Module I

NATURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

A) Meaning, Scope and Importance of Political Science.
Introduction:
When the scientists classified man as Homosapiens, says
R.M. MacIver “man the knowing one, the specific adjective was
a kind of ornamental flourish”. It is said darkly in the book of
genesis that our first parents broke the rules and ate of the tree of
knowledge. Later man has outdistanced all other animals and
made himself lord of creation. This is necessarily because of his
consciousness of himself which produced tools, agriculture and
even civilization. Thus the great Greek political thinker, Aristotle
said centuries ago that man is by nature a social and political
animal. To Aristotle he who is unable to live in society or who
has no need for it, because he is sufficient for himself must be
either a beast or God. This Aristotelian statement leads us to the
conclusion that man can live nowhere else except in society. As a
social animal, Man’s numerous social activities are studied by
different branches of Social Sciences. Political Science is, one
of them and studies the political aspects of human actions and
activities. According to Robert A. Dahl, Politics is a universal
activity. Whether an individual likes it or not everyone in a society
is tossed into the arena of politics. To him “a citizen encounters
politics in the government of a country, town, school, church,
business firm, trade union, club, political party, and a host of
organizations. Politics is one of the unavoidable facts of human
existence. Everyone is involved in some fashion at sometime in
some kind of political system”.
Meaning of Political Science
From a liberal perspective, In its classical form Political
Science had its origin in the ancient Greek city-states. The oriental
people had speculated on the state and its problems even before
the Greeks. But they did not develop Political Science in a pure
and systematic form. Thus, historically the term ‘Politics’ itself
was derived from the Greek words ‘Polis’ or city-state. ‘Polity’
5
or government and ‘Politeia’ or constitution. As such Politics in
the original Greek sense is a study of the city-state and its
administration. To the Greeks, Politics is everything that touches
the life of the state. Thus Aristotle called Politics as the ‘master
science’. For the
Greek, ‘Political’ then pertains to whatever is done within
or by the State.
Writers like W.W.Willoughby, Georg Jellinek and Frederick
Pollock draw a line of demarcation between the theoretical and
applied dimensions of Political Science. To them the topics like
origin, nature and ends of the state form part of theoretical politics.
Others relating to the actual administration of affairs of government
belong to the sphere of the applied politics. It is generally agreed
that this is a useful and convenient distinction. But in its current
usage Political Science is much more comprehensive than the
term Politics. It conotes the whole range of knowledge regarding
the state and embraces the theory of the state. It includes both
theoretical politics and practical and applied politics.
Frederick Pollock divides politics into theoretical politics
and practical or applied politics. To him theoretical politics
includes ;
a) The Theory of the State
b) The Theory of Government
c) The Theory of Legislation and
d) The Theory State as an Artificial Person Under Practical
Politics Pollock includes;
a) The State (Actual forms of Government)
b) The Government (The working of Government,
Administration etc.)
c) Laws and Legislation (Procedure, Courts etc.) and
d) The State personified (War, Diplomacy, peace and
International affairs)
Theoretical politics deals with the basic problems of the
State without encouraging itself with the activities of any particular
Government. Practical politics on the other hand deals with the
actual way in which Governments workout the various
6
institutions comprising political life. It will no doubt be generally
agreed that this is both a useful and convenient distinction but
many would prefer the term Political Science to Politics in the
present context. Thus a succinct definition of Political Science is
given by the French scholar Paul Janet. To him Political Science
is “that part of science which treats of the foundations of the
state and principles of government”.
With the Behavioural revolution in Political Science, the main
focus of Political Science became Power, Influence and Authority.
It shows a striking shift from the study of State and Government
to that of ‘shaping and sharing of power’. Thus the modern
Political Science becomes the study of the way power is
accumulated, used and controlled in modern society.
Consequently it includes not only legal and formal but also the
extra legal and informal processes involved in the government.
Thus the study of Politics is concerned with the description and
analysis of the manner in which power is obtained, exercised
and controlled. It also enquires into the purpose for which power
is used, the manner in which decisions are made, the factors
which influences the making of those decisions and the context in
which those decisions take place.
Recently, David Easton, a Behavioural turned Post-
Behavioural political scientist defined Politics as “the authoritative
allocation of values that are binding on the society”. As against
empirical and, value free approach of Behaviouralists, Easton
argued for a value laden Political Science to understand social
realities and work for social change. However, if politics,
considered as comprehensive enquiry, is the study of decision
making power, it means the exercise of power over others, their
exclusion from the process of decision making, it must be seen
as that which shuts people up, silences them. It is a conversation
stopper in order to facilitate the making of decisions which are
undisputed and therefore final, authoritative and absolute. Thus
political science became the study of how the institutions of state
take major decisions on behalf of a small elite or dominant class
to the exclusion of the interests of the subordinate classes or
subaltern people.
7
‘Politics’ and ‘Political Science’
As the discipline of ‘Politics’ accorded the status of social
science modern
writers prefer the use of the term ‘Political Science’ to
‘Politics’. This choice has not been made without reason.
Nowadays, the word Politics does not bring to our mind the
whole range of knowledge pertaining to the State in theory and
political institutions. The term politics is also not precise. In
common language, politics means activities related with different
branches of state and government and also political parties. They
are economic, political, cultural, religious and so on. The term
Political Science in its current usage is much more comprehensive
than the term Politics. It connotes the whole range of knowledge
regarding the State and embraces the Theory of States. It includes
both theoretical and practical or applied politics. On the
theoretical side it is concerned with questions like the nature,
origin, purpose and justification of the State and is known as
Political Philosophy. On the practical side, it is concerned with
the structure, functions and forms of political institutions and is
known as Constitutional government or Comparative Politics.
The difference between ‘Politics’ and ‘Political Science’ is
that, while politics of one country may differ from that of another,
Political Science is a common possession of mankind. For
instance Indian political process is different from the politics of
China, USA or UK. The problems these political systems face
are varied in nature. However the central focus of interest of
Political Science or Political scientists in all over the world is that
of the political aspects of human relations in society. In this sense
Political Science is the scientific designation of the subject of our
study. This name has been accepted by some Political Scientists
at a conference held in September 1948 under the auspices of
the UNESCO. But there is no unanimity among political thinkers
regarding the question whether Political Science is a science or
not.
Aristotle the father of Political Science regarded it as the
master science. Scholars like Jean Bodin,Thomas Hobbes and
8
Henry Sidgewick also held the same view. But writers like
F.W.Maitland and Auguste Comte maintain that there can be no
such thing as a scientific study of state and government. They
agree with Edmund Burke that there is no science in Politics. It is
evident that there are no uniform principles or laws in Political
Science which are universally valid. Political Science is primarily
concerned with man and his behaviour in political context. It
deals with human beings and all human beings does not behave
in the same manner at all times. Consequently it is impossible to
obtain correct results in Political Science as in physical sciences
like Physics and Chemistry.
A social science is different from a physical or natural science.
In a social science we cannot expect too much accuracy and
precision as we see in physical sciences. But a systematic study
is possible in Political Science. Scientific methods and
establishment of connection between cause and effect are possible
in Political Science. Thus knowledge that has been gathered as
a result of systematic method can be called as science, Political
Science is a science. Political Science really follows a scientific
method while studying the political phenomena. A political
scientist may observe the electoral behaviour in a constituency
systematically with a view to formulating general principles in
electoral behaviour.
Political scientists like Aristotle and James Bryce observed
systematically the working of the governmental systems in many
states. As a result of this certain general principles were
formulated. Thus when we examine the principles of Political
Science, we observe that these principles have been formulated
after a systematic study of political phenomena. In this sense
Political Science is a science. After accepting the essential facts
in both arguments, we may say that Political Science is a social
science. This is mainly because of the fact that the study of
Political Science is value free as well as value laden.
Scope and Importance of the Study of Political Science
There is no perfect agreement among political thinkers about
the frontiers of the discipline. However broadly speaking, Political
9
Science embraces a variety of topics dealing with both empirical
facts and value preferences. There is no aspect of our common
life which may not sometimes and somehow becomes political
and therefore a subject matter of our study. Political Science
shares many areas of common enquiry with such related
disciplines as History, Economics, Sociology, Psychology etc.
However it has a distinct focus of interest around which its study
revolves. This involves a variety of concepts, institutions and
structures.
Modern liberal political scientists argues that the study of
Political Science involves the nature, bases, processes, scope
and results of ‘power’ or ‘authority’ in society. The study about
the sources and purposes of power takes the political scientist
beyond the formal political institutions in society such as powers
and functions of the legislature, executive and judiciary. The
institutions which are seeking ‘power’ in society includes business
corporations, organized religions, trade unions etc. These
organizations and groups seek to influence public policy and the
direction of social change. In this respect political scientists are
also interested in understanding the political behaviour of these
groups and institutions.
The empirical investigation of the existing political phenomena
and processes also involves a study of the prevailing political
concepts. More especially it considers the meaning of the State,
its origin, attributes, forms, structure, working, purposes and
functions. Thus, according to R.N. Gilchrist, “The scope of
Political Science is determined by the enquiries that arise in
connection with the state. These enquiries may broadly be
classified under, the State as it is, the State as it has been, the
State as it ought to be”. Political Science also enquires into the
relations of state with various groups and with various international
organizations. Thus the study of international relations also comes
within the scope of Political Science.
A study of ‘authority’ and ‘influence’ in the past is of great
help in understanding the present institutions ideas and processes.
This aspect of our study includes a survey of the beginning of
10
organized political life. It also includes a consideration of the
evolution of political forms from simple to complex as well as a
study of constitutional history. It also involves a study of various
currents of political thought. This involves the laying down of
‘desirable ends’ or the exercise of value judgments. Thus the
study of political thought is in the main normative or what R. G.
Gettell refers to as politico-ethical.
Another important aspect of the scope of Political Science
is the study of the nature of the relationship between the individual
and the State. It really makes searching examination into the
difficult problem of proper reconciliation between the authority
of government and the rights of the citizens. In the globalised era
this aspect of the study of Political Science is getting more
importance, especially in the third world countries.
Political Science also pursues the political aspects of the
political process. The organization of political parties, their
functions, support structure, ideology are studied. The analysis
of political dynamics has become significant in the present day
world. It covers a wide range and includes the study of the
influence of Corporates on the decision making process of
governments along with interest groups, pressure groups, lobbying
and public opinion.
Thus the scope and subject matter of Political Science is
very extensive. A proper study of all these aspects makes people
conscious of their rights and obligations. To know world affairs,
the nature and conduct of government, the problems and policies
of political parties and various other matters, a knowledge of
Political Science is indispensable.
Political science therefore enters into various fields and
touches many horizons. The quest for a just and happy life cannot
be compartmentalized in the political mould alone. It must have
laces for other moulds too, in order to make it an integrated and
wholesome political life. The scope of political science
accordingly extents to various other aspects of human life and
their impacts on the states and governments. It is a dynamic
study of a dynamic human being. It never reaches perfection as
11
long as human knowledge remains imperfect and search for the
ultimate continues unabated.
B. Approaches to the Study of Political Science
The development of Political Science as a discipline can be
traced back to the 4th century B.C. It was the Greeks for the
first time separated the subject from theology. Though there is
no single opinion among the scholars, political thinkers divided
the development of Political Science into different periods on the
basis of the nature of their approaches to political phenomena.
Generally the liberal approach to political analysis could be divided
into traditional (Historical, Philosophical,Institutional and Legal)
and modern (Behavioural and Post-behavioural) approaches.
Marxian approach to political analysis is entirely different
from liberal approach and comphrehensive in nature.
Traditional Approaches:
1. Historical Approach
Historical approach denotes the process of arriving at the
laws governing politics through an analysis of historical events,
as exemplified by the theories propounded by Georg Friedrich
Wilhelm Hegel and Karl Marx. It also stands for an
attempt at understanding political process through a historical
account of political thought of yester years. The best example
for historical approach in political science is George H. Sabine’s
‘A History of Political Theory’. Leading examples of the questions
raised by political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, John
Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham, J.S. Mill, Hegel
or Marx are what ideals are sought to be realized through the
state; what is the meaning of freedom and equality; what are the
grounds and limits of political obligation etc.? Karl Popper has
described this approach as ‘historicism’. Popper has criticized
historicism - especially Marxism - because it insists on discovering
what is inevitable, and then advocates ‘totalitarian’ methods for
its realization. Further critics of historical approach point out
that it is not possible to understand ideas of the past ages in
terms of the contemporary ideas and concepts. Moreover, ideas
of the past are hardly any guide for resolving the crises of the

12
present day world which are beyond comprehension of the past
thinkers. This criticism to historical approach encouraged the
development of the Behavioural Approach. However, the recent
revival of interest in the rich heritage of political thought for evolving
guiding principles for our own age emphasizes the importance of
historical approach in political science.
2. Philosophical Approach
In the classical or normative period the study of politics
reflected a normative concern and deductive method of
explanation. It argued from a general premise to more specific
conclusions. It speculated on the proper form of government
and on the nature of political obligation. Philosophical approach
is generally identified with value preferences. The emphasis is on
moral and rational premises. This approach is based on the view
that values are inevitable and essential for evaluating political
phenomena.
The classical political philosophers were concerned with
the justification of values and reconciliation of liberty and
obligation. Plato, for example dealt with the question of ‘justice’
in the Republic through the ideal state. The ethical basis and the
moral purpose of the political community was analysed in detail
by political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Bentham and Hegel.
Thus the philosophical period is noted for its general trend of
setting standards based on values like justice, freedom and
happiness.
Philosophical approach aims at evolving “standards of right
and wrong” for the purpose of critical evaluations of the existing
institutions, laws and policies. It may denote efforts to arrive at
truth through the use of reason. According to Vernon Van Dyke,
the object of philosophical enquiry in this sense is to establish
standards of the good, the right, and the just, and to appraise or
prescribe political institutions and practices in the light of these
standards. In this sense most of the classical political theory
represents philosophical approach. Its themes are generally
concerned with moral reasoning which cannot be subjected to
scientific test.
13
3. Institutional Approach
Beginning with the second half of the 19th century, in the
light of the emergence of other social sciences, the need for a
narrower and precise definition of Political Science developed
among different scholars. The ‘institutional approach’ was the
answer and it shows a shift in the scope, methods and objectives
of Political Science. In this approach emphasis is on formal
governmental institutions. The characteristic feature of the
institutional approach is detailed description of the nature and
structure of the formal institutions like State and government.
In short, an institution is a set of offices and agencies
arranged in a hierarchy, whose each office or agency has certain
functions and powers. Accordingly the institutional approach
proceed to study the organizations and functioning of government,
its various organs, political parties and other institutions affecting
politics. Classification of governments (Monarchy, tyranny,
aristocracy, oligarchy, polity and democracy, dictatorship,
parliamentary and presidential, unitary and federal etc;)
identification of levels of government (federal, state, local) as
well as branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial)
etc. are the chief concerns of this approach. Institutional approach
relies heavily on description rather than explanation.
Thus in institutional approach, political institutions were
treated as vital factors governing and influencing human behaviour
rather than vice versa. Thus the political scientists began to study
the historical evolution of various political institutions like state
and government. After analyzing properly the actual functions of
various institutions, they compared them with other institutions.
Consequently Political Science became a branch of Social
Science dealing with theory, organization, government and
practice of the state. The institutional approach give emphasis
on law, constitution and constitutional documents. The best
definition of Political Science from this point of view was given
by Paul Janet, a French Scholar. According to him Political
Science is “that part of Social Science which treats the foundations
of the state and principles of government”.
14
4 .Legal Approach
Legal approach stands for an attempt to understand politics
in terms of law. It focuses its attention on the legal and
constitutional framework in which different organs of government
have to function and their powers and procedure which makes
their actions legally valid. For instance, legal approach to Indian
politics will proceed to analysis legal implications of various
provisions of the Indian constitution as interpreted by the Supreme
Court of India, procedure of formation and legal position of Lok
Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies,
procedure of elections, powers and position of the President,
Prime Minister, Governors etc.
The Legal approach may prove inadequate in understanding
the complex political forces, processes, behaviours which might
operate outside legal-formal framework, yet it is not entirely
insignificant. Thus the study of constitutional law and international
law etc. in spite of its limited use in understanding politics,
continues to play a pivotal role in the social and political life of
almost every country.
Modern Approaches:
1. The Behavioural Approach
With the beginning of the 20th century there was a drastic
change in the study of Political Science. Social Sciences began
to adopt the methods of natural sciences like observation, survey
and measurement. This phase in Political Science is attended by
a decisive reorientation of the discipline in terms of methods it
used. The notable exponents of this ‘scientific politics’ were
Charles Merriam, Harold D. Lasswell, George Catlin and Arthur
Bentley. They looked especially to statistics and psychology as
relevant tools for politics. To give an anti-Marxian orientation to
political analysis in the post-war political context was their motive
force. Various intellectual movements like pragmatism, logical
positivism and behavioural psychology contributed much to the
development of the new approach.
The behavioural approach based on the assumption that
political institutions and nature of political events are largely
15
determined by the nature and behaviour of people -both elites
and masses. According to the Behaviouralists, although the central
theme of Political Science is the state, exclusive attention to it
tends to make political analysis static, formalistic and institutional.
Such a view creates the impression that modern state is the final
form of political organization. It also seems to imply that state is
the only form of political organization with which Political Science
is concerned. There are other relevant areas of study like
behaviour of individuals and groups. The political behaviour of
individuals and groups may determine the mode of operation of
the state itself. Thus the essence of Behaviouralist approach is
its central focus on political behaviour. The study of political
behaviour, as Heinz Eulau put it, “is concerned with the acts,
attitudes, preferences and expectations of man in political
contexts”.
The goal of behavioural Political Science is not the
achievement of good life but to understand political phenomenon
realistically and to predict things. That means the creation of a
systematic casual theory and not value theory. According to
Robert A. Dahl, behavioural approach in Political Science is “an
attempt to make the empirical content of Political Science more
scientific”. The ‘intellectual foundations’ for this attempt,
according to David Easton is based on regularities, verifications,
techniques, quantification, values, systematization, pure science
and integration.
Regularities implies that there are discoverable uniformities
in political behaviour which can be expressed in theory-like
statements so as to provide for explanation and prediction of
political phenomena. Verification requires that the validity of such
theory-like statements must be testable, in principle, by reference
to relevant behaviour. Techniques means that the means for
acquiring and interpreting data should be examined self-
consciously, refined and validated for the purpose of observing,
recording and analyzing behaviour. Quantification is necessary
because precision in the recording of data and statement of
findings requires measurement which should be expressed in terms
16
of actual quantities to facilitate proper analysis. Regarding values
the behaviouralists drew a clear
distinction between ethical evaluation and empirical
explanation, which were concerned with values and facts
respectively. They insisted that objective scientific inquiry has to
be value-free or value-neutral. Systematization stands for
establishing close interrelationship between theory and research,
because research untutored by theory may prove trivial while
theory unsupportable by data may turn out to be futile. Pure
science holds that the understanding and explanation of political
behaviour is essential to utilize political knowledge in the
solution of urgent practical problems of society. Integration
signifies
integration of political science with other social sciences
in order to evolve a comprehensive view of human affairs, to
strengthen its validity and the generality of its own results.
As a result of behavioural revolution, the emphasis in Political
Science was being shifted to the behaviour of individuals in
political situations. Consequently ‘power relations’ constituted
the core concern of politics. The Behaviouralists viewed the
state as the repository of power. Thus according toHarold D.
Lasswell and Morton A. Kaplan “the concept of power is
perhaps the most fundamental in the whole of Political Science:
the Political processes is the shaping, dissolution and exercise of
power”. The change of emphasis from state to power has
broadened the area of political inquiry. It shifted the focus of
attention from mere structures and institutions to actions and
processes. Thus, in the words of H. D. Lasswell politics became,
“the study of shaping and shaping of power” and a political act
as “one performed in power perspectives”.
Behavioural revolution in Political Science benefited in certain
areas like study of political elites, voting studies and public
opinion. The important criticism against behaviouralism is that
it has preferred to work within the limits set by the established
institutions and values. Thus C. Wright Mills calls it a science of
the “narrow focus, the trivial detail and abstract fact”. In spite of
17
its pretention to play with catch words like value free science,
scientific objectivity, ethical neutrality etc, its function has to
protect the existing framework of capitalist society. Thus ultimately
the behavioural political science
has succeeded as an important ideological weapon in defence
of the established social and political order.
2. Post-Behavioural Approach
During the 1960’s Behaviouralism received new challenges
from within. A group of political scientists revolted against the
value free orientation of Behaviouralism. They argued that the
behavioural movement is ineffective in understanding social reality
and social change. According to the Post-Behaviouralists values
should be restored to the central position if knowledge is to be
used for right purposes. The greatest impact on post-
behaviouralists was that of the Vietnam War, the role of United
States in it and the civil rights movement.
The most ardent advocate of Post-Behaviouralism is David
Easton. He lamented that the Behavioural political scientists were
taking refuge in their ‘ivory tower, seeking to perfect their
methodology ,as if they were not at all concerned with the outside
world. Emphasizing the ‘intellectuals’ historical role in protecting
the human values of civilization, Easton warned that if they
failed to play this role, they would be reduced to mere technicians
for tinkering with society. Reminding them of their responsibility
to reshape society, Easton concluded that Political Scientists could
adopt a rational interest in value construction and application
without denying the validity of their Science. Easton
assigned a moral function to the exercise of power.
According to him contemporary Political Science should concern
itself with social change and not with social preservation. Easton
defined, Political Science as the “authoritative allocation of values
as it is influenced by the distribution and use of power”. The
allocation is authoritative in the sense that the people to whom it
is intended to apply or who are affected by it consider that they
must or ought to obey it.

18
 David Easton who had propounded the intellectual
foundation stones of behaviouralism, now set forth seven major
traits or features of post-behaviouralism, which he called ‘Credo
of Relevance’. They are
1. Substance over technique: The primacy of substance
and purposive research is emphasized over mere
techniques. We may recall the charge made against
behaviouralism that for the sake of applying sophisticated
tools of research it chose only those areas of research that
were amenable to these tools. This way many areas of
political enquiry suffered. Post-behaviouralism reverses
the behaviouralist slogan, it is better to be wrong than vague,
and declares that it is better to be vague than non-relevantly
precise.
2. Change orientation: Behaviouralism was charged with
being and ‘ideology of social conservatism tempered by
modest incremental change’. Post-behaviouralism advocates
change orientation and reform over preservation.
3. Relevant research: In the name of detached research,
keeping away from the ‘brute realities of politics’ has made
behaviouralism irrelevant. In an era of social upheavals
and conflicts, fear and anxiety, if the political scientist was
aloof and carrying out detached research and analysis, what
use was political science to society? Post-behaviouralism
insists on socially and politically relevant research.
4. Value-laden research: The fact-value dichotomy and
insistence on value-free research advocated by
behaviouralists has taken away the value premise on which
all knowledge stands. Values must be the guiding force for
all knowledge and values are necessary for setting up
goals. The behavioural emphasis on fact-value dichotomy,
value neutrality and scientism has led political science in the
wrong direction,
5. Political scientist as critical intellectual: Post-
behaviouralism asks the political scientist to be a ‘critical
intellectual’. As such, it is his/her duty to protect human
19
 values. According to Easton, ‘Post-behaviouralism returns
to the humanist conception of intellectual as the guardian
of those civilized, human values known to most men’. By
keeping themselves aloof and detached from political and
social problems in the name of objectivity and pure science,
political scientists would become mere technicians and
mechanics tinkering with society and could not claim the
freedom of enquiry.
6. Action-oriented research: According to Easton. ‘to
know is to bear the responsibility for acting and to act is
to engage in reshaping society’. Post-behaviouralism
demands that a sense of commitment and action must
permeate all research in Political science.
7. Politicization of the profession: Having recognized that
intellectuals have a positive
role in society to determine the proper goals for society and
make it move in this direction, the politicization of the profession
is inevitable and desirable.
The Post-behaviouralists clearly characterized politics by
the authoritative decision-
making process of any society, be it a club, a trade union,
business firm or church. In other words politics being treated as
an inevitable aspect of the social life in general. But as different
from Lasswell’s ‘politics of consent’, Easton’s definition
encompases the ‘politics of consent’ as well as the ‘politics of
struggle’. Thus in contrst to Behaviouralists, the Post-
Behaviouralists give primacy of substance over technique,
social relevance over pure science and political action over
academic neutrality.
The strong demands of Post-behaviouralists are ‘relevance’
and ‘action’. According to them values have their own role and
they cannot be ignored altogether. It is the responsibility of the
Political Scientists to do the best to protect the human values of
civilization. The Post-behaviouralists insist on the fact that research
in Political Science should be related to urgent social problems
and must be purpose oriented. Post-behavioural approach pleads
20
for new orientations in Political Science which will encourage
political scientists to improve political life according to human
criteria. Thus as Easton points out,
Post-behaviouralism is future oriented because to him “to
know is to bear the responsibility for acting and to act into engage
in reshaping society”. The Post- behaviouralists insist that a sense
of commitment and action must replace the contemplative nature
of Political Science.
If the present crisis in society is the product of underlying
social conflicts, the Political Scientists should actively engage in
the resolution of these conflicts instead of mere observers. Post-
behavioural approach pleads for new orientations in the world
that will encourage Political Scientists even in their professional
capacity to improve political life according to human criteria. Thus
according the David Easton, this new development is a genuine
revolution, not a reaction; a becoming not a preservation; a reform
not a counter reformation.
MARXIAN APPROACH TO POLITICAL ANALYSIS
The Marxian approach to political analysis is fundamentally
different from the liberal political analysis - both ‘traditional’ or
‘modern’. Karl Marx approaches the question of politics from
the point of view of social change which is dialectical and
historical. The theory of dialectical materialism and its application
in history i.e., historical materialism are the two important tools
in Marxian methodology. In this respect, it should be remembered
that Marxist approach means taking note of not only of the
writings of Marx and Engels but also those of Lenin, Mao and
others.
Marx says that society does not consist of individuals but
represents the sum total of interrelations within these individuals
exist. To him all societies in history have been class societies.
The contending classes from free man and slave, patrician and
plebian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman to bourgeoisie
and proletariat in the epoch of capitalism. All class societies are
characterized by domination and conflict which are based on
specific concrete features of their mode of production. Class
21
domination has been a historical process signifying a constant
attempt on the part of the dominant classes to maintain and extend
their domination of the society.
The important feature of Marxian approach is that here State
being the central theme of politics is conceived as an inevitable
consequence of class contradictions. Thus State is an instrument
of exploitation and oppression by one class by another. Marxists
argue that the class character of the state cannot come to an end
until the emergence of the classless society where there is no
state.. Thus the Marxian perspective of politics can be understood
only with reference to the nature of prevailing societal conflict
and domination. Here politics becomes integrally connected
with the basic economic structure finding its manifestation in
the forces and relations of production. In the real world economic
and political forces and factors are constantly interacting.
According to Marx politics, economics, culture and ideology
are all inseparably intertwined. It is hard to disentangle one from
the other. The ‘forces of production’ at the particular stage of
historical development are matched by definite ‘relations of
production’ that characterize the society. The relations of
production taken together constitute the economic foundation
(base) of the society. The legal and political institutions (super
structure) stand on this economic structure. In the Marxian
approach to political analysis, politics is thus conceived in terms
of the specific articulation of class struggles. Though other types
of struggles are not ignored, class conflict characterizes the core
of the Marxist view of politics.
In the Liberal view of politics class contradictions are treated
as ‘problems’ to be peacefully resolved. To the Liberal political
scientists political process is a continuous process of bargaining
and accommodation. The Marxian approach to conflict is different
from that of liberal approach. As Ralph Miliband pointed out, “it
is not a matter of ‘problems’ to be ‘solved’ but a state of
domination and subjugation to be ended by a total transformation
of the conditions which give rise to it”. Marxists generally link the
ethnic, religious and national conflicts to class conflicts. Thus the
22
real nature of politics has to be understood from “the hidden
basis of the entire social structure”. Politics is treated as a
manifestation of class antagonisms and its end is conceived in the
culmination of social development. In that stage the phase of
class identification and resolution of conflicts would unleash
glorious human values. Then, the Marxian approach, that has
been empirical so far, assumes a normative character.
Because of Marx’s concern for wider social causation,
exclusive attention to ‘politics’ as we understood it from our
disciplinary view point has never been his primary interest. In
the broader context of a macro-social theory, politics has
essentially been considered non autonomous. On the most
general level the Marxist view of politics, asserts that the
separation between the economic, political, cultural and
psychological aspects of the social whole is arbitrary and artificial.
The notion of ‘economics’ as free from ‘politics’ or vice versa is
an ideological distortion. The correct thing is to speak of ‘political
economy’ (in which the economic and political elements are
dialectically united). The fact is that both Marx and Engels
explicitly rejected any rigid and mechanical notion of ‘economic
determination’ of the social and political process. Thus the Marxist
view of politics logically spreads over all aspects of political
analysis and achieves an interdisciplinary dimension.

23