POS 211

Political Analysis

i
 Ibadan Distance Learning Centre Series

POS 211
Political Analysis

By
Eghosa Osaghae Ph.D
Department of Political Science,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Reviewed by:
Stephen Akinyemi Lafenwa (Ph.D)
Department of Political Science,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Published by:
Distance Learning Centre
University of Ibadan
Nigeria

ii
© Distance Learning Centre
University of Ibadan
Nigeria.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
permission of the copyright owner.

First Published 1988

Reviewed 2015

Reviewed 2023

ISBN 978-2828-13-0

General Editor: Prof. Emmanuel Omobowale

Series Editor:

Typeset @ Distance Learning Centre, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Table of Contents
iii
 Page
Vice Chancellor‟s Message … … … … … vi
Foreword … … … … … … … vii
General Introduction … … … … … … viii
Lecture One: Definitions and Varying Conceptions of Politics … 1
Lecture Two: What Counts as Political Action? … … 13
Lecture Three: Essence of Politics 20
Lecture Four: The Nature of Political Analysis 28
Lecture Five: Political Analysis and the Use of Scientific Method 37
Lecture Six: Political Analysis and the Significance of Multidisciplinary
Approach in the Social Sciences … … 47
Lecture Seven: Systems Theoretical Approach to the Study of Politics 56
Lecture Eight: Structural – Functionalist Analytical Approach … 63
Lecture Nine: Modes of Political Analysis … … 69
Lecture Ten: Classification of Political Systems … … … 75
Lecture Eleven: Similarities in Political System … … 83
Lecture Twelve: Differences in Political Systems … … 88
Lecture Thirteen: Analyzing Participants in Politics … … 94
Lecture Fourteen: Initiation into Politics: Political Socialization 107
Lecture Fifteen: Political Evaluation … … … 113
Bibliography … … … … … … 99

iv
General Introduction
The major work of political scientists is political analysis. Political
analysis entails systematically studying political problems, issues,
decisions, policies or situations by organizing the available information
into elements or categories and then relating these to one another. The aim
of any scientific analysis is to explain and predict political occurrences –
why things happen the way they do, why people behave the way they do,
and under what conditions such events and enables us to understand the
political world in which we live. It is very important because if we do not
understand our political lives, we cannot hope to solve our problems.
This course is one of the foundation courses in political science. In it,
I will introduce you to the elements of political analysis. I have four main
objectives in doing so. First, I want you to become familiar with some of
the basic concepts we use in political science. Second, I want you to
determine from your own experience, what counts as political actions.
\Third, I want you to develop the skill of recognizing and asking relevant
political questions. Finally, I want you to learn how to apply the
knowledge and skill you will acquire in analyzing political issues, events,
behaviour and processes. In summary, I expect that at the end of this
course, you will become an “expert” Political Analyst in your own right
because, political analysis is best done by experts.
Some of the topics I shall treat are: What is politics? what counts as
political action, the essence of politics, modes of political analysis, types
of political systems, participants in politics, and political socialization. I
am sure you will find them very interesting.
Let me at this point give you a few hints on how you can easily follow
and understand the course. First, you should realize that political science
has its own “technical” language. Because this course is central to the
discipline, you will come across many news words or what we call
concepts. Sometimes, you may find it difficult to understand what I am
saying at first reading. Do not let this scare you at all. I shall try to explain
everything as simple enough as possible.
Second, most of the topics are so related that you must endeavour to
understand one chapter before moving on to the next one. This way, you
will find reading interesting.

v
 Third, I have included assignments in every lecture, as well as
references for further reading. You should endeavour to do all the
assignments on your own. This is the only way you can convince yourself
that you are following the teaching. As for the references, I need not
overemphasize their usefulness.
Fourth, let me elaborate a little bit more on the assignments by
telling you what I expect from you. Although the requirements would
naturally vary from one lecture to the other, you should first make sure
you understand the question before starting on the assignment. At the end
of the lecture, you should compare your answers with those you had at the
beginning.
I expect that you will enjoy the course, and that you will profit
greatly from it. Have a nice time.

vi
LECTURE ONE

Definitions and Varying Conceptions of

Politics

Introduction
First and foremost, in this course, I need to define and give various
conceptions of politics by drawing your attention to the meanings and
different perspectives of scholars on the concept of politics. This is
important because political science is the systematic and scientific study of
politics as pointed to you in “POS 111: The study of Politics”. This study
session is divided into two. The first part makes attempt to conceptualize
the concept of politics while the second part identify and explain each
conception of politics as articulated by different scholars. All these
definitions and conceptions of politics will enhance and deepen your
understanding on politics and political analysis.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. Give at least three definitions of politics; and
2. Identify and explain the various conceptions of politics.

Pre- Test
1. Most political scientists agree that politics has something to do
with the following Except: (a) Power (b) influence (c) authority (d)
sovereignty.
2. David Easton‟s definition of politics as authoritative allocation of
values for a society appears to be (a) too abstract (b) too narrow (c)
too scientific (d) is real

1
 3. Aristotle underscores the importance of politics by describing it as
the ……………… (a) architectonic discipline (b) Master Science (c)
King of the Sciences (d) Prince of the sciences
4. Which of the following is NOT a major conception of politics?
Politics as: (a) the pursuit of public interest (b) relations and
conflicts among social classes (c) the operation of the state (d) the
government.
5. ……….. conceived politics as the only possible solution to the
problem of order.
(a) David Easton (b) Karl Marx (c) Bernard Crick (d) Harold Laski

CONTENT
What is Politics?

Political analysis becomes significant because politics is fundamental to

society and human relations. Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher who is
regarded as one of the founding fathers of modern Political Science,
argues that politics is significant because man is by nature a „political
animal‟ (zoon politikon), one who is only able to actualize his or her
essence in relation with others. He further underscores the importance of
politics by describing it as the „master science‟, the fountain of
knowledge required to successfully manage the affairs of human society to
the ends of true happiness for all. Any one not knowledgeable in the
science of politics cannot govern well.
Although politics is difficult to define, it is easy to recognize. To some
extent with the word „politics‟ we can consider current usage and decide
our own meaning, making our own definition wide or narrow according to
our taste or purposes. Politics is obviously a universal activity and it is
exciting because people disagree. They disagree about how they should
live. Who should get what? How should power and other resources be
distributed? How should collective decisions be made? How much
influence should each person have? and so on. For Aristotle, this made
politics the „master science‟, that is, nothing less than the activity through
which human beings attempt to improve their lives and create good
society. Politics is, above all, a social activity. It is always a dialogue
never a monologue.

2
The conflict of different interests, people or groups of people who want
different things be it power, money, liberty etc- face the potential or reality
of conflict when such things are in short supply. Politics begins when
interests clash. At the micro level we use a variety of techniques to get our
own way: persuasion, rational argument, irrational strategies, threats,
entreaties, bribes, manipulation anything we think will work. At the macro
level, democratic states establish complex procedures for the management
of such conflicts codified in the form of written constitutions (except in
Britain).
However, the political order is essentially peaceful. But if violence is
involved on a widespread scale e.g. war between sovereign states; it would
be fair to say that politics has been abandoned for other means. I must
point out to you here that, political order within a state is ensured through
the implicit threat of force which a state‟s control of the police and army
provides. There are many situations in the world, for example in Northern
Ireland or the Lebanon, and Nigeria, where violence is regularly used to
provide both a context for and an alternative to peaceful political
processes.
So while political activity is peaceful for most of the time in most
countries, the threat of violence or its reality are both integral parts of the
political process. I should now be able to move us towards author
definition:

Politics is essentially a process which seeks to manage or resolve

conflicts of interest between people, usually in a peaceful fashion.
In its general sense it can describe the interactions of any group of
individuals but in its specific sense it refers to the many and
complex relationships which exist between state institutions and
the rest of society.
There are several definitions of politics because political scientists do not
agree on a common definition. I shall have more to say on this when I
consider the conceptions of politics in the next lecture but just now, I will
give you two of the definitions that have been given. You should try to
compare and contrast them. The definitions are:

i.
Politics involves the struggle among actors pursuing conflicting
desires on public issues. (Vernon van Dyke).

3
 ii. Politics is the authoritative allocation of values (David Easton).
iii. Politics is about determination of who gets what when and how
(Harrold Lasswell)
iv. Politics is the essence of social existence because where two or
more men interact; they invariably involved themselves in politics.
(Aristotle)
v. Politics is any stable pattern of human relations that involves
power, influence, authority and legitimacy. (Robert Dahl)
The first definition points to the nature of political activities, as they take
place in the “public realm”, i.e. that part of society in which issues affect
virtually all members. But the definition does not tell us the outcome of
the struggle among political actors. This is where the second definition is
useful. It tells us that politics is directed at decision-making. The third
definition emphasizes the notion of power (this is similar to the fifth
definition that also focuses on power and its concepts such as influence
and authority), which is one of the central concepts of politics. Let me
inform you that power related issues occur everywhere in the family,
associations, state and inter – state levels. That is what the fourth and fifth
definitions emphasize. Politics occurs everywhere.
The outcome of the struggle among political actors is to influence those
who decide who gets what, when and how. Actors struggle because the
resources at the disposal of decision-makers are scarce and, consequently,
not everyone can get what he or she wants. This is a recurrent issue in
every society. Heywood describes politics in its broadest sense as “the
activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules
under which they live. Although, politics is also an academic subject
(sometimes indicated by the use of „Politics‟ with a capital P), it is then
clearly the study of this activity.
The five definitions given above are therefore related. The definition I
shall give then will combine elements of all.

Politics can be defined as a struggle among actors pursuing

conflicting desires on issues to influence the authoritative
allocation of values in terms of who gets what, when and how
which occurs at intra-state, state and inter-state levels in order to
promote a stable pattern of human relationship.
Conceptions of Politics
4
Politics is ubiquitous. In other words, it is present everywhere at the same
time. To this extent, it has been observed or conceptualized or defined to
mean several things. Conception of politics means the process of forming
an idea of what politics is all about. The various conceptions are
important for specifying what aspects of politics are to be analyzed. They
can be assessed according to how well they explain political activities and
behaviour in a wide variety of societies.
Politics as the Pursuit of the Public Interest
The earliest conception of politics belonged to the Greeks who defined
politics as belonging to the public realm as distinct from the private realm.
The public realm by contrast with the private realm which consists of
private matters (family relationships, friendship, farming, etc.) refers to
matters of public concern which affects the whole community and on
which actions are taken in pursuit of the public good.
The public realm was viewed by the Greeks to be morally superior to
the private realm, and was represented by the polis or “city-state.” Plato
and Aristotle, two famous Greek philosophers, were at the forefront of this
conception of politics. Their primary interest was in the moral purposes
that the decision makers ought to pursue to realize the public or common
good of all members of the state. Aristotle said that the „highest good” was
to ensure happiness of all men. This happiness was not however defined as
the attainment of more pleasure, but as the conformity of ideas and actions
with perfect goodness. Thus, Aristotle wrote that “What the statesman is
most anxious to produce is a moral character in his fellow citizens, namely
a disposition of virtue and the performance of virtuous actions”.
However, I will not want you to think that the Greek polis which
represented the public realm is the same thing as the modern state. Firstly,
the present state is mostly secular and is distinct from the church, the polis
as Aristotle used it was a union, rather than, a division of functions. The
polis was a political association, a religious community and an educational
agency, all at once. Secondly, in the modern state, individuals are divided
and unequal in terms of power and authority in the polis, there was a
common agreement on moral beliefs. Thirdly sovereignty in the Polis lay
with the public assembly in the modern state, presidents and representative
institution like the legislature exercise sovereignty.
Although profound changes have occurred since the times of Plato
and Aristotle, some political philosophers still define politics in terms of

5
moral beliefs and the moral ends of the state. Notable among these are
John Rawls who formulated a theory of justice whose ends are liberty and
equality, and Martin Luther King Jr. who also voiced a concept of justice
as involving the equality of all men irrespective of race and other
circumstances of birth.
The conception of politics as the pursuit of the public interest has
however been criticized on some grounds:
(1) Public interest is myth which is usually employed by political leaders
to rationalize private interests:
(2) Politics is not restricted to the public realm because matters in the
private realm both influence and determine behaviour in the public realm;
and
(3) the modern state is too large and divided to allow for agreement on
common goods.

Politics as the Operation of the State

The foremost proponent of this conception is Max Weber (pronounced
Weber), a German Sociologist who argued that the state cannot be defined
in terms of its ends largely because there is no task that is peculiar to it.
Ultimately Weber argued, the modern state can only be defined in terms of
the means peculiar to it, namely, the use of physical force. Accordingly, he
defined the state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the
monopoly of the legitimate use of force within given territory…”
For Weber, politics should be equated with the activities of the state, a
state being a concrete administrative structure which uses force to compel
obedience.
From his definition, we can identify some characteristics of the state:
(1) It contains many specialized structures-offices, roles, and institutions
(2) It has a monopoly of coercive power as embodied in military, police
and prison officers.
(3) It exercises sovereignty, i.e., the absolute right to make final decision
binding on society; and
(4) It has clearly defined territorial boundaries.
(5) It has a compulsory jurisdiction; which means it can control and
regulate everything within its jurisdiction.

6
 For a very long time, in fact until the 1940s; politics was popularly
defined in terms of the state. Since then however, this conception has been
seen to be inadequate because we now realize that politics exists in all
societies and villages where the state is yet to emerge. Secondly, the
conception of politics as the activities of the state does not accommodate
what goes on in international politics (which is “stateless). Thirdly, we
now know that in some states, the state does not have a monopoly of
coercion. As a corollary, no states rules by sheer force or power for a long
time. It has to be accepted by the people, so it becomes legitimate.
Legitimacy then transforms power into authority, in which case the state
uses force only sparingly.
In spite of these shortcomings, the conception of politics as the
activities of the state remains popular amongst those who see politics as
revolving around the government which embodies the state.

Politics as the Determination and Execution of public Policy

In lecture one, we defined politics as a struggle among actors pursuing
conflicting desires to influence the authoritative allocation of values in
terms of who gets what, when, and how. That definition derives from the
conception of politics as the determination and execution of public policy.
Political scientists who conceive of politics in this way focus attention
primarily on how binding decisions are made and carried out for society,
rather than on state structures as the sole centre of political life.
This conception is close to that which sees politics as the pursuit of
public interest, but differs from it in that it recognizes the conflicting
interests and desires that individuals and groups have in society. it further
recognizes that resources are scarce and cannot meet everyone‟s desire.
The conception therefore sensitizes us to the interactions among the
individual, cultural beliefs, social structures and public (political) policies.
Beyond this, proponents of this conception of politics are also interested in
the implementation or execution of public policies once they are made
because a policy that is not implemented or cannot be implemented for all
practical purposes is a non-policy. In linking the determination of policies
to their execution, crucial questions like how policies are determined, the
effects of these policies on the society, group and individuals, and whether
they meet the purposes for which they were meant, are asked.

7
 The interpretation of politics as the process of determining and
executing policies is probably the most useful of all conceptions of politics
because it offers the most useful explanation of political life in a wide
variety of societies, including stateless societies. It most importantly
points to certain important features of politics.
(1) that it is an activity;
(2) that may be performed by specialized structures;
(3) that political decisions affect the vast generality of members in society
and are therefore public rather than private;
(4) that politics deals with acceptable decisions which do not require
force;
(5) that political activities often change from one particular problem to the
other and according to the effects of policies on society as a whole and
(6) that political activities do take place outside of the state structure.

Politics as the Relations and Conflicts among Classes

This is a conception of politics which derives from the writings of Karl
Marx. According to Marx, every society is interlocked in a struggle
between two broad classes in society. These classes are differentiated in
terms of their relations to the mode of production in society: those who
own and control the means of production constitute the class of
oppressors, and they have not belong to the class of the oppressed.
Political activity centers around the struggle between these two classes for
supremacy. Ultimately, Marx believed the oppressed class will be
victorious, and will establish a socialists society in which all men will be
equal.
This conception is important because, as I have emphasized at various
points, politics involves struggle: those who are powerful (i.e. those who
control the means of production) control more than a fair share of political
resources, and disproportionately influence the determination of public
policies. However, the conception underrates importance of ethnic,
religious, racial and other identities which, in addition to class, influences
political behaviour of individuals and groups.
The above conceptions have certain overlaps. For example, most of them
place emphasis on the state as the center of all political activities. Other
views of politics are as follows:

8
Politics as the Art of Government: This is the traditional view of the
discipline which focus on the personnel and machinery of government.
This conception of politics offers a highly restricted view of politics. It
centered on the machinery of government and engaged in by limited and
specific group of people. This view of politics is clearly evident in the
everyday use of the term: people are said to be „in politics‟ when they hold
public office, or to be „entering politics‟ when they seek to do so. One of
the limitations of this view is that it is too narrow. It restricts politics
mainly to affairs of political parties and concentrates on the powers and
operations of politicians in government.
Politics as public affairs: The earliest conception of politics belonged to
the Greeks, who viewed politics as matters in the public realm as against
the private realm. This conception moves beyond the narrow realm of
government to what is thought of as public affairs. In other words, the
distinction between an essentially public and private sphere of life. The
public realm was view as morally superior to the private realm. Their
primary interest was in the moral purposes that decision makers ought to
pursue to realize the public or common good of all members of the state
i.e., the conformity of ideas and actions with perfect goodness. This view
of politics is often traced back to the work of Aristotle. According to
Aristotle man by nature is a political animal by which he meant that, it is
only within a political community that human beings can live the good
life. Therefore, what the statesman is most anxious to produce as a moral
character in his follow citizens is a disposition of virtue and performance
of virtuous attribute. The institutions of the states are regarded as public in
the sense that they are responsible for the collective organization of
community life. While civil society which consist of the institutions such
as the family, church, private business, trade unions amongst others are
private in the sense that they are set up and funded by individual citizens
to satisfy their own interest rather than those of the larger society. Its
major criticism is centered on the fact that politics cannot be restricted to
only the public realm. Decisions that occur in the private realm largely
affect the public realm. Politics as public affairs has been portrayed as a
form of unwanted interference.
(g) Politics as compromise and consensus: This conception relates not so
much to the arena within which politics is conducted as to the way in
which decisions are reached. It views politics as a particular means of
finding and resolving conflict through compromise, negotiation,

9
conciliation and building of consensus rather than through force and naked
power. However, if this fails and military conflict or any kind of violence
erupts as a consequence, then politics can be said to have been rejected or
failed. Bernard Crick is an advocate of this position. He defined politics as
the only possible solution to the problem of order. This conception of
politics limits politics to a particular kind of politics, rather than politics
per se. if we talk about politics when agreements are reached and
compromise made then it would seem to be very limited activity.
Politics as power: This conception of politics is considered to be the most
radical and broadest expressed mostly by feminists and Marxists. This is
because it does not confine politics to a particular sphere or realm – the
government, the state or the public realm. It sees politics at work in all
social activities and in every corner of human existence. In this sense,
politics takes place at every level of social interaction; it can be found
within families and amongst small groups of friends just as much as
amongst nations and on the global village. Pertinent questions to ask
ourselves at this juncture are: what is it that is distinctive about political
activity? What marks off politics from any other form of social behaviour?
Politics, in its broadest sense, concerns the production, distribution and
use of resources in the course of social existence. It is, in essence, the
ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means – power.
From this perspective, while human needs and desires are unlimited, the
resources available to satisfy them are always scarce or limited; politics
can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce resources, and power can
be seen as the means through which this struggle is conducted. Power can
be used in decision making as „a stick‟, „a deal and „a kiss‟. It can also be
used to set or control political agenda, and thus preventing certain
decisions, policies, and proposals from being made. Lastly, power can also
be used as a means of controlling the thought – this is the ability to shape
what we think, want, or need. It is referred to as power of ideological
indoctrination or psychological control. The limitation of this conception
lies in the fact that power related issues are not restricted to political
actions alone. We have economic power, social power, military power,
etc.

10
 Summary
1. Politics is fundamental to society and human relations, that is
why it is necessary to understand its meaning.
2. Politics has been defined differently by different scholars as the
struggle among actors pursuing conflicting desires on public
issues; authoritative allocation of values; determination of who
gets what when and how; essence of social existence and as any
stable pattern of human relations that involves power, influence,
authority and legitimacy.
3. Most of these definitions emphasizes the concept of power and
its related concepts.
4. Conception of politics means the process of forming an idea
about what politics entails.
5. Some of the major conceptions of politics include: Politics as the
pursuit of the public interest, politics as the operation of the
states, politics as the determination and execution of public
policy, politics as the relations and conflicts among classes etc.

Key concepts to remember

Politics, Power, influence, authority, conception, human relations,
society, classes, compromise, conflict, consensus. Polis, Public realm,
Public interest, Public Policy, Common good, State, Stateless societies,
Legitimacy, Authority, Power and Class.

Post Lecture Test

1. How would you define politics?
2. Is there one best conception of politics? Why or why not?
3. Define power. How is it different from influence, authority and
legitimacy?

References
Bosia, Michael J. et al, 2010, Comparative Politics: Structures and
Choices (Boston: Wadsworth)
Sparknotes 101, 2007, Political Science: A Complete Course in a Book
(New York: Spark Publishing

11
Garner, R. 2009, “Introduction: The Nature of Politics and Political
Analysis”, in Garner et al, ed. Introduction to Politics (Oxford: Oxford
University Press)
J.A.K. Thomson, (1953). Aristotle, The Ethics Hardmondsworht
Middlesex: Penguin Books, p. 44.
John Rawls, (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Mass, Havard
University Press.
Coretta Scott King (1969). My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr. New
York: Holt, Rhineheart and Winston.
Max Webber, “Politics as a Vocation”, in From Max Weber ed. H.H.
Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York. Oxford University Press, 1949) pp.
77-78.
K. Marx and F. Engels, (1967). The communist Manifesto Harmonsworth,
Middlesex: Penguin Books.
R. Miliband, (1978) Marxism and Politics, Oxford University Press.

12
LECTURE TWO

What Counts as Political Action?

Introduction
Having defined politics, the next question that arises is, what counts as
political action? This is important in political analysis in order to
distinguish between political and non-political actions. As a political
analyst, you are expected to analyze political actions, events and
behaviours. In this study session, I will explain the meaning of political
actions and with relevant case studies demonstrate the nature of political
actions in the world today.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. Explain political actions; and
2. Apply relevant examples and cases to illustrate the nature of
political actions in today‟s world.

Pre- Test
1. Political acts are the same with other social acts: TRUE or FALSE
2. The essence of politics and political have remained the same in
every society. TRUE or FALSE
3. In politics, people are always wants to dominate or protect
themselves against domination. TRUE or FALSE

13
 4. Domination over others gives you the widest capacity to
determine your own fate or destiny. TRUE or FALSE
5. Most political actions aim at doing any of the following:
(I) establish domination or extend an already established one.
(II) resist domination (III) protect or defend one‟s freedom or
autonomy (IV) promote one‟s socio- economic well being
(a) I and II only (b) III and IV only (c) I, II and III only (d) All
of I – IV

CONTENT
What is Political Action?
The answer to the above question is complicated by the suggestion that
societies (sometimes individuals) may differ in their conception of what
constitutes a political act. Sometimes the essence of politics and political
can change over time even in the same society, depending on the character
of the operative regime.
Consider, for instance, the following:
1.) Until recently, if a black man, made passes to a white woman in
South Africa, this was considered a significant political act which
amounted to a challenge to the laws of the system. But if the same
thing happened in the United States, it would be practically
insignificant;
2.) Again, until recently, if a citizen of defunct Soviet Union (USSR)
refused to go and vote on an election day, it was considered a
politically significant act in the sense that it amounted to a protest
against the system. But the same refusal in Nigeria and the United
States of America would not be politically significant because
voting is voluntary in these two countries. Incidentally, now that
the character of the soviet regime has changed; a refusal to vote in
an election would cease being a political act in that regime.

As it is going to be demonstrated later in this study session, political action

may be seen as the action taken to influence the probability of influencing
one‟s fate. Political scientists all through the ages having been trying to
evolve a definition of politics and political act that is all embracing; in the
sense that it helps us to understand the essence of politics all the time and
everywhere. Such a definition would, for instance, enable us understand
what is a political act in contradiction from other social acts. It would tell
14
us what is a political demand as opposed to say an economic demand.
Rather than begin with such an all- embracing definition of politics and
political act, we will attempt in our discussion to look at various examples
of episode that illustrate the nature of political actions or political
demands. This will help us to appreciate more the complex political
phenomenon, what it means to say someone is being political, then at the
end of the exercise, we will attempt using the same elements in the
episode we have looked at as a basis for understanding the nature of
political issues. Now let‟s look at some examples or episodes as case of
political action.

Case Studies in Political Action

For a good understanding of what counts as political action, let us
consider the following case studies:

1. Central African Federation:

In 1953 the British put together the central African federation. The
federation was made up of southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe),
northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi). This
federation was dissolved in 1963. Now why was it dissolved? It
was dissolved because the majority of black population in
Nyasaland and northern Rhodesia resented the federation, and they
resented because they saw the federation as a means of subjecting
them to white domination which was already an accomplished fact
in southern Rhodesia.
The British of course condemned the black opposition of the
federation. In the British eyes the federation was an economic
devise for making all three constituent countries collectively richer
by pooling their resources together. But blacks rejected the
economic view of the federation. Taking a political view, they
maintained that it was better for them to be free but poor than to be
rich and enslaved to white dominations over them bringing them
together under a white controlled southern Rhodesia. They prefer
to be in charge of their destiny than surrendering to white control
of their destiny. The blacks were of course political. The white and
the British architects were perhaps not less political but, at least on
the surface they might have used an economic posture to

15
 camouflaging a political posture. It is political to want to dominate,
it is also political to resent domination.

2. Anti-Colonial Movements:

Colonialism is domination and subjugation of one people to

another, though anti colonial movement is inspired by the right of
one nation to own fate rather than letting others decide their fate
Here in Nigeria one nationalist asserted this right to determine our
fate when they rejected and fought against foreign rule and
exploitation by the British colonists, the early Americans fought
the same battle against the British colonialism when they refuse to
be taxed by the British parliament in which they were not
represented. In this sense then anti colonial struggle is a supremely
political action because it represents a collective action by a people
to decide their fate rather than allow others to do it for them.

3. South Africa

In South Africa the whites excluded the blacks from political

participation. This means denying the blacks the right and
opportunity of deciding their fate. Worse still, the whites created
homelands which they say was for blacks only. This homeland
constitutes of 13% of South African land. It was also the poorest
part of the nation‟s land. Then the other 87% which was the richest
portion of the land was reserved for whites only. Can you imagine
it: the whites who were 13% of the population took 87% of the
land while the blacks who were 87% of the population struggle for
only 13% of the land?
Apartheid is political because it represents the institutionalization
of white dominations over the blacks, by the same token the fight
against apartheid is also political because it represents rejection of
domination, it represents the assertions of the black to determine
their own destiny rather allow the whites to determine by telling
how to live, and not even to vote.
If the majority of blacks in South Africa were political in their anti-
apartheid posture, it is also interesting to note that there were
blacks in south Africa who do not want to be involved in the

16
 struggle. They simply went back to be left alone to make their
living without complaining about the conditions. They were
satisfied to have a good job no matter who is deciding their fate.
Blacks who support the system in this sense were narrowly
economistic not political.

4. Biafra and civil war

The issue that led to Biafra and civil war started as a resentment of
Ibos against Hausa- Fulani dominations represented by the north.
The Ibos decided to challenge this domination at a time when the
Yoruba was weakened by the destruction of the action group. In
the course of the challenge the first military coup occurred, and
this coup was interpreted as an action to replace Hausa- Fulani
domination with Ibo domination. The July counter coup was an
attempt to reverse the January event and resent northern
domination. But beyond thus Ibos were attacked all over north,
their lives and properties destroyed. And according to Ibos
thinking, since political associations like the states are supposed to
provide such benefits such as protection of life and property in
return of loyalty of their citizens, the Nigerian state which allowed
the destruction of Ibo life and property has lost its right to
command the loyalty of Ibos. So, the Ibos were justified to find
themselves another state which will better protect their life and
property. That state was Biafra. And again, it was part of a desire
to be in control of their destiny rather than allow others control it.

5. Bisi Onabanjo and Confederalism

In October 1983, the last civilian governor of Ogun state in the
second Republic, late Bisi Onabanjo called for Nigeria to go
confederal. This call was stimulated by the fear that the NPN
monopoly of power was enabling those who control the party to
use strong federation to control or dominate others including the
non-NPN controlled states. Since confederalism means almost
complete autonomy for the states, Onabanjo‟s call for it was an
attempt to extricate Ogun another non-NPN states from both the
NPN and central government domination. A confederal system

17
 would give the states more autonomy to decide their fate rather
than have that determined by the NPN controlled center.

6. Trade union
When workers demand increase in wages, salaries or fringe
benefits, they are making an economic demand. This is the
traditional trade union consciousness. But when workers ask
beyond this to be represented on the board of management, or to be
consulted in everything concerning them, or insist on participating
in making rules under which they work, they are said to be
political in the sense of making political demands.

7. Students
When students come into the University, they meet pre-arranged
set of rules that tells them what to do, when to do it, and how, for
instance, they are told what courses to take, which of them are
compulsory, what to study and what constitutes passing and
failing. The students take these as given and play according to the
rules. But if rather than do all these things, students begin to
demand to be consulted in setting the rules, like wanting to have a
say in what to study, payment of tuition fees etc. then they are
being political. They want to participate in deciding their own fate
rather than let others decide it for them.

8. Housewife
A woman can be political in her marriage and home too. For
instance, if she insists on working, on keeping her salary herself,
on being involved in every major decision in the house including
the number of children to have, and when to have them, then it
means she wants to be involved in deciding her own fate rather
than let her husband be the ultimate decider of her own fate.

These examples can be multiplied indefinitely. Politics is about

how people decide their fate, and the examples listed here are
instances of political action taken to influence the probability of
influencing one‟s fate. Domination denies people control over their
own fate because it forces them to surrender that control to other.
Freedom and autonomy guarantee for one the capacity to

18
 determine one‟s fate. Most political actions therefore aim at doing
any of the following:
1. establish domination or extend an already established one;
2. challenge or resist domination; and
3. protect or defends one‟s freedom and autonomy

In politics, people are always wants to dominate or protect

themselves against domination, and domination over others gives
you the widest capacity to determine your own fate or destiny
Summary
Politics is about how people decide their fate and political action is the
action taken to influence the probability of influencing one‟s fate.
Domination denies people control over their own fate because it forces
them to surrender that control to other. Freedom and autonomy
guarantee for one the capacity to determine one‟s fate.
Most political actions therefore aim at doing any of the following:
1. establish domination or extend an already established one;
2. challenge or resist domination; and
3. protect or defends one‟s freedom and autonomy.

Key concepts to remember

Political action, social acts, political demand, economic demand,
domination, resistance, freedom, autonomy, influence, fate,
confederalism, apartheid, anti-colonial movement, housewife, trade
union.

Post- Test
1. Highlight the major aims of most political actions
2. Cite relevant contemporary cases to illustrate the nature of political
actions in today‟s world.

References

Heywood Andrew, (1997) Theories of Politics

Onyeoziri Fred, (1992), Case Studies in Political Action: Towards an
Understanding of the Essence of Politics and the Political, Department of
Political Science, University of Ibadan

19
LECTURE THREE

The Essence of Politics

Introduction
More importantly, I need to provide a justification for the entire course by
drawing your attention to the need for political analysis in this study
session. Some of you may have always taken it for granted or assumed
that politics is essential. But I want to let you know that it is not only
essential, you cannot do without it and it occurs everywhere. This is why
you need to have some basic skills in political analysis. This will enable
you to make desirable changes to your political world.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. Give meaning to the statement that politics is not only for
Politicians; and
2. appreciate and explain the need for Political Analysis.

Pre- Test
1. Politicization refers to those matters or issues in which there are
conflicting interests requiring the intervention of ...... (a) private
organized bodies (b) Public organized bodies (c) government or
other authorities. (d) different classes

20
 2. Which of the following represents the main concern of a political
analyst? (a) understanding our political world in which we live and
bringing about desirable changes. (b) voting during elections and
participation in politics (c) analyzing politics with full
understanding. (d) carrying out research and full investigation of
political phenomenon

CONTENT

Politics and Man

Many times, you discuss politics without consciously setting out to do so.
As a father or mother, farmer, teacher, passenger in a commuter bus,
indeed, in most roles you play, you are constantly drawn into talking
politics. As a parent, you are concerned with the future of your children
and, as such you are interested in government policies on education. What
are the advantages and disadvantages of free education? Should special
concession be granted to children from educationally backward states?
What becomes of children when they leave school? Are there jobs for
them? You would find yourself wanting to answer these questions,
especially when you discuss with other parents.
As a farmer, you are aware that climatic conditions play a large part
in determining your successes or failure, but you still think that
government can help you in many ways. After all, food which you
produce is man‟s basic need. What is government doing to ensure that
fertilizers, farm implements and storage facilities are within the reach of
the average farmer? Would you benefit from the agricultural loan scheme?
As a bus passenger probably travelling from Ibadan to Abuja you
“while away” time rubbing minds with other passengers over a wide range
of subjects: inflation, especially the rising costs of transportation,
minimizing accidents on your roads, specific government policies, the
performance of the police force and so on.
In each of these instances, what you are doing is discussing politics,
expressing that part of you which makes you an integral part of society.
This is so because you are a political animal, as Aristotle, one of the
founding fathers of political science, wrote a long time ago. The
implications of this are two. First, that politics is the essence of social
existence because our interactions with others in the society invariably
21
involve politics. Except one prefers to live in isolation which only very
few men would do, no one can avoid politics. Second, that every man is a
“politician”. This could appear strange. You probably believe that
politicians are those who belong to political parties, contest elections and
canvass for vote, in short, those who are directly involved in politics. True
indeed, these are the “conspicuous” politicians, but they are not the only
politicians. To the extent that man is a political animal, every member of
society is at one time or the other a politician for, after all, a politician is
simply a political actor, one who takes active part in politics in any form,
including discussing politics and contesting for political offices . You and
I are politicians in this sense because when we talk politics, vote or attend
a meeting of teachers, we directly or indirectly hope to influence decision
taken by government. Nevertheless, it will not be correct to say that you
are as much of a politician as the head of state or the minister is; what is
true is that even as we are all politicians, some of those at the core of the
political process who are directly involved in making decisions are more
political than we are. It is important to point out here that not all
politicians are political scientists and vice – versa.

Many people wonder what is the true nature of politics, but most do not
really understand that politics is everywhere from the class setting to the
local market store. You should take note from the various examples above
that indeed politics is ubiquitous. Therefore with politics impacting every
component of our lives, this will hopefully help you and others become
more aware of the issues that are important to the political arenas and in
turn start a chain reaction of more citizens becoming involved in the
political process on all levels.

Decision making
Much political activity culminates in the taking of decisions, and all
decisions involve choice. Let me now illustrate the micro and macro
senses of politics and also introduce to you some important related
terminology.

Decision making 1: Micropolitics

You are a 17 year old girl who wish to go on holiday to UK with
three other girls. Your father is strongly opposed to the proposal

22
 on the grounds that you are too young and vulnerable for such a
risky undertaking.

I will use some political science terms to analyze the situation.

Interests: In politics, interests are those things which you want or care
about; usually financial resources; others are status, power, justice, liberty
etc. In this example, your interest lives principally in gaining permission
to enjoy your first holiday abroad, without your parents. Your father‟s
interests clearly lie in protecting you and to avoid personal worry.
Political actors: In this instance includes you and your father (principal
actors) plus your mother, brother friends, relations and even neighbours
that may be drawn into the debate.
Power: In politics, this is the ability to get others to act in a particular way.
This can be achieved through the exercise of threats and rewards and also
through exercise of authority: or the acceptance of someone‟s right to be
obeyed.
The power relationship in this case is that you could offer „rewards‟ to
your father in terms of a promise of mature and responsible behaviour,
substantial self-funding of your holiday and a firm resolve to work hard
for the coming years exams. Your threats could include a unilateral
decision to defy your father and go on holiday.
Your father could offer to pay the full cost of a „safe‟ holiday or
threaten to refuse funding of the trip or cut your pocket money. Your
father is obviously in a stronger position: he has both financial power and
authority: acceptance by you of your father‟s right to respect.

Decision making II Macro-politics

The Nigerian Labour Congress seeks a pay increase three times

the rate of inflation in order to “catch up with pay settlements in
the private sector. The government offers only a rate of inflation
increase, but offers to discuss further pay increases along with
proposals to increase productivity and weaken terms of
employment.

As Nigerians, you and I know that this familiar situation is

quintessentially political.

23
Interest: The government‟s interests are clearly financial: It wishes to
restrict public expenditure or „sell‟ a pay increase in return for its austerity
measures which will increase efficiency and save money in the future. The
union‟s interests are primarily financial but it will also wish to resist any
erosion of its members, job security or status.
Actors: You should note that the actors are potentially numerous in this
particular drama – other government departments, public and private
unions, the media, local government pressure groups etc.
You will observe that the degree of involvement will depend upon
how protracted and intense the process becomes.
Power: As you can see, the power relationship in circumstances would be
influenced by the ability of each side to deliver rewards or enforce threats.
The government can „reward‟ the unions by giving way on the pay
demand in exchange for union flexibility on other issues. As paymaster,
the government you know can threaten to withhold any reward, sit out
strike action and impose its proposals notwithstanding.
Let me also add that the union on the other side can reward the
government by giving way on the award-related proposals. Its principal
threats lie in its ability to disrupt government activity and possibly
national life, through industrial activity.
Authority: You should understand that two kinds of authority are in
conflict here. Which side is stronger? On the face of it, the government
holds the key cards. Ultimately the government controls the resources.
However, it retains a key interest in maintaining good relations with its
work-force. The union‟s strength will depend among others, on the degree
of rank and file support for the leadership; the density of union
membership; the strength of the union‟s claim and the degree of public
support for it, the willingness of other trade unions to render support; the
union‟s financial resources; and the negotiating skills of its leaders.

The Essence of Politics

The issue of Politics in our everyday life is paramount, because, by
necessity, everyone is either an actor or a subject in the web of politics.
Also, everything happens within the context of politics. For instance,
natural disasters like drought, earthquake and flooding are usually
addressed by policies from government. Manufacturing drugs to cure or
prevent Ebola or Covid-19 pandemic must be approved by a governmental
24
law. In other words we live in a politicized world. Politicization refers to
those matters or issues in which there are conflicting interests requiring
the intervention of the government or other authorities. Today, you will
find that even trivial and private matters like football, family planning and
marriage attract government intervention. The more government
intervenes in political matters, the more politicization increases. We find
therefore that there is very little we can do without politics. We are
affected directly or indirectly by political outcomes.
If used wisely, politics can enhance human freedom and well-being. While
it may be difficult to achieve all our desires, we can, through political
pursuit, exercise more choice and achieve some of our aspirations, to
render our lives more secure and master a greater degree of our own fates.
From what you have learnt so far, it should be clear to you that politics
affects your life and the lives of other people in many ways, especially in
the allocation of scarce resources by government. This does not however
mean that government determines all aspect of our lives. If it did, our
society will be a completely totalitarian one. But the fact that the
allocation of scarce resources will definitely affect us one way or the
other, and that we pursue interests which conflict with others in society
means that whether we like it or not, politics matters in our lives.

The Importance of Political Analysis

If we cannot do without politics and political outcomes affect us then it is
important to understand how politics can enable us live well. We want to
be able to analyze problems as they arise, to advise government on good
policies, to suggest ways of making life better, and so on. The significance
of political analysis lies in the fact that through our understanding of and
participation in politics we can bring desirable changes to our lives. To be
able to do these, we need certain basic skills in political analysis. This is
what I intend to introduce to you in the lectures which follow.

25
 Summary
1. Politics exists everywhere around us partly because we live
amongst others who do not necessarily share our interests and
views and partly because man is a political animal
2. We cannot do without politics because resources are scarce and,
consequently we directly or indirectly seek to influence those
who decide who gets what, when and how.
3. Politics involves the struggle among actors pursuing conflicting
desires on issues to influence the authoritative allocation of
values.
4. We live in an increasingly politicized world.
5. Political analysis is mainly concerned with helping us to
understand the political world in which we live, so we can help
to bring about desirable changes.

Key concepts to remember

Politics, Political animal, conflicting interests, politicization, politician,
political actor, scare resources, authoritative allocation, government,
political analysis.

Instructions
i. Attempt to identify at least five (5) key points in this lecture.
ii. Write out questions which arise from your reading of this lecture.

Post-Test
1. Man is a political animal, true or false? Why is he a political
animal?
2. Who is a politician? Mention some notable politicians in Nigeria
you know.
3. Give at least three definitions of politics? Does politics matter to
you and others?
4. What is politicization and why do we need to analyze political
issues?

26
This should be done in your tutor marked assignment notebook for
reference sake.
References
Jones, B., Gray, A., Karanagh, D., Moran, M., Norton, P. and
Seldon, A (1991). Politics UK. Philip Allan, Cambridge University Press,
Great Britain.
Vernon Van Dyke (1960). Political Science: A Philosophical
Analysis Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, p. 134
David Easton, (1967). An Approach to the Analysis of Political
Systems”, World Politics, Vol. 9. pp. 383-400: A Framework for Political
analysis, (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965) p. 45ff and The Political
system: An Inquiry into the state of political science, 2nd ed. (New York:
Alfred Knopf, 1971), p. 129ff.

27
LECTURE FOUR

The Nature of Political Analysis

Introduction
In the three previous lectures, I discussed the nature and importance of
politics, and told you the necessity for political analysis. In this lecture, I
want to familiarize you with the subject of political analysis itself. You
have known the “why” of political analysis. Now I want to teach you the
“how” as a prelude to considerations of methods and approaches which I
shall be concerned with here and in the lectures which follow.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. discuss in detail Political Analysis; and
2. explain whether a Science of Politics is possible.

Pre-Test
1. As a political analyst when you systematically subject your
guesses, impressions and popular beliefs to verificatory test you
are trying to know: (a) What is real (b) What is valuable (c) What
is important (d) What is productive
2. The outline of the scientific method includes EXCEPT
(a) Developing assumptions and expectations about what you are
studying. (b) Making careful observations of the phenomena
in which you are interested. (c) Making testable predictions

28
 based on your explanation (d) Using explicit value laden
statements as conclusion
3. While “all” is appropriate for a/an…………….. “some” can be
used for a generalization.
(a) hypothesis (b) Paradigm (c) elite theory (d) law

CONTENT
Political Analysis and political Science
Political analysis is the major task undertaken by Political Scientists. In
simple terms, it involves study undertaken by an expert (Political
Scientist) that requires studying a problem, decisions, issue or situation by
organizing the information (data) that one has into categories or elements
and then relating these to one another for the purpose of explaining. In
short, political analysis is a detailed and critical examination of political
phenomena with the aim of understanding them better. Thus, political
analysis has three main goals.
i. To know what is important in politics, i.e. those things that
influence or determine the outcome of events. For instance, there
are different factors that influence or determine voting behavior of
an individual or group of individuals such as issues, class,
ethnicity, party affiliation, ideology etc. If party affiliation seems
to have a stronger influence on voting behavior, party affiliation is
considered as important in your analysis.
ii. To know what is valuable, i.e. the difference every political
outcome will make to our desires, both individually and
collectively. The choice of party affiliation in the above example
implies that special attention should be given to party affiliation
when considering why voters behave they behaved. The preference
for party affiliation shows your interest in using the factor to
explain voting behavior and advance your argument.
iii. To know what is real or true by systematically subjecting our
guesses, impressions, popular beliefs, even rumors, to verificatory
tests. The hypothesis (an initial theory a researcher starts with, to
be proved by evidence) that party affiliation determines voting

29
 behavior can be tested in another area or country for confirmation
or rejection.
In summary, political analysis aims at political knowledge that is
relevant to our values, that can be confirmed by empirical tests and
experience, and that will enable us explain assess and predict outcomes. If
therefore, you ask the question, why analyze politics, the answer is simple
“Political analysis helps one to understand the world one lives in, to make
more intelligent choices among the alternatives one faces, and to influence
the changes inherent in all political systems.”
The Quest to be Scientific
As political analysts, we endeavour to be „objective in our analysis, so that
our lives or dislikes, biases, values, or personalities‟ do not distort our
analysis. We also want to ensure that our studies provide explanations and
generalizations which can be tested or verified by other analysts. By so
doing, we seek to be “scientific”, i.e. to be systematic in our studies. This
is the sense in which we are Political Scientists, i.e. we seek to use the
scientific method.
You may have always thought that “science‟ is exclusively used in
relation to the natural sciences like Chemistry, Biology and Physics. This
is not the case because science - from the Latin word „scire‟- simply
means „to know”, consequently, any study which advances knowledge is
scientific. Today, most people think of science as precise and factual,
supported by experiments and data. But this is not all. Science could be a
matter of method, i.e. how to study, or of substance, i.e. what is studied, or
both. The natural science are scientific in both senses. Political Science
like the other social sciences (Sociology, Economics, Psychology, Human
Geography) is scientific only in the sense of its methods because it seeks
to apply the systematic tools of study of man in society. Some political
analysts have attempted to become like natural scientists; they quantify
data and manipulate them statistically to validate hypotheses. Although
these political scientists have made some good contributions, they focus
on small questions of detail rather than on large questions of meaning.
You should be informed that this is as a result of limited areas of political
science that can be quantified: public opinion, voter turnout, election
returns and legislative voting.
Opinions are however divided on whether politics can be studied in a
scientific manner such as would disallow our own prejudices or values to

30
colour our analysis. In the next lecture, I will examine the arguments
against a science of politics. But just now, I want to discuss the essential
elements of the scientific method, and how political analysts have sought
to be scientific.

An Outline of Scientific Method

I shall begin by presenting in broad outline, the basic procedure of the
scientific method. A simple outline involves:
1. Making explicit (in a clearer form), in advance, your assumptions
and expectations about what you are studying;
2. Making explicit, in advance, the rules and/or guidelines by which
you will proceed in your study. You do not change the rules of a
football game at half-time.
3. Making careful observations of the phenomena in which you are
interested, with a view to discovering the elements of the study and
the regularities (consistent patterns of behaviour of occurrence)
which may exist.
4. Seeking, through one or more explicit frames of reference
(theories, perspective) to map out the relationships among the
things you have observed;
5. Seeking to explain the relationships you identify.
6. Making verifiable (testable) predictions based on your
explanations and
7. Reporting fully and clearly, your conclusions in such a way that
another Scientist could, if he wished, repeat the study by making
similar observations.

Conceptualization of Major Terms

Before I go any further, it is important to define certain key terms which
you will encounter as discussion progresses. These include:
Generalizations: These are statements which describe general conditions
or properties of the things we are interested in. They are usually stated in
law like terms which are testable. An example of a generalization is; most
women are not interested in politics. Notice that I have used most, rather
than all because generalizations are not laws which give no exceptions.

31
Laws: Are statements of universal uniformities used as explanations of
specific phenomena, which, because of their explanatory character can be
viewed as predictive statements. Law talks of absolute properties with no
exceptions. The unpredictable nature of human behaviour makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to develop laws in the social sciences. It is
difficult, for example, to say that “All human being love power,” because
we would certainly find those, no matter how few, who would not love it.
Theories: Are those explanations of uniformities that involve two or more
generalizations but which, even though widely held, require empirical
validation for confirmation. A theory is different from a law in that a
theory offers at one and the same time less certainty and greater
explanatory power; it explains in effect why laws work, but it is not as
useful as a law in predicting particular events.
Hypothesis: Tentative explanations, suppositions, or assertions that are
formulated to be tested and, when extensively tested and confirmed by
collected data, either themselves take on the character of laws or theories
or else modify existing laws. There are two major hypotheses in scientific
analysis, namely Null Hypothesis denotes by H0 and Alternative
Hypothesis denotes by H1.
Values: The importance individuals or groups attach to phenomena and
ideals in terms of their views of the world. The scientific method aims at
eliminating such values from analysis.

What the Scientific Method Entails

The scientific method has two major aims, namely to explain and to
predict on the basis of regularities which have been observed and found to
be reliable. I shall elaborate briefly on these goals of science.

Explanations: Let me illustrate this point with this illustration. If you

were asked to explain why the All Progressive Congress (APC) won the
presidential election in Nigeria in 2015. APC as an opposing political
party contested against the ruling party – Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP).You would probably say it won because of its attractive manifestos,
the personality of its candidate, the quest for change by Nigerian citizens
and the charisma of its national leader. This is an explanation. In scientific
terms, we say that explanation entails specifying the conditions under
which a particular event occurs. Put differently, explanations take the form
32
of establishing relationships among variables, a variable being a property
that takes on different values or assumes different characteristics. There
are two types of variables. First, there is the dependent variable, which is
what is to be explained. An example is the victory of the APC in the
Presidential election in 2015. Second, there is the independent variable,
which is the variable which explains the dependent variable like the
APC‟s people –oriented programme or the personality of its candidate –
Muhammadu Buhari in our example. An explanation therefore involves
identifying the independent variables which account for the dependent
variable, and takes the form “if A, then B” However, the connections we
draw between variables must be such that they provide reasons for the
occurrence of a particular event rather than other occurrences. This means
that “if A then B” is a more acceptable explanation then, if A, B, C, D”.
Let us move one further step. Scientific explanation involves an
appeal to laws or generalizations which specify relationships among
variables, in addition to the conditions present in our explanatory situation.
In other words, we can explain an event by deducing it from one more
statements of individual fact in conjunction with one or more
generalizations or laws. Thus, a particular event A explains another, B,
only if there is some generalization or law that justifies the inference from
A to B. Let me illustrate, using the example of the APC victory. Recall the
four factors which I have already given. I shall take one of these, say
personality of the candidate. Next, I have to find out if there are any
generalizations which specify conditions under which popular candidates
win elections. There is one which says that people who are ruled by bad
leaders are likely to vote for credible candidates with integrity. Our
explanation then takes the following form:
1. Initial conditions: most people in Nigeria are not ruled well by
their leaders;
2. The APC is a progressive party with credible candidates;
3. Generalization: Most people who are ruled by bad leaders are
likely to vote for a progressive party with credible candidates
Therefore, most Nigerians were likely to vote for the APC.
Let me use another simple example.
(a) If the political elite can unite then
(b) the soldiers will withdraw totally for Nigerian politics
(c) but the political elite can never unite.
33
 (d) Generalization: Therefore soldiers will not withdraw totally from
Nigerian politics.
The point in scientific explanations is that if the premises {1. and 2. (a)
and (b) above} are true, then the conclusion {3. (c) and (d) above} is true.
The generalization and the facts about the condition of most Nigerians and
the character of APC together provide an explanation for why they APC
won. Also, the generalization and the unity among the political elite
provide an explanation for military‟s participation in Nigerian politics.
This is the logical structure of scientific explanations. Ultimately,
adequate explanations rely on theories. However, I shall not go into
further details about this, as I am sure your will learn more about theories
in your other political science courses. For now, suffice it to know that the
theories we use in political science could be empirical (based on what is)
or normative (based on what ought to be). For scientific purposes
however, empirical theories are more useful for explanation because they
can be tested and retested in a variety of cases. Normative theories are not
usually open to such tests.
Prediction
The other goal of science is prediction. Prediction basically has the same
logical form as explanation but, unlike explanation, it involves inferring
(predicting) future unknown occurrences from particular facts and laws
that are already known. When we predict, we specify conditions under
which a future event is likely to occur. This is quite close to explanations.
The major difference is that in explanation, we specify conditions under
which events which have already taken place occurred while in prediction,
we project into the future by stating that certain types of events are likely
to occur given certain conditions. In the case of our APC example, we
may predict that if Nigerian remains under bad leadership, and the APC
progressive with credible candidates; Nigerians are likely to vote for the
party again. In the second example, we may predict that lack of unity
among the political elite will make military intervention in Nigerian
politics possible.
By their nature, predictions can either be reliable or unreliable. (of
course, the reliability depends on how factual or true to life the conditions
we specify are. This is a major problem in the social sciences where,
because of the unpredictability of man‟s actions and behaviour, our
predictions cannot be absolutely certain, no matter how adequate our
explanations on which such predictions are based may be. To this extent,
34
in Political Science, we talk of the probabilities of events actually taking
place. For example, we may say that if Nigerians are not ruled by credible
leaders and if the APC remains progressive, there is a high probability that
they will vote for the APC. Words like “most likely”, “tend to” and “most
probably” convey the probabilistic nature of predictions in political
science.
Summary
1. Political analysis is the core of political science, and is
concerned with the systematic study of political phenomena,
events and actions.
2. Because it aims at true and reliable political knowledge, political
analysis seek to be scientific and objective in their study.
3. The major goals of science are explanation and prediction.
4. In a scientific explanation, the conclusions are true because the
premises on which they are based are true
5. Predictions cannot be made with certainty in political science
because man‟s behaviour and actions are unpredictable.

Key Concepts to Remember

Scientific method, science, generalizations, Laws, theories, hypotheses,
values, variables, dependent variables, independent variables,
explanation, prediction, probability.

Post – Test
1. What is political analysis, and how is it related to political science?
2. What is the scientific method? Why do political analysis seek to be
scientific?
3. What are the major goals of science?
4. Can we make accurate predictions in political science? Why or
Why not?
5. Give a broad outline of the structure of Science explanation.

This should be done in your tutor marked assignment notebook for

reference sake.
References

35
 Robert Dahl, (1976). Modern Political Analysis 3rd ed. New
Jersey: Englewood Cliffs. P. 12.
William A. Welsh, (1973). Studying Politics London: Thomas
Nelson. P. 27
May Brodbeck, (1968) “General Introduction”, (ed) Readings in
the Philosophy of the Social Sciences London: Macmillan. pp 1-11

36
LECTURE FIVE

Political Analysis and the Use of Scientific

Method

Introduction
Having told you what the scientific method entails in the last lecture, I
want us to consider the question of whether a science of politics is actually
possible. As you were told at the beginning of the last lecture, there are
those who argue that it is not. My major aim then, is to balance the two
sides of the arguments about a science of politics.

Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be more than equipped to answer the
question: is a science of politics possible?

Pre-Test
1. Which of the following statements is true regarding the possibility
of science of politics?
(a) Man is a simple social being to study and analyse using scientific
method. (b) We can subject men to the same laboratory conditions
37
 under which natural scientists carry out their analysis. (c) Man‟s
behavior remains uncertain and unpredictable. (d) Political
scientists are not interested part of what they studied or analyze
therefore it is possible to use scientific method
2. ...... is a/an analysis of political phenomenon that tries to minimize
bias by acknowledging that there are other ways of looking at issues
and topics. (a) balanced analysis (b) rational analysis (c) reasoned
analysis
(d) non -scientific analysis
3. Which of these statements is true?
(a) Hard facts are many in politics because direct observation is
possible.
(b) Explanations and Predictions are frequently adequate in political
analysis because man‟s behaviour is predictable.
(c) The scientific method de-emphasizes value free and empirical
analysis
(d) It is difficult for political analyst to be value free because he is an
interested part of what he/she studies.
4. A science of politics aims at ....... significant goals.
(a) 4 (b) 7 (c) 2 (d) 6

CONTENT
Aims of Science of Politics
We shall begin by summarizing most of what I already told you in the last
lecture. This would provide a useful background to our considerations in
this lecture.
A Science of politics aims at the following important goals:
1. Value-Free Analysis: This refers to the quest for objectivity and
neutrality in political analysis. To be scientific, the analyst must
analyze facts (data) as they are rather than or they ought to/should
be. As much as possible, our personal likes and dislikes,
preferences, interests or values or biases must be kept out of our
analysis.
2. Empirical analysis: concern with „what is‟ rather than „what
ought to be‟ implies an emphasis on direct observation to discover

38
 things as they really are, their relationship with other things, and
the regularities of their occurrence. It is on observed regularities of
their occurrence. It is on these observed regularities that we
premise our explanations and predictions.
3. Explanation: scientific explanations appeal to generalization and
theories in explaining specific occurrence. If these generalizations
and the particular conditions/premises are true, then the conclusion
(s) must be true.
4. Prediction: takes the same logical form as explanation, but is
different because it is forward looking, and involves specifying
conditions/premises under which certain occurrences are likely to
take place.
5. Theories: a scientific theory is a set of generalization which
specifies the direction of relationships among variables. Theories
are therefore the major ingredients of explanation. But for them to
be really helpful in this regard, they should be general and
restrictive. Finally, a good theory should be open to further
empirical tests.
6. Laws: are statements of universal uniformities which relate to all
the cases of a particular phenomenon i.e., they do not allow for
exception. They are useful for both explanations and predictions,
but do not possess as much explanatory power as theories do
though they have greater certainty.
Is a Science of Politics desirable?
The desirability of science of politics has been determined in the last
lecture. You were told that the importance of science of politics or the use
of scientific method in political analysis lies in the fact that it will help to
explain and to predict on the basis of regularities which have been
observed and found to be reliable. It is desirable to use scientific method
in order to have an analysis that is value –free, empirical and verifiable
that will produce generalizations, theories and laws that can be used to
explain and predict. The next relevant question relating to the use of
scientific method in political analysis is “is a science of politics possible?

Is a Science of Politics Possible?

Now we are in a position to answer the question on the possibility of
science of politics or political analysis that makes use of scientific method.
39
We shall however rely on the writings of numerous authors who believe
that a science of politics is not possible. We shall take the major issues one
after the other:

1. Value Free Analysis: Some political scientists believe that it is

difficult, if not impossible, for political analysis to be value-free.
You may have certain personal reasons for deciding to study local
government administration rather than say, electoral behaviour.
You may believe for example that elections are not free and fair,
and so, do not require analysis. Once you have selected your topic,
it becomes difficult for your values to be eliminated from your
analysis because you are an interested part of what you study. This
is why you normally find that people analysis of the same event
differ, sometimes so markedly, that you find it difficult to
believe that they are analyzing the same thing.
The other problems is, is it desirable for the political analyst to be
objective for its own sake? After knowing things as they are
(assuming that he is value-free), should the political analyst not go
ahead to tell us what ought to be? Without doubt, political
scientists do have a responsibility to society as they are involved in
the search for a better society. Would their quest for objectivity for
its own sake not reduce the relevance of political scientists?

2. Empirical analysis: This rests on “hard” facts which are

observable and capable of being subjected to laboratory and
quantitative analysis. But, can we really get such “hard” fact in
politics? Much of what we study is man‟s behaviour, we cannot
rely on what we think made him behave in a particular way. We
have to mostly depend on what he tells us and this may not be
reliable because man is capable of lying. This is different from the
hard facts in say physics or chemistry which can be described in
purely physical terms based on observation. In politics, even such a
simple action like voting cannot be described as a purely physical
activity.
If direct observation and hard facts are difficult then quantitative
analysis is more difficult. First, we cannot subject men to the same
laboratory conditions under which natural scientists carry out their
analysis. As a result, if we really seek to be scientific, we would

40
 have to concentrate on political phenomena which can be directly
observed and are quantifiable. This diverts attention away from the
main stuff of politics like leadership, and decision making which
cannot be subjecting political phenomena to empirical analysis.
Opinion polls and survey research methods which are based on
questionnaires have been conducted, and computers and advanced
statistical (mathematical) techniques have been devised to study
political phenomena.

3. Uncertainties and Unpredictability in human life: The other

essential of the scientific method- explanation and predictions
which are based on theories and laws- may be summarized by
saying that they all rely on observed regularities in particular
occurrences. In other words, they rely on consistent patterns of
occurrences to be able to explain and predict. This is where a
science of politics is particularly handicapped. Man‟s behaviour
remains uncertain and unpredictable, no matter how much we
know him bout. Consequently, it is difficult to formulate universal
or general theories much less “laws” because there would always
be exceptions to observed regularities. As long as this cannot be
overcome, our explanations and predictions will remain incomplete
and inadequate.
Some scholars criticize a science of politics on the basis of the following
factors:
(a) The Complexity of political phenomena: one argument against the
possibility of science of politics claims that no regularities can be
discovered because political phenomenon are too complex with too
many variables and possible relationships.
(b) Human indeterminacy: Human behavior is said to be
unpredictable. Russell Kirk, puts it this way “Human beings are the
least controllable, verifiable, law obeying and predictable of
subjects. The nature of man makes it difficult to establish laws of
human relations. Man can and does invent new forms of behaviour
to achieve old ends mainly because he is a thinking being. In short,
man is susceptible to change from time to time.
(c) The Reaction problem: Some of the critics of scientific political
science point out that since the subjects or respondents are aware

41
 of the fact that they are being studied, their responses cannot be
taken as valid indicators of their opinions.
(d) The Influence of value: Unlike the social scientists, practitioners of
natural sciences do not have to deal with values – biases,
prejudices, likes and dislikes.
(e) The change phenomenon: Change occurs daily not only in human
but also in non-human realms. These changes may be
technological, economic, social or whatever. All these may render
previous beliefs and observed behaviour untenable and therefore a
cumulative development of knowledge about political behaviour is
made difficult. Change affects our conclusion on human behaviour
because human beings are dynamic and change is the constant
factor of life.
(f) The level of generalization that is possible: political propositions
that are verifiable are generally suitable for low, or at best, middle
level generalizations. In short, there is frequent incompatibility
between the requirement of verifiability and the requirement of
generality.
(g) Too many Data: in any political inquiry, it is not often possible to
consider all the data available. Numerous and potentially relevant
factors are ignored. Only a small proportion is selected. The
method of selection varies with the type of specialist involved.
This may lead to different types of explanations of the same
phenomenon.
(h) Ambiguous Concepts: the terms or concepts used in political
science have attracted connotations, attractive or repellent, to
different persons. They evoke feelings.
(i) Uncertain Assumptions and Generalizations: In political science,
assumptions or generalizations, are not absolutely certain as in the
physical sciences. They are probable generalizations. This is why
probability is one of the useful and often used concepts in the
discipline.
It is important to inform you that much of politics especially when one is
dealing with how and why decisions are made is just too complex to be
quantified or measured. Political science is an empirical discipline that
accumulates both quantified and qualitative data. With such
42
 In spite of these difficulties, we still have generalizations and theories
which, to the extent that they are stated empirically and therefore open to
confirmation or information, can be considered scientific. If we cannot be
purely scientific, at least we can try to approximate science.

The Debate Continues

The debate over whether a science of politics is possible or desirable
is not likely to be completely resolved. The traditionalists, i.e. those
political scientists who argue that it is not possible to be Scientifics and
emphasize normative theories certainly have their points, as do the
empiricists or behaviouralists (see next lecture) who seek to be scientific.
At the present stage, the agreement seems to be that political phenomena
can be studied while those which cannot be subjected to scientific analysis
be studied philosophically using normative theories.
Meanwhile, political science also takes after a natural science when
the researchers, if they are professional, study things as they are and not as
they wish them to be. You need to know that most political scientists have
viewpoints on current issues, and it is not difficult to let these views taint
their analyses of politics. I should let you know that any scientific analysis
of politics requires four major ingredients. A scientific analysis of political
issues or scholarly work “should be reasoned, balanced, supported by
evidence, and a bit theoretical.”
Reasoned analytical work requires you to spell out your reasoning,
and it should make sense. It is imperative for you to say so, if your
perspective is colored by an underlying assumption. For instance, you
might say, „for the purpose of this analysis, we assume that people are
coherent or rational,‟ or „This is an evaluative analysis of female voters in
a rural area.‟ It is well known that your basic assumptions influence
whatever you try to study or analyze, but you can minimize bias by
honestly stating your assumptions. We need to be careful in the way we
structure our analysis to avoid error of structuring analysis to come out to
support our views or a given view.
Another way by which you can minimize bias is by acknowledging
that there are other ways of looking at your topic or issue at stake. This is
what is called a balanced analysis. For a balanced analysis, you need to
mention various theoretical approaches that you considered relevant in the
literature to your topic and what they stand for. You may go further to

43
criticize the main argument of each of the approaches and explain why
you think they are weak, inadequate or faulty. You may argue
convincingly that Aristotle‟s classification of democracy as a bad system
of government is untenable because he based his classification on his
experience of political systems of that time. It is more important to admit
that your view is one among several than totally committing yourself to a
particular viewpoint or theoretical approaches.
Also, your analysis must be supported with evidence. It is a major
requirement for all scholarly or scientific analysis to be supported with
quantifiable or qualitative evidence or both. In the case of political
analysis, it utilizes both. Apart from common knowledge which does not
have to be supported (for example, you do not need to interview the
President of Nigeria to „prove‟ that Nigeria obtained her independence in
October 1st 1960) any statement that is exposed to controversy or
interpretation had better supported with evidence. If it is hard to find
empirical evidence, at a minimum, you ought to cite a scholar who has
much evidence to demonstrate or illustrate the point you are trying to
express. This is categorized as „secondary source‟ evidence because it has
passed through the mind of someone else. The evidence you are using
must be made open for its validity to be judged. It is difficult if not
impossible to keep your evidence or sources of information secret.
Lastly, a thoughtful analysis is always connected, at least a little, to a
theoretical point of view. While you may not need a sweeping new theory,
it should advance the discipline‟s knowledge. It is expected that your
theory at a minimum, should either confirm or refute an existing theory.
Mere description of something is not a theory, which is why Wikipedia or
Google are not considered adequate for political analysis. It is imperative
for you to relate the description to another factor, supported with enough
empirical evidence. It is significant to point out that theory building helps
to lift our analysis beyond an argument for or against something.
Condemning Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria is not a scientific analysis
or scholarship, but determining why people join the insurgent group would
have a significant theoretical and practical impact in the search for an end
to insurgency.

44
 Summary
1. The scientific method emphasizes value-free and empirical
analysis, as well as explanations and predictions based on the
theories and laws.
2. Those who argue that a science of politics is not possible also say
that it is not desirable
3. It is difficult for political analysis to be value-free because the
analysis is often a part of what he studies
4. Hard facts are rare in politics because direct observation is
difficult
5. Explanations and predictions are frequently inadequate in
political analysis because man‟s behaviour is unpredictable
6. Scientific analysis of political phenomena is possible if our
analysis or study is reasoned, balanced, supported by evidence,
and a bit theoretical.

Key Concepts to Remember

Value-free analysis, empirical analysis, objectivity explanation,
prediction, theories, laws, traditionalists, empiricists, behaviouralists,
observation, normative theory, empirical theory, quantification,
balanced, empirical, theoretical, evidence.

Post Test
1. Is a science of politics desirable?
2. Why are explanations and predictions inadequate n political
science?
3. Can political analysis be value-free?
4. Are there political phenomena which can be studied scientifically?
5. Is a science of politics possible?

Reference
S.P. Vama, (1979). Modern Political Theory, New Delhi: Vikas
Publishing House.
Michael Roskin. Et. al. (2008) Political Science: An Introduction (10th
edition), Prentice Hall: Pearson educational Ltd.
45
Bond, Jon. R. “The Scientification of the Study of Politics: Some
Observations on the Behavioural Evolution in Political Science”, Journal
of Politics, Vol. 69, no 4, 2007
E. Grigsby & T.M. Magstadt, Analyzing and Understanding Politics
(Boston: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006)

46
LECTURE SIX

Political Analysis and the Significance of

Multidisciplinary Approach in the Social
Sciences

Introduction
In this lecture, I want to consider another important aspect of political
analysis. This is its reliance on analysis undertaken by other social
scientists, and in turn, the reliance of these other social scientists on it. As
you will learn, this is one of the best ways to make political analysis
complete because man does not live only in a political world.

Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. explain why Political Science, Sociology, Economics human
Geography and Psychology are very close, and why they are called
Social Sciences;
2. discuss in clear terms the ways by which they complement each
other and the basis of multi-disciplinary; and
3. explain why political science is distinct.

Pre-Test
1. Any analysis that uses data, method, and paradigms from other
disciplines is known as ......
(a) Hybrid political analysis (b) Holistic economic analysis (c)
Multi-disciplinary analysis (d) political –economy analysis

47
 2. The Normative - philosophical approach for political analysis is
considered as the: (a) oldest and least scientific approach (b) only
scientific approach (c) newest and most scientific approach (d)
best experimental approach
3. ....... is identified with a Scientific Approach to the study of
politics:
(a) John Locke (b) David Easton (c) Nicolo Machiaveli (d)
Thomas Hobbes
4. Man is often considered as a ....... by social scientists
(a) Political being (b) Economic being (c) Psychological being (d)
Social being

CONTENT
The Social Science and the Multidisciplinary Approach
Political science, sociology, economics and human geography are called
the Social Science, because they all are interested in the study of man as a
social being; as a member of society. Each discipline however
concentrates on a distinct aspect of man in society. Sociology deals with
the totality of man‟s social behaviour and relations, with his economics
relations and behaviour under different conditions, and human geography
i.e. how he adapts his behaviour to his environment
In spite of these distinctions, there are considerable overlaps in what
we study because, certainly, man‟s political and social relations would
have implications for his economic behaviour. A Political Scientist would
similarly be interested in man‟s economic and psychological behavior in
explaining his political behaviour. Since the disciplines study basically the
same thing from different perspective and their interests often overlap, we
would expect their studies to be collaborative and complementary. In
practice this is usually the case and no analysis - whether in political
science or economics is complete if all the relevant data much of which
comes from other disciplines, are not considered. It is when such other
relevant data are considered, that we talk of the interdisciplinary or
multidisciplinary approach in the Social Sciences. As the name suggests,
multidisciplinary analysis is analysis that uses data or method(s) from
more than one discipline.

48
The Basis of Multidisciplinary Political Analysis
For a beginning, I shall briefly relate to you how the multidisciplinary
approach has come to be an integral part of political analysis. For a long
time, political scientists were concerned with the moral ends of the state as
well as the formal structures (constitutions) of government. At this time,
our closest friends were lawyers, historian, theologians and philosophers,
as we were all commonly interested in the origins of the states, its formal
structure , the purpose these structure served, and how they could be put to
the betterment of man in society. This was the mood in which Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, Jean Bodin, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes,
John Locke, Nicollo Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill and other political
philosophers wrote. They adopted Normative Philosophical Approach
(NPA) in their study and analysis of politics. The approach which was
considered the oldest and the least scientific is useful in modern political
analysis.
Later, the focus of attention shifted to the political process and
institutions, to the study of legislatures, executives, judiciary, political
parties, interest groups and so on, and the relationships among them. The
dominant approach then was Descriptive Institutional Approach (DIA).
Then finally, in the 1940s, the behavioural revolution which had
swept across psychology and sociology, caught up with political science.
Behaviouralism aims mainly at subjecting the study of man‟s behaviour to
scientific analysis as we discussed in the two previous lectures. The
approach adopted by the behaviouralists is known as Scientific
Behaviouarl Approach (SBA). Its major impact on political science
however, has been that by placing emphasis on human behaviour, it has
expanded the scope of political analysis to include man‟s social, economic
and psychological behaviours as they are related to, and help to explain,
his political behaviour. It has now come to be realized, more than ever,
that society is an all-inclusive entity, a composite system, whose
component parts (or subsystems) are closely related. It follows then that,
to understand one part, we require an understanding of the others. In short,
one of the principles of behavioural approach is integration of disciplines
in the field of social sciences. This is the basis of the multidisciplinary
approach.
You now have some ideas of the nature of politics as an activity. It is
the process by which conflicting interests are managed and authoritative
choices made in social institutions. The most important set of political
49
institutions are conventionally called “the state” and it is the state which is
the focus, of the discipline called “political science”. The emergence of
political science as a separate discipline organized on a large scale in
universities and colleges first developed in the United States of America in
the early decades of the 20th century. Before the emergence of political
science, the subject was divided between specialists in different
disciplines.
Constitutional lawyers studied the legal forms taken by states.
Historians studied the relations between and the organizations of states in
the past. Philosophers discuss the moral foundations, if any, of state
authority. In large part, modern political science is the heir to these earlier
approaches. At this point, it is important for me to bring to your
knowledge the main approaches. They are the institutional, the policy
cycle and the socio-political approaches (3).

50
 History Economics
Sociology

Social Anthropology

Philosophy
POLITICAL SCIENCE Human Geography

Law
Statistics Psychology

Fig. 5.1: Some of the disciplines contributing to Political Science

Approaches Focus Main assumptions Examples of

characteristics evidence
examined
Institutional Formal machinery Formal structures and Structure of parliamentary
of government legal rules are supreme cabinets, civil service
Public cycle Choices made by Government action Kinds of resources (money
government shaped by mix of etc.) patterns of policy
demands and resources, making and implementation
policy affects wider
society
Socio- Social context, Structure and production Economy and class
political links between of government shaped by structure; organization of
government and wider society interest groups.
society

Table 5.1: Summary of important approaches to study of Politics

The Political System and the Social System (Society)

The political system is a part of the society which constitutes an overall
social system. The other parts of the social system include the economic
system, biological system, cultural system and ecological system. All of

51
these systems are called subsystems because they constitute a “whole”
(society). They are closely related and interact in an interdependent
manner, as shown in fig 5.2

SOCIAL SYSTEM

Political
System Economic
System

Cultural
System

Ecological
System
Biological
System

(SOCIETY)

Fig 5.2: The Social System and its Parts

I shall elaborate more on what we mean by a system in a later lecture,

but for the immediate purpose, it is enough for you to know that a system
is any collection of elements (or parts) that interact in some persistent and
interdependent way with one another. From this definition, it is clear that
politics should be studied as a part of a whole, which is greatly influenced
by what goes on in the other parts. Thus, to say that a society is
democratic is to say that its political subsystem is democratic, and at the
same time, that the other subsystem contribute directly and indirectly to
the sustenance of the democratic political process.

52
 Given the complex web which society is, and the interdependence
among its parts, a political analyst should not focus attention only on the
political system or the overtly political behaviours and actions just as the
economic cannot analyse economic behaviour to the neglect of other
relations of man in society. To focus on any of the systems in isolation is
to provide incomplete analysis. An economist who is interested in
studying inflation for example would be interested in government policies
on price, imports and exports (politics) as well as the effects of status
(sociology) on spending habits. Similarly, a political scientist who is
interested in the occurrence of coups has to know the prevailing economic
conditions (economics), the motivations of the officers involved, as well
as their personalities (psychology), and the societal norms of political
succession (sociology).

Political Analysis is still distinct

So, you see, social scientists require one another, and this is a basic point
you must remember as a budding political analyst. However, you may ask
the question: does this mean that each social science discipline is not
distinct or, more specifically, is political science not a distinct discipline.
The answer is no because each discipline has its own aspect of man which
it singles out for study. The fact is that each depends on the others for
adequate explanation and, even so, each develops its own theories and
methods which may or may not be related to other disciplines.
One good way of distinguishing political science from the other social
sciences is to say that political behaviour in which we are primarily
interested is the dependent variable (i.e. what is to be explained , while
the economic, social, cultural and psychological factors which help us to
explain constitute the independent variables (i.e. factors which explain).
As long as our dependent variables are political, our analysis remains
distinct. In other words, in spite of its dependence on other social sciences
disciplines, political science still maintains its integrity, independence and
identity.

53
 Summary
1. The social science disciplines are all related because they all
study man in society.
2. The behavioural revolution which spread through the social
sciences gave birth to the multidisciplinary approach
3. Society is a social system whose political, economic, biological
and cultural parts constitute subsystem. These parts are
interdependent
4. The complex web which society is, makes the political analysts
interested in sociological, economic and psychological analyses
to facilitate adequate explanation
5. Political science remains distinct, in spite of the popularity of
the multidisciplinary approach, because its dependent variables
are political.

Key Concepts to Remember

Multidisciplinary approach, social sciences, behaviouralism, political
system, social system, dependent variable, independent variable

Post Test
1. In what sense is society regarded as a social system?
2. Trace the evolution of the multidisciplinary approach in the Social
Sciences.
3. What is the relationship between political Science and other Social
Science disciplines?
4. How can you distinguish political analysis from analysis in other
social science disciplines?
5. What are the advantages of the multidisciplinary approach?

References
Harry Ekstein, (1953) “A Perspective on Comparative Politics Past
and Present in his (ed), Comparative Politics: a reader, (New York: The
free press) pp 3-32.
S.P Vama, (1962) Modern Political Theory, pp 36-114
E.M Kirkpatrick, (1953) The Impact of the Behavioural Approach
on Traditional Political Science in Ausun Ranney (ed,) essay‟s on the
54
Behavioral Study of Politics , Urbana : University of Illinois Press,) pp
10-11;
Louis Wirth, the social sciences” in M. Curti (ed), American
Scholarship in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, Mass: Havard
University Press.
G.H Sabine and T.L Thomas, (1973). A history of political theory
4th ed. Illinois: Dryden Press.
Jones, B., Gray, A., Karanagh, D., Moran, M., Norton, P. and
Seldon, A (1991). Politics UK. Philip Allan, Cambridge University Press,
Great Britain).
Robert Dahl, Modern Political Analysis pp 4-11.

55
LECTURE SEVEN

Systems Theoretical Approach to the Study of

Politics

Introduction
In the next two chapters, I shall introduce you to two major approaches by
which you can pin down what you want to study and carry out your
analysis. The approach, as you will see, complement most of what we
treated in the last lecture.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. explain how to organize whatever analysis you wish to undertake,
especially how to delimit the boundaries of analysis given the
close relationship between politics and other aspects of society;
2. identify and explain the input –output model of Easton‟s System
Approach;
3. state the advantages and the weaknesses of the approach; and
4. discuss what to look out for each time you undertake analysis.

Pre-Test
1. ........... draws attention to the importance of goal realization as a
central aspect of the political system? (a) Systems approach (b)
Structural functional approach (c) Games approach (d) Scientific
theory

56
 2. We refer to solutions which we think will bring desired and
satisfactory results as ........... (a) Outcomes (b) Outputs (c)
Policies (d) Inputs approach
3. Which of the following statements on systems approach is True?
(a) It is one of the most popular ways of organizing
interdisciplinary analysis
(b) It enables us to explain and predict what is political
(c) It helps to identify the interrelationships among political
phenomena
(d) It provides more information on comparative politics than
other Approaches.
4. ...... represents the process by which the political system informs itself
about the consequences of its outputs
(a) Input
(b) The Feedback Loop
(c) The External environment
(d) Authoritative decision

CONTENT
In the last lecture, we saw that politics is embedded within an overall
system whose other parts directly or indirectly influence the nature of
politics. The enlargement of the scope of what we study in political
science has brought about a large mass of what is, at first sight,
unorganized data knowing all that you need to know is important. But
analyzing them and drawing relationship among them is more important
still and for this, you require a framework of analysis within which you
can organize and analyze your data. This is provided by the systems and
structural- functionalist approaches which I shall be concerned with in the
next two chapters.
For a start, you should note that an approach is a perspective or
framework within which politics is analyzed. It can also be defined “a set
of concepts, categories or terms that serves to focus attention on particular
aspect of politics”.

The System Approach

57
The system approach is one of the most popular ways of organizing
political study. It enables us to selectively identify and organize what is
political when we look at the whole society. It also enables us to identify
the interrelationships among political phenomena – cabinet office,
political parties, and ethnicity e.t.c and between these and other
phenomena which are politically relevant but belong to other realms of
society – family, economic relations, industrial relations, educational
system, etc.
A system is an abstract construct to represent what goes on in the real
world for purpose of analysis. It is a pattern of stable relationships among
the parts which make it up. There are many kinds of systems, like the
heating system in a house, the human physiological system and, of course,
the political system. What makes any system a system is that it meets the
five major characteristics of systems:
1. A system is made up of parts. The human physiological system for
example, is made up of the brain, liver, kidney, heart, lungs, etc.
2. Each of these parts performs important functions which sustain the
system and ensures its survival.
3. The parts interact, i.e. that have patterned relationships.
4. The parts are interdependent, meaning that what happens in one
part directly or indirectly affects the other parts.
5. A system has boundaries which can either be concrete or physical,
as in the boundaries of a political system (which is not
synonymous with the nation-state or country). An abstract
boundary is a way of specifying what we are interested in
analysing as developed by David Easton. It is also called the input-
output model, and is presented in Fig. 6.1

The Total Environment: BOUNDARY

Ecological
Biological
Personality
Social system INPUTS OUTPUTS
International
System
Demands Rule-Making
The Political
Apathy System or Rule Application
Supports 58 Decision-Making Rule
Authority Adjudication

Feedback Loop

BOUNDARY
 Fig. 6.1: David Easton’s Input – Output model
According to this simple model, the major parts of the political system are
the boundary, the total environment, the inputs, the structures of the
political system concerned with the authoritative allocation of values, out-
puts, and the feedback loop. All of these parts are inter-related and are in-
interdependent, as the directions of the arrows in Fig. 6. 1 indicates. For
you to fully grasp the conception of the arrows in Fig. 6.1 indicate. For
you to fully grasp the conception of the political system, I shall elaborate
on each of these parts and the ways which they are related.
The notions of boundary and total environment are fairly straight-
forward. Boundary refers to the limit or dividing line within which
political activities take place. The total environment refers to the totality of
the society in which we live and how its nature determines what we want,
what we do, and so on. Certainly, this environment will include both
internal and international elements because the entire world has become
one integrated mass in which what happens in USSR would likely affect
what goes on in Nigeria.
From the total environment, come the inputs which consist of
demands, supports and apathy. Demands refer to actions people want
those in authority to undertake or reject. These demands may be
articulated (or expressed). However, in this model, demands are viewed as
sources of societal stress which can largely be managed or bated by
supports given to those in authority. Supports could be given to the
political system as a whole, and consists of implicit or explicit agreement
with government policies, or encouragement to follow certain courses of
action. Generally, if support is lacking, the political system cannot survive
for long. Apathy refers to lack of enthusiasm to participate in the political

59
system. This implies non contribution in terms of making inputs and not
significantly affected by the outputs.
The inputs are transmitted to the decision-making centers where they
are processed and converted into authoritative allocation of values as
outputs. I have simplified these outputs according to the functions of the
three major organs of government, namely, rule-making by the legislature,
rule-application by the executive, and rule-adjudication by the judiciary.
Basically, outputs are the policies formulated by the decision-makers. The
feedback loop represents the process by which the political system informs
itself about the consequences of its outputs. Do the outputs meet demands?
Or create new problems? The extent to which the political system is able
to meet the demands made determines the level of supports it is likely to
get.
From what I have said so far, it should be clear to you that one of the
major goals of the systems approach is to account for how a given political
system maintains its existence over time. It focuses particular attention on
the factors which make for stability and instability in political systems by
examining how they are able to manage the demands, threats and supports
directed towards them in such a way as to maintain their existence. In
summary, the approach has three major features. First, it is concerned with
how order is maintained, because it suggests that the maintenance of the
system depends on its ability to maintain order. Second, it recognizes that
change is inevitable as it is interested in how political systems are able to
meet the challenges posed by change. Third, it draws attention to the
importance of goal-realization as a central aspect of the political system
because it assumes that no political system can survive for long without
articulating and pursuing identifiable goals.
Advantages
1. It provides a framework for comparing political systems.
Theoretically, the systems approach is not limited to nation-states
alone, as there are political systems in unions, clubs and other
organized associations in society.
It provides a standardized set of concepts such as inputs and
outputs to describe activities which take place in all political
systems. As such, they can be compared.
2. The approach takes cognizance of the inevitability of change and
addresses itself to how the system can adapt itself and survive

60
 when faced with changes. This is particularly useful for studying
African, Asian, and Latin American societies which continuously
undergo rapid changes resulting from the process of development.
However, I shall point out shortly that its conception of change is
inadequate.
3. By drawing attention to the external environment of every
political system, it is a useful approach for analyzing he
international political system, especially the linkage between the
domestic and the international environments.

Criticisms or Weaknesses
1. The most popular criticism is that the approach is ideologically
oriented towards retaining the status quo. By laying emphasis on
order and system maintenance, the approach is not well suited to
studying revolutionary changes. In fact, some authors have argued
that the approach seeks, from a Western ideological standpoint, to
be an alternative approach to Marxism which suggests that only
revolutionary changes can bring about desired changes in society.
2. The approach fails to give a clear definition of what is political,
and what differentiates political interactions from other types of
social interaction. It seems to assume that all political interactions
are directed towards the “authoritative allocation of values”. Such
emphasis seems to imply that politics only takes place in National
Political System. This criticism can however be mitigated by the
fact that the systems model can be applied to any political system,
insofar as the analyst defines its boundaries.
3. The approach seems to suggest that all parts of the political system
are equally important. This is however untrue because some parts
are more important than the others and in any case, different parts
perform similar functions in different political system. This means,
for example, that the functions performed by the Political Parties in
the United Kingdom may be performed military in Nigeria. Rather
than generalize, as the systems approach seems to suggest, the
analyst requires to specify which parts are crucial in a particular
system, and how they affect and are, in turn, affected by others.

61
 Summary
1. The systems approach provides the political analyst a useful
framework for organizing his analysis.
2. Every political system is made up of boundaries, total
environment, in-puts, outputs and feedback process.
3. These parts are interdependent.
4. The approach is especially useful for comparing systems.
5. It does not provide a useful framework for analyzing
revolutionary changes.

Key Concepts to Remember

System, parts, interdependence, boundary, patterned interaction, total
environment, inputs, demands, supports, political system, outputs,
policies, rule-making, rule-application, rule adjudication, feedback,
order, system maintenance, stability.

Post – Test
1. What is a system?
2. Is the systems approach useful for political analysis?
4. What are the major parts of the political systems approach?
5. What are the major goals of the systems approach?

References
D. Easton, (1957) “An Approach to the Analysis of Political
Systems” and A Framework for Political Analysis.
W.A Welsh, Studying Politics, p. 60.
David Easton, (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lafenwa S.. A. (2006), The Legislature and Democratic
Governance in Southwestern Nigeria, 1960 – 2003, A PhD thesis

62
LECTURE EIGHT

Structural-Functionalist Analytical Approach

Introduction
As you were told in the last lecture, the systems approach and the
structural functionalist approach provide frameworks for political analysis.
Having treated the systems approach let me now turn to structural-
functionalism.

Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to identify the major
assumptions of and criticize the structural functionalist analysis.

Pre-Test
1. Structural Functionalism assumed that every political system has:
(a) certain basic structures or institutions which perform manifest
functions without which the system cannot survive
(b) certain basic structures or institutions which perform latent functions
(c) certain basic structures or institutions which perform essential
functions for the survival of the system
(d) ability to survive with or without certain basic structures or
institutions.
2. What type of structures are membership units or parts can be physically
separated? (a) Mental (b) Concrete (c) Analytical (d) Abstract
3. Structural functionalism emphasizes system maintenance which is
opposed to ....... (a) conservative changes (b) liberal changes (c)
democratic changes (d) revolutionary changes
4. How many requisite functions were outlined by Gabriel Almond?
63
(a) 6 (b) 7 (c) 8 (d) 4
CONTENT
Systems Approach and Structural-Functionalist Approach
The structural-functionalist approach has a lot in common with the
systems approach, and, in fact, some political scientists treat them as
essentially the same approach. In other words, Structural Functionalism is
seen as an offshoot of System approach. The major difference in the
approaches however, is in their areas of emphasis. Remember I said in the
last lecture that the systems approach has three major interests, namely,
how the system maintains order, how it adapts to changes and survives in
spite of them, and how its goals are realized. Also recall that the political
system has parts- inputs, outputs, etc. What do these parts do? They
functions to maintain the system and to keep it at equilibrium. This is the
major concern in the structural-functionalist approach. It is assumed that
every political system has certain basic structure or institutions which
perform essential functions without which the system cannot survive. The
search then is for these functions and the structures that perform them.
Structures or institutions refers to persistent relationships among
individuals and groups, to patterns of action, which are assumed to have
consequences (functions) that lead either to stability or instability.
Examples include the family, legislature, political parties, and roles. A
distinction is however often made between concrete and analytical
structures. Concrete structures are membership units such as the family
and the cabinet, whose parts (Parents, children, ministers, etc.) can be
separated physically. The society is regarded as the most inclusive, general
concrete structure because it contains all other concrete structures, while
the government represents the most important concrete political structure.
Analytical structures, in contrast to concrete structures, have parts that
cannot be physically separated. The best example of an analytical structure
is “role”. A role is a part played by an individual, or an office/position
occupied by a political actor. Defined as such, we find that an individual
plays more than one role at a time. Thus, a permanent Secretary is a father,
a member of Joggers club, a voter, a television personality, etc. Whether
these roles are performed at different times and places or simultaneously,
the essential point is that they cannot be physically separated.
Functions are the “duties” performed by political structures in the
political system. They may also be seen as consequences of their

64
existence. A structure may however perform more than one function as,
for example, the bureaucracy does when it performs the functions of
communication, law-making and law-interpretation. In the same vein,
many structures can perform the same functions as, for example, schools,
families, mass media and political parties, all perform the function of
political education.

Requisite Functions
The most important functions without which the system cannot survive are
called requisite functions. Can you think of some such functions? Let me
help you: no society can continue without reproduction, child rearing,
rule-making, order, and goal attainment. Political scientist do not agree on
what requisite functions are necessary. However Gabriel Almond has
identified seven of them which enjoy wide acceptance. These are:
1. Political recruitment, which involves filling new political roles or
offices, replacing individuals who can no longer perform, and
promoting individuals to new offices. A great deal of the success
or effectiveness of any political system would depend on who
plays what role, and how they are recruited.
2. Political socialization, which refers to the process by which the
individual imbibes or learns his political attitudes, beliefs and
values which enable him function wells as a member of the
political system.
3. Interest Articulation, involving demands by individuals or groups
that government changes or continues a specific policy to take no
action at all.
4. Interest Aggregation which relates to the combination or
aggregation of demands into a smaller number of policy
alternatives. This activity is usually associated with political
parties which try to compromise and combine the numerous
demands in order to build coalition of electoral support.
5. Policy making which is the rule-making process by which values
are authoritatively allocated.
6. Policy Implementation which refers to the process of carrying out
or executing policies

65
 7. Political communication which involves the flow of political
information, especially between the government and the governed
through representatives of the latter. Demands and the feedback
process would be impossible without political communication.
These requisite functions can be divided into input functions and output
functions. Political recruitment, political socialization, interest articulation
and interest aggregation are categorized as input functions, while policy
making, policy implementation and political communication are regarded
as the output functions.
Manifest and Latent Functions
Another distinction usually made in talking about functions is
between manifest functions and latent functions. A manifest function is an
intended function or consequence for which particular structures exist. For
example, the manifest functions of a university are teaching, research and
the dissemination of knowledge. Latent functions, on the other hand, are
unintended functions or consequences which may actually be detrimental
(dysfunctional) to the health of the system. To take the University example
once more, the breeding of revolutionary youths or increasing sexual
promiscuity may be regarded as latent functions which are at the same
time dysfunctional.

Resume
In general, structural functionalism is concerned with the nature of the
functions that are performed in a political system, and the structures which
perform them. It asks what functions are required to be performed in order
that the system may survive?

Advantages/Merits
1. Like the systems approach, the structural- functionalist approach
facilitates comparison among political systems. If political
systems- whether village or industrialized- required the same basic
functions to survive they can be compared if these functions are
identified.
2. Although the approach emphasizes the structures in a system, it is
more interested in the behaviour of these structures. Specifically, it
focuses on what structure do rather than on what their
characteristics. In other words, it wants to find out what the
66
 behaviour is and why it is important. By so doing, we come to
know that some structures perform other functions apart from the
manifest ones.

Criticisms
1. Like the systems approach, its emphasis on system-maintenance
makes it ideological opposed to revolutionary change. In fact, as is
the case with the systems approach, it seems to counter Marxism.
As W.G. Runciman has argued, “functionalism can indeed be
interpreted as a conscious alternative to Marxism. Some of its
writers have wanted to interpret it as a political ideology
conditioned by the structure of American capitalism”.
2. The approach relies heavily on national political systems, thereby
suggesting that politics does not take place outside of the state
realm. In addition, it does not actually specify what political
activities are.
3. By placing a lot of emphasis on functions and functional
behaviour, the approach diverts attention away from the
institutions/structures themselves which are then taken for granted
because they are assumed to exist simply because they perform
certain functions.
4. The laudable abstract analysis of functions has not been matched
by an equal concern with or linkage to the concrete structures.

67
 Summary
1. The structural-functionalist approach is similar to the system
approach because both of them are concerned with system-
maintenance.
2. Structural-functionalism however emphasizes the search for
those functions without which the system cannot survive, and the
structures which perform them.
3. There are three major kinds of functions, namely, requisites,
manifest and latent functions
4. The major merit of the approach is that it facilitates comparison
between political systems.
5. The major criticism of the approach is that it is opposed to
revolutionary change.

Key Concepts to Remember

Structure, Institution, function, system-maintenance political
recruitment, political socialization, interest aggregation, interest
articulation, policy making, policy implementation, political
communication, requisite functions, manifest functions, latent functions.

Post- Test
1. In what ways are systems approach and structural functionalism
similar?
2. Distinguish between manifest and latent functions
3. Identify and elaborate on the requisite political functions.
4. What are the merits of the structural-functionalist approach?
5. What are the criticisms of the approach?

References
Marrison J. Levy, Jr. (1966). Modernization and the Structure of
Societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 20-23.
Gabirel Almond and Bingham Powell, Jr. (1978).Comparative
Politics, System, Process and Policy 2nd ed. Boston Little, Brown and
Company. Gabriel Almond, (1960) “Introduction: A Functional Approach
68
to comparative Politics”. Almond and James Coleman (eds). The Politics
of the Developing Areas. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 5-
57.

LECTURE NINE

Modes of Political Analysis

Introduction
In the last five lectures, I have been concerned with the methods of and
approaches to political analysis. What I want to do in this lectures is to
piece all that I have taught you so far together, by examining the various
orientations or aspects of political analysis and the modes (methods) of
analysis which are appropriate for each orientation.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to explain the various
dimensions of political analysis, and why the scientific method (do you
remember it?) cannot be the only method for analyzing politics.

69
Pre-Test
1. How many orientations of political analysis do we have?
(a) Four (b) three (c) two (d) five
2. Empirical and Normative political analysis attempts mainly to
answer.... and ..... respectively.
(a) “What is” and “What ought to be” questions
(b) “What ought to be and “What is” questions
(c) What to be done and How does it look like? questions
(d) How does it look like? and What to be done questions

3. Appealing to an authority whose definitions is widely accepted or

relying on definitions offered by technical dictionaries is referred
to as: (a) Operationalization (b) Conceptualization (c) Nominal
definition (d) Systematization

4. All the modes of political analysis:

(a) are mutually exclusive
(b) are not mutually exclusive
(c) are mutually exhaustive
(d) are not mutually exhaustive
5. In policy analysis, choosing the best alternative depends on the
following EXCEPT
(a) defined goals
(b) benefits of each alternative
(c) relationship among the alternatives
(d) relative costs of each alternative
CONTENT
The Orientations of Political Analysis
You always seek to understand what goes on around you so you can
act in a reasonable manner most of the time. You realize that you require
to know certain things to discuss intelligently, appraise situations and take
decisions. The knowledge you require naturally” varies from one situation
to another. Obviously, you cannot use the same information you require to
marry a good wife to appraise the decision taken by the President to

70
commit your country to war. In every situation in which you find yourself,
you invariably ask certain basic questions. What is the state of things?
How has it come to be the way it is? Is it good or could it be better? How
can you act to arrive at the desirable state of things (for yourself, your
wife, your children, your professional association, your country and so
on?). Underlying all of these questions is another one which most of us
often take for granted: What do you mean by the key terms you use?
Let us consider a practical situation. Take the problem of destitute in
our society which, many of us agree, is undesirable. How did the problem
come to be, i.e. what are its causes? Knowing the causes will enable you
offer solutions. So, the next question is, how can the problem be solved?
What are the possible alternative ways of solving it, and which of them
seems most appropriate? Underlying all of these questions is a very
fundamental one; what is destitution?
These questions point to different orientations of analysis. In defining
your subject or the problem, you seek to clarify its meaning. When you
ask whether the state of affairs is desirable or undesirable, good or bad,
you are searching for criteria or norms for evaluation. When you ask about
causes, you seek to find out empirical relationships among the various
elements present. Finally, when you ask how the problem can be solved,
you are looking for a policy: political analysis can accordingly be
categorized into semantic analysis (by which you seek clarification of
subject); normative analysis (by which you seek to assess or “judge”
policies and situations based on certain norms); empirical analysis (by
which you seek to discover causes and establish relationships among the
elements you are considering); and policy analysis (by which you look for
that solution among possible solutions). I shall elaborate further on each
mode.

Modes of Political Analysis

SEMANTIC ANALYSIS: In semantic analysis or what is called conceptual
analysis, we try to clarify the meaning of the key terms or concepts that
we use. This is particularly important because many of the concepts that
we use in politics, like power; influence, even politics itself, have no
commonly accepted definitions. Therefore, if you do not clarify your
concepts, many people may disagree with your analysis. There are two
ways of going about semantic analysis.

71
 First, a term or concept can be defined by appealing to an authority
whose definition is widely accepted, or by relying on definitions offered in
standard English or “technical” dictionaries such as Oxford English
dictionary, Britannica, Wikipedia etc. This is called nominal definition.
Second, in the case of very nebulous concepts like democracy, freedom, or
equality which are often coloured by ideological considerations, we can
devise certain “objective” indices according to which they can be defined,
and insist that they mean exactly what we want them to mean. This is
called “operationalization” of concepts. Operationalized concepts are
referred to as variables that are measureable and quantifiable.
Let us say you want to define freedom. You may say that it means a
very low degree of government intervention in the lives of individuals that
can be ascertained from indices like whether or not human right are
guaranteed, whether or not opposition is suppressed, whether or not the
rule of law prevails, and so on. The major advantage in this kind of
definition is that even if people do not agree with your definition, they can
at least see things from your point of view.
Which of these two ways of semantic analysis you choose would, of
course, depend on the nature of what your analyse, what is already known
about it, and the particular elements you may wish to emphasize.

NORMATIVE ANALYSIS: When you say that something is bad, you are at
the same time saying that you have an idea of what is good. But what
exactly do we seek to convey when we use terms like good, bad, right and
wrong by which we usually judge? What are the criteria for these
judgments? Are the criteria objectives in such a way that everyone can
easily recognize good and bad things; or are they subjective, in which
case, everyone has his own set of criteria for judging things? Must we
always search for the good, and if so, why? These are the kinds of
questions asked in normative analysis.
Normative analysis involves questions of what ought to be, rather
than what is. What ought to be is determined by the values we have,
whether these are divine, natural laws, or are purely subjective. This is
probably why normative analysis is a major preoccupation of students of
religion and moral philosophy who are continually in search of what is
good and righteous. But political scientists also engage in normative
analysis because, as some writers argue, our primary responsibility to

72
society is to more beyond what is (empirical), to tell society what ought to
be. Since society looks up to us for ways of bringing about a better
society, it may be correct to argue that political analysis will be
incomplete without normative analysis.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS: If an analyst says that political instability results

from the unfairness of the electoral process, he is making an empirical
proposition which is open to verification. As Robert Dahl puts it,
„empirical propositions, experiments or interpretations”.
The point is that in empirical analysis, the concern is with what is.
When you ask the question, what causes destitution; you are asking an
empirical question based on what is. The possible answers, like destitution
results from inadequate care for the old and handicapped or that it results
from frustration can be put to test. In essence, empirical analysis and
conclusions reflect the implications of (the) empirical evidence rather than
(the analyst‟s) personal values, preferences, or presuppositions.” But
again, the old question arises: is it possible for you to divorce yourself
(your values, biases and beliefs) from your analysis? We have said it is
difficult. But it can at least be minimized if we systematically follow the
scientific procedure. If the facts we have are not “coloured”, and can be
said to reliable, and analysis is based strictly on the facts as they are, then
even if our values intrude, they would be minimal.

POLICY ANALYSIS: Policy analysis involves the search for policies or

courses of action which will take us from the present state to that which
we desire. In other words, policies are solutions which we think will bring
desired and satisfactory results. Certainly, in any unsatisfactory situation,
there would be more than one possible solution. For example, if we desire
a higher level of literacy in our society, many options are open to us. We
may introduce a Universal Primary Education programme, accelerate and
expand the awards of scholarships, lower entry grades into schools, etc.
each of these options will make us achieve our desired goal. But
whichever we choose would depend on many consideration: how we
define the goal or problem, the relative costs and benefits of each option,
the practicability of each option, and so on. These considerations are the
major elements in policy analysis.

73
How the Modes are related
Although each orientation of analysis emphasizes a particular focus, the
four modes of analysis are not mutually exclusive i.e. none is independent
of the others. Normative analysis requires prior empirical knowledge: to
know what ought to be, we require to know what is Policy analysis makes
use of both empirical and normative analysis because, in a sense, it
attempts to bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be.
Furthermore, normative assumptions provide us the criteria for evaluating
polices. Underlying all analysis is, of course semantic analysis, without
which few analyses can be made.

Summary
1. There are four orientation of political analysis empirical,
normative, policy and semantic
2. Empirical analysis relates to what is and explanations for why it
is so.
3. Normative analysis relies on certain criteria and norms to tell
what ought to be.
4. Policy analysis involves at a course of action appropriate for
moving from the present state to the desirable state.
5. Semantic analysis seeks to clarify the terms that one used in
analysis.
6. The four modes of analysis are not mutually exclusive.

Key concepts To Remember

Normative analysis, Empirical analysis, Policy analysis, Semantic
analysis, norms, criteria, policy, evaluation.

Post-Test
1. What are the orientations of political analysis?
2. Analysis that aims at discovering “what is”, is called what?
3. How are the orientations of political analysis related?
4. What is the goal of policy analysis?
5. When is semantic analysis useful?
74
Reference
Charles E. Lindblom, (1968). The Policy- Making Process.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

75
LECTURE TEN

Classification of Types of Political Systems

Introduction
As a way of organizing analysis, the classification of political systems is a
necessity. In this chapter, I want to discuss the necessity for classification,
and some of the criteria for doing so. This is a necessary background to
what I shall be considering in the two lectures after this.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should able to
1. Define what a typology is;
2. Identify and explain necessary requirements for constructing a
good typology;
3. Evaluate existing typologies or classification schemes; and
4. Formulate your own typology or classificatory scheme of political
system.

Pre-Test
1. ....... is a proposed way of classifying the subject matter in
which we are interested. (a) A law (b) A typology (c) A
hypothesis (d) A theory
2. When a classificatory scheme is said to be parsimonious, it
means that the scheme is: (a) Economical (b) Political (c)
Psychological (d) Philosophical

76
 3. Which of the following is NOT a requirement for a good
typology? (a) Mutual Exclusiveness (b) Mutual Exhaustiveness
(c) Uniformity (d) Joint Inclusiveness
4. The three good forms of government according to Aristotle‟s
typology include the following EXCEPT: (a) Democracy (b)
Aristocracy (c) Monarchy (d) Polity

CONTENT
Meaning of a Political System

If a political system is defined as any stable pattern of interrelations which

involves power and authority, meaning that a political system is not
narrowed down to countries alone, we certainly have millions of political
systems in the world. By the time we include all business firms, trade
unions, private clubs, and so on which have interaction involving power
and authority, the number must be quite high. However, we may restrict
the meaning of political system to countries only. This way, we can
probably tell how many political systems exist in the world. But even this
shows quite a high number of political systems.
Along with the large number of political system is the large body of
data about them that we have. If Aristotle performed a feat collecting data
on 158 Greek city-states, then the infinite data we have on political
systems today is more than spectacular. The development of advanced
technology in communication and information gathering has resulted in an
information explosion in the study of politics. With so much data, how do
we organize analysis? Because, after all, when we analyze, we are not
interested in all the data. How can we arrive at valid generalizations that
would aid our analysis of different systems? This is what I shall be
concerned with in the next three lectures. The basic point which ties all the
three lectures together is that we can organize the mass of the data by
classifying political systems on the basis of certain. In the present lecture,
I shall consider the typologies of political systems that have been
developed, and see how political systems have been classified.

77
Typologies/Classification of Political Systems
A typology is a proposed way of classifying the subject matter in which
we are interested. It is an analytical construct which seeks to present a
simplified view of actual situations. In other words, typologies present
ways of simplifying complex political situations by presenting abstract
standards by which they can be composed. For example, we can classify
political systems based on the criteria of how many actually rule, the types
of authority prevalent, as well as the degree of popular participation.

Advantages of Classification Scheme/Typology

The need for or use of a classification scheme or typology includes:

a. It helps to simplify our data and organize it because of the outburst

of data in political science. In essence, there is need to classify in
view of too much data to confront with or to be controlled.
b. Classification scheme by sorting any given universe into
comparable cases provide a framework for meaningful
comparative analysis to begin.
c. By preparing ground for meaningful comparison, it makes a
general problem of prediction and explanation more manageable.
d. It helps a lot in developing theory.

You need to know that the basic logic that guides classification is either /
or that is an item or case must be either here or there.

Criteria for Classification/Typology

Carl Hempel‟s logical requirement of classification is useful here. Any

classification scheme or typology according to him must meet these
necessary criteria.

i. Mutual or Joint Exhaustiveness: Classification scheme must

exhaust all classification properties of that phenomenon under
consideration. The caterogies should be exhaustive. They should
embrace or be capable of embracing all known political systems.
It must be able to accommodate all the variations.

78
 1. ii. Mutual or Joint Exclusiveness: The categories must be
mutually exclusive. In other words they must be independent and
must exclude elements in other categories. An element of a
category must not belong to two or more categories (it is either /
or). For example to say that a country is more or less democratic is
a bad classificatory strategy, since a country must be either
democratic or non-democratic. In short, the categories should be
independent and mutually exclusive. There should be no overlaps,
and no political system should fall into more than one category.

iii. Relevance: The criteria used for classification must be relevant to

the particular subject under examination. In other words, its
categories (or types) should be appropriate for the purpose of the
research in which they are used. This is because how we classify
political systems depends very much on what we are interested in
analyzing. A typology based on the criterion of geography will not
be useful if you are interested in studying party systems. This
involves collection of relevant data.

iv. Uniformity: The criteria used must be uniformed. These

criteria must be consistently used. If it is a political issue, you
must use political criteria and so on. This implies that the
crieteria of classification must be applied consistently for all
categories in the typology.
v. Parsimony: Categories must be economical or parsimonious.
In other words, a three categories classification scheme is
preferred to a six categories classification scheme.

Examples of Typologies of Political System

The formulation of typologies of political systems is almost as old as

political science itself, as political scientists have always been interested in
classi-system. However, since the information explosion came about, there
has been what Dahl calls a “flood of typologies”. One of the earliest but
still popular classificatory schemes was that developed by Aristotle. Based
on the two criteria of rulership-of the relative number of citizens entitled

79
to rule, and whether the ruler in their own selfish interests or in the
common interest, he formulated a six-fold classification as shown in Fig.
9.1. Which has remained highly influential over the years.

Number of citizens entitled to rule Rulers rule in the interest of

One ALL THEMSELVES

One Monarch (Kingship) Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy

Fig. 9.1: Aristotles Classificatory Scheme

The classficatory scheme presented above is self-expanatory. Where
only one citizen rules in the interest of all citizens in the political systems,
the system is a monarchy. Examples can be found in the various African
Kingdoms, empires and emirates, and contemporary examples exist in
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Swaziland. If the king rules for his selfish
interest, the system of rule is tyranical, as was the case in self-styled
Emperor Bedel Bokassa;s Centrals African empire. Next, where only few
citizens rule in the interest of all, there is aristocracy. If they rule for
themselves, there is oligarchy. In a sense, most political systems are
oligarchial because only a few people actually rule. This is the claim of
Robert Micheal‟s famous „lron law of oligarchy‟ which states that
wherever there is oprganization, there is oligarchy. Finally, if many
citizens rule, as is said to have been the case in the Greek city-states, there
is a polity, if they rule in the interest of all, and democracy if they rule for
themselves. I am sure you are familiar with the commonplace definition of
democracy as government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Another popular classifactory scheme is that of Max Weber. Weber‟s
typology is however restriced to political systems in which power is
legistimate. His criterion of classification is the ground on which leaders
claims legtimacy for their rule, and the governed accept their claims.
These grounds are presented as three “ideal” types of authority. They are
called ideal types because they are pure abstractions and because, in
reality, more than one type of authority may exist. The three ideal types
are:

80
 1. Traditional Authority: Here, legitimacy rests “on an established
belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions”. As such, members
of the political system obey the rulers because their forebearers
have always done so. Several examples of this type of authority
exist in our society where we have traditional rulers, many of who
claim their legitimacy from legendary fathers and kings.
2. Charismatic Authority: This is authority derived from exceptional
personal qualities of the leader (s). Charisma is the Greek word for
“gift of grace”. People accept the leadership of heroes, truly
exceptional and exemplary persons, and those they see as „God
sent‟s or messiahs. Jesus Christ and the Holy Prophet Mohammed
are two of the best known charismatic leaders. We can also regard
Julius Nyerere, Obafemi Awolowo, and Nnamdi Azikiwe as
Charismatic leaders in varying degrees. It is however possible for
charismatic authority to be tranformed into traditional authority.
This happens where leaders, especially off-springs of the
charismatic leaders, justify their rule by posing as sucessors to the
charismatic leader.
3. Legal-Rational Authority: In this case, legitimacy is derived from
the constitution or other legal instruments, and is accepted as
binding because authority exercised in the name of the sources is
legal. One important element in this type of authority is that it is
impersonal, i.e. it is not based on the personal qualities of the
person who exercises authority, but on the legal authority of the
office that he occupies or the role that he plays. This is why we
respect poicemen.
As I have indicated, these categories of authority are ideal types, and
they could all be present in the same political system. In Nigeria for
example, we have all three types of authority. Try to think of examples of
these types.
Numerous other typologies have formulated, based on different
criteria. Gabriel Almond, for example, has classified political systems into
and Totaliatarian. The problem with Almond‟s classificatory scheme is
obvious; he uses more than one criterion. We can recognise the geo-
political criterion (Anglo-Saxon, Continental European), technological
(Pre- industrial or partially industrial), and ideological (totalitarian). On
the ground of inconsistency, Almond‟s typology is faulty because it uses
different criteria for different categories.
81
 Other typologies include that of Charles Andrain, who classifies
political systems into democracy, totalitarian and traditional systems.
There is yet another by S.N. Eisenstadt, whose categoies are primitive
political systems, patrimonial empires, nomadic or conquest empire, city-
states, feudal systems, centralized historical bureaucracies, and modren
societies (democratic, autocratic, totalitarian and “underdeveloped”).

Is there a best Typology?

The question that l am sure you will want to ask now is, is there one best
typology? The answer is no, simply because we have thousands of criteria
for classifying political systems, and the criteria that you use depends on
the aspects of politics in which you are interested. A demographer might
classify political systems according to their populations, a constitutional
lawyer according to their constitutional forms, a political scientist
according to their party systems and so on. However, although it is
difficult to say there is one best typology, there are criteria for evaluting
typologies. For a typology to be considered good, it has to meet the
requirements discussed above.

Summary
1. Every political analyst requires a classficatory scheme for
organizing his study, given the information explosion on
political systems.
2. Numerous classifactory schemes or typologies have been
formulated using different criteria.
3. Two of the most popular of such typologies are those by
Aristotle and Max Weber.
4. There is no best typology because the typology that any
researcher uses depends on the aspect of the poligical system he
wants to study.
5. There are four criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of a
typology.

82
 Key Concepts To Remember
Typology, Classification, Classification, Schemes, categories,
Traditional authority, charismatic authority, legal- rational authority,
monarch, pouty, democracy, Aristocracy, tyranny, oligarchy.

Pre-Test
1. What is typology?
2. Is classification necessary in political analysis?
3. What are the criteria for evaluating typologies?
4. Discuss Weber‟s ideal types of authority.
5. Is there one best typology of political systems?
References
Ernest Baker, ed. (1952). The Politics of Aristole, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, Book 3, Chapter 6 and 8.
G.H. Sabine and T.L. Thorson, A History of political Theory, pp.
95-109;
Rober Michels, (1951). Political Parties, New York: Collier
Books, 1962. P 342
Max Weber, (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic
Organisation, translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New
York: Oxford University Press, , p. 328.
Gabriel Almond, (1956) “Comparative Political Systems”, Journal
of Politics, Vol. 18, August, pp. 22-38
Charles F. Andrain, (1975) Political life and social change: An
Introduction to political Science, 2nd ed. Belmont, California: Duxbury
Press Part llls.
Bernard Crick, (1968). “The Elementary Types of Government,”
Government and Opposition, Vol 3, pp 411-417.
S.N.Eisentad, (1963) The political Systems of Empires, New York:
Free Press, pp. 10-12.

83
LECTURE ELEVEN

Similarities in Political System

Introduction
My main task in this lecture is to provide you with another framework for
classifying political systems. This consists of identifying the similarities
among them.

Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to discuss the ways political
systems are similar. This will enable you to develop another form of
classification.

Pre Test
1. A ........ is defined as any stable pattern of interrelations which
involves power and authority. (a) political system (b) social
system (c) political environment (d) social environment
2. Inequality between people exists in every society mainly because
of....... (a) Political ideology (b) Specialization in society (c)
Governmental structure (d) Different organizational structure
3. Which of the following statements is true?
(a) In all societies, it is only private organization that seeks to gain
influence over private policies (b) In all societies, it is only
government that seeks to gain influence over private policies. (c)
In all societies, it is everybody that seeks to gain influence over
public policies (d) In all societies, it is only individuals that seek
to gain influence over public policies

84
4. Political Ideology according to Gaetano Mosca is: (a) Political
Calculation (b) Political Formula (c) Political Matrix (d) Political View

CONTENT
Similarities in Political System
No matter how different political systems may be (I shall consider this in
the next lecture), there are those who believe that they share similar
characteristics. Identifying those characteristics provides one way of
classifying political system. You should however note that these
similarities do not define a political system. They are regularities which
occur in virtually all of them.
The similarities we are going to be considering are those that have been
identified by Robert Dah1. These are:
1. Uneven Control of Political resource: This underlines the general
notion of inequality in every political system- as control of political
resources is distributed unevenly, so it is difficult to have equality. The
elite theorists-Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto, and Gaetano Mosca- have
highlighted the inequality between the few elites and the mass of the
people in every society. Why is there uneven control over political
resources? There are four main reasons to explain the uneven control of
political resources
First, as there is specialization of roles or functions in society, so there are
those whose roles give them greater control over political resources than
others. Second, individuals have unequal inheritance and endowments
especially from their family backgrounds. Some are from wealthy and
influential families, others from humble families. Such inheritance gives a
start in life. Third, there are inequalities in biological (especially
intelligence) and social inheritance (some people come from privileged
ethnic groups; as well as life experiences, all of which produce differences
in incentives and goals among individuals. Depending on our inheritance
and experiences, we are not all equally motivated to participate in politics,
to seek power and control over political resources, and so on. Finally,
society itself encourages individuals to have different goals and incentives,
to be able to perform essential functions. Notwithstanding these factors,
we shall find out in the next lecture that political systems still differ in the
degree of uneven control.

85
2. The Quest for Influence: In all political systems, not everyone seeks to
gain influence over policies and government decisions. There are,
however, those who seek influence not necessarily for the sake of merely
becoming influential, but as a way of furthering their goals. In some
cases, such influence is sought by organized groups, especially trade
unions and professional associations which continually seek to bend
government machinery to favour their members.
3. Uneven Distribution of Political Influence: Because members of the
political system do not seek political influence equally, and, more so,
because control of political resources is unevenly distributed, political
influence is also unevenly distributed in political systems
4. The Pursuit and Resolution of Conflicting Interests: In lecture 2, I told
you that one of the conceptions of politics is that politics is the pursuit of
conflicting interest which have to be resolved by the political authority
(government). This seems to be the central political activity in political
systems though, while some political scientists place emphasis on the
pursuit of conflicting interest, others emphasize their resolution.
Everyone agrees however that, for members of the political system to
continue to live together, their conflicts should be resolved. Even so, we
know that government does not have to resolve all kinds of conflicts.
There are association and groups to which individuals belong (family
private club, church) which habitually resolve conflicts. It is usually at
high points of conflict, when coercion becomes necessary, as, for
example, when people protest, government interaction may be called for.
5. The Acquisition of Legitimacy: According to Dahl, “Leaders in a
political system try to ensure that whenever governmental means are
used to deal with conflicts, the decisions arrived at are widely accepted
not solely from fear of violence, punishment, or coercion but also from a
belief that it is morally right and proper to do so”. I told you before that
no government can survive for long if it relies on its monopoly of the
instrument of coercion or if it rules society by force. This is why leaders
try to get the support of the people. The support given to the leaders or,
their acceptance system seek legitimacy.
6. Development of an Ideology: To justify their claims to leadership,
leaders in virtually all political systems espouse a set of more or less
coherent, persistent doctrines. This is called political ideology, or what
Mosca calls “political formula”. In many African States, rulers espouse
the doctrine of African Socialism which is to the effect that Africans
86
 accept only one centre of power as there are no class conflicts in Africa.
This doctrine justifies their one party rolling system. An ideology serves
the purpose of legitimacy only.
Political ideologies are not always espoused for the sake of legitimacy
only. Some go further to justify the political system itself, to provide a
„world view” or „cognitive map” for organizing society to achieve
desired ends and goals. Such ideologies are usually state or official
ideologies. Such ideologies provide the framework within which the
organization, policies and leaders of the system are evaluated, and set out
the goals of society. A good example of this is socialism which aims at
the equality of all men.
7. The Impact of Other Political Systems: Today, the political systems in
the world are integral parts of one international system which possesses
all the characters of a system. As we discussed in lecture 6, every
political system is more or less influenced by the behaviour of others. Of
course, as is to be expected, all political systems are not influenced by
others the same way. “Exposed” and underdeveloped countries like those
in Africa, Asia and Latin America which are economically and
technologically dependent on the capitalist centres of the world in
Western European and USA are more influenced than the “advanced”
capitalist countries. In fact, in some underdeveloped countries, those who
rule and how they rule are “remotely” controlled by the leaders in the
more powerful countries. It is therefore in order to say that all political
systems are more or less affected or influenced by others in the
international political system.
8. The Inevitability of Change: Change is a constant factor in life. The same
applies to political systems, all of which undergo inevitable change.
Some changes are routine (like yearly budgets), others profound (like
new policies which depart completely from past policies), and others are
total capable of adapting itself to it, otherwise, it collapses. Systems
however differ in their capacities to adapt to changes, as we shall find
out in the next lecture.

A Final Word
These eight characteristics summarize the similarities that can be found in
political systems. The forms they take however differ from one political
system to another as I shall show in the next lecture.

87
 Summary
1. There are similar characteristics present in all political systems.
2. Knowing these similarities provides us with a means for
organizing political data.
3. The similarities are eight, as listed by Robert Dahl uneven
control of political resources, the quest for political influence,
Uneven distribution of political influence, the pursuit and
resolution of conflicting aims, the acquisition of legitimacy,
development of an ideology, the impact of other political
systems, and the inevitability of change.
4. These similar characteristics may however take different forms
in political systems.

Key Concepts to Remember

Similarities, political resources, inequality, inheritance, endowment role
specialization, influence, conflicts, government, leaders, legitimacy,
ideology, international political system, change, powerful.
Post Test
1. Mention at least similarities shared by most political systems in the
world.
2. Why do we have uneven control of political resources in political
systems?
3. Are all political systems equally influenced by others in the
international system?
4. Why do leaders seek legitimacy?
5. What is ideology? How is it used in political system?
6. When does government come in to resolve conflicts?
References
Robert Michels, (1915). Political Parties. New York: Collier
Books.
Caetano Mosca, ed (1939). Ruling Class. New York: Mc Graw
Hill.
Vilfredo Parato (1916). The Mind and Society. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

88
LECTURE TWELVE

Differences in Political Systems

Introduction
I have told you that political systems are both similar and different. This
lecture is about the differences which should be seen against the
background of the similarities discussed earlier on.

Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to classify political systems
according to their differences.

Pre-Test
1. The following factors can explain political disagreement in all
political systems except: (a) religion (b) ideological differences (c)
wealth (d) ethnicity
2. All political systems differ both in their institutions for sharing and
exercising: (a) influence (b) legitimacy (c) authority (d) power
3. Authors like Pitirim Sorokin and Ted Gurr have studied the ....... in
political systems: (a) complexity of political phenomenon (b)
social economic status (c) severity of conflicts (d) classificatory
schemes
4. “Within every political system, the severity of conflicts is
constant” TRUE or FALSE.

89
 5. The following are differences in political systems except: (a) Path
to present (b) degree of modernity (c) bases of cleavage and
cohesion (d) power institutionalization

CONTENT
Differences in Political Systems
Robert Dahl has identified six characteristics by which political systems
differ. These are (1) paths to the present; (2) the degree of modernity; (3)
the distribution of political resources and skills; (4) bases of cleavage and
cohesion; (5) the severity of conflicts and (6) institutions for sharing
power. Let us consider these characteristics one by one.

1. Paths to the Present: Political systems have had different historical

experiences or „paths” to the present. In a sense, the path of every
political system, its experience and inheritance from the past, are
unique to it. These differences account for the different paths
political systems continue to follow today, and are most likely to
follow in the future. Certainly, a people who have been under a
tyrannical regime for centuries would not be expected to become
democratic in a few days. This is not however to suggest that
revolutions, when they take place, do not result in complete
departures from the past. The point is that the heritage of any
political system will have a bearing on its present and future
development.
2. Degree of Modernity: Quite often, we refer to one country as
developed and another as developing or backward. When we use
terms, we are in effect saying that political systems have different
levels of development or modernization. However, the concept of
development or modernization has generated a lot of controversy
among political scientists, many of who argue that it has a
parochial connotation when used by Western scholars. This
notwithstanding, there are some „objective‟ indices according to
which the modernity of any system can be gauged. These include
the level of technology, urbanities, newspaper and magazine
circulation, etc. These indices tend to be high on all others.
Cumulatively then, we can rank political systems according to their
levels of attainment on these indices. Those that have high levels

90
 can be modernized or developed, those with low levels,
undeveloped, and those in-between, more or less modernized,
depending on which end of the continuum they fall.
3. Distribution of Political Resources and Skills: In the last lecture,
we learnt that political resources and skills are unevenly distributed
in all political systems. The degree of unevenness however varies
from one political system to another. Let us take wealth which is a
basic political resource and knowledge through literacy, which
largely determines the political skills individuals have. These
resources are unevenly distributed. But whereas in some countries
like Niger and Mauritania, the level of literacy is quite low (as low
as 100% of the total population aged 15 and above), in the USSR,
and USA, it is quite high (about 755 of the total population aged 15
and above). In terms of wealth, it is known that only a few
members of society are really wealthy. But if we consider
opportunities to wealth offered by free market forces, we find that
while only a few members of the royal family are wealthy in Saudi
Arabia, many more are in the USA.
The other factors which determine how much political resources an
individual has or political skills he has are family background,
socio-economic group, popularity, control of mass media, and
income-tend to be closely interrelated. Thus, a wealthy man would
most likely have greater control of the mass media, have greater
popularity, and generally be more influential than other members
of society. Although the increasing industrialization of societies,
extension of suffrage to lower classes and expansion of educational
opportunities, amongst others, have a way of reducing disparities
in the distribution of political resources and skills, political systems
continue to differ in their degrees of inequality in the distribution
of these resources.
4. Cleavage and Cohesion: Political systems differ in the patterns of
political disagreement, conflict and compromise. It should be noted
that political conflicts do not result from single factors like
ethnicity, religion or class. Rather, they result from a multiplicity
of factors which include differences in income, wealth, economic,
class occupation, education, ideology, religion, ethnicity, and
region. These factors combine to produce different patterns of
political cleavage and cohesion in political systems. Three other
91
 factors influence the character of these patterns. First, historical
inheritance of cleavages of cohesiveness. Ethnicity, religion and
regionalism have historically been crucial in Nigeria, while in
Switzerland, Canada and Belgium, it has been languages and
regionalism. Second, history has left varying memories of the past
treatment of these differences. The Nigerian state was built on the
inequality of ethnic groups and regions, while the Swiss nation was
built on the equality of language groups. Third different stages of
development tend to generate different forces of cleavages and
cohesion. It is believed for example that the more modernized a
country is, the less ethnic cleavages would be the major basis of
conflicts; socio-economic class will take over. This is not entirely
true, but it sheds some light on why cleavage and conflicts patterns
differ.
5. Severity of Conflict: While it is true that there are conflicts in all
political systems; the severity of these conflicts vary over time
within political system and among them. Within every political
system, the severity of cortical system; the severity of these
conflicts vary over time within political systems and among them.
Within every political system, the severity of conflicts varies. At a
time. America went through a civil war, at another time, but, most
times, its president was assassinated but, most times, conflicts
resulting from elections are minimal. In Nigeria, there has been a
civil war, no less than six coup d‟états, violent elections and so on,
but conflicts tend to be more severe under civilian regimes than
they are under military regimes. Most times however, political
systems experience peace though, difference in cleavage however,
political systems experience peace though, through differences in
cleavages and conflict patterns may make some systems more
prone to conflicts than others.
Authors like Pitirim Sorokin and Ted Gurr have studied the
severity of conflicts in Political system. Their conclusion include
the fact that virtually all countries experience major social
disturbances on the average of once every five years, that these
disturbances are usually violent, and that they vary from civil wars
and extensive mass violence in countries like Congo, Indonesia
and South Vietnam to total absence of any record of civil conflict.

92
 6. Institutions for sharing and Exercising Power: Political systems
differ both in their institutions for sharing and exercising power
and in their distribution to one, few, or many (see lecture 10). With
regards to institutions for sharing and exercising power, political
systems differ in two major respects. First, there is the suffrage, i.e.
the right to vote. Although in most political systems today, every
adult citizen is entitled to vote, there are still a few, like Saudi
Arabia, where women are not allowed to vote. Even with this
universal suffrage, voting turn-outs are higher in some countries
than others.
Second, political systems differ in the extent to which those who
are closest to actual decision-making (President, Prime Minister)
must compete for the mandate of voters in free and fair election in
which those in opposition can complete one equal terms. Thus, we
can compare political systems according to how much freedom of
association of expression, access to alternative sources of
information, free and fair elections, the emphasis on the mandate
of the electorate, and other expressions of preference exist. On
these criteria, Dahl has classified political systems into two (1)
closed hegemonies that deny suffrage and suppress all forms of
opposition to government; and (2) Inclusive polyarchies that grant
universal suffrage and permit the existence of opposition.

Summary
1. Even as political systems are similar, they are different.
2. The characteristics on which political systems differ are paths to the
present, degree of modernity, distribution of political resources and skills,
the basis of cleavage and cohesion, severity of conflict, and institutions
for sharing and exerting political power.

Key Concepts to Remember

Path, modernity development, political skills, political resources,
cleavages, cohesion, conflict, social disturbances, civil war, violence,
suffrage, universal mandate, electorate, vote, closed Hegemonies

Post-Test

93
 1. What is suffrage?
2. Why do political conflict differ in political systems?
3. What does degree of modernity mean
4. Is true that conflicts fluctuate in severity?
5. What factors determine differences in political skills?

Reference
P. Sorokin, (1937), Social and Cultural Dynamics, Vol. 3 New
York: American Bokk Coy. chapter 14.
R.T. Gurr. “A Comparative Study of Civil Strife in H.D Garham
and R.T Gurr, (1969). The History of violence in America New York:
Bantam Books.

94
LECTURE THIRTEEN

Analyzing Participants in Politics

Introduction
In this study session, I want to discuss political participation and the actual
participants in the political process as well as the factors that account for
the differing levels of participation. All along, we have talked as if
everyone participates in politics at the same level. But, is this true? This is
what this lecture is about.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to
1. classify the participants in the political process according to their levels
and forms of participation; and
2. explain why individuals have different levels of political participation.

Pre-Test
1. Which of the following is the most obvious form political
participation? (a) Voting during elections (b) Wearing party badges
(c) Making monetary contributions (d) protests by cheated
politicians

95
 2. Which of the following statements is close to the definition of
Political Participation? (a) Refers specifically and exclusively to
voting in election (b) Includes voting in elections and other ways
in which citizens try to influence the conduct of government. (c) Is
synonymous with political apathy (d) Is usually regarded as an
undesirable or negative process
3. Lester Milbraith classified level of political participation into
Spectator, ........ and gladiatorial activities. (a) Politically relevant
(b) mobilizational (c) Marginal (d) Transitional
4. Which of the following is NOT a typology for participants in
politics? (a) Robert Dahl‟s Typology (b) David Easton‟s Typology
(c) Lester Milbraith‟s Typology (d) Karl Deutsch‟s Typology
5. Several factors are responsible for why individuals participate in
politics at different levels. These factors include except:
(a) Economic (b) psychological (c) political (d) Metaphysical
6. One of the reasons why individuals participate in politics
unequally is pointed out in (a) the political man model (b) the
system approach (c) the economic man model (d) the substitution
approach

CONTENT
Democracy and the Significance of Participation

You would be partly right if you define democracy as government of the

people, by the people, and for the people. Actually, the classical liberal
notion of democracy relates it to majority participation in the political
system. This notion dates back to the Greek city-states in which, because
of their small sizes, it was possible for every adult to participate directly in
the affairs of the state. However, with the phenomenal expansion of the
modern nation-state which has a complex form of government and
bureaucracy; direct participation by all is no longer possible. In most of
them, the majority participate indirectly through their representative who
they elect at regular intervals.
While majority participation remains a cardinal principle of
democracy and adult suffrage has become almost universal everywhere,
numerous recent studies reveal that the majority of the members of

96
society, even in countries like the USA, are not interested at all in
politics2. Many do not vote, much less know a lot about the political
process. In effect, it has been found that, only a tiny proportion of
members of society participate in politics. Even amongst such participants,
only a few are very active. Against this background, we shall examine the
levels of political participation that have been developed. I shall reserve
the reasons for unequal participation till the next lecture.

What is Political Participation?

There are many definitions of political participation. I shall however give
a wide-ranging definition which captures the essence of political
participation in most political systems. It refers to involvement in politics
and this includes all forms of political activity ranging from discussing
political issues or events, taking part in a demonstration or riot, voting,
writing a letter to political leaders, to belonging to political parties and
seeking political office. This definition should however mislead you to
thinking that everyone participates in politics. You will soon see why.

97
Typologies of Political Participation
I shall discuss three typologies of political participation which show the
levels of participation. They are those of Lester Milbraith, Karl Dutsch
and Robert Dahl.

Lester Milbraith’s Typology: According to Milbraith, political

participants can be classified on the basis of their political activities. He
said that there are three of such activities, namely, spectator activities,
transitional activities and gladiatorial activities. Accordingly, we have
spectator participants, transitional participants, and gladiatorial
participants.
Fig. 12.1(a)
12.1 (a) Lester Milbraith’s Typology

Gladiatorial
Participants

Political Efficacy

Transitional
Belong to Political Parties Participants

Spectator
Exposed to Political Stimuli Participants

98
Spectator Participants: are those who expose themselves to political
stimuli mainly information, initiate and partake in political discussions,
attempt to influence others into voting for a party, and who themselves
vote. Spectator participants, in effect take part in the basic political
activities required of all full members of the society, but they do not
become actively involved , but prefer to remain „spectators‟ who enjoy
seeing active participants.

Transitional Participants: are midway between spectator and gladiatorial

participants. Participants in this category typically have begun to take a
keener interest than the spectators in politics. The activities they engage in
include attending a political meeting or rally, belonging and making a
monetary contribution to a political party or association, and contacting a
public officer or political leader over issues.

Gladiatorial Participants: These are the most active participants who

typically have the highest level of political efficacy. Gladiatorial activities
include caucus or strategic meeting, soliciting party funds, seeking
political office and influence, and actually holding public and party office.
Gladiatorial participants then, are the top political leaders, and they often
constitute a tiny minority (between 5-100%) of the total adult population.
What you should not about Milbraith‟s typology is that it does not
include those who are note about interested in politics or do not participate
at all.

KARL DEUTSCH‟S TYPOLOGY. In this typology there are two broad

categories of political participants, namely, the politically relevant strata
and the elite strata. Each of these categories is further subdivided into
narrower categories of participants, based on the position method and the
level of participation.

99
 Fig. 12.1 (b) Deutsch’s Typology

Top Elite

Who‟s who Elite Elite Strata

Mid Elite

Marginal Elites

Active Participants Politically

Non –Active Participants Relevant
Strata

The Politically Relevant Strata: Comprise those members of the political

system who count or matter, and must be taken into consideration by
decision-makers. Students, teachers, market women, the “common man”,
all count because they are those to be affected by the decision made. In
democratic and non-democratic political system alike, where voting is a
primary political activity, the politically relevant strata would include all
those who are eligible to vote. In this sense, most adults belong to the
politically relevant strata.
Within the politically relevant strata, a further distinction can be made
between those who are active (those who actually participate, by for
example voting or demanding or opposing a particular policy) and non-
activists (those who are relevant, but fail to actually participate by not
voting or discussing politics).
The Elite strata: Comprise those who are not only politically relevant, but
most actively participate in the political process, seeking influence and
power, and actually occupying the most important political positions. The
elites are the most educated and influential members of society, and they

100
constitute the “attentive public” which molds public opinion and provide
leadership and direction for society.
The elite strata are further subdivided into the marginal elites, the
mid-elite, the who‟s who elite, and the top elite, based on the position
method. This method uses the positions or roles of elites to classify them.
Members of the lower middle-class, Clerks, small-scale business men and
intermediate staffers-belong to the marginal elite class. Those in the upper
middle-class, academicians, senior civil servants, military officers-belong
to the mid-elite group. The who‟s who elite are the „notable‟ captains of
industry, Permanent Secretaries, military Generals, in short, the leaders of
the various influential political actors-President, Ministers, Ambassadors,
Chief-Justice who usually constitutes between 1 and 5% of the total
population.
Again, Deutsch‟s typology, like Milbraith‟s does not include those
who are not interested at all in politics, though it talks of non-active
members of the politically relevant strata.
Robert Dahl’s Typology: There are four categories in this typology:
The Apolitical Stratum: This is the category of those who are apathetic
and not interested in politics. People in this category would not even vote.
However, they sometimes take part in politics in unsystematic ways, like
violently rioting or participating in a civil war.
12. 1 (c) Dahl’s Typology

The Powerful

The Power Seekers

The Political Stratum

101
 Apolitical Stratum
The Political Stratum: This is similar to Deutsch‟s politically relevant
strata. Participants in this category take part in basic political activities like
voting.
The Power Seekers: Are those who have become so highly involved that
they decide to seek power and influence by running for political office.

The powerful: They occupy the top political positions, and control the
greatest amount of political resources and have the greatest political skills.
Such persons as the President, leader of political parties, heads of
legislative assemblies and “the power behind the scene”, who are mostly
the wealthiest members of society belong to this class.

Why do Individuals Participate In Politics Unequally?

There are many reasons why some people participate in politics and others
do not, and why, even among those who participate, some are more active
than others. We shall consider these reasons according to models and sets
of factors that have been identified.

The Economic Man Model: According to this model, a rational person

decides to participate or not participate in politics based on his
calculations of gains and losses, with a view to maximizing gains and
minimizing losses. The point then, is that the individual who participates
in politics does so because he gains immensely from doing so. Such gains
are not necessarily monetary there is prestige, psychological satisfaction,
and so on. If the individual finds that he cannot benefit or that the costs of
participating are high (money, time, convenience, etc.) he is not likely to
participate in Politics.
The economic man model has however been criticized because most
of those who take part in politics do not rationally calculate their costs and
benefits. In fact, voting, and attending a rally sometimes becomes so
habitual that few people calculate before they act. Probably because of
this, many participants in politics behave non-rationally. For example,
some voters vote for candidates because they are handsome or because
they speak well, rather than on calculations of what they stand to gain.

102
Socio-Economic Correlates of Participation: Individuals have different
levels of participation because of certain social and economic inequalities.
The most important correlates which have been established from
numerous studies will be presented as hypotheses (i.e. tentative statements
of relationships between variables which can be tested empirically):
1. those with higher education are more likely to participate in
politics;
2. those who belong to high income brackets have greater access to
control of political resources and, consequently, participate more in
politics than those in lower income brackets;
3. those in urban centers are more likely to become active in politics
than rural dwellers;
4. members of trade unions, professional associations and other
organized interest groups are more likely to take an interest in
politics, to have a stronger stand on issues and to vote than are
those who do not belong to organized interest groups;
5. the longer a person resides in a community, the more likely he is to
participate in politics;
6. as people grow older their level of participation increases but after
50 or 60, it begins to decline; and
7. men are more likely to participate in politics than women.
As you can see, the factors associated with political participation-high
levels of education, urban residence, membership of organized interest
groups, high socio-economic (especially income) status, and so on –
represent advantageous locations in the political system for receiving
political information and controlling political resources, having a better
leverage with politics, a greater contact with political life, and so on. The
only problem however remains that of organizing the information in the
context of a general theory of participation. Worse still, these correlates do
not explain the spontaneous involvement of those in the lower (apathetic)
groups of society in such things like riots, demonstrations and other forms
of civil disturbance.

Political Correlates of Participation: The nature of a political system and

in particular, of the ruling regime, certainly determines the rate and level
of political participation. In military and dictatorial regimes, the scope of

103
political participation is narrow and although trade unions and other
interest groups may exist, government often tends to suppress opposition
and potential opposition fronts. By contrast, in countries where political
parties compete at periodic intervals during elections there is ample room
for participation, especially at election times. Even so, as between a one-
party and a two or more party state, one expects a higher level of political
participation in the two or more party state than in the one-party state
where opposition is usually suppressed.
The importance or centrality of elections also determines the level of
participation. If political parties are differentiated on ethnic, regional or
religious lines, involvement is likely to be high for all voters in elections.
Again, there are certain elections which are said to be “critical” for both
parties and voter-like the 1959 elections held to decide which party would
control Nigeria at independence and the 1979 elections to inaugurate the
Second Republic. Such critical elections record high voter turn-outs and
high political involvement. Where elections are not considered critical, or
are irregular, or believed to be massively rigged, many people are likely to
become disenchanted. The result is low participation and apathy.
A final political correlate of political participation that we shall
consider is the level of mobilization in the political system. Mobilization
as used here, refers to the process by which the government deliberately
encourages (sometimes coerces) the citizenry to become actively involved
in politics, to be loyal and patriotic. This is an important factor of
participation in socialist and one-party states where most citizens belong
to the only ruling party, and in most third world countries which are
bogged down by ethnic, religious and regional divisions.
Perhaps the only problem with most of the political correlates that have
been identified is that they emphasize voluntary participation in the so-
called democratic states, to the detriment of the often involuntary
participation in the so-called non-democratic states.

Psychological Correlates of Participation: Some people participate in

politics to meet certain psychological needs and not merely for other
calculable benefits. Some seek political influence or other reallocations of
income, status and prestige because they symbolize to the actor that people
were wrong to consider him a failure, that can be loved and respected by
those who support him, and that he is powerful.

104
 Personality traits resulting from social learning are also associated
with participation. Some basic personality traits like rigidity, guilt in-
tolerance of ambiguity, manic depression and manifest anxiety are not
strongly associated with political participation. By contrast, learned traits
like sense of efficacy (i.e. importance of the self in influencing outcomes),
sense of civic responsibility, sociability, sense of authoritarianism and
alienation are more strongly associated with participation. Those who have
a feeling of from society (i.e. a feeling of estrangement, of alienation not
belonging to society) do not become actively involved in politics, except
in rebellious ways. On the other hand, those with high sense of efficacy, of
civil responsibility and sociability participate more actively than those
with lower, sense of these correlates.
These traits, as I said, result from social learning. But they are also
influenced by the variables of education (those with greater education are
more likely to have high senses of efficacy and civil responsibility), socio
economic group (those in higher groups tend to have higher sense of
efficacy than those in lower groups and occupation (manual workers tend
to be more alienated than non-manual workers), to mention but a few.
Notwithstanding the importance of psychological variables in explaining
political participation, there are two fundamental problems in discussing
them. First, they tend to confuse cause and effect: are people more
psychological actively involved, politically because of psychological
needs or are they psychologically involved because of satisfactions
derived from political activity? Second, how do we measure psychological
traits other than by directly interviewing people? This opens up many
problems; the people could lie, our questions may be inappropriate, and
most importantly, inferring what people have in mind from what they say.

A Final Word
Any of the typologies presented above could be used and is good because
as you can see, their categories are similar. If you however wish to
formulate your own typology, you should remember the credits for good
typologies we discussed in lecture ten.
Also, there are a variety of economic, psychological, political and socio-
economic factors, which explain why individuals have varying levels of
political participation. None of these factors however, singly or in
isolation explains the whole process of participation, which is very

105
complex. In explaining political participation then, we should consider
these factors in relevant combinations.

Summary
1. Democracy entails majority participation in the political process.
2. Political participation generally involves participation in politics.
3. Everyone does not participate in politics the same way. There are
varying levels of participation.
4. Lester Milbraith has classified political participation into
spectator participants, transitional participants and gladiatorial
participants.
5. Karl Deutsch‟s typology has two major categories the politically
relevant strata and the elite strata.
6. Robert Dahl‟s typology consists of the apolitical stratum, political
stratum, the power-seekers and the powerful.
7. Any of these typologies is useful because the categories used in
all are similar.
8. There are many reasons why some people participate in politics
and others do not, and why, even among those who participate,
some are more active than others. These include economic, social,
political, psychological factors.
9. No single factor however explains participation. Rather,
combinations of factors are used in explanation because
participation is a complex process.

Key Concepts to Remember

Democracy, political participation, majority, political involvement,
political activities, spectators, transitional participants, gladiatorial
participants, political relevant strata, position methods, elite, marginal
elite. Mid-elite core, who‟s who elite, top elite, apolitical stratum.
Political participation, economic man, rationality, costs, benefits,
correlates, educations, location, sex, age, elections, regime, party
systems, personality, alienation, efficacy, civil responsibility, anxiety,
sociability, intolerance.

106
Post-Test
1. What is democracy?
2. What is political participation?
3. Define spectator activities, transitional activities and gladiatorial
activities.
4. Discuss Karl Deutsch‟s typology of political participation.
5. Which of the typologies do you like most? Why
6. Is every political participant rational? Why or Why not?
7. What are the important socio-economic correlates of
participation?
8. Can a single factor explain participation? Why or Why not?

References
Robert Dowse and John Hughes, (1983). Political Sociology, Chichester:
John Wiley, p. 289.
H. Mcclosky, (1968) “Political Participation”, International Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences New York: Coller Macmillan.
G. Almond and S. Verba, (1965). The Civil, Culture, Boston: Little,
Brown & Coy.
Lester Milbraith, (1965). Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally,
p. 18 ff.
Karl Deutsch, (1974). Politics and Government, 2nd ed. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, pp. 48-59.
Robert Dahl, Modern Political Analysis, pp. 100-127.
A. Dowins, (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York:
Harper and Row.
Almond and Verba, (1963). The Civil Culture; A Campbell, P. Converse
W. Miller and D. Stokes, The American Voter New York: John Wiley
S. Lipset, (1960). Political Man. London: Heinemann, etc.
M. Clinard (ed.) (1964). Anomie and Deviant Behaviour, New York: Free
Press
F. Templeton, (1966). “Alienation and Political Participation,” Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 30, pp. 249-261.
Dowse and Hughes, Political Sociology, pp. 291-291 and 305-311.
107
108
LECTURE FOURTEEN

Initiation to Politics: Political Socialization

Introduction
Having looked at levels of political participation and why these levels
differ, in this lecture, I want to discuss how individuals acquire basic
political attitudes and dispositions which account for their political
behaviour.

Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to
1. discuss how individuals learn political attitudes and
2. how the process of political socialization is important for political
systems.

Pre-Test
1. Children whose parents have high socio-economic status will
tend to: (a) avoid imitating their parents (b) be politically
passive and insecure (c) be cynical about politics (d) be
politically active
2. Involvement in high school activities can: (a) decrease an
individual‟s knowledge of the political world. (b) encourage
and facilitate later political participation (c) assist in winning
competitive elections. (d) connect candidates in
competitive elections with former classmates that will vote for
him/her.

109
 3. Political Socialization at the childhood stage: (a) takes place
only in the school (b) reflects societal political culture (c) is
manifest in nature. (d) is latent in nature.
4. Secondary agents of political socialization include the
following EXCEPT: (a) The government (b) The family (c)
The mass media (d) The political party.
5. Political Socialization at the adulthood stage: (a) takes place
only in the school (b) reflects societal political culture (c) is
latent in nature (d) is manifest in nature.
CONTENT
What Is Political Socialization?
Political socialization as you learnt in lecture seven is one the requisite
functions identified by Gabriel Almond. In general, socialization is a
learning process by which the individual learn the societal norms and
values which enable him to function well in the society. The end-product
of this process is the personality which the individual acquires. Political
socialization can be seen as political learning. It is the learning process by
which the individual acquires political attitudes, beliefs, values and norms
in the society. It could be defined as the process by which the individual
learns and internalizes the political culture of the system to enable him
function effectively in the society.

Agencies of Political Socialization

I have said that political socialization is a learning process. How are
attitudes and values learnt? It is obvious that the same thing cannot be
learnt in all political systems because political cultures (political culture
refers to the sum of political attitudes, beliefs and orientations which
predispose behaviour) are different across political systems, nevertheless,
the learning process is basically the same. In most political systems, the
major institutions in which political attitudes are learnt, which are called
the agencies of socialization are the following:

The Family: In every political system, the family constitutes the primary
agency of political socialization, especially at the childhood stage. It is
within the family that child develops his first cognitive map of the world.
By imitation, he imbibes the family traits and learns basic moral values
which invariably influence his later political attitudes and dispositions. A
110
child from a family of reputed politicians is more likely to become
politically active than one from an apathetic family. Much of what is
learnt about politics in the family is however informal and indirect.

The School: Here, the individual learns more directly and formally about
politics. In some countries in which political indoctrination is important,
the regime determines what individuals learn through an organized system
of political education. However, there is virtually no country in which the
government wants people to learn what is opposed to its interests or to the
political system as a whole.
In general, schools transmit information and values which determine
political attitudes and dispositions.

Peer Groups: A peer group is a cluster of people with similar status (age,
income group, and so on) and often similar interests. It comprises persons
who know and admire each other such as close friends, colleagues,
neighbours, small clubs and informal associates. Informally, we - as
children or adults – learn a great deal from our peers. Frequent interaction
brings about exchanges of ideas and values which help to shape our views
of the outside world. Normally, people belong to numerous peer groups,
each. Consequently, we do not usually conform to the standards of only
one group, but we do learn to select or reject certain ideas and values in
preference for others.

Political Socialization Political System

Agencies Process
The family school 1. Childhood
Peer groups Mass Socialization
media Voluntary 2. Adulthood
association, Socialization
Interest groups
and political
organizations

111
 Figure 14.1: The Web of Political Socialization

Mass Media: Since the development of the print and electronic media
newspapers, magazines, journals, television, and radio-and their increasing
expansion to the rural areas; the mass media have become an increasingly
important agency of political socialization. We rely on them for
information which enable us form opinions and develop attitudes. In fact,
they reflect the basic norms and values of society. The increasing
recognition that the mass media are crucial in the learning process has led
many governments, especially in the developing countries to interfere in
the knowledge and information they disseminate.
Voluntary Associations, Interest Groups and Political Organisations:
Voluntary associations like the Boys Brigade, Girls Guide, Boys Scout,
Red Cross and so on help to shape our political attitudes, especially in
terms of civil responsibility. As adults, we learn a lot about the political
process from our membership of interest groups, professional associations
and political parties. In particular, we learn to have a high sense of
political efficacy.

Childhood and Adulthood Socialization

Socialization is an unending process. We learn every day. However for
political socialization, there is a raging controversy over whether
childhood socialization is more critical than adulthood socialization. We
shall not however enter into this controversy because it is outside the
scope of this course. It is, nevertheless, important for you to know certain
important things about how the two are related. First, childhood
socialization largely involves indirect and informal (non-specific) political
learning which often has wider implication for what we become later in
life. As a child, you may come to associate fair people with trickery and
certain ethnic groups with honesty you may even believe that women are
inferior to men. All these shape your later political attitudes. It is at adult
stage that we learn directly, specifically and formally about politics. The
roles we play, the association we belong to, our voting experience, all help
112
us to concretize our political attitudes. At the adult stage, we are more
exposed to political stimuli.
Any regime interested in changing people‟s political attitudes and
beliefs would however achieve greater success if it focuses on childhood
socialization because at this stage, the child is still malleable. Most adults,
having already formed their opinions, are resistant to change.

Political Socialization and the Political System

In lecture seven, I told you that political socialization is one of the
requisite functions in the political system. This means that it is very
important in the political system. It is especially so because it tends to be
supportive of the political regime, especially those which are ideologically
oriented. Every government desires a congruent political culture, i.e. a
political culture which is supportive of its rule. Consequently,
governments are interested in the socialization process especially in the
schools and mass media.
In the USA and defunct USSR, the government interferes in the
socialization process to ensure that people learn to love capitalism and
socialism respectively. In Germany, Hitler set up the young Hitler
movement to indoctrinate children into Nazism, while in Israel, children
were collectively taught in the Kibbutz to be loyal and patriotic. It would
seem that the major problems facing developing countries, especially
political instability, remain because their governments have not positively
intervened in the socialization process. They have left the process largely
to the families and ethnic groups which teach people to be divided.

Summary
1. Political socialization refer to the process by which the individual
acquires his political attitudes, values and dispositions.
2. The major agencies of socialization are the family, schools, peer
groups, mass media and organized groups.
3. Adulthood socialization involves specific political learning while
childhood socialization involves non-specific political learning.
4. Political socialization is crucial for the stability of the political
system.

113
 Key concepts to Remember
Socialization, political socialization, political attitudes, beliefs, norms
values, political culture, congruent political culture, childhood
socialization, adult socialization, family, school, peer group, mass
media, voluntary association, interest group.

Post-Test
1. Define political socialization.
2. Elaborate on the agencies of socialization.
3. Differentiate between childhood and adult political socialization.
4. How useful is political socialization to the political system?
5. What is political culture?
References
O.G. Brim and S. Wheeler, (1966). Socialization After Childhood,
New York: John Willey.
D.C. Schwartz and S.K. Schwartz, (eds.) (1985). New Directions in
Political Socialization, New York: The Free Press.
H.R. Winter and T.J. Bellows, (1981). people and Politic: An
Introduction to Political Science, John Willey. Pp. 100-131.

114
LECTURE FIFTEEN

Political Evaluation

Introduction
In this final lecture, I want to introduce you to the basic skills you require
to evaluate or „judge‟ or assess political actions, events and the
performance of political systems.

Objective
At the end of this lecture you should be able to discuss what political
evaluation involves, particularly the difficulties in assessing the
performance of political systems.

Pre – Test
1. The two basic types of evaluation analysis are: (a) Statistical and
Experimental (b) Stochastic and Non-Stochastic (c) Probabilistic
and Non- probabilistic (d) Empirical and Normative
2. In situations of uncertainty, the two modes of appraisal include
EXCEPT: (a) guessing (b) gambling or taking risk (c) making
estimates (d) Inductive reasoning.
3. Political decisions in practical situations often entail a mixture of:
(a) Statistical and Experimental decisions (b) Stochastic and Non-
Stochastic decisions (c) Probabilistic and Non- probabilistic
decisions (d) Empirical and Normative decisions
4. ....... holds that there are certain moral values or principles which are
true and useful criteria because they are descriptions of the true
property of man. (a) Intuition (b) Non-cognitivism (c) Semantic
(d) Naturalism

115
 5. In political analysis „hard‟ facts relate to: (a) conceptual analysis (b)
Empirical analysis (c) normative analysis (d) Systematic analysis

CONTENT
Taking Decisions
In every situation of choice, one‟s decision is often the result of how one
appraises the situation. This certainly requires certain knowledge because
to be able to make a decision – to buy a car, to vote, to confirm the relative
desirability of civilian over military government – we require to know
what is involved. The major appraisals which influence decisions include
(1) what are considered to be the alternative courses of action available.
(2) What are believed to be the likely consequences of each course of
action; and (3) the value one attaches to the consequences of each course
of action. These three appraisals are important in situations where we are
certain of the consequences of each course of action. In most decision
situation however, we are uncertain of the consequences of our actions.
In situations of uncertainty, two additional appraisals become
important: (1) one‟s guesses, hunches, or estimates concerning the
probability that the various consequences will actually occur and (2) one‟s
preparedness to gamble or take risks. Obviously, these appraisals do not
indicate that one would take the best decisions because even those
decisions which we believe would bring about desired consequences, often
fail to do so. Over the years, mathematicians and logicians have battled to
formulate criteria of “best” decisions for uncertain situations, using
models derived from games theory and statistical decisions. But these
have proved to be of little value in real worlds, crucial decision situations.
However, they do point to the need to develop criteria other than our
personal values and norms by which to determine „the best‟ alternative. If
we do this, we make evaluation more scientific because “the best” can
then be judged according to the criteria we use.

Two Types of Analysis Used In Political Evaluation

There are basically, two types of evaluation analysis, namely, empirical
analysis and normative analysis. Recall the first two appraisals presented
in the previous section, which assumed a certainty that the likely
consequences of our courses of action will most probably occur. Knowing
the likely consequences of each alternative and the relative probability of

116
their actual ensuring, both take the form of prediction: if x happens, then
(probably) will happen. What is required in this case, is empirical analysis.
The other three appraisals – judging the value of each alternative and
taking risks in uncertain situation require assumptions or beliefs as to what
is good, value or desirable. Such appraisals require normative analysis.
Political decisions in practical situations usually entail a mixture of
empirical and normative decisions. This is often the case because the
possible courses of action open to any decision maker seem limitless, to
judge which actions are relevant in a particular situation, he needs to
consider what he believes to be good or valuable. But how can we
distinguish good from bad decisions? As political analysts, we are
interested in the quality of empirical and normative analysis.

The Quality of Empirical Analysis

Because as I have said, empirical analysis involves making predictions, its
quality will be determined by how true predictions prove to be. To this
extent, „empirical analysis falls short of what we want from it if it leads to
expectations about the future that are falsified by events.” In emphasizing
this quality however, we need to recognize the unpredictable nature of
man and society because often times, predictions which will otherwise be
correct may turn out to be false because human conditions and
dispositions have changed. Because of this, we find that much of the
predictive knowledge used in making political decisions are, in the
absence of total information, at a low level of reliability. Nevertheless, the
quality of empirical analysis continues to be important because, as much
as possible, we seek to capture the real world as it exists.

The Quality of Normative Analysis

Here, we are interested in finding a criterion or set of criteria for
evaluating the quality of normative analysis in the same way that
predictability does for empirical analysis. Since normative analysis entails
what ought to be, we require standards of value, or criteria for judging
which course of action is good, best or right. In this regard we can talk of
the following viewpoints which provide different criteria.
1 Naturalism: This viewpoint holds that there are certain moral
values or principles which are true and useful criteria because they
are descriptions of the true property of man. Thus, for example,
117
 knowing that we will all seek happiness, any decision which
promotes happiness is necessarily good. This viewpoint is highly
useful because it closes the gap between value judgment and
factual judgments. As it were, anything that is good (value
judgments) is factual because it has been observed to be true.
2 Intuition: According to this view, although the quality of
goodness cannot be perceived by the ordinary senses, every man is
endowed with a special capacity for knowing what is good. For
some institutions, like St. Augustine, the knowledge of God leads
to the discovery of moral truths and goodness. For others like Plato
and Rousseau, goodness is not necessarily from God, but one that
is discoverable through knowledge of one‟s structure of the
universe. Then, there is St. Thomas Acquinas who believes that
moral truths can be discovered through reasoning like mathematics
and logic. In the same vein, Immanuel Kant talked of a
“categorical imperative” which requires everyone to “Act only
according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law.”
3. Non-cognitivism or Subjectivism: According to this view,
intrinsic values, unlike factual assertions, cannot be shown to be
true or false. Whatever, we say is true of good, is an assertion of
our belief: “They may reveal one‟s orientations or intentions
toward the world and towards one‟s fellow creatures but unlike
factual judgments, they lack the „cognitive status” of objective
propositions: hence the name non-cognitivism”.
Although this viewpoints have been criticized for tending toward
nihilism (i.e. total rejection of current political institutions and
moral beliefs), it remains quite popular with existentialists (i.e.
those who believes that man is a unique and isolated individual
who is responsible for his own action and free to choose his
destiny). In the world of Jean-Paul Satre, a popular existentialist,
“man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself… Thus,
the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in
possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility
for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders.”
4 Semantic Analysis: This is recent viewpoint which involves the
analysis of meaning of terms as they are actually used in ordinary,
non-philosophical language. The major aim of this approach is to
118
 enrich and clarify moral discourse and political evaluation by
heightening our understanding of the language we use when we
discuss moral questions, as practically everyone does. What do we
mean by happiness, goodness, valuable, and so on. This is what we
do in semantic analysis.

A Final Word
The subject of political evaluation is one of the most complex in political
analysis. What I have done here is to simplify it as much as possible into
empirical and normative analysis. As you advance in other political
science courses, you will become more familiar with the subject.

Summary
1. Political evaluation relates to how we can appraise decision
situations to arrive at good, right, or better decisions.
2. There are two aspects of political evaluation, namely, empirical
analysis which involves predictions of future consequences, and
normative analysis which involves the search for criteria to tell
which options are valuable and good.
3. Every decision situation however involves both empirical and
normative analysis.
4. The quality of empirical analysis, is judged by how true
predictions made turn out to be.
5. The quality of normative analysis is judged by numerous criteria
which are classified into viewpoints as naturalism, intuitionalism
non-cognitivism and semantic analysis.

Key Concepts to Remember

Political evaluation, performance, appraisal, course of action,
alternatives, outcome, consequences, probability, prediction, empirical
analysis, normative analysis, naturalism, intuitionalism, semantic,
existentialism.

Post – Test
1. What are the major forms of appraisal in political evaluation?

119
 2. How do you judge the quality of empirical analysis?
3. What is intuitionalism?
4. What is the goal of semantic analysis in normative analysis?

References
Immanuel Kant, (1968). Metaphysics of Morals, (1985) quoted in
F.E. Oppenneim, Moral Principles of Political Philosophy, New York:
Random House.
Jean-Paul Satre, (1969). “Existentialism is a Humanism”, reprinted
in W. Kanfmann (ed.) Existentialism from Dosioevsky to Satre,
Cleveland: Meridian Books, pp. 290-293.

120
General Bibliography
This is a selection of basic texts which you require for most of what you
have learnt in this course. Each of them is however useful for more than
one topic.

Almond G. and B. Powell, Jr. (1966) Comparative Politics: A

Developmental Approach, Boston: Little, Brown.
Almond, G. (1956) “Comparative systems”, Journal of Politics,
Vol. 18, No.
Almond, G. and Verba, S. (1972).The Civil Culture, Princeton,
New Jersey:
Andrain, C.F. (1975). Political Life and Social Change: An
Introduction to Political Science, 2nd ed. Belmont: Duxbury Press,
Apter, D.F. (1971). Choice and the Politics of Allocation, New
Haven, Connectient: Yale University Press.
Aristotle, (1953). The Ethics, Translated by J.A.K. Thomson
Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Aristotle, (1962). The Politics, translated by J.A. Sinclair
Harmondsworth,
Bandix, R. (1962). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, New
York: Doubleday.
Banfield, E.C., (1967). The Moral Basis of a Backward Society,
New York: Free Press.
Bell. D., (1962). The End of Ideology, New York: Collier Books.
Charlesworth, J.C. ed (1997). Contemporary Political Analysis,
New York: Free Press.
Dahl, R. (1976). Modern Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Dowse, R.E and Hughes, J.A., (1983). Political Sociology,
Chechester: John Willey.
Dutch, R. (1974). Politics and Government: How People Decide
their Fate, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Miffhin.
Easton D, A (1965). Framework for Political Analysis New Jersey:
Prentice.

121
 Easton, D, A (1965). Systems Analysis of Political Life, New
York: John Willey,
Easton, D. (1957). “An Approach to the Analysis of Political?
System”, World Politics, Vol. 9
Easton, D. ed. (1971). The political System: An Inquiry into the
State of Political Science 2nd New York: Alfred Knopf.
Eckstein, H. (ed.) Comparative Politics: A Reader, New York:
Free Press.
Hall.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for
Behavioural Science, San Francisco: Chandler.
Lane, R.E. (1962) Political Ideology. New York: Free Press.
Lasswell, H.D. (1958). Politics, Who Gets What, When, How
Cleveland: World.
Lasswell, H.D. (1963). The Future of political Science, New York
Atherton.
Lipset, S.M. (1960). Political Man, New York: Doubleday.
Lipset, S.M. (ed.) (1969). Politics and Social Sciences, New York:
Oxford
Pye, L.W. and Verba, S. eds. (1965). Political Culture and
Political Development, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rodee C.C., Anderson, I.J., Climistol, C.O and Greene, T.H
(1976). Introduction of Political Science, Tokyo; McGraw-Hill.
Sabine, G.H. and Thorson, T.L., A (1973). History of Political
Theory, 4th ed. Billnois: Druden Press.
Schqartz, D.C. and Schwartz, S.K. (ed.) (1975). New Directions in
Political Socialization, New York: Fress Press.
Spiro, H.J. (1959). Government by Constitution: The Political
System of Democracy New York: Randon House.
Storing, H.J. (ed). (1962). Essays on the Scientific Study of
Politics, New York: Holt, Rhinmehart, and Winston.
Varrna, S.P. (1975). Modern Political Theory, New Dahl: Vikas
Publishing House.
Vernon Van Dyke, (1960). Political Science: A Philosophical
Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
122
 Webber. M. (1947). Theory of Social and Economic Organization,
Translated by A.M. Handerson and T. Parsons New York: Oxford
University Press.
Weber, M. From Max Webber (1946). Essay in Sociology,
Translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills New York: Oxford
University Press.
Welsh, W.A (1973). Studying Politics, London: Thomas Nelson
Winter, H.R. and Bellows, T.J. (1981). People and Politics: An
Introduction to Political Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley,
Wolin, S.S., (1960). Politics and Vision, Boston: Little, Brown.

123
Answer to Pre-Test questions
Lecture One:
1. d
2. a
3. b
4. d
5. c

Lecture Two:
1. False
2. False
3. True
4. True
5. c

Lecture Three:
1. c
2. a

Lecture Four:
1. a
2. d
3. d

Lecture Five:
1. c
2. a
3. d
4. d

Lecture Six:
1. c
2. a
3. b
4. d

Lecture Seven:
1. a

124
 2. a
3. c
4. b

Lecture Eight:
1. c
2. b
3. d
4. b

Lecture Nine:
1. b
2. a
3. c
4. b
5. c

Lecture Ten:
1. b
2. a
3. d
4. a

Lecture Eleven:
1. a
2. b
3. c
4. b

Lecture Twelve:
1. c
2. c
3. c
4. False
5. d

Lecture Thirteen:
1. a

125
 2. b
3. d
4. b
5. d
6. c

Lecture Fourteen:
1. b
2. b
3. d
4. b
5. d

Lecture Fifteen:
1. d
2. d
3. d
4. d
5. b

126