Foundations of Comparative Politics - Literature review Example

Comparative Politics Comparative politics refers to the systematic study or examination and comparison of global political systems. It does this by expounding on the differences between and similarities among countries. Comparative politics is primarily concerned with the exploration of patterns, systems and regularity of political systems across different nations. It identifies trends, change patterns and attempts to establish theories that identify and give reasons for these trends (Caramani, 173). The reasons for studying comparative politics are quite diverse and touch on different aspects of education and social, as well as cultural, understanding. A predominant reason for studying comparative politics is that it is quite fun and fascinating. This is because the study provides knowledge of different countries by identifying and discussing their political patterns and alignments. Studying comparative politics also helps the scholars overcome ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism refers to the character of judging other cultures on the basis of their standards and values and standards on a person’s own culture. Ethnic divisions are, therefore, dismissed through the study of comparative politics as students are able to appreciate and understand different cultures and their values rather than judge them relative to the students’ own ethnicity or culture. This provides a sense of unity on the global front among all persons from different countries and cultures (Caramani, 211). In addition, comparative politics enables one to comprehend how countries change and identify the existing patterns. This provides an in-depth appreciation for the role of different entities in the process of national change. Understanding reasons why countries change and the change patterns are essential as it helps in the identification of similar change processes in one’s own country. Furthermore, comparative politics is a fascinating area of study as it is intellectually stimulating hence allowing for students to think and analyze occurrences critically without the hindrances of bias or prejudice. This is especially notable when considering pertinent questions in comparative politics such as why some nations modernize while others do not, or why some countries uphold democracy while others do not. Moreover, because of the rigorous and effective methodology employed in comparative politics, students become appreciative and are always open to new approaches. This diminishes the chances of monotony in analysis. The comparative method is a highly developed a tool of analysis that requires one to be open to new approaches to tackling issues (Newton and Van Deth, 157). Lastly, the study of comparative politics is essential as it provides a viable platform for understanding and appreciation of not only international relations, but also foreign policies adopted by different nations. This means that comparative politics facilitates the adoption of successful foreign policies as it allows for greater understanding of how different countries operate, thereby enhancing their foreign relations. Order refers to a variety of rules, institutions and rights that have the capacity to constrain and determine the pattern of one’s behavior. It is pertinent to note that international order and state relations without the incident of wars has been developed over the course of four stages in search for international order. The first step is a historical approach called the descriptive phase, which lasted till the end of World War 1. During this phase, diplomatic history played a key role in development. International relations or order was identified according to previous occurrences, and the former were merely described in chronological order with no reference to how certain events and conditions influenced the pattern of international behavior (Newton and Van Deth, 214). . The second phase called the current events approach was established during the inter-war duration, i.e. 1920-1939. World War 1 centered attention on the limitations of the diplomatic history approach. Scholars of the current events approach advocated for the examination of the current events in order to understand the root of conflicts that had engulfed the global environment. This phase in the search for international order attempted to attain what diplomatic historians had ignored in the previous stage, i.e. the effect of situations and behaviors on international relations. The second phase scholars were concerned with the explanation of the influence of current developments and problems on international relations. The scholars stressed the study of the present without reference to the past. The institutional approach or the idealist approach is the third stage. This phase began after the First World War and existed throughout the inter-war duration and after. This phase emphasized the institutionalization of international relations with organization and law. This was primarily inspired by the notion that the international community was capable of establishing institutions where all international problems would be resolved. The establishment of the League of Nations was the pillar of the institutionalization phase. The theoretical approach, which is the final phase, was established pursuant to the Second World War. World War 2 proved that all the previous approaches to international order had immense limitations, which necessitated the establishment of the new approach. The theoretical phase discarded the utopianism of peaceful international order and advocated for its own investigation of the facts of the activities of different states. This includes among others, the examination of driving forces behind states’ foreign policies. This phase advocates for a shift from international law and organization to influences and forces that dictate the behavior of nations. According to the occurrences in the Pax Democratica, the international order is bound to face some serious challenges. Pax Democratica refers to Europe’s democratic peace that has allowed the continent to be united in terms of trade and institutions. However, the main challenge has been in dealing with the differences between state military forces and monetary aspects (Caramani, 389). Different nations of the European community have distinct military and monetary strength that has in some instances resulted in conflicts among the member states. This is implicit of the challenge in attaining international order as different nations have different strengths with regard to their military and monetary strength. According to Newton and Van Deth (145), the essence of studying comparative politics is to provide people globally with an appreciation of the social, cultural and political environment of the international environment. This allows for civic engagement in the processes of governance and national administration as a pillar for international behavior and relations. The scholars identify comparative politics as a substantial academic discipline that facilitates the enhancement of knowledge with regard to international relations among nations on the global front. Some of the major themes in comparative politics include the democratic theory, which emphasizes the conception of involvement, which surpasses the conventional concepts of institutionalized systems of participation and the unconventional or non-institutionalized systems together with direct actions of protests. More importantly, comparative politics identifies the concepts of consumer democracy, as well as the direct or small democracy. These democracies are centered on an active interrelation between public services and their consumers or clients. This has shifted attention from the tradition of large-scale and hierarchically planned politics to that which focuses on the immediate concerns of daily life. Essentially, Newton and Van Deth (97) advocate a theoretically significant analysis of citizen involvement in national and international relations and democracy. This is mainly through the analysis of social and political patterns of involvement and appreciation of the sophisticated relationship between political and social participation. Furthermore, the methodology involved in comparative politics requires the conceptualization of political and national behavior with regard to the international order and the international rules of national conduct. The scholars appreciate citizen’s input in the overall international behavior of their home country, which is primarily done through their involvement using various forms of participation and involvement both culturally and politically. Such involvement could be through conventional participation or protest activities. Overall, the essence of comparative politics is to provide an in-depth understanding of the international political arena and the relations among nations. Furthermore, the study allows for the appreciation of the character and culture of different nations and how such characters shape the overall international or global political situation. It is paramount to note that the past has had an immense impact on the current global operations and relations. A viable method in comparative politics is the examination of previous influences and events and their results, which have all shaped the global political arena, as well as foreign policies of different states. Freedom House refers to a US—based non-governmental organization, which researches and advocates for democracy, human rights, as well as political freedom. Founded in 1941 and initially chaired by Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt, the organization identifies itself as the distinct voice for freedom and democracy all over the world (Diego, 71). Freedom House examines the extent of democratic freedoms in all nations of the world and publishes the results in an annual report. Ironically, despite serving the entire world, Freedom House is largely funded by the US federal government. Because of this, many critics argue that the organization is biased and that it interferes with other nations with a view to promote the interests of the US government. For instance, statistical evaluations conducted in the, Freedom in the World report, discovered biases in rankings that were either for or against leftist countries. Other evaluations, on the other hand, showed that the organization’s rankings are related with other similar freedom indices. The organization asserts that it is intensely opposed to tyranny in Central America and Chile, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia and apartheid in South Africa among other undemocratic acts in the global environment. Freedom House champions the democratic rights of activists, journalists, religious believers, proponents of free markets and trade unionists. In the 1940s, Freedom House advocated for the Marshall Plan, as well as the institution of NATO. In the 1950s and 1960s, the organization supported the US civil rights movement. This is augmented by the fact that, during this period, most of the organization’s leaders consisted of prominent civil rights activists (Diego, 85). Furthermore, Freedom House is credited with assisting the establishment of non-governmental think tanks, autonomous media and election institutions in the post-Communist societies of the world. Recently, Freedom House has upheld citizen revolutions in among others Egypt, Ukraine, Tunisia, Kyrgyzstan and Serbia. The organization states that it has assisted to eradicate violence against women in Jordan; sought justice for Algerian torture victims and defended human rights advocates in Uzbekistan (Caramani, 674). Work Cited Caramani, D. Comparative Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Diego, G. "Political and ideological aspects in the measurement of democracy: the Freedom House case", Democratization, 17. 1. (2010). 68 – 97. Print. Newton,K and Van Deth, J. W. Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print. Read More