TRADITIONAL METHODS OF COMPARATIVE STUDY
The traditional methods of studying comparative politics have been related to the predominance of history, ethics, philosophy and law, which has left the stamp of traditional approaches on it. Initially, traditional approaches laid emphasis on the formal study of various political institutions. Later, the Configurative Method was adopted in response to historical-legal methods. Over time, as a result of new states, emphasis was laid on ‘Area-studies’
The main traditional methods related to the study of comparative politics are as follows:
(1) Philosophical Method; (2) Historical Method; (3) The Formal-Legal Method; (4) The Configurative Method; (5) The Problem Approach; (6) The Area Approach; (7) The Institutional-Functional Approach.
(1) Philosophical Method-
Plato, Thomas Moore, Rousseau, J. S. This method has been mainly adopted by Mill, etc. Plato’s ‘Republic’ and Thomas Moore’s ‘Utopia’ are unique examples of this method. The concept of philosophical rule and ideal state by Plato, the concept of heavenly state by Moore, the concept of natural law and natural right by Locke and the concept of general will by Rousseau have been propounded on the basis of philosophical method only. The special quality of this method is that by determining the ideals of political life, work is done to bring politics closer to morality.
2) The Historical Method –
Political institutions are not created but are the result of development. Therefore, every political institution has a past and knowledge of its true nature can be obtained only by becoming familiar with its past. Therefore, historical method has great importance for the student of comparative politics. According to Gilchrist, “History not only organizes institutions, but it also helps in pointing the way for the future.”
Due to this usefulness of the historical method, this method has been used since the time of Aristotle. Laski, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Hegel, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, etc. have used this method in some form or the other.
Historical method helps us to look into the past and from this view of the past we can find the way for the future. This method tells us that political events do not occur disjointedly, but come in the form of an unbroken chain. It explores great political movements and ideas. On the basis of this, it can be known how authentic the current political institutions and ideas are.
3) The Formal-Legal Method –
A reaction against the historical method began in the 19th century. At this time, some thinkers emerged who considered political institutions from a purely legal point of view. Among those who followed the formal or legal method, German scholars gained the most fame. There were many jurists in America and England too who considered law and constitutions as the subject area of politics. Dicey’s book ‘Law of the Constitution’ dominated the textbooks of comparative politics. Scholars like Theodore Bullseye, Woodrow Wilson, Carter, Herz, Newman, etc. strengthened comparative politics by analyzing the legal codes and constitutions of India and abroad. Most of the books written on formal and legal grounds are descriptive and emphasize the study of formal institutions and laws. The biggest drawback of these works is that they ignore socio-economic psychological factors.
4) The Configurative Approach-
Among the scholars who use this method, Newman, Carter, Herz. Rosher, etc. are prominent. In this, the political system of each state is considered as axis and studied separately. Through this study, a lot of data and other necessary material is collected and comparative analysis is done. The weakness of this approach is that it is descriptive and narrow and it ignores socio-economic factors.
(5) The Problem Approach:
Problem areas are studied through this method. Through this approach, many scholars presented the study of prevalent problems of governance systems like ‘relationship between democracy and economic planning’, ‘decline of bicameralism, given system, etc.
Some scholars, after studying the ‘problems, also gave suggestions like, Reorganization of the Feudal House Providing opportunity to business groups to participate in policy making, Development of functional representative societies’, etc. This approach removed comparative studies from the formal legal study path and placed it on a solid foundation. To make this approach more useful for humans Attention should also be paid to the relationship between behavior and political institutions and other socioeconomic factors.
6) The Area Approach:
After the Second World War, the area approach is being especially used in the study of comparative politics. On the basis of regional approach, many scholars made the politics of developing countries the subject of their study. In the words of Macridis, “Certain groups of countries can be considered as a region which have sufficient cultural uniformity to allow comparative study of their political institutions. Among the texts written on the basis of regional approach are Almond and Coleman’s book The Politics of Developing Areas, Robert Scalapino’s work ‘Democracy and Party Movement in Pre-war Japan’, Barrington Moore’s work ‘Soviet Politics: The Dilemma of Power’, etc. are prominent. In these works, comparative study of different countries was done on the basis of geographical proximity.
Functional Approach in this the state or governance is not seen as a unit but the entire political system is considered as a unit. In this, equal emphasis is given to the organizational and functional parts of political institutions. In this, largely a comparative study of the opinions carried out by political institutions is done. Hermon Finer, Carl J. Frederick and K. The same method has been adopted in the studies of C. Beer. The biggest drawback of the institutional-functional approach is that it does not pay any attention to the dynamic factors of politics.
