# Research on Political Development

H. Kissinger

## The Balance-Sheet of the Project

The first six months of the project were divided into two phases. Until mid-September, the primary preoccupation was to mark out some boundaries. This initial approach was designed to serve three purposes: (a) to define some premises; (b) to establish some familiarity with various types of political situations; (c) to develop categories and techniques for comparison for later consideration.

The second phase of activity has sought to refine political concepts, particularly the distinctions to be made between the advanced and the developing societies. While national and regional questions have not been abandoned, they have been placed somewhat in the background. Among the topics that will have been considered by the end of 1961 are the following:

1. Concepts of liberty and their relation to historical development and political systems. (Applications of the thought of Mill, Rouseau, Kant, etc., to state ideologies; the reasons for the emergence of evolutionary liberalism and Marxist socialism and the significance of "revisionism," Locke, Montesquieu, and the American tradition, including an evaluation of the contemporary reverence for Locke; formal exploration of St. Simon's distinction between the "government of Men" and the "administration of things" as applied to the new countries, inter alia.)

2. The nature and functions of federalism (distinctions between "particularist" and "assimilative" federalism, --that is, federal systems which have, respectively, been created to preserve ethnic, linguistic, and

- 2 -

cultural individuality or at least protect it--as opposed to those, like
the United States, which have sought within a federal framework to create
a single national standard--and between "organic" and "necessitous"
federalism--that is, federalisms which grew chiefly out of the prevailing
political thought of the community and its ancestral antecedents--as opposed
to those where the mechanics of a federal system seemed obligatory in order
to justify independence or the integrity of the state--; the ethnic and
cultural roots of federalism and their correspondence to unit boundaries;
comparisons between political federalism and administrative decentraliza-
tion; case studies of the following countries either with federal systems
or related situations: the U.S.; Canada; Australia; Switzerland; Brazil;
Nigeria; Malaya: U.S.S.R.; Yugoslavia; India; Pakistan; Indonesia; U.A.R.;
Belgium.)

3. Urban and agricultural political attitudes (including refer-ences to urban migration and psychological disorientation; comparison of peasant and pastoral societies--e.g. social, institutional, and structural comparisons relating to the political tendencies of groups like the Maghrebian Berbers - pastoral or semi-pastoral - and the Egyptians - peasant, settled, and village-bound, or the Basques of Spain vis-a-vis some of the peasant peoples of Eastern Europe) relations between agriculture and revolu-tion (Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc.) social composition of a revolutionary Directorate; the role of labor unions in new societies (e.g. Morocco, India); agriculture in France, Denmark and the United States.

4. Comparative attitudes toward the rule of law and the ques-
tion of social justice (libertarian "negative" attitudes and their relation
to political philosophy and economic practice; attitudes deriving from
"centralism" in France; the opinions and comments of the new African leaders

- 3 -

on the subject; Soviet concepts of law and its place in the evolving social order contrasted with present tendencies in the new countries; the contrast of "socialist" and "liberal.")

5. The post-independence political impact of the structure of a colonial economy (relations and contradictions of the political and economic spheres; detailed case studies of the evolving economies of the Congo, Morocco, and Ceylon, with attention paid to the relations between economic policy and nationalist ideology; comparisons between the former French and British territories; attitudes toward and definitions of "capitalism" in the new countries.)

In the sphere of federalism there has been especially detailed scrutiny accompanied by a set of conclusions regarding: (1) How a federalism is created; (2) How it is sustained; (3) What kind of allegiances it requires; (4) What its relation is apt to be to the political society and its political philosophy; (5) Administrative *vs.* political federalism; (6) Comparative aspects of old and new federalisms; *etc.*

## Perspectives of the Project

Numerous areas of observation similar to those described above will need attention. It is expected that the formulae of research in the near future will resemble those of the past few months, since this has proven to be a useful method. Finally, we shall embark on a synthesizing process with the data that has been gathered and analyzed. In this latter phase we shall attempt to shed light on such questions as:

1. What is the nature of Western democracy in its contemporary context? What do citizens and leaders of the democracies think it is? What opinions do the ruling elites of the emerging nations hold? What is the relation and balance to be struck between the "government of men" and

the "administration of things"? Both as regards democracy as we may phil-
sophically construe it and literally practice it, what are its powers and
tendencies for change, evolution, and regeneration?

2. Given the opinions of the leaders of non-Western societies (and Latin America) on the subject of democracy and the prevailing political trends in their countries, to what extent have these societies a natural susceptibility for democratic forms and institutions? What critical modifications to Western democracy might be made to insure a satisfactory harmonization of alien and local forms?

3. What channels of transmission are most appropriate and effective for the transfer of democratic ideals to the emerging countries? Is there a basic democratic psychology which we share in common? If so, what are its principal components? If not, can one be brought into being and how? In this perspective of transmission, what is the relation between doctrines and allegiances and structures and techniques?

4. What is the fundamental character of political evolution in the twentieth century? Are there any propositions concerning political evolution that can be universalized? Do the advanced and backward countries partake of complementary or opposing political currents, and in what proportion? What system of relationships can be drawn between political evolution and non-political factors?