Political Development or Political Decay in India?

Abstract

THE EMERGENCE of a large number of new states in Asia and Africa after second world war has induced social scientists to pay increased attention to phenomena of political development.* One result is that there are almost as many definitions of concept of political development as there are writers.1 Generally speaking, political development is identified with broader processes of modernization. The characteristic of modernization which is often stressed is mobilization or participation, and it has been suggested by several writers that economic development and modernization are linked to political development in that rationalization, integration and democratization (pluralism and competitiveness) are results of modernization. But facts of political life in most new states do not support such contentions. number of representative governments have been replaced by military regimes. While modernization may be taking place, many other goals usually identified with political developmentdemocracy, stability, national integration-have remained illusory in most states of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This gap between concept and reality has led Samuel Huntington to point out one-way nature of concept of political development and to suggest that this concept should be reversible. In other words, it should define both political development and political A theory of political development, Huntington suggests, needs to be mated to a theory of political decay. With a view to offering a definition that does not lead only in one direction, he defines political development as the institutionalization of political organization and Political decay, therefore, may be defined as de-institutionalization of political organization and procedures. Institutions, he rightly argues, decay and dissolve as well as grow and mature. But how to know if a political system is developing or decaying? Huntington suggests that level of institutionalization of a political system can be