15 INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

Dr. Kanwalpreet

Introduction

Before the Second World War politics was a study of the State and its various institutions. Institutions were central to the study of politics along with their rules and procedures. Traditional approaches included the Historical, Philosophical, Structural, Legal and Institutional methods. The Historical approach depended upon historic events and deduced conclusions. The traditional approaches are theoretical ways of studying politics and further help in identifying the problems, asking questions and then endeavoring to answer them. The subject matter can be examined repeatedly and new answers, might spurt which may not be considered final. The main goal is to discuss, deliberate and to impart discourse. The Philosophical approach tries to find ‘what ought to be’ and sets parameters for an ideal society. The Legal approach talks in terms of law and its technicalities. The Structural approach focuses on the interactions between the powerful groups in any society. The Institutional approach studies the various organs of the government which are mandated by the constitution. The focus is on formal political institutions. The traditional approaches are normative, descriptive and value-based. The approaches have been criticized for being non-scientific and non-empirical by nature. Yet, till the Second World War, the traditional approaches contributed a lot to the study of politics. They helped in understanding the politics in a more balanced manner based on values and by acute observation of facts.

https://www.google.co.in

Facts were recorded and then generalizations made. Of course, these generalizations were open to further verification. The traditional approaches including the institutional approach, right from the Greeks, analysed and investigated various events. Each had its own perspective and each offered its own recommendations after a detailed study.

Political Theory is abstract knowledge of politics that is attempted to be understood by continuous observation, argumentation and explanation. ‘Political Theory involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to political thought. Traditionally, this has taken the form of a history of political thought focusing upon collection of ‘major’ thinkers –for instance from Plato to Marx and a cannon of ‘classic’ texts. As it studies the ends and means of political action, political theory is clearly concerned with ethical or normative questions, such as ‘Why should I obey the State? How should rewards be distributed? and What should be the limits of individual liberty?’1

Political theory is basically a search for truth that can lead to wisdom and more understanding. The traditional approaches try to answer ethical questions. They try to explore the worlds of morality and answer what is good or bad. They also endeavor to bring forth, in detail, the existing body of knowledge regarding politics and then, subsequently, adding new knowledge to it. The traditional approaches explain and then try to predict. The theory tries to guide actions of the society so that an ideal society/state can become a concrete reality. But the theory is the subjective viewpoint of the thinker. Research is done by any researcher, keeping a political vision in mind. It is an effort to be one’s own master and also decide how one is to live one’s life. ‘Plamenatz says that the political theorists using the traditional approaches are like honest shopkeepers who display all their goods leaving it on their customers to choose whatever they think is the best. They tell in detail the principles and try to explain how men should use them to make their choices. This is how they help to provide them with a practical philosophy…….. They are not mere purveyors of ideas, they are preachers and propagandists.’2

Traditional approaches tell us how people should interact with each other and what kind of laws should be passed. In this sense, they are normative but the descriptive part also explains how people, institutions, laws are in real life. ‘In this way, descriptive thinking can be said to mirror the world, while normative, thinking aims to change it’.3 They believe in describing and hoping to set up a State which should be the best one can hope for. The traditional approaches are concerned with a world that ‘ought to be’ and thus set goals that are achievable. For this, one has to know the world as it is alongwith the human beings , the people who inhabit it. Taking.

    https://www.google.co.in

Plato believed that certain are needed in the society. His disciple, Aristotle, also stressed on values and gave his notion of an ideal state like his master. Though the ideal state was a utopia, an imaginary state, the approach was normative as the idea was of the thinker. The idea, however, utopian was something which the political thinker thought could be achieved. So, principles or external ideas were the foundation of traditional approaches. The concept of goodness is very important and a balance is tried to be maintained as to, ‘ what should be’. Every age has its own values and they do change with passing generations. This makes the traditional approaches give importance to values as they are mirrors of the society. The traditional approaches were not analytical and were more descriptive. Sometimes the conclusions are said to be prior deductions but a lot of thought and some new perspective with every researcher goes into giving any conclusion. Traditional approaches were dominated by history, law and philosophy. They believed in floating new ideas to achieve the best for any society. This approach believes that the study of politics would be meaningless if the subject does not try to realize certain values. Thus, there is emphasis on values. It stresses that every State should have a set of values which it should try to achieve. Thus, we can understand Plato’s thought of a ‘philosopher-king’, the ‘Guardian class’, ‘the Communism of Property and wives’ Thus, the traditional approaches are value-based and emphasise on some core-values of society.

The Institutional Approach

‘Institutions were defined in a narrow sense overlapping with state powers (legislative, executive and judiciary), civil administration and the military bureaucracy . The type of analysis was formal, using as main source of information, constitutional texts, legal documents, and jurisprudence’.4 Institutions capture total attention in the Institutional approach where the individual is undermined and the positions that they occupy is more important. The organizations that are included in the Constitution are the focus of study. It is in these institutions that decisions are taken and policies are made. A study of any government or politics of a State would definitely be incomplete without the study of its formal institutions. The institutions to be studied have legal identity and are recognised both by the Constitution as well as the law of the land. Institutions are established forms of processes and procedures. They are those organizations through which human beings come together to perform all those activities that are essential for a good life. These institutions, like family, school etc. satisfy the various needs of the people. They are formal institutions and are well-organised. A majority of the political scientists felt that politics was the study of government, State or other related institutions. The rules of an institution are important to anlalyse the various political happenings. ‘An institution is a formal organization, often with public status, whose members interact on the basis of the specific roles they perform within the organization. In politics, an institution typically refers to an organ of government mandated by the Constitution.’5 This approach studies the behavior of institutes. Institutes include all those originations mentioned and specified in the Constitution and even those that are not Constitution-specified. Institutional approach emphasizes on institutions because they bring about stability in a State. They are the ones which manage to make and maintain an environment in which all the decisions are taken. The values and interests are also decided within these institutions. In every set-up, there are certain people who benefit. There are cases when institutions are set up for the benefit of a class or for a particular section of the society. Institutions are studied because they provide a framework where decisions are taken. Institutions help the people to stick together because they promise certain rewards in the shape of agendas, policies and law. Institutions like the Judiciary resolve problems and help maintain stability. They are the pillars which being about some kind of order in politics. These institutions can evolve gradually and then play a crucial role in maintaining as well as predicting. ‘Institutional analysis assumes that positions within organizations matter more than the people who occupy them. The axiom enables us to discuss roles than people; presidencies rather than presidents, legislatures rather than legislators, the judiciary rather than judges.’6 The people working in the Institutions are not considered important by this approach because their interests are tied up with the institutions in which they work. Their behavior is shaped by their institutions, because they are paid by the Institution and their own growth depends upon the growth if the Institution. The Institutions, thus, become political actors. The Institutions mould the thought as well as the actions of the individuals. The evolution of institutions leads to both short-term as well as long-term consequences. So, the institutions have to be analysed. They are not static structures but always in a state of flux, adapting, evolving and changing. The individuals just grow up with the institutions because of their vested interests.

‘In this way, many Institutions thicken naturally over time, developing their internal procedures also becoming accepted by external actions as part of the governing approaches. In other words, the institution becomes a node in network and in so doing entrenches its position’.7 This process is also called institutionalization. The members of an institute also agree to conform to certain rules. Politics is a study of people’s interaction with each other and also a study of conflict and sources of these conflict. The emphasis is to study the various ways in which people settle their conflicts. ‘Although people do not essentially need institutions to settle their differences, they do normally tend to create some type of political institution such as Parliament, court or party in order to help them keep their conflicts under control.’8

Institutions serve several purposes. They resolve conflicts, they frame laws and they help in maintaining the state and government. Institutional approach analyses the way these institutions maintain order in the state by framing certain rules and procedures. Political institutions, thus, become the central concern of institutional approach. Credit goes to Europe and North America to develop the modern institutions and then pass them on to countries in Asia and Africa. These countries were colonies of Europe and the institutions were imposed on the colonies. In some cases, they succeeded, in others they did not and new institutions evolved with the passage of time. Thus, a study of the various institutions helps us to understand the society better. This approach studies that how institutions respond to the change in any society. It also deals as to how the institutions herald in changes or are, sometimes, obstacles to changes. Institutions are studied because they are expected to perform in a certain way. Politics, this approach feels, is possible only because of institutions. The study also encompasses as to how political institutions are captured by various groups and how the institutions are manipulated.

The approach deals with –

↔    Whether institutions have been created?

↔         Why they have been created – on some personal whim or demand of special circumstances?

↔  Whether they are manifestation of a particular political culture or ideology.

But, in a majority of the cases, institutions evolve, they can really be created. ‘Political institutions are, on the contrary, the agreed form of organizing people into order, which is determined in a particular situation’.9 In countries like China, institutions in the past, had been broken down, liquidated and replaced. The institutions in China have been attacked and modified. Study of such institutions through the institutional approach becomes very important. This approach studies the responses of the various institutions towards exigencies. It analyses how institutions of social order govern and control the behavior of individuals. It also details how institutions of social order govern and control the behavior of individuals. It also details how institutions are organized, how they function, the effect of institutions on each other and on individuals. It also deals with the origin and evolution of institutions and why individuals construct the various institutions. Institutions, their formation, operation, organization and change are studied. The three branches, Legislature, Executive and Judiciary have to be studied so that one can gain an insight into the decisions taken by these formal institutions. It also analyses the rules of the political system. The legislative bodies, the working of the Constitution are also its focus.

The institutional approach stresses on the study of Constitutions. ‘ For about two hundred years written constitutions have been the most common device for defining the institutions of government in the West.’10 Initially, the observers argued that there were only two types of government – Parliamentary and Presidential, reflecting the British and the American governments, which were successful. The institutional approach also studied elections that played a crucial role in setting up liberal institutions. Competition among diverse groups ,interactions of the Constitution and the State, all help in the evolution of political, formal institutions. ‘Liberal politics is competitive because it is believed that only by permitting the competitive clash of opinions can a State succeed in establishing viable and successful political institutions. In the West this has normally meant the clash of groups and established parties or opinions who agree on how to disagree and who have developed the institution in politics which reflect their attitude to life’.11 The institutional approach studies the reasons behind the failure of the same political institutions in some countries of Asia and Africa which were otherwise successful institutions in U.K., U.S.A., France etc. Even France borrowed liberally from United Kingdom and America and was successful. In Vietnam, America felt that good political institutions would be the answer to the turmoil that the former was undergoing but it proved to be a failure. The Western powers realized that ‘it is evident that a building to house what looks like a parliament does not in fact create a parliament’.12 Thus, the institutional approach is necessary to understand the various institutions for on the face they might be similar yet the intricacy of each institution makes it is a good study. ‘The roots of comparative political analysis are in institutional analysis. As far back as Aristotle, scholars interested in understanding government performance, and seeking to improve that performance, concentrated on constitutional structures and the institutions created by those constitutions’.13 They argued that normative institutionalism consider institutions are composed of rules that shape of the behavior of the individuals. The rational choice institutions viewed institutions to be an aggregate of ‘incentives and disincentives that influence individual choice.14 Historical institutions stresses on the ‘role of ideas and persistence of institutional choice over long periods of time, even in face of potential dysfunctionalism’.15 Institutional approach, thus emphasis on the role of former institutions and how they have evolved and are organized. The impact of institutions on policy-making, political stability and performance is studied in detail. It studies how individuals come together to make institutions fulfill their needs. Institutional approach discusses the persistence of political institution which proves that institutions are central in the study of political science. It also includes electoral laws, party systems, bureaucracy, difference between parliamentary and prudential forms and federal and unitary forms. The role and interaction of interest groups is of importance.

Criticism

The drawback of this approach is that it emphasizes on the study of institutions, while totally ignoring the individual who performs the various tasks of policy – making and law-framing. The individual is sidelined, pushed to the backburner and the Institutions, which of course, are literal actors get all the attention. Moreover, the institutions in the developed areas (geographically) are focused upon. The Institutions in Western Europe and North America capture all the attention of the researchers. The approach is also criticized for being speculative and normative. Lack of systematic comparison is another point that goes against the Institutional approach. Thus, the results were not consistent. This much emphasis on ‘Values’ proved to be the death-knell of the institutional approach as well as the other traditional approaches. They were phased out to make way for Comparative Politics which promised to predict political events. The latter tried to prove itself as a more empirical, more systematic and more scientific way of study of politics. They were blamed for being more idealistic and concerned with ‘what ought to be’ than ‘what is’. The approach Is not even concerned with the impact of the rules of institutions on the individuals. The individuals constituting the institutions are not important. Thus, it ignores the objective reality.

Conclusion

‘The institutional perspective has done most to shape the development of politics as a discipline and remains an important tradition in comparative politics.’16 This approach has been criticized for it ignores the individuals who control the institutions. But this approach manages to give valuable insights into the working of any institution. They try to study the institutions and give recommendations so that an ideal state can be set up. ‘So, in order to get to the point of making normative political recommendations, political theorists engage in descriptive thinking, albeit often by imagining a world that is slightly removed from – and slightly better than – the one we know. But because political theorists do not (only) theorise to make a difference to how we live together – they keep an eye on the realism of the assumptions they use. Political theory is for real, living, human beings, with all of their frailties, greed, kindness and cruelty; it is not for angels, aliens or monsters.’17 The institutional approach is one such endeavor to study the formal political institutions, their growth and the growth of the individuals associated with them.

Institutions and their study are considered very educative for political science. Thus, the institutional approach is important for it endeavors to understand these units i.e. political, formal structures that add significantly to the whole process of decision-making. The formal political institutions are analyzed because they are law-making bodies which the population has to adhere to. The functionalists argue that there are many influences while making laws. ‘They (the functionalists) believe that the legislative, executive and judicial powers produce outputs of law or rules. However, between rule making application and adjudication there must be boundaries’.18 Yet, one cannot undermine the importance of institutions because they aim to provide a better and disciplined life to the people they govern. The same question is investigated from different angles. ‘Scholars documented differences in constitutions, laws and formal structures of government and assumed that, if those structures were understood, then the actual performance of governments could be predicted’.19 They argued that only by understanding institutions can we grasp the whole truth. It is important to understand how structures, institutions and individuals interact to provide ‘collective choices for society’.20.

Suggested Readings

• Caramani, Daniele, Comparative Politics, 2011, Oxford University Press.
• Gauba, O.P. , An Introduction to To Political Theory, 2013,Macmillan, Delhi.
• Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Govt. and Politics, An Introduction, 2015, Palgrave Macmillan, Replika, New Delhi.
• Harris B. Peter, Foundations of Political Science, 1976, Hutchinson, London.
• McKinnon, Catriona, Issues in Political Theory, 2012, Oxford University Press.
• Misra, K.K., Contemporary Political Theory, 1983, Pragati, Delhi.
• Andrew Heywood, Political Theory, An Introduction,2012, Palgrave Macmillan