Comparative political analysis is currently facing multiple crises, including self-definition, cognitive schemes, academic and political aims, and methodological challenges. There are concerns about what makes comparative politics uniquely susceptible to recurring crises.
The first crisis, famously known in the
field’s history, occurred in 1955 when Roy Macridis criticized the parochial,
descriptive, formalistic, and individualistic nature of comparative political
analysis at the time. This led scholars to
transform the field, making it non-parochial, analytical, and genuinely
comparative. However, comparative politics has since entered a period of
decline, with scholars struggling to define its boundaries, scope, and
methodology.
The crisis is partly due to the
de-legitimization of modernization and development theories, which were once
dominant but are now in disarray. The lack of an autonomous status and its
ambiguous position among other sub-disciplines of political science have
hindered comparative politics from establishing a central core of concepts and
definitions. Furthermore, methodological challenges have intensified the
crisis, as cross-national comparative analysis often applies categories and
criteria that are limited in relevance across different cultures, leading to
flawed comparisons.
To address these challenges, comparative
politics needs to move beyond the state-society correspondence framework.
However, it remains uncertain whether political scientists, deeply rooted in
the concept of the state, can accomplish this. In light of the crisis, scholars
should engage in critical questioning, challenging prevailing orthodoxies and
assumptions in order to reconstitute the field and its methodology. It is
crucial to undertake a comprehensive review of comparative political analysis,
considering where the field currently stands and how it can progress in the
face of doubts about the very possibility of comparison.
Aftermath of the First Crisis
The prevailing modes of knowledge in any
field are often shaped by specific political circumstances. Understanding
the context of colonialism in which Macridis challenged the existing form of
comparative political analysis helps explain why the sub-discipline was
structured as it was. During the formal colonial period, scholarship was
divided in a particular way. Social anthropology focused on the distinctiveness
of colonial peoples in terms of customs and rituals, often employing
essentialist categories that contributed to Orientalist discourse. On the other
hand, political analysis had a different agenda. Its goal was to undermine
indigenous institutions and practices, replacing them with Western institutions
to legitimize colonial domination and save the colonized people from
themselves.
Political analysis became a tool serving
the colonial project, reinforcing the displacement of indigenous institutions
and modes of thinking with Western ones. With the
help of social anthropologists’ findings, the colonized people were perceived
as exotic and unworthy of serious political analysis or as sources of models
for political institutions. Comparative politics thus narrowed its focus to a
few countries such as Britain, France, and Germany, assuming they would serve
as archetypes for the rest of the world. This approach reflected the
ethnocentric biases of the practitioners.
The post-World War II period witnessed a
consensus in mainstream political theory, largely influenced by American
political scientists, that politics should be studied as an objective,
value-free science. The emergence of the United
States as an intellectual center and the Cold War intensified political,
economic, and intellectual competition for hegemony. The victory of capitalism
and the dominance of the US legitimized its control across various fields,
including intellectual endeavors. The political climate, characterized by the
Cold War and McCarthyism, influenced intellectual perspectives.
McCarthyism, characterized by
psychological and legal terror, targeted liberal scholars and drove an interest
in social reform and critical theory underground.
In response, scholars sought protection through objective and value-free
research, which allowed them to avoid open political controversy. The emphasis
shifted to quantitative and measurable phenomena and methodological concerns
rather than the normative implications of the research. Concepts that could not
fit within this framework were excluded, and one casualty was the concept of
the state, which was replaced by the notion of the political system.
The conformist positions adopted during
this period aimed to create universal modes of analysis applicable to all
countries. This need arose as newly independent
nations joined the international community and expanded the scope of
comparative politics. However, these newly independent countries also offered
new markets for capitalist economies. The focus on these regions was primarily
economic but also driven by a desire to shape them into modern, liberal,
democratic societies similar to the West. The American model became the ideal,
and countries were expected to follow its path of development.
Gabriel Almond, influenced by Talcott
Parsons’ structural-functional theories, sought to create an ideal type model
combining the study of the “third world” and the advanced capitalist
world. This model categorized societies based on
Parsonian concepts such as ascriptive vs. achievement, particular vs.
universal, and diffuseness vs. specificity. However, the values underlying
these frameworks were inspired by Western perspectives and norms. The
developing world was positioned as ascriptive, particular, and diffuse, while
the West was seen as achievement-oriented, universal, and specific. Societies
were ranked along an axis from traditional to modern, with the newly independent
world placed at the lowest rungs. This represented a different form of
colonialism, where the objective was to achieve Western levels of development
without the historical baggage or intellectual struggles the West had
experienced.
These models failed to take into account
the history of colonialism and the deliberate distortions imposed on the
cultures, economies, and political arrangements of the colonies. The
dependency school emerged as a response to the flaws of the modernization
paradigm, grounding the post-colonial world in the structures of dependency
generated by colonialism. It aimed to highlight the historical distortions
and perpetuation of underdevelopment caused by colonialism. However, the
dependency perspective also had its shortcomings. It lumped all countries of
Asia, Africa, and Latin America into a single category of the
“underdeveloped world,” neglecting their distinct experiences of
colonialism, diverse histories, and visions for the future. Moreover, it was
trapped in the unproductive development vs. underdevelopment debate and failed
to interrogate the concept of development itself.
The flaws of both the modernization and
dependency paradigms led to a growing recognition of the importance of
historical understanding in comparative politics. However, the dependency
perspective sought global frames of analysis and transcultural generalizations,
perpetuating its own methodological and epistemological limitations.
Subsequently, a more nuanced and rigorous historical understanding of
post-colonial countries emerged as scholars aimed to rectify these
deficiencies.
Second Crisis of Comparative Politics
and Its Aftermath
The second crisis of comparative politics
has led to a renewed emphasis on local and specific histories and cultural practices,
driven by both academic exhaustion with universal categories of analysis and
the influence of social movements in the post-colonial world. These
movements, such as the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Chipko movement, Baliraja dam
struggle, and indigenous rights movements, have challenged state-sponsored
modernization and development projects and criticized universal categories of
analysis for their imperialistic and insensitive nature.
Academic scholars have also shifted
their focus towards local voices, histories, and specific identities, rejecting
transcultural generalizations. The subaltern school
of historiography has played a significant role in amplifying suppressed
voices, while contemporary social movements have further highlighted the importance
of women, environmental, caste, and class issues in political science. As a
result, there has been a profound rethinking of the nation-state, with a
preference for the local, specific, and particular over the general, abstract,
and totalizing.
However, this recovery of rigorous
historical understanding poses challenges for comparative political analysis,
which traditionally relies on grand categories of analysis to encompass all
phenomena. It raises questions about the possibility of comparing societies
historically, particularly in terms of concepts like nationalism. Detailed
studies of nationalism reveal its plural nature, with different streams
existing hierarchically and often in authoritarian relationships. Moreover,
these streams draw inspiration from their own distinct sources, ideologies, and
experiences. Constructing a grand narrative of nationalism that captures all
these voices and allows for comparisons across different countries becomes
increasingly difficult.
Furthermore, historical analysis is
complicated by differing notions of time. Each culture has its own images of
time, affecting its political science. History cannot be reduced to a universal
conception of time, as different societies generate their own conceptual
systems and significant variables. The plurality of time scales within
societies adds to the complexity of comparison and challenges concepts based on
linear notions of time or stages of development.
The issue of units of analysis also arises,
as comparative analysis typically focuses on the nation-state. However, the
nation-state is currently threatened by global flows and contested by
grassroots social movements that challenge its exclusions. Considering the
nation-state as a given category of analysis becomes problematic in this
context.
Lastly, the problem of methodology arises
when selecting a frame of understanding for comparing societies. Existing
concepts are largely influenced by Western paradigms, but adopting the
framework of one’s own society as a replacement would be unfair to the society
being studied. The question is whether explanatory systems can be independent
of the cultural context under study. It is important to recognize that
explanations are influenced by historical experiences, raising concerns about
subjecting one culture to the codes generated by another.
In conclusion, the second crisis of
comparative politics has prompted a shift towards local and specific histories,
challenging universal categories of analysis.
However, this recovery of rigorous historical understanding poses significant
challenges for comparative political analysis in terms of constructing grand
narratives, accounting for differing notions of time, defining units of
analysis, and selecting appropriate methodologies.
Issues
to Consider
The loss of certainties in the general
intellectual landscape presents challenges for all fields of theory, including
comparative political analysis, which relies on grand theories and categories
of understanding. The problem can be approached from two angles. If we adopt a
highly localized approach that emphasizes distinctiveness, comparative analysis
becomes difficult because we include a wide range of factors that shape each
unique situation. On the other hand, if we start from general categories, we
risk overlooking the irreducible specificities of each situation. It is
advisable to lean towards the former approach while being aware of the
complexities associated with comparing disparate phenomena. We should avoid
imposing value-laden judgments, abstracting phenomena from their multilevel
contexts, and subordinating events to factors they may have in common.
To illustrate this, let’s consider the
comparative study of collectivization in China and Tanzania. It is possible
to argue that collectives were successful, at least for a specific period, in
one country but a failure in the other. This analysis would not only involve
conceptualizing the policies as messy but also exploring the cultural
perspectives of both countries. Did collectivization align with the cultural
perspectives of Tanzanian peasants who had little history of living in
villages? Taking all these factors into account significantly expands the scope
of comparative analysis. The range of issues to consider becomes endless, including
people’s sense of history, cultures and traditions, the history of peasant
consciousness, the role of myths and traditions, and the resistance of the
peasantry to state colonization.
Meaningful comparative analysis emerges
when we focus on specific situations, such as histories of localized peasant
resistance, regional cultures and traditions, or specific struggles related to
workers, the environment, peasants, and gender. Instead of aiming for
oversimplified generalizations through grand comparisons of entire countries’
state nature, revolutions, development strategies, or agrarian approaches, we
should pursue concrete analyses of specific situations grounded in their unique
narratives. Comparative politics should aim to identify differences rather than
uniformities or gradations along an axis. Since each event is embedded in its
own context, pinpointing the distinctiveness of each experience becomes the
goal of comparative politics.
Regarding the placement of comparative
politics, in many academic centers in India, it has become subordinate to
either international relations and foreign policy or area studies, both of
which face their own crises due to their anti-theory tendencies. To be
self-reflective and critical, comparative politics needs to align itself with
political philosophy and engage in the debates within that field. It is
essential to break away from traditions of thought that have been
methodologically and epistemologically inadequate and instead stay current with
critical debates in political philosophy, applying those insights to the
objects of study. One particular area that merits reconsideration is the
continued influence of developmentalism on scholars’ thinking, despite
extensive debates on its epistemology and value systems in political theory.
Comparative politics should see itself as applied theory.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article has highlighted
that, comparative political analysis has encountered crises due to changes in
both the political realm and the field of knowledge. The fragmentation of the
discipline reflects the fragmentation and uncertainty in our societies. This
crisis in knowledge systems necessitates serious consideration of the range of
issues that must now be taken into account in any comparative study. It also
calls for self-reflection and critical thinking about the topics we wish to
study. We must accept the diversity of thinking and recognize that embracing
this diversity can lead to fresh approaches in comparative political analysis.
