Samuel P. Huntington, in his seminal work Political Order in Changing Societies (1968), presented a nuanced conception of political development as the balance between political participation and political institutionalization. Huntington argued that political development should be understood not just in terms of economic growth or modernization but in terms of the stability and adaptability of political systems.

Key Points of Huntington’s Conception of Political Development:

1. Political Participation vs. Institutionalization:
   • Huntington emphasized that political participation—the engagement of the population in political processes—must be balanced by the institutionalization of political organizations and procedures. Political participation refers to the active involvement of citizens in politics, whether through voting, activism, or other means.
   • Institutionalization means the development of stable, valued, and functioning political institutions that can manage political demands and maintain order. This includes political parties, legislative bodies, and legal frameworks that define and regulate political behavior.
2. Dangers of Rapid Participation without Institutionalization:
   • Huntington warned that when societies experience rapid increases in political participation without the corresponding development of robust political institutions, it can lead to political instability and disorder.
   • In newly decolonized or rapidly modernizing states, increasing public engagement without the presence of strong political structures can result in chaos, as there is no mechanism to manage demands and mediate conflicts.
   • He famously stated, “the most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government.”
3. Institutionalization as the Stabilizer:
   • For Huntington, institutionalization is crucial because it provides mechanisms for handling societal pressures, managing participation, and ensuring political continuity. Strong institutions can absorb and channel participation constructively.
   • These institutions develop procedures, norms, and practices that help maintain order and mediate between competing interests. Their effectiveness determines the capacity of the political system to adapt and endure over time.
4. Indicators of Institutionalization:
   • Huntington identified four key characteristics that measure the level of institutionalization: adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence.
     • Adaptability: The institution’s ability to change in response to new challenges.
     • Complexity: The range and diversity of functions an institution can perform.
     • Autonomy: The degree to which an institution is independent from external pressures.
     • Coherence: The internal unity and ability of the institution to function consistently.
5. Examples of Imbalance:
   • Huntington cited cases where a surge in political participation without the requisite political structures led to instability, such as in many post-colonial states where new political movements were strong but institutions were weak or underdeveloped.
   • He contrasted these with developed nations, where institutional structures have evolved to manage participation effectively, contributing to political stability.
6. Balance for Political Development:
   • Huntington proposed that sustainable political development occurs when participation and institutionalization progress in tandem. Societies that achieve a balance between these elements can handle political participation without descending into chaos.
   • He highlighted that political order and stability are prerequisites for any type of progress, economic or otherwise. Therefore, fostering institutional strength is key to enduring political development.

Conclusion:

Huntington’s view of political development as a balance between political participation and institutionalization underscores the importance of building strong, adaptable political institutions to manage and channel the energy of an engaged citizenry. Without this balance, he argued, political systems are vulnerable to turmoil, as they cannot cope with increased demands and pressures from society. This framework has had a lasting impact on the study of political science, shaping how scholars and policymakers understand the complexities of political stability and modernization.