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.

Scope of Political Science 

Political science encompasses a broad range of topics including political theory, comparative politics, international relations, public policy, and public administration. It also draws upon other disciplines such as economics, sociology, psychology, and law to understand the complex interactions between politics and society. 

In our country, studying political science is not just about learning theories. It helps you understand the complex world of Indian politics. From different political beliefs to how the government operates, students get a deep understanding of what makes Indian politics unique. 

Beyond just studying, political science is important for practical reasons in India. With our diverse cultures and languages, politics plays a big role in shaping our society. Learning political science helps us navigate through the complicated world of how decisions are made and policies are created. 

So, the scope of political science in India isn’t just about books and classrooms. It’s about understanding and participating in the ongoing changes in our country. It’s about being informed and contributing to the discussions that shape the future of our nation.

Political Science is a vast and dynamic discipline that primarily focuses on the study of the state, government, and political processes. As an academic field, it analyzes the structures, functions, and principles of governance, examining the nature of power, authority, legitimacy, and public policies. Throughout history, the state and government have remained the central focus of political inquiry, as they determine the rules, laws, and institutions that shape societal order. Political Science, therefore, seeks to understand the origins, evolution, and functioning of the state and government, drawing upon historical, philosophical, legal, and empirical perspectives.

The Concept of the State in Political Science

The state is considered the most fundamental political institution, responsible for maintaining order, ensuring security, and regulating social and economic interactions. The modern definition of the state, as provided by Max Weber, describes it as an entity that possesses a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. This definition emphasizes the territorial, legal, and coercive dimensions of state power, highlighting its role in governing a population through formal institutions.

Historically, the concept of the state evolved from tribal organizations and feudal monarchies to the modern nation-state system, which was solidified after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The emergence of the modern state is closely linked to the rise of bureaucracy, centralized authority, and legal-rational governance. Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau contributed significantly to political theory by exploring the legitimacy of state authority, the social contract, and the rights of individuals.

In contemporary political science, the state is studied through multiple lenses, including its sovereignty, legitimacy, and relationship with society. Political scientists analyze how states maintain control, distribute power, and interact with other states in the international system. They also examine the impact of state institutions on democracy, authoritarianism, and economic development, making the study of the state an essential component of political science.

Government as the Operational Mechanism of the State

While the state represents the permanent political organization of society, the government is its operative mechanism, responsible for policymaking, administration, and law enforcement. Governments vary in their forms, structures, and ideologies, ranging from democratic and constitutional systems to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. The study of government in political science involves examining the types of governance, institutional frameworks, and policy outcomes that affect citizens’ lives.

One of the most fundamental classifications of government is based on the separation of powers, a principle articulated by Montesquieu, which divides governmental authority into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This system ensures a balance of power, preventing tyranny and allowing checks and balances among institutions. In democratic systems, the government derives legitimacy from popular sovereignty and constitutional mandates, whereas in authoritarian regimes, power is concentrated in a ruling elite, a single party, or a dictator.

Governments also differ based on their ideological orientations and economic policies. Liberal democracies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, emphasize individual rights, free markets, and limited government intervention, while socialist and communist states, like China and Cuba, advocate for state-controlled economies and collective ownership. Theocratic governments, such as Iran, integrate religious authority with state governance, whereas military juntas, like Myanmar, rely on coercion and martial law to maintain control.

The efficiency of a government is often measured by its ability to deliver public goods, enforce laws, protect civil liberties, and respond to societal needs. Political scientists study public administration, governance quality, corruption, and electoral systems to assess how different governments function and how they impact political stability and economic progress.

Political Theories on State and Government

Various political theories have attempted to explain the role and legitimacy of the state and government in society. The Social Contract Theory, proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, argues that individuals willingly surrender certain freedoms in exchange for protection and order provided by the state. Hobbes viewed the state as a necessary entity to prevent anarchy, whereas Locke emphasized its role in protecting natural rights. Rousseau, on the other hand, envisioned a direct democracy where the general will of the people dictated governance.

The Marxist Theory of the State, formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, presents the state as an instrument of class oppression, designed to protect the interests of the ruling bourgeoisie while exploiting the proletariat. Marxists advocate for a classless, stateless society, where the government dissolves after the proletariat revolution establishes a communist order. This perspective has influenced political movements and revolutions, particularly in the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba.

The Pluralist Theory challenges the Marxist view by arguing that the state is not controlled by a single ruling class, but rather by multiple competing interest groups. According to Robert Dahl and other pluralist thinkers, governments function through negotiation and compromise among various social, economic, and political actors, ensuring a more balanced distribution of power.

The Elite Theory, on the other hand, posits that political power is concentrated in the hands of a small, influential elite, regardless of whether a state is democratic or authoritarian. Thinkers like C. Wright Mills argue that elites, composed of political, corporate, and military leaders, control decision-making processes and shape government policies in their favor.

Each of these theories provides a unique perspective on the nature of state power, government legitimacy, and the dynamics of governance, offering valuable insights into how political institutions function.

The Role of Government in Public Policy and Administration

Governments play a crucial role in public policy formulation, economic regulation, law enforcement, and international relations. Political science examines how governments design, implement, and evaluate policies that affect education, healthcare, infrastructure, and national security. Policy analysis helps identify the effectiveness of governance models and highlights areas where state intervention is necessary to address social and economic challenges.

In democratic systems, policy-making is influenced by public opinion, political parties, media, and interest groups, whereas in authoritarian regimes, policies are often dictated by ruling elites without popular consultation. The study of comparative politics enables political scientists to assess governance efficiency across different political systems, identifying best practices for economic development, environmental protection, and human rights enforcement.

Another key area of government function is public administration, which deals with the management of state institutions, bureaucratic efficiency, and service delivery. Political science explores how governments streamline bureaucratic structures, reduce corruption, and improve governance transparency to ensure better outcomes for citizens.

Challenges Facing the State and Government in the 21st Century

Modern political science also examines the challenges faced by states and governments in an era of globalization, technological advancement, and geopolitical conflicts. Issues such as terrorism, climate change, economic inequality, and cyber threats require adaptive governance and international cooperation. The rise of populism, nationalism, and authoritarian tendencies in democratic states also poses significant challenges to liberal democratic governance.

Furthermore, the debate over the role of the state in the economy continues, with arguments between neoliberalism, which advocates for free markets and minimal government intervention, and welfare state models, which emphasize state responsibility in ensuring social justice and economic equity. Political scientists analyze these debates to predict the future trajectory of governance and state functions in an increasingly complex world.

Conclusion

The study of state and government remains central to political science, as these institutions shape society, laws, economies, and global relations. Understanding the historical evolution, theoretical perspectives, and contemporary challenges of state governance allows political scientists to analyze policy effectiveness, democratic consolidation, and power dynamics. As the world faces new political, economic, and technological disruptions, the role of the state and government continues to evolve, making political science an essential discipline for comprehending and addressing global governance issues.

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 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.

The study of politics and governance has led to the development of various subfields within Political Science, each with distinct focuses and methodologies. The nomenclature of political science consists of several key terms, including Political Science, Politics, Political Theory, Political Philosophy, and Comparative Politics. These terms are often used interchangeably, but they hold specific meanings that differentiate them from one another. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for comprehending the breadth and depth of the discipline of political science, as it covers both theoretical and empirical dimensions of governance, power, and political institutions.

Political Science: The Systematic Study of Politics and Governance

Political Science is the academic discipline that systematically studies political systems, institutions, behaviors, and ideologies. It is concerned with understanding how governments function, how power is distributed, and how policies are formulated and implemented. As a social science, it employs both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to analyze political phenomena, often incorporating insights from history, economics, sociology, and law.

The origins of political science can be traced back to ancient Greece, where thinkers like Plato and Aristotle sought to understand the ideal form of government and the nature of political organization. However, as a modern academic discipline, political science was formalized in the 19th and 20th centuries, especially with the rise of empirical research methods and behavioral studies. Today, political science is divided into various subfields, including comparative politics, international relations, public administration, and political theory, each offering distinct perspectives on governance and power structures.

Political science seeks to answer fundamental questions such as:

• What is the best form of government?
• How do political institutions influence human behavior?
• What factors lead to political stability or conflict?
• How do political ideologies shape governance and policy-making?

Through these inquiries, political science contributes to a deeper understanding of democracy, authoritarianism, political participation, and governance efficiency, making it an essential discipline for scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike.

Politics: The Practical and Theoretical Aspect of Power and Governance

While political science is the systematic study of governance, politics refers to the practical and theoretical activities associated with power, governance, and decision-making. Politics is fundamentally about power—how it is acquired, exercised, distributed, and contested within society. It is present in all aspects of human interaction, from government institutions to workplaces, families, and international relations.

The concept of politics encompasses both formal and informal mechanisms of governance. In its formal sense, politics refers to the activities of governments, political parties, legislatures, and bureaucracies, where decisions about laws, policies, and resource allocation are made. In its informal sense, politics occurs in everyday life, shaping interpersonal relationships, business strategies, and organizational hierarchies.

Politics can be studied through various approaches, including:

• Normative Politics: Examining how politics should function, focusing on ethical and philosophical questions.
• Descriptive Politics: Analyzing how politics actually functions based on empirical observations.
• Comparative Politics: Comparing political systems and governance models across different countries.

One of the most famous definitions of politics was given by Harold Lasswell, who described it as “who gets what, when, and how.” This definition highlights the distributive and competitive nature of politics, emphasizing how different groups and individuals struggle to influence policy, control resources, and maintain authority.

Political Theory: Examining Ideas, Concepts, and Ideologies

Political Theory is a branch of political science that focuses on analyzing and interpreting political ideas, concepts, and ideologies. It seeks to understand the foundations of political thought, exploring questions related to justice, liberty, equality, rights, and democracy.

Political theory is divided into two main categories:

1. Normative Political Theory: Concerned with ethical and philosophical questions about what should be the ideal form of government and justice. Thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Rawls have contributed significantly to this area.
2. Empirical Political Theory: Focuses on observing and explaining political behavior based on data and historical analysis, rather than prescribing ideals.

Political theory also studies different political ideologies, such as liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, anarchism, and fascism, analyzing how these belief systems shape political structures and governance practices. The Marxist theory, for instance, critiques capitalism and envisions a classless society, while liberal democratic theoryemphasizes individual freedoms, rule of law, and constitutional government.

Political Philosophy: The Ethical and Philosophical Underpinnings of Politics

Political Philosophy is closely related to political theory but focuses more on the fundamental moral and ethical principles that govern human society. It examines questions about justice, rights, freedom, and the legitimacy of authority from a philosophical standpoint, drawing upon classical and modern thinkers.

The difference between political theory and political philosophy lies in their approach:

• Political theory is broader and may include empirical analysis of political systems.
• Political philosophy is more abstract and normative, dealing with ideal models of governance and ethical considerations.

For example, John Rawls’ theory of justice argues that a just society should be based on the principles of fairness, equal opportunity, and protection for the least advantaged. Immanuel Kant emphasized the role of universal moral laws in politics, while Thomas Hobbes believed in a strong sovereign authority to prevent anarchy. These philosophical debates continue to shape contemporary discussions on human rights, governance, and global justice.

Comparative Politics: Analyzing Political Systems Across Nations

Comparative Politics is a subfield of political science that examines different political systems, institutions, and governance models across countries. It seeks to identify patterns, similarities, and differences in political structures and behavior to develop general theories about politics.

Comparative politics focuses on areas such as:

• Democracy vs. Authoritarianism: Examining why some nations develop democratic institutions while others remain under autocratic rule.
• Electoral Systems and Political Parties: Analyzing how different voting systems (first-past-the-post vs. proportional representation) impact governance.
• State Institutions and Public Policy: Comparing how governments address issues like healthcare, education, and economic development.
• Political Stability and Conflict: Studying factors that lead to political crises, revolutions, or peaceful governance transitions.

Scholars in comparative politics use methodologies like case studies, cross-national statistical analysis, and historical comparisons to draw insights. For example, studying why Germany became a stable democracy after World War II, while some post-colonial nations struggled with dictatorship and instability, helps in understanding political development.

Conclusion

The nomenclature of political science includes distinct but interconnected concepts that help in analyzing the nature of power, governance, and political ideologies. While political science is the broad study of governance, politics focuses on the practical exercise of power. Political theory and political philosophy engage in normative and ethical discussions about governance, while comparative politics provides empirical insights into how different governments function worldwide. These categories together create a comprehensive framework for understanding political systems, guiding scholars, policymakers, and citizens in addressing contemporary political challenges.

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES

PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

• Philosophical approach to the study of politics clarifies concepts used in the discipline and aims to enhance linguistic clarity, reducing confusion.
• Vernon Van Dyke emphasized that a philosophical analysis seeks to clarify thought about the nature of the subject and the ends and means of studying it.
• Philosophical approach assumes that language reflects conceptions of reality, aiming for clarity, consistency, coherence, and helpfulness.
• The philosophical approach aims to evolve standards of right and wrong to critically evaluate existing institutions, laws, and policies.
• Philosophical inquiry aims to establish standards of the good, the right, and the just, to appraise or prescribe political institutions and practices.
• Classical political theory represents the philosophical approach, focusing on moral reasoning which may not be scientifically tested, though its empirical aspects can be questioned.
• Moral reasoning in classical political theory can be assessed in light of modern consciousness, e.g., Kant’s concept of human dignity vs. Aristotle’s defense of slavery.
• The philosophical approach is an ongoing debate, influenced by contemporary findings in psychology and social sciences.
• Classical political thinkers focused on human nature, and the themes of art of government and grounds of political obligation.
• Aristotle saw humans as political animals and elaborated on the art of government and political obligation.
• Machiavelli focused on the art of government, assuming a selfish nature of man, while Hobbes focused on political obligation, promoting absolutism.
• Rousseau and Hegel expanded on Hobbes’ absolutism, whereas Locke rejected it, advocating for individual rightsagainst the state.
• Locke is considered the pioneer of individualism, which evolved into liberalism.
• Kant introduced the concept of human dignity, while J.S. Mill defined the limits of political obligation and state intervention.
• T.H. Green developed a theory of rights based on moral grounds, aiming to limit state authority.
• Laski elaborated on individual rights, and John Rawls revived Kant’s notion of rational negotiators in his theory of justice.
• Marx rejected political obligation by identifying social class and advocating for revolution through the working class.
• Neo-Marxists seek alternative strategies and instruments for revolution.
• Political obligation refers to the conditions that determine when and why individuals must obey laws and the commands of political authority.
• Political obligation involves duties like paying taxes, voting, jury service, and military duty to maintain political institutions.
• Political philosophy focuses on the logic behind political obligation, with individual rights and revolution as by-products.
• The concept of democracy translates individual rights into concrete political institutions.
• Concepts like authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and fascism represent the negative side of political efforts to establish democratic institutions.
• Fascism is an anti-democratic theory, advanced by Benito Mussolini, which glorifies the nation-state and emphasizes the absolute authority of the leader.
• Leo Strauss, a champion of the philosophical approach, believed political science and political philosophy are coterminous in the search for true knowledge and standards of the right and good.
• Strauss argued that values and facts are essential in political philosophy for a coherent analysis of political institutions and activities.
• Without such analysis, political assumptions become mere opinions rather than knowledge.
• Political philosophy seeks to replace opinion with knowledge, a goal rooted in Socratic tradition.
• Strauss criticized the behavioral approach for its insistence on value-free analysis, which he believed undermines the pursuit of true knowledge of politics.

HISTORICAL APPROACH

• The historical approach to politics can be used in two senses: one focuses on discovering laws governing politicsthrough the analysis of historical events, and the other seeks to understand politics through a historical account of political thought.
• Karl Popper describes the first sense of historical approach as ‘historicism’, where historical processes are seen as determined by inherent necessities beyond human control.
• Popper criticizes historicism for claiming to discover what is inevitable and advocating totalitarian methods to realize these inevitable outcomes, as seen in the visions of Hegel and Marx.
• The second sense of historical approach focuses on understanding politics through the writings of past political philosophers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill, Green, and Marx.
• According to George H. Sabine, the subject matter of political science overlaps with the major themes of these philosophers’ writings, such as freedom, equality, and the grounds and limits of political obligation.
• Sabine asserts that each political theory responds to specific historical situations, and understanding these circumstances is essential to grasp the theory’s relevance today.
• Political theories not only reflect the history of their time but also serve as instruments for molding history through their ideological force.
• Sabine argues that all great political theories are valid for all times, beyond their original contexts.
• Critics of the historical approach argue that ideas from past ages cannot be fully understood in terms of contemporary ideas and concepts.
• Critics also contend that past ideas are not suitable for addressing present-day crises that were beyond the comprehension of historical thinkers.
• David Easton (1953) warned against relying on ideas from the past, urging the need for a new political synthesisto address modern challenges.
• This criticism of the historical approach led to the development of the behavioural approach in political science.
• Despite the rise of behavioralism, the recent revival of interest in values has rekindled the significance of historical political thought for guiding contemporary political principles.
• John Rawls (1921-2002) developed his theory of justice by drawing on the methodologies of Locke and Kant, while rejecting the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill.
• Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) developed his neo-Marxist theory of freedom by revisiting Hegel’s concept of ‘civil society’.
• C.B. Macpherson (1911-87) built his theory of democracy by returning to the ideas of Aristotle and J.S. Mill, rejecting Bentham’s utilitarianism and the elitism of Schumpeter and Dahl.

LEGAL APPROACH

• The legal approach aims to understand politics in terms of law, focusing on the legal and constitutional framework in which government organs function.
• It analyzes the legal positions, powers, and procedures that make government actions legally valid.
• In Indian politics, the legal approach examines the legal implications of the Indian Constitution, Supreme Court decisions, and opinions of legal experts.
• The legal approach also studies the formation procedures and legal positions of institutions like the Indian Parliament, State legislatures, and the roles of key figures such as the President, Prime Minister, Governors, and Chief Ministers.
• It investigates the powers and positions of the Central and State Cabinets, Supreme Court of India, and High Courts, along with the federal setup and Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
• In international politics, the legal approach focuses on international law and its impact on political actions and relationships.
• The legal approach may be inadequate in understanding complex political forces, processes, and behavioroutside the formal legal framework.
• Despite its limitations, the legal approach remains significant as it controls political action at both domestic and international levels through legal prescriptions and limits on permissible actions.
• Vernon Van Dyke noted that political actions are often controlled by law, which prescribes the actions to be taken and forbids or limits certain actions.
• Every political process, whether it’s an independence movement, civil rights agitation, or efforts for social concessions, must culminate in legal provisions to be effective and stable.
• Constitutional law and international law, while limited in their scope for understanding politics, continue to play a pivotal role in the social and political life of many countries.

INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

• Institutional approach is closely related to the legal approach but differs by not relying solely on other disciplines like philosophy, history, or law for understanding politics.
• It is the only traditional approach that gives an independent identity to the systematic study of politics.
• Politics has traditionally been defined as the study of the state and government, with government being an institution, and its various organs like Parliament, Cabinet, and Supreme Court also recognized as institutions.
• Political parties and other societal institutions like family, school, church, and clubs can also be considered institutions, but political scientists focus on those with a direct bearing on politics.
• An institution is defined as a set of offices and agencies arranged in a hierarchy, with each having specific functions and powers. These offices are manned by people with defined roles, and their activities involve expectations beyond just the office-holders.
• Vernon Van Dyke defines an institution as “any persistent system of activities and expectations” or “any stable pattern of group behaviour.”
• The institutional approach studies the organization and functioning of government organs, political parties, and other institutions that affect politics.
• Key concerns include the classification of governments (e.g., monarchy, democracy, dictatorship), identification of levels of government (federal, state, local), and the composition and powers of government branches (executive, legislative, judicial).
• The approach focuses on descriptive analysis, moving from a normative to an empirical approach and from a historical to a contemporary concern.
• It relies heavily on description rather than explanation, making it inadequate as a contemporary approach.
• Drawbacks of the institutional approach include:
  • Neglecting the individual, focusing too much on institutions, leading to the study of voting behavior and political attitudes being taken up by sociologists.
  • Neglecting international politics due to the absence of overarching institutions, focusing only on international relations and the United Nations.
  • Failing to account for violence, political movements, agitations, war, and revolutions.
  • Overlooking the role of informal groups and processes in shaping politics.
• Despite these shortcomings, institutions are crucial to politics, and any study of politics without referencing institutions is incomplete.
• In developing countries, constitution-making and institution-building are key priorities, making the institutional approach indispensable, though not sufficient on its own. Other approaches are incomplete without paying attention to institutions.

CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES

BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH

• Contemporary approaches to political science mark a departure from traditional methods by (a) focusing on the real character of politics and (b) understanding politics in its totality, beyond formal aspects to include social influences.
• Key contemporary approaches include the behavioural approach, post-behavioural approach, and models of political analysis.
• Behaviouralism is associated with American political scientists after World War II, with roots in earlier works by Graham Wallas and Arthur Bentley in 1908.
• Wallas introduced a new realism in political studies, influenced by contemporary psychology, challenging the rational self-interest assumption of classical economics.
• Wallas emphasized understanding political processes by examining actual human behaviour in political situations, not just theoretical speculations.
• Arthur Bentley, a pioneer of the group approach, focused on informal groups and their impact on politics, largely ignoring formal political institutions.
• Charles E. Merriam criticized the lack of scientific rigor in political science and called for a scientific, interdisciplinary approach using methods from psychology and sociology.
• Merriam advocated for a policy science and political behaviour as central to the study of politics, linking scienceand democracy.
• William B. Munro and G.E.G. Catlin also championed the scientific method in political science, with Catlin proposing a ‘value-free’ approach.
• Harold D. Lasswell developed the study of power in politics, especially in his work Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (1936), focusing on empirical analysis of political power.
• Behaviouralism was developed after WWII through contributions from David B. Truman, Robert Dahl, Evron M. Kirkpatrick, and David Easton, shifting the focus from formal political structures to political behaviour.
• Political behaviour refers to human actions within a political context, such as those of voters, leaders, revolutionaries, and party members, and includes the sociological and psychological influences on individual actions.
• The study of political behaviour covers areas such as political socialization, ideologies, culture, participation, communication, leadership, decision-making, and political violence.
• Behaviouralism is not just about individual political behaviour but includes a broader scientific orientation, using interdisciplinary methods for comprehensive political analysis.
• David Easton outlined eight major tenets of behaviouralism:
  • Regularities: Discoverable uniformities in political behaviour for explanation and prediction.
  • Verification: Theory statements must be testable against relevant behaviour.
  • Techniques: Self-conscious and validated methods for data acquisition and interpretation.
  • Quantification: Measurement and precision in data collection for proper analysis.
  • Values: Clear distinction between empirical explanation and ethical evaluation, maintaining a value-neutral approach.
  • Systematization: Interrelationship between theory and research to strengthen both.
  • Pure Science: Understanding political behaviour to solve practical societal problems.
  • Integration: Incorporating insights from other social sciences to strengthen political science.
• The behavioural movement emphasized the need for reliable theory and scientific explanations, influencing political science methodology.
• Behaviouralism focused more on reliable answers to specific, measurable questions rather than on broad, vagueissues or ideologies.
• Micro-level situations were prioritized in behaviouralism, with less emphasis on macro-level generalizations.

POST-BEHAVIOURAL REVOLUTION

• By the mid-1960s, behaviouralism became dominant in political science methodology, but its critics, like Leo Strauss (1957), argued it failed to address normative issues.
• Sheldon Wolin (1969) claimed that the focus on methodology in political science signified an abdication of the true purpose of political theory.
• The publication of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) argued that the value of scientific methods lies in problem-solving and crisis management, not just methodological sophistication.
• By the end of the 1960s, even behaviouralism’s exponents recognized that its strict adherence to pure science led to its failure to address pressing social and political issues.
• In 1969, David Easton announced a post-behavioural revolution in his presidential address to the American Political Science Association, shifting focus from strict methodology to greater concern with the public responsibilities of political science.
• Post-behaviouralism emphasized relevance and action, consolidating the gains of behaviouralism while applying them to problem-solving and crisis management.
• Easton criticized behaviouralists for their detachment, warning against their focus on perfecting methodology while ignoring pressing social issues, such as the nuclear threat, civil war risks in the US, and the Vietnam War.
• Easton argued that intellectuals must protect the humane values of civilization and not become mere techniciansdetached from the real world.
• Post-behaviouralism sought to reintroduce values and the goals of social policy into political science without abandoning the scientific rigor of the behavioural approach.
• Whereas behaviouralism aimed for pure science, post-behaviouralism aimed to make political science an applied science focused on real-world issues.
• Over time, the behavioural approach has increasingly integrated post-behavioural concerns, focusing more on solving contemporary societal problems.