1.)What is development? Modernization? Distinguish development from modernization.
Development. The act of developing. The state of being developed. A significant event, occurrence, or change. evelopment, evolution, progress. These nouns mean a progression from a simpler or lower to a more advanced, mature, or complex form or stage: the development of an idea into reality; the evolution of a plant from a seed; attempts made to foster social progress. Modernization. The act of rendering modern in style; the act or process of causing to conform to modern of thinking or acting. The overall process of modernization refers to the changes in all institutional spheres of a society resulting from man’s expanding knowledge of and control over his environment. Political modernization refers to those processes of differentiation of political structure and secularization of political culture which enhance the capacity – the effectiveness and efficiency of performance –of a society’s political system.
2.) the greek philosopher Heraculitus articulated the view in his famous dictum “ You can never step in the same river twice”. This perspective points out to the inevitability of change. But on the opposite side of the debate on the inevitability of change is the French observation that “ The more things change, the more they remain the same”.
a.) Where do you stand on this debate. Justify.
“You can’t enter the same river twice,” a high way of saying that our perception of everything changes because we ourselves, inevitably, change. What you see, in other words, depends on where you stand, and the player who stands at the beginning of his person progress stands in a much different place from that same person many months or years down the line.
Contradictory; how can things both change and stay the same? Well, my take on the proverb is that everything will always change; nothing will ever be permanent. It is constant change that makes everything alike; everything shares the feature that it is only temporary.
b.) Is Change Desirable? Is it inevitable? Explain with reasons.
There is really no clear-cut answer to the question. At issue is one’s perspective on what constitutes progress, not to mention the nature of the change being contemplated. Perhaps a more interesting and informative debate could have been entered into around the issue of whether or not change is desirable?
Have you ever noticed how people who seemingly thrive on change seem more vibrant, more inspired and generally happier than those who spend their time trying to avoid something undesirable change?. Think of that.
It is inevitable. It is said that if we don't change, we don't grow. Well, if that is the case, then I certainly have been growing a lot. Change is often highlighted with periods of transition. Most of us struggle with the transitions that bring about change in our lives.
3.) Give and describe the three packages of dimensions that are particularly associated with more developed social systems.
a.) The organizational dimension: emphasis on specialization, interdependency and differentiation of roles and functions in groups, organizations and societies.
b.) The technological dimension : use of increasingly complex and sophisticated artifacts to control the environment and to produce goods and services.
c.) The attitudinal dimension: cognitive, affective and evaluative orientations that are dominated by increased knowledge, rationality, secular values, and individualism.
4.) How does individual attitude affect development? Give the seven qualities believed to constitute a “syndrome of modernity” – that is the general traits of a modern person in a developing society.
Individual affects in through process (es) which development and modernization occur.
Stage typologies. Which have only two or three stages. These stages are given such labels as traditional and modern, mechanical and organic, folk and urban, less developed and more developed. These labels are so broad that they provide minimal conceptual clarity. Response to key challenges. Analysts identify a series that different processes are possible, depending upon the sequence in which the challenges occur, upon the particular response that the key challenges can be the tension between traditional ideas and values and modern ones.
Individual – level change. Most analyses of development, whether emphasing stages, sequences or international political economy,fucos on macrolevel structural dynamics - that is, on the nature of organizational and technological dimensions of social system.But attention to the attitudinal dimension shift the analysis to microlevel dynamics.
Culture and change. the importance of culture as a determinant of the process of change. Max Weber's classic study (1958) of the linkage between the culture of the protestant religion and the rise of capitalist political economies, there have been continuing efforts to clarify the relationship between broad cultural systes and economic development.
The general traits of a modern man in developing society: openness to new experiencfes, regarding both and behaviors.
A shift in allegiance to individuals representing modern institutions (e.g, government leaders ) from those in traditonal authority structures (e.g, parents, religious leaders).
Belief in modern technologies (e.g, science, medicine) and less fatalistic attitude about life.
Desire for social mobility for oneself and one's children.
Belief in the value of planning and punctuality.
Interest in local politics and community affairs.
Interest in news especially natyional and international affairs.
5.) Give and briefly describe the four dimensions that define the key characterestics of more developed political systems. At what level of political development is the philippine political system in each of the four dimensions? justify.
The key characteristics of more developed political systems emphasize four dimensions:
1.) Concentration of power in the central state. traditional sources of political authority weaken nd most power and authority are increasingly centralized in a single state level governmental system. Then citizens recogbnize the right of the state to allocate public values and their own responsibility to accept those allocations as authoritative. The legal - formal apparatus of government (e.g, contitutions, laws) is established.
2.) "Modern" forms of political organization. Specialized political structures emerge to fulfill most key political functions. T here are complex, organized political institutions suc s legaslatures, executives parties, and political interest groups. The actions of these institutions are generally guided by such bureaucratic principles as rationality and efficiency.
3.) "Modern" forms of political behavior. Individuals develop a strong identity with the political system and the natiobn - state as the entities, beyond familial groups, that receive their primary loyalty and support. Active political roles become widespread as individuals become participants in the proccesses of politics, as voters, communicators, and so on.
4.) Expanded capabilities of political system. The system becomes bette ble to generate support. to respond to demands from its population, and to control the environment. Overall, its organization is more stable and coherent, its structures are more efficient, and its action s is more effectively serve its goals and objectives.
There are considerable structural constraints impeding the development of the Philippines. These constraints are rooted in the country’s history, which has bred and maintained a system of elite politics, corruption and inefficiency. Political factionalism is especially pronounced in the country, where patronage politics has been the norm. These historical characteristics have been carried over to contemporary periods and led to institutional barriers to development. The country is in a vicious cycle of poverty and underdevelopment, and reform is systemically obstructed by the nature of its politics. Rural and urban poverty has increased over the years and remains one of the country’s main social problems. In turn, the Philippines has eroded its global competitiveness, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF). The Philippines ranked 71st out of 134 countries covered by the WEF Global Competitiveness Report 2008 – 2009; this is the same ranking as in 2007 – 2008 report, which covered 131 countries. The report cited corruption as the top problem, followed by an inefficient government bureaucracy, an inadequate supply of infrastructure, policy instability, government instability, poor tax regulation and high tax rates, among other issues. ( Sources: UNDP, Human Development Report 2009 | The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2009.)
6.) a.) What is political institutionalization? When does an political system achieve political institutionalization?
Political development must be measured not by outward forms, but by political institutionalization. This concept means that political organizations and procedures have acquired value in the eyes of the population and stability to withstand significant pressure. Political institutionalization is measured by the political systems capacity to: Regulate Its citizen, Respond flexibility to citizen demands, Extract and distribute resources efficiently and adapt to changing circumstances.
b.) What is political decay? When can we say that political systems undergo political decay? political decay (otherwise known as state failure), features of the modernization process, such as social mobilization, economicn growth, urbanization, education and so on, are inherently destabilizing.
Most developing political systems ,lack the authority to persuade the citizens to accept value of allocations that they judge insufficient. In the face of growing citizen disatisfactions with the political system.
7.) a.) In the proccess of political development, do you agree that political decay rather than progress is always possibility? why or why not?
Huntington noted that during the 1950s and 1960s political violence and disorder actually increased dramatically. The period was marked, not by political development, but by “political decay.” Contrary to the expectations of modernization theory, this “violence and instability” was “in a 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 ” In many Asian, African, and Latin American countries “the rates of social mobilization and the expansion of political participation are high; the rates of political organization and institutionalization are low. (samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (2006 [1968]). therefore, for me political decay os a possibility, The result is political instability and disorder. The primary problem is the lag in the development of political institutions behind social and economic change.
b.) Point out one period in the political history of the philippines where the political system of the philippines experienced political decay.
In the expensive Makati district in Manila, soldiers on trial for an attempted coup in 2003 stormed out of the courtroom and took over the luxury Peninsula Hotel yesterday. Their leader, Antonio Trillanes, had been elected from behind bars to the Senate this year. Six hours later the standoff and the poorly planned not-quite-a coup was over. The call to remove President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from office by jump-starting another "people's power" movement failed even before it started.
The current Philippine president has failed to deliver in the areas where she has needed to. The end result has been a massive drop in public support, a legitimacy crisis for the president.
The sad thing is that no one has emerged to replace her. The Philippine opposition is weak. Arroyo has mastered the strategy of survival by giving the military free reign to engage in political killings. Trillanes's political stunt in the Peninsula Hotel shows that the military does not offer the calibre of alternative of former president Fidel Ramos. To protect herself, Arroyo has also strategically allied herself with part of the political oligarchy
In the expensive Makati district in Manila, soldiers on trial for an attempted coup in 2003 stormed out of the courtroom and took over the luxury Peninsula Hotel yesterday. Their leader, Antonio Trillanes, had been elected from behind bars to the Senate this year. Six hours later the standoff and the poorly planned not-quite-a coup was over. The call to remove President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from office by jump-starting another "people's power" movement failed even before it started.
This bizarre event is one of many of the shocks the Philippines has endured over the last year. The litany of coups, bombings and murders of political candidates and journalists in the troubled southern province of Mindanao have happened so frequently under the leadership of the petite economist president that it is almost impossible to differentiate one shock from the next. Just this month alone there has been a coup, a political-motivated bombing in the town of Basilan, a UN report on the political killings by the Philippine military and a typhoon. While the most lives were lost due to the natural disaster, the weakening of democracy and rising violence has been man made.
Elected to the presidency in 2004, Arroyo has steadily lost legitimacy since assuming office. The election itself was clouded with calls of rigging which have continued to shadow her tenure. She won by one million votes, the same amount that was called for by a woman in a recorded telephone conversation with the election commission. While it was not proven that the call originated from Arroyo, many believe that it did. The corruption scandals around her husband - allegedly including a $330 million deal with a Chinese telecommunications firm (later cancelled) - has added to Arroyo's woes. Her personal troubles have been compounded by her inability to manage the economy. While growth is estimated to reach over 5% this year, the gains (driven primarily by sales in commodities to China) have not reached society as a whole and, most importantly, not matched the demand for jobs driven by the demographic push of younger Filipinos entering the workforce. Unemployment remains rampant, especially in Manila. The violence in the south has not stopped, despite the intervention of peacekeepers from Malaysia. Talks for a political resolution have been stalled - arguably for the past three years since Arroyo assumed office. The current Philippine president has failed to deliver in the areas where she has needed to. The end result has been a massive drop in public support, a legitimacy crisis for the president.
The sad thing is that no one has emerged to replace her. The Philippine opposition is weak. Arroyo has mastered the strategy of survival by giving the military free reign to engage in political killings. Trillanes's political stunt in the Peninsula Hotel shows that the military does not offer the calibre of alternative of former president Fidel Ramos. To protect herself, Arroyo has also strategically allied herself with part of the political oligarchy - the 60 or so rich families in the country that dominate politics - splitting the power holders into pro- and anti-Arroyo camps in a savvy divide-and-rule move that she has reinforced with patronage. Driven largely by personality, political parties are weak and have yet to offer a viable candidate. The middle class is weary of yet another "people's power" movement that fails to deliver real change. From the political ranks to civil society, there is disdain, disappointment and frustration.
To make matters worse, the country has been held hostage by a standoff between the speaker of the lower house, Jose de Venecia Jr, and Arroyo. Last month the House of Representatives started impeachment proceedings against Arroyo.
What's next? In light of what has happened in the course of the last month, one is afraid to ask. The bizarre has become the mundane. The reality is that the cumulative shocks in 2007 have dug deeply into the fabric of democracy in the Philippines. Candidate assassinations, military killings of alleged "communists", and botched coup attempts have collectively moved the Philippines out of the ranks of viable electoral democracies. The scope of human rights violations and inability for the opposition to win through a free and fair election call into the question system at its core. Economically, the country will rely more on the hard work of its overseas workers, whose remittances remain the economic lifeblood for the country. Politically, more and more Filipinos are tuning politics out or just leaving with their feet. The disengagement has only allowed the oligarchic infighting to deepen. Don't expect a collapse. Rather, expect political decay and even further economic polarisation, peppered with unbelievable stories of commandos, courtrooms and chaos.
8.) To achieve political institutionalization, the following strategies may be done:
8.1) the political system may aact to increase the value and stability of political institutions traditional authority structures (e.g, chiefs, religious leaders, tribal councils) might be adapted to the modern system. Or there might be a long incubation period under colonial rule while new political structures and processes slow ly gain value and stability, or political parties might be created as locus of legitimacy and a basis of stable governance. The problem with creating or transforming institutions, accdg. to huntington, is this very approach has been attempted and has failed in many developing states.
8.2) the political system may subtantially limit the processes of political participation and social mobilization
Doing this requires instituting policies that minimize visible political issues by limiting the activities of political parties and the media, the open competition among political elites, and citizen participation in politics. therefore, the political system can manipulate citizens' political beliefs and actions by controling the educational system and the media.
8.3) to mobilize the population but to encourage only those forms of participation that support political order. this is not suggest by huntington, That is, the political system mobilizes individuals and groups to " serve the people" not to make demands on the political system. This is the ultimate from of U.S. President John F. Kennedy famous inaugural exhortaion, " Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
