ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about the political institutions in primitive and modern societies.
Political Institutions in Primitive Societies:
Being disturbed by the existence of a government which denies the just rights and liberties of citizens, many people have dreamed of abolishing political institutions altogether.
They assumed that since the government was not a natural institution but was created by man and rested on the willing consent of the people, it was easy to eliminate the institution altogether, so that people could pursue their natural inclinations and find their true happiness.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Such anarchistic arguments appealed to countless people in all ages. But the idea has ever remained an aspiration. There is an overwhelming opinion now that the idea is merely a Utopian dream. The idea of a stateless society was strengthened by what some people considered to be an almost complete absence of differentiated political institutions in some primitive societies.
The statement is not, however, accurate. It is true that in primitive societies, there is no law, no court, no legislature and no executive in the form in which we find them in a complex society like ours. Nevertheless, no discerning observer of a primitive society failed to notice that in such societies, there was a need for political control and that institutions of a non-political nature were made to serve such a need.
Why is the need for political control a universal feature of social living?
Are not non-political agencies of social control adequate enough to keep occasional violence of social norms in line?
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The answer is obviously in the negative. There are in all societies persons who are persistent violators of social norms and are not amenable to social pressures. In their case, social norms have to be enforced.
Political control, thus, becomes indispensable, because political control involves not simply authority but ultimate authority, backed whenever necessary by the use of force. No society can dispense with the use of force in extreme cases. Hence, the need and indispensability of political institution.
Apart from this functional explanation of the emergence of the state, there are two other explanations. Political institution, it is argued, is the consequence of the increasing size and complexity of societies in which warfare was a major factor.
Oppenheimer, for example, discussed the origin of the state in terms of the conquest of one tribe by another with the sole object of subjecting them to a tribute… Marxist theory, on the other hand, accounts for the emergence of the state in terms of differentiation into social classes within the community following the growth of productive forces and of wealth.
Whatever be the explanation, one distinctive feature of primitive and early societies was that where a separate political authority existed, it was closely bound up with kinship, religion and other institutions.
In terms of the nature of political institutions, primitive societies fall under two categories:
(i) Those without a distinct and permanent political structure, and
(ii) Those with a distinct and permanent political structure, but strongly influenced by kinship and religion.
Political Institutions of Modern Societies:
Bottomore has identified three types of political situation in the contemporary worlds:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
First, there are tribal societies, mainly in African countries, which are being modernized under Western influence on the lines of Western political institutions. It is difficult to say how far this kind of modernisation process would help to keep in check the tribal feuds and establish national unity and cohesion on a firm foundation.
Africa was parceled out among colonial powers according to their needs and convenience. As a consequence, a particular tribe had been distributed among three or four neighbouring colonies under different European powers. This created tension and produced instability both within a nation-state and among newly independent neighbouring nation-states.
Thus, these African societies faced, in addition to the challenge of bringing about rapid economic advance and ensuring economic well-being to the vast majority of the population, the uphill task “of consolidating a national community formed out of tribal groups whose existence within their frontiers is in some measure the result of the arbitrary division of Africa among the colonial powers”.
Second, another type of political situation obtains in those developing countries of ancient civilisation which are attempting to modernize their societies after emancipation from foreign rule.
The Arab States of the Middle East and North Africa, the Asian states and the Latin American States fall under this category. There are some political conditions and problems which are common to most, if not all, of these developing countries.
Some of these problems are:
(i) The problems of establishing altogether a new political system based principally on Western political institutions,
(ii) Devising appropriate governmental machinery for the purpose of bringing about rapid economic growth, and
(iii) Effecting, as rapidly as possible, general improvement in the levels of living of the common people.
These developing countries face a number of difficulties in implementing the aforesaid programmes of work. In most of these countries, the political institutions which have been set up on the Western model are not working as well as are expected because the people of these countries have not been able to develop the appropriate political culture.
Social institutions in the form of kinship system, patterns of familial ties, class divisions, and, above all, traditional outlook on life do not favour smooth functioning of a modern political system. These factors are also not very conducive to the growth of ‘work culture’.
As a consequence thereof, economic growth is halting. Failures of the government in meeting the aspirations of the people encourage army generals or ambitious political leaders in some of these countries to assume dictatorial power and do away with democratic political institutions. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma and a host of countries in Africa and Latin America bear testimony to this type of development.
In the third category are included industrially advanced countries of Europe, North America, Australia, Japan, etc. Here a distinction should be made between two types of political systems obtaining in countries under this category: the democratic-capitalist or democratic-socialist countries on the one hand and communist countries on the other.
The general political characteristics of the modern industrial societies of the first type are:
(i) The existence of a nation-state as the political community,
(ii) The existence of political parties, pressure groups and political movements,
(iii) The election of the political executive by universal adult suffrage, and
(iv) The administration of public affairs by a large bureaucracy.
The most important characteristic feature of the industrial societies of the second type is the existence of single party which monopolizes political power.
“This situation is justified in terms of Marxist theory as the expression of social unity resulting from the elimination of antagonistic social classes. The dictatorship of the party is equated with the dictatorship of the proletariat in a transitional period during which the foundations of the ultimate classless society are being laid”.
It is argued on the basis of Marxist theory that after the establishment of the classless society, the state will ‘wither away’.
The theory and practice of communism have, however, been criticised. It is pointed out that the coercive apparatus of the state does not show any sign of ‘withering away’. On the contrary, the coercive power of the state in communist societies has vastly increased, jeopardizing in the process the liberty of the individual and unfettered freedom of expression.
The suppression of dissident opinion in the Soviet Union and countries of Eastern Europe is an evidence of this development. Voices are raised, not infrequently, against too much concentration of power, particularly in countries of Eastern Europe.
In Yugoslavia, there was an attempt to decentralize political authority.
“The major sociological criticism of most orthodox Marxism is that it asserts, against the evidence, that political power is always based upon, and can only be based upon, economic power, and fails to analyse in a scientific and exact way, the notion of ‘economic power’… The assertion of a one to one causal relationship between economic power and political power goes back to the eighteenth century distinction between ‘civil society’ and the state, and to the impression made upon social theorists by the rapid emancipation of economic life from political regulation in the early stages of industrial capitalism. But in a broader historical perspective, while recognising the important influence of economic structure upon other social institutions, we must also admit the relative autonomy of politics”.
A development of far-reaching importance in communist societies is the experiment launched in China in terms of giving private enterprise a pivotal role in the economic field, both in agriculture and in industry.
The events which have taken place in the Soviet Union and in the countries of Eastern Europe in the year 1989 clearly prove that concentration of power in the hands of the office-bearers 1 of the Communist Party does not ensure the end of exploitation and the promise of freedom for the vast majority of the population.