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.
 Meaning of Political Science (Cont….)
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.” (Kapur, A.C. Principles of
Political Science, S. Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 2006, p.17)

 Dr. Garner, “Political Science begins and ends with the

state” (Agarwal,R.C.: Political Theory- Principles of Political Science, S.
Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 2007, p.3

(cont…)
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” (Agarwal,R.C.: Political Theory-
Principles of Political Science, S. Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 2007, p.3).

Stephen Leacock, “Political Science deals with the

Government” (Agarwal,R.C.: Political Theory- Principles of Political Science, S. Chand &
Company Ltd., New Delhi, 2007, p.3).
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.”
(Source: Agarwal,R.C.: Political Theory- Principles of Political Science, S. Chand &
Company Ltd., New Delhi, 2007)
Difference between politics and Political Science

Modern writers make a distinction between “politics “and “political

Science”

Frederic Pollock, for the first time, broke up the subject into two parts:

 Theoretical politics and

 Practical or applied politics

 Difference between theoretical politics and applied politics

The first portion covers theory of the State and Government, theory of
legislation and theory of the State as an artificial person. The subjects
under the first category deal with the features of the State and the basic
principles of government and do not study actual working of any
particular government.

The second part covers the study of the State and actual forms of
government. Working of government and administration. Political action
and election. Those who take part in the actual activities of the State are
known as politicians. They form political parties. contest in the elections
and run the government and conduct the administration of the State. It is
known as applied or practical polity, which deals with the actual working
of government.
 Nature of Political Science

Political Science is a part of social sciences and

therefore is different from that of physical sciences
like physics and chemistry.

So the question which concerns the nature of the

subject is whether Political Science is a Science or an
Art and how the nature of the discipline has
undergone changes in the 20th century.
 Political Science: An Art
Science is universal and a systematic body of
knowledge, based on accurate and impartial facts,
through which observation, comparison and
experimentation can be made.

Apparently, Political Science does not have some

of these features. And therefore Earnest Barker
(British political thinker), James Bryce (British
political thinker), Charles A. Beard (British historian)
and others were reluctant to accept Political Science
as a science.
 Political Science: An Art (Cont…..)
The following are some arguments against the notion of Political
Science as a Science:-

 Lack of precise and standard definitions of terms and concepts.

Complexity of political phenomena due to variation in the nature

and habits of people.

Diversity of ‘environments’ in which political developments take

place.

 Problems of experimentation to arrive at valid conclusions.

 Political Science: A Science

American political thinkers like David Easton

tried to establish a scientific basis of Political
Science.

Aristotle called it a Master Science through

which civilisation could be saved.
 Political Science: A Science (cont….)
The following are some arguments in favour of the notion of
Political Science as a Science:

Recently, political theory has developed based on

facts and verifiable data, e.g., voting behaviour and
theories of election.

Political experiments are not completely ruled out.

The government itself is a continuous experiment.

 Political Science: A Science (cont….)
It is possible to make predictions on the basis of social
experimentations to a certain extent.

Broad conclusions can be drawn in Political Science

such as–an independent and impartial judiciary and a free
press are essential for democracy

Empirical studies are based on careful observation and

classification. Political Science puts a hypothesis or an
assumption to empirical verification. Theories are not
built on speculation. Political Scientists today employ
survey methods, graphs, charts and other scientific tools
to arrive at their research conclusions.
Political Science is thus a science, though not like the physical
sciences.

It is a social science.

American political scientist, Robert Dahl states that Political science is

both a Science and an Art.

Art refers to practical application of knowledge. Political Science

applies the knowledge about political events for creating a good social
and political order. Hence it is an art.

Whenever students of Political Science test their theories against the

data of experience by observation, the political analysis can be
regarded as scientific.

When this political analysis is applied for the working of political

institutions it becomes an art.
 Changing dynamics of the meaning and
nature of Political Science
After the World War II, the meaning and nature of political
science have undergone a sea change.

Now political science is closely related to all aspects of

social relations, rather than an activity centred on the
institutions of government.

 So the aims and objectives of political science have changed

due to factors such as the rise of the power theory and
behaviouralism.
 New understanding of Political Science
Political Science has ceased to be merely the science of state-craft.

Political Science is concerned with all facets of power relations and

human behaviour having political implications in the society.

Politics is portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, in which

rival views or competing interests are reconciled for the benefit of
all. The new meaning of Political Science includes the dynamics
of power and struggle at various levels — local, regional, national
and international.

 So the aims and objectives of Political Science have changed due to

factors such as the rise of the power theory and behaviouralism.
 Scope of Political Science
Political science as a discipline deals with various aspects like:

Study of state and government- it deals with the nature and formation
of the State and tries to understand various forms and functions of the
government.

Study of associations and institutions- in organized way the

fundamental problems of political science include, first, an investigation
of the origin and the nature of the state, second an inquiry into the nature,
history and forms of political institutions and third, deduction, therefore,
so far as possible, of laws of political growth and development.
 Scope of Political Science (Cont…)
Study of national and international problems- modern
demands of defense of territory, representative government
and national unity have made political science not only the
science of political independence but that of state sovereignty
also.

Study of political behavior of man- it may be said that the

character of political science in all its parts is determined by its
basic pre-supposition regarding man.
 Scope of Political Science (Cont…)

Study of the past, present and future of development- political science

attempts to explain the meaning and the essential nature of the state and
deals with the laws of its progress and development within itself and in
relation to international organizations and other states.

Study of the concepts of power, authority & influence- with the

behavioural revolution the central topic for study has become the study
of power. Consequently the scope has widened to include new aspects
like political socialization, political culture, political development and
informal structures like interest and pressure groups.
 Conclusion

In the contemporary time, the meaning of Political

Science has become more and more inclusive.

Earlier political science had been defined by many

scholars from the point of view of the State and
Government.

But now the term political system brings the study of

political science closer to other systems such as the
economic system, the cultural system, the legal system
and other social systems all of which operate within the
larger social environment.
 Conclusion
Regarding the nature of Political Science there is a difference of
opinion among scholars whether political science is a science or an
art.
Political scientists have put forward some arguments in favour of
the notion that political science is a science, such as –
political theory has developed based on facts and verifiable data,
like, voting behaviour and theories of election;
in political science there is much scope for experiments, for
example the government itself is a continuous process of
experiment;
broad conclusions can be drawn in political science;
empirical studies are based on careful observation and
classification.
Political scientists today employ survey methods, graphs, charts
and other scientific tools to arrive at their research conclusions.
 Conclusion

At the same time another section of political scientists opine

that political science is an art and they put forward some
argument in favour of this notion, such as–
lack of precise and standard definitions of terms and
concepts;
complexity of political phenomena due to variation in the
nature and habits of people;
diversity of ‘environments’ in which political developments
take place;
problems of experimentation to arrive at valid conclusions.
 Conclusion
 With the passage of time, the scope of political
science also keeps on changing.
In recent times, political science has ceased to be
merely the science of state-craft.
Now political science covers a comprehensive field
and it has become dynamic in character.
Political science deals with each and every aspect of
the state and government in relation to their past and
present and also focuses upon the probable
developments in the future.
Nowadays, factors like the developments in the arena
of human rights and human development and new social
movements and upsurges in civil society have also
widened the scope of political science.
Relation of Political Science with the other Social Sciences
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 18 th 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 diversity1”. The beginning of 19 th 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 society2”.

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

1
Lipset, S M (1960), “Political Man”, pp. 23-102.
2
Easton, David (1953), “The Political System”, pp. 103.
ultimate fusion and disappearance of all specialties into one body of knowledge 3”. 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 disciplines 4”.

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

3
Easton, David (1953), “The Political System”, pp. 101.
4
Easton, David (1966), “Alternative Strategies in Theoretical Research” in Varieties of Political
Theory”, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 6-7.
5
Torn book.
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 6.”

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 7. 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 8. 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

6
Dhawan, Suhana (2012), “Relationship between Political Science and History-Essay”, URL:
http://www.shareyouressays.com/89023/relationship-between-political-science-and-history-essay
7
http://sociology-trisa.blogspot.in/2010/09/relationship-between-sociology-and_10.html
8
Ibid
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
state10.

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

9
Kumar, Bharat (), “ What is the relationship between sociology and political science”,
http://www.preservearticles.com/201102214068/what-is-the-relationship-between-sociology-and-
political-science.html
10
Ibid
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 race 11. 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
psychology12.

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 13.

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

11
Mehta, Vipul (), “What is the relationship between Psychology and Political Science”,
http://www.publishyourarticles.net/knowledge-hub/science/what-is-the-relationship-between-
psychology-and-political-science.html
12
Ibid
13
Mehta, Vipul (), “What is the relationship between ethics and Political Science”, URL:
http://www.publishyourarticles.net/knowledge-hub/political-science/what-is-the-relationship-between-
ethics-and-political-science.html
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 20 th 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 system14. The government controls foreign trade, currency system,
mending and borrowing. All these and other are economic issues which require

14
Sarmah, Durga Kant (2004), “Political Science”, New Age International publishers, New Delhi.
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

15
Mehta, Vipul (), “What is the Relationship between Political Science and Anthropology”,
http://www.publishyourarticles.net/knowledge-hub/political-science/what-is-the-relationship-between-
political-science-and-anthropology.html
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
gained16. 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:

16
Aronoff, Myron J and Jan Kubik (2012), “Anthropology and Political Science: A Convergent
Approach”,
 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.
 Approaches to the study of Political Science

Most authors do not make a distinction between the term approach and method
to the study of political science as they are synonyms. However in view of Dr J C
Johari, „an approach is a way of looking at and then explaining a given phenomenon
which includes everything related to the collection and selection of evidence
necessary for investigation and analysis of hypotheses. Methods on the other hand is a
way of organising a theory for application to data. According to Salvadori, method
refers to the technical devices used for gathering data and the points of view of the
specialists. According to Van Dyke, “approaches consist of criteria for selecting
problems and relevant data whereas methods are procedures for getting and utilising
data”. 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 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 politics and is idealistic in nature. It deals with the
problems of nature and function of state, issues of citizenship, rights and duties etc.
 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.

Institutional approach lays stress on the study of political institutions and

structures like executive, legislature, judiciary, political aprties, 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.

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.

Based on the definition of traditional approach to political issues, the

following features of traditional approach could be deduced 1:

Accent on large questions: the issues of larger concern such as how the authority
should be organised, what should be the criteria for citizenship, what should be the
functions of state etc. are the subject matter of traditional approach and appear with
greater degree of regularity.

Normative overtone: normative orientation or statement of preferences (value

questions) occurs frequently in traditional thinking. The traditional thinkers as such do
not make a distinction between political and ethical questions. Therefore thinkers like
Plato have raised questions like what should be the size of state, what should be an
ideal state etc.

1
Ray Amal and Bhattacharya……………….
Philosophical orientation: an important feature of traditional political thought has
been its philosophical orientation. In the words of Wasby, “the philosophical
approach takes in all aspects of man‟s political activities and has as its goal a
statement of underlying principles concerning those activities 2”. Actual political
activities have often been judged against ideals postulated as „state of nature‟, natural
law, ideal polity and so on. Plato‟s Republic and Hobbes Leviathan will always be
remembered as treatise which searched for deeper general principles underlying the
actual political activities3.

Legal institutional bias: formal aspects of government such as constitution, the organs
of government, the laws of election and so on have been the concern of traditional
political thought. The institutional approach has legal orientation as emphasis is
placed on laws, rules and regulations that determine the structure and processes of
governmental institutions4.

Thus traditional approach with all its intrinsic feature has made tremendous
contribution to the understanding of political problems. Even now political
researchers adhere to traditional approach for understanding issues of government and
politics which shows significance of traditional approach.

Modern Approach

The modern approach is fact based and lays emphasis on the factual study of
political phenomenon to arrive at scientific and definite conclusions. The modern
approaches include sociological approach, economic approach, psychological
approach, quantitative approach, simulation approach, system approach, behavioural
approach, Marxian approach etc.

2
Wasby, L Stephen (1972), “Political Science- The Discipline and its Dimensions, an Introduction”,
Scientific Book Agency, Calcutta.
3
Ray and Bhattacharya………
4
Ibid
Modern Approaches

Normative methods generally refer to the traditional methods of inquiry to the

phenomena of politics and are not merely concerned with „what is‟ but „what aught to
be‟ issues in politics. Its focus is on the analysis of institution as the basic unit of
study. However with the advent of industrialisation and behavioural revolution in the
field of political science, emphasis shifted from the study „what aught to‟ to „what is‟.
Today political scientists are more interested in analysing how people behave in
matters related to the state and government.

A new movement was ushered in by a group of political scientists in America

who were not satisfied with the traditional approach to the analysis of government and
state as they felt that tremendous exploration had occurred in other social sciences
like sociology, psychology anthropology etc. which when applied to the political
issues could render new insights. They now collect data relating to actual political
happenings. Statistical information coupled with the actual behaviours of men,
individually and collectively, may help the political scientists in arriving at definite
conclusions and predicting things correctly in political matters5. The quantitative or
statistical method, the systems approach or simulation approach in political science
base their inquiry on scientific data and as such are known as modern or empirical
method.

Behavioural Approach

Until the middle of the 20 th century, political science was primarily concerned
with qualitative questions which had a philosophical, legalistic and descriptive
orientation. The discipline was in fact transformed by the behavioural revolution in
the 1950‟s which laid stress on scientific and empirical approach to the understanding
of political phenomena. The revolution got an impetus with the establishment of the
journal Experimental Study of Politics in 1970‟s. The central focus of behavioralism

5
book
is its emphasis on the study of political behaviour which refers to acts, attitudes,
preferences and expectations of man in political context 6. In the words of Barrow,
“behavoiralism‟s main methodological claim was that uniformities in political
behaviour could be discovered and expressed as generalizations but such
generalizations must be testable by reference to observable political behaviours such
as voting, public opinion or decision making 7”.

The main characteristics of behavioural revolution has been summed up as 8

and

- It rejects political institutions as the basic unit for research and identifies the
behaviour of individuals in political situations as the basic unit of analysis

- Identifies social sciences as behavioural sciences and emphasises the unity of

political science with the other social sciences

- Advocates the utilization and development of more precise techniques of observing,

classifying and measuring data and urges the use of statistical or quantitative
formulation wherever possible

- Defines the construction of systematic, empirical theory as the goal of political

sciences.

The intellectual foundations of behavioralism have been summed up by David

Easton as regularities, verification, technique, quantification, values, systematisation,
pure science and integration. Behaviouralism has been criticised on a number of
grounds some which may be summed up as 9

6
Ealau, Heinz (1964), “The Behavioural Persuasion in Politics”, Random House, New Delhi.
7
Barrow, Clyde W (2008), “Political Science” in the International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, William A Darity Jr. (ed). pp 313.
8
Kirkpatric, M Evron (1962), “The Impact of the Behavioural Approach on Tradtitonal Political
science” in Austin Ranney (ed.) Essay on the Behavioural Study of Politics, University of Ellinois
Press, Urbana.
9
Introduction to approaches to the study of Political Science, URL:
http://www.kkhsou.in/main/polscience/approaches_polscience.html
- The movement has been criticized for its dependence on techniques and methods
ignoring the subject matter.

- The advocates of this approach were wrong when they said that human beings
behave in similar ways in similar circumstances.

- Besides, it is a difficult task to study human behaviour and to get a definite result.

- Most of the political phenomena are unquantifiable. Therefore it is always difficult

to use scientific method in the study of Political Science.

- Moreover, the researcher being a human being is not always value neutral as
believed by the behaviouralists.

Behaviouralism is not to be looked as a complete dissociation with the

traditional thinking. In fact it is a protest against and an extension and enrichment of
the traditionalist stance in political science 10. The goals of behavioural research have
been set as understanding, describing, analysing and if possible predicting political
phenomena.

Post- Behavioural

David Easton coined the term Post-Behaviouralism in his Presidential Address

at the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in 1969. in
fact Easton was one of the key figures of behavioural revolution. Post-behavioralism
claimed that despite the fact that behaviouralism claimed to be value free there was
tendency in it towards social preservation and status-quo rather than social change.
Therefore the new movement led stress on action and relevance. Three key tenets of
the post behavioural movement were:

- It challenged the view of behaviouralists that research has to be value neutral and
stressed that values should not be totally neglected. Unlike natural sciences
generalizations can‟t be made in the field of social sciences because study of men in
the social context was a complicated affair.

10
Ray and Bhattacharya…………….
- Post behavoiuralism claimed that behavoiralists stress on observable and measurable
phenomena meant that too much emphasis was being placed on easily studies trivial
issue at the expense of more important topics. Easton himself declared that he felt
dissatisfied with the research made under the impact of behavoiralist movement as it
looked more of Mathematics than Political Science which had lost touch with the
reality and the contemporary world.

- Post behaviouralism stressed that research should have relevance to the society and
that intellectuals have a positive role to play. The new movement believed that the use
of scientific tools in political science could be beneficial only when it is able to solve
the various problems confronting society. It criticised behavoiuralism for ignoring the
realities of society while laying too much emphasis on techniques.

However it needs to be stressed that post- behavoiralism was a continuation of

the behavioural movement as it recognised the contributions of behaviouralism in the
realm of political science. By making use of different techniques and methods post-
behaviouralism try to overcome the drawbacks of behaviouralism and make the study
of political science more relevant to the society.

Structural-Functional Approach

The structural-functional theory postulates that political systems are comprised

of various structures that are relatively uniform in the sense that they are found in
most political systems throughout the world. The theory asserts that each of these
structures has a particular function that supports the establishment of an orderly,
stable system of governance within which individuals and other societal structures
fulfil roles of their own. Typical political structures include: legislative bodies, courts,
bureaucratic organizations, executive bodies, and political parties. (Powell, Dalton,
Strom, pg 35).

Structural functionalism became popular around 1960 when it became clear

that ways of studying U.S. and European politics were not useful in studying newly
independent countries, and that a new approach was needed. Structural functionalists
try to do find out the function a given structure (guerrilla movement, political party,