Chapter 1: Nature of Political Science

Meaning, Scope and Importance of Political Science

Meaning of Political Science

From a liberal perspective, politics is the activity through which people make, preserve, and amend the general rules under which they live. In this sense, politics is inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation. The crux of politics is often portrayed as a process of conflict resolution in which rival views or competing interests are reconciled with one another. Bernard Crick, presenting the liberal view of politics, says: “Politics then, can be simply defined as the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community; and to complete the formal definition, a political system is that type of government where politics proves successful in ensuring reasonable stability and order” (Crick, 1962). In other words, from the practical point of view, politics is sometimes defined as the technique of compromise. That is why Bismarck defined politics as the ‘art of the possible’. Rajeev Bhargava points out that the word ‘political’ refers to decision-making within and about the community. However, virtually every known community is comprised of individuals and groups with different and conflicting interests and values. That is why Michael Curtis aptly remarked that ‘Politics is organized dispute about power and its use, involving choice among competing values, ideas, persons, interests and demands’.

In its classical form Political Science had its origin in the ancient Greek city-states. The oriental people had speculated on the state and its problems even before the Greeks. But they did not develop Political Science in a pure and systematic form. Thus, historically the term ‘Politics’ itself was derived from the Greek words ‘Polis’ (city-state), ‘Polity’ (government), and ‘Politeia’ (constitution). As such, “Politics” in the original Greek sense is a study of the city-state and its administration. To the Greeks, Politics is everything that touches the life of the state. Thus Aristotle called Politics as the ‘master science’. For the Greek, ‘Political’ then pertains to whatever is done within or by the State.

Theoretical and Applied (Practical) Politics

Scholars such as Westel W.Willoughby, Georg Jellinek, and Frederick Pollock make a distinction between the theoretical and applied dimensions of Political Science. To them, the topics such as origin, nature, and ends of the state form part of theoretical politics. Others relating to the actual administration of affairs of government belong to the sphere of applied politics. It is generally agreed that this is a useful and convenient distinction. But in its current usage, Political Science is much more comprehensive than the term “Politics.” It connotes the whole range of knowledge regarding the state and embraces the theory of the state. It includes both theoretical politics and applied (practical) politics.

Frederick Pollock divides politics into theoretical politics and practical or applied politics (Pruthi, 2005: 65-66). According to him theoretical politics includes:

• The Theory of the State
• The Theory of Government
• The Theory of Legislation
• The Theory of State as an Artificial Person

With the Behavioral revolution in Political Science, the main focus of Political Science became power, influence and authority. It shows a striking shift from the study of state and government to that of ‘shaping and sharing of power’. Thus the modern Political Science becomes the study of the way power is accumulated, used and controlled in modern society.

Recently, David Easton, a Behavioral turned PostBehavioral political scientist defined Politics as “the authoritative allocation of values that are binding on the society” (Easton, 1953). As against empirical and value free approach of Behavioralists, Easton argued for a valueladen Political Science to understand social realities and work for social change.

Politics and Political Science

The difference between ‘Politics’ and ‘Political Science’ is that while politics of one country may differ from that of another, Political Science is a common possession of mankind. There is no unanimity among political thinkers regarding the question whether Political Science is a science or not. Aristotle, the father of Political Science, regarded it as the master science. Scholars such as Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes and Henry Sidgwick also held the same view. But writers such as Frederic W. Maitland and Auguste Comte maintain that there can be no such thing as a scientific study of state and government. They agree with Edmund Burke that there is no science in Politics. In this sense, Political Science is a science. After accepting the essential facts in both arguments, we may say that Political Science is a social science. This is mainly because of the fact that the study of Political Science is value-free as well as value-laden.

Scope and the Importance of the Study of Political Science

There is not consensus among political thinkers about the frontiers of the discipline. However, broadly speaking, Political Science embraces a variety of topics dealing with both empirical facts and value preferences. Modern liberal political scientists argue that the study of Political Science involves the nature, bases, processes, scope, and results of power or authority in society. The study about the sources and purposes of power takes the political scientist beyond the formal political institutions in society such as powers and functions of the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

The empirical investigation of the existing political phenomena and processes also involves a study of the prevailing political concepts.

Especially, it considers the meaning of the state, its origin, attributes, forms, structure, working, purposes and functions. Thus, according to Robert Niven Gilchrist, “the scope of Political Science is determined by the enquiries that arise in connection with the state. These enquiries may broadly be classified under the State as it is, the State as it has been, the State as it ought to be” (Gilchrist, 1921: 4). Political Science also enquires into the relations of state with various groups and with various international organizations. Thus the study of International Relations also comes within the scope of Political Science. Another important aspect of the scope of Political Science is the study of the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state. Political Science also pursues the political aspects of the political process.

Traditional Approaches to the Study of Political Science

Generally, the liberal approach to political analysis can be divided into traditional approaches (Historical, Philosophical, Institutional, Legal) and modern approaches (Behavioral and Post -Behavioral). The Marxian approach to political analysis, however, is entirely different from the liberal approach; and it is comprehensive in nature.

Historical Approach

The historical approach, as exemplified by the theories propounded by Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel and Karl Marx, focuses on the process of arriving at laws governing politics through an analysis of historical events. It also stands for an attempt at understanding the political process through a historical account of political thought of yester years. Thee most illustrative book of the historical approach in political science is George H. Sabine’s A History of Political Theory. Further critics of historical approach point out that it is not possible to understand ideas of the past ages in terms of the contemporary ideas and concepts. Moreover, ideas of the past are hardly any guide for resolving the crises of the present-day world which are beyond the comprehension of the past thinkers. This criticism to historical approach encouraged the development of the Behavioral Approach.

Philosophical Approach

The philosophical approach is generally identified with value preferences. The emphasis is on moral and rational premises. This approach is based on the view that values are inevitable and essential for evaluating political phenomena. The classical political philosophers were concerned with the justification of values and the reconciliation of liberty and obligation. Plato, for example, dealt with the question of ‘justice’ in the Republic through the ideal state. According to Vernon Van Dyke, the object of philosophical enquiry in this sense is to establish standards of the good, the right, and the just, and to appraise or prescribe political institutions and practices in the light of these standards.

Institutional Approach

In this approach, the emphasis is on formal governmental institutions. The characteristic feature of the institutional approach involves a detailed description of the nature and structure of the formal institutions such as state and government. The chief concerns of this approach include classification of governments (monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, polity and democracy, dictatorship, parliamentary and presidential, unitary and federal), identification of levels of government (federal, state, local) as well as branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial). e Institutional approach relies heavily on description rather than explanation.

Legal Approach

The Legal approach stands for an attempt to understand politics in terms of law. It focuses on the legal and constitutional framework in which different organs of government have to function and the powers and procedure which makes their actions legally valid. For example, the legal approach to Indian politics will proceed to analyze the implications of various provisions of the Indian constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India, the procedure of the formation and legal position of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies, the election procedures, the powers and position of the President, Prime Minister, and Governors.

Modern Approaches to the Study of Political Science

The Behavioral Approach

The Behavioral approach is based on the assumption that political institutions and nature of political events are largely determined by the nature and behavior of people – both elites and masses. According to the Behavioralists, although the central theme of Political Science is the state, exclusive attention to it tends to make political analysis static, formalistic and institutional. The goal of Behavioral Political Science is not the achievement of good life but to understand political phenomenon realistically and to predict things. That means the creation of a systematic casual theory but not value theory. As a result of the Behavioral revolution, the emphasis in Political Science was being shifted to the behavior of individuals in political situations. Consequently, ‘power relations’ constituted the core concern of politics. The Behavioralists viewed the state as the repository of power.

Post-Behavioral Approach

According to the PostBehavioralists, values should be restored to the central position if knowledge is to be used for right purposes. e greatest impact on post Behavioralists was the role of United States in the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. The most ardent advocate of PostBehavioralism is David Easton. David Easton, who had laid the intellectual foundation stones of Behavioralism, now set forth seven major traits or features of postBehavioralism, which he called Credo of Relevance (Jayapalan, 2002: 86; Chaurasia, 2003: 137-138). They are:

• Substance over technique
• Change orientation
• Relevant research
• Value-laden research
• Political scientist as critical intellectual
• Action-oriented research
• Politicization of the profession

The Marxian Approach to Political Science

The Marxian approach to political analysis is fundamentally different from the liberal political analysis – both traditional and modern. Karl Marx approaches the question of politics from the point of view of social change which is dialectical and historical. The theory of dialectical materialism and its application in history, i.e., historical materialism, are the two important tools in Marxian methodology. In this respect, it should be remembered that Marxist approach means taking note of not only of the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels but also those of Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong and others. The important feature of the Marxian approach is that here State being the central theme of politics is conceived as an inevitable consequence of class contradictions. In the Marxian approach to political analysis, politics is thus conceived in terms of the specific articulation of class struggles. Though other types of struggles are not ignored, class conflict characterizes the core of the Marxist view of politics. Then, the Marxian approach, that has been empirical so far, assumes a normative character. Because of Marx’s concern for wider social causation, exclusive attention to ‘politics,’ as we have understood it from our disciplinary viewpoint, has never been his primary interest. In the broader context of a macro-social theory, politics has essentially been considered non-autonomous. On the most general level, the Marxist view of politics asserts that the separation between the economic, political, cultural and psychological aspects of the social whole is arbitrary and artificial.