GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TRADITIONAL COMPARATIVE POLITICS
R. According to C. Macridis, traditional comparative politics was comparative only in name: it was merely the study of foreign administrative laws in which the structure of governments and the formal organizations of the state institution were studied descriptively, historically and legally. Broadly speaking, emphasis was laid on the study of written constitutional documents and legal articles.
• Macridis has given five characteristics of comparative politics
1) mainly non-comparative
2) mainly descriptive;
3) Mainly descriptive
4) Mainly stable
5) Mainly managerial
Following are the general characteristics of traditional comparative politics:
(1) Mainly Non-Comparative
Roy C. Macridis has described traditional comparative political studies as essentially non-comparative. Since all these studies were studies of one or two countries only (Country by Country). In these, the unit of study was the constitution of a country. For example, Ogg had studied the constitutional systems of states like Britain, Germany, France, Italy, etc. in his work titled “Governments of Europe’. It was believed that ‘a country is a complete unit of study in itself. Therefore, traditional studies remained one country only and the question of comparison did not arise. Then traditional studies were limited to the study of parallel institutions, such as comparing the American President with the British King. The comparison of similarities and differences emerging from such studies was called comparative study. In fact, the main objective of the traditional writers was to formally and institutionally analyze the constitutions, legislatures, ministries or heads of states of different countries.
(2) Mainly descriptive –
Traditional comparative studies have been descriptive rather than problem -solving or analytical. Traditional writers gave utmost importance to the description of the organization and functions of governance. His belief was that the description of institutions is sufficient to explain them.
Therefore, by describing the governance systems, these scholars only explained the similarities and dissimilarities between different governance systems but did not study the circumstances and factors responsible for the similarities and dissimilarities in them. Traditional writers used only historical method or legal approach to describe political institutions. From this point of view, James T. Shotwell’s work ‘Government of Continental Europe’, Ogg and Zink’s work ‘Modern Foreign Government and Freeze M. Marx’s work ‘Foreign Governments’ are important
(3) Mainly Parochial –
Traditional comparative studies remained mainly limited to the narrow scope of the governance systems of Western states. Only descriptions of the political institutions of America and Western Europe are found in the works of traditional scholars. Scholars described the governance structures of France, America, Britain, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark, but showed no interest in studying the political institutions of Asia, Africa and South America. In the words of Eckstein and Apter, “The traditional approach remained limited to Western political systems and mainly studied one cultural configuration or group.”
(4) In the essentially static traditional approach, those dynamic factors were not studied which are the basis of the origin and development of various political institutions. Traditional scholars studied political systems in legal context and ignored those elements which are related to the problems and directions of political changes and development. He did not consider it necessary to study those circumstances and elements which make the parliamentary system successful or unsuccessful in any political system.
(5) Mainly Monographic :-
Most of the traditional works related to comparative governance are like long essays. In many of the important studies written on foreign governance systems during this period, one institution of one governance system or a particular institution in that system has been discussed. John Marriott, Arthur Keith, James Bryce, Ivor Jennings, Harold Laski, A. The works of writers like V. Dicey, Robson, Budrow Wilson, etc. can be placed in this category. The favorite subjects of study of these scholars have been – ‘American President’, ‘British Parliamentary System’, ‘British Cabinet’, ‘American Congress’, ‘French Administrative Law’, etc. What I mean to say is that all these studies were like detailed essays on a single institution or a single system.)
(6) Mainly Normative:
Traditional comparative studies were normative. They consider certain ideal concepts as criteria for political institutions. Traditional scholars consider idealistic beliefs like, ‘Democracy is the best system’, ‘Democracy will be successful only where there are two-party political parties’, etc. as criteria and evaluate the success and failure of governance systems on the basis of this criterion. In traditional comparative studies, emphasis was laid on values and principles. This was the reason that traditional studies remained limited to western democracies and no interest was shown in the study of undemocratic and colonial systems.
