COMPARATIVE POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Gabriel Almond

His proposal: suggest how the application of certain sociological and anthropological concepts
may facilitate systemic comparison among the major types of political systems operative in
the world today.
Problem to be answered: is it possible to set up and justify a preliminary classification into
which most of the political systems which most of the political systems which we study today
can be assigned?
CLASSIFICATIONS WE ASSIGNED TO OUR POL SYSTEMS: ALL OF THEM LEAVE SOMETHING TO
BE DESIRED.
o Particularistic (e.g., American Govt, British Govt, Soviet Union)
o Regional (e.g., Govt and Politics in the Far East, Latin America)
o Political (e.., British Commonwealth, Colonial Govt)
o Functional (e.g.., the comprehensive comparative efforts limited to the EuropeanAmerican era such as Finer and Friedrich)
FOURFOLD CLASSIFICATION OF ALMOND:
o Anglo-American
o Continental European (exclusive of Scandinavian and Low countries, combine some
features of Continental European and Anglo-American)
o European-American era
o Totalitarian political systems
POLITICAL SYSTEM- is a SYSTEM OF ACTION
-It is concerned with empirically observable behaviour.
-what is it they do, why they do it, how or what they do is related to and AFFECTS what others
do
-SET OF INTERACTIONG ROLES, or as a STRUCTURE (structure= patterning of interactions) OF
ROLES
-concerned with the scope, direction, and conditions affecting the employment of physical
coercion
-(define) PATTERNED INTERACTION of roles affecting decisions backed up by the threat of
physical compulsion
-roles are interdependent and a significant change in any role affects changes in others
SYSTEM- covers all patterned actions relevant to the making of political decisions.
-it is better to use this term than political process (by process it means patterning action
through time) because SYSTEM indicates TOTALITY of relevant units, an interdependence
between interactions of units, and a certain STABILITY in the interaction of these units.
ROLE- unit of the political system
-(Parsons and Shils) is that organized sector of an actors orientation which constitutes and
defines his participation in an interactive process
-ADVANTAGE OF USING THE TERM ROLE compared to institutions, organizations, or groups:
more inclusive, more open concept; can include even offices, families, etc; it does not
prejudice our choice of units but enables us to nominate them on the basis of empirical
investigation
UNITS used: collectivities
He follows Webers definition of political system/ politics which is the legitimate monopoly of
physical coercion over a given territory and population
ORIENTATION TO POLITICAL ACTION- important because every pol system is embedded in a
set of meanings and purposes.
-ADVANTAGE: logical distinctness and comprehensiveness
(PARSONS AND SHILS) 3 COMPONENTS INVOLVED IN ORIENTATION TO POLITICS:
1. Perception/ cognition
-knowledge and discrimination of objects, events, actions, issues, etc

2. Preference, involvement, or affect (cathesis)

-investment of objects, issues, etc., with emotional significance of affect
3. Evaluation/ choice through the application of standards or values to the cognitive and
affective components
-manner in which individuals organize and select their perceptions, preferences, and
values in the process of establishing a positions vis-a-vis political action
POLITICAL CULTURE- particular pattern of orientations to political action which is embedded in
every pol system
POINTS TO REMEMBER re POL CULTURE:
1. Does not coincide with a given pol system or society (it may extend beyond)
2. It is not the same thing as GENERAL CULTURE (POL CULTURE involves cognition,
intellection, and adaptation to different situattions)
ADVANTAGES OF USING THE TERM POL CULTURE:
-better than ideology which is just about systematic and explicit formulation of a gen.
Orientation to politics
-better than ideology which is just about organization which may or may not be a
manifestation of a pol culture

I. THE ANGLO-AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS

-homogenous political culture (there is a sharing of political ends and means; compared to a
game)
-secular political culture (multi-valued, rational-calculating, bargaining, and experimental pol
culture)
-ULTIMATE GOALS OF THE POL SYSTEM: combination of values of freedom, mass welfare, and
security
-SECULARIZED POLITICAL SYSTEM-individuation & a measure of autonomy among various
roles (compared to laboratory)
ROLE STRUCTURE:
1. Highly differentiated
-each units pursues specialized purposes and performs specialized functions in the system
2. Manifest, organized, and bureaucratized
-potential interests have been organized and possess bureaucracy
3. Characterized by high degree of stability in the functions of the roles
-every units perform their tasks accordingly
4. Likely to have distribution of power and influence within the pol system as a whole
II.

PRE- INDUSTRIAL or PARTIALLY INDUSTRIALIZED POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Least well-known classification
Mixed political cultures and mixed political systems
There is an atmosphere of UNPREDICTABILITY and gunpowder surrounding in the pol system
WHAT KIND OF AMALGAM EMERGES FROM THESE WILL DEPEND ON AT LEAST 5 FACTORS:
1. Type of traditional cultures
2. Auspices under which Westernization has been introduced
3. Functions of the society which have been Westernized
4. Tempo and tactics off the Westernization process
5. Type of Western cultural products introduced
CONSEQUENCE of impingement of WESTERN and TRADITIONAL POL CULTURE:
- CHARISMATIC POLITICAL CULTURE (weber)- third type of pol culture emerged as a
consequence of erosion of traditional political culture wherein powerful forces are released
-CHARISMATIC NATIONALISM- movement toward accepting a new system of political norms, or
a movement toward reaffirming the older traditional ones
-mixture of political culture presents the most serious problems of POLITICAL
COMMUNICATION and coordination
-INSTABILITY and UNPREDICTABILITY
ROLE STRUCTURE:

1. low degree of structural differentiation

-POL interest often takes the form of violent action
-POLITICAL PARTIES are unstable
2. high degree of substitutability of roles
-due to absence of stable and explicit role structure
-no stable division of labor
3. Mixing of political role structures
III. TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS

-synthetic homogeneity
-political communication is controlled from the center
-but it is located rather more at the non-consensual end of the continuum.
-tends to be some combination of CONFORMITY and APATHY
-TOTALITARIANISM is tyranny with rational bureaucracy, a monopoly of modern technology of
communication, and a monopoly of modern technology of violence
ROLE STRUCTURE:
2 Distinct Characteristics:
1. Predominance of coercive roles (reflective on its penetration of all of the other role
structures)
2. Functional instability of power roles (its main purpose is the prevention of any stable
delegation of power and the consequent diffusion of power and creation of other power
centers)

IV. CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS

-characterized as having fragmentation of political culture which is different from that of nonWestern systems (WHY? because this system are dealing with a pattern of pol culture
characterized by uneven pattern of development)
-it has political sub-cultures (3 MAJOR POLITICAL SUBCULTURES)
1. Pre-industrial (primary Catholic components)
-has both an adaptive, semi-secular wing and an anti-secular wing
2. Older middle class components
-divided into conservative wings and left wings
3. Industrial components proper
Organized pol manifestations take the form of movements rather than pol parties.
POLITICAL AFFILIATION is more an act of faith than of agency
POLITICAL ROLE STRUCTURE: general alienation from the political market
-pol culture pattern is not adapted to the pol system
-they come to market to preach, exhort, convert, and transform the pol system into something
other than bargaining agency
CONSEQUENCES:
-demoralization/transformism
MILITANT- normatively consistent, morally confident actor who remains within the confines of
his political sub culture, continually reaffirms his special norms, and scolds his
parliamentarians
CENTER OF GRAVITY ON THIS POL SYSTEM: POLITICAL SUB-CULTURE
-ROLES ARE IMBEDDED IN THE SUB CULTURE and tend to constitute separate sub-systems of
roles
ROLE STRUCTURE:
1. Higher degree of substitutability of rolesthan Anglo-American pol systems and lesser
degree than non-Western
2. Threat of Caesaristic breakthrough
-consequence of immobilism

-threatened by charismatic nationalism

-these systems have totalitarian potentiality
CONCLUSION:
Conceptual and terminological growth in the sciences is as inevitable as growth of
language.