COMPARATIVE POLITICS: A HALF-CENTURY APPRAISAL

Introduction: On the Origin of a Discipline

In the beginning was Comparison. Or in the words of our centenarian, Woodrow Wilson: "I believe that our own institutions can be understood and appreciated only by those who know somewhat familiarly other systems of government and the main facts of general institutional history. By the use of a thorough comparative and historical method, moreover, a general clarification of views may be obtained...Certainly it does not now have to be argued that the only thorough method of study in politics is the comparative and historical."¹

1. Woodrow Wilson: *The State. Elements of Historical and Practical Politics*. (Boston 1889) pp. XXXV-XXXVI.

The significance of the comparative and historical approach for the young discipline was previously pronounced by Munroe Smith in the programmatic opening statement to the first American Journal in the field, the *Political Science Quarterly*:

> "What then are the methods of the social sciences? All the various methods employed may be grouped under one term--comparison. The single fact means nothing to us; we accumulate facts that seem akin; we classify and reclassify them, discarding superficial and accidental similarities as we discover deeper substantial identities. We accumulate and compare facts from our own and from foreign countries; we accumulate facts from the immediate and more remote past, and compare them with each and with present facts. Statistics, comparative legislation, history--these are means and modes of accumulating facts for comparison...

> "Of all these auxiliary sciences, the most important is *history*. All other methods of comparative study may be said to operate on a single plane--the plane of the present. History gives to the Social Sciences the third dimension, and thus indefinitely increases the range of comparison. But it does far more than this. To the application of the historical method we owe the discovery that social institutions persist and at the same time change from generation to generation and from century to century..."

Munroe Smith: "The Domain of Political Science" - *Political Science Quarterly*, Vol. I, 3ff (1886).

- 2 -

What has happened to Comparative Politics since those prehistorical days
of our Association and especially since its official birth, when the Society was
founded in 1903 as "an outgrowth of a movement looking toward a National Conference
on Comparative Legislation"?²

2. Jesse S. Reeves: "Perspectives in Political Science 1903-1928" - *American Political Science Review*, 23:1-16 (February 1929).

Wilson's Centennial and the half-century celebration of our official APSR
may be the proper time to take account of our discipline. This most tentative
appraisal is an attempt to gain some historical perspective for our study of Com-
parative Politics which to the delight of its lone-wolf old-timers suddenly seems
to have received a new impetus. Both this reawakened interest and the characteristic
stages of the preceding development—with its ups and downs—are not accidental, but
a telling illustration of the unfolding of our discipline within its specific
historical and social setting. Because by its very nature Political Science is
embedded in time and space. Part and parcel of the Social Sciences, it shares with
them the grandeur and the misery of a critical field. The Sciences of Man and his
decisions ("Sciences of Ethics" in the meaningful classicaly terminology) flourish,
if they do not actually originate, in times of crisis. As long as society, the
state, the world community seem to be in order, one is not concerned about them.
It is at the breaking-points of history when man's values are questioned, his insti-
tutions shattered, his international bonds cut—it is in the challenge of revolu-
tionary upheaval or in the defense of a threatened system that eminent Social
Scientists come to the fore. This is also the hour of the "great simplifiers"
against whose appearance the famed Swiss historian, Jacob Burckhardt, warned a
hundred years ago. It is the age of the sage and the charlatan, a dangerous era,
full of promise and perils. We are living in such a time of crisis.

Politics, in theory as well as in practice, is faced with pressing issues
and decisions. Against this background we must rethink our traditional tenets and
reconsider our changing comparisons. Politics demands a renewed response from
each generation. What brought the discipline into being in these United States
at the turn of the century? What does it mean today?

Looking at the nation as a whole it has undergone, within this half-century,
most significant changes in the approach to the affairs of the State--from political
algorithm to political morphology to Comparative government proper. The mere collec-
tion of haphazard, exotic facts out of curiosity was the stage for the beginner in
world affairs hardly a generation ago. A more serious and systematic consideration
of significant dates became exciting to a young nation discovering the wide world
between the two world wars. And now, in their aftermath, a purposeful comparison
of alternatives in policy-decisions--the prerequisite for the maturing protagonists
among the great powers--makes the demands on the academic discipline grow and
entirely change its character. Who among the teachers of Comparative Government
has not observed this amazing transformation as reflected in the changing student
attitudes within the last decades?

-3-

As for the young discipline itself the shifts were even more articulate and characteristically quite separate from the prevailing climate in these United States of unlimited possibilities--indeed a telling signal of an intelligentsia's alienation (so much talked about at present though probably with much less justification than then). To be sure Political Science started out as an esoteric enterprise of a small group of academicians in midst of an America that did not question its own existence, its power of absorbing an ever-growing population, its promises of the wide open spaces, and its continental security, guaranteed by the mighty British navy in control of the Seven Seas. If any criticism arose at all it was merely the concern for particulars, calling for limited amelioration: the proper assimilation of quickly succeeding immigration waves, the integration of racial minority groups, the coordination of social strata in the fast-growing giant cities. If it had been only for these concerns over daily encounters Political Science would never have been developed.³

3. The same holds true of our good neighbor, Sociology. It is not accidental that for decades it eked out a modest existence as a preparatory course for Social Workers in a few American women's colleges, somewhat glamorized by crusading publicists and disappointed ministers, turning reformers. Apart from special circles such as the Sociologists around the University of Chicago, who were very much under the influence of their continental master theorists, Sociology as a systematic discipline did not develop before the radical crisis of the late twenties, calling for a reconsideration of the whole society as a major concern; cp. for the specific "native" elements and the succeeding stages of this "American Science", Roscoe C. and Gisela J. Hinkle, *The Development of Modern Sociology*, (New York 1954); for an equally short, suggestive treatment of the relations of Sociology to the other social sciences see George Simpson, *Man in Society: Preface to Sociology and the Social Sciences*, (New York 1954).

Political Science as a distinct discipline is confined largely to the present century. Originally the study of the State was, if tackled at all, dealt with by historians, jurists and philosophers. Even in this short period of its independent existence three definite stages of development may be recognized in the whole field and, with some slight though characteristic variations to be sure, equally detected in the specific areas of our research--in theory and public law, in national government and public administration, in international affairs and comparative politics. One may circumscribe the prevailing intellectual climate of these three phases as: idealist, positivist, and realist.

- 4 -

# The Stages of Comparative Politics

## 1. Scientific Idealism

What brought about the first school of Political Scientists was the deep dissatisfaction among some young academicians who measured the reality of their American community against the ideals of an imagined polis and found it wanting. They were not ashamed to be called idealists. It is easy for today's sophisticated to smile at the naïveté of their concepts and convictions, but their complaints about the disease of "Congressional Government"⁴, of "Boss rule", and "the shame

of the cities" were real, and so were their models of proper politics. It was not so basic that they all agreed on what should be the best governmental system (by and large seen in the British "responsible Cabinet ministry"), yet what was characteristic for this first school of political scientists was their deep conviction that such an ideal did exist and could be pragmatically realized in a step-by-step development.

One might even conceive three fundamental assumptions as the base of their comparative vista of politics, at home and abroad: the belief in the inevitable spread of democratic institutions, the essential harmony of interests among peoples, and the basic rationality of men who by discussion and interplay of opposing ideas ultimately and almost automatically would reach a common understanding.⁵

5. To mention only one among many "confessions" of original motivations, here is the statement of the founder of the first School of Political Science at Columbia University: "My memory traveled back to that terrifying hour in the winter of 1863 when alone, amid the horrors of nature and war, I first resolved to consecrate my life's work to substituting the reign of reason for the rule of force." John W. Burgess, *Reminiscences of an American Scholar*, (New York 1934) p. 197.

These crucial assumptions and consequential policies were spelled out most dramatically in the field of World Politics. The difficulties in International Affairs, according to this idealistic school, were primarily due to a lack of communication and proper procedure. Promotion of international intercourse and of new methods of arbitration, therefore, was re-

- 7 -

versities, especially if their deep-seated societal breaks and persistent pre-
suppositions were hidden from an idealized vista. While the stimulus and strength
of the American Political Scientists sprang from altogether different sources,
a seeming symbiosis of scientific idealism could thus prevail through the first
decades.

The coming of the First World War was the first deep disturbance but it remained an isolated phenomenon especially as Wilson succeeded in persuading the nation that this was "the War to end all wars" and "to make the world safe for democracy." The unfortunate turn of events was registered as a seemingly necessary step and eventual culmination of conflict leading up to popular government and the League of Nations. It was not until a decade later (a natural time-span to be sure for such a radical breakthrough) that the full impact of this new age of World Wars and Revolutions was felt and that a changing climate of opinion could be observed.

## 2. Material Positivism

The second phase of American Political Science Research was closely tied up with the frustrating experiences of the long Armistice between the Great Wars. They gave rise to a growing disillusionment with the basic tenets of the idealistic school. Instead of the "inevitable" spread of free institutions, aggressive dictatorships emerged; despite a galaxy of conferences to promote understanding, the system of collective security collapsed vis-à-vis its first tests; and irrational, integral nationalisms ridiculed the vista of reasonable man and the harmony of interests.

In natural reaction to the sweeping philosophic idealism of the first group of scholars a new generation turned its interest to the concrete and detailed study of material forces. This positivist school rejected the naive utopianism of the earlier stage by accepting an equally naive cynicism. Ideologies were presented as subjective sentiments, superfluous and misleading rationalizations of the simple reality of objective power. Obviously such violent turn-about did a great injustice to the actual accomplishments of the early pathfinders of Political Science. Yet is this not the usual procedure of "scientific progress"? Or to quote Goethe: "People throw themselves in politics, as they do on the sick-bed, from one side to the other in the belief that they could thus find a better position."

In retrospect both periods played their part in the unfolding of Political Science. And critical though a new team of researchers must be of the position taken by its predecessors, one will have to register equally their major contributions to the discipline.

What were the approaches and aims, procedures and postulates of the second stage? First of all it was a sobering phase: suspicion against the great panaceas, against quick generalizations, against broad comparisons and unrecognized deductions, in short: against all speculative theory and consequently a turn toward the detailed, concrete phenomena, toward inductive empiricism, toward measurable and verifiable data in order to make Politics at last "scientific."

-9-

And the young collegiates knew it, too. If they entered the study of
politics at all, they turned to entertaining and enthralling "International Rela-
tions," which in some universities had moved out of the domain of Political Science
altogether. The increasing artificial separation of World Politics and Comparative
Government was certainly detrimental to both---the one often degraded to ponti-
fical pronouncements on the daily headlines for up-to-date-faddists and young men
in a hurry; the other a dump heap of dusty data--instead of approaching together
the burning issues of the time in systematic penetration and scholarly perspective.

That Comparative Government for a while seemed to be completely overshadowed
among its academic cohorts by the more exacting Public Administration and among the
college crowd by the more exciting International Affairs was not the most serious
shortcoming in this low ebb of its esteem.

The real problem and peril of this second period becomes only apparent
if one probes into the underlying assumptions and expectations of its protagonists.
Because proud declarations notwithstanding, this phase had its *raison d'être* too
and was by no means "free from value judgments."

The prevailing philosophy--uncouth and inarticulate to be sure--was that of
positivism and, like Auguste Comte's system itself, it was open to "positivist"
criticism, as so adroitly administered by Vilfredo Pareto--the newly elevated
scholarly saint of this very period. This master mind of man's irrationality
(seeking out constant and determining "residues" underlying the shifty, "non-
logical derivations" of human conduct) indeed appealed to a generation that had
been shaken by the chaos of war and revolution in its belief in progress and rational
man.

This shocking experience, if it was not to lead to a cynic's complete resigna-
nation and utter despair (and the American mood was hardly prone to such philoso-
phical pessimism) aroused the desire to seek the persistent powers and determining
laws which make irresponsible and irascible man operate. In search of this
sesame of the rationale behind man's irrationalism, 20th century scientific inquiry
indeed has pushed forward the frontiers of the knowledgeable and has made its
pioneers (Freud, Kühler and many others) welcome pathfinders to a new Political
Science. Its novelty was not the least due to the rich influx in methods and
material from neighboring and even distant research regions. Yet the pertinent
impact of such scientific expansion and cross field fertilization was to be felt
only later and more fully in its third stage, when a more cautious and confident
discipline would weigh, digest and assimilate the findings of other fields.

Such careful differentiation was certainly not the order of the day in the
earlier stages of the explorers' enthusiasm when an uncritical identification with
the Natural Science was often proclaimed. Behind such confession one might even
detect an urge for a simple, over-all formula. And in justice to that past phase
one might remember that it was part and parcel of a cultural crisis--a period
having lost all the basic values, in desperate search for stable concepts, indis-
putable tenets, absolute standards. Such new signposts the universities' new
scientific absolutism was to establish. Whenever its restless youth could not
find satisfactory answers, it looked for them outside the lecture halls (and
found them not seldom within the university walls).

- 10 -

This was the attraction of Marxism that it seemed to give a complete comprehension of past history, a scientific prediction of the inescapable future, and above all a present marching order for lost man by giving him a new hold outside of himself. For such security he was even ready to surrender his freedom. These were the deeper roots of modern totalitarianism and its fascinating appeal. Only a new image of man and his meaningful place in society could defeat such morbid self-destruction.

Most certainly such a new vista was not presented in the *one* academic school which won over ardent disciples in the thirties, namely Geopolitik. On the contrary, this importation from the continent as a reaction against powerful Marxism was its true counterpart, Bourgeois Marxism. Now instead of economics it was space that became the absolute and exclusive yardstick. Its attractiveness resided above all in its simultaneous promise of stability and dynamic action, its scientific absoluteness and its presumed concreteness. They merged the disturbing complexities of life into one single and seemingly objective factor.

In the unending flood of continuous change, space seems to be the invariable, independent of man and events. Rootless man seeks a new hold outside of himself. His loud call for action--speedy, glamorous, continuous--in the big world is a desperate move to make him forget the emptiness of his small inner life. The powerful dynamics of the modern world conqueror is only his escape from his despair of real values and of himself. He is at war with the world, because he is not at peace with himself. Yet man cannot escape his responsibility as man. Nor can a science of society and social order establish itself as a "natural science" without missing its challenge completely.

The very fact that space represented the one stable element, presumably independent of man's decision, by no means made it the most important factor in world affairs. But the natural science of politics¹¹ with its impressive principles

11. For an analysis of this case study of a natural science of politics see Sigmund Neumann, "Fashions in Space," *Foreign Affairs*, (January 1943), 21:276-288. In its tri-partite division of Geopolitik as a science, a political weapon, and a Weltanschauung, the article also wants to warn against the present danger of forgetting the valuable emphasis on political geography as an essential element of political concern. Such forgetfulness is the frequent fate of fashions, coming and going.

of an everlasting mechanism of power balances seemed to give such a monistic all-embracing scientific answer to a world longing for order and stability. When Geopolitik became instead the weapon of the unscrupulous Third Reich and its unlimited drive for world conquest, it revealed its materialism, void of any moral evaluation and restraint. The Second World War spelled the end of this cynical power politics and opened the way for a more adequate and exacting approach to a study of man's state and society.

- 12 -

This proven war-time utility and the even greater promise of measurable social predictability raised the repute of the behavioral approach to a point, where it was soon made the preferred, in fact to many serious scholars the exclusive, channel of social science research. Only by becoming a Natural Science (in the way some of its eager extraneous converts defined it) could the Social Sciences justify their existence and the money spent by foundations.

Political Science, indeed, has profited greatly from the collaboration with the so-called Behavioral Sciences and their exacting propositions. Yet it is in their absolutist dictum that only those phenomena which are measurable and calculable are worth a scientific inquiry, where their influence may imperil the field. If our research should concentrate exclusively, or even primarily, on these clearly circumscribed areas (which are often only peripheral to the core), then Political Science would miss key issues, which spell out the crucial concern and daily dignity of our discipline.

Fortunately, under the cover of this seemingly "scientific" predominance, a silent revolution has taken place which indicates a new stage of Political Science. Only the first contours of its character and consequences can be drawn at this early point of development. In a sense this third phase constitutes a natural step of both preceding stages to a higher plane and, in the preservation and conciliation of their conflicting positions, possibly an advance to a promising synthesis.

## 3. Realism with Vision

Politics raised onto this third level must be modest in its claims and steady in its cautious endeavors. It has no blueprints, no great panaceas, no comprehensive concepts to offer, but a continuous adjustment and even improvisation in view of an ever-changing scene. Above all, it is impressed by the complexity of Politics, the rich texture of the raw material, and the dynamic forces that constitute its full power. In this down-to-earth realism it has taken seriously the warnings of the second school against easy generalizations and untested assumptions. Yet at the same time it has recognized that a mere fact-finding spree may only lead into a no-man's land of mountains of meaningless material, if not directed beforehand by fundamental questions of the researchers' views and aspirations.

For this reason contemporary Political Science has gained a renewed respect for the searching theories and visions of the first generation and, as so often the case, has reached hands with its intellectual grandfathers. Woodrow Wilson has been restored to the position commensurate with his contribution and crucial for our time.

What have been the chief characteristics of this new phase in Politics? They are threefold: an emphasis on dynamic processes, paired with a rediscovery of the discipline's forgotten responsibility for policy decisions; a desire for integration of the Social Sciences, dictated by a prevailing multi-causal

- 13 -

approach to our entangled, intricate reality; and as a consequence of these
radical transformations around us a new summons to a theoretical reorientation
of the whole field. These three trends are especially visible in the field of
Comparative Politics.

Our concern has turned away from a merely formal, legalistic and consti-
tutional approach to a prime consideration of political dynamics and the pro-
cesses of decision-making. Only when reaching beyond a mere political morphology
of legislative, executive and judicial forms to the consequential comprehension
of the political forces at work--men and movements in governments and parliaments,
in political parties and pressure groups--only then can responsible citizens
recognize the different nature, purpose and direction of the political powers in
being and in conflict. We want to know where, when and how politics is made in
the constantly changing political scene. Such a new emphasis indicates that the
instituted agencies, policies and procedures must have undergone fundamental
changes, too.

It is at such a turning point where comparison gains a new momentum and
a fuller meaning. "To know thyself, compare thyself to others." The comparative
approach is, above all, an eye opener to a people's self-recognition and to its
taking a stand. It is not accidental that the great civilizations, like that of
the Renaissance, were developed at the crossroads of mankind and articulated by
the meeting with contrasting systems. This encounter alone made an awakening
western Europe fully aware of her own character and quality, apart from being
naturally and fruitfully influenced by the impact of the strange, new forces.

We are again living in such a period of opening frontiers, which will
force us to recognize the values and concepts we live by and to test them anew
against their challenge from abroad. It is in this crisis of our own society
that comparative government becomes a must for the mature citizen. Beyond that,
the intensive study of contrasting civilizations offers the necessary equipment
for present-day policy decisions. While our planet is continuously shrinking,
bringing the politics of far distant areas into our compass, thoughtful students
of public affairs have often been troubled by our limited "knowledge by
experience." Its only substitute seems to be "knowledge by learning," which puts
a great responsibility on our generation to make comparative government a live
issue--comprehensive and contemporary.

In order to have such contemporary comprehension, Comparative Politics
must, indeed, widen its area of research far beyond the customary domain. The
thoughtful treatise of Dankwart Rustow in his succeeding paper will have much to
suggest in respect to this widening of our comparative vista by a novel "focus
on the non-Western world."13 It rightly questions our whole conceptual framework

13. Dankwart A. Rustow, *The Comparison of Western and Non-Western Political Systems*; see also his *Politics and Westernization in the Near East* (Princeton 1956) and the fundamental reports of the SSRC Committee on Comparative Politics, "Comparative Politics of Non-Western Countries" and "A Suggested Research Strategy in Western European Government and Politics," *American Political Science Review* 49:1022-49 (December 1955).

- 14 -

which since its original limitations is still narrowly drawn within the patterns
of Western experiences alone. The altogether different historical setting of
political problems and processes among the world's new protagonists necessitates
a much more careful comparison of our global complexities. Moreover, this
historical shift of power centers is accompanied by a radical upheaval of which
the independence movement of formerly colonial peoples is only one feature
(though a significant one it is).

Because this is an age of revolutions. And it is the very coincidence
and confluence of these diverse streams that dramatizes the dynamics of our time
and makes it difficult to grasp the direction it is taking. The contemporaneousness
of the much heralded liberations from "imperialism" with democratic, national and
social revolutions indeed creates a combine, which presents an altogether new
concoction, even if its ingredients go by familiar labels. Nationalism in
mid-twentieth century Asia by necessity constitutes a different and infinitely
more disturbing phenomenon than its simpler nineteenth century European
predecessor.¹⁴

14. For some cogent thoughts along these lines, see Hans Kohn, "A New Look at Nationalism," *Virginia Quarterly Review* 32:321-332 (Summer 1956) and "Some Reflections on Colonialism," *The Review of Politics* 18:259-268 (July 1956).

The outcome of these concomitant drives is hardly predictable, yet if
one can take a hint from the pages of history one may say, that in the interwoven
and inextricable mixture of patterns and policies it is the stronger revolution
which sets the style and may well direct the contending forces into its stream
of the "coming world revolution." Its professional strategists know this all
too well and are ready to exploit the consequent confusion of the reluctant
resisters. To master the revolution of our time one must first of all fully
understand the complexities and dynamics of present-day politics. For such a
crucial comprehension Political Science must reach out to its sister disciplines.
Fortunately, and not altogether accidentally, a re-iterated rapprochement can
be observed within the Social Sciences, which constitutes the second outstanding
feature of their silent revolution in our decade.

If one were to look for the historic breakthrough of the imaginary
departmental borderlines, which had been hitherto rigidly patrolled against
incorrigible inter-departmental snipers and intruders, one might find that the
Second World War had much to do with it. War emergencies, no doubt, served as
a major impetus to get difficult people to work together. The OSS and other
governmental agencies became graduate schools for inter-departmental training
and comprehensive comparisons, as we never attained them before or after.
Equally, the mushrooming area study programs, while they naturally constituted
a somewhat premature synthesis, did pioneering work in inter-disciplinary
cooperation and policy formation, in discriminating research techniques and
indispensable material stock-taking. Above all, one learned to talk to each
other. Such experiences fostered respect for the neighboring fields, an increas-
ing appreciation of their fruitful contributions, and a mounting desire for
integration.

- 15 -

It is on this new level of concerted research, that Political Science
can re-assess its sister disciplines and call upon their services without the
past trepidations of an immature contender, striving for independence and still
constantly afraid of its former masters and oncoming competitors. While the
background materials of history and economics, anthropology and linguistics,
psychology, psychiatry and sociology, to mention only the main auxiliaries,
become a must for comparative studies, especially in a depth analysis of the
lesser known areas, the Political Scientist must also be aware of the fact that
these supporting sciences, emphasizing altogether different aspects as their
own central concern, may not always offer the needed material, and certainly no
"ready-mades" for immediate transfer of their findings to his special interests.
In short, he may find himself obliged to search for his own sources of informa-
tion and his special slant of investigation.

The use of history, for instance, in the study of politics may demand a
new vista of a discipline that in its traditional presentation has often tried to
separate itself from policy-making decisions. In fact, the professionals may
have forgotten altogether that the historian is "a prophet looking backwards,"
who, in reviewing past events and rewriting history for his own generation,
makes by-gone experience a meaningful part of the present-day challenge.

Such novel application of traditional tools in fact can restore time-
honored though forgotten principles or open fresh avenues of neglected research.
New fruitful concepts may thus evolve in the cross-fertilization of fields.<sup>15</sup>

15. Such fructifications, i.e., may be seen in the writings of Gabriel Almond and his developing concept of "political culture." For a most recent statement see his SSRC agenda paper (in collaboration with Myron Weiner) *A Comparative Approach to the Study of Political Groups* (Princeton 1956, Center of International Studies).

In similar fashion, the encouraging development (at last!) of
Political Sociology, as reflected in the recent works of Paul Lazarsfeld,
B. Berelson, Rudolf Heberle, S. M. Lipset, S. N. Eisenstadt and others
may promise substantial correlations between Sociology and Political
Science.

Having said all that about the imperative re-integration of the artifi-
cally separated Social Sciences in our time, one must quickly add that such a
tremendous expansion gives also some cause for alarm. A caveat is in order
against easy generalizations and transposals of research findings from alien
domains and against the eclectic's semantic confusion and mere child-like play
with big words and new tools. It may not only destroy the reputation of scholars,
but also the attempt at bridge-building between the disciplines.

One way of checking this portentous peril is presented by a third trend,
current in this third phase of Political Science: the auspicious revival of
theory. There is indeed a great need for a conceptual housecleaning as the ideas
we live by are desperately dusty, if not buried altogether in the attic of past
remembrances.

- 19 -

nature, allowing for the fluidity and flexibility of ever new experiences.
There are concepts available which have that very life-quality. It is up to
our ingenuity to seek them out. Our definitions of political parties and
interest groups, of leaders and followers, of crisis strata and political
generations should never petrify the political dynamics but should present
them as what they are: concrete and concise, colorful and consequential. Only
such signal directives will lead to a meaningful confrontation. Because,
though the comparative approach is as old as Political Science, the proper
study of Comparison has hardly begun.