specific method, but rather a special focus on
cross-societal, institutional or macro- societal aspects of societies and social analysis. Others like Arend
Lijphart, hold that it is definitely a method, not just a convenient term vaguely symbolizing the focus of
one's research interests. But it can be defined as one of the basic methods -the others being the
experimental, statistical, and case study methods -of establishing general 1 propositions. On the other
hand, Harold Lasswell argues that for anyone with a scientific approach to political phenomena, the idea
of an independent comparative method seems redundant, because the scientific approach is 'unavoidably
comparative'. Gabriel Almond also equates the comparative with the scientific method. Yet, it is essential
to underline that scholars do recognize that the comparative method, is a method of discovering empirical
relationships among variables and not a method of the measurement.-The step of measuring variables is
logically prior to the step of, finding relationships among them. It is the second of these steps to which the
term comparative ' method refers. Finally, a distinction should be made between method and technique.
The comparative method is a broad-gauge, general method, not a narrowly specialized technique. It is in
this vein that scholars refer to the method of comparison, or some prefer the term comparative approach
because it lacks the preciseness to call it a method. The comparative method may also be thought of as a
basic research strategy, in contrast with a mere tactical aid to research.

The comparative method is best understood if briefly compared with the experimental, statistical, and
case study method. The experimental method is used to understand the relationship between two variables
in a controlled situation. Since such experiments are not possible in political science, an alternative is a
statistical method, which entails the conceptual (mathematical) manipulation of empirical data in order to
discover controlled relationships among variables. It handles the problem of control by means of partial
correlations or cross-tabulations i.e. by dividing the sample into a I number of different groups (for
example based on age, income, education, etc,) and looking at the correlation between the two selected
variables in each. This has come to be&cepted as a standard procedure and is applied almost
automatically in empirical research. Thus, the statistical method is an approximation of the experimental
method as it uses the same logic. Therefore comparative method essentially resembles the statistical
method except for that the number of cases it deals with is often too small to permit statistical methods.
But it is necessary to understand that the comparative method is not an adequate substitute for the
experimental method as in the natural sciences.

But these weaknesses can be minimized in a number of ways. The statistical method is best to use as far
as possible, except in cases where entire political systems are being compared, then the comparative
method has to be used. The two can also be used in combination. In this comparative analysis is the first
stage in which macro-hypotheses are carefully formulated usually covering the structural elements of the
systems, and the statistical stage the second, in which through micro- replications these are tested has
large a sample as possible. Second, too much significance must not be attached to ne4ative findings: for
example, rejecting a hypothesis based on one deviant case especially when the sample is small. Rather,
research should aim at probabilistic and not universal generalizations. Third, it is necessary to increase the
number of cases as much as possible (is too small a sample which is not of much use). Comparative
politics has advanced because of the formulation of universally applicable theories or "grand theories"
based on the comparison of many countries or political phenomena within them. For example, structural-
functional analysis theory opened up a world of comparative research unknown before. Fourth, increase
the number of variables if not the number of cases; through this more generalizations are possible. Fifth,
focus on 'comparable cases' i.e. those that have a large number of comparable characteristics or variables
which one treats as 'constants', but dissimilar as far as those variables which one wants to relate, to each
other. 'This way we study the 'operative' variables by either the statistical or comparative method. Here
the area or regional approach is useful, for example comparing countries within Latin America or
Scandinavia or Asia. But many scholars have pointed out that this is merely a manageability argument,
which should not become imprisonment. Another alternative is studying regions within countries, or
studying them at different points of time as the problem of control is much simpler as they are within the
same federal structure. Here it may be mentioned that the states within the Indian Union provide a rich
laboratory for comparative research that has not yet been undertaken. Finally, many scholars feel that
focus should be on 'key' or contextual variables, as too many variables can create problems. This not only
allows manageability but also often leads to 'middle-range theorizing' or partial comparison of political
systems. This has been used successfully, in anthropological studies as tribal systems are simple. Political
scientists can also do this by limiting the number of variables.

The case study method is used whenever only one case is being analyzed. But it is closely connected with
the comparative method, and certain types ofcase studies can become an inherent part ofthe comparative
method whenever an in-depth study of avariable is needed before comparison with other similar ones. The
scientific status of the case study method is somewhat ambiguous because science is neither generalising
nor a ground for disapproving an established generalization. But its value lies when used as a building
block for making general propositions and even theory-building in political science when a number ofcase
studies on similar subjects are carried out. Case studies can be of many types for example atheoretical or
interpretative, theory confirming or infirming, each useful in specific situations. Thus the comparative and
the case study method have major drawbacks. Because ofthe inevitable limitations ofthese methods it is
the challenging task ofthe investigator in the field ofcomparative politics to apply these methods in such a
way as to capitalise on their inherent strengths and they can be useful instruments in scientific political
inquiry. Many scholars have spent much of the post-war period constantly improving the use of these
methods.

UNIT-2ND

2.1 PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL: UK AND USA

PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM: UK

Parliamentary form of Government or Cabinet system is an important and popular form of Government in
modern democratic countries. It is the system of government in which there exists an intimate and
harmonious relationship between the executive and the legislative departments, and the stability and
efficacy of the executive department depend on the legislature.

In a Parliamentary form of government, the head of the state is usually a different person than the head of
the government. A Monarch or a President is usually the head of the state. However, she/he is the head of
state, but not the head of government. The functions of the head of the state are chiefly formal or
ceremonial. The council of ministers or the cabinet exercises the real executive powers and authority to
run the Government. In many countries, the Prime Minister is the head of the council of ministers. The
essential principle of the parliamentary system includes collective responsibility which means that instead
of individual responsibility, it is the whole Cabinet responsible before legislation for all actions. Also, the
executive is responsible and accountable to the legislature in this system.

The Parliamentary or the Cabinet system originated in England. This form of government exists in
countries like Britain, India, and Canada. This Parliamentary form of government is also called a
Responsible government. Some of the essential features of a Parliamentary form of government in UK are
as under:

1. EXISTENCE OF A TITULAR OR CONSTITUTIONAL RULER: The first characteristic feature

of the UK parliamentary system is the existence of a Titular head. Legally the administration of all the
affairs of the state is conducted by the head of the state. In reality, however, the administration is carried
by the Council of Ministers. The Monarch (The Queen) in UK is, thus, the head of the state, but not the
head of the government.

2. ABSENCE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS: In UK, the principle of separation of powers is not

adopted. Here the three departments of government work in close, intimate contact, sharing some of the
powers and functions of one another.
3. MAIN ROLE OF THE LOWER HOUSE IN MINISTRY-FORMATION: In UK, the lower house
of the legislature, i.e., the popular chamber plays a vital role in the formation of the ministry. The leader
of the party or alliance which wins the majority in this house is appointed as the Prime Minister. The
constitutional ruler appoints the other members of the ministry on his advice.

4. RESPONSIBILITY TO THE LEGISLATURE: The Cabinet or Ministry in UK has to remain

responsible to the legislature for all its activities and policies. The Prime Minister and other ministers are
the members of either House of the Parliament and anyone who is not the member of the Parliament, has
to seek the membership within a specified period. They attend the sessions of the Parliament and answer
the questions and supplementary questions.

5. COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: In UK, since no individual minister can unilaterally perform

any business of government without the consent of the Cabinet, the entire Ministry or Cabinet has to
remain accountable for the errors of the minister concerned.

6. INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE EXECUTIVE: In

the parliamentary system of UK, an intimate relationship exists between the executive and the legislative
departments. Thus, they easily control each other. The leaders of the majority party in the legislature
become the members of the Cabinet or Ministry. Naturally, the ministers can easily extend their influence
on the legislature. Consequently, the programs and policies of the Cabinet are backed by a majority inside
the legislature.

7. LEADERSHIP OF THE PRIME MINISTER: The leadership of the Prime Minister is another major
feature of the UK’s parliamentary system. The leader of the majority party in the legislature becomes the
Prime Minister. Though, in theory, he is ‘primus inter pares’, i.e. ‘First among equals’, in reality, he
possesses much greater power and status than the other ministers.

8. EXISTENCE OF A STRONG OPPOSITION: The existence of a strong and well-organized

opposition party is the hall-mark of the UK parliamentary system. By criticizing the errors of the
government, the opposition can compel it to adopt welfare measures and prevent it from becoming
despotic.

9. CABINET DICTATORSHIP: In UK, the cabinet has to perform manifold functions. It is the Cabinet
which formulates well considered policies of the Government after reviewing both the national and
international issues, takes necessary arrangements for passing laws to implement the policies formulated
by it, determines the matters to be included in the agenda of the central legislature, controls and directs
the administrative departments so that laws, Government orders, etc. are to be implemented properly.
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM: USA

Presidential Government is that system in which the executive (including both the Head of the State and
his ministers) is constitutionally independent of the legislature in respect to the duration of his or their
tenure and irresponsible to it for his or their political policies. In such a system the chief of the state is not
merely the titular executive but he is real executive and actually exercises the powers which the
constitution and laws confer upon him. In the Presidential system, the President is the real head. He is the
head of state as well as the head of government. There is separation of powers. The President is elected by
people.

Neither he nor his ministers are drawn from the legislature. They are not accountable to it. They are
independent of the legislature. He has a fixed tenure. He cannot be easily ousted from office by the
legislature. The only method of his ouster from office is impeachment which is a very difficult process.
On the other hand, the President also cannot dissolve the legislature. Further, the judiciary is independent
of both the executive and the legislature. Thus, there is not only separation of powers, but also check and
balance in the Presidential system. Generally, there is no Prime Minister in a Presidential government.
The secretaries help the president in the administration and they are appointed by him on the basis of
ability. It depends upon the will of the president to accept or reject their advice. The Presidential system
has various merits to its credit including:

1. There is more democracy in presidential government. Because of the twin principles of separation of
powers and check and balance, there is no concentration of powers in the same man or in the same body.

2. As both the President and the legislature enjoy fixed terms of office, there is political stability. There is
continuity of policy as well. Further, the government can think of long term policies.

3. This system is more effective in tackling emergencies as there is unity of control and concentration of
executive powers in person (President). He can react quickly to any national crisis by taking prompt
decisions.

4. The Presidential executive is of help in forging unity in the nation consisting of diverse regions,
communities and culture. As he is directly elected by people, they look upon him as the symbol of their
unity.

CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE US PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM:

1. In the USA, the President is directly elected by people. He has thus reason to think that he enjoys more
of people's confidence and support than the Prime Minister in the Parliamentary system.
2. The US President is the Head of the State as well as the Head of the government.

3. The President enjoys real powers of the administration and exercises all those powers, which are given
to him under the constitution and the law.

4. The US President is free to choose his secretaries (ministers). The Senate, the Upper House of
American Congress, may or may not ratify such appointments, but it cannot impose its choice on the
President. The President has thus the freedom to appoint very competent persons as his Ministers or
Secretaries on the basis of their experience and expertise. They are accountable only to the President and
not to the Congress. As a result, they have time to concentrate on their work and to do their duty
efficiently.

5. The US President appoints his ministers (or secretaries) who stay in office during his pleasure. They do
not belong to the legislature. Nor are they responsible to it. They are appointed on the basis of their
experience and expertise. They are 'President's men'. He can remove them from office if he is not happy
with them.

6. The President and his secretaries are not responsible to the legislature. The legislature cannot remove
them through a vote of non-confidence. Moreover, an adjournment motion or a censure motion cannot be
brought against them. The President and his secretaries are not the members of legislature and they do not
attend its sessions.

7. The President is elected for a fixed tenure and except impeachment for the violation of the constitution;
he cannot be removed from his office before the expiry of his term.

8. The US President, being all powerful, is in a position to take bold and prompt decisions. His ministers,
being subordinate to him, cannot tie hands. They may advise him, but they have to implement his
decisions.

9. There is a separation of powers in the US Presidential government. In this system the executive and
legislature are separate from each other and they have equal status.

10. In the field of foreign policy, the President of the US has handicaps. He has no power to declare a war
even when his country is attacked by enemy. This power belongs to the US Congress. Similarly, the
treaty that he may conclude with another country is not valid if it is not ratified by the Senate

2.2 FEDERAL AND UNITARY SYSTEM: CANADA AND CHINA

FEDERAL SYSTEM:

A Federal government is the one in which sovereign power is formally divided usually by means of a
constitution between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies, or
provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs. The powers of the central
government are restricted and the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-
government.

It is generally agreed that the following characteristics are among those shared by states with a federal
system of government:

1. At least two orders of government;

2. Division of powers between the orders of government defined in the constitution;
3. Division of revenue sources to ensure each order of government certain areas of autonomy, also
set out in the constitution;
4. Written constitution that cannot be amended unilaterally.
5. Independent Judiciary
6. Bicameral Legislation

FEDERAL SYSTEM OF CANADA:

Up to 1867, the colonies of British North America had no political or geographical links. Each had its
own governor appointed by Britain and its own administration including customs and postal system. In
1867, three colonies in British North America viz. the Province of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia agreed to be "federally united", and form the Dominion of Canada. A number of external factors
encouraged those colonies to unite. But it was the political conditions prevailing in one of the colonies,
the Province of Canada that favoured a federal type of union.

Thus, during early 1860s it was proposed that the Province of Canada be divided into two entities united
within a federation. The powers would be shared between two orders of government, which would ensure
unity (federal order) while allowing for the expression of diversity (provincial order). A second meeting
was held in October 1864, at which the division of powers between the constituent entities and a federal
government was discussed, among other things. The 72 Resolutions of Quebec included proposals that
the existing legislative assemblies (or reestablished, in the case of the Province of Canada) would exercise
responsibilities related to local issues and that a new federal Parliament would assume powers related to
common policies, including in the economic and military fields.
Canada is a parliamentary democracy. Its system of government holds that the law is the supreme
authority. The Constitution Act, 1867, which forms the basis of Canada’s written constitution, provides
that there shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of three distinct elements: the Crown, the Senate
and the House of Commons. However, as a federal state, responsibility for lawmaking in Canada is
shared among one federal, ten provincial and three territorial governments. The federal legislature is
bicameral with an upper house, the Senate, and a lower house, the House of Commons. The Senate is
composed of individuals appointed by the Governor General to represent Canada’s provinces and
territories. Members of the House of Commons are elected by Canadians who are eligible to vote.

Canada is also a constitutional monarchy, in that its executive authority is vested formally in the Queen
through the Constitution. Every act of government is carried out in the name of theCrown, but the
authority for those acts flows from the Canadian people. The executive function belongs to the Governor
in Council, which is the Governor General acting with, and on the advice of the Prime Minister and the
Cabinet.

The federal government is the national government of Canada, centered in Ottawa. The federal
government plays a huge role in Canadians' lives — from the collection of taxes to the delivery of social
services, and from the supervision of international trade to the safeguarding of national security. The
provinces were given responsibility for primarily private or local matters, such as hospitals, schools,
charities, municipalities, shops, taverns, transportation within a province, onshore natural resources, and
property and civil rights. Everything else was placed in the hands of the federal government, which was
charged with maintaining “the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada.” The federal government
was also given the power to disallow provincial laws.

Over time, the balance shifted, largely because of a series of court rulings. Paid less attention to Ottawa’s
responsibility for peace, order, and good government, the court ruled that the federal Parliament could not
pass laws on unemployment insurance, competition, trade and commerce or minimum wages and
maximum work hours, and the peace, order, and good government clause applied only to national
emergencies. Important in shifting the balance was the growing significance of matters like health care as
a provincial responsibility.

The federal government is responsible for implementing the legislation of the Canadian Parliament. The
Parliament is responsibility over national defense, money, banking, bankruptcy, Aboriginal affairs,
citizenship, marriage and divorce, shipping, railways, fisheries, interprovincial and international trade, the
post office, criminal law, penitentiaries, the census and statistics, weights and measures, patents and
copyrights. The federal government conducts Canadian foreign policy and implements treaties, but
provincial legislation is necessary to comply with treaties that deal primarily with areas in provincial
jurisdiction, according to a controversial 1937 ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The head of the federal government is the prime minister, who is the government’s main spokesperson,
chief policymaker, and chair of Cabinet. The most important federal government institutions are the
central agencies (often informally called The Centre). These are the Cabinet, the Privy Council Office, the
Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Department of Finance. The Privy Council Office is the Prime
Minister’s government department. The Department of Finance prepares the federal budget, which must
be approved by Parliament. The budget establishes the government’s financial direction and announces
revenue and spending projections, tax rates, and various government policy proposals. Funding for
individual government departments and programs is sought from Parliament though documents called the
Estimates, which are prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat and tabled each March in the House of
Commons. English and French are the official languages of the federal government.

UNITARY SYSTEM:

Unitary form of Government is a system in which all powers are vested in the hands of a central
government. A single central government controls the whole state with full might. The local governments
exist and operate only in a way as desired by the central government. It involves the creation of a single
integrated system of government vested with all the powers which it can exercise by itself or through the
delegation of some of these powers to the local governments. The local governments work as
administrative units of the central government. Their powers and role depend upon the wishes of the
central government. The Centre Government has the power to change, territorial or other features of the
system of local governments. Britain, France, Japan, Italy, China and several other countries are unitary
states. Since a unitary state is characterized by a single central government, it is popularly conceptualized
as a unitary government. On the basis of these definitions, we can define a Unitary state as the one in
which all powers are possessed by a single central government which creates and delegates some of its
powers to the local governments working in local areas or provinces of the state.

CHARACTERISTICS OF UNITARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT

1. CENTRALIZATION OF POWER:

2. SINGLE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION:

3. SINGLE AND SIMPLE GOVERNMENT:

4. UNIFORMITY OF LAWS:

5. NO DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS:

6. FLEXIBILITY OF THE CONSTITUTION:

7. DESPOTISM AS AN ATTRIBUTE OF UNITARY STATE:

9. LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS EXISTS AT THE WILL OF THE CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT:

10. CONSTITUTION CAN EITHER BE WRITTEN OR UNWRITTEN:

UNITARY SYSTEM IN CHINA:

The Constitution of China states that the People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the peoples’
democratic leadership led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and farmers, with the
socialist system as the basic system. It also states that all power in the People's Republic of China resides
in the people and that the National People's Congress and local people's congresses are the means by
which the people exercise state power.

The people's congresses are the basic political system in the following ways:

1. The National People's Congress and local people's congresses are chosen through democratic
elections and are responsible to the people and subject to their supervision;
2. People's congresses are the means of state power and all administrative, legal, and procuratorate
offices of the state are approved by people's congresses, to which they are responsible and by
which they are supervised;
3. The separation of powers between the central and local state offices follows a principle of
making full use of the initiative and enthusiasm of local authorities under the unified leadership
of central authorities.

China has a unitary state structure and a regional national autonomy system. The Constitution states that
China is a unitary multi-ethnic state created by its entire people. To protect the rights and interests of the
minority groups and uphold a relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance among all of China's
people, the country has a system of regional autonomy in areas where people of different ethnic groups
are concentrated. National autonomous areas are classified as regions, prefectures and counties. All the
autonomous areas are an integral part of the People's Republic of China. Self governance is exercised by
autonomous areas through people's congresses and people's governments. For chairman and vice
chairman of the people's congress standing committees of autonomous regions, prefectures, or counties
there must be at least one member of an ethnic group exercising regional autonomy.

The government offices of autonomous areas can independently administer local economic development
under the guidance of state plans. Local government offices of autonomous areas have the power of
autonomy in administering the finances of the area. Local government offices of autonomous areas can
independently administer educational, scientific, cultural, public health and physical culture affairs in
their area. In the use of natural resources and enterprises in autonomous areas, the state takes into account
the interests of those areas and provides financial, material and technical assistance to ethnic groups to
accelerate their economic and cultural development. The state helps autonomous areas train government
officers at various levels, specialized personnel and skilled workers who are members of ethnic groups in
those areas.

In the matter of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, the Constitution recognizes special administrative
regions that the State may establish if necessary with a related system prescribed by a law by the National
People's Congress suited the specific conditions. The 7th National People's Congress decided at its 3rd
Session, on April 04, 1990, to establish a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, after it resumed
sovereignty, on July 01, 1997, and adopted the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region. On March 31, 1993, the 8th National People's Congress decided at its 1st Session to establish a
Macao Special Administrative Region, when it resumed sovereignty, on Dec 20, 1999 and adopted the
Basic Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region.

To maintain national unity and territorial integrity as well as prosperity, development and stability of
Hong Kong and Macao, the People's Republic of China decided to follow a principle of "one country, two
systems", whereby its socialist system and policies are not applied to Hong Kong and Macao, and to
maintain the old capitalist system and way of life unchanged for 50 years. People's Republic of China,
directly under the administration of the central government, but, at the same time, are special
administrative regions that follow a different system and policies from those of the mainland, with a
certain degree of autonomy.

For the Central People's Government to maintain leadership and administration of the special
administrative regions, it will be responsible for foreign affairs and the defense of the special
administrative regions, and will appoint the chief executives and principal officials of the regions. Some
national laws related to the defense, foreign affairs, and other matters outside the limits of the special
administrative region autonomy will be applied locally by the regional legislators.

To sum up, the China’s unitary system has following essential features:

1. The Chinese Communist Party dominates state and society in China. All the leading political
institutions of China viz. State Council, People’s Liberation Army, National People’s Congress and
Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference are dominated by the party.

2. The Party entrusts implementation of its policies and day-to-day administration of the country to the
institution of the state, headed by the State Council and including the State’s ministries and commissions
and layers of “people’s governments” below the national level. The top State officials at every level of
administration concurrently hold senior Party posts, to ensure Party control.

3. According to China’s state constitution, the National People’s Congress (NPC) oversees the State
Council, as well as four other institutions: the Presidency, the Supreme People’s Court, the public
prosecutors’ office, and the military. In practice, the NPC, like People’s Congresses at every level of
administration, is controlled by the Communist Party and is able to exercise little oversight over any of
the institutions officially under its supervision. NPC deputies are expected to approve all budgets, agency
reports, and personnel appointments put before them. The NPC’s most significant power is its ability to
initiate and shape legislation.

4. There exists the People’s Political Consultative Conferences and eight minor parties which allows the
Communist Party to describe China’s political system as one of multi party cooperation and political
consultation led by the Communist Party of China. 5. China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army
(PLA), is not a national army belonging to the state. Rather, it is an armed wing of the Communist Party,
with the Party’s exercise of “absolute leadership” over the military a fundamental guarantee of
Communist Party rule.

6. China’s 1982 state constitution describes the country’s unicameral legislature, the National People’s
Congress, as the highest organ of state power. The constitution gives the NPC the power to amend the
constitution; supervise its enforcement; enact and amend laws; ratify and abrogate treaties; approve the
state budget and plans for national economic and social development; elect and impeach top officials of
the state and judiciary; and supervise the work of the State Council, the State Central Military
Commission, the Supreme People’s Court, and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate.

___________________________END___________________________