POLITICS: Project - Content writing

THIS CHAPTER

Discusses what politics is and the ways in which scholars have attempted to understand it. The first serious

professional students and teachers (Greeks such as Plato[427-347 BC]and Aristotle [384-322 BC] made politics the

center of the curriculum.in the twenty first century academics are still seeking to explain politics ‘scientifically’.

This chapter discusses the meaning. Importance and problems of such an enterprise.

POLITICS IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Is the study of politics a sensible activity? Any watcher of television new can see that democracies vary in a

apparent effectiveness, equality and longevity, from peaceful and egalitarian regimes as in Switzerland and Sweden,

through the controversial case of the United States of America, to apparently fragile new democracies in the Eastern

Europe and Latin America. Dictatorships seem to thrive at one time like that former Soviet Union, sending the first

satellite into space and dominating half the world, only to crumble away as the result of forces which few seemed

able to predict. There are times when it is difficult not to sympathies with the view that such matters are both out of

the control and beyond the understanding of ordinary people.

Yet we have seen ordinary people bravely dismantling regimes which seemed immovable, and dying for abstract

ideas about politics; thousands of Bosnians and Albanians ‘ethnically cleansed’ in the name of Serbian national

identity in the former Yugoslavia; tens of thousands of ordinary citizen protesting in the Ukraine which led to the

Orange Revolution. It seems wrong in the face of such evidence of the capacity of ordinary people to effect, and be

affected by, political change not to consider both the nature of political institutions and what action should take in

relation to them.

Leaving aside the dramatic examples of political action and change in faraway places, it is worth examining our own

lives and the impact of politics upon them

Suppose you are 18 years old living in the United Kingdom, working at a McDonald’s and hoping for a university

place in the autumn. Waking up you may realize that government (strictly parliament) has legislated to convert what

was a local time of 6:33 or so (depending on the latitude) to 7:30. Turning on the local radio station (whose

franchise was granted by a QUANGO (quasi autonomous national (or non) governmental organization) you may

hear the weather forecast from the government-financed Meteorological Office. After hearing several CD tracks

(payment of the royalties to the authors and performers must be made by law by the radio station), you drag yourself

out of bed (legally mattress materials must be non-flammable), down to your cornflakes (ingredients listed on packet

in due form by another law). If you unwisely reach for a cigarette, the government (European Union) has both

insisted on a health warning on the packet and take a large rake-off on the form of tax.

Without going through every minute of your day, it is clear that government is likely to be affecting almost every

one of them in similar ways (air quality, traffic regulations, employment law – fill out of the yourself)

The bigger issues are of course, affected in the same way. Can you afford to go to university? What bursaries and

loans are available, or fees payable, as a result of government policy? How many other students have been educated

by the state educational system to university entry level? If, on the other hand, you are unable to make it to

university, then your prospects for permanent employment will depend upon the government’s management of the

economy, prospects for continued employment with McDonald’s are dependent on, among other things, government

policy towards foreign companies and the extent and effectiveness of health education campaigns!

So far we have only considered you and the government. Suppose on reaching the kitchen your father snaps at you:

can’t you clear up the beer glasses and pizza cartons you and your friends littered the place with last night?

Arguably this is a political situation too. Within the family, father is sometimes thought to have “authority” some

sort of legitimate power over children. As an 18-years old, you might react to the speech as an assertion of authority

and react back negatively on the grounds that you are longer a child to be given orders. Conversely, your father may merely feel that in a community all should play their part and clear up their own mess. But in any case, if he wants

you to clear up and you do not, this can be seen as a clash of wills in which only one can prevail.

Similarly, when you arrive at McDonald’s it may well be you have discovered that the assistant manager (who is in

charge in the absence of the manager on holiday) is busy establishing in the eyes of the area manager that can do a

better job than his boss. Here we have a struggle for power in which people within the organization may take sides,

in short, organizational politics is being practiced.

It soon becomes clear that ‘politics’ is used in at two senses, both of which are immediately relevant to everyone’s

everyday experience. In the narrowest conventional usage- what government do – politics is affecting us intimately,

day by day, and hour by hour. In the wider sense – people exercising power over others-it is part of all sorts of social

relationships, by they kinship, occupational, religious or cultural.

WHAT IS POLITICS?

If we try to define ‘politics’ more formally and precisely, we run into the sort of problems which will be found to

recure again and again in this book. It is actually quite tricky to define concepts in scientific disciplines like physics

and chemistry, but if you do so, you are not so likely to be accused immediately of failing to understand the

problem, of lacking scientific objectivity or of making unwarranted assumptions, as a writer on politics. One of the

problem is associated with whether we are talking about politics as a human activity or politics as an academic

activity- or in American terminology, politics or pollical science. The search for truth about how human beings

exercise power might be thought to be completely separate from actually seeking to exercise that power. But in

practice, as we shall see, political ideas are some of the most important weapons in the politician armory. Attempts

to ignore this are either naïve or, quite frequently, a deliberate attempt to present a controversial political ideology as

an indisputable political fact.

In this light it is worth considering rather critically the implications of some of the standard academic definitions of

politics and of power.

BOX 1.1 DEFINITIONS OF ‘POLITICS’ AND ‘POWER’

Politics

The science and art of government; the science dealing with the form, organization and administration of a state or a

part of one, and with the regulation of its relations with other states. (shorter oxford English dictionary)

…. A way of ruling divided societies by a process of free discussion and without undue violence. (Bernard Crick,

2000)

…… who gets what, when, how. (H. Lasswell, 1936)

……man moving man (Bertrand de Juvenal, 1963)

……the authoritative allocation of value. (David Easton, 1979)

Power

…… the production of intended effects. (Bertrand Russell, 1938)

….the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite

resistance regardless of the basis on which the probability arises. (Max Weber, in Gerth and Mills, 1948)

…. The capacity to mobilize the resources of society for the attainment of goals for which a general public

commitment….. may be made. (Talcott Parsons, 1957)

… the capacity of social class to realize its specific objective interests. (Micos Poulantzas, 1973)

The definitions in 1.1 show very considerable differences, reflecting the viewpoint of the author. Most political

scientists definition of politics are much boarded in scope than the first, dictionary, definition which focuses on the

state (although admittedly part of a state could be interpreted widely). In effect they largely endorse the view suggest

above: that politics is about the social exercise of power, rather than just the state. However, this may reflect the

natural imperialism of academics of behalf of their own discipline. Sociologists might argue that ‘man moving man’

would be more appropriate as a definition of their concerns.

Consider also, the unit of analysis, in term of which these definitions are couched. Weber, Lasswell and de Jouvenal

appear to be thinking primarily in terms of individuals exercising power, Crick and Parsons focus upon whole

societies, the shorter Oxford English as the primary political ‘actor’. This reflect the split between individualistic

and collectivist theories which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

Another contrast in these definitions is that between what has been described as ‘zero-sum’ and ‘non-zero-sum’

theories of politics. This terminology is derived from the mathematical theory of games. A zero-sum game is the

usual sort of game, such as chess, in which a win by one player is by definition, a loss on the part of the opposing

player or players. There is a fixed amount of winnings which means that the gains of one side are by definition,

losses to the other. Obviously, many politicians, and political scientists, see politics this way. Thus Weber and

Lasswell both seem to suggest that the political success of one individual may well be at the expense of others who

oppose them. It is also a feature of Marxist theories, like that of Poulantzas, that the interests of classes are opposed

and are gained at the expense of each other.

However, not all games are of this sort- for instance in collective make-believes children games new themes

introduced by one player can enrich the enjoyment of the game for every one – in a game of Cowboys versus

Indians, the introduction of aliens may lead to everyone having a better time. There is not a fixed amount of

winnings buy by co-operation both sides can achieve more. In a similar way, Parsons explicitly argues that, by co-

operation, different groups in society can each obtain greater benefits than would be the case if they work in

competition. This view seems to fit well with contemporary emphasis in many parts of the Western World on the

practice of mainstream politicians seeking to build coalitions, which involves compromise. Thus different theories

place radically different emphasis on consensus and conflict in their theories of politics.

There is a growing sense that politics in the established Western democracies is struggling. This unease has been

referred to as a democratic deficit, political alienation or civic disillusionment. The possible explanations for such

changers are examined by Gerry Stoker, but the argument is that citizen have been increasingly turned of by

traditional political behavior, such as voting in elections. This has manifested itself in a decline in partisanship, or a

lessening sense of identifying with key political actors and structures.it has been suggested that increasingly

politically active citizen have ignored the coalitions and compromises offered by the existing political elite, and have

instead turned to single issue pressure group activity. But does this apparent decline in traditional partisan electoral

politics in some countries necessarily indicate a decline in the importance of politics?

The authors sympathies lie with Maurice Duverger who argues, the two-faced god, Janus, is the true image of

power. In others words, both conflict and consensus are essential elements to the creation of a political situation. The

imposition of one person’s or group’s interests on another by force and without any element of consent seems far

from what most people understand by politics as argues. On the other hand, A situation in which a group in total

agreement, proceeds to achieve more and more of its objectives does not sound like a political process either.

Thus ‘politics encompasses a broad range of situation in which people’s objectives vary, but in which they work

together to achieve those aims they have in common as well as competing where aims conflict. Both co-operation

and competition may involve bargaining, argument and coercion. Politics may often be more an art than a science,

and the art of politics may often be to see the potential for alliances rather than antagonism amongst differing

groups.

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS

One of the joys, and also one of the frustrations, of the study of politics lies in the variety of approaches adopted by

academic writers to the subject. This is a joy in the sense that within one course of study you will be introduced to a

rich spectrum of writing ranging from classic philosophers like Plato and Aristotle 1946 through radical sociologists

such as a C Wright Nills 1956 and Pareto 1976, to dedicated modern social scientists wielding statistical tests of

significance to analyze huge volumes of computerized data Robert Dahl 1971. It is frustrating in that the conclusions

of such writer cannot be simply accumulated to form a certain body of knowledge representing the political

scientists view of politics. Students of politics must be ready to live with uncertainty, to sift through varied sources

and accept what seems to them to be relevant and valid.

The remainder of this chapter attempts to provide tools to enable students to their own ‘sifting’ and to recognize why

writers on politics differ so radically. We shall look at three main approaches to the study of politics, and within

these various schools of thought. These should be thought of only as a sort of preliminary crude map of the terrain to

be covered, not as a rigorous analysis of what kinds of writing on politics is possible, or as serious of watertight

divisions. However, it will be found that two writers within a school generally have more in common, and are more

likely to agree on what has already been established, and perhaps to refer to each other, than two writers in different

schools.

The three main contemporary academic approaches to the study of politics can be described as ‘traditional

scholarship’, ‘social science’ and ‘radical criticism’ . with an element of exaggeration they might also be thought of

as the British, the American and the French approaches (although the American approach had gained much ground

in British and internationally in recent years).

‘Traditional scholars’ often approach matters on a rather piecemeal basis looking at one specific country, political

institution, theoretical concept or writer in depth, often with the tools and preconceptions of another academic

discipline- especially history or philosophy. Thus the core of the politics curriculum in Britain, at least until recently

has been the study of individual British political institutions in their historical context; the great political

philosophers; and what was misleadingly titled ‘comparative government’. The latter was in practice, largely the

study of American, French and Soviet government and politics separately. Often British courses have been part of a

humanities- oriented program such as the Oxford PPE (philosophy, politics, Economics) program. A comparison of

the leading UK and US journals showed that the leading UK journal, political studies, has 91 percent of its articles

focusing on institutional, descriptive, conceptual or philosophical topics, whilst the American Political Science

Review had 74 percent of its articles in the behavioral/empirical or deductive/rational choice categories. In

continental Europe politics had often been a subsidiary part of departments of faculties of law, sociology or history.

‘social scientists’ would denounce the traditional approach as idiographic (a personal mark or signature), espousing

instead a ‘nomothetic’ or generalizing approach in which the endeavor of scholars of politics must be ultimately to

derive general theories or laws about the nature of political behavior. Thus a typical American style curriculum

presents political science as one of a group of related social science disciplines, including sociology and economics,

all using modern quantitative/computer -oriented methods of analyzing data scientifically.’

‘Radical critics’ whilst not denying to need to produce useful generalizations from the study of politics have

denounced the conservative bias of US-dominated political science. Often their primary allegiance has appeared not

to be an academic discipline but to a general doctrine calling for the radical change of existing societies most

frequently some variety of Marxism, but similar criticism can be produced from an ecological, theological or

feminist perspective.

The basis of the distinction being drawn is mainly in terms of what writers see their task to be, the methods they

employ, the level and type of their analysis and the values they espouse, rather than the details of specific theories

advanced. In addition, though, a comparison of the specific theories advanced by different schools and approaches

does show a concentration on different areas of human experience, broad patterns of difference in their content, and

a tendency to draw upon similar models and to use the same concepts within schools. On examination it will often

be found that where writers from different approaches and schools deal with what is apparently the same topic (democracy, elections, society) their concerns and assumptions are often so different that no real dialogue can be

said to have occurred. Table offers an overview of these major approaches and schools.

TRADITIONAL SCHOLARSHIP

The first academic writers on politics- Plato and Aristotle- whose works are still studied in detail in most British

universities – were unaccustomed to the modern practice of compartmentalizing knowledge into separate

disciplines. Hence they combined insights from history and current affairs with discussions on the big moral issues

such as ‘what is the best form of government? Or what is justice?’ this somewhat ‘electric’ approach was also

adopted by some of the more readable classic writers in the nineteenth century such as John Stuart Mill [1806-73],

Bryce [1838-1922], and De Tocqueville [1805-59].

Table 1.1 Major contemporary approaches to politics

Traditional social science radical

Task piecemeal explanation science of politics radical social change

Methods descriptive, historical, quantitative or theorizing illustrated ideological criticism

Philosophical analysis

Values liberal democratic pro-US democracy and development anti-establishment

Level of political, philosophical, political and social multi-level

Analysis psychological USA or area studies global and historical

Scope individual institutions

Or countries

content constitutional consensus pluralism class/gender/species conflict

By cataclysmic events

Schools a) liberal institutional a) functionalist a) Marxist b) feminist

b) historical b) economic c) ecologist d) postmodernist

c)philosophical c) systems e) religious fundamentalist

typical constitutional political contradiction

concept convention culture market patriarchy, jihad

great man feedback

these writers saw the rise of democracy as the major political development of their time and sought to analyze not

only the idea, but also it is contemporary manifestations in different countries, and to suggest improvements and

accommodations with the emerging reality of democratic government.

Serious writers on politics now tend to be university lecturers, who have to have specialist interests and lists of

articles in professional journals and monographs published by respectable academic publishers. They tend now to

adopt a much more limited conception of their role, with philosophically trained writers exploring concepts and the

history of ideas, historians limiting themselves frequently to small period of time and limited geographical areas,

and students of political institutions specializing in electoral systems, UK parliamentary select committee or the

politics of privatization. There is no doubt their such academic specialization may reap benefits in terms of specific discoveries (and in term of obtaining rapid publication in academic journals). But this gain is also undoubtedly at the

cost of some loss of perspective and the loss of non-academic audience who often fail to see the relevance of mush

of this work to current policy issues.

Within British university politics departments much admirable scholarly work continues to be produced on politics

theory and political institutions without any systematic attempt to relate finding to general theories of political

behavior or social science. A few holders of professorial chairs may still describe themselves as historians or

philosophers rather than political scientists.

Students of political theory in this mode have tended to divide roughly into two main camps. One group are the

philosophers who see their main task as the elucidation of political concept with at least an eye to their relevance to

contemporary concerns. A second group of the historians of ideas who have been concerned to trace the evolution of

writing of politics, the intent of the writer of these texts and their influence on events.

Those who have written on political institutions have often been less explicit in their theoretical intent, but writers

such as Ridley and Rhodes have articulated the rationale and assumptions of much of this writing. In established and

relatively stable democracies like Britain and the United State, it is evident that much of what we call politics

centers around important governmental institutions like parliaments, elections, government departments, local

authorities and the like. The study of how these institutions have evolved, the rules and practices surrounding them

and consideration of how they may be improved is clearly of the utmost importance. As citizens and possibly future

public employees or even politicians, we may feel that activities scarcely need elaborate justification.

However, the skeptical and the ambitious many combine to throw doubt upon the academic credentials of such

activities. Is the result really knowledge which can legitimately be examined in universities or merely programmatic

common sense which can be used by those who agree with its assumptions? To meet such object there has been a

development of more methodologically aware ‘new institutionalism’ of which Peters discerns no fewer than seven

varieties. The sceptical will continue to argue that the operations of representative institutions are merely a deceptive

mask for the real politics of exploitation below (section on Radical criticism) whilst the ambitious see only

scientifically established theories as the acceptable basis of knowledge in the 21th century.

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND POLITICS

The proposition that our knowledge of politics should be scientifically derived seems, at first sight, undeniable. The

application of scientific method in many other spheres (biochemistry, physics, astronomy) has yielded not only a

broad consensus on the truth of various scientific ‘laws’ but also practical result in the shape of space travel and

‘miracle’ drugs. If the application of systematic observation, computerized analysis of data, the testing of hypotheses

through experiment and the painstaking building of small bricks of fact into enormous edifies of knowledge can

work in one sphere, why not in another? Since human begin are currently at such loggerheads of over the nature of

politics, t might be thought indeed, that the construction of a science of politics in the most urgent intellectual task

for our time.

The problem of creating a valid science of politics seem, however, to be so enormous as to place the whole project

in some doubt. They include problems of value conflict of complexity, of method and of philosophy.

It is tempting to dismiss conflict of values irrelevant to scientific investigation. The conventional argument is that

science is morally neutral, but can be used for good or evil. Thus the structure of the atom is the same everywhere,

whether our knowledge of this structure is used to destroy civilizations, to fuel them or merely to understand their

most basic constituents.

It is easier to apply a knowledge of biochemistry to creating individual health that it is to use a knowledge of politics

to create a healthy society. But that is because there is more agreement on what an ill person look like than on what

is an ill society. However, such ethical problems of objectives are seen as separate from scientific problems as to

how thing work. In the principles the authors would accept this proposition, although this then drastically reduces

the like hood of increasing social consensus by creating a science of politics because scientific analysis cannot

resolve the problem of conflicting human objectives.

In social analysis, however, it has been impractical to create a ‘value free’ vocabulary acceptable alike to social

democrats, neo-conservative free-marketers, Marxist and feminists. Suppose we try to describe a university staff

meeting. A social democrat might observe academic democracy at work. A neo-conservative may see only a series

of individual arresting their interests. A Marxist may see wage-slaves ideological dominated by the imperatives of

the capitalist system. Meanwhile a feminists see a series of males exerting patriarchal domination.

Another example is the internet, whose creator wanted information to be freely available online, a value in its own

right, but now want to control and use such access to information. Thus, the concepts we use to observe social

reality have values ‘built-in’ to them which make ‘objective ‘analysis difficult if not impossible.

An additional problem is applying scientific analysis to the social political arena is the complexity of the phenomena

being studied. Scientific method has so far been most successfully applied to physical systems, less successfully to

biological systems composed of physical systems, and with only limited success to human psychological systems

composed of biological systems. So that it should be no surprise that social systems comprising a still high and more

complex level of system are most resistant to analysis.

Typically, science is seen as characterized by the testing of hypotheses through experiment. The experiment method

is largely closed to political scientists since they do not posses the power to dictate to whole human societies how

they should behave. In any case experiments require identical control groups of comparison which, it is an arguable

cannot be created. Some small-scale laboratory simulations of human power situation have been attempted with

interesting results, but t6he applicability of the results of these whole societies is disputable, statistical manipulation

of existing sets of data about human societies may be a partial substitute for experimental techniques, but it could be

argued that few convincing data sets exist. Some attempts at marshalling these include the World Handbook of

Political and Social Indicators, and the country Indicators of Foreign Policy Project at Carleton University, Canada.

One varies basic problem for international data sets is that many countries do not have reliable population figures,

for example Nigerian census figures have been politically contested because of their influence on the ethnic balance

of power. It is also difficult to compare financial values in different currencies, because of the artificial exchanges

rates and differences in purchasing power.

Scholars committed to a scientific approach to politics have sought to over come this problem by collecting

quantitative data about political behavior. Classically this has been doner through social surveys which may be

carried out on a large scale by market research firms, or on a smaller scale by researches themselves. These tend to

be focused upon voting behavior and mass attitudes to political systems. However, legislative voting patterns and

the texts of newspapers, political speeches, expenditures by government and a wide variety of other observations can

also treated as quantitative data to be subjected to statistical analysis.

Modern statistical analysis is a very sophisticated discipline which enables the researcher to make judgement on the

existence, or not of significant associations between variables. These are commonly assessed as being 95 %or 99%

unlikely to have occurred by chance, however, such questions as what propositions to investigate, what variables to

examine, whether to treat variables as dependent or independent require an explicit theory of what is happening to

be tested. There is a logical gap between a statistical association and a causal relationship which is what such

researchers generally aspire to.

On a philosophical level it has been argued that the sort of causal explanation that would be perfectly satisfactory in

physical science would be unsatisfactory in explaining social phenomena social explanation need to explain the

motives of the persons involved, not just predict successfully what will happen. Additionally, if we accept that

human knowledge and motivation are an important part of every political system, every advance in political

knowledge is potentially available to the members of the system we study. The knowledge we produce by analyzing

political system becomes potentially a part of those systems and may, of course upset any predications we make

about them.

Such considerations often lead to an emphasis or more qualitative methods of investigation, for example participant

observation, in-depth interviews, case studies, textual deconstruction and focus groups. The emphasis in such investigations is often on contextualizing and understanding the meaning of events to participants. Such methods are

more frequently applied by traditional or radical scholars- especially postmodernists.

SCHOOLS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Some of the problem of establishing a social science of politics become evident if we examine the writings of some

of those most committed to the enterprise. It quickly becomes evident that there is no consensus on the concepts and

methods to be employed, or the theories which can be assumed to have been already established.

Perhaps the most influential group of ‘political scientists’ are those stemming from Gabriel Almond and the

deliberations of the committee on Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association in the 1960s.

although much criticized on theoretical grounds, the terminology and approach adopted by these ‘functionalist’

writers is still widely prevalent in empirical studies of American, British and comparative politics.

In a vastly influential early work, Almond and Coleman argued that we should speak of:

‘Political system’ instead of ‘State’

‘Functions’ instead of ‘Power’

‘Roles’ instead of ‘Offices’

‘Structures’ instead of ‘Institutions’

‘Political culture’ instead of ‘Public opinion’

‘Political socialization’ instead of ‘Citizenship structure’

Their argument was that by studying the processes necessary to maintain any political system in a variety of

environments, rather than focusing on conventional liberal democratic institutions, they were creating the basis for a

scientific approach:

This is not only a matter of conceptual vocabulary; it is an intimation of a major step forward in the nature of

political science….. towards a probabilistic science of politics. (Almond and Coleman 1960).

This attempt has been very successful in that thousands of writers have employed the vocabulary suggested,

virtually every modern country has been described in these terms, and a vocabulary separated from that of everyday

political discourse has been widely adopted by professional political scientists. Unfortunately, there is little evidence

that the vocabulary is used any more precisely that its old-fashioned processors or that the assumptions implicit in

the approach are any less arguable than the liberal institutional approach. For instance, there has been no substantial

agreement on what functions are necessary to maintain a political system or on the desirability of understanding

politics in terms of the maintenance of the stability of existing sovereign states. Luard argues for a global

perspective see chapter 2.

A good illustration of some of the problems of employing this newer vocabulary is to consider the concept of

political system. This is used rather loosely by most of the functionalists to indicate that politics is not merely

limited to traditional constitutional institutions nut that they are influenced by social and economic condition within

a country. As Nettle has pointed out, this usage often assumes that the system is an entity that exists and carries out

some defined role such as allocation of value. Alternatively the idea of system may be used more as a conscious

analogy with engineering systems as with Deutsch who sees the political system as a steering mechanism for

society- a flow of information through decision making mechanism which can be improved.

Systematic sociological thinkers such as Talcott Parsons see that functions are highly theoretical processes

analytically distinguished from a messy empirical reality. The problem then becomes to see what predictions such a

theory is making. The emptiness of system theory is perhaps most clearly seen if the writing of David Easton are

considered. He states that ‘political system’ is a purely analytical concept which can be applied to any collection of

entities the theorist finds convenient. He then suggests the possibility of the system responding to input from the outside environment by outputs which in turn may affect the environment so as to stabilize it. In such a case a stable

homeostatic system has been achieved. However, such an out come is by no means inevitable- the problem then is

know when such an analysis is appropriate, when a breakdown of the system might occur.

Thus many writers now claim to be adopting a system approach, but it is often unclear whether they believe that

political systems are observable entities, analytical frame work, useful analogies or a problem solving device.

By way of contrast, let us consider a more recent and perhaps trendier group of political scientists the rational choice

theorists. They have adopted an alternative approach which, instead of starting with he behavior, of whole societies,

focuses on the behavior of individual political actors. Mainstream economists have analyzed markets starting with

the behavior of individual consumers and entrepreneurs who are assumed to rationally pursue their own interests.

The behavior of individual voters, bureaucrats or legislators can be considered in the same way. As with economics,

it is not asserted that all actors are rational. The assumption is only that the system functions on the basis that most

actors will be rational, and the irrational actors will cancel each other out/go bankrupt, etc (nor does maximizing

utility exclude the proposition that some actor will derive utility from altruistic actions).

As an example of this approach, the behavior of bureaucrats is not seen in constitutional term as giving impartial

policy advice to minister’s or in a functional term as part of both the intertwist -aggregation and rule-enforcement

functions. Their behavior is described as seeking to maximize their agency budgets in order to maximize their own

power, salary and prestige. An alternative example is voter who vote in their own self-interest, rather than what they

might objectively think is best for the country as a whole. Both examples stress the importance of economics.

THEORIES, MODELS, PARADIGMS

Faced with a thicket of rival approaches, readers may be tempted to demand who is right and who is wrong, or

despairingly conclude that they will return to the subject in thirty years’ time when the experts have made up their

minds. Alas neither tactic is likely to succeed, since no omniscient oracle is available to answer the questions and

thirty years of waiting will probably increase the complexity of the choice. What perhaps may help to clarify matters

is to try to separate out a number of activities that are frequently confused in the effort to generate a science of

politics. To do so, we need to consider how scientists normally work.

Popper has convincingly argued that scientific laws are useful general predictive propositions, which have been

extensively tested and not disproved. Few of the propositions advanced by political scientists seems to meet the test.

As we have already seen, many of the propositions advanced by ‘empirical political theorists’ are difficult to apply

the real world of politics, do not make unequivocal predications, and certainly have not yet been extensively tested.

Some more limited propositions might be regarded as a testable hypothesis, the production of which constitutes a

preliminary to the creation of usable theories.

It is used to the thought that scientists derived their hypotheses for testing from the observation of as many facts

possible. More recent historians of science have observed that in fact most innovative hypotheses com from a

combination of acute observation and the application of models of reality often derived from another area of science.

Observers need to have an idea of what they are looking for! A model is a simplification of reality that enables us to

suggest relationship between the things we observe.

In politics numerous different models have been, and still are, applied. For instance, as we shall discuss at greater

length later on, one of the dominating models in early modern thought was the legal model of a contract applied to

relationship between citizens and ruler on the state. Medieval thinkers tended to prefer an organic model of the state

seeing the part of the state as being like the parts of the human anatomy. Easton/Deutsch’s application of a

cybernetic model in the age of the computer thus becomes unsurprising in the postmodern age.

Clearly , a Deutsch(1963)points out, models are not in themselves right or wrong, merely helpful or unhelpful.

Choice of models will depend on their relevance, economy and predictive power, the latter encompassing ideas of

rigor (do theories based upon it give unique answer?), combinatorial richness (the numbers of patterns that can be

generated from it) and organizing power (can a model be applied in many different circumstances?).

Really successful models can be at the heart of what Kuhn (1970) terms a scientific paradigm. Thus the Newtonian

model of matter as a series of particles whose relationships could be described in terms of a series of simple

mathematical equations dominated physics for serval centuries. Evolutionary development proposed by Darwin

continues as the dominant paradigm in modern biology. Despite the positive view of scientific development referred

to above, Kuhn argues that most scientific endeavor consists in the further application of existing models to new

areas, or the explanation of apparent deviations from the dominant model in terms derived from it. Nor should this

be despised, a great deal of modern technological and scientific progress has rested upon this process of pygmies

standing on the shoulders of giants- ordinary knowledge workers amassing detailed information within the dominant

paradigm.

In these terms, political studies can be seen as a academic discipline- in the pre-scientific stage in which no

dominant paradigm has yet emerged. What are describes here as ‘schools’ can be seen as aspirant paradigm. That

main question that has to be asked is how useful a source they are models of applicable to new situations, of testable

hypotheses and of concepts for helpfully describing and analyzing events.

RADICAL AND POSTMODERNIST CRITICISM

One characteristic of a scientific theory is that should be value-free there is no left-wing physics and right-wing

physics, just good physics and bad physics. It is not that ‘ideological’ distortions are impossible or likely

technological and political considerations have hindered the acceptance of the Darwinian paradigm in biology for

instance. But in the long term, the insistence on observational, statistical, and above all experimental verification of

theories, and probably the existence of a relatively united world professional organization of scholars in particular

subject areas, has enabled a consensus on paradigms, theories and concept to emerge.

Consideration of many approaches put forward by political scientists reveals that the model upon which they are

based, the concept the employ and the theories they espouse frequently imply a clear set of values which others

might well wish to dispute. If we consider Almond’s functionalist model for instance, it seems clearly to view

politics as a matter of maintaining political stability by enabling political interests in a system to be conciliated. This

is done by a state that functions through a traditional liberal pattern legal rules. This model to be stresses values of

‘pluralism’ and consensus which may be uncontroversial in the United States but were clearly not acceptable I the

old Soviet Union, amongst let-wings thinkers in Paris or in Teran. Moreover, it creates a set of interesting challenges

for China’s political elite. Similarly a glance at the individualistic model put forward by the economists reminds one

of the famous Margaret Thatcher remark that there is no such thing as a society only individuals. Such theories

clearly imply a fashionable suspicion of big government and stress on the profit motive in the broad sense.

Obvious rival approach to political analysis stressing individualism and consensus is consider the collective and

conflict-oriented view of political put forwards by Marxists. There are in fact, as we shall see later in chapter 4 , as

many varieties of Marxism there are of political science. But the basic model, stemming back to Marx and Engel’s

communist Manifest, is of a society divided into large collectivities whose interests are in basic conflict. The only

long-term resolution of such conflict which stem from the basic relationship of exploitation between the capitalist

bourgeoisie (the owner of the means of production) and the proletariats is through a socialist revolution.

Although to readers in the western world such an approach seems biased, is the judgement any more than taking-for-

granted the values of our own society? Many Soviet citizen took these assumptions for granted in the same way that

most British or American citizen assume that ‘democracy’ means a society in which everyone can vote at periodic

elections where the rich can buy unlimited media exposure for their views.

A number of writers have approach the analysis of modern politics through a variety of Marxist model with, in some

cases, enlightening results. Conventional assumptions have been questioned, and further economic and political

dimensions to problems exposed. In the western world, for instance, the culture and media influence of capitalism

has been emphasized, whilst in the third world the Marxist emphasis on the international economic environmental

influences seems much more realistic than analysis of political parties that are liable to disappear over night in a

military coup.

As with conventional political scientists, the work of Marxist writers is a variable quality and interest to the ordinary

reader. Here too a tendency to mistake assumption for conclusions, or to jump to conclusions favorable to the initial

model adopted can be discerned.in addition, perhaps, there may b a greater tendency to engage in theological

disputes with in the school about the proper use of concept and to take explicit policy positions. It is not always clear

how academic ( in accord with the canons of conventional scholarship) some books are intended to be, conversely of

course, some Marxist works particularly the communist Manifesto itself have been subjected to an orgy of academic

criticism despite their explicitly polemical role.

Most recently a number of radical feminist writers have been engaged, who have questioned the assumptions

implicit in conventional political analysis. They too have been society primarily in terms of an exploitative

relationship, between collectivities. (it should be emphasized that this is a discussion of radical feminist writers,

many feminists adopt a more liberal, moderate, a stance) Like later Marxists they have stressed culture and media

aspects of personal relationships, but also stressed the political aspects of personal relationships. Whereas

conventional analysis has looked at explicit political conflict reflected in a conventional party division, these writers

have been potential splits repressed by conventional politics. Some writers an animal liberation and ecology could

also be seen in the same methodological light as the Marxist and feminist critics discussed here. However, fror

convenience, they are discuss in the later chapter.

Lest the idea of repressed political divisions be dismissed out of hand it is worth considering the case of African

American in the United States, As recently as the 1950s in many parts of the USA, they were deprived of basic

human rights and discriminated against. Living in a democracy and resenting their condition, sometimes even in a

majority in their local community, Aferican American concerns still did not even feature on the political agenda.

Starting from this situation, Bachrach and Baratz put forward and interesting model of political activity, combining

insight from both the pluralist and Marxist models. They suggest that an apparently free play of political interests in

a democratic system may coexist with suppressed conflicts in which the interests of certain groups often fail to reach

the political agenda. Policies favoring suppressed groups, even if nominally adopted by government, will not be

fully implemented by the machinery of government. In short what Schattschneider (1960-71) calls a mobilization of

bias is built into the system against them. Whilst Bachrach and Baratz are mainly concerned with racial biases,

clearly these biases can equally well be those of gender, ethnicity, religion or economy.

The radical writers discussed do not necessarily dismiss the enterprise of a science of politics – old style Marxists

frequently claimed that scientific socialism gave them a superior insight into contemporary economy and society.

They merely question the assumptions upon which contemporary analysts work. Postmodernist critics, influenced by

philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Foucault, however, throw doubt upon the possibility of an impartial analysis

of political behavior. They stress that the very language used to describe political events is the product of struggles

between different user of language and is ‘internally complex, open, appraisive and fought over’. A good illustration

of this is the contemporary concept of a war on terrorism. There are no absolute foundations for morality and

knowledge so that knowledge and judgement are inevitably subjective. Traditionally political science uses a

vocabulary that assumes the primacy of the nation state and political conflicts based upon producer interests.

Postmodernist critics often stress the impact of globalization and consumerism in under mining these assumptions.

Finally, it has been argued that modernist writing on politics has been dominated by a male North American

professional elite committed to predominantly quantitative methods. A postmodern approach would abandon the

idea of a unitary study with a consensus on methods and encourage greater user of writing by global network of

excluded and non-professional groups.

CONCLUSION

In looking at work by writers on politics, the important question is not so much if they employ some methodological

orthodoxy, but whether there methodology is appropriate, consistently applied and helpful.

ASSESSING THE USE OF METHODOLOGY IN POLITICS

Is the approach employed appropriate to the problem in hand?

Are theories, concepts and models clearly defined and consistently applied?

Are theoretical assumptions distinguished from empirically established conclusions?

Is all the evidence on the issues examined?

There is a good work published by writers of all persuasions. Conversely some authors seem only to look for

evidence supportive of their theoretical assumptions. In the present state of knowledge, it will often be found that a

combination of insights derived from different approaches often throws the most light on an issue.

Iram Tariq official

POLITICS: Project - Content writing

THIS CHAPTER

POLITICS IN EVERYDAY LIFE

WHAT IS POLITICS?

politics and of power.

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS

TRADITIONAL SCHOLARSHIP

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND POLITICS

SCHOOLS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

THEORIES, MODELS, PARADIGMS

RADICAL AND POSTMODERNIST CRITICISM

CONCLUSION

ASSESSING THE USE OF METHODOLOGY IN POLITICS

RECOMMENDED READING

If you want to build something big, you have to start with a small step!

Contact us

Popular Projects & Reviews

Climate change: Project - Content writing

Footer Menu Widget