POLITICAL MODERNIZATION

- Akom Bomnuk Don

INTRODUCTION
Political modernization refers to the process by which a society transforms
its political structures, institutions, norms and behaviours to adapt to the
demands of modernity and to meet the needs of the changing world. This
process is associated with changing the characteristics of the political system
and social life in diverse spheres. It refers to the changes in political structure
and culture characteristics, transformed by modern ideas like liberalism,
secularism, transparency and industrialization. It is also concerned with a
change in the outlook, political culture, and rural and urban social life. This
process, it was said, involved, among other things, the ending of the
dominance of religion/church and the establishment of a secular and central
political authority.
Political Modernisation postulates changes in five key aspects of human
activity and relations:
1. At the psychological level, modernisation involves a fundamental shift in
values, attitudes and expectations.
2. At the intellectual level, it involves a tremendous expansion of man's
knowledge about his environment and the diffusion of knowledge through
increase in literacy, mass communication and education.
3. Demographically, it implies a change in the pattern of life, a marked
increase in health and life expectancy, greater occupational and
geographical mobility and a shift of population from rural to urban areas.
4. At the social level, modernisation has a tendency to replace the focus of
individual's loyalty from family and other primary groups to voluntarily
organised secondary associations.
5. Finally, in the sphere of economics, subsistence agriculture is replaced by
market agriculture, agriculture itself declines in comparison to
commerce, industry and other non-agricultural activities, and the scope
of economic activity is widened as this activity gets more and more
centralised at the national level.

DEFINITIONS
Huntington defines it as 'a multi-faceted process involving change in all
areas of human thought and activity."
Karl Deutsch defines it as : “It is the process by which there emerges mass
political participation by the people and increased political decentralisation”.
Claude E. Welch, Jr. takes it as "the process based upon the rational
utilisation of resources and aimed at the establishment of modern society,'”
Benjamin Schwartz describes it as 'the systematic, sustained and powerful
application of human energies to the rational control of man's physical and
social environments for various human purposes.'

HISTORY
Political modernization emerged as a major approach in comparative politics
in the late 1950s.
The political modernization approach, however, lost its steam by the end of
the 1960s as a result of challenges emerging from within and from scholars in
the non-Western world. Nevertheless, with the onset of the Third Wave of
democratization since the 1980s and the growing interdependence of nations
since the 1990s, there has been a revival of interest in political modernization.

DETERMINANTS
Political modernization is a complex process influenced by numerous factors
and determinants. Some key determinants of political modernization include:

1. Economic Development:
Economic prosperity and growth can lead to increased political
modernization by creating a more educated and informed citizenry.
Economic stability can also support the development of political
institutions and governance systems.

2. Education:
Access to quality education can empower individuals to participate in
the political process, understand democratic principles, and engage in
informed decision-making. An educated population is more likely to
demand accountability and transparency from political leaders.

3. Technological Advancements: Technological advancements, such as

the internet and social media, have the potential to facilitate political
engagement, increase transparency, and hold governments accountable.
Technology can also promote the flow of information and help mobilize
citizens for political action.

4. Civil Society: A vibrant civil society, including non-governmental

organizations, advocacy groups, and grassroots movements, can
contribute to political modernization by fostering political participation,
promoting human rights, and advocating for social change.

5. Rule of Law: Strong legal institutions, an independent judiciary, and the

rule of law are essential for political modernization. A fair and transparent
legal system can ensure accountability, protect human rights, and uphold
the principles of democracy.

6. Political Culture: The values, beliefs, and norms prevalent in a society

can significantly impact political modernization. A culture that values
democracy, pluralism, and civic engagement is more likely to support
political modernization efforts.

7. Political Leadership: Effective and visionary political leadership plays a

crucial role in promoting political modernization. Leaders who prioritize
democratic values, transparency, and good governance can inspire
positive change and drive reforms.

8. International Influences: Globalization and international relations can

also influence political modernization processes. International actors,
such as intergovernmental organizations and foreign governments, can
provide support, resources, and expertise to promote democratic reforms
and political development.
 By understanding and addressing these determinants, societies can work
towards achieving greater political modernization, democratic governance, and
social progress.

APPROACHES
The three main approaches to explore political modernization, including its
complex characteristics, are the following:

1. The trait-list approach:

The trait list approach to political modernization focuses on identifying
a set of specific traits or characteristics that are associated with modern
political systems like rule of law, political participation etc. This approach
seeks to understand political modernization by examining the presence
or absence of these traits within societies and assessing the degree to
which they conform to modern norms and standards of governance.
The trait list approach to political modernization emerged in the mid-
20th century, influenced by theories of modernization and development
that sought to explain the transition from traditional to modern forms of
governance.
The trait list approach to political modernization has been subject to
several criticisms:
• Western Bias: The trait list approach is often criticized for its
Western bias, as it tends to prioritize and valorize Western political
norms and institutions, such as liberal democracy and individual
rights, at the expense of indigenous or alternative forms of
governance found in non-Western societies.
• Simplification and Reductionism: The trait list approach
oversimplifies the complex and multifaceted nature of political
modernization by reducing it to a checklist of specific traits or
characteristics, which may overlook the diverse historical, cultural,
and contextual factors that shape political development.
• Lack of Contextual Sensitivity: The trait list approach fails to
account for the contextual specificity of political modernization, as
it applies a one-size-fits-all model of development that may not be
applicable or appropriate for all societies, leading to ethnocentric
judgments and prescriptions.
• Lack of Causality: The trait list approach does not adequately
explain the causal mechanisms and processes that drive political
modernization, as it focuses on identifying correlations between
specific traits and outcomes without considering the underlying
historical, social, and economic dynamics that produce them.

In conclusion, the trait list approach to political modernization offers a

valuable framework for understanding and assessing the development of
political systems, by identifying specific traits or characteristics that are
associated with modern governance and democracy. While subject to
criticisms such as Western bias, simplification, and lack of contextual
sensitivity, the trait list approach provides insights into the patterns,
trends, and dynamics of political change across different societies and
regions. As societies continue to undergo political modernization in the
21st century, the trait list approach remains a useful tool for analyzing
and promoting democratic governance, rule of law, and human rights
 around the world.

2. The reductionist approach:

The reductionist approach to political modernization seeks to explain
the process of political modernization by reducing it to a limited set of
factors or variables, often emphasizing the role of economic
development, technological change, or cultural diffusion in driving
political change. This approach tends to oversimplify the complex and
multifaceted nature of political modernization by reducing it to a linear
process of cause and effect, which may overlook the diverse historical,
cultural, and contextual factors that shape political development.
The reductionist approach to political modernization emerged in the
mid-20th century, influenced by theories of modernization and
development that sought to identify the key factors or variables driving
political change within societies.
The reductionist approach to political modernization has been subject
to several criticisms:
• Oversimplification: The reductionist approach oversimplifies the
complex and multifaceted nature of political modernization by
reducing it to a limited set of factors or variables, which may
overlook the diverse historical, cultural, and contextual factors that
shape political development.
• Determinism: The reductionist approach tends to assume a
deterministic relationship between specific factors (e.g., economic
development) and political change, neglecting the role of
contingency, agency, and human agency in shaping political
outcomes.
• Neglect of Cultural Factors: The reductionist approach often
neglects the role of cultural factors, such as values, beliefs, and
norms, in shaping political change, focusing instead on material or
structural factors such as economic development or technological
change.
• Lack of Predictive Power: The reductionist approach may lack
predictive power in explaining political change, as it fails to account
for the diverse and contingent nature of political processes, which
may be influenced by a wide range of factors and variables.

In conclusion, the reductionist approach to political modernization

offers a valuable framework for understanding and assessing the drivers
and dynamics of political change within societies. While subject to
criticisms such as oversimplification, determinism, and neglect of cultural
factors, the reductionist approach provides insights into the patterns,
trends, and mechanisms of political modernization, which can inform
policy interventions and strategies for promoting democratic governance,
rule of law, and human rights around the world. As societies continue to
undergo political change in the 21st century, the reductionist approach
remains a useful tool for analyzing and promoting political development
in diverse contexts and settings.
 3. The ideal-type approach:
The ideal type approach to political modernization involves
constructing an abstract model or conceptual framework that represents
the ideal characteristics or features of modern political systems. This
approach seeks to understand political modernization by comparing
actual political systems to an idealized model and assessing the degree
to which they conform to or deviate from this ideal type.
The ideal type approach to political modernization originated with Max
Weber in the early 20th century as part of his broader methodology for
studying social phenomena.

The ideal type approach to political modernization has several

applications:
Comparative Analysis: The ideal type approach facilitates comparative
analysis of political systems across different societies and regions by
providing a common framework for assessing the degree of political
modernization and identifying patterns of convergence or divergence in
political development over time.
Policy Evaluation: The ideal type approach can be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of policies and interventions aimed at promoting political
modernization and democratization in non-Western societies, by
comparing actual outcomes to the idealized model and identifying areas
for reform and improvement.
Conceptual Clarification: The ideal type approach helps to clarify and
define the key concepts and dimensions of political modernization, such
as democracy, rule of law, and political participation, by providing a clear
benchmark against which to measure and assess the quality of political
systems.
In conclusion, the ideal type approach to political modernization offers
a valuable framework for understanding and assessing the development
of political systems by constructing an abstract model of the ideal
characteristics of modern governance. While subject to limitations such
as simplification and abstraction, the ideal type approach provides
insights into the patterns, trends, and mechanisms of political
modernization, which can inform policy interventions and strategies for
promoting democratic governance, rule of law, and human rights around
the world. As societies continue to undergo political change in the 21st
century, the ideal type approach remains a useful tool for analyzing and
promoting political development in diverse contexts and settings.

PERSPECTIVES
Political Modernization can be viewed from historical, typological and
evolutionary perspectives.
1. Historical political modernization
It refers to the totality of changes in political structure and culture
which characteristically have affected or have been affected by those
major transformative processes of modernization like secularization,
commercialization, industrialization etc which were first launched in
Western Europe in the 16th century and which subsequently have
spread, unevenly and incompletely throughout the world.
2. Typological political modernization
It refers to the process of transmutation of a pre modern traditional
 polity into a post traditional modern polity.
3. Evolutionary political modernization
It refers to that open-ended increase in the capacity of political man
to develop structures to cope with or resolve problems to absorb and
adapt to continuous change and to strive purposively and creatively for
the attainment of new societal goals.

From the historical and typological perspectives political modernization is a

process of development toward some image of modern polity.

FEATURES OR CHARACTERISTICS OF POLITICAL MODERNIZATION

LUCIAN PYE
Differentiation has been one of the dominant empirical trends in the historic
evolution of modern society. It is a process of progressive separation and role
specialization and institutional spheres and associations in the process of
development of political systems. Its universal characteristics are social
stratification and the separation of occupational roles from kinship and
domestic life; separation of religion from the universalistic legal norms;
differentiation between religion and ideology as well as between administrative
structure and public political competition. This differentiation is implicit of
greater functional specialization. structural complexity and interdependence
and heightened effectiveness of political organization in both administrative
and political spheres.
The notion of equality is the second and the central characteristic of political
modernization. It is the central ethos and an ethic that pervades all operative
ideals of all features of modern life. Modernity has its ethos in equality. The
quest for the same and its eventual realization form the basic crux of the
discourse on modernization. It finds voice in the notions of universal adult
citizenship, prevalence of universalistic legal norms and rule of law in the
relationship of government with its citizens as well as importance given to the
criteria of achievement in recruitment and allocation to political and
administrative roles. It is a fact that these features of equality are only
imperfectly realized in modern day politics. Yet, they form the central
standards as well as imperatives of modernization and its achievement and the
establishment of political legitimacy. In most definitions of political
modemization, popular participation or involvement in political system is a
central theme.
Capacity is the third characteristic of political modernization. It refers to the
ever growing adaptive and creative potentials that man is capable to
manipulate his environment. Thus, acquiring increased capacity for political
administration is the third major characteristic of political modernization. Its
essential feature is the increase in the scope of polity functions, growth of the
political community, increased efficiency of the implementation of various
political and administrative decisions in the power processes of the institutions
represented by the central government and the growth of assertions of various
political associations. The process of political modernization can be analyzed as
an endless process of differentiation, the imperatives and realizations of
equality, as well as of some capacities of a political system like its integrative,
adaptive and creative features. It is also a process of progressive acquisition of
enhanced political capacity which is sought consciously. It is also qualitatively
new as can be seen in the effective institutionalization of new patterns that
create stimulus for integration as well as conflict and tensions that emerge out
of various differentiation processes. It also involves new participation patterns
as well as those of resource distribution which adequately respond to the new
demands of equality as well as goal achievement.

The political modernization process can be viewed as an interminable

interplay among the process of differentiation, the imperatives and realizations
of equality and the integrative, adaptive and creative capacity of a political
system. Political modernization is the progressive acquisition of a consciously
sought and qualitatively new and enhanced, political capacity as manifested in
the effective institutionalization of new patterns ofintegration and penetration
regulating and containing the tensionsand conflicts producedby the processes
of differentiation and of new patterns of participation and resourcedistribution
adequately responsive to the demands generated by the imperatives ofequality
and the continuous flexibility to set and achieve new goals.The old traditional
authority structures –feudal or religious authorities close theirimportance. A
single, secular and national political authority emerges and there is

DAVID APTER
David Apter, a prominent political scientist, outlined several characteristics
of political modernization in his work. Apter's framework emphasizes the
multifaceted nature of political change and the complex interplay between
various factors that shape the modernization process. Below are some of the
key characteristics of political modernization as proposed by David Apter:

1. Differentiation: Political modernization involves the differentiation of

social roles, institutions, and structures within societies. As societies
modernize, they develop specialized political institutions, such as
legislatures, executive bodies, and judiciaries, as well as distinct social
roles and identities, leading to greater division of labor and specialization
in governance.

2. Democratization: Political modernization entails the expansion of

democratic institutions and practices, such as free and fair elections,
political parties, civil liberties, and rule of law. Apter emphasizes the
importance of democratization as a key aspect of political modernization,
as it reflects the empowerment of citizens and the diffusion of political
power within societies.

3. Bureaucratization: Political modernization involves the growth and

professionalization of bureaucratic institutions and administrative
systems. As societies modernize, they develop complex bureaucratic
structures to manage the increasing demands of governance, including
the provision of public services, regulation of economic activities, and
enforcement of laws and regulations.

4. Secularization: Political modernization is often accompanied by the

secularization of political authority and the separation of religion from the
state. Apter highlights the decline of traditional religious institutions and
the rise of secular forms of governance as a key characteristic of political
modernization, reflecting the increasing emphasis on rationality, legality,
and accountability in political affairs.
 5. Rationalization: Political modernization involves the rationalization of
political processes and decision-making, based on principles of efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability. Apter emphasizes the importance of
rationality and expertise in modern governance, as opposed to traditional
forms of authority and legitimacy based on custom, tradition, or
charisma.

6. Participation: Political modernization entails greater political

participation and engagement among citizens, including voting, activism,
and civic involvement. Apter highlights the expansion of political rights
and freedoms as a key aspect of modernization, enabling citizens to
influence political processes and hold government officials accountable
for their actions.

7. Legitimation: Political modernization involves the establishment of

legitimate and stable forms of political authority and governance. Apter
emphasizes the importance of legitimacy as a source of political
authority, derived from the consent and support of citizens, as well as the
effectiveness and fairness of political institutions and processes.

Overall, David Apter's characteristics of political modernization highlight the

complex and dynamic nature of political change within societies, encompassing
various dimensions such as differentiation, democratization, bureaucratization,
secularization, rationalization, participation, and legitimation. Apter's
framework provides a comprehensive perspective on the modernization
process, emphasizing the interplay between social, political, economic, and
cultural factors in shaping the trajectory of political development.

RELATION BETWEEN POLITICAL MODERNISATION AND POLITICAL

DEVELOPMENT

1. Close Relations between the two

Political Modernisation and Political Development are two intimately related
processes which together constitute the political dimension of social change
that continuously characterises every society. The two are so near to each
other that many scholars prefer to treat these as same processes. However, in
reality the two are not same but similar and are intimately related. Political
modernisation takes place within the goals of political development as
perceived, dermed and accepted by the people of the political system. Samuel
P. Huntington has tried to clarify the relations between the two. He is of the
view that political development is a process independent of, although affected
by the process of modernisation. Political development is conceptualised by
him as "the institutionalisation of political organisations and procedures,
whereas political modernisation is conceptualised by him basically in terms of
social mobilisation, economic development, rationalisation of authority,
differentiation of structures and expansion of political participation. The latter
contributes to political development and the former conditions political
modernisation."
2. Points of Difference
We can specify the following points of difference between Political
Modernisation and Political Development.
• Political Development refers to upward change in the political system,
whereas Political Modernisation refers to every type of change, upward or
downward, development or decay, in the political system.
• Political Modernisation is open-ended and value free. It stands for all
changes involving the march from tradition to modernity. Political
Development involves changes based on accepted values and goals.
• Political Modernisation is a factor or Political Development, the latter
conditions the former.
• Political Modernisation refers to the acquisition of developed tools and
technologies, political development refers to the planned and systematic
change in the political system.
• Whereas, Modernisation involves the attempts to change, Political
Development refers to the changes that result in the system.

Thus, there exist several subtle differences between the processes of

political modernisation and political development. Despite these differences, it
must be clearly emphasised that both are complimentary and supplementary
processes and are not opposed to each other. Both are simultaneously at work.
Both are important and valuable new concepts in modern political science.
Both have been used by a large number of political scientists for analysing and
classifying political systems and comparing these in terms of their actual
working as well as in respect of the changes that come in these.

SIGNIFICANCE OF POLITICAL CULTURE FOR POLITICAL POLITICAL

MODERNIZATION
Political culture plays a significant role in the process of political
modernization, influencing the development, stability, and effectiveness of
political systems within societies undergoing modernization. Political culture
refers to the values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms that shape individuals'
perceptions of politics and governance, as well as their behavior and
participation within political systems. Understanding the significance of political
culture for political modernization is essential for promoting democratic
governance, rule of law, and social cohesion within societies. Below are several
key ways in which political culture impacts political modernization:

1. Legitimacy of Political Institutions: Political culture influences the

legitimacy of political institutions and authorities within a society. A political
culture characterized by trust, respect for the rule of law, and belief in
democratic principles contributes to the legitimacy of democratic institutions,
such as elections, parliaments, and judiciaries. In contrast, a political culture
marked by cynicism, distrust, or apathy towards political institutions can
undermine their legitimacy and effectiveness, leading to political instability and
governance challenges.

2. Support for Democratic Values: Political culture shapes individuals'

support for democratic values and principles, such as political pluralism, civil
liberties, and human rights. A political culture that values democratic norms
and practices, such as tolerance, compromise, and respect for minority rights,
fosters a conducive environment for democratic governance and political
modernization. Conversely, a political culture characterized by authoritarian
attitudes, intolerance, or exclusivism can hinder the development of
democratic institutions and practices.

3. Political Participation and Engagement: Political culture influences

levels of political participation and engagement within a society. A political
culture that encourages active citizenship, civic engagement, and political
mobilization contributes to the vibrancy and resilience of democratic
governance. By contrast, a political culture marked by apathy, disengagement,
or alienation from politics can lead to low levels of political participation, voter
turnout, and civic involvement, undermining the legitimacy and effectiveness
of democratic institutions.

4. Political Stability and Social Cohesion: Political culture plays a crucial

role in fostering political stability and social cohesion within societies. A
political culture characterized by consensus, mutual respect, and commitment
to shared values and norms contributes to social cohesion and national unity.
In contrast, a political culture marked by division, polarization, or conflict along
ethnic, religious, or ideological lines can undermine social cohesion and
political stability, posing challenges to political modernization and democratic
governance.

5. Adaptability to Change: Political culture influences societies' adaptability

to change and capacity for political modernization. A political culture that
values innovation, openness to new ideas, and willingness to adapt to changing
circumstances fosters resilience and flexibility in the face of political, social,
and economic challenges. By contrast, a political culture characterized by
rigidity, conservatism, or resistance to change can impede efforts to modernize
political institutions and practices, leading to stagnation or regression in
governance.

In conclusion, political culture plays a significant role in shaping the process

of political modernization, influencing the development, stability, and
effectiveness of political systems within societies. By fostering legitimacy,
supporting democratic values, encouraging political participation and
engagement, promoting social cohesion, and enabling adaptability to change,
political culture contributes to the success of democratic governance and the
advancement of political modernization.

APPRAISAL
It is said by the protagonists of the political modernisation approach that it
has yielded highly rewarding results by expanding the frontiers of modern
political science. The concept of political modernisation as a companion to the
concept of political development has produced better tools for the new
generation of political scientists so as to make a taxonomic study of the
modern political systems. Once again, the link of political science with
sociology comes into the picture, as a study of political modernisation is
obviously a different form of political-sociological analysis. The motivating
consideration is that a student of politics should not keep himself aloof from
sister disciplines that provide him ample information for the purpose. Thus,
political modernisation, mainly a sociological and economic concept, has come
to be used as a useful tool by the new political scientists who have written
extensively and thereby developed the horizons of the study of this subject.
The writers belonging to this tradition have drawn our attention to the fact that
"in order to make the political system work, it was necessary that the entire
social system was to be mobilised, without which the necessary political
participation of the people at various levels was not possible."

CRITICISM
The political modernization approach has been challenged in the latter half
of the 1960s. It has been argued that Political modernisation do not say
anything about the socialist societies of China, Russia etc. As the concepts are
not suitable to study the socialist countries, the concepts are not full.
Moreover, the underlying categorization of states as traditional and modern is
the implicit prescription that the developing countries have to adopt the
characteristics of Western Europe and the United States. Thus, Political
modernisation is nothing but Westernisation. It is even criticised as
Americanisation. Americans wish that Asia, Africa and Latin America should
follow their models. The concept helps them in their ambition.
Secondly, in Political modernization we find an attempt to drown political
science into the ocean of some other discipline like economics or sociology. In
stead of keeping political science as an independent discipline, it is reduced to
the status of a dependent variable. Politics is treated as a handmaid of social
forces, a mere instrument which was fed by material from outside.