Suchergebnisse

The political system of Cambodia is often—and not inaccurately—described as one of the most stable in Asia. Such description is apt to be justified by reference to the relative absence of upheaval and disturbance which have been the fate of several new Asian states. Surface indications of stability, however, can give rise to exaggerated assumptions about the institutionalized nature of a political system, in the sense that an induced pattern of political activity has jelled to make the system a going concern. The object of this article is to examine the distinguishing features of the Cambodian political system with a view to establishing whether surface appearance reflects an inner resilience or fundamental structural weakness.

TWENTY YEARS OF BREAKDOWNS IN PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENTS; the replacement of competitive political systems by military-bureaucratic regimes throughout Asia and Africa; civil war in Vietnam; the disintegration of Nigeria and the perpetration of genocide in that country, have inspired pessimism among most observers about the future of democratic politics in the new states. It has been suggested that political scientists now turn their attentions to the question of 'political decay' as well as to the question of 'political development' and that political leaders in the new states concentrate upon building the instruments of political control before engaging in serious economic development and social mobilization, and before permitting political competition and political participation: for, it is argued, rapid increases in economic development, social mobilization, and political participation work against the building and maintenance of strong and stable political institutions in a developing society.

Except for the subfield of comparative regional integration, international organization as an area of study is notorious for its lack of systematic and testable theory. This situation has been created less by a deficiency of techniques for quantitative analysis than by the absence of attention to theoretical conceptualization and its necessary accompaniment, the imaginative use of data to test hypotheses. There is little shortage of case studies, abstract theorizing, or sophisticated quantitative techniques, but systematic testing of important concepts is rare. Much of the literature in the field fails even to ask relevant and important theoretical questions. The "Mount Everest Syndrome"–studying international organizations "because they are there"–has afflicted the field for too long.

Most people who study politics are in general agreement, it seems to me, on at least two propositions. First, we agree that for a political system to be viable, for it to succeed in performing tasks of authoritative resource allocation, problem solving, conflict settlement, and so on, in behalf of a population of any substantial size, it must be institutionalized. That is to say, organizations must be created and sustained that are specialized to political activity. Otherwise, the political system is likely to be unstable, weak, and incapable of servicing the demands or protecting the interests of its constituent groups. Secondly, it is generally agreed that for a political system to be in some sense free and democratic, means must be found for institutionalizing representativeness with all the diversity that this implies, and for legitimizing yet at the same time containing political opposition within the system.

Around 1950 an attempt was made in some Latin Amer countries to introduce modern sci'fic, empirical sociol. At that time, sociol had long been taught in Latin America; some countries had U chairs in sociol long before many European nations. The campaign to introduce sci'fic sociol entailed: (a) having sociol accepted as a theoretical sci, empirical in nature, subject to rules similar to those of the other sci's & thus conceived very diff'ly from what had hitherto been the case; (b) establishing suitable instit's for the training of professional sociol'ts; (c) setting up a suitable org for the permanent task of sociol'al res; & (d) modernizing the teaching of sociol, which generally existed only as one of the subjects in the course of study of law or the humanities. There were, however, many obstacles to this campaign to instit'ize sociol & many still exist today. One way to overcome them was to offer an image of sociol in which the need to study it & the advantages it offered tended to be exaggerated. However, instit'ization & res have made progress, despite the following difficulties: (1) the poor system of COMM between sociol'ts; (2) the discontinuity of activities within the same res centers; (3) the tendency to model training after that in North America which conflicts with the need to study phenomena occurring solely in Latin Amer society; & (4) the almost permanent state of crisis from which many Latin Amer U's are suffering as a consequence of the general crisis of Latin Amer society. Implanting sci'fic sociol requires a serious break with intellectual tradition & a certain unity among its practitioners re its meaning & the line to follow. M. Maxfield.

There appears to be a growing consensus among those engaged in research in the international organization field that regional integration has been the most stimulating area of research for the last ten years because of the conscious efforts of the major theorists in this area to develop and test hypotheses concerning the dynamics of organizational development. There is consensus also that the rest of the field could profit by developing a more conscious concern with the dynamics of organizational development. Robert O. Keohane's "Institutionalization in the United Nations General Assembly" represents a substantial attempt to provide the framework for a model of organizational development applicable to the United Nations.