Political Development and Political Decay

Political Development and Political Decay
Huntington makes the thesis that De Tocqueville’s conception of political society is under threat of being eroded. The author is emphatic that inasmuch as equality of political association is growing in the modern world, the art of society working towards a communality of interest is diminishing and stands at an all-time low. Huntington makes the point
that the preconditions for civilized society are at risk or diminishing. Further, he posits that the process of political mobilization only manages to contribute to the decay of politics, hazarding the fears entertained De Tocqueville in an earlier treatise. Huntington first discusses the views of other authors to give us an impression of how he deviates from their philosophical positions. He then introduces his definition, which now informs the direction of his thought.
Huntington argues that previous scholarly work to define political development fails as it associates political development with modernization. The author does not discount that political development assumes a modernistic approach. Instead, he opines that equating political development with modernization misses the point considering that vast indices determine political development. He calls for substituting the definition with a more inclusive one that can capture the layered relationship. For instance, he proposes that we should turn our attention to the development of institutions as well as the development of viable procedures.
Huntington’s definition differs from previous writers on the subject in the sense that his definition divorces modernization as the criteria for measuring political development. One similarity lies in the fact that the author recognizes the impact of modernization on political development. Huntington defined the process of political development as independent of but affected by modernization. Further, political development can be measured by the “level of institutionalization” as well as the “scope of support” (Huntington 393). Adaptability refers to the capacity of a political system to respond to challenges as and whenever they arise. Institutionalized systems can be characterized as having the ability to respond to and manage challenges, much like the British Empire in the 19th century. Another example is the YMCA, which has proven highly adaptable to situations.
Complexity, on the other hand, refers to the multiplication and differentiation of units in an organization. For instance, an extremely differentiated company, such as Proctor and Gamble, can be said to possess complexity and dynamism. The American political system can be regarded as possessing complexity. Different organs performing various functions can work in harmony to deliver political, social and economic goods to the people. Autonomy is the ability of an organization to operate independently outside of interference from other institutions. The Judiciary in mature democracies can be said to exercise sovereignty since judges do not take orders from other organs or interests.
Coherence is the ability of institutions to be able to come to some form of agreement on certain issues. For example, in political systems, citizens should have mechanisms through which they can settle certain issues. In elections, the majority winner takes the day. There should be means of resolving disputes or coming to a settlement. With increased political mobilization and reduced institutionalization, political systems are at the risk of demise. Huntington is emphatic that with the rise in political mobilization, we threaten the second requirement for civilized society as prescribed by De Tocqueville. The result is that the community is alienating most of its members as the noise of political mobilization takes root in our political systems.















Work Cited
Huntington, Samuel P. "Political development and political decay." World Politics 17.03 (1965): 386-430.