In the last
posting, the political systems model was introduced along with the work of
David Easton. It was pointed out that
the Easton designed model was the center of political science research during
the 1950s and 1960s. But there was other
theorizing at that time and the contribution of two collaborators served to augment
Easton's work. Gabriel Almond and G.
Bingham Powell, Jr.,[1]
offered another model that served to fill a lack that many saw in Easton’s systems
model.
Almond and Powell’s structural-functional model further enriches
the political systems model by providing a set of factors that affects governmental
decision-makers. These theorists added a
requisite dimension to the systems model.
They argued that political systems, to survive, had to satisfy certain requisites
or functions. If a political system does
not meet these requisites, they would be considered dysfunctional and creating
damaging stress to a system.
A system that faces sufficient stress will be facing highly
threatening conditions and might spell the end of the system. For example, a system that is dealing with
extreme partisanship or uncooperative relations between or among segments of
the government – as was the case between Obama’s executive branch and the
Republican Party’s controlled legislative branch during the last six years of President
Obama’s presidency – demonstrates this dysfunctionality. In that case, the two branches were unable to
cooperate and enact needed legislation.
Consequently, the system was not meeting the rule-making function.
This contributed to the stress demonstrated during the 2016
election cycle.[2] [i] If a system experiences enough stress, its
future existence comes into question.
The functions these theorists offer are rule-application,
rule-adjudication as well as rule-making (these just so happen to correspond
with the national government’s three branches of government), interest
articulation, and interest aggregation.
In addition to their casting light on what decision-makers within
the system should consider, they also express concern over the environment of
the system and its political culture.
This cultural element places meaningful limits on which political demands
and behaviors are acceptable – seen as legitimate.
Their list of functions is applicable to any political system, but
by adding their account of political culture to the model, it permits scholars
to design their research to the differing political conditions of the varying systems
that exist on the planet.
The structural-functional model by Almond and Powell does steer
political studies in various ways. For
example, this approach was useful in promoting comparative political study. In turn, comparative political study is a
major branch of political science. By
utilizing functional analysis, the model provides for variables that are
conducive to quantifiable analysis of any political system.
In addition, emphasizing requisite functions leads to an obvious
result; that is, for a system to satisfy these functions, it must be
structurally arranged to perform those acts that fulfill the functions. By structurally arranged, it is meant that a
system needs to establish and maintain appropriate departments, agencies,
offices, and their institutionalized processes.
In turn, this is a further subject for scholarly study across different
political systems.
[1] Gabriel Almond and G.
Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative
Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1966).
[2] Thomas E. Mann and Norman
J. Ornstein, “Finding the Common Good in an Era of Dysfunctional Governance,” Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, 142 (2), 2013,
15-24.
[i] By pointing out the Obama administration, this
description is not casting blame on President Obama or any other politician of
that time. But here is an opinion
published in the Washington Post, on
September 4, 2016, by respected political scientist, Norman J, Ornstein: “Now we have a pair of blue-ribbon
establishment Republicans fundamentally suggesting the same approach [that of
obstructionism] — one that has contributed to the decline of the Republican
brand, the rise of Donald Trump, the weakening of GOP leadership and the growth
of know-nothing radical anti-government sentiment — months before the election
of a president.” Where one might agree,
or disagree with this editorial opinion, it threatened the continued existence
of the Republican Party as a viable political party.
No comments:
Post a Comment