14 Structural Approach

Dr. Kanwalpreet

Introduction

We, human beings, live in a society which is a loose social organization that includes the economic, political, religious, cultural, sub-divisions. Every society has its own structures that serve special purpose, for example, the educational organisations, the law-making structures etc. Each structure has its own organization. When we talk about the political structures, we keep in mind all those structures that regulate the activities of the whole community. ‘Political’ means something that is not in the ‘private’ domain and is ‘public’ meaning, applies to all citizens. The political structures are common to the whole community and not limited to a few. The political structures bring about some kind of order in a society. The word, ‘polis’ comes from the ancient ‘Greek City-states’. These states were relatively small communications where rules knit people together. Man needs to live under some organization, otherwise the inherent qualities of man to hoard or to think about only oneself would dissolve any society into total chaos. The political structures are those organizations that run the society efficiently. These structures are prevalent in all societies, though their nature might differ. Prior to the Second World War, the political scientists studied the formal organizations and the governmental structures. Their emphasis was to study the composition of these structures. ‘The approach to Comparative Politics prior to the Second World War is generally known as Traditional Approach. Indeed, what is today called as Comparative Politics was studied under ‘Foreign Government’ till the second World War’.1

In the traditional approaches political analysts depended upon normative, historical and descriptive studies. The normative aspects of the study made it first determine values and then prescribe the same. The forms of study was, ‘what ought to be’ than what ‘is’. The traditional approaches, be it legal, philosophical, historical or structural tended to express their preferences for something. They gave priority to some order and then supported it because of a higher sense of ideal or because of some universal commitment. The ‘sense-experience’ which is crucial in contemporary approaches does not find any place in the traditional approaches. A normative statement can not be verified or repeated. The statement could be supported by strong arguments but none could be verified. ‘Values’ became very important and facts were not studied or entertained. It serves an intrinsic value which is an end-in-itself and an end, different to different people. Thus, the traditional approaches are very subjective- what may be justice for one might not be justice for the other. It can define and defend but cannot prove. The traditional approaches are prescriptive for they deal with those conditions that are prevalent and have been accepted by the society. The laws, conditions, habits are described and argued that how right or wrong are they morally and then an alternative is prescribed . The alternative might be achievable or might not be achievable but the best is prescribed. Nothing can be proved scientifically but the focus is on values and in achieving what is morally considered right.

Among the traditional approaches we include the Philosophical, Legal, Historical, Structural and Institutional approaches. The Philosophical approach attempts to clarify the various concepts used in various disciplines. It is considered to be the oldest approach. It describes the subject matter and the nature of the subject. The endeavor is to clear the confusion that results because of language and terms. It also tires to set the parameters for what is just, good, right or wrong. Everything is based on moral, reasoning and cannot be put under the microscope for dissection. Political philosophy is an attempt to know the nature ofpolitical happenings. Once a result is attained, it can further be questioned. The debate continues. The attempt is to attain true knowledge but the search never ends. The aim is to set up a good political order. In the Legal approach, the endeavor is to understand politics, political occurrences, in terms of law. All the organs of the government are assigned some specific functions. The emphasis is to analyse the legal and constitutional framework. The focus is to inquire into their legal position and see how their actions are valid. The Historical approach analyses the historical events while attempting to understand politics by studying an account of the past. The ideas and the lives of the past ages is analysed so that the present day problems can be solved. Political thought, political theory and politics ,as such, have a rich past. The knowledge of the past is necessary to formulate new theories. ‘It is necessary to recapitulate the circumstances under which a political theory was produced, for understanding its relevance to the present situation. Moreover, any political theory is not only a product of history, it also served as an instrument of moulding history by its ideological force. However, all great political theories are valid for all times.’2

The traditional approach only described the various structures without comparing them. The emphasis was on studying the formal political structures and presenting a political anatomy of the countries. The governments and the structures were chosen arbitrarily. Traditional approaches are considered narrow. They only studied the structures of the advanced industrialized countries. The study of western countries which were sparsely populated made the study very ethnocentric. No doubt, these governments were democratic but the study of the Third World countries would have made it more comprehensive. Situations keep on changing, but the traditional approaches do not study the forces that assist in these changes and subsequently their effect. Ignoring the informal organisations makes the traditional approaches lack in drive. They did not believe with the non-political actors of political behavior. Centered in the European countries, the sample was very small, for the majority of the population lived in the developing countries and the latter were ignored. All this led to the political scientists to developing a new branch called ‘comparative politics’. The structural approach is a part of the traditional approaches and studies the formal structures and their organization.

Structural Approach

The society is a complex structure. There are many structures in a society like family (being the smallest unit) various educational institutions, religious institutions etc. Each performs a particular function and each has an organization. In each structure there is a hierarchy which the power of each office, each official is pre-determined. Of course, the activities of the structures and its office-holders can increase or decrease with time. Politics for a long time has been a study of the State and Government. The questions worked upon were, What is a state? What are its essential elements etc.? The government was the other focus of this approach, along with its organs like the Legislative, Executive, Judiciary etc. The focus of the structural approach is to delve into the organization of the government and its myriad organs. It also studies all those established organizations that affects the politics of a state. It explains the various branches of the government, their composition and their powers. It also endeavours to identify the various levels of government like the local, state, federal etc. It studies the

2  O. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory, 2003, Macmillan, India, p. 85.

 interrelationships between the various levels of government as well as within the various branches of the government (i.e., the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary). The facts are elaborately described for there is more emphasis on description. We can say that there the approaches step into the domain of empirical study. But it remains limited to this for it tends to describe but not explain. It comes quite close to the legalistic approach though it came as a reaction in the 19th century against the historical and legalistic approach. Structural approach, thus, is concerned with all those principles and ideas which run in any political organization. The general understanding among the political scientists was that the study of politics goes beyond reading legal constitutions and the laws, codes of various countries etc. It believes that the three branches of the government, the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary need to be studied in detail because they are the ones which deliberate, discuss and frame laws. So, the agencies, the structures that make these laws need to be studied in detail. Instead of analyzing their history and their legal aspects, the day-to-day functioning of these structures need to be studied. Mac Iver believes that structures are those forms of procedure that are established. Structures are those units through which human beings organize themselves for the attainment of certain goals. Organising themselves into structures helps the human society to plan and execute many activities which would not be possible by individuals alone. These structures satisfy the various needs of the human society. Structures form an important ingredient of the subject-matter of politics. The emphasis is on the formal aspects of government. The structure of the society is composed of structures which are important for its individuals.

This approach believes that the rules of the structures are very important to understand and analyse any political phenomena. The individual is pushed back to the extent that the effect of the rules whether positive or negative on the individual is not even studied. It also concentrates on the rules of the political system. The study also endeavours to study the powers of the various structures. This approach undermines the role of the individual and emphasis more on structures. It studies the relationship between the various groups in a society like the political parties, the religious institutions, the various classes etc. Each group has its own agenda, its own targets and works earnestly to achieve them. These groups get intertwined in relationships that might challenge the government, the parties and the various formal structures. History is sourced and the structuralists study the past to understand the relationships in the present. ‘In politics, a structural approach emphasis the objective relationships between social groups, including social classes and the state. The varying interests and positions of these leading groups shape the overall configuration of power and provide the dynamic of political change.3

Criticism

Structural approach is criticized on the ground that it concentrates more on the structures that are political, neglecting the political processes. In all this, the individuals who run these structures are totally neglected. It ignores the people who are responsible for running the political structures. The study is too preoccupied with the structures , thus the individual is relegated to the background. Moreover, the approach stresses on building an ideal society, based on values. Values cannot be measured. There is non- application of any scientific method. The study also neglects the political processes and all the informal groups, which otherwise play a very important role in a political system. It also neglects and bypasses the study of international politics. The latter’s study is very important as the policies of one country directly or indirectly effect the rest of the world, especially in the present tech- savvy world. The approach is also criticized for being normative, descriptive and idealistic. The neglect of the individual who forms the backbone of the structures makes this study biased and narrow. It is not analytical. It answers the question, ‘what’ (is happening?) but does not answer ‘why ( it is happening)’. The study is limited to structures. Much happens within and outside the four walls of the structures by actors who are nowhere in the picture in this approach. It is also criticized on the grounds that its conclusions are prior deductions.

The structuralist thinkers only believe in the social structure and not in the effects of cultures, values etc. ‘At the core of structuralism is the concern with objective relationships between groups and societies. Structuralism holds that configurations of social relations shape, constrain and empower actors in predictable ways. Structuralism generally downplays or rejects cultural and value-based explanations of social phenomena. Likewise, structuralism opposes approaches that explain social outcomes solely or primarily in terms of psychological states, individual decision-making processes or other individual-level characteristics.4 The emphasis was on historical comparison which made it a normative study. ‘The diachronic comparisons treated various systems like contemporary societies. But they did not help to develop a critical methodology of comparison.5 The traditionalists, the structuralists treated each event as ‘unique’ and studied it as an example that would be repeated elsewhere and they would have solutions ready. But it was not sure that the event would be repeated.

Conclusion

But despite the criticism, the structural approach and the other traditional approaches cannot be counted obsolete and redundant. Many thinkers gave their conclusion, after observing the facts closely. Machiavelli wrote his book , ‘ The Prince’ after acutely observing the conditions in Italy. Aristotle compared 158 constitutions and then gave his conclusion. Many of our present day norms have their roots in the structures of the past. They need to be studied to know they have evolved and their effect on the present day structures and their further growth. The formal structures give a certain form to a political system, they organize the activities, thus, need to be studied. Every society is in a state of flux. Politics is a struggle for power and more power. For this, there is constant tussle between the various groups. The process becomes all the more complex because the preferences of people change the effect of domestic and international politics and the change in the markets all lead to new combinations and permutations. Change is constant so various interests have to be accommodated. ‘A structure is defined by the relationships between its parts. The elements, themselves, their internal organization and especially the individuals, within them, are of little interest. For instance, what matters to the structuralists is the relationship between labour and capital in a society, not the internal organizations of trade unions and business organizations.6 The people who run their organizations are not important for the structuralists, yet giving importance to their non-economic groups is significant like the bureaucracy, military etc. This approach answers questions taking cues from history. It gives generalizations which have to be verified. This Op. cit., no. 3, pp.83-84.

Klaus Von Beyme, ‘The evolution of comparative politics’ in Daniel Caramani, Comparative Politics,, An Introduction, 2011, OUP, p. 24. Op cit. no. 3, p. 82.approach makes broad assumptions by stressing on the relationships of the groups. Thus , this approach has contributed in its own way in the development of the subject. The study of groups and classes, their evolution and development make an interesting and an analytical study. It is true that the structural approach like the other traditional approaches is speculative and ethnocentric, yet it helps to understand the structures which are very important. ‘Polities, rather than politics and policies were described. The main goal of these analyses was to establish classifications and typologies. Very often, these classifications concerned evolutionary models (derived from Darwinism) as in the case of Spencer and Marx’.7.

Suggested Readings

• Maheshwari, S. R., Comparative Government and Politics, 2004. Lakshmi Narain Aggarwal, Agra.
• Gauba, O. P., An Introduction to Political Theory, 2003, Macmillan India, Delhi.
• Hague, Rod, Harrop, Martin, Comparative Government and Politics, An Introduction, 2015, Palgrave Replika, New Delhi, India.
• Jayal, Nirija Gopal and Mehta, Pratap Bhanu, The Oxford Companion to Politics in India, 2015, Oxford University Press.
• Caramani, Daniele, Comparative Politics, 2011, Oxford University Press