| This is an attempt to compare the processes of political development in India and Japan. The two states have been chosen because of some common features: these two Asian countries have preserved their own cultures despite certain degrees of modernisation; both have maintained a system of parliamentary democracy based on free electoral competition and universal franchise; both political systems are characterised by the prevalence of a single dominant party system. The primary objective of this analysis is to test the relevance of Western theories of political development. Three hypotheses have been formulated: on the relationship between economic growth and social modernisation on the one hand and political development on the other; on the establishment of a "nation-state" as a prerequisite for political development; and on the relationship between political stability and political development. For the purpose of testing these hypotheses, the two countries serve as good models because of their vastly different socio-economic conditions: the different levels of modernisation and economic growth; the homogeneity- heterogeneity dichotomy; and the frequency of political conflict. In conclusion, Japan is an apoliticised society in consequence of the imbalance between its political and economic development. By contrast, the Indian political system is characterised by an ever-increasing demand for participation, with which current levels of institutionalisation cannot keep pace. The respective single dominant parties have thus played opposing roles, i.e. of apoliticising society in the case of Japan while encouraging participation in that of India. The results of this comparative study indicate that a high rate of economic growth does not necessarily lead to political development, that legitimacy is a more important factor in achieving national integration, and that the frequency of political conflict is in some cases a sign of an increase in participation. |
