governmental structures and political processes found in these federal systems show great variety. One may distinguish, first, a number of systems in which fedarrangements reflect rather clear-cut cultural divi-sions. A classic case of this type is Switzerland, where the people speak four different languages—German, French, Italian, and Romansh—and the federal system unites 22 historically and culturally different entities, known as cantons. The Swiss constitution of 1848, as modified in 1874, converted a confederation originally formed in the 13th century by the three forest cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden into the modern federal state. The prin-cipal agencies of federal government are a bicameral legislature, composed of a National Council representing the people directly and a Council of States representing the constituent members as entities; an executive branch (Bundesrat) elected by both houses of the legislature in joint session; and a supreme court that renders decisions on matters affecting cantonal and federal relations.
In other systems, federal arrangements are found in conjunction with a large measure of cultural homogeneiThe Constitution of the United States delegates certain activities that concern the whole people, such as the con-duct of foreign relations and war and the regulation of interstate commerce and foreign trade to the federal gov-ernment; certain other functions are shared between the federal government and the states; and the remainder are reserved to the states. Although these arrangements retwo separate bodies of political officers, two judicial systems, and two systems of taxation, they also allow extensive interaction between the federal government and the states. Thus, the election of Congress and the Presithe process of amending the Constitution, the levy-ing of taxes, and innumerable other functions necessitate cooperation between the two levels of government and bring them into a tightly interlocking relationship.
A nation state is a political community with three major propor capabilities of integration. These are first, that it is able to exercise a monopoly of political authority and legitimate force within its territory; second, that it has a government which is a decision-making centre able to determine or significantly influ-ence the allocation of resources in the society; and third, that it operates as a focus for political identification, loyalty and sup-port amongst the population. These capabilities may be described as coercive, instrumental and identive. When all these capabilities are functioning satisfactorily, they are normally assumed to be mutually reinforcing. The existence of disaf-fected or separatist groups indicates at least some failure of inteThe resurgence of minority nationalisms in advanced western societies has thus renewed interest in the complex prob-lems of maintaining the state in polyethnic societies. Moreover, by exposing shortcomings in the identive and instrumental capaof such states, it raises two general issues relevant to the persistence of the state. In particular it suggests first, that the extent and effectiveness of political integration in advanced societies has possibly been overestimated and second, that the traditional centralist state may not be fully capable of making an effective or adequate response to the challenge of ethno-territorial disaffection and national separatism.
There are approximately 156 states in the world, only about a dozen of which may be described as mono-ethnic, but several hundred ethnic groups. States are increasingly expected to provide security, order, justice, economic development and social progress for their heterogeneous societies at a time when ethno-national interests are more widespread and often more virulent than ever before. Many ethnic demands, however, except on the part of small numbers of extremists, are not necesfor political independence, which many regard as imprac-ticable and undesirable, but for recognition together with administrative and economic support to preserve their cultural identity. If this is the case the problem facing the state is more tractable and solutions which could preserve the integrity of the state more likely to be found.
To compare is a natural way of thinking. Nothing is more natural than to study people, ideas, or institutions in relation to other people, ideas, or institu-tions. We gain knowledge through reference. Scientific comparison is not of a different nature, although the intellectual level is higher. We compare to evalmore objectively our situation as individuals, a community, or a nation. A sociologist who compares discovers the pitfall of ethnocentrism, and by the same token may find a way to overcome it.
International comparison requires an articulated conceptual framework. Social scientists who analyze only one country may proceed step by step, with-out structured hypotheses, building analytical categories as they go. Comparativists have no such freedom. They cannot advance without tools. Confronted with a variety of contexts, they are obliged to rely on abstractions, to master concepts general enough to cope with the diversity of the cases under consideraWhen concentrating on a single country, a single culture, a single system, one may possibly grope.
Comparativists, on the contrary, need a compass that will allow them to pass from one contest to another, to select in each country the differences or similarities that can be