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.

Sovereignty can be defined as control over a territory. In current usage and application, it refers to control over a given area in a legal sense. This control now includes defined borders.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau went even further in the refinement of this ideal of the arrangement between the rulers and the ruled that came to be known as social contract (social compact). He maintained that citizens had the right as sovereigns to create their own government.

State has become a legal term usually ratified by international law. State is related to the concept of sovereignty as sovereignty is understood to occupy a defined territory where the state exercises jurisdiction

A nation is group of people of a common culture derived from a feeling of unity based on customs and beliefs. If a nation lacks treaty recognition but occupies a defined territory, it can be called a country. Dagestan, for example, is a country actually designated as a republic within the Russian Federation. Since Dagestan occupies a territory but is not recognized as having sole authority within its borders, it is simply a country

Currently, nation-states are the most common political entities. They have a combination of international recognition of authority within defined borders and have a population of one or more dominant or charter groups with the same language, religion, culture, and tradition

Often, a previously dominant group can have its cultural patterns challenged. The United States, for example, has been built upon immigration. Therefore, the US has termed itself a melting pot as immigrants adopt a common language and adhere to other culture patterns. Recently, the term has been replaced by salad bowl as assimilation to original immigrants from the British Isles (in terms of language, religion, and other customs) does not happen on a regular basis.

The desire to unite all members of a group in one state is called irredentism (Fellman et al., 2007: 429-430)

Legitimacy, in the political science context, can be defined as recognition of the right of rulers to govern.

A constitution can be defined as a set of laws or legal provisions that outline the rights of citizens and the duties of government.

The central aspect of constitutionalism is that government is limited by fundamental law (such as the constitution) and by the procedures that are prescribed by it. With due respect to law, government officials cannot act in an arbitrary manner (McKay, Hill, and Buckler, 2003: 548-550)

In the case of the United Kingdom, the movement toward protecting the rights of citizens began with the Magna Carta (Great Charter) in 1215 describing the concept of trial by jury.

The most dominant concept of government lies in the allied notions of power and authority. In terms of the scope of governance and public affairs, power is the concept that allows a government or its officials the right to direct the activities of others in areas that may involve a wide range of activities, including the distribution of resources. The related concept of authority is the right derived from an appointed or designated position to direct the activities of others. Power can be exercised in many ways that range from persuasion to coercion. Authority, in contrast, is determined by the responsibilities that come from an appointed position

Nationalism can be defined as an ideology that people use to develop unity within the group. It seizes on linguistic, cultural, historical, and sometimes kinship commonalities.

Historically, nationalism has come about as a result of increasing literacy, mass transportation, mass mobilization, mass communication, and mass media. These cultural and technological transformations have developed a feeling of identity that reinforces a broader sense of commonality, which often overcomes class, religious, and other differences.

The related concept that all men were entitled to life, liberty, and property was later replaced by pursuit of happiness (in place of property to be more inclusive) after the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the American constitution.

The concept of nationalism had some negative consequences for societies in Asia and Africa. The expansion of European as well as the U.S. and Japanese power and influence were based on a combination of trade and missionary goals. Countries now justified rule outside of their homelands and domination of other peoples on the grounds of national prestige. Overseas empires were to be captive markets for new industrial goods which also wiped out traditional Asian and African crafts. Raw materials found in Africa and Asia were used for imperial use.

Globalization and its main effect, globalism, can be viewed as a process through which all parts of the world has become interconnected in terms of society, culture, politics, and economics.

It has been the cumulative result of the reduction of the time-space continuum due to technology, mass transportation, mass communication, global and regional political, military, and economic organizations. Because of the world wide web, international trade, mass media, satellite technology, and supersonic transport as well as instantaneous wire contacts through financial institutions, more sinister developments such as weapons of mass destruction and missiles, very few areas in the globe are isolated. This has become truly a “small world” and promises to become even smaller

The modern phase of globalization and the deification of globalism began before the end of World War II.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the economic pact among the US, Canada, and Mexico.