রাজনৈতিক কালচার" বিষয় টা কি? তত্ত্ব তালাশ করলেন - পিকু দাশগুপ্ত

May 8, 2021
7 min read

Updated: May 9, 2021

THE CULTURE OF POLITICS : RETHINKING POLITICAL CULTURE

By Piku Das Gupta

Associate Prof. WBES

Much of the politics that happens around us, takes place in our heads: it is actually shaped by our ideas, values and assumptions about how essentially society should be organized and our expectations regarding it. At the end of the day, what we believe about our society may be more important than the reality of its power structure. Perception may not only be more important than reality, practically, perception may be reality. Herein comes the vital role played by Political culture. People’s beliefs, symbols and values, their attitude towards the political process, their view of the regime in which they live all give legitimacy to their system. Political thinkers through the ages have acknowledged the importance of attitudes, values and beliefs. All of them play a vital role in promoting the stability and survival of a regime.

Interest among political scientists in the idea of political culture emerged in the 1950s and 1960s as new techniques of behavioral analysis. The classic work in this respect was Almond and Verba’s “The Civic Culture” (1963) which used opinion surveys to analyze political attitudes and democracy in five countries- The USA, The UK, West Germany, Italy and Mexico. Although interest in political culture somewhat faded in the 1970s and 80s , the debate has been re- vitalized since the 90s in an effort in the East European countries to construct democracies out of the ashes of Communism and the growing anxieties in mature democracies such as the USA. However, there is also a persistent debate about whether or not political culture is shaped by the ideas and interest of elite groups. This is in a way linked to the views of mass media and the extent to which government can now manipulate political communication.

Culture in its broadest sense is the way of life of the people. Political scientists however, use the term in a narrower term to refer to the people’s psychological orientation. Political culture is the “pattern of orientations” to political objects such as parties, government, the Constitution, expressed in beliefs, symbols and values. Political culture differs from public opinion in that it is fashioned out of long-term values rather than simply people’s reactions to specific policies and problems. Almond and Verba set out to identify the political culture that most effectively upheld democratic politics. They identified three general types of political culture: a) participant culture, b) subject culture, c) parochial culture.

A participant political culture is one in which citizens pay close attention to politics and regard popular participation as both desirable and effective. A subject political culture is characterized by more passivity among citizens, and the recognition that they have only a very limited capacity to influence government. A parochial political culture is marked by the absence of a sense of citizenship, with people identifying with their locality rather than the nation, and having neither the desire nor the ability to participate in the politics. Although Almond and Verba accepted that a participant culture came closest to the democratic ideal, they argued that the “Civic Culture” is a blend of all three in that it reconciles the participation of citizens in the political process with the vital necessity for government to govern. Democratic stability is underpinned by a political culture that is characterized by a blend of activity and passivity on the part of the citizens, and a balance between obligation and performance by the part of the government.

In their initial study, (1963) Almond and Verba concluded that UK came closest to the civic culture exhibiting both participant and subject features. In other words, while the British thought that they could influence government, they were also willing to obey authority. Almond and Verba’s later study (1980) highlighted a number of shifts, notably decline in national pride and confidence in the UK and the USA, which contrasted with a rise in civic propensities in Germany. The civic-culture approach to the study of political culture and values has however been widely criticized. In the first place, its model of the psychological dispositions that make for a stable democracy is highly questionable. In particular the emphasis on passivity and the recognition that deference to authority is healthy has been criticized by those who argue that political participation is the very crux of democratic government. Almond and Verba suggested a “sleeping dogs theory” of democratic culture that implies that low participation indicates broad satisfaction with governments, which politicians in turn will be anxious to maintain. On the other hand, when less than half the adult population bothers to vote, this could simply reflect widespread alienation and ingrained disadvantage. Second, the civic-culture thesis rests upon the unproven assumption that political attitudes and values shape behavior, and not the other way round. In short, a civic culture may be more a consequence of democracy than its cause. If this is the case, then political culture may provide an index of the health of democracy but it cannot be seen as a means of promoting stable democratic rule. Finally Almond and Verba’s approach treats political culture as homogeneous. In doing so, it pays little attention to political subculture and tends to disguise fragmentation and social conflict. On the other hand, the radical approaches to political culture highlights the significance of social divisions such as those based on class, race and gender.

Gabriel Almond

Political Culture: Legitimacy and Political Stability

Legitimacy broadly means rightfulness. Legitimacy therefore confers on an order or command an authoritative or binding character, thus transforming power into authority. Political philosophers treat legitimacy as a moral or rational principle, the grounds on which governments may demand obedience from the citizens. Political scientists usually see legitimacy in sociological terms: that is, as a willingness to comply with a system of rule regardless of how this is achieved. Following Weber, this view takes legitimacy to mean a “belief” in legitimacy that is a belief in the “right to rule”. In modern political debate, legitimacy is usually understood less in terms of moral obligations and more in terms of political behavior and beliefs. In other words, it addresses not the question of why people “should” obey the state, but the question of why they “do” obey a particular state or system of rule. What are the conditions or processes that encourage them to see authority as rightful and therefore underpin the stability of a regime? Herein political culture, legitimacy and stability of a political system becomes inter-twined.

The classic contribution to the understanding of legitimacy as a sociological phenomenon was provided by Max Weber. His first type of political legitimacy is based on long established customs and traditions. In effect, traditional authority is regarded as legitimate as it has “always existed”. It has been sanctified by history because earlier generations had accepted it. Weber’s second form of legitimate domination is charismatic authority. This form of authority is based on the power of an individual’s personality. Charismatic authority operates entirely through the capacity of a leader to make a direct and personal appeal to the followers as a form of hero or a saint. Weber’s third type of legitimacy, “legal-rational” authority links authority to a clearly and legally defined set of rules. He said that legal-rational authority is the typical form of authority operating in most modern states.

Although Weber’s classification of types of legitimacy is still seen as relevant it also has its limitations. First, in focusing on the legitimacy of a political system, it tells us little about the circumstances in which political authority is challenged as a result of unpopular policies or a discredited leader. If legitimacy helps to ensure political stability and the survival of a regime, when legitimacy collapses the result is likely to be either a resort to repression or far-reaching political change. Change is one of the most important features of political life. Whether change marks progress or decay, growth or decline, it is the product of one of the two processes: Evolution or Revolution.

Two broad implications for the democratization process flew from this entire framework. First the congruence thesis assumes that regime stability and effective government are more likely if the political culture is congruent with the regime form. Thus, one reason why autocratic governments exist is because they occur in societies where the citizens tolerate or even expects an autocratic rule. Moreover, if we assume that the political culture is embedded in a network of social relations, traditional norms and socioeconomic conditions, the cultural change will occur very slowly. Autocratic governments endure when there is a parochial and subject culture. Progress towards political modernization is likely to occur slowly and requires profound change in a nation’s political culture. Second, the civic culture has a constrained view of the values of the ideal democratic citizen. The civic culture is an allegiant participant culture. The ideal citizen respects political authority and accepts the decision of the government. There is limited room for political dissatisfaction, questioning authority, civil disobedience.

Sidney Verba

There is relevance and utility of political culture as a complex tool for studying the relationship between the individuals(citizens) and polities (state). In the contemporary world context and under highly unstable and volatile political evolutions, polities and their geo-political context need to be approached in their very complexity in order to understand the role individuals as well as whole societies play in polities dynamic evolutions. A key issue in approaching the relationship between the citizens and the state in a democracy basically concerns the ways in which individual citizens achieve an update their political attitudes towards political objects, namely structures, incumbents and policies which describe state institutional structures. A true challenge has been to prove whether the citizen’s political cognitions, values , beliefs and attitudes have a role to play in the operation of the state, thus explaining the emergence of complex political phenomenon like political instability. Political culture has proved its decisive role in shaping the forces able to drive polity dynamics by means of political participation collective action and political attitudes. The sense of efficacy or competence is a key “political attitude".