Integrative Factors in the Malaysian and Philippine Legislatures

Abstract

It seems trite to assert that conflict is endemic to political systems and that the organized response of a system to conflict determines its stability and capacity. Yet in the study of development these factors are often ignored. For some years we have concentrated on socioeconomic variables as explanations of particular political organization and activity. part this was a natural reaction to the failure of more traditional European oriented frameworks of political analysis when applied to Asia and Africa. part, also, it was a natural response of the political scientist to the charm of the exotic in Asia and Africa. Although this type of analysis has led to some fruitful revelations about the relationships between social, cultural, and psychological phenomena and political life, it has been less useful as a base for building empirical theory. The consistent ignoring of the more traditional organizational factors of political analysis has been sharply criticized in recent years.' It is not necessary to repeat the criticisms here but only to emphasize that, in addition to all the other failings, frameworks which treat political structures and their actions solely as dependent variables are of little use for comparative purposes. By trying to link one of the key processes of change in political development to a particular institution, this article concentrates on a comparison of the way that institution responds to conflict in two different systems. The question posed is, In what way do legislatures contribute to integration? Considering legislatures as differentiated structures which stand in particular relationship to executives, bureaucracies, and populace.