POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT AND

POLITICAL DECAY

1
I. Political development as intimately connected with the broader process of

modernization.

Samuel Huntington, in his book entitled Political Development and Political

Decay, stated that political development can be defined in a multitude of ways. But

among those definitions, stood two related characteristics. First, he said that

“political development is identified as one aspect of, or is intimately connected, with

the broader processes of modernization in society as a whole”. He classified political

development as the political aspect of modernization, which affects all segments of

the society. Second, the linkage between political development and modernization is

so broad and complex, hence political development should be measured in many

criteria.

With the various definitions of political development, the characteristics by

which it is defined are all aspects of the processes of modernization. And among

those definitions, there are four sets of categories that are frequently emphasized.

These are the rationalization, national integration, democratization, and

mobilization or participation. Rationalization focuses on Parsonian pattern variables

which involves from particularism to universalism, from diffuseness to specificity,

from ascription to achievement, and from affectivity to affective neutrality. In terms

of political development, functional differentiation and achievement criteria are

particularly emphasized. Nationalism and national integration refer to the bond and

togetherness between people regardless of their religion and gender. It establishes a

firmly delimited ethnic basis for the political community. Nation-building is the key

aspect of the political development. Democratization is the pluralism,

competitiveness, equalization of power, and similar qualities. Huntington

2
emphasized Coleman quoting that “Competitiveness is the essential aspect of

political modernity”. He also mentioned Frey defining political development as

“changes in the direction of greater distribution and reciprocity of power” in relation

to his argument that the most common notion of political development in

intellectual American circles is that of movement towards democracy. The three sets

of categories, namely: rationalization, national integration and democratization,

commonly appear in definitions of political development. But of the four sets of

categories that define political development, mobilization or participation is the

most frequently emphasized. Social mobilization is involved in modernization. Social

change and major changes in politics are correlated. Examples of this correlation is

observed in the following circumstances: increases in literacy, urbanization,

exposure to mass media, industrialization and per capita income multiply the

demands for government services and thus stimulate an increase in governmental

capabilities, a broadening of the elite, increased political participation and shifts in

attention from the local level to the national level. Modernization means mass

mobilization and mass mobilization means increased political participation.

Increased participation is the key element of political development.

There are a multitude of definitions of political development. These

definitions could be a combination of one or more of the 4 sets of categories such as

rationalization, nation-building, participation, and democratization. But they vary

depending on their relevance to problems and their usefulness for particular

situations. One key purpose of concepts of political development is to facilitate

understanding of the political processes in in contemporary Asian, African, and Latin

American societies. The concept should have a general application sufficient to

3
provide comparative analysis of varying situations or circumstances. But there are

challenges on the approaches to political development.

The first challenge is the drastic limitation on the applicability of the concept

in the identification of political development with modernization or with factors

usually associated with it. Modernization is defined in immediate terms, thus, its

relevance is only limited to modern nation-states or emerging nation-states.

Development is identified with only one type of political system, rather than as a

concept that characterizes any political system. The systems that are not modern are

considered as underdeveloped. But Huntington pointed out that it would be

appropriate to consider development and underdevelopment a characteristic which

might be found in any type of political system. The second issue with the various

definitions of political development is that it is also expanded to include almost all

politically relevant aspects of the modernization process. Also, there is a natural

tendency to assume that political development is all a piece, that one thing that

leads to positive results is compatible with another, often different thing. The third

problem is that many definitions of political development fail to distinguish the

empirical relevance of the components making up the definition. The fourth difficulty

in the many concepts of political development is the gap between theory and reality.

The issue is that there exist only one-way ideas and that their reversibility is not

permitted. Conversely, Huntington argues that any concept of political development

should be reversible and that is should ideally define both political development and

the circumstances in which political decay occurred.

4
II. Political development explained through the concepts of institutionalization,

public interest and institutional development.

Apart from modernization, Huntington also explained political development

as institutionalization. He states the importance of defining political development as

the institutionalization of political organizations and procedures. Such definition

separates development from modernization and can be applied to the analysis of

political systems of any sort, not just modern ones. Moreover, it can be defined in

reasonably precise terms which can be measured in qualitative means. The concept

suggests that the movement can be in both directions, and it focuses on the mutual

interaction between the social processes of modernization and strengths and

weaknesses of political structures in transitional, traditional, and modern societies.

The strength of political organizations and procedures vary with their scope of

support and their level of institutionalization. The scope is the extent to which the

political organizations and procedures encompass activity in the society, whereas the

level of institutionalization in a political system is defined by the overall adaptability,

complexity, and autonomy of a political organization. Huntington further states that

an organization or procedure is more institutionalized if it is more adaptable to

change. On the other hand, the less flexible and more rigid an organization is, it has a

lower level of institutionalization. Adaptability is an acquired organizational

characteristic and is a function of environmental challenge and age. He then states

that an organization is more institutionalized if it is more complex in its structure and

procedures. Complexity often involves both multiplications of organizational

subunits and differentiation of separate types of organizational subunits. The greater

the number of subunits, the greater the ability of the organization to secure and

5
maintain the loyalties of all its members. He also discussed the concept of coherence

and disunity. The concept of coherence and disunity stipulates that the more unified

and coherent an organization is, the more it is more highly institutionalized. He also

explained the dynamic between mobilization and institutionalization. Social

mobilization and political participation is rapidly increasing in much of the

developing world, which is, per Huntington, directly responsible for the deterioration

of political institutions in these areas. He also states that mobilization may result

simply from increases in communications, which can stimulate major increases in

aspirations that may be only partially, if at all, satisfied. The result of such

occurrences is a revolution of rising frustrations among the masses increases in

literacy and education may bring more political instability. But argues that

differences that exist in mobilization and institutionalization suggest four ideal types

of politics. For example, modern and developed civic polities are characterized by

high levels of both mobilization and institutionalization. On the other hand, primitive

polities have low levels of both mobilization and institutionalization.

Huntington also looks at the relationship between political institutions and

public interests. A society with weak political institutions lacks the ability to curb the

excesses of personal and parochial desires. Without strong political institutions,

society lacks the means of defining and realizing its common interests. The capacity

to create political institutions is the capacity to create and follow public interests.

Traditionally, the public interest has been approached in three ways. The public

interest has been identified either with abstract and substantive values and norms

such as natural law, justice, or right reason; or with the specific interest of either

individuals, groups, and classes. Additionally, it has been defined with the result of a

6
competitive process among individuals or groups. The problem with these

approaches is to arrive at a definition which is concrete and general. On the other

hand, what is concrete in most cases lacks generality and what is general lacks

concreteness. One approach to solve this problem is to define the public interest in

terms of the concrete interests of the governing institutions. A society with highly

institutionalized governing organizations and procedures is, in this sense, more able

to articulate and achieve its public interests. The public interest, in this sense, is not

something which exists in natural law or the will of the people. Instead, it is

whatever strengthens and forms governmental institutions. The public interest is

also created and brought into existence by the institutionalization of government

organizations. In a complex political system, many governmental organizations and

procedures represent many different aspects of public interest.

Huntington looks at the strategies of institutional development. If decay of

political institutions is a widespread phenomenon in the “developing” countries and

if a major cause of this decay is the high rate of social mobilization, it encourages

political scientist to incorporate these tendencies into any model of political change

which we employ to understand the politics of such areas. If effective political

institutions are necessary for stable and eventually democratic government, it

encourages us to suggest strategies of institutional development. In suggesting

strategies of institutional development, we should recognize the fact that

psychological and cultural characteristics of peoples differ markedly and with them

their abilities at developing political institutions. Additionally, we should recognize

that the potentialities for institution-building differ between societies, but that

political institutions can be built ins all societies. Two methods of furthering societal

7
development are that anything which slows social mobilization creates conditions

favorable to the preservation or institutions, and that strategies can be applied

directly to the issues of institution building.

In conclusion, Samuel Huntington looks at the connection between political

mobilization and institutionalization and the importance of institutional

development concerning democratization. Huntington argues that modernization

and rapid political mobilization result in political decay as opposed to the growth of

political systems and increased political stability. Additionally, Huntington looks at

the differing definitions of political modernization and concludes that all definitions

share several common elements. Huntington also underscores the importance of

political scientists and sociologists alike to examine the importance of the

development and growth of political institutions in the developing world.

8
DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM

Amartya Sen

Dynamics on Political Development

Prof. Emmanuel A. Alfiler

June 17, 2022

Submitted by: Elizabeth B. Llanto

9
I. Giving people “freedom” and their practice of “democracy” could bring about

development.

According to Amartya Sen, development can be seen as a process of

expanding the real freedoms that the people enjoy. Development could be identified

with the growth of gross national product, or with the rise in personal incomes, or

with industrialization, or with technological advance, or with social modernization

that substantially contributes to expanding human freedom. Development also

requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny,

poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of

public facilities as well as intolerance or over activity of repressive states. Sen

identified that there are five types of interrelated freedoms, namely, political

freedom, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency and security. The

state has a great role in supporting freedoms by providing public education, health

care, social safety nets, good macroeconomic policies, productivity and protecting

the environment. People’s achievement (or their capabilities) is influenced by

economic opportunities, political liberties, social powers, and the enabling condition

of good health, basic education, and the encouragement and cultivation of

initiatives.

Democracy is depicted through the right to freely chosen employment. A safe

job with good working conditions that allows a worker and his or her family to live in

dignity as self-reliant individuals would result to a sustainable development. The

right to participate in decision-making could contribute to development. An example

is when the overall goal of environmentally sustainable development is to reduce

poverty through full and sustainable employment and thus contribute to safe, clean

10
and healthy working and living environments, then workers and their trade unions

have to be full participants in defining and implementing activities relating to

development.

II. Indicators of Political Development

Political development can be defined in many ways. Almond and Powell defines

it as,” the increased differentiation and specialization of political structures and the

increased secularization of political culture”. Samuel P. Huntington also defined it as,

“the process by which organizations and procedures acquire values and stability”.

While according to Alfred Diamont, “political development is a process which aims at

a particular condition, but one which creates an institutional framework for solving

an ever-widening range of social problems”. There are many indicators of political

development. It could be economic, social, cultural and psychological in nature.

These includes gross national product, ethnic fractionalization, literacy, and socio-

economic status, among others.

Gross National Product (GNP). GNP is one metric for measuring a nation's

economic output. It is the value of all products and services produced by the citizens

of a country both domestically, and internationally minus income earned by foreign

residents. While GNP measures production, it is also commonly used to measure the

welfare of a country. Real GNP growth is seen as an improvement in living standards.

Ethnic fractionalization refers to individuals within a country belonging to many

different cultural, linguistic, and/or religious groups. Greater ethnic fractionalization

may lead to higher rates of patronage and political instability. Another indicator of

political development is literacy. Literacy is essential to developing a strong sense of

11
well-being and citizenship. Children who have developed strong reading skills

perform better in school and have a healthier self-image. They become lifelong

learners and sought-after employees, thus, contributes to the socio-economic

development. The socioeconomic factor comprises the level of income per capita,

the degree of human development, the extent of government effectiveness and the

level of perceived corruption, while the political factor comprises the range of

political rights and the extent of civil liberties.

12