According to Aristotle, if someone is unable to live in a society or if he has no need for it and if he is sufficient for himself, he must be either a beast or a god. Aristotle claimed that man is a rational animal and also a political animal, so it is inevitable that he should seek to fulfil himself through living as part of a state. Therefore, we can conclude that man is a creature who can live nowhere else except in society.

According to Robert A. Dahl, politics is a universal activity. Whether an individual likes it or not, everyone in a society is tossed into the arena of politics. According to him, “a citizen encounters politics in the government of a country, town, school, church, business firm, trade union, club, political party, and a host of organizations. Politics is one of the unavoidable facts of human existence. Everyone is involved in some fashion at some time in some kind of political system.”

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, who is representing the liberal view of politics, claims that politics 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. In addition, he puts forward that a political system is that type of government where politics proves successful in ensuring reasonable stability and order.

Bismarck sees politics as the ‘art of the possible’. In other words, politics is sometimes defined as the technique of compromise.

Rajeev Bhargava states that the word ‘political’ refers to decision-making within and about the community.

According to Michael Curtis, politics is organized dispute about power and its use, involving choice among competing values, ideas, persons, interests and demands.

Carl Schmitt claims that politics involves friends and enemies. To put it more clearly, fundamental decisions cannot be reached without conflict and struggle. The political arena is where this fundamental conflict over which group and which conception of ‘good’ would prevail in the community. In this fundamental struggle, some groups will discover something in common with one another and deep differences with other groups. Friends and enemies are found and forged in this struggle. Thus, no one, in politics, can escape from taking sides.

Political Science had its origin in the ancient Greek city-states. Actually, the oriental people had speculated on the state and its problems even before the Greeks. However, they did not develop Political Science in a pure and systematic form. It was the Greeks who formally started studying Political Science.

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. Therefore, Aristotle called Politics as the ‘master science’. For the Greek, ‘Political’ then is associated to whatever is done within or by the State.

Westel W.Willoughby, Georg Jellinek, and Frederick Pollock make a distinction between the theoretical and applied dimensions of Political Science. According 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 (practical) politics.

Pollock puts forward that theoretical politics involves:

• The Theory of the State

• The Theory of Government

• The Theory of Legislation and

• The Theory of State as an Artificial Person

Pollock puts forward that practical politics involves:

• The State (Actual forms of Government)

• The Government (The working of Government, Administration etc.)

• Laws and Legislation (Procedure, Courts etc.) and

• The State personified (War, Diplomacy, Peace and International affairs)

• The Theory of State as an Artificial Person

According to Janet, Political Science is a part of science which treats the foundations of the state and principles of government.

With the Behavioral revolution in Political Science, the main focus of Political Science became:

• Power

• Influence

• Authority

David Easton, a Behavioral turned PostBehavioral political scientist, defines Politics as the authoritative allocation of values that are binding on the society.

In the normal sense, the term ‘Politics’ means the current politics or day-to-day problems of the state and government, which are economic, political, cultural, religious problems, and so on. Therefore, the word Politics does not bring to our mind the whole range of knowledge pertaining to the state in theory and political institutions. However, the term ‘Political Science’, in its current usage, is much more comprehensive than the term Politics. It implies the whole range of knowledge regarding the State and embraces the theory of States. This includes both theoretical and practical or applied politics. On the theoretical side, it is concerned with questions like the nature, origin, purpose and justification of the State and is known as Political Philosophy. On the practical side, it is concerned with the structure, functions and forms of political institutions and is known as constitutional government or Comparative Politics.

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. For example, the Indian political process is different from the politics of China, the USA, or the UK. The problems these political systems face are varied in nature. However, the central focus of interest of Political Science or Political scientists in all over the world is that of the political aspects of human relations in society. In this sense, Political Science is the scientific designation of the subject of our study.

At the end of this gathering, the political scientists announced this mission: “The large and expanding sphere of government activity in all countries, and the emotions and interests which are aroused by politics, make it highly desirable that both political ideas and political practice should receive disinterested study. It is the aim and purpose of political science to provide such study. It is legitimate to believe that by this means the political insight and discrimination of the people may be increased, a more informed public opinion brought to bear on political problems, and the work of government improved at all levels”.

Edmund Burke claims that there is no science in Politics. It is evident that there are no uniform principles or laws in Political Science, which are universally valid. Political Science is primarily concerned with man and his behavior in political context. It deals with human beings, and no human beings behave in the same manner at all times. Consequently, it is impossible to obtain correct results in Political Science as in physical sciences such as Physics and Chemistry. This idea of him is accepted by some other writers such as Frederic W. Maitland and Auguste Comte. They also maintain that there can be no such thing as a scientific study of state and government.

A systematic study is possible in Political Science. Scientific methods and establishment of connection between cause and effect are also possible in Political Science. If knowledge that has been gathered as a result of a systematic method can be called as science, then, we can safely claim that Political Science is a science. Political Science really follows a scientific method while studying the political phenomena. For example, a political scientist may systematically observe the electoral behavior in a constituency with a view to formulating general principles in electoral behavior. Moreover, political scientists such as Aristotle and James Bryce observed systematically the working of the governmental systems in many states. As a result of this, certain general principles were formulated. Therefore, when we examine the principles of Political Science, we observe that these principles have been formulated after a systematic study of political phenomena. In this sense, Political Science is a science. This is mainly because of the fact that the study of Political Science is value-free as well as value-laden. 

Modern liberal political scientists debate that the study of Political Science includes 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 institutions that are seeking ‘power’ in society include business corporations, organized religions, and trade unions. These organizations and groups seek to influence public policy and the direction of social change. In this respect, political scientists are also interested in understanding the political behavior of these groups and institutions.

He argues that 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, and the State as it ought to be.

Political Science studies on a wide range of relations. Therefore, the scope and subject matter of Political Science is very extensive. For example, Political Science studies the relations of state with various groups and with various international organizations. Thus, the study of International Relations very well fits into the scope of Political Science. In addition to these, Political Science examines the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state

Traditional approaches to Political Science can be studies under four categories which are:

• Historical Approach

• Philosophical Approach

• Institutional Approach

• Legal Approach

German philosophers Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel and Karl Marx supported historical approaches. Similarly, George H. Sabine, an American professor, wrote the most illustrative book of the historical approach in political science: A History of Political Theory.

These philosophers focus on the process of arriving at laws governing politics through an analysis of historical events. They also try to understand the political process through a historical account of political thought of previous years.

Popper criticized Marxism because of the fact that it insists on discovering what is inevitable, and then advocates ‘totalitarian’ methods for its realization.

Historical approach received further criticism because of the fact 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.

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. Political philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Bentham, and Hegel analyzed the ethical basis and the moral purpose of the political community in detail. In this way, the philosophical period is distinguished for its general trend of setting standards based on values such as justice, freedom, and happiness. The philosophical approach aims at evolving “standards of right and wrong” for the purpose of critical evaluations of the existing institutions, laws, and policies. It may denote efforts to arrive at truth using reason.

In the second half of the 19th century, Political Science developed in parallel with other social sciences. The institutional approach showed a shift in the scope, methods, and objectives of Political Science.

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. According to this approach, an institution is a set of offices and agencies arranged in a hierarchy, each of which has certain functions and powers. In this way, the institutional approach proceeds to study the organizations and functioning of government, its various organs, political parties, and other institutions affecting politics

This approach investigates governments by classifying them and their parts. The classification of governments is as:

• Monarchy

• Tyranny

• Aristocracy

• Oligarchy

• Polity and democracy

• Dictatorship

• Parliamentary and presidential

• Unitary and federal The identification of levels of government is as:

• Federal

• State

• Local The identification of branches of government is as:

• Executive

• Legislative

• Judicial

Legal approach tries 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 Political Science can be studies under two subcategories, and these are:

• Behavioral Approach

• Post-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 approach is, not to achieve a 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. For example, according to Robert A. Dahl, the Behavioral approach in Political Science is an attempt to make the empirical content of Political Science more scientific.

During the 1960’s, Behavioralism started to be criticized by Post Behavioralists. A group of political scientists argued against the value-free orientation of Behavioralism on the grounds that the Behavioral movement is ineffective in understanding social reality and social change. According to them, values should be restored to the central position if knowledge is to be used for right purposes.

He lists the features of Post-Behavioralism as follows:

• 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 analysis is fundamentally different from both traditional and modern approaches. 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.

This is the major principle of Marxism in all its ‘classical’ varieties. History is the product not of conscious decisions and ideas, but of ‘material’ processes and conditions which can be identified and described without reference to the mental states of those who participate in them. It is the changes in these material conditions which make necessary and bring about those changes in social, political, and institutional superstructures which in aggregate form the substance of history. The process of change has been variously described as dialectical, as one of unceasing development of productive forces, and as a class struggle in which the participants are driven by their economic condition to act as they do. Although it is likely that these ideas are not mutually compatible, Marxists have often assumed that they are.

In the Marxian approach, the term ‘class’ is used as a technical term associated with a theory of ownership and control. It refers to positions in the system of production relations, which are held to explain all such characteristics of class-recognition. If an ‘upper-class mentality’ appears to survive in the absence of any shared economic position, then this is only a lingering after-effect that will vanish as economic reality makes itself perceivable. For the Marxist, the principal theoretical classifications are those of master and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf (in feudalism), and bourgeois and proletarian (in capitalism).

The Marxist view of politics emphasizes that the separation between the economic, political, cultural, and psychological aspects of the social whole is arbitrary and artificial. The notion of ‘economics’ as free from ‘politics’, or vice versa, is an ideological distortion. What we should do is to speak of ‘political economy’ (in which the economic and political elements are dialectically united). The fact is that both Marx and Engels explicitly rejected any rigid and mechanical notion of ‘economic determination’ of the social and political process. In fact, the Marxist view of politics logically spreads over all aspects of political analysis and achieves an interdisciplinary dimension.

The Islamic Civilization made contributions to medical science, the decimal system, algebra, chemistry, astronomy, geography, navigation, paper, gunpowder, textiles, agricultural products, universities and machinery.

The great Greek political thinker Aristotle said centuries ago that man is by nature and necessity a social and political animal. According to
Aristotle, he who is unable to live in society or who has no need for it, because he should be sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.

From a liberal perspective, politics is the activity through which people make, preserve, and amend the general rules under which they live.

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

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

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 and
• The Theory of State as an Artificial Person
Under Practical Politics, Pollock includes:
• The State (Actual forms of Government)
• The Government (The working of Government, Administration etc.)
• Laws and Legislation (Procedure, Courts etc.) and
• The State personified (War, Diplomacy, Peace and International affairs

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. 

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.

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. It is evident that there are no uniform principles or laws in Political Science which are universally valid. Political Science is primarily concerned with man and his behavior in political context. It deals with human beings, and all human beings do not behave in the same manner at all times. Consequently, it is impossible to obtain correct results in Political Science as in physical sciences such as physics and chemistry.

Political scientists such as Aristotle and James Bryce observed systematically the working of the governmental systems in many states. As a result of this, certain general principles were formulated. Thus when we examine the principles of Political Science, we observe that these principles have been formulated after a systematic study of political
phenomena. 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

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.

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.

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

The philosophical approach is generally identified with value preferences. The emphasis is on moraland rational premises. This approach is based on the view that values are inevitable and essential for evaluating political phenomena.

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 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.

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 most ardent advocate of Post-Behavioralism is David Easton.

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 theory of dialectical materialism and its application in history, i.e., historical materialism, are the two important tools in Marxian methodology.

This is the fundamental tenet of Marxism in all its ‘classical’ varieties. History is the product not of conscious decisions and ideas, but of ‘material’ processes and conditions which can be identified and described without reference to the mental states of those who participate in them. It is the changes in these material conditions which make necessary and bring about those changes in social, political and institutional superstructures which in aggregate form the substance of history.