A Review Study on Comparative Politics

Comparative politics were largely defined by ideological and methodological debates in new comparative politics in the 1970s and 1980s. The left and right both accused each other of partialities and distortions while supporters of qualitative and quantitative methods discussed how research should be structured and used. Samuel E Finer says politics is "a continuous, time-saving, ever changing and universal activity that is crucial to a decision to face and resolve difficulties." It is a form of human behavior that comes from a special kinds of activity. It refers to the decision making or taking which involves certain political steps. David Easton finds it a 'authoritative value allocation' practice. And Robert and Harold Laswell. A. It is defined by Dahl 'as a special power case.' In comparative politics, politics has three connotations, political activity, political processes, and power. But Jean Blondal emphasizes the 'decision making process' Political activities include efforts to create and overcome conflict situations that contribute to the interests of the people who play their part in the fight to achieve power, as far as possible. The operation of a permanent tension reduction mechanism reduces tension and conflicts. If politics is the true assignment of "value" some degree of disagreement between "values" as people wish and "values" as authorities want is bound to occur. This leads to conflicts, which call for a solution and which are political activities in this field. The legislative process constitutes a further expansion of political activity. This covers the operations of all organizations involved in decision-making. The way organisations and organizations work shows that they are not immune from the patterns of the battle for power; they have their 'private governments' to resolve their private disputes and tensions. It also involves 'non-state agencies' In order to protect and promote their specific interests, this "non-state" association is particularly important to us. It influences the government of the country. A very sharp process of interaction between the groups between each other and between the groups and the government of the country therefore occurs. The political process involves either participating in government policy formation or becoming government. Finally, the subject of political power lies within the scope of comparative politics. The term "power" is defined in various ways by various authors. For example, though Carl J Friedrich defines it as 'a human relationship of a certain sort.' Tawney considers it the ability of an individual or a group of people to change the behavior of other people or groups as he wishes. Referring to the role of power in the decision-making process, Lasswell says: "Decision-making is a personal process: it is agreed on the policies to be followed by other persons. The right to take part in decision-making is an intimate relationship. The exercise of power is therefore a particular case in politics – an exercise that attempts to change other people's behaviour.

There are certain roles to perform for each sub-system. The political system is intertwined in society with other subsystems. The social and political systems are closely linked. A modern man 's study is incomplete which does not contain questions such as how to gain his livelihood, how to relax, what types of problems worry him the most, how and where he conflicts to some of his fellow beings. While all of the above considerations were important to a political analyst, his fundamental concerns were always to control and institutionalize power, to take authoritative decisions and to solve conflicts in order to give a clear political implication to some aspects of human behaviour. The agency entrusted with these functions is the State and its organ actively performs these functions. However, it is considered to have minimal legal meaning in 'state' and 'government.' The definition of the 'political system' has acquired large currency as it focuses on the whole spectrum of political activities within a company , no matter where these activities may be situated in society, writes Almond and Powell. The political system is a set of institutions and agencies that formulate and implement a society or groups' collective aims. The concept of the political system was defined in several ways by different thinkers. David Easton notes that "the political system is that relationship mechanism in any society that makes and implements binding and authoritative assignments of values." A deeper and systematic analysis of various political systems is carried out in Comparative politics. Political power, political culture and state structure are the deciding aspects of the political system, political stability, etc. It has a main political allocation defined by Marion Levy as "distribution of powers over the various members of the concrete structure involved, and responsibility for the action of them, including, on the one hand, coerceous sanctions, whose strength is extreme from one point of view, and, on the other, responsibilities for them and for the organization of concerted negotiations; Almond and Powell describe the effect of the political system: « In the end, the political system generates such outcomes for society: valid policy decisions. It should be remembered. The aims of this decision can be accurate and programmatic, or just vague and general. Many or few of them will tolerate them easily or unwillingly. But calling them policy decisions involves emphasizing that they have implications for the society and recognizing their legitimacy lies in drawing attention to the main political characteristics. The political system defines and implements the objectives of society through legitimate policy decisions.

Gabriel has pointed out three important characteristics or features of the system. the system B) Interdependence- Inter-dependence means that, when there is some change in the role of some variable in a system, with that other roles in the same system also change. C) Existence of Boundaries- It implies that, where the political systems end and other system begin.

The conversion process is called the way and mechanism by which a political system covers the environmental process and responds. Upon picking, limiting, or rearranging some inputs, the conversion process transforms into outputs. The process of conversion depends on the political system's ability to extract resources, regulate and control people and goods, distribute resources and develop its capacity. Without the help of society, no political structure will survive long. Materials such as pay taxes, military services and labor wages may be funded. The environment supports a political system significantly. The help is both available and concealed. Open support is a form of action which in the political system is clearly and obviously seen. Covered assistance is about political structures attitudes and emotions. The donations go through a process of conversion and are related to the political systems. Officials' outputs are the judgment. The political system can adopt itself in a number of ways to support stress. This includes structural changes , changes in the representation system, system of the parties, etc. If the political system fails to deliver the goods, political support decreases.

(A) Institutional: The institutional approach of comparative political analysis is a comparative institutional study. Therefore, the nature of the study (comparative) and the subject (institutions) are very clear. Comparative politics analyzes were mainly linked to a comparative study of organizations for a long time. In fact, it may be said that a comparative political analysis had started with an institutional study. The institutional approach to political research is essential to study political organizations' formal structures. The structures such as, executive, parliamentarians, judges etc. are studied in this study. Modern critics, however, also analyze infrastructure such as party systems, groups of interests, etc. The hierarchical approach is also often called the Structural approach. His ethnocentrism was also a particular feature of this approach. In comparative politics, the major works governments and institutions in the West. The belief in Western liberal democratic institutions is therefore implied in this approach. (B) Systems: The political scientist has begun increasingly using the political system since the middle of the twentieth hundred and has discarded the term government, state and nation for a political system. David Easton Gabriel Almond made the first serious attempts at studying political systems based on system theory. Later on the study of political phenomena was also used to other authors such as Mitchell, Karl Deutsch, Richard Snyder and Mortan Kaplan, etc .. According to Friedrich "where a whole constellation bears a functional relationship that establishes their reciprocal dependency, so that the destruction of one implies the destruction of a whole, then such a constellation shall be called a network," when several different parts are distinctly and different from one another. (C) Cultural: The concept of political culture was included in modern analysis in the 1980s. The American politicians such as Ulam, Beer, and Gabriel Almond popularized this term and are now being used frequently in comparisons between the different political systems. A notably influential cultural push in comparative politics in the 1980's originated from the research on society in anthropology, socialization and small-scale sociology and personality studies in psychology. In that sense, political culture represents a sort of recasting of the old concepts of nationality and of system-related policy culture. Political culture is made up of beliefs, symbols and values that determine situations in which "political activity takes place. The idea of political culture is linked to" nations or national cultures. Systems distinguished by forms of political culture, e.g. parochial, topic and active political cultures. Such types of cultural policies have expressed people's psychological and emotional orientations to their national structures. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba's Civic Culture, which was based on the survey of citizens' attitudes toward the United States, Britain, France, Italy and Mexico, were the pioneers in comparing the construction of a political culture theory. The study was based on This study contained the suggestion that the ideal cultural policy or political culture in an Anglo-American model of politics could be found in the work of Almond earlier. The theory has been developed by Lucian Pye and Sidney Verba and the experts in political culture and political development gathered together in essays. Although efforts were made to link political culture to the policies of specific nations, such as the political affairs of Pye, personality and nation-building: the search for identity in Burma has generally split up literature into two subfields: political socialization and communication. The work on these areas is reflected in the edited volumes of James S.Coleman, Education and Political Development and Pye, Communications and Political Development. understanding of the link between formal and real institutional arrangements. The subject matter of political evolution constitutes an examination of the sociological aspect. The policy culture consists of behaviors, opinions, principles and competences, which are present in a whole community, as well as the unique inclinations and trends that can be found in different parts of the population, according to Almond and Powell. Political culture consists of attitudes and orientations towards objects within their political systems which people develop within a given society. Such directions can be three distinct dimensions, cognitive orientations, which implies that people have awareness of objects within their political structures. The affective orientation implying feelings of attachment, involvement, rejection, and like about political objects, and evaluative orientations imply judgments and opinions about the political objects, which usually involve applying value standards to political objects and events. (D) Political Economy: The political system operates within the ecology of other human systems, namely social, economic and religious, is generally accepted. Thus, the mere study of constitutions and institutions is deemed inadequate, in terms of roles and ability to achieve desired goals, for understanding the essence of politics and the state. In particular, Marxists claim that economics is the cornerstone of society and of the political system. Marxism considers politics as not the fundamental activity of people, and the political system as a political analysis model is not an independent framework. Politics is just a super-structure part. Marxian theory begins by separating foundation from superstructure. The house, like the metaphor, is built to postulate that the economic system of society, the foundation of which is the social framework, including its political and legal systems, religion and morality, etc.

In the 1950's the study of Comparative politics became extremely important because many leading American political scientists were trying "to change policy by taking this topic from international to comparative political phenomenon, and from government research to the study of political systems." The study of Comparative politics became extremely important for them. In three phases, however, this topic can be overly sophisticated, sophisticated and more and more sophisticated in its historical evolution. In order to make a better understanding of the work of the political organizations, the contributions of great personalities such als Aristotle, Maquiavelli, de Tocqueville, Bryce, Ostrogorski and Weber are part of the first step. These authors used what they called the comparative method "to gather a definite collection of materials from which the investigator can select, compare and remove the ideal types and

second level, which uses a fair deal of conscience and often intentionally to provide a more useful analysis of different political institutions, may also include the contributions of some important recent authors, such as Samuel H.Beer, M. Hass, Bernard Ulam and Roy C. Macridis. We concern the various methods of comparative areas, the conngurative approach, the structural and functional comparisons, task-oriented solutions and conceptualizing specific analytical issues, the interpretation of accepted comparative categories, validity as a task, cross-cultural difficulties and data availability. In the final phase can be included David Easton, Gabriel A. Almond, and James C. Coleman, G.B. Powell, Harold Lasswell, Robert A. Dahl, Edward Shils, Harry Eckstein, David Apter, Lucian W. Pye, Sidney, Verba Myron Weiner and a number of others. The writers of this process have used interrelated definitions to present their contribution based on comparative analysis, while they themselves have provided a specialized vocabulary. "IF Easton talks about inputs , outputs, requirements, gatekeeping, support and stress, the environment, feedback and values, critical areas and political bodies; Almond offers a set of input and output functions; German is based on a cybernetic language that applies the concept of feedback of different kinds to political systems – autonomy, memory, load, deficiency, management and gain, receptors, collective system. The goal of "universality" for Almond summarizes the intent of selecting these languages-they are common enough for any unit of political action, irrespective of scale, time, development level or other factors.

The term 'politics' has three connotation in comparative politics – political activity, political process and political activity of power is the effort to create and resolve conflict conditions in ways that are, as far as possible, in accordance with the interests of those who play their part in the fight for power. The elimination of tensions or dispute resolution happens naturally by implementing permanent tension-reduction mechanisms and by introducing, from time to time, new 'reserve' mechanisms to minimize the amount of stress and disputes in emergencies. In politics there is a certain amount of conflict between 'values' as people want and 'values' as those held by those in power. When politics means the powerful allocation of 'value.' Therefore, conflicts arise which demand their resolution and the political activity that leads to efforts in this region. This is the government that has to settle these disputes by all means, the only restriction is that it will avoid the disintegration of the country. Democracy not only connotes ‗ political activity. It also means train operation, i.e. attempts to establish and overcome the conditions of stress before "spontaneous" unanimity has been achieved. Political their respective favors to binding values. The political process is an extension of the political sense of activity. Here the case of all those agencies figures in that have their role in the decision – making process. It extends the study of politics so that even 'non-state' entities are included. A analysis of the way in which parties and organizations work reveals their ability to deal with inner tensions and conflicts, not free from the dynamics of the battle for power, their 'internal governments.' What is especially important to us is that these non-state organizations, in protecting and promoting their specific interests, influence government in the country. Thus, the interaction between the groups and between the groups and government of the country is highly pronounced. The political process is participating in the political formation of government or becoming government. As comparative politics encompasses everything within the sphere of political activity and political process, it is said to 'drown' national governments 'in any community' among the entire universe of partial governments.' Finally, the subject of political power covers the scope of Comparative politics. Various writers have described the word 'control' in various ways. Tawney sees it to be a person's or a group of people's ability to modify the behavior of other individuals or groups in the way they wish. Lasswell refers to the role of power in policy making: "The decision-making is an informal process: the policies to be followed by other people are what are agreed upon. The interpersonal relationship is the power as part of decision making. And politics involves a special case in the use of force – an experiment in an attempt to alter the way people handle themselves. The study of politics from a powerful standpoint has broadened the scope of Comparative politics to include an analysis of the political systems' infrastructure. This is because politics "cannot be properly studied without recognizing and measuring their respective roles by the ruling class or by the governing and non-governing entities. Elections often operate largely within groups, although neither the member nor society can be removed, as we have seen previously, however significant the group is. "Authority" is the focus of the power maid. The rulers of a democratic system seek to justify their authority through the use of a marked use of power to achieve a superficial title of legitimacy to be known as 'consensuses.' This makes it a popular Comparative politics principle: "There is a weak consensus, coercion appears to be solid, and vice versa." Due to these essential connotations, the word politics has become peculiarly established in comparative politics. The result is that this is not just a state and government study; it is a power study. The State is the pivot of political theory and politics and the words "state," which mean a situation or state of existence, are derived from the Latin Participle status. Machiavelli is the first to use but does not define the term as an impersonal body. Prof. Laski describes "the state as a territorial community divided into government, the relation of which is centered on the practice of supreme coercive authority," and defines it as a political entity possessing people, land, power, and sovereignty. A government is an abstraction, a concrete fact of the state. Government structurally alters and can be replaced without changing the state. In addition, modern countries keep the distinctions between private and public spaces highly differentiated, nuanced and complex. The state evolves with autonomy as its distinctive feature as a modern phenomenon. The concept of sovereignty reinforces both the public-private divide and the political divide between one and the other. In parallel with and partly in opposition to the idea of sovereignty, a different idea arises which differentiates the state from the modern phenomenon, namely the idea that it is the people who, as a single entity, correctly choose the form of governance within the political body. The American and French Revolutions, which established representative bodies and developed the idea that protection of individual rights is primarily the proper purpose of the state, carried this idea further. Many political thinkers have different perspectives on the nature and purpose of the state. In two broad forms, liberal democratic and totalitarian, modern nation-State could be classified. Among them there is also the authoritarian state. Another State that is known as welfare state has recently emerged. The welfare state idea was designed to meet the totalitarian state‘s challenge.

The study of comparative government and policy is closely related. But Finer points out four meanings of the term "governance," i.e. it denotes activity or process of governance and the extent to which it exercises control over others; it indicates the situation of the activities or of the process; it tells of people responsible for governance and it indicates how a particular society is governed by method or system. Government is, therefore, a structured decision-making process involving the entire nation. It is also critical that the government follow a shared policy for territorial bodies and, in certain situations, competing organizations of representatives support mutually incompatible policies. This is significant. The Government and politics were tried by Alan Ball to create a connection. The informal democratic mechanism is now strongly emphasized as well as the official institutions of the state. Freeman therefore argues that Comparative politics is essentially a comparative study of different systems of government agrees and says that "the comparative government can be described as a study of national trends in the world of today." Also if the word 'comparative politics' is used broadly and interchangeably with the two words 'comparative government,' there is little distinction between the two. While the latter involves a comparative analysis with a specific emphasis on their institutions and roles in different political structure, the latter has a more extensive scope to include all those things within the framework in the former, plus everything else to be classified as the analysis of 'non-state' politics. In other words, while the quest for parallels is key to the study of both, the potential for comparative politics is greater than that of comparative governments. A student of comparative politics does not have an immediate connection; visible or invisible to the main state departments, with studying rules, rules and regulatory systems, or even the study of some additional constituent agencies (like political parties and pressure groups). From the above it is suggested that the term "Comparative politics," because the scope of the former is more broad and extensive, should be used rather than a term "comparative government" to include all the essential features we have discussed in the previous section. Blondel, there are two aspects horizontal and vertical to the term comparative government. Vertical comparison is a comparative analysis of the state with other organizations and groups which have political character and affect the workings of a political system. A comparative State study with other national governments is a horizontal measure. Comparative government can therefore be defined as the study of the national governments in the contemporary world in a preliminary way. The comparative government study is much lower than the Comparative politics analysis. The analysis of the countries, structures and roles comprises a Comparative politics. It does not take the NGOs into account and does not concern itself with their activities. But politics is a matter of Comparative politics , i.e. Power – wherever it takes place. The competence is therefore not confined to the State alone. Therefore, comparative politics is not only concerned with a comparative study of the state and its institutions, but is also concerned with non-state political contexts, including government , political socialisation, political dispute resolution, negotiation, communication, decision-making etc.

Comparative politics is about behaviour, institutions, processes, ideas and values in several countries. The search for these regularities and models clarify the fundamental nature, working and belief of regimes. These commonalities and differences. Comparative politics studies a wider scale of political action, including governments and their agencies, and other types of organizations that are not directly linked to the national government. Like political science, comparative politics involves theory and

and evaluate theory.' The standards, basic beliefs, and values underlying political activity are also a matter of Comparative politics. In Comparative politics, the study of nations and their political systems is systematic and comparative. Comparative politics does the first thing in practice, to compare it means describing similarities and differences. Comparative politics defines the real world and creates classifications and typologies based on these definitions. There are numerous modern approaches to comparative governments and politics. The system method, also called system theory or system analysis, is one such method. 'All political practices are, and are, the most common way to view them. The report focuses on sets of patterned relationships involving routine interactions and a significant degree of interdependence between the system participants, as well as the defined system security and maintenance procedures. The system method includes the analysis of interconnected variables that form a structure, a unit, a whole composed of a lot of facts and a set of interactive elements. This approach assumes that the structure consists of distinct, consistent patterns that communicate with each other and provide a complete picture of a self-regulatory order. This is therefore the analysis of a number of interactions within the larger system that are still analytically specific.

Bara, Judith and Mark Pennington (2009). Comparative Politics (eds.) Sage Publications, India. Beyme, Klaus von (2008) ‗The Evolution of comparative Politics‘ in Comparative Politics (ed) Daniele Caramani, Oxford university Press, oxford, New York. Blondel, Jean (1999) ‗Then and Now: Comparative Politics in Political Studies Vol.47 (1). Chandhoke, Neera (1996) ‗Limits of Comparative Political Analysis‘, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 31. January 27, No. 4. Chilcote, Ronald, H. (1994) Theories of Comparative Politics, Boulder, West view. Kopstein, J. and Lichbach, M. (eds) (2005) Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lichbach, mark Irving and Alan S. Zukckerman (2009) Comparative Politics Rationality, Culture and structure, Cambridge University Press. Newton, Kenneth and Jan W. Van Deth (2010) Foundations of Comparative Politics, ( Second Edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. O‘ Neil, Patrick H. (2007) Essentials of Comparative Politics (second Edition), W. W. Norton and Company, New York, London. Roy Anupama (2001) ―Comparative Method and Strategies of Comparison‖ in Punjab Journal of Politics.Vol XXV (2).