Inter-Research And Studies (IRAS)

We all know that the state consist of formal bodies and institutions designed to service human needs as they have developed over the incredibly long history, where most of it unwritten, of the social evolution. The state is in many respects an extension of the family - the family and also the clan and the tribe, were all designed to ensure minimum of security and well-being for their members and so is the state. The greater impersonality of the state reflects the bureaucracy that comes inevitably with routine, specialization of task, the distribution of benefits in terms of more of merits than personal acquaintance and not least, large number of people living in an extended geographic location. We also know that the emergence of the state is signaled in part of a self-conscious effort to explain its origins and to lend legitimacy of its institutions, bodies, personnel and policies. States also may differ markedly from one another in many ways, but they all have in common the primary ch

Any or all the said sub-disciplines may be integrated into a comparative framework. When political analyst look at the political parties or socialization processes of two or more societies, they are able to clarify their generalizations about a particular political system because its characteristics are highlighted by comparison with those of other political systems. Comparative political analysis is also help to us in understanding and also identifying those characteristics which may be universal to the political process, regardless of time or place. In fact, it may be argued that no hypothesis or theory of politics deserves credibility unless it has been tested in several different societies - cross culturally. And while the traditional approach to comparative politics tended to describe only the institutional details of several foreign states, more recent trends have been in terms of specific system characteristics compared cross culturally. It is possible to learn more about execut

Research has also been indispensable in attempts to learn how citizens do acquire the opinions , attitudes and basic beliefs that would determine their political behavior. Just for example, if our parents are loyal Barisan supporters and if they consider labour unions an unfortunate blight on the economic landscape, what are the chances that I will vote Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) or Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) and regard businessmen as self-serving profiteers who compromise the public interest? To what extent do people acquire their political opinions from their family, school, associations, close acquaintances and professional colleagues and how do these patterns of socialization vary from one individual to another according to age, education, income, career and many other aspects? The characteristics of political socialization and clusters of opinions, attitudes and beliefs that make up the society are in turn a part of the society's political culture. And the characteristics

What is the mind of the public? How do opinions, attitudes and beliefs of citizens affect the policy making of political elites? What motivates citizens to vote or not to vote and why do they vote the way they do? Are voters oriented more towards issues or towards the personality of particular candidates or is their vote an expression of long standing loyalty to a particular party or leader, regardless of its candidates or position on the major issues of the day? If voters perceive a discrepancy or inconsistency between these various categories eg between party loyalty and the party's candidates, how are they likely to behave? And how do various orientations of voters relate to their level of formal education; the extent of their political knowledge; their age, sex, race, religion, profession, income and place of residence and the opinions of their close friends and relatives? What explains a voter's shift in political allegiance between elections or his willingness to vote for

Many political analyst and scientist view the legislative branch of government as a primary institution that structures the conflict of interests and demands expressed by political parties as well as other political oriented groups in the society. From this perspective, the more important questions of politics are in terms of the organization and behavior of these groups, which find in a parliament or legislative assembly a means of formalizing their political, economic and social claims on one another. Especially from the standpoint of group theory, a bill passed by the legislature expresses simply the prevailing distribution of influence among competing groups or parties, each of them seeking to advance their own particular interests and objectives. It is appropriate to ask, then about the kinds of interests represented by these groups, the characteristics of their leadership, membership, organization, strategies and tactics for influencing public policies and the nature of their ac

(We had saw how the Peaceful Assembly Bill being bulldozed into the parliament and quickly approved with limited debates, next would be the Computing Professionals Bill. So, how effective is the role of the parliament in our nation today? Some say the Malaysian parliament today is a mere rubber-stamp as the executive overly dominates the policy making role. What is your view then?) How are laws being made and how are they made not only in terms of constitutional prescription or the unwritten conventions of the legislature but also in terms of the clash of interests inside and outside the legislature arena? How do the rules and procedures of the legislatures, its system of committees, sub committees, affect the substances of the legislative policy? How is the power distribution among legislators themselves? And how is influence over the legislative process related to party and committee membership, seniority and personal relationship with the chief executive and with other members of th