Politics of Germany

Lore & Background

In the former GDR territory, five Länder were established or reestablished, and Berlin united as one Land. The political system remained largely unchanged, though two distinct party systems emerged: the Greens and Liberals remained mostly West German, while in the East the former socialist state party (now The Left Party) flourished alongside the CDU and SPD.

Reader's Guide

Germany's role as a founding member of the European Community and its membership in NATO, the UN, and the eurozone underscore its significance in European and global politics.

Did You Know?

• The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Germany a 'full democracy' in 2022.
• In 2005, Angela Merkel became the first female chancellor of Germany, leading a grand coalition between the CDU/CSU and SPD.

Defining the Discipline: Scope and Purpose

Comparative politics stands as the systematic examination of how political systems around the globe differ and converge. At its core, the discipline interrogates variations in regime types, governance architectures, electoral frameworks, policy results, and administrative practices across nations, regions, and eras. Its dual ambition is both explanatory and pattern-seeking: it asks why systems resemble or diverge from one another, while simultaneously hunting for regularities and trends that cut across borders. Contemporary scholarship gravitates toward themes like democratization, globalization, and regional integration, drawing on a rich toolkit of theoretical lenses developed over the past four decades—including political culture, dependency theory, corporatism, new institutionalism, and comparative political economy. Crucially, the discipline operates at a fixed temporal snapshot; researchers compare systems as they exist in the present rather than tracing longitudinal trajectories. The field also illuminates why seemingly parallel institutions function differently in distinct contexts, as illustrated by the contrast between the United States' liberal presidential model and India's parliamentary structure, despite both resting on majority-rule principles. Ultimately, comparative politics serves as a vital bridge to international relations, helping scholars untangle how global frameworks ripple into domestic political behavior and how domestic strategies shape international outcomes.

Two Rooted Traditions: The Intellectual Family Tree

Philippe C. Schmitter organizes the genealogy of comparative politics into two foundational lineages rooted in ancient Greek thought. The first, which he calls sociological constitutionalism and attributes to Aristotle, emphasizes understanding political institutions through their social and historical context. Its classical roster includes Polybius, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant, Tocqueville, von Stein, Marx, Ostrogorski, Weber, Durkheim, Michels, Mosca, Pareto, and Tingsten. In the twentieth century this strand was rebranded as historical political sociology, carried forward by Rokkan, T. H. Marshall, Bendix, Kirchheimer, Lipset, Linz, Daalder, Dogan, Eisenstadt, Eckstein, and Rustow. The second lineage, legal constitutionalism, traces to Plato and centers on the formal structures of constitutional governance. Its early figures include Duguit, Burdeau, Bryce, Lowell, and Wilson. The twentieth-century continuation features Duverger, Herman Finer, Samuel Finer, Sartori, Friedrich, Beer, Blondel, Hermens, and von Beyme. Together, these two streams reveal how the discipline has consistently balanced empirical social analysis with normative legal inquiry, producing a rich and sometimes contested intellectual heritage.

Methodological Identity and the Subnational Turn

A persistent debate within the discipline concerns whether comparative politics is defined by its method or by its subject matter. Arend Lijphart takes the methodological position, arguing that the field's identity lies in the comparative approach itself—it addresses the how of analysis without prescribing the what. Peter Mair and Richard Rose offer a hybrid view, insisting that the discipline requires both a substantive commitment to studying national political systems and a method of identifying and explaining cross-country similarities and differences through shared conceptual frameworks. In the United States, the term is sometimes loosely applied to mean the politics of foreign countries, a usage that many scholars dispute. Historically, the field relied heavily on between-country comparisons, but contemporary research has shifted substantially toward subnational analysis. This subnational turn contributes important methodological, theoretical, and substantive insights back into the broader comparative enterprise. When the discipline is applied to specific domains, it may adopt alternative names—for instance, comparative government when the focus is on contrasting forms of governance across states.

An Intellectual Lineage Spanning Millennia

Harry H. Eckstein traces the intellectual ancestry of comparative politics all the way back to Aristotle, identifying an unbroken chain of thinkers who shaped the discipline's evolution. From Machiavelli and Montesquieu through Gaetano Mosca, Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels, each contributor added layers of understanding about how political power operates and how institutions emerge. Two landmark twentieth-century works crystallized the field's maturation: James Bryce's Modern Democracies (1921) and Carl Joachim Friedrich's Constitutional Government and Democracy (1937). Gerardo L. Munck has further attempted to periodize the discipline as a recognized subfield of political science, mapping its institutional development over time. The field's substantive reach extends well beyond abstract theory; it engages directly with questions of political behavior, conflict, and the causes and consequences of economic development. It also occupies a distinctive niche relative to international relations: while both are subfields of political science, comparative politics specifically examines the causes of international strategy and the ways in which worldwide approaches and frameworks influence domestic political conduct and institutional functioning. This dual orientation—simultaneously global in scope and deeply attentive to internal political dynamics—defines the discipline's enduring relevance.

Gallery