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 scie