Meaning of Political Science

• Political Science comprises of two words ‘political’ and ‘science’.
• The term ‘politics’ is derived from the Greek word ‘polis’ which means the ‘city-state’ (a generalised form of political organization existing in ancient Greece).
• Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, evidence and experiment.
• So political science is the branch of knowledge that deals with systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the state and political institutions through scientific analysis.
• The great Greek philosopher Aristotle was the first to use the term ‘politics’ and is therefore regarded as the ‘father of Political Science’. In his famous book, “Politics”, Aristotle has asserted: “Man is by nature a political animal and he, who by nature and not by mere accident is without state, is either above humanity or below it”.

Definition of Political Science

Traditional definition

These early definitions of political science dealt generally with state and government :-

• Paul Janet, “Political Science is that part of social science which treats the foundations of the State and the principles of government.”
• Dr. Garner, “Political Science begins and ends with the state”
• Sir John Seeley, “Political Science investigates the phenomena of Government as Political Economy deals with Wealth, Biology with life, Algebra with numbers and Geometry with space and magnitude”.
• Stephen Leacock, “Political Science deals with the Government”.

Modern definition

In the beginning of the 20th century there developed a new way of looking at political science. This new approach is known as behavioural approach. The main thrust of the new view is the treatment of politics as an activity and a process.

• Harold Laswell: “Politics is the study of influence and the influential” or “the study of the shaping and sharing of power”.
• David Easton: “Politics is the authoritative allocation of values.”
• Catlin: “Political Science is the study of the act of human and social control”.
• Andrew Heywood: “Politics can be defined as an activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live.”

Nature of Politics: Is Political science a Science or Art?

Whether politics can be considered a science has been a long standing controversy. Aristotle adopted a scientific approach to the study of the discipline. He separated the study of politics form ethics and law, examined and compared constitutions and classified governments into meaningful categories. On the other hand James Bryce, Charles Beard and Harold Laski are of the opinion that politics is not a science. It is said that the nomenclature Political Science owes its origin to William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft. Science is systematised body of knowledge about any phenomenon which is governed by its own laws. Science is based on collection of data, generalisations, accuracy and verification or experimentations. Let’s try to test political science on these grounds.

Political Science is not a Science

1. Lacks Precise and Uniform Definitions:

A Science has a set of its own terms and their precise and standard definitions. Political science lacks precise definitions, terminologies and methods. There is no general agreement among political scientist regarding these. Methods and principles of political science are not universally acceptable and applicable. E.g. terms like freedom, democracy, nationalism do not have uniform definitions. They can be and have been defined and interpreted in different ways.

2. Lacks Investigation and generalisations:

Political science also lacks scientific method of investigations, observations and generalisations. It is possible to obtain exact results in science which is not the case with political science. E.g. Democracy is regarded as the best form of government by many but in reality it is not a success in countries where there are ignorant and incompetent masses.

3. Lacks Experimentations:

Another difficulty in political science is that it not possible to have laboratory experiments in political science. Political researcher has to deal with human beings. The habits, sentiments, moods, and temperament of people differ from place to place and from time to time. They cannot be controlled as well under any circumstance. E.g. electoral behavior of voter is determined by various factors such as caste, class, religion etc. No government can claim that its people will react in a particular way to a policy or programme announced.

4. Lacks Objectivity:

While there is objectivity in the study of physical sciences, it is lacking in studying problems related to state and government. A completely impartial, indifferent, unbiased attitude may not be possible to analyse political problems and questions. A political scientist has to deal with human beings in relation to sate, society and government and in such relations the element of subjectivity is most conspicuous. Views of political thinkers are bound to be prejudiced or coloured on account of racial, religious, linguistic or nationalistic factors.

5. Lacks Predictability:

Is is nearly impossible for a political thinker to predict the future course of events. In fact events take course quite contrary to the expectations of the observer. This happens because politics studies human behaviour and social constructs which are vulnerable to change. Constantly changing socio-economic and political situations restrict a political observer form making predictions. Thus it was rightly observed by Burke that there is no science of politics any more than there is science of aesthetics- for the line of politics are not the lines of mathematics. They are matter incapable of exact definitions.

Political Science is a Science

1. If by the term science we mean a systematised body of knowledge political science can certainly be called as a science. Dr. Finer rightly says that, we can be prophets of probable if not seers of certain political science has been able develop a systematised body of knowledge on broad terms like state, government etc. after due observation, comparison and some sort of experimentation.

2. It is possible to conduct some experiments through which political scientist can benefit. It is well known that Aristotle based his Politics on his study of the working of 158 constitutions. Likewise, Lord Bryce compared the working of democracy in various countries and then came to conclusions with regard to relative merits and demerits of democracy. B N Rau constitutional advisor to the government of India also made a comparative study of various constitutions and presented a report to the constituent assembly.

3. It is true that there is no consensus among experts regarding the method, principles and conclusions of political science. But political science is a dynamic study of living subjectmatter. It deals with man and his institutions. As man is dynamic, the same is true of the institutions created by him. The nature of man changes with the changing conditions. The view of Lord Bryce is that political science is a science, although it is undeveloped and incomplete. Prof. R N Gilchrist believes that general laws can be deduced from given material and those are useful in the actual problems of the government.

The study of political science and in the process of search for political truth certain procedure must be followed. These procedures are defined as approaches, methods, techniques and strategies. Approaches to study political science are grouped as traditional and modern approaches (D. K. Sarmah, 2007).

Traditional approaches

Traditional approaches are value based. These approaches put emphasis on values more that facts. Advocates of this approaches believe that the study of political science cannot and should not be purely scientific. They stated that in social science such as facts values are closely related with each other. In politics, emphasis should not be on the facts but on the moral quality of political event. There are huge number of traditional approaches such as philosophical, institutional, legal, and historical approaches (D. K. Sarmah, 2007).

The traditional perspective of Political Science focused on the study of the state, government, and law. It emphasized the normative aspects of politics, such as the ideals of justice, rights, and the role of the state in society. Scholars like Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli concentrated on questions of how governments should be organized, the nature of justice, and the best forms of governance. This perspective was largely philosophical and descriptive, aiming to prescribe ideal political structures and norms rather than empirical observation.

Characteristics of Traditional approaches

1. Traditional approaches are largely normative and stresses on the values of politics.
2. Emphasis is on the study of different political structures.
3. Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory and research.
4. These approaches believe that since facts and values are closely interlinked, studies in Political Science can never be scientific.

Different types of traditional approaches

Philosophical Approach

This approach is considered as the oldest approach in the arena of Political Science. The development of this approach can be traced back to the times of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Leo Strauss was one of the main supporter of the philosophical approach. He considered that “the philosophy is the quest for wisdom and political philosophy is the attempt truly to know about the nature of political things and the right or good political order.” Vernon Van Dyke observed that a philosophical analysis is an effort to clarify thought about the nature of the subject and about ends and means in studying it. The aim of this approach is to evolve the standard of right and wrong, for the purpose of critical evaluation of existing institutions, laws and polices (Gauba, 2009).

This approach is based on the theoretical principle that the values cannot be separated from the study of politics. Therefore, its main concern is to judge what is good or bad in any political society. It is mainly an ethical and normative study of politics and, thus, idealistic. It addresses the problems of the nature and functions of the state, citizenship, rights and duties etc. The supporters of this approach consider that political philosophy is strongly associated with the political beliefs. Therefore, they are of the opinion that a political scientist must have the knowledge of good life and good society. Political philosophy supports in establishing a good political order (Gauba, 2009).

Historical Approach

Theorists who developed this political approach focused on the historical factors like the age, place and the situation in which it is evolved are taken into consideration. This approach is related to history and it emphasizes on the study of history of every political reality to analyse any situation. Political thinkers such as Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning considered that politics and history are closely related and the study of politics always should have a historical standpoint. Sabine stated that Political Science should include all those subjects which have been discussed in the writings of different political thinkers from the time of Plato. This approach strongly maintains the belief that the thinking or the dogma of every political thinker is formed by the surrounding environment. Furthermore, history provide details of the past as well as it also links it with the present events. History gives the chronological order of every political event and thereby helps in future estimation of events also. Therefore, without studying the past political events, institutions and political environment it would be erroneous to analyse the present political events. But critics of historical approach designated that it is not possible to understand the idea of the past ages in terms of contemporary ideas and concepts.

Institutional Approach

This is traditional and significant approach in studying Political Science. This approach primarily deals with the formal features of government and politics accentuates the study of the political institutions and structures. Therefore, the institutional approach is concerned with the study of the formal structures like legislature, executive, judiciary, political parties, and interest groups. The supporters of this approach includes both ancient and modern political philosophers. Among the ancient thinkers, Aristotle had significant role in shaping this approach while the modern thinkers include James Bryce, Bentley, Walter Bagehot, Harold Laski contributed to develop this approach.

Legal Approach

This approach concerns that the state is the fundamental organization for the formation and enforcement of laws. Therefore, this approach is concerned with the legal process, legal bodies or institutions, justice and independence of judiciary. The supporters of this approach are Cicero, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Dicey and Sir Henry Maine.

The various traditional approaches to the study of Political Science have been disapproved for being normative. These approaches were principled also as their concern went beyond how and why political events happen to what ought to happen. In the later period, the modern approaches have made an attempt to make the study of Political Science more scientific and, therefore, emphasize pragmatism.

Modern approaches

After studying politics with the help of traditional approaches, the political thinkers of the later stage felt the necessity to study politics from a new perspective. Thus, to minimize the deficiencies of the traditional approaches, various new approaches have been advocated by the new political thinkers. These new approaches are regarded as the “modern approaches” to the study of Political Science. Modern approaches are fact based approaches. They lay emphasis on factual study of political events and try to arrive at scientific and definite conclusion. The aim of modern approaches is to replace normativism with empiricism. Therefore modern approaches are marked by empirical investigation of relevant data.

Characteristics of Modern Approaches

1. These approaches try to draw conclusion from empirical data.
2. These approaches go beyond the study of political structures and its historical analysis.
3. Modern Approaches believe in inter-disciplinary study.
4. They emphasize scientific methods of study and attempt to draw scientific conclusions in Political Science.

Modern approaches include sociological approach, psychological approach, economic approach, quantitative approach, simulation approach, system approach, behavioural approach and Marxian approach (D. K. Sarmah, 2007).

Behavioural approach

Among the modern empirical approach, the behavioural approach, to study political science grabbed notable place. Most eminent exponents of this approach are David Etson, Robert, A. Dahl, E. M. Kirkpatrick, and Heinz Eulau. Behavioural approach is political theory which is the result of increasing attention given to behaviour of ordinary man. Theorist, Kirkpatrick stated that traditional approaches accepted institution as the basic unit of research but behavioural approach consider the behaviour of individual in political situation as the basis (K. Sarmah, 2007).

The behavioral perspective emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction against the traditional approach, emphasizing empirical and scientific methods in the study of political phenomena. It shifted the focus from normative questions to the behavior of individuals and groups within political systems. Behavioralists like David Easton, Gabriel Almond, and Robert Dahl emphasized the importance of observable, quantifiable data, and used techniques from psychology and sociology to analyze political behavior. This perspective expanded the scope of Political Science to include the study of political attitudes, voting patterns, public opinion, and other aspects of political behavior, making the discipline more interdisciplinary and scientific.

Salient Features of Behaviourism

David Easton has pointed out certain salient features of behaviouralism which are regarded as its intellectual foundations. These are:

Regularities: This approach believes that there are certain uniformities in political behaviour which can be expressed in generalizations or theories in order to explain and predict political phenomena. In a particular situation the Political behaviour of individuals may be more or less similar. Such regularities of behaviour may help the researcher to analyse a political situation as well as to predict the future political phenomena. Study of such regularities makes Political Science more scientific with some predictive value.

Verification: The behaviouralists do not want to accept everything as granted. Therefore, they emphasize testing and verifying everything. According to them, what cannot be verified is not scientific.

Techniques: The behaviouralists put emphasis on the use of those research tools and methods which generate valid, reliable and comparative data. A researcher must make use of sophisticated tools like sample surveys, mathematical models, simulation etc.

Quantification: After collecting data, the researcher should measure and quantify those data.

Values: The behaviouralists have put heavy emphasis on separation of facts from values. They believe that to do objective research one has to be value free. It means that the researcher should not have any pre-conceived notion or a biased view.

Systematization: According to the behaviouralists, research in Political Science must be systematic. Theory and research should go together.

Pure Science: Another characteristic of behaviouralism has been its aim to make Political Science a “pure science”. It believes that the study of Political Science should be verified by evidence.

Integration: According to the behaviouralists, Political Science should not be separated from various other social sciences like history, sociology and economics etc. This approach believes that political events are shaped by various other factors in the society and therefore, it would be wrong to separate Political Science from other disciplines.

It is recognized by theorists that with the development of behaviouralism, a new thinking and new technique of study were evolved in the field of Political Science.

Benefits of behavioural approach are as follows

1. This approach makes Political Science more scientific and brings it closer to the day to day life of the individuals.
2. Behaviouralism has first explained human behaviour into the field of Political Science and thus makes the study more relevant to the society.
3. This approach helps in predicting future political events.
4. The behavioural approach has been supported by different political thinkers as it is scientific approach and predictable nature of political events.

Despite of merits, the Behavioural approach has been criticised for its fascination for scienticism also. The main criticisms levelled against this approach are mentioned below:

1. This has been disparaged for its dependence on practices and methods ignoring the subject matter.
2. The supporters of this approach were wrong when they said that human beings behave in similar ways in similar circumstances.
3. This approach focus on human behaviour but it is a difficult task to study human behaviour and to get a definite result.
4. Most of the political phenomena are indeterminate. Therefore it is always difficult to use scientific methods in the study of Political Science.
5. Furthermore, the scholar being a human being is not always value neutral as believed by the behaviouralists.

Post behaviour approach

In the mid of 1960s, behaviourism gained a dominant position in the methodology of political science. Relevance and action were the main slogans of post behaviourism. In modern social science, behaviourism approach has shown increasing concern with problem solving of the prevailing problems of society. In this way, it is largely absorbed the post behavioural orientation within its scope (Gauba, 2009).

The post-behavioral perspective arose in response to criticisms of the behavioral approach, particularly its perceived overemphasis on empirical methods at the expense of normative concerns. Post-behavioralists argued for a synthesis of traditional and behavioral approaches, advocating for a Political Science that is both empirically rigorous and normatively relevant. Scholars like David Easton, who played a significant role in the behavioral revolution, later called for Political Science to address urgent societal issues and not just pursue abstract scientific knowledge. The post-behavioral perspective thus broadened the scope of the discipline to include a renewed focus on ethical questions, the relevance of research to real-world problems, and a more holistic understanding of political phenomena.

Distinction between behavioural and post behavioural approaches

System approach developed by David Easton (Source: Gauba, 2009)

The political system operates within an environment. The environment creates demands from different parts of the society such as demand for reservation in the matter of employment for certain groups, demand for better working conditions or minimum wages, demand for better transportation facilities, demand for better health facilities. Different demands have different levels of support. Easton stated that ‘demands’ and ‘supports’ establish ‘inputs.’ The political system receives theses inputs from the environment. After taking various factors into consideration, the government decides to take action on some of these demands while others are not acted upon. Through the conversion process, the inputs are converted into ‘outputs’ by the decision makers in the form of policies, decisions, rules, regulations and laws. The ‘outputs’ flow back into the environment through a ‘feedback’ mechanism, giving rise to fresh ‘demands.’ Consequently, it is a cyclical process.

Structural functional approach

According to this approach, society is considered as a single inter related system where each part of the system has a certain and dissimilar role. The structural-functional approach may be considered as an outgrowth of the system analysis. These approaches accentuate the structures and functions. Gabriel Almond is a follower of this approach. He explained political systems as a special system of interaction that exists in all societies performing certain functions. His theory revealed that the main characteristics of a political system are comprehensiveness, inter-dependence and existence of boundaries. Like Easton, Almond also considered that all political systems perform input and output functions. The Input functions of political systems are political socialization and recruitment, interest-articulation, interest-aggression and political communication. Almond made three-fold classifications of governmental output functions relating to policy making and implementation. These output functions are rule making, rule application and rule adjudication. Thus, Almond affirmed that a stable and efficient political system converts inputs into outputs.

Conclusion

The scope of Political Science has expanded significantly over time, from a focus on the state and normative issues in the traditional perspective to the empirical study of political behavior in the behavioral perspective, and finally to a more comprehensive approach in the post-behavioral perspective that seeks to combine empirical rigor with normative relevance. This evolution reflects the dynamic nature of the discipline and its ongoing effort to understand and address the complexities of political life.

POLITICAL THEORY

A ‘theory’ in general is proposed to explain certain phenomena or to provide some solution. Different theories may be proposed to explain why things happen the way they do. And a theory may be a single idea or collection of ideas.

However, political theory should not be treated as a mere extension of this general term. In our discipline, political theory suggests a particular approach to the subject. Political theory emphasizes the analytical study of ideas central to political thought. It tries to analyze the meaning of fundamental terms such as liberty, justice, state etc. and to understand the questions like – why should one obey the state?, how rewards should be distributed? etc. Thus, political theory naturally focuses on the study of ideas proposed by various classical scholars on these questions.

• Polity refers to an organization designed to regulate the entire community, involving rule-making, decision-taking, and authority over each member.
• The term ‘political’ denotes matters that are ‘public,’ serving the whole community, in contrast to private affairs or those applicable to a limited group.
• Wolin describes political institutions as uniquely concerned with what is ‘common’ to the whole community, addressing functions like national defense, internal order, justice, and economic regulation.
• Aristotle considered humans as naturally ‘political animals,’ emphasizing the natural inclination to live within a state for the benefit of all community members.
• ‘Polity,’ ‘politics,’ and ‘political’ derive from the Greek word ‘polis,’ reflecting the ancient Greek city-state model.
• In ancient Greek city-states, institutions and activities aimed at securing the ‘good life’ for the community were considered part of ‘polities.’
• In modern society, politics is more narrowly defined, distinguishing between public and private spheres of human life.
• The scope of politics today includes decisions of cabinets and parliaments, election campaigns, political party activities, and people’s movements for legal and policy changes.
• Matters like faith, worship, education, art, and culture are not typically considered part of politics unless regulation is needed for public order and safety.

• Political theory involves systematic knowledge of political phenomena.
• It deals with three types of statements: empirical (observation), logical (reasoning), and evaluative (value-judgment).
• Political science relies on empirical and logical statements, while logical positivism argues for a value-neutral approach.
• Political theory encompasses both political science and political philosophy.
• Values, determined through dialogue and understanding, are crucial for sound public policy.
• George Catlin identifies political theory’s components: political science (facts) and political philosophy (values).
• Andrew Hacker emphasizes the dual role of political scientists as scientists and philosophers.
• Political science describes and explains political realities, while political philosophy prescribes goals for citizens, states, and societies.
• Adequate knowledge of political science is essential for informed political philosophy.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

This term is closest to political theory. However, along with critical evaluation of the political beliefs, political philosophy is more concerned about clarifying and refining the concepts employed in political science. Thus, as Andre Heywood explains, ‘despite the best efforts of political philosophers to remain impartial and objective, they are inevitably concerned with justifying certain political viewpoints at the expense of others and with upholding a particular understanding of a concept rather than alternative ones’.

• Political science is sometimes seen as dealing with the ‘real,’ while political philosophy deals with the ‘ideal.’
• This view does not adequately define the scope of political philosophy.
• Political philosophy is characterized by its ‘critical’ function.
• Classical political philosophers set out ideal forms of society to criticize existing society and promote understanding.
• The fundamental purpose of philosophy is the critical evaluation of beliefs.
• Philosophy seeks justification, attempting to provide rational grounds for accepting or rejecting beliefs.
• Another function of political philosophy is the clarification of concepts.
• Concepts like society, authority, social class, justice, liberty, and democracy are general and vague.
• Clarification involves analysis (specifying elements through definition), synthesis (showing logical relationships), and improvement (recommending clearer definitions or uses).

POLITICAL SCIENCE

Science refers to the systematic study of a subject at hand. Simply put, political science is a broad term used to denote the study of political ideas, theories, philosophies, ideologies etc. The discipline which deals with political life and associated ideas.

However, a narrow interpretation of ‘political science’ is also possible. Science denotes hypotheses, experimentation, verification, evidence etc. By these, it claims to produce knowledge that is objective, universal and reliable. ‘Political science’ thus refers to the 20^th-century movement which sought to convert political science into a ‘pure science’. Led by David Easton, the experiment ultimately failed, and over a period of time, the term political science came to describe the entire discipline of the subject as discussed in the above para.

• Political science follows scientific method in its approach.
• Steps in scientific method include observation, generalization, explanation, and prediction/prescription.
• Observation relies on sense-experience and excludes supernatural or metaphysical causation.
• Generalization can be inductive (particular to general) or deductive (general to particular), expressed in a verifiable form.
• Explanation provides reasons for general rules, making correlations meaningful.
• Prediction and prescription use known facts and rules to anticipate outcomes and suggest measures.
• Behavioral approach focuses on studying the actual behavior of individuals in political situations.
• Formal political institutions are dissolved into systems and processes.
• Post-behavioral approach prioritizes human values and ends without compromising scientific methods.
• Calls for applying political science to overcome crises in various aspects of human life.

Political Ideology

Ideology is quite distinct from all the above terms. It denotes a set of ideas, a world view or a holistic system of thought. A grand theory whose purpose is often the mobilization of voters. An ideology is always associated with its proponents. As Karl Mannheim suggests, every ideology represents the interest of a particular class, e.g. liberalism, Marxism etc.

Is Political Science really a Science?

Introduction

Political Science, as a discipline, has been traditionally defined as the study of the state and government. However, over time, the scope and focus of Political Science have expanded significantly, leading to debates about whether it is more accurately described as a study of the state and government or as a study of power. This question is crucial because it touches on the very nature and purpose of Political Science, influencing how the discipline is understood, taught, and applied in real-world contexts. In this detailed exploration, we will examine both perspectives—the traditional view that Political Science is the study of the state and government, and the more contemporary view that it is a study of power. By doing so, we will gain a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of the discipline and its current scope.

Traditional View: Political Science as the Study of State and Government

• The traditional definition of Political Science as the study of the state and government has its roots in the works of classical political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. This perspective views Political Science as primarily concerned with the organization, functions, and authority of the state, as well as the structures and processes of government. It involves the study of constitutions, legal systems, the roles of different branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), and the relationship between the state and its citizens.

• Focus on the State: In this view, the state is seen as the central actor in political life. The state is defined as a political entity with sovereignty over a specific territory and population, and it possesses the authority to make and enforce laws. Political Science, therefore, involves the study of how states are formed, how they function, and how they maintain order and legitimacy. It also examines the relationship between different states in the international system, focusing on diplomacy, war, and international law.

• Focus on Government: Alongside the study of the state, traditional Political Science also places significant emphasis on the study of government—the institutions and processes through which political power is exercised. This includes the examination of different forms of government (democracy, monarchy, authoritarianism, etc.), the role of political parties, electoral systems, public administration, and policy-making processes. The aim is to understand how governments are structured, how they operate, and how they affect the lives of citizens.

• Normative Concerns: The traditional view also involves a strong normative component, concerned with questions of justice, rights, and the ideal forms of government. Classical political philosophers were not only interested in describing political systems but also in prescribing the best ways to organize political life. For example, Aristotle’s “Politics” is a normative exploration of the best forms of government, while Plato’s “Republic” discusses the concept of justice and the ideal state.

Contemporary View: Political Science as the Study of Power

• While the traditional view of Political Science as the study of the state and government remains important, the discipline has undergone significant changes, especially in the 20th century. One of the most important shifts has been the emergence of the idea that Political Science is fundamentally a study of power. This perspective was influenced by various intellectual developments, including the rise of behavioralism, the influence of sociology and psychology, and the increasing focus on empirical research.

• Definition of Power: In the context of Political Science, power is generally understood as the ability of individuals or groups to influence or control the behavior of others, often in the context of political decision-making. Power can be exercised in various forms—through coercion, persuasion, authority, or manipulation. The study of power involves examining who has power, how it is acquired and maintained, how it is distributed within society, and how it influences political outcomes.

• Focus on Power Relations: The study of power broadens the scope of Political Science beyond the formal institutions of the state and government to include a wider range of actors and processes. It involves analyzing the power dynamics between different social groups, political parties, interest groups, and individuals. It also includes the study of informal power structures, such as the influence of media, corporations, and non-governmental organizations, as well as the power relations within families, communities, and other social institutions.

• Behavioralism and Empirical Research: The behavioral revolution in Political Science, which began in the mid-20th century, played a significant role in shifting the focus of the discipline toward the study of power. Behavioralists argued that Political Science should be more scientific and empirical, focusing on the actual behavior of political actors rather than abstract philosophical concepts. This led to an emphasis on the study of political behavior, public opinion, voting patterns, and other aspects of power dynamics that could be observed, measured, and analyzed using scientific methods.

• Critical and Post-Structuralist Approaches: In recent decades, critical and post-structuralist approaches to Political Science have further emphasized the study of power. These approaches challenge traditional notions of power and authority, questioning the legitimacy of established political institutions and norms. Scholars like Michel Foucault have argued that power is not just concentrated in the state or government but is dispersed throughout society, operating through various discourses, practices, and institutions. This has led to a more nuanced and complex understanding of power, which includes the study of how power shapes knowledge, identities, and social relations.

Synthesis: An Integrated Perspective

• While the debate between viewing Political Science as a study of the state and government versus a study of power is ongoing, many scholars argue for an integrated perspective that incorporates both views. This approach recognizes that Political Science cannot be fully understood by focusing exclusively on either the state and government or power alone. Instead, it should encompass both the formal institutions of the state and government and the broader power dynamics that shape political life.

• Interdependence of State, Government, and Power: The state and government are central to the exercise of power, but they are also influenced by the distribution and dynamics of power within society. For example, the structure and functioning of governments are often shaped by the power relations between different political parties, interest groups, and social classes. Similarly, the authority of the state is dependent on its ability to wield power effectively, whether through coercion, persuasion, or the provision of public goods.

• Normative and Empirical Dimensions: An integrated perspective also acknowledges the importance of both normative and empirical dimensions of Political Science. While the study of power involves empirical analysis of how power is exercised and distributed, the study of the state and government often involves normative questions about how power should be exercised and the role of the state in promoting justice and the common good. By combining these approaches, Political Science can provide a more comprehensive understanding of political life, addressing both what is and what ought to be.

Conclusion

• Political Science is a multifaceted discipline that can be understood as both the study of the state and government and the study of power. The traditional view, which focuses on the state and government, remains important for understanding the formal structures and processes that shape political life. However, the contemporary view, which emphasizes the study of power, provides a broader and more dynamic perspective that captures the complexities of political behavior, social relations, and informal power structures. By integrating these perspectives, Political Science can offer a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of political life, addressing both the normative ideals and empirical realities of politics. This integrated approach reflects the evolving nature of the discipline and its ongoing efforts to grapple with the fundamental questions of power, authority, justice, and governance in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of power is the key to understand and analyse politics, political institutions and political movements of the systemic process, both in the national and international arena. It is the centre of political theory. H.D.Lasswell and A. Kaplan declared, “ The concept of power is perhaps the most fundamental in the whole of political science: the political process is the shaping, dissolution and exercise of power.” It is the concept of power that political science is primarily concerned with. Thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes advocated the study of power as the central theme of politics. Hobbes wrote: “ There is a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceased only in death.” A few decades ago, Frederick Watkins suggested, “The proper scope of political science is not the study of the state or of any other specific institutional complex, but the investigations of all associations insofar as they can be shown to exemplify the problem of power.” Perhaps this view was further strengthened by William A. Robson when he suggested, “ It is with power in society that political science is primarily concerned – its nature, basis, processes, scope and results. The focus of interest of the political scientist is clear and unambiguous; it centers on the struggle to gain or retain power, to exercise power or influence over others, or to resist that exercise.”

While studying the concept of power and its various manifestations in the systemic processes, one is reminded of what Joan Woodward said in his pioneering work, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. He said, “It seems that the sociologist cannot win in his attempts to establish a rigorous experimental framework for his research.” It has, on the whole, been indeed a complex process of multi-dimensional character to analyse the operational structures of power, both as a central theme of social order and also as a factor of motivation of ambitious men, whether one looks at Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia.

Before we discuss about the various conceptual dimensions of power, it is desirable that students of politics ought to have some basic understanding of the concept of power. Let us see what Andrew Heywood in his work on Political Theory: An Introduction (Palgrave, 1997, P. 122) had to say in his introductory remarks on the concept of power:

All politics is about power. The practice of politics is often portrayed as little more than the exercise of power and the academic subject is, in essence, the study of power. Without doubt, students of politics are students of power: they seek to know who has it, how it is used and on what basis it is exercised. Such concerns are particularly apparent in deep and recurrent disagreements about the distribution of power within modern society. Is power distributed widely and evenly dispersed, or is it concentrated in the hands of the few, a ‘power elite’ or ‘ruling class’? Are powers essentially benign, enabling people to achieve their collective goals, or is it a form of oppression or domination? Such questions are, however, bedeviled by the difficult task of defining power; because power is so central to the understanding of politics, fierce controversy has surrounded its meaning. Some have gone as far as to suggest that there is no single, agreed concept of power but rather a number of competing concepts or theories.

Moreover, the notion that power is a form of domination or control that forces one person to obey another, runs into the problem that in political life power is very commonly exercised through the acceptance and willing obedience of the public. Those ‘in power’ do not merely possess the ability to enforce compliance, but are usually thought to have the right to do so as well. This highlights the distinction between power and authority. What is it, however, that transforms power into authority, and on what basis can authority be rightfully exercised? This leads, finally, to the question about legitimacy, the perception that power is exercised in a manner that is rightful, justified or acceptable. Legitimacy is usually seen as the basis of stable government, being linked to the capacity of a regime to command the allegiance and support of its citizens. All governments seek legitimacy, but on what basis do they gain it, and what happens when their legitimacy is called into question?

The annals of international history are a testimony to the study of struggle for power. Power as a model of analysis has been explained and explored by various social and political scientists since the time of Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. One could perhaps agree with the view that the Federalists, Pareto and Mosca are power theorists. This line of thought has further been advanced by George Catlin, Charles Merriam, Bertrand Russell, Harold Lasswell, and many others. With the onset of liberalizsation and the globalisation of economy, the whole area of empirical study of power has become a special sort of social theory.

MEANING OF POWER

EMPIRICAL STUDY OF POWER

It has never been an easy task to study and analyse the concept of power empirically. As Maurice Cowling, in his pioneering work, The Nature and Limits of Political Science (1963), says that there are real difficulties about access to the centres of power in modern society, even in a democracy. It may be easier to “discover the truth about contemporary power than to publish it; the difficulties are greatest for those who have been participants”.

Kornhauser has tried to analyse the difficulties involved in the methodologies to understand the various centres of power in a political system in the article, “Power relationships and the Role of the Social Scientists” in his edited book, Problems of Power in American Democracy (1957). According to him, these difficulties could be somewhat expressed in the form of questions such as, “What social scientist are you?”, “What parts of society want what types of knowledge, to be used by whom, towards what end?”. It is not possible to have compatible doctrines and models regarding methods and objectives in studying power. These difficulties have been beautifully presented in theoretical works of political scientists like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, T.D.Weldon, Oakeshott, Butterfield, E.H.Carr and the like.

In any discussion of power, one has to keep in mind that most of the studies on power by eminent researchers are simply reflections of simplified versions of politics outside their time; these are not the presentations of the real politics of their contemporary society and time. An objective bias in the selection of small subjects having limited ramifications could well lead to methodological conclusions that may not be true in case of the ‘great society’. In the preface to his well-known work on power studies, Who Governs?, Robert Dahl said, “Many problems that are almost unyielding over a large area can be relatively easily disposed of on this smaller canvas. It is not, perhaps, wholly accidental that the two political theorists who did the most to develop a descriptive political science were Aristotle and Machiavelli, who, though separated by eighteen centuries, both witnessed politics on the smaller, more human scale of the city-state.”

CONCEPTS OF POWER

Power is normally understood as the possession of control, authority, or influence over others, a relationship in which an individual or a group is able to exert influence over the minds and actions of others. According to Arnold Woofers, it is defined as the ability “to move others or to get them to do what one wants them to do and not to do, what one does not want them to do.” Authority is closely connected with power. It might take various forms such as political, economic and ideological. One might say that concepts like morality, ethics, religion, customs and traditions may operate as limitation on power. Politics as ‘authoritative allocation of values’ is deeply interlinked with power and authority.

Most of the researchers who analyse the concept of power often start with two propositions: that in any polity some people have more powers than others, and that power is an object of desire, a ‘utility’. Power is understandably associated with honour, deference, respect and dignity. One has, of course, to distinguish the power of the man from the power of the office that guarantees authority and legitimacy

One has also to be careful about the distinction between apparent and real power. While analysing various dimensions of power, Maslow prefers to talk about the psycho –pathology of ambition as well as mental framework of some men. He says, “ Their jungle philosophy (that of authoritarians) does not change even when they grow up and come out of the jungle. It resists new facts. It is sick because it reacts to an outgrown past, rather than to the real present.” These persons are psychologically perverted ones because what they run after is nothing but an illusion. Maslow concludes that “Of course for those who actually live in a junglelike world – and there are plenty who do so today – a jungle philosophy is realistic and reasonable.”

Political Science is a study of Power?

Introduction

Political Science is a broad discipline that encompasses various subfields, each focusing on different aspects of political life. Two of the most important subfields are Political Philosophy and Comparative Politics. While Political Philosophy is concerned with normative questions about justice, rights, and the ideal forms of political organization, Comparative Politics focuses on the empirical study of political systems, institutions, and processes across different countries. In this detailed discussion, we will explore the subject matter of both Political Philosophy and Comparative Politics, highlighting their key concerns, methodologies, and contributions to the broader field of Political Science.

Political Philosophy: Normative Inquiry into Politics

• Political Philosophy is one of the oldest and most foundational subfields of Political Science. It involves the study of fundamental questions about politics, such as the nature of justice, the legitimacy of authority, the rights and duties of citizens, and the best forms of government. Political Philosophy is concerned with normative issues, meaning it deals with questions about what ought to be rather than what is. This distinguishes it from empirical subfields like Comparative Politics, which focus on observable phenomena.

Key Themes and Questions

• Justice: One of the central themes of Political Philosophy is justice. Philosophers have long debated what constitutes a just society and how justice can be achieved. For example, Plato’s Republic explores the idea of justice as harmony within the state and the soul, while John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice introduces the concept of justice as fairness, emphasizing principles of equality and the distribution of resources. The study of justice involves examining how laws, policies, and social institutions should be structured to ensure fairness and the protection of individual rights.

• Liberty and Rights: Another important area of inquiry in Political Philosophy is the nature and scope of individual liberty and rights. Philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill have contributed to debates about the extent to which individuals should be free to pursue their own interests and the role of the state in protecting or limiting these freedoms. This includes discussions about civil liberties, political rights, property rights, and the relationship between individual freedom and social order.

• Authority and Legitimacy: Political Philosophy also addresses questions about the nature of political authority and the legitimacy of governments. What gives a government the right to rule? Under what conditions is political authority justified? These questions are central to the works of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, who argued for a strong central authority to prevent chaos and anarchy, and John Locke, who emphasized the importance of consent and the protection of natural rights. The study of authority and legitimacy involves exploring the moral foundations of political power and the conditions under which it is acceptable for individuals to obey or resist authority.

• Democracy and Governance: The ideal form of government has been a perennial question in Political Philosophy. Philosophers have debated the merits and drawbacks of different forms of governance, including democracy, monarchy, aristocracy, and oligarchy. For instance, Aristotle’s Politics categorizes different types of government and discusses their strengths and weaknesses, while modern philosophers like John Dewey and Jürgen Habermas have focused on the principles and practices that make democracy the most legitimate and effective form of government. The study of democracy in Political Philosophy involves both normative questions about the values that should underpin democratic governance and practical questions about how democratic institutions should be designed and function.

• Ethics and Political Obligation: Political Philosophy also delves into the ethical dimensions of politics, including questions about political obligation, or why individuals should obey the law. This includes examining the moral duties of citizens, the ethical conduct of political leaders, and the responsibilities of states to their citizens and the international community. Theories of political obligation, such as social contract theory, utilitarianism, and communitarianism, offer different perspectives on the moral basis of political life.

Methodologies in Political Philosophy

• Political Philosophy primarily relies on normative analysis, which involves critical examination and evaluation of political concepts, principles, and arguments. Philosophers engage in logical reasoning, conceptual analysis, and the construction of theoretical models to explore and justify political ideas. Unlike empirical subfields, Political Philosophy does not rely on data collection or statistical analysis; instead, it seeks to clarify and articulate the underlying principles that should guide political life.

• Analytic Method: The analytic method is a common approach in Political Philosophy, involving the careful examination of political concepts and arguments. Philosophers use this method to identify logical inconsistencies, clarify meanings, and construct coherent theories. For example, John Rawls uses the analytic method to develop his theory of justice, systematically analyzing the principles of justice and their implications for political institutions.

• Dialectical Method: The dialectical method, rooted in the works of Socrates and Hegel, involves the exploration of political ideas through dialogue and the synthesis of opposing viewpoints. This method is often used to resolve conflicts between different political theories or to develop more comprehensive and nuanced understandings of political concepts. For instance, Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism uses this method to analyze the contradictions within capitalist societies and to propose a revolutionary alternative.

• Thought Experiments: Political philosophers frequently use thought experiments to explore hypothetical scenarios and test the implications of political theories. Thought experiments allow philosophers to consider the consequences of different political arrangements or principles in a controlled, imaginative context. For example, John Rawls’ “original position” thought experiment is used to justify the principles of justice by imagining a situation in which individuals choose the rules of society without knowing their own social status.

Comparative Politics: Empirical Analysis of Political Systems

• Comparative Politics is a subfield of Political Science that focuses on the empirical study of political systems, institutions, processes, and behaviors across different countries. Unlike Political Philosophy, which is concerned with normative questions, Comparative Politics is primarily an empirical discipline, aiming to describe, explain, and compare political phenomena. The subject matter of Comparative Politics is vast, encompassing a wide range of topics, including democratization, political parties, electoral systems, state-building, and governance.

Key Themes and Questions

• Political Systems and Regimes: One of the central concerns of Comparative Politics is the study of different political systems and regimes, including democracies, authoritarian regimes, and hybrid systems. Comparative Politics seeks to understand how different political systems are structured, how they function, and what factors contribute to their stability or collapse. For example, scholars may compare the political institutions and processes of democratic countries like the United States and India with those of authoritarian regimes like China or Russia, analyzing the factors that influence regime type and durability.

• Democratization and Democratic Consolidation: The process of democratization—how countries transition from authoritarian rule to democracy—is a major area of study in Comparative Politics. Scholars examine the conditions that lead to democratization, such as economic development, social movements, international pressure, and elite negotiations. They also study democratic consolidation, which involves the deepening and stabilization of democratic institutions and norms in newly established democracies. For instance, the transitions to democracy in Latin America and Eastern Europe in the late 20th century are often studied to understand the dynamics of democratization.

• Political Institutions and Governance: Comparative Politics is also concerned with the study of political institutions, such as constitutions, electoral systems, political parties, and legislatures, and how they shape governance outcomes. Scholars compare different institutional arrangements to assess their impact on political stability, representation, accountability, and policy effectiveness. For example, the comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems reveals differences in executive-legislative relations, the concentration of power, and the likelihood of political deadlock.

• Political Culture and Socialization: Another important area of study in Comparative Politics is political culture, which refers to the values, beliefs, and attitudes that shape political behavior and institutions. Comparative Politics examines how political culture varies across countries and how it influences political participation, legitimacy, and stability. Scholars also study political socialization, the process by which individuals acquire their political beliefs and values, and how this process differs in different cultural and institutional contexts.

• Conflict and Violence: Comparative Politics also addresses issues of political conflict and violence, including civil wars, revolutions, ethnic conflicts, and terrorism. Scholars seek to understand the causes of political violence, the factors that escalate or deescalate conflicts, and the effectiveness of different strategies for conflict resolution. For example, the study of civil wars in Africa and the Middle East often focuses on the role of ethnic divisions, resource competition, and state weakness in fueling violent conflicts.

• Globalization and Political Economy: In an increasingly interconnected world, Comparative Politics also examines the impact of globalization on political systems and economies. This includes the study of how global economic forces, such as trade, investment, and international institutions, affect domestic politics, as well as how countries respond to global challenges like climate change, migration, and inequality. Comparative Political Economy, a subfield within Comparative Politics, focuses on the relationship between political and economic systems, comparing different models of capitalism, welfare states, and development strategies.

Methodologies in Comparative Politics

• Comparative Politics is characterized by its use of empirical research methods to analyze political phenomena across different countries and regions. The comparative method, which involves comparing political systems, institutions, or processes to identify patterns, similarities, and differences, is central to this subfield. Other methodologies used in Comparative Politics include case studies, statistical analysis, and field research.

• Comparative Method: The comparative method involves systematically comparing political systems or institutions to identify causal relationships and generalizable patterns. This method can be used in both small-N comparisons (comparing a few cases in depth) and large-N comparisons (comparing many cases using statistical techniques). For example, scholars may compare the political development of countries in Southeast Asia to identify factors that contribute to successful democratization or state-building.

• Case Studies: Case studies are an important methodological tool in Comparative Politics, allowing for in-depth analysis of a single country, event, or institution. Case studies can provide rich, contextual insights into complex political phenomena and are often used to develop or test theories. For instance, the study of the French Revolution as a case of revolutionary change helps scholars understand the dynamics of social movements, state collapse, and regime change.

• Statistical Analysis: Comparative Politics also employs quantitative methods, such as statistical analysis, to test hypotheses and identify correlations between variables across a large number of cases. Statistical techniques are used to analyze data on political behavior, institutions, and outcomes, allowing scholars to make generalizations about political phenomena. For example, regression analysis may be used to examine the relationship between economic development and democratic stability across a large sample of countries.

• Field Research: Field research involves the collection of primary data through interviews, surveys, participant observation, and archival research. Field research is particularly valuable in Comparative Politics for studying political phenomena in diverse cultural and institutional contexts. For example, scholars conducting field research in post-conflict societies may gather data on local governance practices, social trust, and reconciliation efforts.

Conclusion

Political Philosophy and Comparative Politics represent two distinct but complementary subfields of Political Science, each contributing to our understanding of politics in different ways. Political Philosophy provides the normative foundations for thinking about justice, authority, rights, and the ideal forms of government, offering a critical lens through which to evaluate political institutions and practices. Comparative Politics, on the other hand, offers an empirical analysis of political systems, institutions, and processes across different countries, allowing us to understand the diversity of political life and the factors that influence political outcomes.

Introduction

Political Science is a multifaceted discipline that encompasses the study of various aspects of political life, including governments, institutions, behavior, ideologies, and policies. One of the central frameworks within which Political Science operates is the study of political systems. The concept of a political system provides a comprehensive lens through which scholars analyze the structure, processes, and functions of political life. This approach offers insights into how different components of the political sphere interact to produce governance, maintain stability, and address collective issues. In this detailed discussion, we will explore the study of Political Science as a study of political systems, examining the concept of a political system, its components, types, functions, and the various methodologies used to study it.

The Concept of a Political System

• A political system can be understood as the set of formal and informal institutions, structures, processes, and norms that together define the way power is acquired, exercised, and regulated within a society. It encompasses not only the government and its institutions but also the broader social, economic, and cultural context within which political interactions occur. The political system serves as a framework for understanding how political power is distributed, how decisions are made, how policies are implemented, and how conflicts are managed.

• The study of political systems is inherently holistic, recognizing that political life cannot be understood in isolation from the broader social system. This approach was popularized by political scientists such as David Easton, who defined a political system as “the authoritative allocation of values” within a society. Easton’s systems theory posits that political systems can be analyzed in terms of inputs (demands and supports), outputs (policies and decisions), and feedback loops that link these elements in a dynamic process of interaction.

Components of a Political System

• Institutions: The core institutions of a political system include the government (executive, legislature, and judiciary), political parties, interest groups, and bureaucracies. These institutions are responsible for making and implementing decisions, representing the interests of different groups, and ensuring the rule of law. The study of political institutions involves analyzing their structure, functions, and interactions, as well as how they influence and are influenced by other elements of the political system.

• Processes: Political processes refer to the mechanisms through which political decisions are made and implemented. This includes electoral processes, legislative procedures, policy formulation and implementation, and mechanisms of accountability and oversight. The study of political processes involves understanding how decisions are made, who participates in decision-making, and what factors influence the outcomes of political processes.

• Actors: A political system includes a wide range of actors, from political leaders and government officials to ordinary citizens, interest groups, and international organizations. These actors interact within the political system to pursue their interests, influence decisions, and shape the direction of governance. The study of political actors involves examining their roles, strategies, and impact on the political system, as well as the relationships between different actors within the system.

• Culture and Norms: Political culture and norms are the values, beliefs, and attitudes that shape political behavior and institutions within a society. These cultural elements influence how political power is perceived, how authority is legitimized, and how citizens engage with the political system. The study of political culture involves analyzing how cultural factors influence political stability, participation, and change, as well as how they interact with formal institutions and processes.

Types of Political Systems

• Political systems can be classified into different types based on various criteria, including the form of government, the nature of political authority, and the level of participation and representation.

• Democratic Systems: In democratic systems, political power is derived from the consent of the governed, typically through free and fair elections. Democratic systems are characterized by political pluralism, rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights. The study of democratic systems involves analyzing the functioning of democratic institutions, the quality of governance, the role of political parties and civil society, and the challenges of democratic consolidation and stability.

• Authoritarian Systems: Authoritarian systems are characterized by the concentration of political power in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, with limited political pluralism, constrained civil liberties, and restricted political participation. The study of authoritarian systems involves examining the mechanisms of control and repression, the role of ideology and propaganda, the structure of elite power, and the factors that sustain or undermine authoritarian rule.

• Totalitarian Systems: Totalitarian systems represent an extreme form of authoritarianism, where the state seeks to control all aspects of public and private life, often through an ideology that justifies total control. These systems are marked by a single-party rule, a dominant leader, a pervasive propaganda machine, and widespread use of coercion and surveillance. The study of totalitarian systems involves analyzing the dynamics of totalitarian control, the role of ideology, the methods of social and political indoctrination, and the factors that lead to the rise and fall of totalitarian regimes.

• Hybrid Systems: Hybrid systems, also known as semi-authoritarian or semi-democratic systems, exhibit characteristics of both democracy and authoritarianism. These systems may have formal democratic institutions, such as elections and a constitution, but in practice, political power is concentrated, and political freedoms are restricted. The study of hybrid systems involves exploring the coexistence of democratic and authoritarian elements, the dynamics of political competition and control, and the challenges of democratization or authoritarian entrenchment.

Functions of a Political System

• A political system performs several key functions that are essential for the stability and development of a society. These functions include maintaining order, managing conflicts, allocating resources, protecting rights, and representing interests.

• Maintaining Order and Stability: One of the primary functions of a political system is to maintain social order and political stability. This involves establishing and enforcing laws, protecting citizens from internal and external threats, and ensuring the smooth functioning of political institutions. The study of how political systems maintain order involves analyzing the role of the state, the effectiveness of law enforcement, and the impact of political culture and social norms on stability.

• Managing Conflicts: Political systems are responsible for managing and resolving conflicts that arise within society. This includes conflicts over resources, power, identity, and values. Political systems manage conflicts through various mechanisms, such as negotiation, compromise, legal adjudication, and the use of force. The study of conflict management involves examining the processes and institutions that facilitate peaceful conflict resolution, as well as the factors that lead to political violence or civil unrest.

• Allocating Resources and Making Policies: A key function of a political system is to allocate resources and make policies that address the needs and demands of society. This involves deciding how resources are distributed, who benefits from public goods and services, and how economic and social policies are formulated and implemented. The study of resource allocation and policy-making involves analyzing the role of political institutions, interest groups, and public opinion in shaping policy decisions, as well as the outcomes of these decisions on society.

• Protecting Rights and Liberties: Political systems are also responsible for protecting the rights and liberties of citizens. This includes ensuring the rule of law, safeguarding individual freedoms, and upholding justice. The study of how political systems protect rights involves examining the legal and institutional frameworks that guarantee civil liberties, the role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing rights, and the challenges of balancing security and freedom in different political contexts.

• Representing Interests and Facilitating Participation: Another important function of a political system is to represent the diverse interests of society and facilitate political participation. This includes ensuring that different groups and individuals have a voice in the political process, through mechanisms such as elections, political parties, interest groups, and civil society organizations. The study of representation and participation involves analyzing the effectiveness of democratic institutions, the inclusiveness of political processes, and the impact of political participation on governance and policy outcomes.

Methodologies in the Study of Political Systems

• The study of political systems employs a variety of methodologies, ranging from qualitative analysis to quantitative research. These methodologies are used to analyze the structure, functions, and dynamics of political systems, as well as to compare different systems across time and space.

• Comparative Method: The comparative method is central to the study of political systems. It involves comparing different political systems to identify patterns, similarities, and differences. Comparative analysis can be used to test theories, generate hypotheses, and develop generalizable insights about political systems. For example, scholars may compare the political systems of democratic and authoritarian countries to understand the factors that contribute to democratic stability or authoritarian resilience.

• Case Studies: Case studies are an important tool for studying political systems in depth. A case study may focus on a single country, institution, or political event, providing detailed insights into the functioning of a particular political system. Case studies can be used to explore the unique characteristics of a political system, to test theories in a specific context, or to generate new hypotheses for further research.

• Historical Analysis: Historical analysis is used to study the development and evolution of political systems over time. This methodology involves examining historical events, processes, and institutions to understand how political systems have changed and adapted to different challenges. Historical analysis can provide insights into the origins of political systems, the impact of historical legacies on contemporary politics, and the long-term trends in political development.

• Quantitative Analysis: Quantitative analysis involves the use of statistical methods to study political systems. This approach is often used to test hypotheses, identify correlations, and make predictions about political phenomena. For example, scholars may use quantitative analysis to study the relationship between economic development and political stability, or to analyze voting patterns and electoral outcomes across different political systems.

• Systems Theory: Systems theory, as developed by David Easton and others, provides a framework for understanding political systems as dynamic, interconnected systems of inputs, outputs, and feedback loops. Systems theory emphasizes the importance of understanding how different components of the political system interact and how the system responds to changes in the environment. This approach is particularly useful for studying the stability, adaptability, and resilience of political systems.

Conclusion

The study of Political Science as a study of political systems offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the complexity and diversity of political life. By analyzing the structure, functions, and dynamics of political systems, scholars gain insights into how political power is organized, how decisions are made, and how societies are governed. The study of political systems encompasses a wide range of institutions, processes, actors, and cultural factors, and employs diverse methodologies to explore the interactions and outcomes of political life. Whether through the comparative analysis of different political systems, the in-depth examination of specific cases, or the application of systems theory, the study of political systems is essential for understanding the challenges and opportunities of governance in the modern world.

Introduction

The sociological approach to the study of Political Science represents a significant perspective within the discipline, focusing on the relationship between society and politics. This approach explores how social structures, cultural norms, group dynamics, and social institutions influence political behavior, institutions, and outcomes. It emphasizes that politics cannot be fully understood in isolation from the broader social context in which it operates. In this detailed analysis, we will critically examine the sociological approach to Political Science, exploring its key concepts, contributions, strengths, and limitations.

The Sociological Approach: Key Concepts and Foundations

• Interdependence of Society and Politics: The sociological approach posits that politics is deeply intertwined with society, meaning that political institutions and behavior are both shaped by and shape the social environment. This approach draws on the broader discipline of sociology, which studies social structures, roles, norms, and group interactions, to understand political phenomena.

• Socialization and Political Culture: One of the foundational concepts in the sociological approach is political socialization, the process through which individuals acquire political beliefs, values, and behaviors. Political socialization occurs through various agents, including family, education, media, peer groups, and religious institutions. The sociological approach also examines political culture, the set of shared attitudes, beliefs, and values that define the political identity of a society. Political culture is seen as a product of historical, social, and cultural processes, and it plays a crucial role in shaping political behavior and institutions.

• Social Stratification and Power Dynamics: The sociological approach emphasizes the role of social stratification—class, race, gender, and other forms of social hierarchy—in shaping political power and influence. It argues that political power is often concentrated in the hands of dominant social groups, and that the distribution of political power reflects broader patterns of social inequality. This perspective leads to an analysis of how different social groups mobilize, compete, and negotiate power within the political system.

• Interest Groups and Collective Action: Another key focus of the sociological approach is the study of interest groups and collective action. Sociologists study how social groups with shared interests organize to influence political decision-making. This includes analyzing the formation, strategies, and impact of interest groups, social movements, and other forms of collective action on the political process.

Contributions of the Sociological Approach

• Holistic Understanding of Politics: The sociological approach contributes to a more holistic understanding of politics by integrating social, cultural, and economic factors into the analysis of political phenomena. It challenges the notion that politics can be understood solely in terms of formal institutions and processes, emphasizing instead the importance of understanding the social context in which politics occurs.

• Focus on Political Socialization and Culture: By emphasizing political socialization and culture, the sociological approach helps explain why political behavior and institutions vary across different societies and historical periods. This approach highlights the importance of understanding the role of values, norms, and beliefs in shaping political life, offering insights into the persistence or change of political systems.

• Analysis of Social Inequality and Power: The sociological approach provides a critical lens for analyzing how social inequality affects political power and participation. It brings attention to issues of social justice, marginalization, and the role of social movements in challenging existing power structures. This perspective is particularly valuable for understanding the dynamics of political change and resistance.

• Understanding Political Behavior: The sociological approach offers important insights into political behavior, including voting patterns, political participation, and the formation of political opinions. By examining the social factors that influence political behavior, this approach helps explain why individuals and groups behave differently in the political arena, and how these behaviors are linked to broader social trends.

Relationship between Sociology and Political Science

Sociology and political science are closely related to each other in many respects. It is said that the disciplines of sociology and political science are closely interwoven in their analysis of power, authority structures, administration and governance (Lipset 1964). Similarities between sociology and political science are many. Firstly, political science relies heavily upon sociology for its basic theories and methods. For example in mid 20th century Michigen social psychologists and Parsonians at Harward significantly shaped political science agendas in political behaviour and political development respectively. Secondly, focal specialities in both the discipline borrowed from similar third party disciplines such as economics, history, anthropology and psychology. Thirdly, a large number of scholars such as Marx, Weber, Gramsci, Pareto, Parsons and Mosca, etc. equally have contributed to the growth and development of both the disciplines.

In the same vein, Harol Lasswell’s treatise, ‘Politics: Who Gets what, When and How’ (1936) was an important work from which both sociologist and political scientist get inspired and take lead to work in an interdisciplinary framework (Lipset 1964) . It may be noted that given the changing societal need and aspirations in contemporary globalised world an interdisciplinary approach is necessary to understand social problems and find answers to the problems of modern society.

Sociology is often defined as scientific study of society. We may also note that society is nothing but a complex network of various groups, institutions, communities, associations, people and their everyday life activities. Politics and power dynamics forms integral to all of these conceptions of human lives. Notably, polity or political formations has always been the essential components of any human society. In modern times, no society can be imagined without polity, political institutions or, so to say, any form of political life. State and governance are basic to any society both in terms of its function, development and meeting essential needs of social life such as law and order, security and development. Sociology too essentially reflect on status of social world with a focus on social issues and on the condition of human society, the network of social relationships in an increasingly globalised interconnected world, the growing variety of political traditions, caste and politics, ethnicity, cultural background, economic conditions and linguistic affiliations. Sociology examines various aspects of political behaviour with special focus on their social implications. This in fact indicates deeper intersection between sociology and political science. However both the disciplines differ in their approach. Political scientists investigate into rise, fall and changes of governments and their leaders whereas sociologists see governments as social institutions, political behaviour as outcome of social dynamics and leadership as social phenomena having multifarious implications for social developments.

Both sociology and political science intersect at multitude of points and provide a broader analysis of the social reality. Thus, the similarities, between the two, are well appreciated by scholars. However, both the disciplines have differences too which also need to be critically assessed. Sociologist most importantly talk of interaction system, be it within groups, institutions or organisations, whereas political science talk about control mechanism within such groups or organisations. Hence, the frame of reference or perspectives of sociology and political science differ. The former primarily concerned about interactionist views, whereas later focuses on power structure, order and control mechanisms. Scholars argued that when sociological perspective of interaction system is applied to the analysis of political phenomena it tends to become political sociology

According to Jain and Doshi (1974), when vocabulary of political science is translated into the vocabulary of sociological analysis it is then what we call political sociology. It is in this sense that we can say that Almond Coleman’s The Politics of Developing Areas (1960) and Rajni Kothari’s Politics in India (1970) are earlier examples of growing political Sociology. Resultantly, political sociology which is basically an outcome of intersection between sociology and political science, is relatively a newer branch of sociology, studies various political intuitions, associations, organisations, interest groups and multitude of power dynamics in society. Political sociology, which we would elaborate in the subsequent section in this unit, also studies interest groups, political parties, administrative and bureaucratic behaviour, social legislations, state policies, reforms and political ideologies as its areas of the study.

Criticisms and Limitations

• Overemphasis on Social Determinism: One of the primary criticisms of the sociological approach is its tendency towards social determinism—the idea that political behavior and institutions are primarily determined by social structures and cultural norms. Critics argue that this perspective can underplay the role of individual agency, political leadership, and institutional autonomy in shaping political outcomes. By focusing too heavily on social factors, the sociological approach may overlook the importance of political institutions, ideologies, and strategic decision-making.

• Neglect of Institutional Analysis: While the sociological approach offers valuable insights into the social context of politics, it has been criticized for neglecting the analysis of political institutions and formal political processes. Political scientists argue that institutions such as the state, government, and legal systems have their own dynamics and logics that cannot be fully explained by social factors alone. The failure to adequately address institutional analysis can lead to an incomplete understanding of how political power is exercised and maintained.

• Limited Predictive Power: Another limitation of the sociological approach is its limited ability to predict political outcomes. While the approach excels in providing descriptive and interpretive analyses of political phenomena, it often struggles to offer clear predictions about future political developments. This limitation arises in part from the complexity and variability of social factors, which can make it difficult to establish clear causal relationships in political life.

• Challenges of Operationalization: The sociological approach often relies on broad and abstract concepts, such as social structure, culture, and norms, which can be challenging to operationalize and measure empirically. This can lead to difficulties in conducting rigorous empirical research and testing hypotheses within the sociological framework. As a result, some critics argue that the approach lacks the precision and methodological rigor found in other approaches to Political Science.

• Potential for Ideological Bias: The sociological approach is sometimes criticized for being ideologically biased, particularly in its focus on issues of social inequality and power. Critics argue that the approach can be influenced by normative commitments to social justice, which may lead to a one-sided or partisan analysis of political phenomena. While all approaches to Political Science have their own biases and perspectives, the sociological approach’s emphasis on social critique can sometimes lead to accusations of ideological partiality.

Conclusion

The sociological approach to the study of Political Science offers a rich and nuanced perspective on the interplay between society and politics. By emphasizing the importance of social structures, culture, and group dynamics, this approach provides valuable insights into the social context of political life. It highlights the role of political socialization, culture, social inequality, and collective action in shaping political behavior and institutions, offering a more holistic understanding of politics.

However, the sociological approach also has its limitations. Its tendency towards social determinism, neglect of institutional analysis, limited predictive power, challenges of operationalization, and potential for ideological bias are important critiques that must be considered. Despite these limitations, the sociological approach remains a vital and influential perspective within Political Science, contributing to a deeper understanding of the complex and interconnected nature of political life.

In conclusion, the sociological approach to Political Science enriches the discipline by offering a broader and more socially grounded analysis of political phenomena. It encourages scholars to look beyond formal institutions and processes to consider the social forces that shape political outcomes. While it is not without its challenges, the sociological approach continues to provide valuable insights into the relationship between society and politics, making it an essential component of the study of Political Science.

Aristotle has called Political Science „The Master Science‟ as it deals with human beings who is a social being having many dimensions; historical, political, economical, psychological, sociological etc. Political Science is concerned with the political aspect of this social man and his interaction with the various dimensions of his social life, be it economical, social, psychological, sociological, historical etc. One question which comes to mind, therefore, is it correct to call Political Science „the master science‟ or is it just one of the social sciences? Until 18th Century specialization of Political Science didn‟t exist since various aspects of society was studied under single discipline known as „moral philosophy‟. In the words of Lipset “Until the 18th Century the moral sciences, as the social sciences were then known, possessed greater unity than diversity”. The beginning of 19th century brought industrialization and with it came specialization of social sciences as it became beyond the scope of Political science to study the various aspects of the complicated social phenomenon under a single discipline. Easton writes, “the purely physical need for a division of labour helps to account for the distinctions among the social sciences…the social sciences have grown up as separate disciplines because and only because of this historical necessity. The actual allocation of subject matter to the various disciplines is simply a matter of accident…even though distinctions in social knowledge have existed from the every beginning of human inquiry into the society”.

What distinguishes political science as an academic discipline is its emphasis on government and power. However, the study of government and power is not confined to political science: it naturally permeates into other social sciences and hence its association with the other social sciences and the growth of interdisciplinary study in social sciences. According to Easton, “Specialization in social sciences has stimulated a movement towards a reintegration of our compartmentalized knowledge; which should go a long way towards remedying these defects. Even though the future must witness an increase in the rate of cross-fertilization and in the degree of cooperation among the social sciences, there are few realists who envision the ultimate fusion and disappearance of all specialties into one body of knowledge3”. In fact it was the growth of empirical theory in political science which developed after the Second World War which shifted the focus from the study of state and government to the study of political behaviour and attitudes. It was this application of scientific methods to the study of political phenomenon and behavoiralism which brought in the need for interdisciplinary study of political science. Thus Easton has rightly commented, “Theoretical revolution in the study of the political phenomena, in the form of empirical theory has opened the door to a new and more meaningful relationship between political science and the other disciplines4”.

Thus political science borrowed many theories and concepts, methods and techniques from other social sciences. For example decision making theory from organizational field, structural functional approach from sociology and anthropology, action theory from sociology, system analysis from communication sciences etc. even new concepts like political culture, political socialization, political communication, political development etc are being adopted and hence emphasis is being laid on the study of community power structure5 . Hence one could say that it is this so called behavioral revolution in social science and the growth of empirical enquiry to the issues of politics which has given rise to the interdisciplinary approach in political science. The following section deals with the relation of political science with some of the other social sciences.

Political Science and History

John Seeley once remarked that, “History without Political Science has no fruit and Political Science without History has no root.” Seeley might have exaggerated the relationship between the two yet there is intimate relationship between the two social sciences and they borrow heavily from each other. The political science deals with state and institutions related with it which have their roots in history and in order to understand them fully one has to trace their historical evolution. History through its vast resources provides good scope for comparative analysis of political structures and institutions of different times to arrive at the best possible ideal. Robson is of the opinion that some knowledge of History is clearly indispensable for Political Science and cites the explanation offered by Professor R. Solatu at the Cambridge Conference (from 6 to 10 April, 1952). Professor Solatu said, “that he had been baffled all through his teaching career, especially during the 20 years he had spent in the Middle East, about how to teach the history of political philosophy to students whose historical background is usually inadequate, and often limited to purely political theory since the French Revolution.”

Political Science and Sociology

Sociology is the science which deals with human beings and their social relationship. Political science deals with the political activities of men. Political activities influences and is influenced by the social life of men. Political science studies state, government and power mostly while sociology provides sociological background to the forms of government, the nature of governmental organs, the laws and sphere of the state activities as determined by the social processes. As political science deals with state sociology also studies state as one of the human association. The special study of the political life of society is very important for the complete study of the society as a whole. According to Morris Ginsberg ”Historically, Sociology has its main roots in politics and philosophy of history”. The state, which is the center of political science in its early stage, was more of a social than political institution.

Sociology depends very much on political science in every respect. The state and governments make laws for the welfare of the society; the government removes social evils such as poverty, unemployment, dowry and so on from the society. The undesirable customs are uprooted from the society by the government. The government gives financial assistance to people at the time of natural calamities such as floods, famine, cyclone and drought. In the same way, political science depends upon sociology and sociology provides material to political science that is the political life of the people. The laws which are formed by the government are based on the social customs, traditions, mores, norms, etc. of the society. Most of the changes which have been taken place in the political theory, during the past times have been possible due to sociology9. For understanding of political problems, some knowledge about sociology is very essential because all political problems are mainly corrected with a social aspect. In this connection F.H. Gidding says “To teach the theory of the state to men who have not learn the first principle of sociology is like teaching astronomy or thermodynamics to men who have not learnt Newton’s laws of Motion”.

Despite the fact the two social sciences draw heavily from each other there are basic differences between the two. Whereas sociology studies society as a whole and human beings as a part of it political science deals with politically organised unit of society. The scope of sociology is wider than political science. That is why professor Garner remarks “Political science is concerned with only human form association such as state, sociology deals with all forms of association.” Sociology studies all kinds of social relationship in a general way. But political science studies only the political aspect of social relationship in a particular way. Sociology studies both organized and disorganized societies. But political science studies only the politically organized societies. Sociology deals with both formal as well as informal relations of the society, which are based on customs, traditions, folkways, mores, norms etc. But political science deals only with formal relations based on laws and order of the state.

Political Science and Psychology

Political science and psychology are closely related to each other and their merging has given rise to a new discipline called „political psychology‟ which tries to use theories and facts to explain and understand political problems. The State and its political institutions are the products of the human mind and can best be understood in terms of the mind. Thus, Barker says, “The application of the psychological clue to the riddles of human activity has indeed become the fashion of the day. If our forefathers thought biologically, we think psychologically.” Gabriel Tarde, Le Bon MacDougall, Graham Wallas, and Baldwin are the prominent writers who have given psychological explanations of almost all the political problems. Government to be
stable and really popular must reflect and express the mental ideas and moral sentiments of those who are subject to its authority; in short, it must be in harmony with what Le Bon calls the mental constitution of the race11. In the democratic processes the part played by social psychology is, thus, subtle. Modem psychologists study men in groups as well as individual behaviour. The study of social psychology often has more direct relevance for the political scientist than does individual psychology.

Political Science and Ethics

Ethics is concerned with normative questions such as „what ought to be‟, although political science too deals with the normative issues in the pursuit of an ideal political order but it is not confined to them alone. Though both Political Science and Ethics aim at the noble and righteous life of man, yet the former is primarily concerned with the political governance of man whereas the latter refers to man’s conduct and morality; that is, whereas Political Science deals with political order, Ethics deals with moral order. Moral laws prescribe absolute standards of right and wrong, justice and injustice, but the laws of the State follow standard of expediency.

However a man can pursue his moral ends only in and through state. That is why Aristotle had said that a good citizen is possible in a good State and that a bad State makes bad citizens. He further maintained that while the State comes into existence for the sake of life, it continues to exist for the sake of good life. Good life is the end of the State and all political problems revolve around it. What is morally wrong cannot be politically right, because there cannot be a good State where wrong ethical ideals prevail. Greek philosophers laid too much stress on the ethical side of state and that is why one finds that Plato‟s Republic is more of an ethical endeavour into the realm of politics than a study of politics. In fact it was Machiavelli who freed ethics from political science and thereafter a host of political scientists aimed at complete dichotomy between political science and ethics such as Stuart Rice, Karl Llewellyn, R M MacIver, Harold D Laswell and others. However in the 20th century there was again an attempt for the re-inclusion of metaphysics in the realm of political science by authors like Alfred Weber, Jacques Maritan, Eric Voegelin, Thomas I Cook, Lord Acton, Mahatma Gandhi etc. by way of conclusion it could be said that while the political science is conditioned by ethics, the material with which the two disciplines deals is quite distinct. Yet both the disciplines deal with men and his happiness and prosperity through the system of justice.

Political Science and Economics

The scholars of ancient Greece regarded economics as a sub-division of political science. Both political science and economics is concerned with the welfare of mankind and his relationship with the society and hence Adam Smith regarded them as parts of the same subject. Sir James Stewart believes that there exist the same relationship between Economics and Political Science as exist between the thrift and the family. To quote him, “what economy is in the family, political economy is in the state”.

Harold Laswell defined politics as the process of deciding who gets what, when and how whereas economics deal with distribution of scarce resources deciding what to produce, how to produce and for whom to produce. These two definitions represent the intrinsic relationship between the two social sciences. Often the type of economic system which operates within a country is chosen by the government in power. The government decides the process of production, distribution, trade and commerce; it takes measures for the increase of production of essential commodities either by increasing the producers of such commodities or by producing them by itself; restricts the production of unnencessary and harmful commodities and secures improvement of the means of transportation with a view to managing a good distribution system. The government controls foreign trade, currency system, mending and borrowing. All these and other are economic issues which require political approach for permanent solution. In fact a successful welfare programme required close collaboration between political scientists, economists and politicians. 

The concept of individual liberty also proves that there is close relationship between political science and economics. For the happiness and prosperity of the people both political and economic liberty are essential. Terminologically too there is a relationship between the two social sciences which deals with similar concepts like socialism, capitalism, communism, Marxism etc.

Political Science and Anthropology

The collaboration between Political Science and Anthropology particularly in the field of concepts and methodologies is tremendously beneficial for both the discipline. Anthropology deals with racial divisions of man, his physical character, his geographic division, his environmental and social relations, and his cultural development. It is a science which studies mankind in relation to physical, social, and cultural development. Political anthropology challenges the illusion of the “autonomy of the political” assumed by political science to characterize so-called modern societies. The contribution of Anthropology to Political Science is considerable, and modern researches in the racial division, habits, customs, and organisations of primitive man help us to know the real origin of the State and the development of various political institutions15. The political behaviour of man is greatly influenced by his racial origin and the environments in which he lives. Without a good knowledge of early societies, their laws, customs, manners and modes of government, we cannot understand accurately the modem institutions and the political behaviour of the people.

An important reference in this section could be made of an important book „Anthropology and Political Science: A Convergent Approach‟ focusing on the influence of anthropology on political science. The book examines the basic assumptions the practitioners of each discipline make about the nature of social and political reality, compares some of the key concepts each field employs, and provides an extensive review of the basic methods of research that “bridge” both disciplines: ethnography and case study. Through ethnography (participant observation), reliance on extended case studies, and the use of “anthropological” concepts and sensibilities, a greater understanding of some of the most challenging issues of the day can be gained. For example, political anthropology challenges the illusion of the “autonomy of the political” assumed by political science to characterize so-called modern societies.

“Knowledge of social anthropology,” says Robson, “is essential for the study or practice of colonial administration; and it is necessary also for several other special topics of political science, such as area studies, colour and racial conflicts, international organisations for assisting underdeveloped countries, immigration and emigration.” Harold D. Lasswell approvingly cites C.D. Lerner and says that the links between students of folk society—the distinctive subject-matter of social anthropology and Political Science have been closer in recent years “as whirlwind modernization added to the turbulence of politics in Asia, Africa, South America, and many heretofore-isolated island communities.” Anthropology has an inexhaustible source of data on every sphere of man and his culture and Political Science, as Robson says, “will draw on various parts of this repository as problems gain in their urgency.”

Political Anthropology, which is now recognised as a fairly independent discipline, helps to solve the riddle of the failure of Western model of democratic institutions in these countries. The traditional elements, attitudes, values, patterns of behaviour and leadership weigh very heavily in the developing countries as compared with the more rationalised developed nations of the West and, consequently. The operational aspects of the democratic institutions can scarcely be understood in terms and manner familiar to the Western States. Bryce has aptly said that there are institutions which “like plants flourish only on their hillside and under their own sunshine.”

Political Science and Geography

In a rapidly changing international environment, the issues of economic, political and social security are gaining prominence and in this context the tools of political science and geography are increasingly becoming important for understanding and analysing global problems and arriving at policy alternatives. The two disciplines have been associated through the sub-fields of political geography, which covers geographical differences in voting patterns, for example, and through geo-politics which examines how the great powers influence other parts of the planet. These days, in a context of globalisation, interdisciplinary understandings of socio- environmental issues are becoming increasing key to solving the problems of the future such as political instability in parts of the developing world as a result of climate change, for example. Environmental politics, and the politics of the environment, are becoming ever more important.

Behaviouralism is an approach in political science emerged in the 1930s in the United States. The deep dissatisfaction with the nature, scope, methods and conclusions of traditional Political Science led to the emergence of a revolution that resulted in the emergence of Behavioural Approach in Politics.

Behavioralism, which was one of the dominant approaches in the 1950s and ’60s, is the view that the subject matter of political science should be limited to phenomena that are independently observable and quantifiable. It assumes that political institutions largely reflect underlying social forces and that the study of politics should begin with society, culture, and public opinion.

The origin of behaviouralism is often attributed to Charles Merriam who emphasized the importance of examining political behaviour of individuals and groups rather than only considering how they abide by legal or formal rules.

Definitions of Behaviouralism

Behavioural approach to politics is referred to as behaviouralism.

• “Behaviouralism is a movement in political science which insists on analysing only observable behaviour of political actors”.
• “Behaviouralism is a belief which insists that social theory can be and should be constructed only on the basis of observable behaviours because only such behaviour provides measurable or quantifiable data for research.”
• “Behaviouralism is an attempt to improve our understanding of politics by seeking to explain the empirical aspects of political life by means of methods, theories and criteria of proof that are acceptable according to the canons, conventions and assumption of modern empirical science.”

Characteristics of Behaviouralism

Eminent scholars like David Truman, Heinz Eulau, Samuel J.Eldersveld, Morris Janowitz and David Easton, have given their views on the characteristics of Behaviouralism.

David Truman defines political Behaviouralism as the science of political behaviour, where political behaviours means all “those actions and interactions of men and groups which are involved in the process of governing.”

According to David Truman, behaviouralism has two main features:

(i) research must be systematic, and

(ii) it must place primary emphasis upon empirical methods.

Heinz Eulan, Elderseld and Janowitz specify the following four characteristics of the political behaviour approach:

1. Behaviouralism specifies the behaviour of persons and social groups rather than events, structures, institutions, or ideologies, as the unit or object of both theoretical and empirical analysis.

2. Behaviouralism favours inter-disciplinary focus. It seeks to place theory and research in a frame of reference common to that of social psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology.

3. Behaviouralism stresses the mutual inter-dependence of theory and research. It is self-consciously theory oriented. Theoretical questions need to be stated in operational terms for purpose of empirical research. Empirical findings should have a bearing on the development of political theory.

4. Behaviouralism tries to develop rigorous designs and to apply precise methods of analysis to the political behaviour problems. It stands for scientific procedure of research.

David Easton has identified the following eight major assumptions or characteristics of Behaviouralism:

1. Regularities

There are discoverable uniformities in political behaviour. These can be expressed in generalizations or theories with with explanatory and predictive values.

2. Verification

The validity of such generalizations must be testable, by reference to relevant behavior.

3. Quantification

Precision in the recording of data and the statement of findings requires measurement and quantification, not for their own sake, but only where possible, relevant and meaningful in the light of other objectives.

4. Value

Ethical evaluation and empirical explanation involve two different kinds of proposition that for the sake of clarity should be kept analytically distinct. However, a student of political behavior is not prohibited from asserting propositions of either kind separately or in combination as long as he does not mistake one or the other.

5. Techniques

Means for acquiring and interpreting data cannot be taken for granted. They are problematic and need to be examined self-consciously, refined and validated so that rigorous means can be found for observing, recording and analyzing behaviour.

6. Systematization

Research ought to be systematic; theory and research are to be seen as closely inter-twined and part of a coherent and orderly body of knowledge.

7. Pure Science

The application of knowledge is as much a part of the scientific enterprise as theoretical understanding. But the understanding and explanation of political behavior logically precede and provide the basis for efforts to utilize political knowledge in the solution of urgent practical problems of society.

8. Integration

Since the social sciences deal with the whole human situation, the political research can ignore the findings of the other disciplines only at the peril of weakening the validity and undermining the generality of its own results. Recognition of this inter-relationship will help to bring political science back to its status of earlier centuries and return into the main fold of the social sciences.

These eight assumptions form the common core of the views of almost all the behaviouralists.

Thus, Behaviouralism seeks to study politics as an aspect of human behaviour in a framework of reference common to other social sciences and prescribes the use of empirical research, mathematical-statistical-quantification techniques of data collection and analysis with the purpose of building a scientific theory political behavior.

Behaviouralism emphasized an objective, quantified approach to explain and predict political behaviour. To this end, behavioralists utilize the methodology of the social sciences, primarily psychology, to establish statistical relationships between independent variables (presumed causes) and dependent variables (presumed effects).

For example, a behaviouralist might use detailed election data to argue that voters in rural areas tend to vote for candidates who are more conservative, while voters in cities generally favour candidates who are more liberal.

Behaviouralism attempts to explain political behaviour from an unbiased, neutral point of view, by examining the behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals and groups in different social settings and explaining this behaviour as it relates to the political system, rather than the characteristics of institutions such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries.

The behaviouralist approach uses research that is supported by verifiable facts. To understand political behaviour, behaviouralism uses varied methods such as sampling, interviewing, scoring and scaling and statistical analysis.

Behaviouralism studies how individuals actually behave in group positions, rather than how they should behave. For example, a study of the United States Congress might include a consideration of how members of Congress behave in their positions. The subject of interest is how Congress becomes an ‘arena of action’ and the surrounding formal and informal spheres of power.

History of development of Behaviouralism

The prominence of behaviouralists in the post-World War II period helped to lead political science in a much more scientific direction. Many behaviouralists asserted that only such quantified studies can be considered political science in the strict sense. They contrasted their studies with those of the traditionalists who attempted to explain politics by using unquantified descriptions, anecdotes, historical analogies, ideologies and philosophy. Behaviouralism in political science attempted to discard intuition or at least to support it with empirical observation. Some of the most important behavioural contributions to political science were election studies.

The behavioural approach was central to the work of the American sociologist and political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset used statistical and historical data to demonstrate that social class is one of the chief determinants of political behaviour. Lipset found a strong relationship between level of affluence and type of political system, demonstrating that less-affluent countries seldom establish democratic structures.

Behaviouralism also influenced international relations, though it did not achieve the same dominance in this area that it enjoyed in domestic and comparative politics. By the 1960s behaviouralism was in full bloom and had established itself in studies of judicial and bureaucratic systems.

Limitations of Behaviouralism

Behaviouralism has been subjected to severe criticism, particularly by the proponents of traditional political science. The main points of criticism have been:

1. The phenomena with which political scientists deal do not lend themselves to rigorous study. Human behavior cannot be treated, whether individual or social, with the dispassion needed for scientific knowledge. Neither political science nor any other social science is commendable to experimental inquiry.

2. All aspects or human behaviour cannot be observed and stated in empirical generalizations. Human behaviour as the object of study is bound to be problematic and even fruitless.

3. Behaviouralism makes political science dependent upon other social sciences, particularly Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology.

4. That scientific method, particularly as used in natural sciences cannot be applied to social sciences, particularly political science.

5. Behaviouralists were obsessed with methods and techniques and failed to concentrate upon the substance of politics.

6. Behaviouralists remained lost in trivial research and failed to come to grips with the brute realities of politics.

By the late 1960s, behaviouralism came to be criticised on the grounds that the statistical correlations uncovered by behavioural studies did not always establish which variable was the cause and which the effect. The changes exhibited by both variables might be the effects of an underlying third variable.

Overt behaviour tells only part of the story. Different individuals may perform the same behaviour for quite different reasons. To understand what they do, one must go beyond, or behind observable behaviour. Moreover, individuals and groups act within an institutional or a social setting, and knowledge of that setting is essential to any meaningful explanation of their behavior. The anti-behaviouralists hold that the larger part of political life lies beneath the surface of human action and cannot be directly apprehended.

Behavioural research tended to be limited to topics that were amenable to quantitative study. For example, voting studies, rarely provided an understanding of public policy or explained very little about actual governance. Behaviouralists needed quantitative survey and electoral data which would often not be available in dictatorships or less-affluent countries, rendering their approach useless in many parts of the world.

Finally, many behavioural findings revealed nothing new but simply restated well-established or obvious conclusions. Hence behaviouralism did not become the sole methodology in political science. Under the weight of its own weakness as well as due to several new developments, it got replaced by a revolution from within – Post-Behaviouralism.

BEHAVIOURALISM VS BEHAVIOURISM

Behaviouralism is not Behaviourism. Behaviouralism should not be confused with Behaviourism.

Behaviourism is a concept in psychology which stands associated with the name of J.B. Watson. It was adopted to eliminate from scientific research all reference to such subjective data as purposes, intentions, desires, or ideas.

In the context of political science, human behaviour came to be studied through the ‘Stimulus-Organism-Response’ in which feelings, motivations, and all the other aspects of the subjective awareness and reaction of the organism are taken into account as partially useful data. This study through the S-O-R paradigm known as Behaviouralism.

After remaining popular for almost two decades (1940-60), the Behavioural Approach got transformed into Post-Behaviouralism. Twenty years of behavioural research brought to light its limitations and weaknesses.

The failure to make any real progress towards the objective of building a scientific political theory compelled the behaviouralists to admit reforms in the light of their experiences with behavioural research. They accepted several reforms and the exercise got the name Post-Behaviouralism.

Post-Behaviouralism did not constitute a return to the traditional approach. It accepted the merit of Behaviouralism but at the same time advocated the need to reform it. The Post- Behaviouralists were reformed behaviouralists. Post-Behaviouralism emerged as a reform movement within Behaviouralism.

Meaning of Post – behaviouralism

Post – behaviouralism is an intellectual revolution. This is a reform movement in Behaviouralism. This gives stress on action and relevance. Behaviouralists themselves had started imposing questions on the usefulness of Behaviouralism even before the end of the decade of 1960. As a result, a new movement took birth which was known as Post – behaviouralism.

Aim of Post – Behaviouralism

The main purpose of Post – behaviouralism is that research and study of Political Science should be relevant in context of real needs of society. Post – behaviouralism urges political thinkers to study neutrahy and lead the society, instead of being indifferent to social and political problems and being escapists. 

Reasons of emergence of Post – behaviouralism

Post – behaviouralism came into existence due to shortcomings of traditional and Behaviouralism approaches. 

The reasons for the emergence of post – behaviouralism are as follows

1. Reaction against Behaviouralism: 

Post – behaviouralism movement is a reaction against Behaviouralism. Behaviouralism tried to provide a scientific approach to Political Science, but these efforts were insufficient and incomplete. 

2. Dissatisfaction with study methods: 

It is not right to try to use study methods of natural science in Political Science because nature of man and society is changeable. Thus, it is not possible to study political science as natural sciences and on that criteria. 

3. Distress for Behaviouralistic Research: 

Behaviouralism Research ignores values and gives stress only on facts. Post – behaviouralism believes that values and facts both are useful and relevant. Importance of values in study of Political Science cannot be ignored. 

4. Ignorance of duties towards world humanity:

 At the time, when the behaviouralists were busy in making concepts, models and principles, the world was facing immense social, economical and cultural problems. Behaviouralists were ignorant of these problems. The contemporary society was moving towards division and destruction.

Not only this, Behaviouralism, had not any inkling of problems like Vietnam problem, growing internal chaos in America, Nuclear war, increasing possibilities of dictatorship and population explosion, and thus no efforts were made by them to solve these problems.

Features / Basic Concepts of Post – behaviouralism

Features and basic concepts of Post – behaviouralism, are as follows:

• Inference before procedure. 
• Emphasis on social change. 
•  Stress on solution of problems. 
• Important role of values. 
•  Important role of intellectuals. 
•  Emphasis on action. 
• Politicization of professions.

Post-Behaviouralism accepted and advocated:

1. The need to study all realities of Politics.

2. The need to study social change.

3. The need to end the obsession with methods and techniques and the need to study the substance of politics.

4. The need to admit the study of values along with facts.

5. The need to help the society to develop by the use of knowledge of politics.

6. The need to put knowledge of politics into action by the political scientists.

7. The need to serve the society by helping it to preserve and develop its values.

Post-Behaviouralists now advocated ‘Relevance’ and ‘Action’ as two guiding goals and accepted the need for the study of values in Politics.

Relevance meant study of all the realities, brute realities of politics. Mere development of techniques and methods was not enough. Political Science must give primary importance to the study of the social realities and social change. It should not be conservative and static in approach and efforts.

Action meant the responsibility of the political scientists to act in the political process. It stood for the use of knowledge and understanding of politics for helping the society to develop by adopting the valued reforms.

The Post-Behaviouralists accepted the responsibility of getting involved in the process of social change through social action. Total concentration on the development of techniques and methods for building a scientific theory of politics was held to be inadequate. It was to be supplemented by willing and purposive involvement in social action for social change.

The transformation of the Behavioural Approach into Post-Behaviouralism increased the acceptability of this approach. The advocates of traditional approach now came forward to accept the importance and need of empirical-scientific methods of study and the behavioural view of politics.

The Behaviouralists turned Post-behaviouralists also came forward to accept the importance of the study of values in politics as well as some merit of the traditional normative approach. Normativism and Empiricism came closer and the subject-matter of Political Science came to include both traditional as well as modern features.

The attempt to develop an integrated theory of politics—an Empirical-Normative theory of politics got initiated. This attempt is still being made by the modern political scientists.

Modern Political scientists have been using both empirical-scientific approaches like, Systems Approached, Structural Functional Approach, Communication Approach, Decision-making Approach, Game Approach as well as Political Economy Approach, Political Sociology Approach.

It also accepted value of Philosophical, Historical and Legal- Institutional Approaches for studying some dimensions of politics. Several of them also depend upon the Marxist Approach which is a sociological approach to the study of politics. Out of all modern approaches, the Systems Approach has been the most popular approach.

Modern Political thinkers like Lasswell, Robert Dahl have defined politics in terms different relations of power, influence, and authority. According to the view of these thinkers Power is the central idea in Politics – who gets what when and how. The entire neo-liberal political activity is directed towards capturing and maintaining power. Power has acquired prominent position in political thought. Hence Power is central to our understanding of politics.

Machiavelli’s The prince: During the 16th century according to Machiavelli’s The prince, Politics was associated with symbolically associated with sovereign power and the prince. The prince was the central hero in understanding the whole concept of politics. The politics was restricted and defined within boundaries and territories. The politics was described through prince and his principality, according to which the prince is seen as the Lord or master. It says Prince inherits the power and uses his sovereign power to influence his subjects. The prince says the objective of prince’s power as the sovereign power is used to reinforce, influence, strengthen and protect his principality within his subjects. According to The prince the target of a prince’s power is based on two things on the one hand its territory and the other its inhabitants. The institutions of sovereignty were the basic political institutions and the exercise of power was exercised by the sovereignty which was obeyed by the subjects. To summarise it Machiavelli sees power in the strategized, organised and decentralized form. He sees power as a means, not as a resource and seeks strategic advantages as military ones between the prince and his subjects.

After Machiavelli’s The Prince, politics with central importance to power was defined in many ways. Hobbes makes power more transparent. Therefore, power, in the Hobbesian paradigm, was gathered in the Commonwealth and was explained through a “social contract.” For Hobbes, ‘civil philosophy’ deals with the rights and duties of sovereigns and subjects. While the form in which this power appears was immaterial the purpose of authoritarian sovereign politics was justified with its purpose was solely to quell disorder, it was still centralized society. Moreover, this power continued to be embodied in an image of a sovereign body-this times an “artificial” one. This authoritarian sovereign politics followed the idea of organizing power relations around sovereign institutions and laws which in-turn intended to avoid “state of war”.

Hobbes believed that people are driven by selfishness and greed. To avoid chaos, people should give up their freedom to a government that will ensure order. Such government should be strong and able to suppress rebellion. Hobbes asserts that without a presiding government to legislate codes of conduct, no morality or justice can exist:

“Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice¼ if there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men.”

After the 18th century the dynamics of politics changed. The demographic expansion of the 18th century connected with industrialization, expansion of agricultural production and abundance of Money. Thus setting up an economy at the level of entire state, taking care of the welfare of the state became essential. Politics was looked as the art of excersing power in utlising,distibuting and montoring the state’s monetary resources for the welfare of its people.

Marx and Weber was interested in looking politics as a factor of domination,based on economic or authoritarian interests.

Robert Dahl (1961) definition of power in his theory of community power,

“Power as the ability to make somebody do something that otherwise he or she would not have done”.

Can be related to modern day politics in the world. For e.g.: India because of the power and influence of word bank it changes its internal policies which otherwise it wouldn’t have done.

Thus the way politics was looked at, kept changing with different dimensions of power. Michael Foucault’s theory of power through the concept of “Governmentality” helps in altering one’s way of understanding conventional politics. Foucault elaborates a lot about how his understanding of power differs from its treatment in mainstream political theories. Foucault suggests, then, that the only way to avoid centralization of politics is precisely to reject explanations that confine “political” power to a central place. Marxist and anarchist conceptions of power is centralized within a symbolic place of authority, be this the king, the state, the bourgeoisie, and so on. For Foucault, this is an outdated notion that no longer has any relevance to political theory.

“What we need,” as Foucault said famously, “is a political philosophy that isn’t erected around the problem of sovereignty…. We need to cut off the King’s head”.

Politics is centrally about power. It is about the sort of society we want to build and it must be {Bibliography}a better one than we have now. For e.g.: Man has political power when he exercises a vote. A party has political power whether in government or opposition in so far as it influences and changes policy. Minority parties have political power when they influence policy or public opinion or successfully stand up against injustices or change the climate of politics. While the word government today possesses solely a political meaning, Foucault is able to show that up until well into the 18th century the problem of government was placed in a more general context. Government was a term discussed not only in political tracts, but also in philosophical, religious, medical and pedagogic texts. In addition to the management by the state or the administration, “government” also signified problems of self-control, guidance forthe family and for children, management of the household, directing the soul, etc. For this reason, Foucault defines government as conduct, or, more precisely, as “the conduct of conduct” and thus as a term which ranges from “governing the self” to “governing others“.

All in all, in his history of Governmentality Foucault endeavors to show various the notion of government in a comprehensive sense geared strongly to the older meaning of the term and adumbrating the close link between forms of power and processes of subjectification. He establishes the idea that Politics and Power are everywhere, if one is able to influence one’s or resist one’s idea the different dimensions of the politics involved could be understood by looking the dynamics of power involved. Rather, power is exercised throughout the social body. He quotes examples to prove that power operates at the most micro levels of social relations. Power is omnipresent at every level of the social body. He says the exercise of power is strategic and war-like.

“….Power is everywhere not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere. And “Power,” insofar as it is permanent, repetitious, inert, and self-reproducing, is simply the over-all effect that emerges from all these motilities, the concatenation that rests on each of them and seeks in turn to arrest their movement …power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society.” lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.”

Using these methods, It could be understood the state operates not through a simple, top-down power structure, but rather widens our understanding of power to also include the forms of social control in disciplinary institutions (schools, hospitals, psychiatric institutions, etc.), as well as the forms of knowledge. Power can manifest itself positively by producing knowledge and certain discourses that get internalised by individuals and guide the behaviour of populations. This leads to more efficient forms of social control, as knowledge enables individuals to govern themselves through a multiplicity of institutions that attempts to use each and every individual as a part of state politics. The population becomes the central power of state politics. For instance, In Indian the marginalization and exploitation of Dalits is not just a result of neglect and subjugation by the modern Indian state, but a product of a complex network of political relations under a history of oppression through the caste system and various institutions of religion, commerce and social interaction that dates back to centuries. In other instance in some states like U.P, various political poll games are centralized around Dalits. They enjoy an upper-hand (power) in deciding the entire politics of the state.

To understand further the concept of politics in the context power as a social body and a form of social hegemonies Foucault also compares modern society with Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon”in his work discipline and punishment. He outlines the panoptic society and how disciplines are enforced via the act of not seeing. The Panopticon was grounded in the Bentham’s prison where the inmates were subject to being watched at all times by a tower in the middle of a courtyard. The inmates could never tell if the guard was watching them and therefore had to assume they were constantly under surveillance. This mode of enforcing social norms exists outside the prison as well, thus power and politics of the place gradually modifies our way of life, mode of living and our habits.

Hence Power and politics is not to be read, therefore, in terms of one individual’s domination over another or others; or even as that of one class over another or others; for the subject which power has constituted becomes a part of the mechanisms of politics. It becomes the vehicle of that politics. Power is both reflexive, then, and impersonal. It acts in a relatively autonomous way and produces Politics. The point is not to ignore the subject or to deny its existence but rather to examine it. Politics can be seen as as a collection of techniques or flows of power which run through the whole society.

 Foucault’s redefinition of how we think about power in contemporary societies contains important insights for feminism, looking power as a social body and localized concept; it has encouraged the feminists to look the gender politics at micro-level.

Usually the politics in a state is analysed by the state’s government. The concept of “Governmentality” develops a new understanding of government. “Governmentality” applies to a variety of historical periods and to different specific power regimes. However, it is often used (by other scholars and by Foucault himself) in reference to “neoliberal politics”, i.e. to a type of politics that characterizes advanced liberal democracies. In this case, the notion of Governmentality refers to societies where power is de-centred and its members play an active role in their own self-government.

Through “Governmentality” he explains politics as the collection of power formed by institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, calculations, and tactics that allow the exercise very complex power, having the population as its target, political economy as its major form of knowledge, and apparatuses of security as its essential technical instrument.

Second, by “Governmentality” I understand the tendency, the line of force, that for a long time, and throughout the West, has constantly led towards the pre-eminence over all other types of power – sovereignty, discipline, and “government” and which has led to the development of a series of specific governmental structures on the one hand and, on the other to the development of a series of knowledge.

Finally, by “governmentality” he explains the process of how governance becomes “governmentalized”.

Whenever we talk about a state’s politics it is looked as political power being used in restricting and controlling the citizens. According to him the nature of power involved in politics is not simply repressive or negative but it is productive he feels power is not simply a property of the State. The most significant nature of Foucault’s thesis is his stress on the state politics productive nature of power’s modern exercise. His main aim was to turn a negative conception upside down and attribute the production of concepts, ideas and structures of institutions to the circulation and exercise of power in its modern forms. He forcefully expresses this point in 

“We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms, it ‘excludes’, it  in fact power produces, it produces reality, it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.”

Politics is not something that is exclusively localized in government and the State. For e.g: politics take a different shape if one looks at the various instances where resistance by common people is exercised against the state’s use of power in cases like POSCO, Vedentta, Maoist problem, Politics is in involved even Foucault claims that although many of the political forms and practices of sovereign power remained in place, they were gradually taken over and ultimately sustained on the basis of power relations that functioned at a different location and scale.

The political structure in a state is instrumental to the production or enhancement of various “goods,” such as knowledge, health, wealth, or social cohesion. Foucault thus sees this “new economy of power” as productive, which produces discourse operating through and leading to the production of various episteme and systems of knowledge: “Power traverses and produces things; it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, and produces discourse.”

Thus, to conclude, in Foucault’s conceptualization of the dynamics of power – The politics is dispersed across complicated and heterogeneous social networks marked by ongoing struggle. Politics is not something present at specific locations within those networks, but is instead always at contention in on-going attempts to (re)produce effective social alignments.

Introduction

The statement “Politics begins and ends with the state” by Garner implies that the state is the central actor in the political realm. This statement highlights the significance of the state in shaping and regulating political processes and institutions.

The Role of the State

1. Governance and Administration: The state serves as the primary authority responsible for governing and administering a particular territory. It formulates and implements policies, enacts laws, and ensures the welfare and security of its citizens.
2. Regulation of Society: The state plays a crucial role in setting norms, rules, and regulations that govern social behavior. It establishes legal frameworks, enforces contracts, and maintains law and order within its jurisdiction.
3. Protection of Rights and Liberties: The state is responsible for safeguarding the rights and liberties of its citizens. It establishes and upholds a legal system that protects individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, expression, and assembly.
4. Public Goods and Services: The state provides essential public goods and services, including infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social welfare programs. It ensures equitable distribution and access to resources and opportunities within society.
5. International Relations: The state represents its citizens in the international arena. It engages in diplomacy, negotiates treaties, and participates in global decision-making processes. The state also protects its sovereignty and national interests on the global stage.
   

Limitations and Critiques

1. Non-State Actors: The statement overlooks the significant role played by non-state actors in politics. Civil society organizations, interest groups, and multinational corporations influence political processes and policies, often challenging the authority and power of the state.
2. Globalization and Interdependence: In an increasingly interconnected world, politics extends beyond the boundaries of the state. Global issues such as climate change, terrorism, and economic interdependence necessitate international cooperation and the involvement of non-state actors.
3. Subnational Politics: Politics is not solely confined to the state level. Subnational entities, such as regions, municipalities, and local communities, have their own political dynamics, which may differ from those at the state level.
4. Political Ideologies: Politics is shaped by various ideologies, such as liberalism, socialism, and conservatism, which may not align with the state-centric perspective. These ideologies advocate for different forms of political organization and challenge the primacy of the state.
   

Conclusion

While the state undoubtedly plays a fundamental role in politics, it is essential to recognize the influence of non-state actors, globalization, subnational politics, and divergent political ideologies. Politics is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that extends beyond the state, encompassing a wide range of actors and dynamics.

In the sphere of social sciences the terms ‘method’ and ‘approach’ are applied rather loosely, and sometimes even interchangeably. To be precise, as far as possible, in their usage, distinction may be drawn between the two. Method is a more general term which denotes a particular way of doing something. In a systematic study, method may be defined as the procedure of inquiry by which reliable knowledge could be obtained and reliable conclusions could be drawn. Examples of method are: scientific method, inductive method, deductive method, comparative method, etc. On the other hand, approach is a wider term which comprehends not only the method (i.e. how to inquire) but also the focus of our study (i.e. what to inquire) in order to understand the given phenomenon. It may be observed that an approach is usually wedded to a particular method while a method is not always wedded to a particular approach. That is why an approach suggests the relevant method also. Thus behavioural approach is wedded to scientific method (because behaviour of several actors in a political situation is capable of scientific study) while the normative approach is wedded to philosophical method (because norms and values can only be determined philosophically, not through scientific method). Then, philosophical approach and historical approach suggest the use of philosophical method and historical method respectively although they also point to their respective focus of study. Again, empirical approach to the study of politics leads us to ‘political analysis’, and several models of political analysis (e.g. systems analysis, structural-functional analysis and decision-making analysis) in fact point to several methods adopted under this approach (although these are loosely referred to as ‘political system approach’, ‘structural-functional approach’ and ‘decision-making approach’ respectively).

Accordingly approaches to the study of political science may be classified under two categories: the traditional approach and the modern approach.

TRADITIONAL APPROACH

The traditional approach is value based and lays emphasis on the inclusion of values to the study of political phenomena. The adherents of this approach believe that the study of political science should not be based on facts alone since facts and values are closely related to each other. Since the days of Plato and Aristotle “the great issues of politics‟ have revolved around normative orientations. Accordingly there are a large number of traditional approaches like legal approach, philosophical approach, historical approach, institutional approach etc.

Philosophical Approach

In the first place, the philosophical approach is concerned with the clarification of concepts used in a particular discipline. Secondly, the philosophical approach aims at evolving “standards of right and wrong” for the purpose of a critical evaluation of the existing institutions, laws and policies.

Philosophical approach to the study of political science could be traced in the writings of ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Leo Strauss who was one of the ardent supporters of this approach believed that “the philosophy is the quest for wisdom and political philosophy is the attempt truly to know about the nature of political things and the right or good political order.” This approach lays stress on ethical and normative study of 1 politics and is idealistic in nature. It deals with the problems of nature and function of state, 2 issues of citizenship, rights and duties etc. Its themes are generally concerned with moral reasoning which cannot be subjected to scientific test.

Historical Approach

Historical approach believes that political phenomena could be understood better with the help of historical factors like age, place, situations etc. Political thinkers like Machiavelli, Sabine and Dunning believe that politics and history are intricately related and the study of politics always should have a historical perspective. Sabine is of the view that Political Science should include all those subjects which have been discussed in the writings of different political thinkers from the time of Plato. Every past is linked with the present and thus the historical analysis provides a chronological order of every political phenomenon.

The term ‘historical approach’ to politics may be used in two senses. Firstly, it may denote the process of arriving at the laws governing politics through an analysis of historical events, that is events of the past, as exemplified by the theories propounded by Hegel and Marx. In the second place, historical approach stands for an attempt at understanding politics through a historical account of political thought of the past, as exemplified by George H. Sabine’s ‘A History of Political Theory’. 

Critics of the 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 were beyond comprehension of the past thinkers.

Legal Approach

Legal approach stands for an attempt to understand politics in terms of law. It focuses its attention on the legal and constitutional framework in which different organs of government have to function, inquires into their respective legal position, their powers and the procedure which makes their actions legally valid.

For instance, legal approach to Indian politics will proceed to analyse legal implications of various provisions of the Indian Constitution, duly documented by the decisions of the Supreme Court of India as well as by the opinions of legal luminaries, procedure of formation and legal position of the two Houses of the Indian Parliament and State legislatures, procedure of election or appointment, powers and position of the President, Prime Minister, Governors, Chief Ministers, Central and State Cabinets, etc., role and powers of the Supreme Court of India and High Courts, full legal implications of the federal set up, position of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, etc. Similarly, legal approach to international politics will largely tend to analyse it in terms of the requirements of international law.

Moreover, all political processes to become effective and stable must culminate in legal provisions whether it is an independence movement in a colonized country or an agitation for civil rights or certain concessions for any sections of society. Besides, the study of constitutional law and international law, etc. in spite of its limited use in understanding politics, continues to play a pivotal role in the social and political life of almost every country.

Legal approach regards state as the creator and enforcer of law and deals with legal institutions, and processes. Its advocates include Cicero, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Dicey and Sir Henry Maine.

Institutional Approach

Institutional approach is closely related to legal approach, yet it is different. Significantly, this approach does not solely bank on other disciplines—philosophy, history or law—for understanding politics. Amongst the traditional approaches it alone gives independent identity to the systematic study of politics.

Institutional approach lays stress on the study of political institutions and structures like executive, legislature, judiciary, political parties, interests groups etc. Among the ancient thinkers Aristotle is an important contributor to this approach while the modern thinkers include James Bryce, Bentley, Walter Bagehot, Harold Laski, etc.

Accordingly the upholders of the institutional approach proceed to study the organization and functioning of government, its various organs, political parties and other institutions affecting politics. Classification of governments, starting from Aristotle (monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, polity and democracy) to modern classification (democracy and dictatorship, parliamentary and presidential, unitary and federal, etc.), identification of levels of government (federal, state and local) as well as branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), composition and powers of each of these and their interrelationships (largely in legal terms), etc. are the chief concerns of this approach. It aims at giving an elaborate description of facts. Hence it exemplifies a shift from normative to empirical approach, and from a historical to a contemporary concern within the sphere of traditional approaches. However, it relies heavily on description rather than explanation. Hence, it fails to qualify as a contemporary approach.