Samuel Huntington- Political Order and Changing Societies The difference between dictatorship and democracy is about being

g efficient or deficient about qualities whose politics embodies consensu, community, legitimacy, organization, effectiveness and stability. Both communist totalitarian states and Western liberal states(USSR, US, UK) are effective in that sense(strong, adaptable, coherent political institutions: effective bureaucracies, well-organized political parties, a high degree of popular participation in public affairs, working system of civilian control over military etc.) Acc. to him, modernizing Asia, Africa and Latin America countries suffers many shortages: education, wealth, health etc, but main shortage: a shortage of political community and of effective, authoritative, legitimate government. In politics, as in economics the gap between developed & underdeveloped political systems broadened bec. of increasing ethnic and class conflict, recurring rioting, mob violence, and frequently coups detat, unstable political leaders etc. However, acc. him there are some successful coups detat(Hatta Trkiye de bunlardan biri.) Except from them, other countries were still under the tribal or communal violence or a fragile police-based rule, guerilla movements (additional info: non-alligned movement within 3rd world countries) There was violence and instability& disorder. Why? The main thesis of him: it was the large part the product of rapid social change and the rapid mobilization of new groups into politics coupled with the slow development of political institutions. The development of political institutions should catch up social reforms and economic development in order to prevent disorder. USA became blind that could not see violence in modernizing countries bec. of 1)dogma that economic dev would be parallel to political one 2) USA born in an equal nature with a government with political institutions so it cannot imagine such problems. Primary problem is not liberty, but the creation of legitimate public order. You can have order without liberty, but cannot have liberty without order. Authority first should exist in, before it is limited.(add. nfo: the logic behind coup detats)

Political Institutions: Community and Political Order Social Forces & Political Institutions

The more complex and heterogeneous society, need more achievement and maintenance of political community depends upon the working of political institutions. (unity of Durkheims mechanical solidarity.) In a sense political activists who are social force should identify themselves with political institutions harmony, impossible to establish political institutions. As societies become larger in membership or complicated in structure-> we become to depend upon political institution

Criteria of Political Institutionalization

Institutionalization is the process by which organizations and procedures get stability& value. The level of inst. of political systems can be defined by adaptability -vs. rigidness- (time of existence, generational age, functional

adaptibility), complexity vs. simplicity-, autonomy vs. subordination- and coherence vs. disunity- of its organizations& procedures. If you have adaptable, complex, autonomous and coherence show your level of inst. Social change and new groups are arising everyday. However, if they do gain entry into politics without identified with the political organizations, we can say there is lack of autonomy. There is a mechanism in developed political system which either slow down the entryof new groups or process of political socialization: try to change most politically active members of new groups in a sense that their behaviors or attitudes.

Political Institutions and Public Interests

Without political inst., society does not have means to define its common interests. Individual interest is short-run. Institutionalize interest exist through time. Little organization: mutual distrust.

Political Participation: Modernization& Political Decay Modernization and Political Consciousness

Aspects of the modern political states: 1)rationalization of authority, 2)differentiation of new political functions and the development of specialized structures to perform this functions(legal, military, administrative, scientific) 3)increased participation& affecting politics. Increased consciousness& group consciousness. If villagers learn to shift their primary identity from a village to a tribe of many villages; if plantation workers cease to identify simply with their fellow workers on plantation and instead identify with plantation workers in general and with an organization plantation workers in general etc. Social mobilization and economic development seen as results of modernity mostly relevant to politics.
Modernization and violence

Social frustration& political instability: opportunities for social and economic mobility. Urban is stable than rural. Modern is more stable than less modern. Modernization affects economic inequality: 1)incomes& wealth redistributed more unevenly 2)rapid impact of economic growth is often hold in a few groups in the short run. Bec Rapid growth usually involves inflation prices rises faster than wages. -> political instability it is not because they are poor because are becoming rich. So, traditional society for example: ignorant, poor but stable. However, Mid-twentieth century was the century traditional societies were transitional or modernizing so degree of instability increased. Countries which have high levels of both social mobilization and economic development are more stable politically.(Isnt the social mobilization with the lack of institutionalization caused the instability?) Modernity parallels to stability(justification of modernity theory). So, he concludes economic and social backwardness is responsible for instability and modernization would help countries to stabilize themselves.

Because of the last two points, that is highlighted above, he suggest that modernity breeds stability, but modernization breeds instability, violence, unrest& extremism because of the sharp difference bet. Moderns& modernizing ones. Social mobilization& instability: Urbanization, increases in literacy, education, and media exposure -> higher expectation& aspiration -> groups try to go into politics. Without political insts. -> violence& instability. Economic development& Instability: economic development increases inequality and social mobilization decreases its legitimacy. social mobilization increases aspirations. Economic development increases societys capacity to satisfy their aspirations -> reduce social frustration& political instability. But econ development -> creates new ambitions in terms of money making, opportunities for entrepreneurship -> destabilization. The gap hypothesis: gap between expectation& aspiration and want formation, want satisfaction. Bigger gap much more destabilization Inequality& Instability: political inequality > political instability. What about economic inequality? In two ways: 1)rebellion against uneven wealth distribution > social mobilization to command government for even dist > instability. 2) rapid change > one group get control and become richer or inflation effect > instability

Modernization and Corruption

why does modernization breed corruption? 1) corruption is result of modernization because of the deviance of behavior from accepted norms. New standards and criteria of what is right and wrong lead to condemnation of traditional patterns as corrupt. 2) by creating new sources of wealth& power. Corruption in this case is a product of new groups with new resources and these groups effort to be influential in politics. 3) by the changes it produces on the output side of the political system: political regulation, political authority. The functions& causes of corruption are similar to violence: encouraged by modernization, caused by weakness of political insts., caused praetorian societies.

The City-Country Gap: Urban breakthrough and Green uprising (rural)

Modernization is crucial reason for the gap between countryside and rural. Modernization is measured by the growth of the city. The city becomes new locus of economic activities, new social classes, education > impose new demands countryside which intensifies its hostility towards the city. Problem of politics in modernizing society is the development of means bridging this gap and recreating through political means the social unity that destroyed by modernization. When social consciousness does not spread around the country as a whole social mobilization in the city will take power but rural demands would rise this time. > instability. (There is a table on page 76, it may be helpful to look at it) At this point either the leaders of the system mobilize the peasantry into politics as a stabilizing force to contain urban disorder or the opposition mobilizes them into politics as a revolutionary force to join in the violent destruction of the existing

Political Stability: Civic and Praetorian Polities

The stability of any given polity depends upon the relationship between the level of political participation and the level of political institutionalization(if both are lower degree society would be more stable than society that have both higher) Ratio of inst. To participation High: civic Low: praetorian Organic(Ethiopia) Oligarchical(Paraguay) Whig(Chile) Radical: (Egypt) Participant(USSR) Mass(argentina)

Political participation Low: traditional Medium: transitional High: modern

legitimate or law-biding states for public interests/ rulers acted in their own interest. Civic polities: have recognizable and stable patterns of institutional authority appropriate for their level of political participation. Praetorian polities: Samuel Huntington describes a praetorian society as one in which social forces confront each other directly, with no institutions accepted as legitimate mediaries and, more importantly, no agreement existing among the groups as to an authoritative means for conflict resolution. In a traditional polity, institutions only needed to structure the participation of a small segment of society. But in a modern, developed polity they must organize the participation of the mass of the population. Consequently, the distinctive institution of the modern polity is the political party. The political party reflects the logic of politics (rather than the logic of efficiency of the bureaucracy) through the modernization process, and is essential to achieving political stability.