PSIR Optional (Paper 2 Section A) (Comparative Political Analysis & International Politics) by R.P. Singh Sir

Model Answer

Question #1. What are the different meanings of system in international relations, Explain the Mortan Kaplan model?

Hints:

According to Jay Goodman the renowned professor of political science, the word system has been used in context of international theory very often yet the word carries varying meanings and there was always a possibility that the contribution of the word to the theory might have been exaggerated. He postulated that the word "system" is used in three ways basically:

•   Descriptively as in providing explanation for a group of bonded units interacting with each other
•   Explanatively as in where the system itself is assumed to have an impact on the elements of the system
•   And in the last methodologically i.e. where a theorist is claiming to utilise or improve a particular system of investigation.

For Kenneth Waltz and other structural realists, the word system is always used explanatively. The nature of the international system affects the interactions of the elements within it and understanding of the nature of the system is essential to theorising , describing , explaining and predicting events within the system.

Mortan Kaplan model

1. K. believes that the most important system is the international system. M. K. has made the greatest effort to specify the rules and pattern of interactions within his models of the international system. He holds that physical force is necessary at least as the last resort to keep the political system intact. The role of decision making in the international system is subordinate to their role in the national actor system. He divides the set of international action into two categories:
2. National Actors - The US, France, Italy
3. Super national actors: NATO, WARSAW, UN etc.

According to Kaplan International action takes place between National actors whom he regards as elements of international system. Kaplan has constructed six models of international systems. Within each model he has developed 5 sets of variables which are:

•   The essential rules
•   The transformation rules
•   The actor classification variables.
•   The capability variables
•   The information variables.

Models of system theory

According to Kaplan, the international system could be divided into six models on the basis of functions and stability.

1. The Balance of power system: The actors who worked within this system are international actors. There would be 5-6 essential actors in the system. The balance of power system is subject to change and remains unstable. The conditions which may make the balance of power unstable are.

(a) Any national actor who does not play according to the rules of the game.

(b) If international actors are oriented towards the establishment of some form of super national organization.

The balance of power system according to Kaplan has six important rules.

•   Each essential actor increases its capabilities through negotiations and not through wars.
•   Actors stop fighting rather than eliminating an essential actor.
•   Actors must fight rather than pass upon opportunities to increase their capability to other actors.
•   The national actor should oppose any grouping of actors.
•   The national actors should prevent other actor from subscribing to super national principles.
•   Defeated essential national actors should be permitted to re-enter in the system.

If the balance of power system becomes unstable, it is bound to be transferred into a different system. A world war or the rise of totalitarian block may alter the balance. According to Kaplan, the most likely transformation of balance of power is bi-polar system.

2. Bi-polar System/Model: - The bi-polar system has two categories i.e. the loose bi-polar system and the tight bi-polar system.

A. The loose bi-polar system is that which corresponds roughly in which two super powers are surrounded by a group of smaller powers and non-aligned states and in which existence of non-aligned states makes the power of two major actors loose.

This system can be transformed into a tight bi-polar system into a hierarchical international system into a universal international system or into a unit-veto system. According to Kaplan, the loose bi-polar system is most likely to be transformed into tight bi-polar system.

B.The tight bi-polar system: - In the tight bi-polar system the non-aligned actors disappear. Most likely, they will align themselves with any of t two blocks.  The structure of blocks affects the stability of a system. In this system, block actors are non-hierarchically organized. This system could transform itself either into loose bi-polar or into the universal international system.

3. Universal International system: -

The universal international system could develop as a result of the extension of the essential actors in a loose bi-polar system. In other words essential actor's average power gets declined. In this system, the universal actor, the UNO is sufficiently powerful to prevent tension among national actors but national actors retain their individual and sovereignty. The universal international system to be integrated system, it will possess integrated mechanism and will perform the judicial, economic, political and administrative functions. National actors will try to achieve their objectives only within the framework of the universal actor. This system will be a system within which prestige and reward will be allocated to the national actors and also to individual human being.

4. The hierarchical international system:

The 5th model of Kaplan's scheme of international system is the hierarchical international system in which a universal actor absorbs practically the whole world and only one nation is left out. This hierarchical international system can be both directive and non-directive. It will be directive e if it is formed as a consequence of world conquest by a national actor system and it is be  non-directive if it is based upon political rules generally operating in democracies. 

5. The Unit Veto System:-

The 6th and the last international  system in Kaplan's scheme is the unit  veto system in which the weapons that exist are of such a nature that any national actor can destroy any other before being destroyed itself. The essence of this system will be that each state will be equally able to destroy the other. Universal actors cannot exist in such a system. The unit veto system can develop from any other international system.

Besides these categories Kaplan later on added 4 new categories of international system which are as below:

•   The very loose bi-polar system: It is characterized by an ever going search for arms control and for accommodation between the various blocks.
•   The Détente System: - It means that one super power becomes more open and less aggressive and the other one becomes less defensive.
•   The Unstable Block System: It refers to highly conflict situation of power blocks. Areas of conflict could increase and the policies of the super-powers would become too interventionist.
•   The incomplete Nuclear Diffusion system: This system exists due to diffusion of nuclear technology. There would be 15-20 Nuclear powers having minimum deterrence except two super-powers.

Question #2."Comparative method is certainly the effective method to study and analyse contemporary politics, but researchers must be aware of the problems related with this process". Discuss.

Hints:

Although comparative approach in political science is considered to be advantageous in linking theory to evidence, enhancing it as a scientific discipline, there are a number of constraints that limit its possibilities and can impair its usefulness.

Arend Lijphart claimed that “the phrase comparative politics specifies the “how” but does not postulate the “what” of the analysis”. Comparativists usually compare and contrast different component parts of countries’ political systems and try to discover differences and certain tendencies. Comparison entails following basic operations:

•   Compiling a list of things to compare,
•   Sorting and classifying them and, eventually,
•   Carrying out a basic act of comparison and making relevant conclusions.

Comparative methods can be applied to compare political systems of different countries and also it can be used to compare political systems over time. There are different “schools” of the subject in the study of comparative politics as well institutionalism and functionalism. Institutionalism denotes the practice of comparing political institutions such as governments, political parties. It has been documented that the main advantage of the comparative method is that it makes the study of politics more structured and conclusions derived with this method are more precise. Despite the benefits, there are certain difficulties and drawbacks in comparative methods as well.

Common problem of politics is that there are usually too many variables and too few cases. There are more than 200 countries in the world, but regrettably, they are all quite different. It is impossible to compare drastically different or completely identical countries, so in order to take advantage of comparative methods, only similar countries with minor differences should be compared and in some cases, it may prove to be complicated to find such.

The problem raised by researchers with the comparative method is that research might be not objective and the researcher purposely chooses countries to demonstrate negative or positive moments to proof his/her opinion. For example, consider the proposition that countries with weak trade unions are more economically efficacious than countries with strong trade unions. Here, trade unionists and, on the opposite side, managing directors have a political point to make, so more than likely their conclusions might completely diverge.

It is shown in political studies that in other subfields of political science, investigators may commonly work within definite general research programmes that offer clear base level assumptions to devise testable theories. But in comparative politics, analysts usually do not draw precise research programmes. Instead, they get theoretical inspiration in a wide range of general orientations-strategic choice models, state- centric approaches, patron-client models, theories of international dependency, and many more that emphasis certain major causal factors but that lack the all-encompassing generality that people normally associate with a research programme.

Comparative Politics tend to dangle normative evaluation of the world in favour of defining the political world and clarifying why it is the way it is. Nonetheless, it is important to recollect that comparativists do this not because they lack preferences or are unwilling to make normative judgments, but because as social scientists, they are committed first to offering systematic explanations for the world as it is. So they try to draw a realistic rather than normative model.

Comparative researchers may disagree about whether the assimilated knowledge may help make the world a better place or help people to make better judgments about politics, but they usually accept that the job of defining and explaining is big enough. It can be cited through example, rather than evaluating whether democracy is good or not. Comparativists spend enough time to understand and identify the general conditions such as social, economic, ideological, institutional, and international under which democracies originally appear, become unstable, collapse into despotism and sometimes re-emerge as democracies. Additionally, sometimes in Comparative Politics, it has been tried to draw parallel between two or more incomparable themes leading to imprecise conclusions. But the most bothersome weakness of comparative politics is the uncertainty of the area of study.

It is assessed that the comparative approach has many limitations. Major concern is that researchers often have too many theories that fit the same data. This means that collecting valid and reliable data for the case researchers have selected to test theoretical relations can turn out to be a formidable task. If this problem is insufficiently solved, it will undermine the quality of results. Other disadvantages of comparative approach are that if inadequate data is available, it may be impossible to apply. Adjustments must be made as no two properties are ever identical. Precision of the method depends upon the appraiser’s ability to recognize differences, and to make the proper adjustments for those differences.

To summarize, Comparative method is certainly the effective method to study and analyse contemporary politics, but researchers must be aware of the problems related with this process. Comparative method is used as a basis in all methods of valuation. Comparative method make simpler to a complex political reality and makes it more manageable. Comparative politics brings researchers into contact with political worlds other than political and cultural horizons. Comparative approach to studying of politics also enables researchers to move beyond mere description, toward explanation and within these method researchers can talk about comparative politics as a science. But negative side is that there is difficulty of operationalising variables. Any research of comparative method is susceptible to personal interests and motivations.