ck of differentiation between the political and social spheres in non-Western societies, he implies that such a differentiation exists in Western societies.
Diamant asserts that a strict segregation between the Western and non-Western political process will, as Rustow states in “New Horizons for Comparative Politics” (qtd. in Diamant 123), be dangerous as it would imply that the data and ideas of Western politics cannot contribute much to the non-Western systems. There is, Diamant states, no strict dichotomy between the two. He illustrates his point by quoting from Pyre’s paper, for instance, he quotes Pye’s example of a non-Western system where changes in one’s political affiliation lead up to changes in a person’s social and personal relationships, then he debunks it by stating how this is true of a Western political system as well – in the Democratic vs. Republican scenario of the US, for instance.
Diamant asserts that the non-Western political process is not new and in this regard the Western political process, specifically that of Europe, in dealing with concepts such as industrialization could afford much help and guidance. The changes caused by industrialization in Western political process, “can serve as a guide for assessing the effects of a similar process on non-European traditional societies” (Diamant 125).
Diamant proposes that if the typical Western ideal-type political process, based on the British political system and society, is abandoned, and in its stead some continental political system is adopted as the ideal-type, “[n]on-Western political systems would become more comprehensible and less remote” (Diamant 125).
Finally, Diamant discusses and examines five of the seventeen characteristics of the non-Western model presented by Pye, and shows how these characteristics are not typically non-Western, but are in fact present in the Western political process just as much. One such characteristic is that, according to Pye, in