Every political culture consists of various elements, which are orientations of die people towards different aspects of the political system. They are as follows:
(i) Orientations towards governmental structures:
It means orientations towards governmental inputs and outputs. They may result in allegiance or alienation of the people towards the government Robert Dahl has characterised these orientations or attitudes as allegiant or alienated. The allegiant orientations cause stability and continuity in the political system, while the alienated orientations lead to instability and change, which may result in revolt, revolution or transformation of the political system.
(ii) Orientations towards other people.
They produce trustful or distrustful attitudes towards the political authorities or government. They arise when the people ask: does government mean well in its policies and acts?
(iii) Orientations towards collective actions.
This kind of orientation or attitude is the basis of an individual’s political participation, which may be active or passive. Active orientation makes an individual believe that he can influence the decision-makers in the political system by his efforts. In case of passive orientation, the individual has no faith in his ability to influence the decision-makers. Instead, he passively accepts what they do. This is the basic difference between democratic and non-democratic political cultures.
Some examples would illustrate the differences between various political cultures. In the countries in which government is regarded with fear and awe, majority of the people do not participate in politics and government, which they consider to be the privilege of the elite classes. Such attitudes are even impressed in their daily behaviour. In Mughal India, for instance, whenever a man saluted the emperor or governor, he bent down in obeisance, or “komish”, before him.
This practice, an outgrowth of feudal culture, was continued even during the British Rule in India. In the present-day independent Bharat, it is the practice of standing with folded hands before a man of authority. It is an outgrowth of the Hindu religious and culture. In Japan, the culture requires that when two men meet, they bow before each other according to their social status: man with lower status will bow much lower before the one of higher status: and when they bow before a man of authority, they bow the lowest.
In truly democratic countries, political cultures are quite different. In the United States, for example, people show their respect to men of authority but in a dignified manner. They only shake hands and address even the President of America as “Mr. President”. It is because the American Constitution had abolished all kinds of feudal honours and modes of address. In Great Britain, where feudal traditions have persisted in social dealings, the popular attitude towards the government is more deferential.
In Prance and Italy, political subcultures are still strong, causing governments to be unstable, and alienation and anomie so common attitudes of the people in politics. In West Germany, where the culture of obedience and discipline prevails, the people are not very much insistent on political rights. In most Muslim countries, passive obedience of men of authority is a part of their political culture.
The concept of political culture enables us to distinguish between power and authority. Unlike power, authority is exercised with the consent of the ruled. The people, who value power more than authority, will tend to be ruled by military men or dictators, while those who value authority more than power, tend to have democratic systems of government among them, What is more, the people who value authority more than power will possess such democratic values as rule of law, respect for the dignity of the individual, respect for rights, respect for electoral decisions, etc. In short, their political culture will be radically different from that of die people who value power as the basis of relations between the rulers and the ruled.
But political culture is not something permanent or eternal. Most of the time, it changes slowly, though at times it may change rapidly. These changes may come from within the people themselves or from foreign sources. Foreign domination is one of the most powerful sources of changes in a political culture, because it results, in the establishment of a new political system, devised by the foreign rulers. For instance, the rise of the British Rule in the South Asian Sub-continent transformed its political system from what it was in pre-British times. For instance, all the talk in the Sub-continent of democracy, parliamentarianism, elections, rule of law, freedom of the press, rights and freedoms of the individual, etc., is due to the political culture inculcated by the British Rule, which culture was absolutely unknown to the peoples of the Sub-continent But foreign influences on a political culture can also take place without foreign domination, as for instance through such information agencies as foreign radio or television stations, foreign news agencies, books, publications and foreign travel.
Not only the general culture but also the political culture of a people changes under these influences. However, they can protect themselves from these influences by xenophobia or fear or hatred of the foreign persons and things. This is the reason why the political cultures of Japan and Turkey, who resisted Western domination for so long, are so different from the political cultures of other peoples of Asia, and Africa. In Europe, the English people have the most xenophobic political culture. Moreover, the history of a people is greatly determined by the kind of their political culture. The people with xenophobic political culture protect their national freedom and independence more successfully than others.
Furthermore, the more their political culture is uniform and influential among the whole people, the more they will be able to resist the fissiparous and disintegrative tendencies of the political sub-cultures among them, that is, of the political subcultures of their ethnic, religious and other minority groups. In short, the political system of a country depends greatly on the type of its political culture.