Unit One

1. Political Sociology
1.1. Introduction
So long as there is a power difference between individuals, or groups, and it’s exercised,
there exists politics. Almost all social relations involve politics - the relationship between
a father and a son, between a foreman and a daily laborer, and etc. As to Aristotle, man is
by nature a political animal 1; and that only gods and beasts can exist without the confines
of the sheltering city. Politics, therefore, exists in every aspect of human life. It also
means that, it is not only the politicians who exercise power and play politics, but all of
us do when we are in some kind of interaction with others.

Societies, ranging from clan groups to nation states, have always used customs, norms,
rules, values and regulations to govern relationships between members. They regulated
the interests and behaviors of individuals, groups and communities. So, political
institutions refer to the social institutions or to that complex of social norms and roles that
serve to maintain social order, to exercise power, to compel conformity to the existing
system of authority and provide the means for changes in the legal or administrative
systems.

Political institutions are those relatively permanent institutions whose concern is the
study of how different aspects of power is distributed and exercised.

1.2. Political Sociology: Its Meaning and Subject Matter

Political sociology is the study of power and the intersection of personality,

social structure and politics. Political sociology is interdisciplinary, where political
science and sociology intersect. The discipline uses comparative history to analyze
systems of government and economic organization as well as to understand the
political climate of societies. By comparing and analyzing history and sociological
data, political trends and patterns emerge.
The subject matter of political sociology includes the following:
1. Political sociology studies the interrelationship between politics and the society or the
interplay between political and social institutions as mutually interdependent and
complementary to each other.

1
Aristotle recognizes no basic difference between political and social associations. To him all associations are
political in as much as they aim at a common good through joint action; the state differs from other associations in
that it aims at the highest good, the general advantage of all.

Political Sociology
 2. Political sociology studies the social origin of politics in general.
3. The understanding of the roots of political thought, the views and the ideas of the major
political thinkers is the subject matter of the sociology of politics.
4. Political sociology studies the distribution and exercise of power in the society. How are
the different aspects of power distributed within the society?
5. Political sociology also tries to understand the structure of the political process.

1.3. Political Science and Political Sociology

Political science is a discipline in the social sciences that has two branches: political
theory and government administration. Political theory studies the origin and
development of political ideas and thought, while government administration tries to
describe the formal structure and functioning of the government. Political science
restricts itself to the study of power as embedded in formal organizations. Traditionally
the discipline is concerned with the study of the state, the government, and public
administration. None of these does study the political behavior in depth.

Political sociology, on the other hand, emphasizes on the study of political behavior,
(as can be exemplified in voting behavior, political party affiliation and popular
participation in decision-making and the like, in more depth than the political science -
and that is the difference between the two.

Political sociology, as compared to the political science, has got a number of advantages:

 It allows a student to deal with the relations and structures of the society as a whole, not
with the segment of it. It studies power as distributed in all the relationships in the
society, not only as embodied in the formal governmental structures. It sees the state and
the government as only one aspect of the political institutions; which in turn are part of
the society in which they exist.
 It tries to have a holistic approach. Political sociology tries to link up politics with the
general theories of society.

Political Sociology
  It allows the examination of the variety of structures and institutions that might otherwise
be missed-politics in private organizations, in the family, in working places, etc.

By understanding these kinds of distinction between the political sociology and political science,
we can define political sociology as a branch of sociology that is mainly concerned with the
analyses of the interaction between politics and society.
It is the study of politics at four levels:
I. The socio-political formation of the modern state:
II. "Who rules"? How social inequality between groups (class, race, gender, etc.) influences
politics:
III. How public personalities, social movements and trends outside of the formal institutions
of political power affect politics: and
IV. Power relationships within and between social groups (e.g. families, workplaces,
bureaucracy, media, etc).

Concepts in Political Sociology

Politics

Definitions of politics are legion and no one definition has been universally accepted.
The term Politics is derived from the Greek word polis which means city-state. That is
why many commentators, as you saw, rightly define Politics in terms of the state or
government. However, this definition does not exhaust the meaning of Politics. Politics
also deals with power. Politics is argued that as the resolution of human conflict; it is
the process by which society authoritatively allocates resources and values; it is the
process by which society makes decision or evolves policies; it is the exercise of
power and influence in society. Since science is the systematic study of any
phenomenon through observation and experiment, it follows that Political Science
studies the state and power in all their aspects. Systematic study of Politics started with
the Greeks in the fourth century BC. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle used it in the
most comprehensive sense. Aristotle called Politics a “master science”. For him, it
comprised of not only the institutions of state or government but also family, property

Political Sociology
and other social institutions. Politics, for the Greeks, was an all-encompassing activity.
The ancient Greek view about Political Science was mainly ethical. In contrast, the
ancient Romans considered the legal aspect of Politics more important for their
governance. During the Middle Ages, Political Science became a branch of religious
order of the Church. As the state grew in size and became more complex, Political
Science acquired a realistic and secular (non-religious) approach. After the Industrial
Revolution, the role of the State, which was limited to maintenance of law and order
and providing defense against external aggression, underwent considerable changes
with the emergence of the new economic system called capitalism. In the twentieth
century, after the Second World War a new dimension of Political Science and the
study of politics, particularly in Europe, grew out of legal studies, especially, and not
surprisingly, constitutional law. In Britain and to a lesser extent the United States, it
developed mainly from the study of history.

1.4. The Origin and Development of Political Sociology

It is what Giovanni Sartori (1969), as cited by Rush (1992), has called ‘an inter-disciplinary
hybrid’. As such it draws heavily upon both disciplines it seeks to inform, but given their
respective histories, it is perhaps appropriate that the two men who have the strongest claims to
be the founding father of political sociology were more closely associated with sociology than
with political science. These are, of course, Karl Marx and Max Weber, both of whom regarded
politics as inextricably in society.

Marx’s contribution was massive and varied and falls into three areas: general theory, specific
theory and methodology. Following Hegel, Marx developed a theory of historical inevitability,
but unlike Hegel he based his theory on the material conflict of opposing economic forces arising
out of the means of production, resulting the ultimate overthrow of capitalism and creation of
classless society. Basically, Marx argued that the nature of any society depends up on the
dominant mode of production, which determined the relationship between individuals and groups
of individuals and the ideas and values predominant in that society. It therefore followed that the
fundamental change in the society was consequent upon major changes in the mode of
production.

Political Sociology
Marx’s interpretation of history was based on the twin pillars of economic and sociological
theory. He developed David Hume’s labor-value theory into theories of surplus value and the
exploitation of labor, and these formed the basis of his major sociological theory, the class
struggle. He also developed a theory of alienation, which argued that the subordinate class or
classes in society come to reject the ideas and values of the ruling class and develop alternative
and eventually revolutionary ideas and values, which formed the basis of the class struggle. This
had to be proceed, however, by the development of class consciousness another of Marx’s
important concepts, the realization by subordinate class of their true position in the means of
production and therefore in society.

Many criticisms have been leveled at Marx’s theories, some based on their general validity,
others on their predictive value. For example, although he did not ignore the importance of ideas
as sociological factors, Marx regarded them as dependent rather than independent variables, thus
subordinating them to his economic interpretation of history. The role of Marxism as an ideology
in many parts of the world would suggest that Marx over-emphasized the economic
subordination of ideas. Similarly, the failure of a number of his predictions and his failure to
anticipate the adaptive capacity of capitalism, have cast doubt on the validity of his theories.
These criticisms do little, however, to diminish his contribution to political sociology.

Perhaps inevitably, the second founding father of political sociology, Max Weber; was one of
Marx’s leading critics. Weber’s contribution consisted not only of a major critique of Marx, but
of a considerable number of specific studies and concepts of importance to political sociology. In
his work the protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and in his studies of India, China and
the Jewish people, Weber sought to demonstrate the non-economic factors, especially ideas,
were important sociological factors. Moreover, in examining social stratification in various
societies he argued that social strata could be based not only on an individual’s ‘class’ or
economic position in society, as Marx asserted, but also upon status or social position in society,
or upon an individual’s position in the societal power structure. These could, Weber
acknowledged, be overlapping, but were not necessarily identical.

Weber also contributed several important conceptual and methodological ideas to political
sociology: he focused attention on the importance of power as a political concept, particularly
within the context of the state, and on the authoritative exercise of power or legitimacy. In the

Political Sociology
latter case he suggested three major bases for legitimacy- The traditional, the charismatic, and
the legal-rational, which are the most famous of his “ideal types! Weber’s concept of the ideal
type is simply the construction of historically observable facts into a model or bench-mark
against which other similar phenomena can be measured. The term ideal is not meant as a
judgment, but rather as a means of plotting points on a sociological graph, and the ideal type
remains a useful tool in sociology generally.

Weber’s other methodological legacy was the concept of sympathetic (or subjective)
understanding or Verstehen, as applied to sociology. Weber felt that human behavior could be
better understood if account were taken of the motives and intentions of those directly involved
in that behavior. It was natural that Weber should stress such a concept, given the importance he
attributed to the force of ideas as sociological factors.

He acknowledged that the choice of subjects for investigation inevitably reflected the value of
the research, but that once chosen it was possible, through the application of Verstehen, to be
objective. Nonetheless, there has been criticism of Weber’s work on the grounds that, regardless
of his claims that it was value-free, the examination of human motives involved as interpretative
element which could not be ultimately objective. His work has also been criticized on other
grounds, such as historical accuracy, but his work and ideas, like those of Marx, have proved a
stimulus to subsequent generations of sociologists and political scientists.

Marx and Weber laid the foundations of political sociology, but a considerable period was to
elapse before anything remotely resembling a complete edifice was to rise on those foundations.
What did occur was the development of work on particular aspects of what are now regarded as
integral parts of political sociology, such as the development of elite theories by Gaetano Mosca
or and Vilfredo Pareto and related studies of political parties by M. Ostrogorski and Robert
Michels.

Some areas began to receive attention, such as political socialization, participation, and
recruitment. Seeking to explain how people acquired their political beliefs, how they became
involved in politics, and how those who secured political office came to do so. Yet others
examined the role of political communication-how political information and ideas were
transmitted within society. Gradually political sociology assumed a more coherent whole,

Political Sociology
although early texts and collections of readings tended to focus on limited and selected aspects of
the subject area.

Marx and Weber were of the same mind in believing that politics could only be explained and
understood within a societal context, a contest which was deeply historical. The strong tendency
towards compartmentalize in academic studies and teaching resulted in the haphazard and
piecemeal development of political sociology, leading to a concentration on some aspects of the
subject and the neglect of others, and the eclecticism that pervaded the work of both men largely
disappeared under the weight of specialization.

Political Sociology
 Unit Two

2. The State and Government

2.1. The Concept of Sate

As a concept, state refers to a territorial entity that is politically organized and has a government
and people. The state can be understood as the highest and most powerful political organization
of society. It possesses the monopoly of power to use within its territory. The state is the final
source of all laws within its territory.

A state exists where there is a political apparatus of government ruling over a given territory,
whose authority is backed by a legal system and by the capacity to use military force to
implement its policies (Giddens, 2001:421). .All modern sates in which the great mass of
population are citizens who regard themselves as part of a single nation. Giddens (2001: 421)
goes on to discuss that modern states have the following important characteristics unlike the
traditional states. These are Sovereignty, citizenship and nationalism.

 Sovereignty. The territorial ruled by traditional states where always poorly defined, the
level of control wielded by the central government being quite weak. The notion of
sovereignty entails that a government possesses authority over an area with a clear –cut
border, within which it is the supreme power-had little relevance. All nation states, by
contrast, are sovereign states.

 Citizenship. In traditional states, most of the population ruled by the king or emperor
showed little awareness of, or interest in, those who governed them. Neither did they
have any political rights or influence. Normally, normally only the dominant class or
affluent groups felt a sense of belonging to an overall political community. In modern
societies, by contrast, most people living within the borders of political systems are
citizens having common rights and duties and regarding themselves as part of a
nation .While there are some people who are political refugees or are stateless, almost
everyone in the world today is a member of a defined national political order.

Political Sociology
  Nationalism. Nation – states are associated with the rise of nationalism, which can be
defined a set of symbols and beliefs providing the sense of being part of a single political
community. Thus, individuals feel a sense of pride and belonging in being in British,
American, and Canadian or Russian. In most cases, these feeling give impetus to the
quest from independence. Dear learner, probably people have always felt some kind of
identity with social groups of one form or another –their family, village or religious
community. Nationalism, however, made its appearance only with then development of
the modern state. It is the main expression of feelings of identity with a distinct
sovereign community.

According to Max Weber the state was characterized by much more that power and its
legitimate use. It was also distinctive in having administrative organizations through which it
maintained its day –to-day exercises. A somewhat more elaborate definition of state is a
compulsory political association with continuous organization as long as it and in so far as their
administrative staffs successfully claim the monopoly of physical force in the enforcement of
its orders.

This definition also makes it clear that for most individuals belonging to a particular state is not
a matter of choice but of accident ;only those who move ,usually voluntarily ,form one state to
another are able to exercises any real choices. As stated by Rush it may well be that most
individuals accept their membership of a particular state with little or no question ,but this is no
way derogates the compulsory nature of the state ,since it is in the name of the state that
individuals are taxed, laws passed, and policies determined and implemented.

The Marxist view of sate (and therefore of power, authority and legitimacy) differs significantly
from that of Weber and non –Marxists. Marxists do not deny the territorial nature of the modern
sate, but they define its role very differently. For non- Marxist the state is the necessary but
politically neutral apparatus through which a society maintains order, settles internal conflicts
and achieves its economic and social goals. Marxist theory, however, assigns to the state is the
crucial role of representing and operating in the interests of the dominant class in a society.

Political Sociology
The Marxist goes on to say that thus far from being neutral the state is the state is the product of
historical class struggles, its legitimacy and authority are irrelevant and exist only in the minds
of the ruling class and the false consciousness of those unaware of its true nature .Moreover,
according to Marxist theory the state will eventually wither away or cease to exist, since the
classless society characteristics of communist society will by definition, not produce a state.
However, whether conceived of in Marxist or non-Marxist terms the state is of central concern
to political sociology .Its origins need to be explored and the state in the modern world
understood.
Modern states are characterized by clearly defined geographical boundaries within which a
widely acknowledged political and administrative apparatus operates exclusively and is
ultimately able to enforce its authority through the use of physical coercion. Historically
leadership position emerged ,whether individual or collective ,sometimes for particular
purpose ,such as hunting , fighting, or seeking water .To proceed beyond these survival and
sufficiency, other related developments were necessary.

The first was production of a surplus to enable societies to turn their attention to matters other
than survival. And the production of surplus facilitated the second development – what Hebert
Spencer called specialization and Emile Durkheim a division of labor, in which different
individuals or groups of individuals preformed different tasks for the society more or less
exclusively. This process was helped by and helped the development of the transition from small
family groups to much larger ,extended families and to tribes .The division of labor not only
produced a greater surplus , but also created opportunities for more extensive political activity,
including the establishment of control over a particular territory and in many cases the formation
of state.
2.2. Theories of State Formation
Much is known about the world’s state, not because of the elaborate and detailed records they
developed. It is partly known because; each developed their mythical account of their
beginnings. And it is based upon general assumptions and historically sequences of the
transformation of society from primitive through pastoralism and agricultural settlements to
emerging sate. This process is neither easily traced nor be explained by a single

Political Sociology
theory .However, within political sociology, two theories of state formations have emerged –
conflict theories and integrative theories (Reviewed in Rush, 1992).

Conflict theory, as the term suggests, argue that states developed as a consequence of clashes
between individuals or groups of individuals or between societies. Cutting across various
conflict theories is the argument that the conflict gave rise to state were about the exercise of
power. A second type of intra- societal conflict focuses on individual conflicts. One of the
oldest is contact theory: the state, it is asserted, is the product of individual’s need for protection
from the inevitable conflict found in society, a view held by both Hobbes and Locke and
historically manifested most clearly in the development of feudalism, which regularized into an
elaborate contractual relationship the rights and obligations between lord and vassal., resting
ultimately on protection in return from agreed services.

Integrative theories of state formation as it assets offer a different perspective, without

necessarily excluding conflict as a factor .They tends to fall into two types: integrations resulting
from the circumscription of society and integration is bringing organizational benefits.
Circumscription theory argues that a society which cannot shed its surplus population through
emigration because of geographical barriers such as mountains, seas and deserts, will seek to
organize itself more effectively in the form of a state. Similarly, benefits that may accrue from
grater organization may also, it is argued, lead to the establishment of a state.
Having discussed some of the important characteristics of modern states, we now consider the
main types of political systems which exist with them.

2.3 The development of the modern state

There are three key strands in the development of the modern state: the development of
capitalism, the coming of the industrial revolution, and the development of the nation-state.
Together they are responsible for the world of states which characterizes modern world.
2.3.1. The development of the capitalist state
Fernand Braudel (1979), as cited by Rush (1992), argues that the capitalist economy was
preceded by the development of two other factors: the market economy and the monetary
economies. A market economy is one based on the widespread and regular exchange, circulation

Political Sociology
and distribution of goods and a monetary economic activity based on convertible wealth rather
than exchange or barter. The development of monetary economy facilitated the accumulation of
wealth from profit, in short the creation of capital.
Three developments were necessary for the growth of capitalism: first, the survival of dynasties
and families to allow the accumulation of wealth through inheritance and marriage; second,
stratified society with sufficient social mobility to allow for regeneration of the existing upper
strata and the encouragement of the lower strata and the encouragement of the lower strata
society; and third, the development of world trade to raise profit levels. Capital accumulation
was the key to bringing about the industrial revolution.
2.3.2. The Industrial Revolution
The industrial revolution depended on the coming together of a range of requisites in addition to
capital- resources, man power, food, entrepreneurs, markets, and ideological support. Capital
alone was not enough, but it was the key factor. All of these requisites were present in Europe,
most markedly and effectively in Britain. The shift from a subsistence and barter economy to
cash economy, opening up the way to a market economy occurred more extensively in Europe
than elsewhere. England was undoubtedly well placed to nurture the industrial revolution, both
materially and ideologically, not least as a naval and trading power based on a unified state, and
well served by the accidents of history and perhaps even more, of geography. What was possible
in Europe over several hundred years could not automatically be transferred to other societies of
other times, for the simple reason that the industrial revolution in Europe and the United States
transformed the world politically, and, above all, economically. Europe, and more particularly
the major European powers, came to dominate much of the world, initially through colonialism,
while the western hemisphere came largely to be dominated by the United States. The
development of capitalism in Europe eventually transformed the world, but it also led to the
development of other models of industrialization. European capitalism was accompanied by
another force, nationalism, which led to the emergence of the nation-state.
2.3.3. The Rise of the Nation State
M. Rush (1992) argues that if one of Europe’s major legacies to the world is capitalism, its other
is the nation-state. Nationalism as a modern social and political force is not, of course, peculiar
to Europe, but historically its origins that lie in Europe. Certainly, in the later medieval period
England and France could be described as nations in the sense that the overwhelming majority of

Political Sociology
their populations belonged to common ethnic, linguistic and cultural groups. How far it is
accurate to translate this commonality into a sense of community or national identity is a
different matter, but appeals to patriotism were not known. As social and political force
nationalism become increasingly important from the end of the eighteen century onwards. The
internationalism of the French Revolution was fairly rapidly transformed into nationalism when
revolutionary France sought to export its radical ideas, but it was the hundred years from 1815 to
1919 that was to be the century of European nationalism.
The essentially European concept of the nation-state become the model for the modern state and
where a national identity did not exist it become necessary to create one. This was done nowhere
more successfully than in the United States. Language, culture, history, and ideology were, and
in many cases remain, the symbol of national identity; along with a national flag and national
anthem. A key role in the nation buildings process is invariably played by political leaders who
claim to represent the ‘nation’ and who, in many instances, led the ‘nation’ in its struggle for
independence from colonial rule. Nation buildings also involves other means: the socialization of
the population through education and the media; the need to defend the nation against external
threat, real or imagined; the use of war as a unifying force; membership of regional
organizations, such as the Arab League, or generic associations, such as non-aligned states, and
Organizations of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); but above all in policies of economic
development.

2.4. The Government

The term the government refers to a collection of people who occupy positions of authority
within the framework of the state. It can also be used to refer to the regular implementation of
the policies and decisions on the part of the officials in a political apparatus. These people in the
government apparatus have formalized goals; backed by the army and they work in a defined
territory.

Therefore, the state refers to the organized social institution; and the government refers to the
collection or group of people who at a given point in time occupy a position of authority in the
state. Whereas it is difficult (although not impossible) to revolution ally change the state system,
which endures with slight adjustment in its evolution and adaptation to the prevailing situation,

Political Sociology
the government system, as the people occupying the statuses therein leave and got replaced by
others, can change.

2.4.1. Power, Authority and Legitimacy

 Power

Although much is written on the subject there is no one generally agreed upon definition of
power, so remaining to be an area of heated debate.

Some scholars defined power as an ability to do or act. Positions, valued by the society, enable
individuals or groups to act on their will. Weber contends on power as if it is an aspect of most
social relations.

Most writers (Marx, Weber, Parsons and Mills) who attempted to define power characterized it
as a capacity or ability for certain units, of individuals, of groups, of organizations, of classes,
etc., to make certain decisions for or impose their will over other social units.

Although power is exercised in every social relationship and in all locations, the context in which
it takes place gives its unique structure and form. Based on this, therefore, we can have three
different but interrelated forms of power: social, economic and political. Social power is power
exercised in social and interpersonal relations. It is the ability to induce and influence decisions
at group, community and society level. Economic power is power based on the possession of
economic means of production-the wealthy people. Political power is power by virtue of
political offices and positions in the government exercise this power.

All these forms of power involve a significant influence and control over other people’s behavior
and circumstances.
 Authority and Legitimacy

In all societies, some forms of power relations are institutionalized and become part of the social
structure of the social organization. They are given the stamp of legitimacy, therefore considered

Political Sociology
right, fair and natural. When such legitimacy is involved, power changes its name and becomes
authority.

Authority

Authority is an institutionalized power, a power accepted as natural, fair, right by those who are
subjected to its influence. It is a socialized form of power, and therefore, it belongs to the
position not to the individual who occupies a position in the social, political, or economic
structure of the society.

For Weber there are three different forms of authority or legitimate domination.

 Traditional authority is an authority system based on the acceptance of the power of the
ruler to dominate because the system has been exercised for long period of time. It is
based on belief systems and customs and it is an inherited and ascribed status.

 Charismatic authority is an authority system based on a person’s exceptional and

exemplary qualities.

 Rational legal authority is an authority system based on the rules and regulations. This
rational legal authority is what we find in most governmental and other bureaucratic
institutions in modern societies.

Some contemporary sociologists added a fourth type of authority: professional authority2, which
is based on expertise (knowledge, profession, etc) e.g. medical doctors, architects, etc.

Power and Authority: Points of Intersection

There are four possible points of intersection between power and authority.

 A government may have both power and authority and therefore can make laws and
effectively enforce its policies. Democratic types of governments are examples.
2

Political Sociology
  A government may have power, but no authority. These are governments that exist
because they have the control over the army and the physical force. Their laws and policy
decisions are accepted by the people, not as legitimate ones but by fear of punishment.
The power of the government is not accepted as legitimate because those who are
subjected to it do not accept it as natural and fair. Dictatorial governments are examples.

 A government may have the moral authority and the claim for mass support, but no
power to exercise. There are governments that claim the sole legitimacy of ruling the
mass, but without the necessary power for enforcing their policies. Governments in exile
are examples.

 A government may have neither power nor authority. Such a government is very
susceptible for attack both from the inside and/or outside.

 Legitimacy
Legitimation is a process through which the social system or some aspects of it comes to be
accepted as appropriate and generally supported by those who partake in it. Although it has been
originally referring to the existence of the king or the queen in their appropriate places, it
nowadays refers to people’s attitude about the government regulations as right or wrong.

Of course, any government depends on its effectiveness3 and the legitimacy of their political
systems for its stability and continual existence.

There are four possible ways how a government could achieve legitimacy:

 By governing well: that is what we call effectiveness: ensuring economic growth,

providing defense against invaders, providing justice to all, improving the living
standard of the people, etc. In general terms, governing well means prolonged

3
Effectiveness refers to the social and economic growth and development that a government could bring about to its
subjects.

Political Sociology
 effectiveness and constant economic development. The survival of any government
system is dependent up on its ability to meet the needs of the population for a prolonged
period of time. Even for democratic form of governments, bringing economic
development is important for the maintenance of their legitimacy.

 By fair structuring of the government system: if legislators are elected, if the people are
fairly represented and have a say in all the activities that are going on in the country’s
affair, the subjects are more likely to submit to the government and provide it with
legitimacy.

 By governing for long period: long established governments are generally well accepted
by their citizens than newly established governments that have got a shaking legitimacy,
as people would not trust whether they have to support or not. People tend to consider
long established governments as natural and legitimate and they, therefore, would not
think otherwise.

 By manipulating national symbols: by using all those things like the national flag, the
history of the country and arousing the patriotic feeling of the people will facilitate the
legitimacy move of the incumbent government. Manipulating national symbols,
addressing some issues that touch the emotions of the citizens will most probably enable
the government to command the acceptance of the people. Nonetheless, when the other
elements of legitimacy are not present, symbols by themselves will never create
legitimacy and the government will eventually collapse.

2.5. Types of Political Rule

Throughout history societies have relied on a variety of political systems .Even today, countries
around the world continue to organize themselves according to different patterns and
configurations. While some countries now claim to be democratic – that is tom say that they are
ruled by the people- other forms of political rule continue to exist. In this section we shall

Political Sociology
profile the four basic types of political systems: Monarchy, democracy, authoritarianism and
theocracy.
2.5.1 Monarchy
A monarchy is a political system headed by a single person whose power is passed down
through their family across generations. In ancient and medieval times, monarchies were
favored in many areas of the world, from Asia to Europe to parts of Africa, and royal families
ruled over their subjects on the basis of tradition and divine right. The authority of monarchies
is legitimated by the strength of custom, rather than law.
2.5.2 Democracy
The word democracy has its roots in the Greek term demokratia, the individual parts of which
are demos (‘people’) and Kratos (‘rule’). Democracy is therefore a political system in which the
people, not monarchs or aristocracies, rule. Rather it is a system of government in which power
is vested in the citizens or the people and in which the citizenry participates directly or indirectly
in the decision making process.

Direct (Participatory) democracy

In direct or participatory democracy decisions are made commonly by those affected by them.
This was the original type of democracy practiced in ancient Greece. Participatory democracy,
however, has of limited importance in modern societies, where the mass of the population have
political rights, and it would be impossible for everyone actively to participate in the making of
all the decisions that affect them.

Yet some aspects of direct democracy do play a part in modern states. Small communities like
New England, in the Northern Parts of the United States, continue the traditional practice of
annual meetings. On these designated days, all then residents of the town gather together to
discuss and vote on local issues that do not fall under state or federal governments jurisdictions.
Another example of direct or participatory democracy is the holding of referenda when the
people express their views on a particular issue.

Indirect democracy

Political Sociology
In practical terms direct democracy is not widely practiced, except in specific and crucial
instance such as referendum. More common today is indirect or representative democracy, a
political system in which decisions affecting a community are taken, not by members as a
whole, but by people they have elected for this purpose. Representative democracy thus holds
free elections, and theoretically every citizen has the right to vote. As such in the area of
national government, representative democracy takes the form of elections to congress,
parliaments or similar national bodies.

Countries in which voters can choose between two or more parties and in which the mass of the
adult population has the right to vote are usually called liberal democracy. Britain and the other
Western European countries, the US, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand all fall into this
category. Some developing countries such as India also have liberal democratic systems.

2.5.3. Authoritarianism
While democracy encourages the active involvement of citizens in political affairs, in
authoritarian states popular participation is denied or severely curtailed. More clearly, under
authoritarian governments, no separation of power exists, a single person (dictator), group
(family, military, single party), or social class holds all power. In such cases, the needs,
interests and opinions of the state are prioritized over those of average citizens and no legal
mechanisms have been established for opposing government or for removing a leader from
power. In generally, it is a system of government in which the full right for decision is entirely
vested in the hands of people who hold political power.
2.5.4. Theocracy
Theocracy is a form of government in which political power authority rests in the hands of
religious leaders or theologically trained elite. Under this system, there is no separation of
church and state. And the primary purpose of a theocracy is to uphold divine laws in its
policies and practices .Hence, government policies and laws correspond to religious principle
and laws.
2.6. Theories of Political Process

Theories in political sociology try to explain how power is distributed, who rules given society,
and what techniques and strategies that the rulers use in subordinating the ruled.

Political Sociology
 1. Elite theory
 The term elite refer to a superior social group in a society in terms of
ability, privileges, etc. Elitism is a doctrine that assumes some groups
always get an upper hand and rule the mass. The elitist perspective is
found in works of sociologists such as Vifredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca,
Robert Micheles and C. Wright Mills. At the core of elite theory lies the
conception that in any society there are minorities who rule the society,
and those who take major decisions in a society.

Elite theorist Principal works Approach

1.Gaetano Mosca The Ruling Class  Organizational
(1858-1941) (1896.rev.1923.trans.19  Organizational
Robert Michels 39)
(1876-1936) Political Parties: A
Sociological Study of the
Oligarchic Tendencies of
Modern Democracy
(1911 trans.

1915)
2. Vilfredo The Mind and Society
Pareto (1916. trans. 1935)  Psychological

(1848-1927)
3. James
Burnham The Managerial  Economic
Revolution (1941)
(1905-87)
4. C. Wright
Mills The Power Elite (1956)  Institutional

(1916-62)

Source: Michael Rush, 1993

V. Pareto (Italian)

His approach was psychological. He argued that every society is ruled by a

minority, a group that poses those qualities that are necessary for political

Political Sociology
 and social leadership. Those who get at the top are the best and they are
called elite. And these elite are consisting of those successful individuals in
education, wealth etc and this group rules the society in the stratum of
social and political affairs. He divided the elites in to two categories: the
governing elite and the non-governing elite. For Pareto the governing elite
refer to the ruling classes which directly influences the political decision
making process. And the non-governing elite group is made up to those
persons who hold a leadership positions in a society such as engineers, the
physicians, the social scientists, etc but who are not directly involved in the
political decision making process.

Pareto rejects the Marxist notion of economic determinism that people

become leaders because of their economic resources. He argued that the
elites are largely the products of their individual human qualities
(attributes). The elite have got better and superior qualities. His approach
was psychological. He emphasized the individual’s unique qualities for
leadership. They (elites have got superior psychological abilities or qualities
in order to get obedience from the mass. Pareto view History as an endless
alteration or circulation of power elite: new elite comes to replace the older.
He also viewed society as it consists of two closes: the higher stratum (the
elite) and the lower stratum (the mass or the non-elite). The elite group has
two sub-divisions Governing elite and the non-governing elite. No matter
what form or type of government there is always a circulation of elites and it
is always the privileged minorities (the elite) who run the show.

G. Mosca and R. Michels:

Both believe in the existence of the elite group and contended that it
domination of the society rests on its organizational position and abilities.
For them, the organized minorities rules or manipulate those that are less
organized or disorganized mass.

Political Sociology
G. Mosca (Italian)
He argues that there are two classes in all societies. These are class
destined to rule and class destined to be ruled. According to him, whatever
the form of government administration system, power is always
concentrated in the hands of superior individuals who have a highly
organized system of communication in decision making process; whereas
the majority group is usually disorganized. An individual in majority stands
alone. The organization qualities of the minorities are results of their elite
social background rather than their biologically or psychologically inherited
factors. G. Mosca divided the elite in to the upper and the lower (the sub-
elite) strata. The upper stratum consists of a small group of political
decision makers. Theses second group includes those individuals in public
institution, managers, scholars, physicians, the technocrats, etc. Members
of this group are so vital in any society, as the educated middle class people
that serve as a channel or as bridge of information between the minority &
the majority. They provide information for decision making. This group is
also a source for recruitment for the upper elite group. Mosca believes that
the stability of any political organization or government depends on the level
of morality and intelligence that the second group attained, and the
activities undertaken by the group. Like pare , Mosca argues there is always
a circulation of elite. There is an endless change of the elite group and that
is the way how society is ruled.

R. Michels (German)
He pointed out that there is a ways inherent tendency for parties and labor
union or other socialist parties to change themselves to an oligarchic rule.
This is inherent in all organizations in a society. Leaders of organizations
and parties have always an interest in monopolizing the institutionalized
power. He coined his famous phrase” the Iron law of oligarchy”. The Iron law
of oligarchy asserts that even the democratic organizations will eventually
develop in to a bureaucratic form of administration (a rule by the few or elite

Political Sociology
 group). A group may be born out with the most ideal democratic principles
but there is a permanent tendency to be transformed in to an oligarchical
rule. Eventually power comes in the hands of small group of people whether
the form of government is socialist, democratic or dictatorial.

Why Do Oligarchies Emerge?

1. Complexity of Modern Organizations

In complex societies, it is practically impossible to directly engage all members of a society

in all matters (considerations of time, space and energy). At the same time, it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to reach at a consensus while involving too many people in the
process. To the solution, the majority should select and appoint representatives to facilitate
the decision making process.

However, these people who enjoy the privileges of the positions they are instated, would
want and therefore use different techniques to monopolize and perpetuate themselves in
power-and this results in an oligarchical system of rule. In other words, it can be said that the
growth of complexity of the tasks and division of labor in the modern world leads to the rise
of an oligarchical rule. An Iron Law of Oligarchy dictates that complex societies always
become oligarchic in which the power of the state is monopolized by the elite.

2. Apathy or Incompetence of the Mass

As the mass is usually apathetic, slavish, or indolent, it’s permanently incapable of self-
governing. Not only the mass, but also the rank and file members of a party or a movement
look up to the leaders for direction, and they, therefore, enforce the process of the rule by the
few (an oligarchical rule). For Michels, the leaders, therefore, would take the advantage of
these qualities of the mass to perpetuate them in power and monopolize institutionalized
power.

Political Sociology
 3. The Lure of Leadership Positions

Leadership positions in a society are attended with packages of privileges, which tempt the
leaders to exploit all possible techniques to stay in power. Revolution usually takes place
when power in monopolized by few individuals. Contrary to its aim, it overthrows one
tyranny and replaces it with a new form of tyranny and oligarchy.

C.W. Mills (the American)

His approach is institutional. In his book the “power elite”, Mills argued that elite groups in
America are part of the structure of the society and therefore, their power is institutionalized.
For him, USA is dominated by three complex but overlapping elite groups
whose key members constitute what he calls “the power elite”. They are the
industrial elite, the military elite and the political elite. The members of the
group make the decisions that have major national and international
consequences.

The power elite control the major resources in the America and commands the
major institutions such as the legal, executive, the legislative branches of
government of their own interest. The power structure in American society
could be depicted in terms of three classes:
The power elite: (corporate business men leaders of federal government, the
rich people, the military leaders, the political leaders)
The middle classes (intellectuals, the scholars, white collar workers, &
leaders of interest groups).
The mass: (the exploited and disorganized mass).
To sum up, Mills proposed that power in America is monopolized by the big
businessmen, the federal leaders and the military leaders. The rest of the
mass has a secondary and irrelevant role in decision making process. In
every society, the minority took the decision making positions, where as the
majority are in position of being ruled.

Political Sociology
 2. Pluralist Theory
The strong opposition to the elite theory comes from the pluralist. According
to pluralist model, power instead of being concentrated in the herds of a
group or a class, it is diffused among the many interest groups competing
against each other’s for the full possession of it. They don’t accept the
existence of a single superior group, an elite group that monopolizes power
in a society. There is no group strong enough to monopolize power.
According to pluralist model, government policies are compromise or an
outcome of the participation between the various interest groups with in a
society such as business groups, trade unions, ethnic groups and others.
A policy is an outcome of the participation of all these groups and the
government’s role is like a broker or a balancing agent among the competing
interest group to make sure that the various groups will fit in to the rules of
the game. Pluralists see power as politically fragmented or diffused among
the different sectors of a society; no one group is strong enough to be a
dictator as when one is getting stronger in power; others present a challenge
to the process. Competition among the several groups prevents any group
from monopolizing power and then becoming a dictator. Pluralists assume
that politics works in what is known as check and balance technique. So
long as there is an open election system, people’s ideas and interests are
represented in the decision made in a society. Robert Dahl (1961) in his
book “who governs?” Democracy and power in an American city” says policy
issues are outcomes of different interest groups. The described such system
as polyarchy the rule of leaders of several groups who have reached stable
understanding with each other or the rule of many in which the state & its
political structures provide an arena or environment so that interests can
bargain &compete over proposals.
3. The Functionalist Perspective
Functionalists counter argued that there is a good reason why the state
arose and why to up to day it has assumed a dominate position in

Political Sociology
 contemporary life. They said that society must maintain order and provide
the command good.
 Functionalists mentioned four major or primary function of the
state:
1. Enforcement of norms: State enforces the folkways and mores through
spontaneous & collective action of community members. In modern
society, a state is a special body or organization required to assure law
and order.
2. Planning and direction: It plans and directs tasks should be performed
by individuals or groups in order to bring social change.
3. Arbitration of conflicting interests: A state plays an important role in
arbitrating conflicts of interests that arise among people due to
completion over scare resources such as privilege, power, and other
resources.
4. Protection against other societies: The state provides protection for its
population in time of invasion from outside by mobilizing forces.

4. The conflict perspective

 Contends that state is a vehicle by which one or more groups impose
their values and structured inequality up on other groups.
 The state has its origin in the desire of ruling elites to give presence to
social arrangements that benefit themselves.
 Politics helps the interest of one group to get what it wants at the
expense of the others. It is not equally responsive to all peoples groups.
Those who tend to participate benefit mostly.

Political Sociology
 Unit Three

3. Political Behavior and Society

3.1. Political socialization

Political socialization is one of the explanations of political behavior with in

society. To understand power and its distribution it is necessary to examine
political behavior with in society, in particular to explore who takes part in
politics and why?
Political socialization may be defined as the process by which individuals in a
given society become acquainted with the political system and which to a
significant degree determines their perceptions and their reactions to Political
phenomena.
The broad definition of political sociology involves both deliberate and overt
socialization and unconscious or covert socialization. It is therefore strongly
related to, though not synonymous with, the concept of political culture. In
civic culture Almond and Verbal, as cited by Rush (1992), posited three types
of political culture: the parochial, the subject, and the participant. Parochial
political culture is characterized by a low awareness of government, low
expectations of government and a low level of political participation; a subject

Political Sociology
political culture by higher levels of awareness and expectation, but a low level
of participation; and a participant culture by high levels of awareness,
expectation, and participation.
It is probably not feasible to regard political socialization as synonymous with
political culture, but to see political culture as the product of political
socialization. This leaves political socialization to be defined more broadly as
the means by which individuals acquire political knowledge or information,
political values or basic beliefs, and political attitudes or opinions on specific
matters. Exploring political socialization further then becomes a matter of
seeking answers to three related questions:
1. What is learned?
2. When is learned?
3. How is learned?
1. What is learned?
There is a strong presumption in socialization research that the basis of much
behavior, political no less than social, is acquired in early stages of life. In a
major study of childhood political socialization, Easton and Demis (1959), as
cited by Rush (1992), suggest four stages in the socialization process. These
are:

 Recognition of individual authority;

 Recognition of a distinction between internal and external authority;
 Recognition of impersonal political authority; and
 Recognition of a distinction between institutions and the individuals associated with
them.

Similar stages of development have been found in studies elsewhere, but within both the United
States and other countries differences emerge in relation to age, socio-economic status (SES),
gender, IQ, and religion. The most significant of these differences is found in the levels of
political efficacy, that is, the extent to which individuals feel they are able to exert influence over
politics, which varies principally in relation to SES and IQ.

Political Sociology
2. When it is learned
The short answer to when political socialization occurs is throughout life, but
in practice child hood and to a lesser extent adolescence are generally regarded
as more important than adulthood.
Volgyes (1975), as cited by Rush(1992), in his study of Eastern Europe, refers
to ‘generational socialization’, that is, the conscious or sub-conscious
socialization of children by adults, and to ‘resocialization’, which he subdivides
into a ‘revolutionary phase’ and a ‘continuum phase’. When a new regime with
significantly different ideological values comes to power, he argues, it will seek
not only to socialize the younger generation, but resocialize the older
generation and convert their values from the old ideology to the new. Beyond
that, however, the regime will seek to reinforce its ideological control by a
continuing process of socialization, especially through the work place and the
media. The tendency to regard socialization as an exclusive childhood and
adolescent phenomenon has been challenged explicitly by a number by a
number of sociologists and implicitly by Marxist theorists. The former see
socialization as a lifelong process which helps the individual adapt to changing
circumstances and situations. It is argued that with in the family, peer group,
work group, and leisure groups there is interaction between
individuals, leading to the adjustment of behavior in anticipation of and as a
result of experience.
The Marxist view is not dissimilar in that it argues, implicitly rather than
explicitly, that socialization is a continuing process and necessarily so, since
the ruling class must ensure that its ideas prevail in society. Thus sometimes
consciously and overtly, but often sub consciously and covertly, the dominant
ideology is sustained in part through the continuing socialization of society,
initially through education system and subsequently through the prevailing
mode of production. There is a curious parallel between the Marxist view of
political socialization

Political Sociology
and the functionalist view of it, in that both see socialization as the means by
which a society perpetuates itself. However, for the functionalist; socialization
is part of the explanation of societal stability or equilibrium and therefore to be
seen in a positive light, whereas for the Marxist view, socialization is a block to
social change, something to be broken not welcomed. The interactionist view,
in contrast, not only admits the possibility of change, but sees it as a natural
though not inevitable consequence of socialization through experience.
Individuals adapt and modify their behavior according to experience and
society may change as a consequence. As far as political socialization is
concerned, researchers suggest that individuals may change their values, and
attitudes through social and geographical mobility.
3. How it is learned
Much of the research into socialization in general and political socialization in
particular has concentrated in childhood, placing, as might be expected,
considerable stress on the role of the family and the school as agents of
socialization; but the broader view of socialization argues that, important as
family and school may be, other agents exist-peer groups, work groups, leisure
group, religious groups and the media.
Important as the family and school may be in the earlier stages of socialization,
other agents are likely to assume greater prominence later. The role of peer
groups in many primitive societies has been well established by anthropological
research, but peer groups also operate in a socioeconomic setting particularly
in relation to status, and often operating through, but not synonymous with,
work, leisure and religious groups.
The mass media are widely regarded as an important agent of socialization in
general and of political socialization in particular. In modern societies the
media are the major source of the population’s information about what is
happening in their society and in the world at large. All governments seek to
influence the media not a few to control them. There can be no doubt that in
totalitarian societies the control of the media is seen as crucial to the

Political Sociology
continued dominance of the regime and, moreover, as a major agent of political
socialization.
The mechanisms through which socialization takes place fall under three
heads: imitation, instruction, and motivation. Imitation is the copying of the
behavior of other individuals or groups of individuals and is generally most
important in childhood. Instruction is the more or less intended learning of
appropriate behavior through formal education and less formally through
discussion groups and other activities, such as vocational training. Motivation
is the learning of appropriate behavior by experience, by a process of trial and
error. Instruction is clearly most important in childhood and adolescence, but
is also likely to be periodically important in adult life, while motivation is
common to the whole life cycle.
4. The relationship between political socialization and political
behavior
The relationship between socialization and behavior is much the most difficult
aspects of socialization theory to explore. Much of the research on it is based
on inferential data, principally matching socio-economic data with actual
behavior. This is especially common in studies of electoral behavior, in which
correlations between socio-economic characteristics, such as occupation and
education and voting behavior are used to support the argument that the latter
is to a significant extent the product of political socialization.
Different studies provide evidence to support the view that political
socialization is an important factor in electoral behavior in Britain and, by
inference, in political behavior more generally, but they also provide evidence
for the view those other factors, such as particular issues and attitudes
towards the government’s competence and handling of affairs. Correlations of
varying strengths between socio-economic characteristics and electoral
behavior are common and by no means limited to industrial societies or liberal
democracies. For instance, elections in many Third world
societies are notable for high levels of tribal or ethnic voting. Other studies
have found correlations between socio-economic characteristics and feelings of

Political Sociology
apathy and alienation. There remains, however, a major empirical problem of
establishing that the relationship between particular socioeconomic
chrematistics and political behavior is in general causal and that
it is to a significant degree the product of political socialization.
Political socialization is also widely seen as a major explanation of legitimacy,
by Marxists as well as non-Marxists. The question of society’s persistence is of
crucial importance to socialization theory, since it is arguably the transference
of knowledge, values attitudes from one generation to another that explains the
ability of a political system to survive through its widespread acceptance in
society, and to acquire and maintain legitimacy. There is, however, a danger
that a link between political socialization and legitimacy is seen in unduly
deterministic terms, with no allowance for, let alone an explanation of, societal
change. One answer, of course, is to argue that fundamental changes in society
are the result of a breakdown in political socialization, which may well be true
in some societies, must notably those with totalitarian tendencies. An
alternative approach is to argue that in most societies political socialization is
not monolithic, but will reflect whatever conflicts are found in a particular
society to the point that alternative or rival socialization process will exist.
Furthermore, by arguing that socialization is a lifelong process and that
personality and experience are very variables in that process, it is possible to
argue that political socialization may play a role in changing society as well as
preserving it.

3.2. Political participation

Political participation is the involvement of the individual at various levels of

activity in the political system, ranging from non-involvement to the holding of
political life. Inevitably political participation is closely linked to political
socialization, but it should not be seen solely as either an extension or the
product of socialization. Unless it is defined narrowly as a synonym for

Political Sociology
democracy, political participation may be said to be a universal phenomenon,
not in the sense that all individuals necessarily engage in political activity, nor
that it is equally common in political activity, nor that it is equally common in
form or extent in all societies but that it is found in all societies. Geraint Parry
suggests that it is necessary to examine three aspects of political participation-
the mode of participation, its intensity, and its quality.

3.2.1. Forms of political participation

Hierarchy political participation, ranging from non-involvement to holding
public office, with the lowest level of actual participation being voting in an
election. The concept of political participation need not involve activity at one
level is a precondition of activity at another, nor need protest be singled out as
a particular form of activity in a hierarchical sense.

 A hierarchy of political participation from Top to Bottom

 Holding political or administrative office

 Seeking political or administrative office
 Active membership of a political organization
 Active membership of a quasi- political organization
 Participation in public meetings, demonstration, etc.
 Passive membership of a political organization
 Passive membership of a quasi-political organization
 Participation in informal political discussion
 Some interest in politics
 Voting
NB. At the top of the hierarchy are those who hold various types of office with
in the political systems including both holders of political office and members
of the bureaucracy at various levels. They are distinguished from other political
participants in that, to varying degrees, they are concerned with the exercise of

Political Sociology
formal political power. Power may not reside among the office-holders, but they
remain important because they are normally the repositories of power.

Any consideration of office-holders must also include some consideration of

those who aspire to and seek the offices concerned. Below those who hold or
seek office in the political system are those who are active members of various
types of political or quasi-political organizations.
These include all types of political parties and pressure (interest) groups. From
the point of view of the political system, political parties and pressure groups
may be defined as agents of political mobilization. The basic distinction
between parties and pressure groups lies in their range of attitudes. Pressure
groups are organizations which seek to promote, defend or represent limited or
specific attitudes, whereas parties seek to promote, defend or represent limited
or specific attitudes, whereas parties seek to promote defend or represent a
broader spectrum of attitudes.
Participation in parties or pressure group may take an active or passive form,
ranging from holding office in such an organization to the provision of financial
support though the payment of subscriptions or membership dues. No sharp
distinction between active and passive membership is intended and the
individual may move from one to the other as circumstances vary.

For various reasons individuals may not belongs to any political or quasi
political organizations, but they may be persuaded to participate in some form
of public meeting or demonstration. This form may be spontaneous, but it is
often organized by political parties or pressure groups as part of their political
activity. Many, perhaps in some cases all, of the participants will be members
of the organizing bodies, but not necessarily, and non-members may be
persuaded to support the objectives of the meeting or demonstration.
Another intermittent form of political participation is that of informal political
discussion by individuals in their families, at work or among friends.

Political Sociology
Obviously, the incidence of such discussions varies both among individuals
and in relation to events. More discussion is likely during election campaigns
or at times of political crisis, while discussion may be inhibited or encouraged
by the attitudes of the family, fellow workers or friends.
Some people may not discuss politics with any one, however, but may still have
some interest in political matters and maintain that interest through the mass
media. The act of voting may be regarded as the least active form of political
participation, since it requires a minimized commitment which may cease once
the vote is cast. Furthermore, regardless of other restrictions which may exist,
the act of voting is inevitably restricted by the frequency of elections.
In considering political participation, however limited it may be some attention
should be paid to those who do not participate at all in political process.
Whether this is by choice or because of factors beyond the control of the
individuals it would happen.

2.3.2. The Extent of Political Participation

Different researches showed that higher levels of political participation involve
only a tiny proportion of the population, the lowest levels of majority: in short,
politics is essentially a minority activity. In many societies the highest level of
participation is in elections, although electoral turn out varies considerably
from one country to another.
There are ample and widespread evidence that political participation at all
levels varies according to socio-economic status, education, occupation,
gender, age, religion, ethnicity, the area and place of residence, personality,
and the political environment or setting in which participation takes place.
Socio-economic characteristics and political participation

 Higher levels of participation Vs. Lower levels of participation
 More education, - less education, especially primary or secondary
 Middle class - working or lower class
 Men -Women
 Older, especially middle-aged - younger and elderly

Political Sociology
  Married - single
 Urban residents - rural residents
 Longer residence - shorter residence
 Social involvement and membership
Of group or organizations - less social involvement and/or conflicting group
membership
 Ethnic majorities - Ethnic minorities

Influencing Government Policy in Democratic States

What are the ways that people can use in influencing the decisions made by their representative
democratic governments? Two major mechanisms are discussed in the following section.

1. Political Party Membership

Membership in political parties’ enables individuals to take part in the formulation of party
policies. If the party wins a government office, those policies could be the policies of the
government. As political parties are interested in administering by holding political offices,
membership in such parties gives an individual an opportunity to influence the trend of social,
political and economic development of a country.

2. Pressure / Interest Group Membership

Pressure groups try to put pressure on the government and its legislators to formulate and
implement policies that work in their members favor. They are the association of individuals
concerned with influencing the government in a manner favorable to the group members’
interest. They are important in democratic countries as they serve as a channel to represent the
opinions and interests that may escape the due attention of the government and keep the
government in touch with the public opinion.

Unit Four
4. Revolution
4.1. Defining Revolution

Political Sociology
Revolution is yet another widely used terms in the political vocabulary and perhaps even more in
political rhetoric, quite apart from its frequent literally uses as in ‘technological revolution’, or its
historical use, as in the ‘agricultural revolution’ or the industrial revolution’. It is also used in
conjunction with other terms like ‘rebellion’, ‘coup d’etat’, and ‘insurrection’ often without
drawing adequate conceptual distinctions between them.
The idea of revolution as myth has some analytical value, too, in that not only can it be used to
explain and justify political actions in a positive sense, but its absence can also be used to explain
other phenomena. For, conceptual purpose, however, revolution is best confided to those events,
or more accurately series of events ,which go much further than producing change of
government personnel or even regime, but result in fundamental changes in society.
4.2. Types of Revolutions
There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature. For example,
classical scholar Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated between 1) political revolutions 2) sudden
and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an
entire society and 3) slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several
generations to bring about (ex. religion). One of several different Marxist typologies divides
revolutions into pre-capitalist, early bourgeois, bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic, early
proletarian and socialist revolutions. Charles Tilly (2004), a modern scholar of revolutions,
differentiated between a coup, a top-down seizure of power, a civil war, a revolt and a "great
revolution" (revolutions that transform economic and social structures as well as political
institutions, such as the French Revolution of 1789, Russian Revolution of 1917, or Islamic
Revolution of Iran). Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social
revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to
replace capitalism with communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to
secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization) or violent vs. nonviolent
revolutions.
.The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere.
Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy
and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions.
Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of

Political Sociology
the usage of the word revolution in such context is the industrial revolution (note that such
revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville).
4.3. Characteristics of Revolution
Revolution must bring about changes in the ideology, the political regime, and the socio-
economic structure of society. A large body of literature would reveal that a revolution has the
following six characteristics.
1. The alternation of values and myth of a society.
2. The alternation of the social structure.
3. The alternation of institutions.
4. Changes in the leadership formation, either in the personnel of the elite or its class
composition.
5. Non-legal or illegal transfer of power.
6. The presence or dominance of violent behavior in the events leading to the regime collapse.
A. Marxist View of Revolution
Marx and Engels originally conceived a revolution as being a cataclysmic leap from one era the
next produced by the inevitable internal conflicts caused by the mode of production. While
revolution was inevitable, its timing was not and there might be many attempts before a
revolution actually took place. Marx argued that the revolution would occur only when the
material conditions were right, when the exploited class was conscious of its exploitation and the
ruling class was unable to maintain its dominant position. A communist revolution, therefore,
would occur only when the mass of the proletariat was ready to support it.
The essential logic of the Marxist model of revolution was that the greater the level of
industrialization, the greater the level of exploitation; the greater level of exploitation, the greaser
level of working-class alienation the essential precondition of class consciousness.
Later theorists have further adapted the Marxist view of revolution to explain both the past and
contemporary experience. As noted in earlier unit, Gramsci, for example, developed the concept
of hegemony-the dominance of one social class in terms of ideology as well as economic power
and Althusser developed similar views.
In general, Marxism rightly places great stress on the relationship between society and politics,
and especially between economics and politics, in seeking to understand the course of history

Political Sociology
and the occurrence of revolution. What remains in dispute is whether that relationship is a causal
one and, if so, whether it is the sole explanation.
B. A Non – Marxist View of Revolution
A non- Marxist view of revolution is more varied, but theories of different types, such as system
theorists, functionalists, and mass society theorists, agree that a revolution is a fundamental
transformation of society involving a change of ideology, political regime and socioeconomic
structures. They agree with the Marxist view that conflict is a natural part of society, but differ in
believing that revolution is inevitable. Not surprisingly, non –Marxists also have a different view
about the causes of revolution, a matter to be examined in the next section. Essentially revolution
is seen in terms of Cohan’s six characteristics discussed in preceding section of this unit.
In a non- Marxist view of revolution, Krejci( 1983) as cited in Rush( ) in his examination of
various revolutions ranging from the Czech Hussite Revolution in the fifteenth century to the
Chinese Communist Revolution in this period has drawn up an elaborate morphology of
revolution, from its very beginning to its ultimate conclusion.
The first stage he has calls onset, which is a prolonged period of innovative reformist moves
within part of the society’s cultural elite, leading to the defection of a number of intellectuals
who provide the impetus for change. At this stage the process is reformist rather than
revolutionary and the reformist forces embark on the second stage, which is institutionalization.
Institutionalization involves capturing some of the existing social and political structures to
provide a power base fro bringing about reform. In some cases argues, it may be necessary to
create new institutions where existing ones cannot be adopted, such as the creation of the
Russian Duma or constituent assembly in 1906. If at this point the reformist view prevails and
significant social change is set in train, the revolutionary process might abort. However, if the
regime attempts to stop it, then the revolutionary process enters what Krejci calls compression
stage.
Compression leads to the violent upheaval usually associated with revolution, which Krejci calls
the explosion – the outbreak of the civil war in England in 1642 and the fall of the Bastille in
1789 are obvious examples .Once the explosion has happened and brought about the immediate
overthrow of the regime, anew phase of oscillation starts, as differences between ideological
groups produce a further struggle for power.

Political Sociology
Eventually, one of the competing revolutionary groups wins power in Krejci’s terminology this
is interception. This is followed by a tightening securing a stronger grip, usually through a
revolutionary dictatorship. At this stage the enemies of the revolution are suppressed, invariably
through the use of terror, and the revolutionary regime may further attempt to defend itself by the
expansion of evolutionary rule.
Krejci argues, however, that expansion puts the resources available to the revolutionary regime
under even greater strains, resulting in a limited retreat from the regime’s revolutionary ideals or
reversal. This reversal may then result in what Krejci calls a restoration compromise, in which
there is a partial restoration of the pre-revolutionary regime, but because such a compromise is
usually uneasy it may lead counterrevolutionaries to hope for or seek further concessions and
create further restoration pressure.
The culmination of the revolutionary process is that of consolidation, by which the changes
brought about by the revolution are confirmed and a clear shift in ideology, political regime, and
socio-economic structure has taken place. Where restoration pressure has occurred Krejci says
this takes form of consolidation overthrow, where the counter-evolutionary forces are ousted as
part of the consolidation process.
4.4. The causes of revolution
A. General causes:
1. Economic: a shift in economic power leading to economic dissatisfaction.
2. Socio-cultural: Dissatisfaction on ethnic, linguistic, religious or regional grounds.
3. Ideological: the prevailing ideology is challenged and undermined and rival
ideologies emerge.
4. Political: Loss of efficiency, control and legitimacy by the regime.

B. Specific causes
Persistent demands by well-organized sector of society that a significant sector of the ruling elite
is unwilling to meet.
2. Visible dissension within the ruling elite between those favoring resistance and those favoring
concessions.
3. The credibility of the regime’s ideology is undermined by its performance in the face of
demands.
4. Widespread loss of legitimacy by the ruling elite.
5. Widespread loss of political control by the regime

Political Sociology
5.5. Revolution and Societal Change
Cleary revolution is a major form of societal change, but only a particular form. Not all
important societal change could be said to be the result of revolution. Further, there are events,
and circumstances which have or appear to have revolutionary potential, but do not lead to
revolution itself.

Political Sociology