Political cultures have many forms. They can be based on several factors. A political culture can have many sub-political cultures. These sub-political cultures, in the context of specific political institutions and their processes, generate different political attitudes and values. When sub-political cultures dominate political culture, a political culture suffers crises after crises, as it has been happening in Ireland and Sri Lanka.
On the basis of number and power, political culture takes two forms – elitist and mass based. Even a mass political culture has many variations and grows heterogeneous. However, their values can be complementary to each other. A political culture decides in what way the members belonging to masses would be recruited and taken into the elite groups.
Their different socialisation processes too influence each other. When cleavages between them is too deep and wide, or general political culture goes weak, political system suffers from increasing conflicts, disintegration and ultimate dismemberment. A third level between them also exists. It is the middle class which has gained strength everywhere. A powerful middle class happens to hold balance among different sub-political cultures. Its presence lessens violent conflicts. Aristotle in the past, and most of the modem liberal political thinkers stand for it.
On the basis of continuity, cultures can be conservative or modern or most modern or postmodern. Almond and Coleman find most of cultures as ‘mixed’. W.F. Riggs calls them ‘prismatic’, ‘developing’ or ‘transitional’. From the viewpoint of speed, cultures can be static, slow or revolutionary.
It is difficult to determine their indicators. Political culture, on the basis of ideologies, can be communist, socialist, democratic, authoritarian or fascist. Some scholars have found political cultures as hilly, plane, oceanic, north or south polar. They have been related to ethnicity, colour or race: yellow, black, brown, white etc. Huntington, recently, has connected them with civilisations.
On the bases of congruence or uniformity, Wiseman, has pointed out three in their pure or ideal forms, and, other three as their mixed forms:
Norms of congruence are allegiance, apathy and alienation. They indicate orientation of citizens towards the political system. Orientation relates to inputs and outputs of political systems. It can be positive (+) and negative (-).
Orientation towards them can be different in congruent political cultures:
S.E. Finer puts political cultures into four categories:
(i) Mature;
(ii) Developed;
(iii) Low; and
(iv) Lowest.
He saw pre-revolutionary France as the lowest political culture.
According to Almond, political cultures connected with particular political systems, can be categorized into four groups:
1. Anglo-American Political System:
Its political culture is homogeneous. It combines modern, transitional and secular outlooks. Mostly its political culture is plural, free, libertarian, rational and experimental. Both political ends and means are clearly defined. Sometimes, a few groups prefer one particular value at the expense of others. On other occasions, all groups urge for one particular value or goal. Role of political parties, individual leaders and other associations is publicly recognised. Plurality of political, civic, economic and cultural life finds place in different pressure groups which respect each other’s existence.
2. Continental European Political System:
It has few traits of uniformity. In some areas there is polarization of political cultures, some of its elements are traditional whereas others are rational. Imbalance among sub-political cultures causes tension and generates conflicts. Secularisation succeeds in a limited way. Secular political culture exists only in some modern and industrial sectors.
Existence of differing ideologies also causes sharp cleavages and political alienation among several sections of people. Political leaders have less deference toward law-making bodies and elections. Instead of using public forum for exchange of ideas, discussion, negotiation and arriving at consensus, leaders rather use them to teach, preach, warn and bargain. Their roles are deeply rooted in sub-political cultures. In place of law, sub-political cultures dominate the scene. Bureaucracy holds the keys of decision and policy making structures.
3. Non-Western Political System:
In this group of countries, modernity of a political system resides in cities only. Attempts are made to usher it in rural areas also. Form of authority is charismatic, which leads to instability, indecision and subjectivity. Narrow political interests prevail, though underground. Their operation leads to sporadic violence and bloodshed. Communication channels are secretive, sectarian and slow. Bureaucracy is backward and insensitive.
4. Totalitarian Political System:
It is fully monolith, organized and authoritarian, which permits no alternative or free institutions. There is complete control over press and media. Consensus is imposed on all matters. Dissension is crushed. It often goes underground. Modern technologies are used for serving narrow and personal ends. However, it develops expertise in maintaining monopoly over the whole system. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia etc. have profusely illustrated this type of political culture.
However, many political scientists have not accepted Almond’s above- mentioned structural classification. Political culture is an independent, or at the most an intervening variable. It is not subservient or subordinate to political system. It has its own existence. It does influence a political system directly or in a definitive manner, and influences its decisions and policies in some indirect manners.