CHAPTER 1

THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF POLITICAL

SCIENCE
What is Political Science?
The term political science has been variously defined as the science of the state (Varman,
1975:1); the systematic study and analysis of politics (Anifowose, 2001:6); the study of the
shaping and sharing of power (Laswell, cited in Dahl, 1995:3); the study of political life
(Alapiki, 2000:2); and the study of politics (Pickless, 1972:5). The thread which runs through the
above definitions is that the subject of political science is politics. Thus, to understand the nature
of political science, we must know in clear terms, the meaning of politics. .

What is Politics?
This question has elicited different answers. Thus, the term has been defined as the authoritative
allocation of values for a society (Easton, 1965:50); the determination of who gets what, when
and how (Laswell, 1930); a system of behavior by which a society expresses its self-
determination by choosing its leaders, holding them to account and evolving and pursuing
collective goals (Ake, cited in Nna 2002:5); the resolution of the problems and contradictions
which arise from the struggle to satisfy the economic needs of people (Ndu, 1998:3) and the act
of influencing, manipulating, and controlling others (Wright, 1955:130).

The many definitions of politics are a source of difficulty for beginners. But understanding is
enhanced if the term is situated within its context. Political science literature agrees that group
life is the basis of politics. Although men are created individually, they have interests that are
only actualized in association with other men. Undoubtedly, man is gregarious. In this regard,
individual men have interests that crisscross each other. In this relation, each attempt to promote
his interests in a calculated manner, which sometimes involves undermining the other man’s
interest. This relationship among men, defined by the pursuit of individual and group interests is
seen as the basis of politics. Given this, politics is in the character of man, and is therefore as old
as human existence. Writing in this regard, Aristotle (cited in Rodee, Anderson, Christol and
Greene, 1976:2) declared, “Man is by nature a political animal”. This means that:

…the essence of social existence is politics and that two or more men interacting with one another are invariably
involved in a political relationship…that this is a natural and inevitable predisposition among men…As men seek to
define their position in society, as they attempt to wring personal security from available resources, and as they try
to influence others to accept their points of view, they find themselves engaging in politics.

The above quotation graphically demonstrates that politics is ubiquitous, and agrees with Dahl
(1975:1), who writes that “politics is apn unavoidable fact of human existence.” How? Dahl
explains that “a citizen encounters politics in the government of a country, town, school, church,
business, firm, trade union, club, political party, civic association, and a host of other
organizations.” The foregoing implies that politics can be in two dimensions – the macro level
(State/Government) and the micro level (associations and groups in society). Generally,
discussions on politics locate it at the macro level. In this sense, politics is seen as rule, the
exercise of power or authority, resource allocation, and the regulation of human conduct.
A significant point to note here is that man’s nature makes politics necessary. This nature has
been variously described as wicked, selfish, corrupt, vicious, proud and immoral. These are
characteristics that undermine man’s desire for collective existence. Social existence promotes
collective goals, which are required for the actualization of individual aspirations; the most
important being freedom, peace, justice, and security.

However, by nature, man creates conflicts which constrain the achievement of the above stated
collective goals. Given that this undermines the end of group life, it is necessary to resolve these
conflicts, which fundamentally center on resource distribution. Ndu (1998:1-3) captures it thus:

…humans, whenever they have been found, have lived in groups…also…each human being differs from others in
terms of his/her wants, needs, desire and inclinations… This implies that everyone is distinct and different from
others…all these imply that each person will seek to satisfy his/her wants, needs desires and inclinations of others…
It is also accepted that the resources...which are available for the satisfaction of these needs and wants of humanity
are relatively scarce. This means then that the attempts of each human being to satisfy his/her needs, (which he/she
is inclined to do unmindful of others) generally, results in competition. At best, the combination of the wants of so
many people and the scarce provisions available for their satisfaction would lead to some having and others do not
have so much. To prevent these contradictions from degenerating into an internal war, each group works out for
itself ways and means of dealing with them. The processes by which these basic problems of group life are resolved
are what we describe as politics.

This involves the creation of an institution (government) to make and enforce laws; the
recruitment of persons to occupy this institution in an agreed manner; and the granting of
power/authority to this group of persons to make binding decisions. All these are directed
towards the agreed/accepted
mechanisms of resource distribution. Politics is thus a set of interacting activities, which lead to
binding decisions on the distribution of a society’s resources.

It is noteworthy that the most manifest aspect of politics is the contest for power to direct
society’s resources. This explains why in Nigeria for instance, many reduce politics to elections
and the activities associated with it. In all, politics is necessitated by the greed and selfishness of
man; the incompatibility of human interests; the scarcity of socio-economic resources; the need
to promote harmonious social existence; the need to regulate and control human conduct; the
need to promote peace and security; and the need for a single agent to direct the affairs of men
for the common good. It stands to reason from the above that power, authority and rule (Dahl
1995:5) constitutes the essential ingredients of politics.

Power
Power is central to politics, and this explains why some see politics as the contest of power.
Generally, power is viewed as a relationship between two or more persons or groups in which
one is made to act against his/her will or promote the interest of the other. It is a relationship
where an individual, group or country controls another in a desired direction. This is usually
defined using sanctions or coercion. For example, if in a relationship between John and James,
John gets James to act in a manner he would not, to satisfy John’s interest, then John has
exercised power over James. For instance, James may want to watch a football match between
Nigeria and Cameroon, whereas John compels James to go on an errand for him. If James
abandons watching the football match for John’s errand, because of an expected punishment or
reward, then John has exercised power over James.
Influence
Influence unlike power, secures obedience and affects decisions through persuasion. Sanctions and coercion, which
are essential attributes of power, are not associated with influence.

At the level of countries, if Nigeria makes Togo to act in a manner she would not otherwise have
acted, Nigeria is said to have exercised power over Togo. It is pertinent to note that the
individual, group or country that exercises power usually stands in an advantageous position over
the other. This could be circumstantial, transient, or permanent, and is defined by the possession
of the elements of power. This view of power sees nearly every human relationship as a power
relationship – that between a parent and a child, a husband and wife, a teacher and his students, a
pastor and the congregation, etc.

However, the focus here is political power, which is in the state and exercised by the
government. Political power is the making of authoritative decisions by governmental office
holders. Thus, government policies and programs in resource allocation and distribution, and so
on amount to the
exercise of political power. Clearly, therefore, political power is the hallmark of politics, and this
explains why the state (where it is located) is the object of political competition. Political power
is exercised through the laws of the state, and it can take the form of force or persuasion. To this
end, the coercive apparatus of the state (e.g. politics, army, navy) is employed in the exercise of
political power. At another level of analysis, political power may be exercised at the intellectual
level through the possession of superior knowledge or information. This is done by
indoctrination through the educational system or the socialization process. Whichever form the
exercise of political power takes, it impacts on the citizen positively or negatively. Indeed, “the
consequence of politics is inescapable” (Dahl 1995:1). A significant feature of power (political
or not) is that its distribution is not equal, a fact attributable to the even possession of the
elements of power by individuals, groups or countries. The elements of power are discussed
below.

The Elements of Power

Elements of power refer to the sources of power or the factors which confer power on
individuals, groups, societies and countries. The elements are identified at three levels –
individual, group and country.

Table 1.1: Three Levels of Elements of Power

The Individual Social Group Country

The power exercised by Social group here refers to The elements of a

an ethnic groups/associations, country’s power include:
individual is determined pressure groups, religious geographical location in
by factors which include: groups and so on. Their terms of size and
wealth, status in society, sources of power include: availability of natural
intelligence, physical numerical size, resources, technological
appearance in terms of organization/discipline, development, quality and
size, education, and office education, wealth and strength of military,
the individual occupies. placement in the national morale (the level
opportunity and political of identification between
 structure of society. the citizens and the
government), food
security
and good leadership.

Source: Compiled by Author, 2010

Authority
A thin but significant line separates power and authority. Political science literature agrees that
whereas power may be illegal, authority is always legal, given its attribute of legitimacy.

Legitimacy
Legitimacy simply means the recognition given to a government by the governed based on the understanding that
the acquisition of power was done in accordance with established or agreed procedure. It is usually the attribute of
government found on consent, e.g. democratic government

The point to note here is that although power and authority involve control, securing of
obedience, and the making of binding decisions, authority always possesses legitimacy while
power does not. This implies that the exercise of power over an individual or group may not be
recognized or accepted, although they will obey out of fear of sanctions. On the other hand, the
exercise of authority over a group or individual is accepted. For a clearer understanding of the
difference between Power and Authority, let us take a look at two examples.

Example One: The Exercise of Power

An Armed Robber walks into your residence, and at gunpoint, secures obedience to whatever he
wants. Compliance here is based on force or fear.

Example Two: The Exercise of Authority

A policeman walks into your residence with a search warrant and secures obedience to his will.
Compliance here is based on respect for the law. Authority is based on law and procedure; thus,
a government exercise power if it is not established according to agreed procedure or laws. A
classic example is a Military Government that violates constitutional provisions on leadership
succession. Democracy is the best example of a government that exercises authority. Generally,
authority contains elements which include a property of a person or office, especially the right to
issue orders; a relationship between two offices, one superior and the other subordinate such that
both incumbents perceive the relationship as legitimate; and a quality of communication by
virtue of which it is accepted (Alapiki, 2000).

Types of Authority
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that legitimacy is the most essential attribute of
authority. To this end, types of authority refer to the sources of legitimacy and the corresponding
patterns of leadership and governance. Max Weber’s classification of authority stands out as the
best cited example. Accordingly, it is presented here - under. Weber identifies three types of
authority – Traditional Authority, Charismatic Authority and Legal – Rational/Bureaucratic
Authority.

Traditional Authority
Traditional authority is based on the sanctity of tradition. Thus, leadership is legitimized by
culture, norms, beliefs and values that are tradition bound. What this means is that the principles
of leadership succession are shaped by the traditions of a group or people. This is premised on
two essential elements – heredity or dynastic rule and divine ordination. For example, in many
parts of Africa, leadership succession is hereditary, and largely anchored on the principles of
gerontocracy. This simply means that the oldest person (usually a male) inherits leadership. For
instance, if in a
community the oldest man is 80 years, he rules; if he satisfies other conditions of inheritance
such as coming from the lineage that has the exclusive right to govern, he rules. Similarly, if the
next oldest man is (for example) 70 years, he takes over authority when the incumbent dies, and
no one questions his authority since it is congruent with the custom of the people. In some
cultures, the first son of the incumbent ruler (no matter his age) inherits rulership, and he is
accorded recognition. A classic example of traditional authority is a monarchy. It is significant
that in Africa, traditional authority has been largely diffused by the modern system of
government. Thus, elections have been introduced in choosing leaders. For example, in the
South-South geopolitical zone of Nigeria, appointment of traditional leaders by election has
become a common practice. However, heredity is still retained in many of the traditional political
systems, particularly the centralized ones – the rule of Oba’s, Emir’s, etc.

Charismatic Authority
This type of authority is anchored on attributes or qualities that are personal to individuals.
According to Weber, charismatic authority is legitimized by certain qualities which set an
individual apart from others (Nna 2004). Experience has shown that the qualities which confer
charismatic authority on an individual include: discipline, patriotism and honesty, being
courageous, dependable, reliable and predictable and the possession of miraculous/magical
powers.

The literature on charismatic authority highlights it as a revolutionary movement. Thus, unlike

traditional authority which sustains the existing order, 6charismatic authority seeks to create
changes in society. Examples of charismatic leaders include Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohamed,
Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King (Jnr), Haille Salaissie, Ken SaroWiwa
and Obafemi Awolowo.

Legal – Rationale or Bureaucratic Authority

In this type of authority, leadership succession and conduct are based on agreed rules and
regulations. This is essentially the modern bureaucracy characterized by a hierarchical structure,
anonymity, meritocracy, impersonality, rationality, universalism and adherence to rules and
regulations. The point to note here is that “leadership is legitimated by a belief in the supremacy
of the law, rules and regulations”, (Alapiki, 2000:14) and this defines compliance or obedience.
In modern democracies for instance, government offices are patterned into structures, with
clearly allocated functions, with the qualifications for the offices and the recruitment procedures
governed by accepted laws. The exercise of control by a leadership is only legitimated when the
occupant of an office follows due process to assume the office. Consequently, legal-rational
authority is attached to an office, which automatically extends to the individual holding that
office (Gauba, 2003). For example, Nigerians obey Chief Olusegun Obasanjo because he holds
the office of President of Nigeria. Clearly, it is the law that controls and guides legal – rational
authority. Adherence to law is the basis of legitimacy. It is proper to argue that the authority
attached to an office, which extends to the occupant of that office in legal – rational authority is
also applicable to traditional authority. For example, if a young man of 30 years assumes
traditional authority, older men and women are bound by his rule because of the office he
occupies, and not his person.
Rule
Rule is the manifestation of the exercise of political power or authority. It basically means
governance, and involves rule making, rule execution/implementation and rule
interpretation/adjudication. The types of rule include: rule by one man (Monarchy), rule by a few
person (Aristocracy/Oligarchy) and rule by many persons (Democracy).

The Scope of Politics

The scope of politics deals with the political. Put differently, it answers the question, what is the
political?. A clear answer to this question requires an understanding of the nature of the political
system. Like other concepts in political science, the political system has been interpreted
differently. However, the central distinguishing feature is that political interactions, unlike social
interactions, are predominantly oriented towards the authoritative allocation of resources for
society. Ake, 1982).

What is discernible from the above is that the network of relationships at the governmental level
constitutes the political system. In this regard, attention is focused on governmental structures
and their corresponding authorities. However, political science literature highlights the fact that
the political system is not just the structure and organization of government, but also the political
culture, the “underlying propensities, beliefs, attitudes, and values which define the context in
which the political act takes place” (Ake1982:2) It is clear for instance, that the political culture
of a people shapes the character of politics and by extension, political structures. Following this,
the difference in the political culture of societies gives rise to different political systems –
federalism, unitary and confederacy. Equally, differences in political cultures create different
patterns of operating the same type of political system. For example, whereas Nigeria, Canada,
United States of America, and India operate the Federal System of Government, the structures
and processes are not exactly the same. This partly explains the comparative study of political
systems.

The political system is equally seen as a combination of elements made up of the governmental
structures and other political bodies such as political parties and pressure/interest groups (Rodee,
Anderson, Christol & Greene, 1976). The political system is therefore made of the following
interrelated elements: the state/government and the formal institutions of government
(legislature,
executive and judiciary), the political culture; all processes and institutions associated with
governmental policy making; the coercive apparatus of the state (police, arm, etc) and all
processes and organizations associated with leadership recruitment.

It stands to reason here that the boundaries of the political system are determined by the network
of organizations and processes that make binding decisions. Thus, all organizations, relations,
and processes that have no bearing on authoritative decision-making are outside the political
system. Clearly, the political is all that pertains to the political system. See diagrammatic
presentation below:

The Origin and Dynamics of Political Science

The term political science was developed by the great French political philosopher, Jean Bodin
who lived between 1530-1596. It is a translation of the French words, “Science Politique”. The
actual study of politics is as old as man himself. This view is shared by a variety of political
science scholars. One of such studies notes that:

The study of politics…called political science, is born when men begin to speculate about the rules by which they
are governed, or by which their ancestors were governed, when they begin to ask whether these rules ought to be
accepted,
or ought to have been accepted in the past, why some societies choose different rules from others, whether is it
possible to find the best rules for a particular society, or whether it is possible to discover general rules of conduct
which could, or should be applicable to all societies…This enquiry…has been going on for thousands of years…
(Pickles, 1974:15).

The treatises on the best form of government, the necessity of the state, and so on by Plato,
Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, among others, can be situated within this context. These writings are
now classified as political theory/thought and are located in the realm of philosophy. The
description as political thought by political scientists clearly demonstrates that it amounts to the
study of politics.

For example, Ndu (1998:11) defines political theory/thought as “abstract generalizations arising
from mental processes regarding a society’s notions of justice (politics)”. Similarly, Sabine and
Thorson (1973:3) describe it as “man’s attempts to consciously understand and solve the
problems of his group life and organization”. Equally, Wayper (1974:1) defines political thought
as “thought about the state, its structure, its nature and its purpose.”

What one can draw here is that political thought/theory concerns itself with a systematic study of
the political. The discussion on political thought and the development of political science is
essentially limited to Western political thought, which is the basis of political science. Political
terms and concepts such as sovereignty, rule of law, constitutionalism, liberty, legitimacy,
justice,
political institutions and ideologies, political systems, etc, all derive their origin from western
political thought, which is traced to the Greeks.

The point to note here is that the study of politics actually commenced with the Greeks.
However, in its present form, political science is traceable to the Americans. The subject was
first taught in American Universities in the 1850’s (Anifowose, 2001:7). The discipline evolved
from many related fields of study including history, philosophy, law, and economics (Rdee,
Anderson, Christol and Greene, 1976:4). Political science was originally taught as part of these
disciplines (Anifowose, 2001:7) and this created an identity crisis for it. The efforts to solve this
identity crisis led to its emergence as an autonomous and independent discipline (Alapiki,
2000:1).

Political science evolved in stages. Four of such stages can be identified. The first stage laid
emphasis on apriority reasoning and the deductive method. The second stage adopted the
historical and comparative method, while the third stage was anchored on observation and
measurement.
The fourth stage developed the science in politics (Barongo, 1983;18). From the above, we find
that the classification of the stages of evolution of political science is based on the method of
study. In addition, two methods have been identified: the traditional and the scientific or
empirical method. The traditional preceded the empirical and was normative; its characteristics
include over generalization, incomplete observation, speculation, qualitative, formalistic, and
descriptive propositions. The traditional approach limited the scope of political science to
political philosophy and institutional description. Equally, it was anchored on a legal institutional
framework (Varma, 1975) and focused on citizenship training based on the values of society
faith in the “irreversibility of the system,” equality of men and rule by consent (Barongo, 1983).
In all, traditional
approach was philosophical, historical, legal, and institutional.
Philosophical Approach
The philosophical approach concerned itself with the prescriptions of standards of political behaviour that should
govern sociopolitical organization. Emphasis was laid on what ought to be, although inquiries always began with
what is. The application of the philosophical method helped to develop and clarify concepts used in the discipline.
The writings of Plato, Aristotle and others are categorized as part of the philosophical approach.

Historical Approach
This method denotes the analysis or account of historical events to establish the principles of politics, and thus create
a better understanding of the growth of political institutions and phenomenon. Plato, Aristotle, Locke,
Marx, Hegel, and others contributed to this approach.

Legal Approach
This approach concerns itself with the legal framework of politics. Essentially, it deals with politics and law and
thus seeks to answer questions, which include: what is the constitutional basis of government? What is the nature of
law that governs political institutions and political actors? And many others.

Institutional Approach
This approach deals with the structure and organization of government – the type of government (presidential for
example), organs of government (legislature, executive and judiciary) and their functions/powers, and others.

The empirical approach is a sharp contrast with the traditional method. Whereas the empirical
method is based on the principles of scientific inquiry, the traditional method is not. The
empirical component of political science was influenced by the behavioral revolution, which
essentially was a scholarly drive to make political science adopt the scientific method of study.
Behavioralists insisted that there are discernible uniformities in human behavior that are
amenable to quantification and systematic study within the framework of scientific principles.
The argument is that with the use of appropriate scientific tools of analysis, political studies can
conform to the above principles. The acceptance of this school of thought, whipped up by the
behavioralists gave rise to empirical political science which changed the methodological
approach and raised scientific awareness among political scientists.

The empirical or behavioral approach to politics is, therefore, characterized by observation,

experimentation, verification (Anikpo, 1986) lack of speculation, objectivity, measurements, data
collection and analysis. Behaviouralism redirected the focus of political science. There was a
shift in focus from political philosophy and legal-institutional framework to the behavioral
patterns and network of relationships in the political process. Political studies now examine the
sources and use of power in a state and government; the character of leadership; the policy
making process; the linkages between leadership and ideology; election patterns and leadership
recruitment; civil society/non-governmental organizations and decision- making, political parties
(Varma, 1975), and so on. The behavioral revolution also promoted the interdisciplinary
approach to the study of politics.

Science in Politics: The Debate

Political Science is one of the social science disciplines (others are Economics, Sociology,
Anthropology and Geography), and it has the oldest history as an empirical science (Anikpo,
1986). However, its scientific status has been a subject of debate. Whereas a school of thought
argues that political science is not a science, another perspective insists that it is a science.
The argument against the scientific status of political science was predicated on several issues,
which include the following:
1. Human behavior changes too much from one period to the next to permit scientifically
exact predictions.
2. Human behavior is too elusive, subtle, and complex to yield to rigid categorizations and
artificial instruments of science.
3. Human behavior can be studied only by other human observers, and this always distorts
fundamentally, the facts being observed, so that there can be no objective procedures for
achieving the truth.
4. Human beings are the subject of such predictions and could deliberately upset any
predications (Alapiki, 2000:4). The opposing argument acknowledges the above limitations but
contends that studies in politics can adopt the scientific methodology and come out with valid
predictions. To this end, it is a science. Besides, it highlights the fact that even the natural
sciences are not always perfectly predictable and are thus, equally faced with limitations. The
difference is, therefore, a matter of variation in exactness or perfection.

To situate the argument in a clear perspective, it would be proper to examine the nature and
methodology of science. In simple terms, science is a systematic form of inquiry which gives rise
to the acquisition of knowledge. It is based on principles which are:

1. The principle of natural kinds which posits that what is true with one case may be true of all
other cases of similar distinction.
2. The principle of constancy which accepts that relatively constant conditions exist in nature;
and
3. The principle of determinism which affirms that natural phenomenon is determined by
antecedent events (Anikpo, 1986:24). Science deals with what is and is anchored on logic or
rationality and the observation of empirical facts (Babbie, 1979). It seeks to explore, describe,
explain, and predict occurrences on the bases of validated empirical evidence (Barongo, 1983).
The scientific procedure or methodology involves observation, formulation of hypothesis,
verification, experimentation, and theory formulation. These are explained below:

Observation
This is a careful and systematic study or examination of phenomena, events or objects, with a
view to identifying uniform occurrences or regularities. It involves taking measures, that is, the
assignment of numerals to objects or events according to rules (Stephen cited in Joe, 1997). This
means that data collection is part of the process of observation. Observation is equally a tool for
identifying a research theme or problem. It is, therefore, an instrument of starting a scientific
inquiry as well as the collection of data (Anikpo, 1986:19).

Problem
Problem in science means phenomena, event, occurrence, objects or puzzle, which requires investigation,
explanation or solution. In scientific studies or research, the identification of problem usually marks the first step.
The problem actually justifies the need for a scientific study or investigation.

Hypothesis Formulation
A hypothesis is a tentative answer given to a research problem. Essentially, scientific inquiry
seeks answers to social problems or issues. Given that the answers are not known at the
beginning of the inquiry, the research makes a guess of the possible answers, to guide the data
collection process. This statement of the probable answers to the research problem is what is
referred to as the hypothesis.
Experimentation
Experiment is a fundamental component of scientific inquiry. Basically, it involves the collection
of data and the establishment of causal relationships (cause and effect) among phenomena.
Experimentation provides checks and balances to the validity or otherwise of any research
finding (Anikpo, 1986).

Verification
Verification determines the extent to which the results of an experiment are congruent with the
stated hypothesis. It subjects the responses from the experiment to proof of validity, (the extent
to which a specific measurement provides data that relate to commonly accepted meanings of a
particular concept (Babbie, 1979) and to that extent gives legitimacy to the objectivity of
scientific
results (Anikpo, 1986).

Theory Formation
A theory is simply a scientific generalization of research findings; and it is the vehicle that aids
or makes it possible for science to make predictions. Theory and research are interlocked. Thus,
while theory describes the logical parts of the world, research offers means for seeing whether
those relationships actually exist in the world (Babbie, 1979). To this end, whereas theory is the
logical conclusion to a research work (Anikpo, 1986), the research process itself is guided by
theory.

Evidence clearly shows that political studies follow the scientific procedure outlined above.
Significantly, what matters in any scientific endeavor is the method by which knowledge is
acquired (Anikpo 1986). Political science is, therefore, a science. However, the scientific status
of political science is fraught with a number of shortcomings. As noted elsewhere, changing and
unpredictable nature of man limits its scientific potency. Equally, objectivity is difficult to attain,
given that the political scientist is part of what he studies. The subjective element, personal
values, feelings, attitudes, opinions, preferences and biases (Anifowose, 2001) are brought to
bear on political studies. A classic example is western political science and its prejudices against
Africa-Western political science are replete with studies, theories and ideas that are biased
against Africa. For example, development theory is Eurocentric, positing western values as the
only tonic to development, while despising African values. Equally, western political thought on
imperialism dissociates it from African underdevelopment, whereas evidence clearly
demonstrates the linkage.
Perhaps of greater significance is the lack of agreement on the basic concepts and categories of
political science (Anifowose, 2001). It must be noted that there is considerable disagreement
among political scientists on the classification of political phenomenon, concepts, and categories.
This undermines scientific measurement and evaluations, thus making it a less developed science
(Rodee, Anderson, Christol, and Greene, 1976). Indeed, a 14critical look at the issues raised
against the scientific status of political science show that the arguments are in two camps. First is
the position that political science cannot be termed a scientific discipline. And second, the view
that although it is a science, it has a relatively low scientific standing (Rodee, Anderson, Christol
& Greene, 1976). It is clear, however, that the second school of thought is more potent. What this
means is that although political science is a science, it is not as developed as the natural or
physical sciences.

This implies that with more effort, the scientific standing of the discipline will be enhanced.
Indeed, political studies have become more scientific.

Evidence points to the fact that:

…Political scientist have been able to improve the methods of study of their discipline by borrowing for use from
the physical sciences and other social sciences , their research skills, tools, techniques, and concepts…contemporary
political scientists…demonstrate commitment to rigorous empiricism, in the collection and analysis of data. There is
now extensive use of sample survey for gathering information, and statistical methods for quantifying the data…the
recording of these on charts, graphs, scales and tables (Anifowose, 2001:21).

This explains why political science is able to predict political behavior such as the outcome of
election results. This is also true of policy evaluation. The science in politics explains why
political science students are taught courses such as social statistics, statistics for political
science, the logic and methods of political inquiry, research methods, political data analysis and
polirimetric.

The Subject of Political Science

This section highlights the issues, which constitute the focal point of political studies. The
subject of political science is complex, multidimensional and interrelated. The high points are
examined below.

Government
This deals with the organization and structure of government. It highlights the Executive,
Legislature and Judiciary as the major organs of government. Furthermore, the classification of
government on the basis of the number that governs, the type of power exercised (that is
Executive or not) and the institutional forms are also inclusive.

In the social sciences, Economics is seen to have more scientific advantage over political science, particularly
because Economists agree more on concepts and categories. For example, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Per
Capita Income, etc. Some of these concepts and categories have been borrowed by political science.

Public Administration
The focus here is on the management of government business at all levels. It involves the public
policy process, that is, how policies are formulated and implemented, public finance
administration, which involves the economic functions of the state and budgeting as well as the
principles of administration (theory and practice) are also studied.

Inter-Governmental Relations
This deals with the relationship among different structures (Executive, Legislature, Judiciary,
and Extra Ministerial Departments/Agencies) layers/levels of government. In a federal political
system for example, we usually have two or three layers of government – the federal (central or
national)
government, the state (regional or provincial) government; and the local government or
authority. Inter-governmental relations examine the points at which these levels of government
meet.

Political Philosophy/Thought (Theory)

The primary focus here is the examination of man’s socio-political organization. Essentially, it
prescribes political and social ideas which form the basis of the rules of behavior that should
guide the actions of men/states. Thus, it emphasizes what ought to be. It is categorized into two –
the western tradition (traceable to the Greeks), and the non-Western or Third World orientation
which includes African political thought. Political philosophy/thought functions to demonstrate
the theory and actual practice of politics.
Development
Development studies highlight the components and essentials of the development process –
political, economic, social, and so on. It explains why some countries are developed, and others
are not. It equally proffers policy options that can promote development.

International Politics
This deals with politics among countries. It examines the organization of the international
political system and the importance of power, alliances and economic development in
international relations. International economic relations, as well as international organizations
such as the United Nations Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), etc, are
also studied.

Comparative Politics
16 This involves a comparative study of different political systems. The issues of focus include
system of government, pattern of leadership recruitment and succession, political parties,
political socialization and public administration, among others.

The Structures of the Political Process

This studies the culture of politics, leadership recruitment, electoral systems, political parties,
pressure/interest groups, the civil society, legislative politics, the executive process and the
judicial or legal process.

The Study of Politics: How Relevant to Society?

It is clear that the study of politics benefits man and society in several ways. The study of
political science helps to refine the “animal” in man, and to that extent makes him to live a
civilized and disciplined life.

Civilization/Discipline
This means that man lives an organized and patterned life, as defined by respect for rules and regulations. It involves
the making of concessions based on respect for other people’s feelings and the subordination of individual interests
to collective interests. It clearly defines the relationship between man and man, and man and
society/state. This moderates the actions of man and limits his expectations from fellow men and
society. Pickles (1972:32-33) sums how the study of politics refines man thus:

…He can learn how much or how little political action can reasonably be expected to achieve, and how fast or how
slow the advance is likely to be in given conditions. He can learn not to count on miracles or to base his hopes on
wild
miscalculations of the potentials of human behavior. In other words, he can learn to be, an intelligent and balanced
citizen…The…contribution which the study of politics can make to the art or science of government is to add to us
knowledge of the political forces which go to make up national group attitudes.

Political science inducts the citizen into the workings of the political system; it helps the citizen
to balance his demands and supports to the system. This ultimately promotes efficient
governance. Again, the teachings of political science on the cyclical nature of history give a
guide on how the leadership of a country ought to manage its people and resources. It is proper
to remember that the modern system of government and its attributes (democracy, human rights,
rule of law, sovereignty, etc) are all based 17on the teachings of political studies. In all, therefore,
political science generates ideas that perfect socio-political organizations. The writings of Plato,
Aristotle,
Locke, Montesquie, Dicey, Machiavelli and others are instructive.
For example, in answer to the question ‘who should rule’?, Plato prescribes that rulers should be
knowledgeable. He points out that just as the safety of a ship depends on a skilled captain, so
does the safety of a state depend on a skilled leader. To guarantee efficiency and stability, Plato
posits that materialism should be divorced from leadership. Again, he insists that leaders must be
trained and educated, both in theory and practice. Evidence shows that the leadership of many
developed countries approximates Plato’s prescription. The reverse is the case with the less
developed countries. In Nigeria, for example, the fusion of politics and materialism is a major
source of the
instability plaguing the country. This is also true of the ideals of constitutionalism, fathered by
Aristotle and strengthened by Locke and Dicey (Foster, 1971).

Equally, Locke insists that “the end of government is the good of the community”. Furthermore,
he insists that government must be founded on the consent of the people (cited in Wayper,
1974:75). These constitute some of the essential ingredients of modern-day democracy. The
separation of powers which is revered in modern day governments is traceable to Montesquieu.
Again, laissez faire or free enterprise which is at the heart of modern-day economic organization
and governance is a logical outcome of Smith’s writings. In his famous book, The Wealth of
Nations (1776), Adam Smith argued that the drive by individuals to achieve their rational self-
interests, inevitably promote the progress of society. Accordingly, individuals should be granted
the freedom, within limits of law to pursue their interest; and government should not intervene or
be immersed in economic affairs. This laid the basis for laissez-faire. Similarly, real politics and
gunboat diplomacy, a common practice of powerful countries in international politics, was
posited by Machiavelli. In ‘‘The Prince and The Discourse’’, Machiavelli advocated for
agreements or
treaties to be violated when they no longer promote your interest. The use of this expressed as
real politics or gunboat diplomacy. Its use by the United States of America explains why it
violates United Nations Resolutions when it suits it to do so. A classic example is its war on Iraq.
Also worthy of note is the fact that Political Science enables us to predict political behavior.
Although this has limitations, given the unpredictable nature of man, it gives a guide to political
action. For example, based on a pattern of actions, the reaction of citizens and groups in society
to a given policy of government can be predicted. In this regard, the government can position
itself to prepare the people for the policy or in the alternative to contain the people’s response. A
good example is the increase in the prices of petroleum products in Nigeria. Experience has
shown that Nigerians in general, resent price increase in petroleum products. In particular, the
organized labor usually mobilizes its members and other citizens for strikes and other forms of
protest. This means that whenever there is such a price increase, the response of the citizens can
be anticipated. Certainly, this can guide government policy and action. The foregoing clearly
vindicates political studies.

References
Aaron, K.K., (2004), Science in Social Relations: An Introduction to the Social Science,
Kemuela, Publications, Port Harcourt.

Ake, Claude, (1982), Social Science As Imperialism, Ibadan University Press, Ibadan.