Modernization and Political Decay

 Modernization involves social mobilization where major clusters of old ties and
commitments are broken down. This means a change in values and attitudes. It
also involves economic development (however measured). Modernization
requires both these factors.
 This is a disruptive process that can cause instability.

Effect of Modernization on Politics and Institutions

I. Political modernization means replacement of large number of

traditional authorities by one single national authority. Government becomes the
product of man not of God.

II. Political functions become differentiated

III. There is increased participation by groups in society. Whether this means

greater control of the state by the people or the other way around depends on the
general consensus. More people participate and more people are affected by politics.

 The fact of social modernization (urbanization, industrialization, GNP rise,

mass media expansion etc.) does not mean a necessary political modernization.
E.g. LA progress toward democracy, stability etc. is “at best dubious”.
 The effect of social modernization is disruptive to political systems –
traditional loyalty is undermined; local chiefs are challenged by elite
beaurocrats. Identity is eroded . There is a growth of group consciousness and
this has an integrating and disintegrating effect on the social system e.g. it
creates prejudices and conflicts between groups due to competition for
resources, inequalities of economic development, unequal distribution of power
etc.
 “It is not the absence of modernity but the efforts to achieve it which produce
political disorder. If poor countries appear to be unstable it is not because they
are poor, but because they are trying to become rich. A purely traditional
society would be ignorant, poor and stable.” [This refutes the poverty thesis –
that countries are unstable because they are poor]. The evidence for this claim
is that it was generally low middle income countries that experienced violence
and coups, rather than the poorest of the poor.
 Thus modernization creates instability and the higher the rates of change the
greater the instability. This idea explains why when change was spread over
centuries in US/GB etc. there was little violent instability, whereas in
developing countries “problems of the centralization of authority, national
 integration, social mobilization, economic development, political participation,
and social welfare have arisen not sequentially but simultaneously.”

Social Mobilization and Instability

 Urbanization, education, media etc. give rise to increased aspiration which

produces tension if the aspirations cannot be met. It will also increase the
public’s voice in politics. In the absence of strong and adaptable institutions
such increases in participation will cause instability.
 In general the higher the level of education of the unemployed the more
extreme the destabilizing behaviour: “alienated university graduates prepare
revolutions”.

Economic Development and Instability

Economic development provides the capabilities social mobilization demands so it

should tend to reduce tension. However, it also leads to social frustration:

1. Disrupts social groupings

2. Produces “new money” classes who want power and status to reflect their
wealth and are imperfectly assimilated into the social order
3. Increases geographical mobility which undermines social ties. Increased
urbanization can lead to political extremism.
4. Widens gap between rich and poor and all the tension that goes with that
5. Relative incomes do not rise for all so there is dissatisfaction
6. Increased literacy and aspiration levels beyond what can actually be provided
7. Aggravates regional/ethnic conflict over distribution and consumption
8. Increases organizational capabilities of groups to make demands on the
government which it will most likely be unable to satisfy.

 There is much evidence in favour of the idea that economic development

creates instability (Mexican revolution after 20 years of excellent
growth/French Revolution the same), but much evidence against (USSR, Japan,
West Germany). The conflicting evidence suggests the link is complicated. It is
hypothesized that the relationship varies with the level of development. At low
levels of development, economic growth creates instability. The effect is
neutralized somewhat for middle development countries, and the link is
reversed in highly developed countries.
The Gap Hypothesis

“Social mobilization…expose the traditional man to new forms of life, new standards
of enjoyment, new possibilities of satisfaction. These experiences break the cognitive
and attitudinal barriers of traditional culture and promote new levels of aspirations
and wants. The ability of a transitional society to satisfy these new aspirations
however, increases more slowly than the aspirations themselves. Consequently a gap
develops between aspiration and expectation, want formation and want
satisfaction…This gap generates social frustration and dissatisfaction.”

The reason for the frustration is found in a lack of social opportunity, and a lack of
adaptable political institutions.

Civic and Praetorian Polities

 Political systems can be distinguished by their levels of institutionalization

(INS) and their political participation (PP). The former can be either high or
low (for Huntington) and the latter can be highly participatory (populace at
large) middle (middle classes) low (aristocratic or other elite). The stability of a
system depends on both of these factors. It depends on the ratio, and so a
country with similarly low levels of both may be in fact more stable than a
country with a highly institutionalized system and an even more highly
participatory system.
 Countries with low INS and high PP are societies where social forces act
directly in the political sphere these are “praetorian polities”. High INS and low
PP conversely are “civic polities”

Political Participation Ration of Institutionalization to Participation

HIGH: CIVIC LOW: PRAETORIAN
Low: traditional Organic (Ethiopia) Oligarchical (Paraguay)
Medium: transitional Whig (Chile) Radical (Egypt)
High: modern Participant (USSR) Mass (Argentina)

 Essentially the difference between civic and praetorian is that one set of
systems are law abiding legitimate states, and the others are law neglecting
systems where rulers act in general in their own interest.
  Praetorian: fragile, fleeting forms of authority, charismatic leaders, military
junta, populist dictator. All forms of government whirl and change in
unpredictable manner. Politics and political participation are neither stable nor
institutionalized.
 Civic: recognizable, stable patterns of institutional authority, feudal or
centralized, or federal. Parliamentary assemblies etc.
 “Institutions impose political socialization as the price of political participation.
In a praetorian society groups become mobilized into politics without becoming
socialized by politics.”

[Huntington goes on to talk about differences in these types of societies. However, I

have no teased out his main ideas and the summary is quite long enough.]