Nature of Political Science

The great Greek political thinker Aristotle said centuries ago that man is by nature and necessity a social and political animal. According to
Aristotle, he who is unable to live in society or who has no need for it, because he should be sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.

From a liberal perspective, politics is the activity through which people make, preserve, and amend the general rules under which they live.

Historically the term ‘Politics’ itself was derived from the Greek words ‘Polis’ (city-state), ‘Polity’ (government), and ‘Politeia’ (constitution). As such, “Politics” in the original Greek sense is a study of the city-state and its administration

Scholars such as Westel W.Willoughby, Georg Jellinek, and Frederick Pollock make a distinction between the theoretical and applied dimensions of Political Science. To them, the topics such as 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 applied politics

Frederick Pollock divides politics into theoretical politics and practical or applied politics (Pruthi, 2005: 65-66). According to him theoretical politics includes:
• The Theory of the State
• The Theory of Government
• The Theory of Legislation and
• The Theory of State as an Artificial Person
Under Practical Politics, Pollock includes:
• The State (Actual forms of Government)
• The Government (The working of Government, Administration etc.)
• Laws and Legislation (Procedure, Courts etc.) and
• The State personified (War, Diplomacy, Peace and International affairs

With the Behavioral 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. 

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.

Writers such as Frederic 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 behavior in political context. It deals with human beings, and all human beings do not behave in the same manner at all times. Consequently, it is impossible to obtain correct results in Political Science as in physical sciences such as physics and chemistry.

Political scientists such as 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

Generally, the liberal approach to political analysis can be divided into traditional approaches (Historical, Philosophical, Institutional, Legal) and modern approaches (Behavioral and Post -Behavioral). The Marxian approach to political analysis, however, is entirely different from the liberal approach; and it is comprehensive in nature.

The historical approach, as exemplified by the theories propounded by Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel and Karl Marx, focuses on the process of arriving at laws governing politics through an analysis of historical events. It also stands for an attempt at understanding the political process through a historical account of political thought of yester years.

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 present-day world which are beyond the comprehension of the past thinkers

The philosophical approach is generally identified with value preferences. The emphasis is on moraland rational premises. This approach is based on the view that values are inevitable and essential for evaluating political phenomena.

In this approach, the emphasis is on formal governmental institutions. The characteristic feature of the institutional approach involves a detailed description of the nature and structure of the formal institutions such as state and government

The Legal approach stands for an attempt to understand politics in terms of law. It focuses on the legal and constitutional framework in which different organs of government have to function and the powers and procedure which makes their actions legally valid.

The Behavioral approach is based on the assumption that political institutions and nature of political events are largely determined by the nature and behavior of people – both elites and masses. According to the Behavioralists, although the central theme of Political Science is the state, exclusive attention to it tends to make political analysis static, formalistic and institutional.

The most ardent advocate of Post-Behavioralism is David Easton.

They are Substance over technique, Change orientation, Relevant research, Value-laden research, Political scientist as critical intellectual, Action-oriented research, Politicization of the profession.

The theory of dialectical materialism and its application in history, i.e., historical materialism, are the two important tools in Marxian methodology.

This is the fundamental tenet of Marxism in all its ‘classical’ varieties. History is the product not of conscious decisions and ideas, but of ‘material’ processes and conditions which can be identified and described without reference to the mental states of those who participate in them. It is the changes in these material conditions which make necessary and bring about those changes in social, political and institutional superstructures which in aggregate form the substance of history.