David Easton has given a rough and ready description of the boundary between the society and the polity. But Almond has described it in more operational terms hard and fast line of demarcation can be drawn between a political and the social, economic or religious systems, because the boundary of the political system is constantly changing. It is sometimes expanding, and at other times contracting. Take the case of inflation. When prices are stable, die political system of a country has noting to do with religion the question of wages or salaries. It is a matter between employers and employees.
In other words, it is only an economic relation. However, when prices rise, the wages of the workers may not be sufficient for their daily needs. But their employers may refuse to increase their wages accordingly. The workers may threaten strike to compel the employers to do so. The strike may turn into a riot, which becomes a political question. Thus inflation brings economic relations within die boundary of a political system, which may in its turn affect even the political philosophy of the country. In short, die question of inflation expands the political system. Or take another example. In an Islamic country, religious questions expand the political system.
While in a secular country, in which politics has nothing to with the religious questions do not become political, the political boundary is accordingly contracted. Or take the case of the student’s unions. Once they were peaceful bodies, interested in training students for debates and such other educational matters. But when they were turned by some political parties into instruments of students’ strikes and riots, they have become political and come within the boundary of the political system. Or take the case of women. For centuries women lived under the domination of men and were confined within their houses and domestic chores Political system had then nothing to do with women. Instead, politics was meant for men only; something run by men, and consisted of men, even though a woman, like Razia Sultana of Delhi, Elizabeth I of England or Catherine of die Great Russia, might rule over men.
But when women have started coming out of their homes and asking for die same rights and freedoms as enjoyed by men, women’s demands have also come within the bounds of the political system. In other words, it has now expanded the political system to include women’s problems. In short, the boundary of the political system may sometimes expand and at other times contract. What is more its boundary may at one and die same time expand in one direction and contract in another. This characteristic of the political system distinguishes from the State. The boundaries of the State always remain fixed, unless changed by war and aggression, while the boundary of the political system is constantly changing, as we shall now explain.
A system does not consist of individuals but is defined by their roles or expected behavior towards each other. A family, for example, is a social system consisting of husband and wife and children or of father and mother and brothers and sisters. Each member of the family interacts with, the other in a prefixed or expected behavior, which is his or her role in the family. The performance of these roles makes this group a family. If a son does not behave towards his father or mother as is expected of him in the family life, the family system is disrupted. Moreover every member of the family has roles in other systems.
In short, social or economic system is a network of roles or expected behaviors. The political system is also a complex of interactions of voters, legislators, ministers, administrators, judges, nationals, etc. The same individual who performs a political role also perform economic, social, religious and other roles. For instance, on the Election Day, when people leave their homes, offices, factories, farms, etc., to go to the polling stations, they are changing their social or economic and other roles into the political role. Thus on the Election Day, the boundaries of the political system extend to die great majority of the people, who now cross the boundary of the society or economy into that of the polity.
Similarly, inflation may make the workers or their trade unions, or an interest group, or a political party, demand die authorities to adopt a policy or pass a law regarding increase in wages. Such economic demands may cross the boundary of the economic system into that of the political system. These examples show that of all the systems, the boundaries of the political system are subject to relatively greater fluctuations. Now, these demands are inputs of the political system. The policy or law made in response to them are its outputs, that is, they are converted by the authorities into outputs.
A political system, therefore, as a flow of the interactions, consists of three pans: the inputs or sources of the demands which come from die people, the conversion process, and the outputs, which are governmental acts and laws. They are the authoritative or binding decisions of the authorities or the conversion process. The political system is the set of interactions of these three parts, and its boundaries are determined by these factors in its environment. Almond says,” When we talk about the sources of inputs, their numbers, content, and intensity, and how they enter the political system, and of the number and content of outputs and how they leave the political system and affect other social systems, we shall in effect be talking about the boundaries of the political system.” Almond defines the boundary as “points where other systems end and the political system begin”.