Approaches in Political Science

An approach may be defined as a way of looking at, and then explaining a

particular phenomenon. An approach provides framework for explanation and
prediction. Van Dyke observes, “Approaches consist of criteria for selecting
problems and relevant data, whereas methods are procedures for getting and
utilizing data”. In the case of Political science, it is an academic discipline with a
fairly wide range of subject matter and a multiplicity of approaches.
Its subject area and approaches have evolved over a period of many centuries. The
changes that took place during the 20th century are particularly important in this
process of evolution. It was during this period that political science emerged as a
separate, scientific discipline. These developments took place alongside the broad
changes and developments which occurred in the fields of social and human
sciences in general. Allan Ball in his ‘Modern Politics and Government’ has
categorized the approaches into traditional and modern or new approach.
The traditional approaches are value based and lays emphasis on the inclusion of
values to the study of political phenomena. Advocates of these approaches believe
that the study of political science should not be based on facts alone since facts and
values are closely related to each other. Accordingly there are a large number of
traditional approaches like; philosophical-normative approach, comparative
approach, legal approach, historical approach, institutional approach etc. We will
be discussing about philosophical-normative approach and comparative approach
under the given content of the syllabus.
The modern approaches are fact based and lays emphasis on the factual study of
political phenomenon to arrive at scientific and definite conclusions. The modern
approaches include; Multi-disciplinary Approach, Scientific (Behavioural)
Approach, sociological approach, political economy approach, feminist approach,
psychological approach, etc.
Traditional approaches
Philosophical/Normative Approach.

Philosophical approach is the oldest approach and is also known as ethical

approach. This approach attempts to find the truth of political events or incidents.
It aims at evolving standards of right and wrong for the purpose of a critical
evolution of the existing institutions, laws and policies. It is also known as
speculative approach and is concerned with the establishment of an ideal society
with norms and values. Plato and Aristotle, who were Greek philosophers, were its
pioneers. Chief exponents of this in European political thought were Cicero, St.
Augustine, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Emmanuel Kant, Hegel, and
Karl Marx. Among the political philosophers of 20th century are Mahatma Gandhi,
Hanna Arendt, John Rawls, Charles Taylor, and Jurgen Habermas.

Two common factors related to all these political philosophers are:

• All of them are not political scientists in the modern sense, but political thinkers.
They did not study politics scientifically as it is understood in the twentieth
century.
• All of them looked at politics from a normative perspective.

First when identifying the PHILOSOPHICAL approach there are three main
features to be understand.
1. Asking, and finding answers to, fundamental questions about the
political world.
It asks, and tries to find answers to, fundamental questions about the world, such
as:
• What is the world?
• How does the world exist?
• Can the world be understood or knowable?
• What is the meaning of human life?
• What is life?
Similarly, political philosophy asks, and proposes answers to, such fundamental
questions about the political world as:
• What is politics?
• What is the state and what are the reasons behind the existence of the state?
• Why should citizens obey the state?
• What is the relationship between the state and other human organizations?

2. Seeking clarity and precision in meaning of political concepts.

Philosophers take a special interest in the clarity and precision of meaning of
concepts we use in our understanding of the world. So do the political philosophers
when it comes to the political world. For example, political philosophers are
concerned with the clarity of political concepts such as the state, citizenship,
justice, fairness, equality, freedom, and rights. They provide their own opinions
according to their personal perspectives. Therefore, no unanimous definitions in
political concepts.

3. Evaluating politics by means of normative outcomes of political

thinking and action.
Political philosophy also has a keen interest in ‘normative goals’ in politics.
‘Normative’ means value oriented. We have our ‘value judgments’ about the
things in the world, evaluating them as ‘good’, ‘bad’ ‘noble’, and ‘fair’ etc. These
are ‘normative’ yardsticks because we use them to evaluate things in the world as
‘good’, ‘bad’ ‘fair’, ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ etc. They are norms or standards of
evaluation. These yardsticks are also ‘normative concepts’, because we express our
value-beliefs about the world through them.
Normative goals in politics are the ones that bring about outcomes that can be
judged as ‘good’ to society and citizens. We usually don’t call ‘normative’ those
that produce ‘bad’ outcomes. In this sense, normative in politics also refer to
human ideals that societies try to achieve.
Political goals that result in common good and that are also ideals at the same time
to be achieved for the welfare and benefit for all in society are: equality, freedom,
liberty, justice, fairness, rights, peace and non-domination. These normative
political goals enable us to imagine and envision through them a better political
world. Thus, normative political concepts and goals provide inspiration for us to
work for building better societies, better political systems and a better world based
on ‘normative foundations’.
Examples of imagining a better political world are:
• Our society should respect freedom and equality among all citizens.
• The state has a duty to ensure the citizens’ fundamental rights.
• Politics should be oriented towards democracy.

Finally, in political philosophy, normative concepts are employed with two higher
levels of meanings:
• To propose better political societies and governments that work towards common
good and welfare of all its citizens.
• The study of politics should aim at not only describing and analyzing political
phenomena, but also proposing better political alternatives that are committed to
normative goals.

Discussing the Criticisms, It is apprehended that there may arise conflict between
practice and ideals and this conflict may dwarf the activities of the state. It may
takes us far away from the world of reality and it is completely hypothetical. There
is also a possibility that the norms could not be fulfilled. But the non-fulfilment
does not call for its rejection. Norms are always norms and they always act as
guiding stars. Plato’s ideal state and philosopher king, Marx’s classless state or
society and his communism, Rousseau’s moral state can be taken as the major
examples for this particular approach.
Also this approach is based on the case of utilitarianism. A philosophy accepts and
adopts by the citizens according to their requirements. When the requirement fades
the society will automatically rejects the philosophy.
Comparative Approach

The comparative approach is generally used in social science inquiry. It takes two
or more forms of government and compares their internal legal basis and structural
form with each other. What this does is take two or more political phenomena and
come to conclusions by examining inequalities.
Examples:
• How do young voters make their electoral decisions in two or more cities, or in
cities and villages? A study in several cities will enable us to compare similar
cases. A study in cities and villages would enable us to compare contrasting
instances.
• What is the most appropriate model of government to ensure political stability? A
comparison of several parliamentary and presidential models of government is
useful for us to find answers to this question based on comparative evidence.
• What are the strategies suitable for peace building in societies that have violent
conflicts and societies that have ended their violent conflicts?

Why should politics be studied comparatively? Kenneth Newton and Jaan Vandeth
in their book “Foundations of Comparative Politics” give the following two
answers:
1. Understanding politics in other countries is helpful in understanding politics
of our own country.
2. It is difficult to obtain a proper understanding of politics in a country
without a comparative study of political histories, political backgrounds and
political institutions in several countries.
 Classical Approach to Comparative Politics.
The history of this approach goes to the early political thought of Greek, Roman
and medieval Europe. In his book Politics, Aristotle used the comparative method
to study the systems of government in Greek city - states. He used two yardsticks
to classify these governments. One is the number of rulers and the other is the level
of corruption in governments. Accordingly, and applying the comparative method,
Aristotle classified Greek government as monarchies, aristocracies,
dictatorships/autocratic governments, oligarchies and democracies.
Comparative Political Study of 20th Century
This approach to the study of politics was developed after the 1950s in some
American universities. It was derived from the ‘scientific method’ that was
becoming popular in social science research in Europe and America. The
‘scientific method’ in the social sciences assumed that the research methods
employed in the natural sciences could be used in the study of human society with
better results. The production of ‘reliable’ knowledge about society based on
empirical evidence and data is the key idea in the scientific method adapted to
social sciences. Political scientists in America were the pioneers in employing this
approach in political science research. The 1950s were the time when this approach
began to be developed in America.
The twentieth century comparative method in political science compared data on
themes such as political development, political culture, political change, political
socialization and political behavior.
The following are a few works that played a pioneering role in introducing the
comparative political science inquiry;
• Gabriel A. Almond, “Comparative Political Systems,” 1956, The Journal of
Politics,
 • Gabriel A. Almond & James S. Coleman, 1960, The Politics of the
Developing Areas.
• Seymour Martin Lipset, 1960, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics.
• Gabriel A. Almond & Sidney Verba, 1963, The Civic Culture: Political
Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations.
• Samuel P. Huntington, 1960, Political Order in Changing Societies.
Contemporary Comparative Method
Compared with the twentieth century comparative political science approach, the
following aspects can be observed in the contemporary comparative political
science literature:
(i) The thematic scope of comparative inquiry is now more flexible. Themes
studied include political institutions, political processes, political
transformation, political conflict, peace processes, nature of the state and
its transformation, direction of democratic transformations, citizens’
activities, ethnic politics, civil society politics, human rights, and political
participation of women.

(ii) Contemporary comparative approach does not use measurements from

ideal models on political development or democracy for its study. The
use of such ideal models derived from the experience of Western
democracies was a criticism leveled against the comparative approach
developed in the 1950s and 1960s.

(iii) The objective of this approach is to learn lessons comparatively from

political realities of different countries and then strengthen the political
analysis, without passing value judgments about politics in the non-
Western world.

There are also weaknesses in the methodology of comparative studies. That is,
environmental factors affecting the functioning of political institutions are ignored,
specially under the traditional method of comparative approach. Often only the
legal structures of political institutions are studied comparatively. Human behavior
that influences the functioning of these institutions, the nature of political culture
which affected the political system are purposely ignored in the traditional method.
Professor Garner points out that this is a major weakness of the comparative study
method. However, the comparative method of studying observational political
science began as a traditional method, but remains the most popular method to
date.