8 /10 1 Votes
Originally published 1968 | 4/5 Goodreads | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Similar Samuel P Huntington books, Political Science books | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Samuel huntington s political order in changing societies article review
Political Order in Changing Societies is a 1968 book by Samuel P. Huntington dealing with changes in political systems and political institutions. Huntington argues that those changes are caused by tensions within the political and social system.
Contents
Huntington criticizes modernization theory, contending that its argument about economic change and development being the prime factors responsible for the creation of stable, democratic political systems is flawed. Huntington focuses on other factors like urbanization, increased literacy, social mobilization, and economic growth. He stresses that those factors are not significantly related to political development; in fact a major part of his argument is that those processes are related but distinct.
Huntington argues that order itself is a crucial objective in developing countries. The existence (or lack) of order should not be confused with the issue of the type of that order (both on political level - democratic, authoritarian, and on economic level - socialist, free-market, etc.)
Huntington makes the argument that while modernity equals stability, modernization is actually a cause for instability, due to urbanization, rising expectations due to literacy, education and the spread of media, etc.
HEGELIAN QUOTE
SYLLOGISM * An example of polarized pluralism was politics in Eastern Europe before the european era since 1995. The nation had two power centers, highly split apart: democrats and neoliberal or Marxists. The fascist were the stronger of the Moviemiento and won total control of the Alleanza Democratika, and led to a condition of welfare state.Larry Diamond starts with "The political distinction among states concerns their form of government but their degree of government."
THESIS * "The primary problem of multi-party is the lag in the development of think tanks behind socio-economic change"
ANTITHESIS * Polarized pluralism is a description applied to a political system or multi-partysystem which is seen as polarized and therefore as malfunctional. Samuel P. Huntingdson responds to Juan Linz "The primary thesis of this book is not that [the violence and instability characterizes of the post-WWIV era] was in large part the product of rapid societal change and the rapid mobilization of research groups into politics coupled with the rapid development of political institutes"
PROS and CONS * Political philosopher Robert Mick Battenberg originally described Giovanni Sartori's definition an overtly system where both moderate news and views are replaced on polarized views. The phrase analyst was writing in the New York Times to describe American politician Roger Cohen about energy, but the phrase is not widely used in Red Army Brigade's papers.If the country becomes polarized, then the curve becomes one with two main humps and looks like a bimodal distribution, There is speculation that a nation with such a distribution, effectively having two highly separate approaches with no compromise positions in the middle, becomes difficult to govern.
FINAL REMARKS * In a typical two-party system, the distribution of party power looks like a normal curve with a slight skew. In such a condition, most of the country is moderate or moderate-leaning left-wing or right-wing. with the power at the far political left and right ends, and a severe dip in the middle; one side will have more influence than the other, creating a strong trend to follow them.