Skip to main content

Why political science matters?

The meaning of political science is often restricted to the state, government, and everyday politics. However, it goes beyond that. We as humans share various relationships. What do we do when conflicts arise in these relationships? How do we resolve them? The Socratic dialectical method or Habermas’ idea of deliberation provides a solution. It says conflicts are better resolved through dialogue rather than domination. Hence, it tells us how to talk in a dialectical manner. It is the process of reasoning together. For instance, when your father asks you to aim for a government job, but you want to become a content creator, you do not totally oppose each other. Instead, you engage rationally: Why is a government job important? Maybe because it provides security and financial stability. But being a content creator might give you creative freedom. So you decide to take a government job but also start your creator journey simultaneously — maybe by vlogging your day as a government employee...
Post a Comment

Political Modernisation: The Politics of Change

 The police are the ones we go to for security. The MPs or MLAs are the ones we demand development from. The court is where we go to resolve our disputes. All of this did not exist a few centuries ago. There was no clear distinction between these roles. The king would go to war and also dispense justice. Hence, it is a modern phenomenon.

“Modern” means something of recent origin - something distinct from the past. This transition is not sharply defined; there wasn’t a single day when modernity suddenly arrived. Just as we grow but cannot point out the exact moment when we grew up, modernity too evolved gradually. However, certain historical moments such as the Scientific Revolution, the Renaissance, and decolonization acted like the “puberty” of modernity - phases when change became more visible.

The theory of political modernization was developed by Lucian Pye and Samuel P. Huntington, though the American Political Science Association largely led the movement. Political modernization refers to the emergence of new institutions/structures and functions in the political sphere - different institutions performing different functions: the legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary resolves disputes. Religion took a backseat. Rules to govern society began to be framed based on rationality and logic rather than religious texts. This shift gave rise to secularism, meaning that the government does not function based on religion or for the followers of any specific faith.

Everyone gained the right to participate in politics, be it women or the LGBTQ+ community. They can vote in elections and also contest them. For instance, Anish Gawande, a gay person, has been appointed as the national spokesperson of the NCP (SP). The country is now ruled by law, not by the whims of a king or priest. In India, the Constitution establishes the rule of law. 

However, political modernization is a continuous process. The question then arises: why does this process happen? It happens because of social, economic, and cultural transformations. For example, the Bhopal gas tragedy and the negative impacts of industrialization necessitated the creation of a separate Ministry of Environment in 1985. Similarly, industrialization and urbanization empowered various sections of society that demanded greater representation and participation. Complexities in society necessitated the creation of bureaucracy.

Huntington argues that through modernization, societies eventually reach the final stage of democracy(elected representative). This has been criticized for promoting a Western model of democracy. Moreover, the theory suggests that social and economic development drive political modernization, which in turn leads to democracy - but this did not occur in China, which remains authoritarian. The theory also fails to explain democratic backsliding, as it assumes progress to be linear.

Hence, political modernization theory provided a framework to understand political evolution and to ensure stability and legitimacy of the system.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Escape

The word escape doesn’t seem to have a very negative origin. It originally meant to set oneself free. It should not be seen as an act of cowardice. The qualitative aspect of escape should inform our judgment. In moments of mental crisis, someone’s escape might be spirituality; for someone else, it could be alcohol. These patterns of escape slowly become habits. With repeated events, our body naturally starts craving the same escape in moments of discomfort. For instance, if someone has chosen isolation as an escape, then whenever a crisis occurs, the body automatically starts demanding isolation. This is why such patterns are difficult to break–because escape sets one free. It provides an alternative way out. The body doesn’t perceive escape as an end in itself; it sees it merely as a means to get away from the current situation. I believe this is the reason behind large-scale alcohol addiction in Indian villages. Based on my limited understanding of Indian villages–especially those in...
Post a Comment
Read more

Exclusion

  The very foundation of some of the major problems that persist in our society is built on the bedrock of exclusion - be it biases, stereotypes, discrimination, or any other practice that degrades others. This makes it important for us to question: why do people exclude in the first place? The idea of exclusion often germinates from the desire to stand out or appear unique. We crave being seen as distinct, not just like any other person. For instance, when we go shopping for clothes, we consciously avoid those that are widely sold. We often say, “everyone wears that.” Maybe we’re comfortable with the broader pattern but not the exact color or design - because we want to stand apart. Hence, we exclude certain colors or styles to create our own distinct identity. While this kind of exclusion in fashion may seem harmless, it reveals a deeper psychological pattern that, when applied to social groups, becomes dangerous. Over time, we begin to associate certain styles with people we don...
Post a Comment
Read more

Might is right

  Might Is Right “Justice is the interest of the stronger” replies Thrasymachus, answering the question asked by Plato, what is justice? The same goes with might is right. The meaning of this proverb is that the powerful are always right. Although might is right its reverse isn’t correct which is right is might. So might is always right but right is always not might. Which means the weak can also be right. Might is right not because it is right but because of their power and position, no one can object to that. So whatever the mighty says is considered right. We will try to discuss it further by starting from the individual level and ending at the international level.  At the individual level, some people are stronger and mighty. For example, there are two people one who is very powerful both connection-wise and physically. If you indulge in a fight with him/her, not even a fight if s/he is doing something wrong you can’t do anything. And our not objection to that particular a...
Post a Comment
Read more