Political Science: Definition, Theory, Nature and Scope

 What is Politics and Political Science?

Common people, renowned scholars and political scientists of high repute very
often use the words politics and political science to denote the same thing that is
they use the two terms interchangeably. But a proper scrutiny and hair split
analysis will reveal that there is a difference between the terms though this
difference can easily be ignored. It is believed that the term politics is derived from
the word Polis the exact meaning of which is city-state.

In ancient Greece, polis or the city state was the most popular and general form of
political organization. Every polis or city- state had its own form of government,
administration, management etc and all these did not depend upon the size of the
polis or city-state. Thus politics means the political affairs or administration of
polis. Thus politics is understood to denote something about polis or city-state.

In today’s world there is practically no existence of city-state but the term politics
derived from polis has gained popularity, publicity and importance. Now-a-days by
politics we generally mean the activities associated with the governance of a
country or area. We thus cannot separate the term politics from the affairs of state
and these affairs are associated with the administration and decision making issues
of state. Politics in this way has been inextricably connected with state as it was in
ancient Greece with the polis.

We have so far noted only one meaning of the term politics but there is another
meaning which is also to be found in wide circulation. This meaning is—activities
aimed at improving some one’s status within an organization. In this sense politics
is used to mean as a type of instrument or vehicle to achieve definite purpose.

The purpose may be of a particular person or group of persons and it may be good
or bad. However it may be, politics acts as an instrument and it carries with it
pejorative sense or connotation. We are thus in a position to conclude that politics
has two distinct meanings—one is academic which is associated with the
administration or management of state and the other is non-academic which is
generally pejorative.

It is the latter meaning which has introduced a difference between politics and
political science. A general and numerously accepted definition of political science
is: The study of state, government and politics and this study must be based on
scientific principles and reasons. Political science is, therefore, an academic
discipline.

Some academicians are inclined to treat it in the following way:

Political science is not only the study of government and state but also it is the
application of empirical theory and scientific methods to the analysis of political
matters. After the Second World War (193-9-1945) a very good number of
political scientists of United States applied number of scientific methods for the
investigation and analysis of political matters incidents and issues and after that
they framed models and concepts and all these have finally constituted body of
political science.

Hence it can naively be observed that while in non-academic sense the politics is
used pejoratively, political science is blessed with academic and wider meaning. A
large section of common men is accustomed to using the non-academic
connotation of the term politics. We very often say that behind all these activities
there is politics.

The meaning of which is that persons concerned use their official position or other
means to achieve particular objectives to which they are not legally and normally
entitled. Politics in this sense is an unfair means. Therefore, the non-academic
meaning of politics has nothing to do with fairness. In both national and
international politics this meaning of politics has gained precedence.

In international politics we are well acquainted with the term power politics. Many
big powers use politics as a weapon to establish their authority in – international
system and to enhance their image and influence. But political science is quite
satisfied with academic meanings. Some conclude that political science is purely
an academic concept and a discipline while politics when used un-academically
cannot be treated as a discipline. However, this narrow meaning has found out a
secure place in the whole gamut of the subject.

A few more words may be still added to our analysis about politics in academic
sense and non-academic sense. A recent author aments by observing that politics is
a “dirty” word and it is very often associated with some sort of self-seeking
interests and hypocrisy and in the name of politics many nefarious activities are
gleefully performed and this tendency is considerably vitiating social atmosphere.

Politics in its dirty aspect is the real precursor to criminalization of politics which
is quite prevalent in Third World countries. In fact, criminalization of politics or its
dirty nature is the go of the day of Third World States.

We all ardently desire that politics must be emancipated from this quagmire and be
posted on a healthy footing or platform. Attempts are being made in different corners
sporadically and without tangible consequence. A critic observes “The discipline of
politics (or political science or government) does little, if anything, to dispel this
image of politics and politicians. It is a pious hope of all right thinking person’s that
politics as a “master science” (to borrow Aristotle’s phrase) must be allowed to thrive
in its fullest academic sense and if it is achieved politics and political science in
academic sense will lose their difference. The students, political scientists and
academicians whole heartedly desire this.

Other Definitions of Political Science:

We have already noted that political science or politics is an academic and in this
sense it can be defined as a study of political affairs, relevant governmental matters
and lively issues influencing the functions and decision making process of
government or persons at the helm of power. Into this definition is included the
teachings and results of political research and investigations.

The research, teachings and investigations are carried out by universities and
academic institutes. These institutes are run and managed by government and non-
governmental organisations. The purpose of all these researches and investigations is
to arrive at certain conclusions, to prepare models and concepts and to suggest general
principles which prepare the general corpus of political science.
So what we call political science today is nothing but the result of painstaking
research performed by numerous scholars at different corners of the globe. But
outside the academic institutes and universities many interest groups, journalists and
other persons conduct investigations about political affairs and governmental matters.

But all these do not generally form the part of political science because in all these
research works there is hardly any continuity and they are not conducted for
exclusively academic purposes and model building. Their sole purpose is to satisfy the
transitory public interests. However, political science as a study of relevant, political
affairs and research is gaining importance.

David Held has viewed politics (or political science) in a different way. In his opinion
politics is a practical activity (emphasis added) about the discourse and struggle over
organisation of human possibilities and in this sense political science can be treated as
a study of power (emphasis added). The concept of power relates to the capacity of
social agents and institutions.

In this definition of politics given by Held we find three components of political

science. Political science relates to political activity, to power, to capacity of various
agents and organisations. Hence any definition of political science must encompass all
these components.

An important aspect of this definition is political science has been treated as a

practical activity. As such political science does not hover in imagination or a solitary
place. It is a down-to-earth phenomenon connected with the affairs and activities of
groups, institutions and various agents.

Another definition of politics is—it is a study of “activities of cooperation, negotiation

and struggle over the use, production and distribution of resources”. This definition
highlights another very vital aspect of political science. There are various types of
resources available in any society. The production and distribution of these resources
are to be preceded by definite policy on the part of the government or authority,
cooperation among various agents involved in the production and distribution of
resources.

It may require negotiation of one agent with another. In the case of conflict between
outlook and objective struggle may occur. But for greater and better interests of
society the conflict ought to be settled. The point to add here is that in all these
situations the involvement of state or government appears to be an inevitability. This
definition of politics views the subject from the angle of cooperation, negotiation and
conflict.

Why the question of cooperation, conflict and negotiation? It is no secret that in any
society there are persons and groups who hold different opinions on the same issues
and in a democratic society none can impose his own views/decision upon other.
Naturally conflict of opinion is the chief characteristic of such a society and in order
to arrive at a decision the settlement of the conflict is a must.

The practical situation teaches that no society can survive and thrive which has made
itself a cauldron of animosity. Cooperation and negotiation take place under the
stewardship of political organisations or government—nominated agencies. A
definition of politics includes all these because political science is not simply an
academic subject but also a potential and necessary provider of guidelines for policy
makers and researchers.

This aspect of political science can be overlooked only at the detriment of the
importance of subject. We, therefore, conclude that political science as a study of
cooperation, negotiation and conflict holds good for any liberal or pluralist society.

Harold Lasswell has defined political science in the following words. He calls
political science an empirical science, as an empirical displine, as the study of the
shaping and sharing of power, and a political act as one performed in power
perspectives.

The central idea of this definition is Lasswell calls political science an empirical
science. If so according to Lasswell the subject is chiefly concerned with the shaping
and sharing of power. This definition of Lasswell reminds us about an aspect of the
definition. Political science as a social science deals with cooperation and conflict and
the latter also means that whenever there arises a conflict the authority takes steps for
its settlement and no settlement of any conflict is possible without power.

Hence we can define political science as an empirical discipline dealing with shaping
and sharing of power. Lasswell believes that political science is the study of power
exercised by the state or agencies authorised by state.
In any modern civilised society individuals do not live alone, they live in groups and
behave as members of group. Naturally the behavior of individual is considerably
influenced by the members of the group to which he belongs.

Viewed in this light Raphael defines politics in the following manner:

Politics deals with the behaviour of groups and individuals in matters that are likely to
affect the course of government. Raphael has clarified his stand. He says that the
functions and policies, voting behaviour of persons, relation between the government
and the people etc. are generally the subject matters of political science.

The interesting fact is that in strictest sense there is no difference between Lasswell’s
definition and Raphael’s definition. Political science is primarily an empirical science
and in that sense it comes to be associated with sharing and application of power and
this power is applied by the government.

Like Lasswell, W. J. M. Mackenzie has defined politics in the light of power. Let us
quote some relevant portions from Machenzie’s noted work Politics and Social
Science (1967). He says: “Politics is about power………. about legitimate
authority………. about the reconciliation of interests. Politics is also concerned with
the legitimate use of violence and also the monopoly authority over the power and the
use of violence.

Today a large number of thinkers have started to view the subject specifically in the
light of power, violence and their use: What Mackenzie has added to this definition is-
he has emphasised on legitimate used of power and violence. This does not of course
mean that illegitimate use of power and violence is totally banished from the arena of
politics.

Our practical experience teaches us that power illegitimately used also finds a place in
political science. But politics does not deal with this properly. Such type of incident is
regarded as aberration in the whole gamut of political science. The emphasis on power
has been occasioned by the advent of empirical treatment of the subject.

I think it would be very much helpful to refer another definition given by Almond,
Powell, Strom and Dalton (Comparative Politics Today). They have said: “By politics
we thus refer to the activities associated with the control of public decisions among a
given people and in a given territory, where twin control may be backed by
authoritative and coercive means.” Politics deals with who uses this authoritative and
coercive means and for what purpose this is used.

A proper definition of politics can, for academic purposes, be divided into two parts—
the authoritative and coercive use of power or means or methods and the other part is
for what purpose this power is used. If the use of power is not legitimate or
authoritative and the purposes of the use of power are not clearly stated that technique
or way cannot be the subject matter of political science.

The application of coercive method is also related to human decisions. For the general
welfare and management of society the persons holding and exercising power are to
take certain decisions and mere adoption of decisions is not all. Their application,
strictly speaking, constitutes the vital aspect of political science.

For this reason Almond etc have said “Politics has to do with human decisions and
political science is the study of such decisions.” Are all sorts of decisions included
into the subject of political science? Our answer is: “Not all decisions are political.
Political science brings under its purview only political decisions.”

Easton’s Definition:
We have analysed a number of definitions of political science and we shall now turn
to David Easton’s famous definition which he has given in his noted work The
Political System (1971). He says: Political Science is described as the study of the
authoritative allocation of values for a society.

The point to note is that this particular definition is quite different from all other
definitions. The meanings of the three concepts are to be enquired and they are:
policy, authority and society. Only the authority allocates or can allocate values and
for that purpose it adopts policy: Values are allocated for society.

Defining policy Easton says:

“A policy whether for a society, for a narrow association or for any other group,
consists of a web of decisions and actions that allocates values. By adopting a policy
authority deprives someone of anything and allows others to have it.”

Now we come to the concept of authority or authoritative. Mere adoption of policy is

not all. The policy is required to be implemented and for that purpose the authority
will take steps for enactment of law. Finally a complex administrative structure is to
be built up for the implementation of the law and policy.

Only the authority can do all these tasks. If there is no support or role of authority
behind a policy people may be reluctant to show credence to the policy and may
refuse to obey it. So it has been observed by Easton that a policy must be authoritative
otherwise people will not obey it. If the policy is authoritative refusal to obey it will
be followed by punishment.

Defining society Easton has said that a society consists of persons or large number of
people who are continually interacting among themselves and maintain a stable
relationship among them. Certain minimum conditions must be maintained so that the
inhabitants of the society can live peacefully and comfortably and for that purpose it is
essential that goods and services must be provided for all the members of the society.

In any society there are a number of groups of individuals whose objectives, mode of
living and requirements may not be similar. But it is an important duty of the authority
to provide goods and services to all of them and without the authoritative allocation of
values that objective cannot be achieved. That is why Easton observes: authoritative
allocation of values is a minimum prerequisite of any society.

At this level we return to one of our earlier points. Politics is concerned with conflict
and cooperation. When an authority allocates values for society it practically becomes
authoritative and the decision of the authority is binding on all.

Finally Easton says:

Authoritative allocation requires the existence of a well defined organisation called
government. In the opinion of Easton the subject which deals with the authoritative
allocation of values can conveniently be called political science. The study includes
policy, authority, society and government. These concepts enunciated by Easton are
so linked that they cannot be separated from each other.

Almond (Politics of the Developing Areas: Introduction) says:

“The difficulty with this definition is that authoritativeness as defined by Easton does
not differentiate political system from church or business firms and the like. But his
combination of comprehensiveness of application plus authoritativeness comes close
to the kind of tool we need in this work of comparing political systems of differing
scales and degrees of differentiation. We may sharpen Easton’s definition by turning
his conception of authority into legitimate physical compulsion.” What Almond
emphasises is that mere authoritativeness cannot make any policy or decision binding
and if it is not binding the policy or decision will be a hollow one.

Naturally, if required, the policy must be accompanied with compulsive measures and
this compulsion must be legitimate. Almond suggests that if these two words are
added to the definition of Easton it will be a complete and widely accepted one.
Almond’s suggestion, it is claimed, is based on the empirical studies of political
systems of different parts of the globe.

Noted German sociologist Max Weber (1864—1920) also thought that without
legitimate physical compulsion it would be impossible for the government/ authority
to implement any policy/decision. We find Almond to observe that legitimate physical
force is the most crucial aspect of any political system and if any political system is
deprived of it, it will be away from the proper platform of political system and
political science.

Concept, Model and Theory:

In the second half of the twentieth century analysis of political science passed through
sea changes so far as method of analysis, preparing of modes and building up of
theory are concerned and the changes have been occasioned by the inability of the
traditional political science to meet the challenge of the new situation and the
determination of a number of political scientists of both the hemispheres to inject new
thought and line of analysis into the subject.

As a result of this venture and new outlook certain terms which were generally used
by other sciences and are being increasingly used by them have conveniently found
their places in politics. For proper understanding of political science it is necessary to
throw light on these terms because without it a clear understanding of the subject will
never be achieved.

First of all we shall deal with Concept. According to Heywood concept is a general
idea about something usually expressed in a single word or short phrase. There is a
difference between idea and thing. Thing is a proper noun and it discusses various
aspects of the particular article or thing or animal.
But concept does not deal with these aspect. It gives certain idea about a thing. When
we talk of a bird we deal with biological characteristics of the bird. This does not
constitute the basis of concept. It does not go into the details. It gives simple idea
about a thing. For example, the concept of liberty gives the idea about it. The liberty is
an ideal and we discuss its various aspects with a lot of enthusiasm and seriousness.

Concept is a very important part of today’s political analysis because with the help of
concept we analyse different general principles of political science. With the help of
concept we generally impose an idea upon something or a principle of politics.

A concept generally highlights the ideal or principle of political science and this
enables the reader to grasp knowledge about the subject. When we say that equality or
justice is an ideal or principle we first of all build up a preliminary conception about it
and after that we try to enter into the depth of the concept. Heywood says: “Concepts
are general……. They are building blocks of human knowledge.”

In recent years it has been found that political scientist and researchers are
increasingly resorting to concepts because they are more inclined to using it for
analysis of the subject. Political scientists and researchers are involved in
controversies and it is due to the fact that while one political scientist views the
concept in one way another political scientist focuses light on other aspect.

But this controversy does not inflict any harm upon concept. Indeed almost all the
important issues of political science are treated in the term of concepts. Political
science, now-a-days, is explained by building up concepts and this approach, it is
claimed, has considerably enhanced the scope and importance of the subject. In the
second half of the twentieth century behaviouralism has successfully introduced a
number of concepts into political science such as feedback, input, output etc.

Models:
Model is another form through which ideas of political science are expressed. It can
be defined as a representation of some idea or view in smaller scale or form. Let us
quote Heywood in support of our view. “A model is usually thought of as a
representation of something usually on a smaller scale”. Hence model resembles
something which is quite big or large. In the preparation of the model the original
thing is faithfully remembered.
But in political science the model has different connotation. The model does not
always carry with it the smaller form of original thing. In this subject model is used to
mean an “analytical tool”. That is when a political scientist or researcher proceeds to
discuss something in a particular way or form he uses model.

As for example we very often talk of models of democracy, Westminster model of

parliamentary form of government. Today different political scientists have prepared
models of political systems and David Easton’s model is one of them. With the
development of the application of higher and sophisticated techniques to the analysis
of political science, the importance and role of model have considerably increased.

Particularly in the empirical study of politics the idea of model has earned special
significance. The empiricists are prone to use models. Generally facts and data are
collected from various sources, they are meticulously analysed and then models are
prepared. So we can say that model building and empirical analysis are both closely
related.

Theory:
A theory is a supposition of a system of ideas intended to explain something. This is
the definition of C.O.D. Political Scientists and researchers collect data and facts from
numerous sources and then analyse them. After the analysis has been done they
prepare proposition and this finally constitutes a theory. So we can say that there are
number of components of a theory. One is data or fact. Second is analysis of the data.

Third is preparation of proposition. Building up of theory is also a great part of

empirical analysis of political science. The important aspects of theory are- facts are
systematically explained and after that proposition are made. In both situations facts
are explained with all seriousness and alertness of mind. While a researcher builds up
a theory he honestly follows what data and facts reveal. In fact, there is no place of
value judgment or normative evaluation. It is claimed that in the preparation of theory
the researcher strictly follows what the facts reveal.

There is a minor difference between model and theory. While model is representative
of something theory is a proposition. Again model is an explanatory device and theory
is not of this category. Inspite of this difference both theory and model are used
interchangeably. In our day to day conversation and analysis we do not strictly follow
this difference.
But there is a close link between models and theories. Though both are constructed on
the basis of empirical data and facts, value judgments enter in the analysis
imperceptibly. Political scientists cannot rule out the possibility of the intrusion of
value judgment and normative biasness. A recent view that has gained currency is that
value should not be ignored.

Political Theory and Political Philosophy:

We quite often use the terms political theory and political philosophy. I think that
these two terms need to be clarified because of the fact that there are few subtle
differences between the two. According to Concise Dictionary of Politics, “Political
theory is critical systematic reflection about power in its public and private forms
particularly about the claims of government to possess legitimacy and authority and
more generally such reflection about the place of politics in social-life.”

In this definition we find that political theory deals with the following issues. Both
public and private power and, this power must be related to government which
possesses legitimacy and authority. Political theory also includes politics which has
been explained in our earlier analysis.

Van Dyke has drawn our attention to two aspects of political theory. He says that
political theory is concerned with political belief systems. These belief systems are
general and comprehensive in nature. Political beliefs are related with moral and
ethical questions of the political activities and principles which are performed and
followed by government, agencies, institutions and individuals.

According to Van Dyke political theory also includes suggestion, recommendations

and advices given by political scientists. We thus see that political theory can never
flourish and spread its manifold aspects in vacuum; it has not fallen from heaven.
Political theory is generally based on the conclusions analyses, opinions, propositions
made by the philosophers and political scientists.

We have briefly discussed political theory. We shall now focus our attention to
political philosophy. Stated briefly it means “the systematic elaboration of the
consequences for politics of suggested resolutions of philosophical dilemmas.”

In political philosophy politics and philosophy are both combined. Political issues and
affairs related to politics are explained elaborately and philosophically. Even in a
limited way political philosophy endeavours to explore various political implications
of political matters, issues and disputes.

One important feature of political philosophy is while it analyses political issues and
matters, it not only goes into the depth of the subject but also it tries to analyse in the
light of “what is”? and “what ought to be”? This is purely a normative procedure to
analyse politics. Since ought has a special place in political philosophy we can easily
find out a close relation between political philosophy and moral philosophy. Value
judgment cannot be separated from political theory.

In fact what we call today political theory or political science it was in earlier
centuries political philosophy because the general principles of political theory issued
from the brain and pen of renowned philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau,
Hegel, Marx etc. Today we make serious attempts to divorce political theory from
political philosophy but the task is not so easy.

If we go through the various stages of the development of political theory we shall

find that political theory has sometimes been overshadowed by political philosophy.
The subject matters of earlier political theory were description, explanation and
evaluation and the latter opened the way of normative character of political theory.

All these, however, were elaborately analysed by great philosophers and naturally it
was very difficult for political theory to free itself from the shackles of philosophy.
Earlier political theory was not only normative and evaluative it was also prescriptive.
Political philosophers generally prescribed what ought to be followed. The political
philosophers did not give any importance to scientific models and application of
scientific techniques to the study of political science.

Before Machiavelli (1469-1527) politics was largely dominated by theology and in

most of the cases politics struggled hard to establish its special and separate identity.
Particularly in the middle Ages the indomitable influence of religion blurred the
distinction between religion and politics. Most of the thinkers and philosophers
cherished clear biasness for religion and were reluctant to make distinction between
the two.

They treated politics in the light of religion. Even church and Christianity claimed
highest authority to utter the last word about politics and its numerous manifestations.
The result was that politics or any general principle of political science came to be
vital parts of theology and philosophy. Politics was “neither autonomous nor primus
inter pares” though politics enjoys autonomous status today.

So far as methodology of political science is concerned we see that different aspects

of the subject were explained and interpreted by the rules of formal logic and theories
of knowledge and all these are parts of philosophy. These ideas stood on the way of
independent status and spontaneous development of politics. In earlier time
philosophy played an important part in the analysis of political science.

For all these reasons politics and political philosophy were almost treated identically.
Whenever any learned person began to think about politics he did it in the background
of philosophy. Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Marx all were great philosophers. Particularly
Plato, Aristotle and Hegel were primarily concerned with the analysis of philosophical
problems and issues and while doing so they either made passing remarks about
politics or treated politics as subsidiary part of philosophy.

This made political science as subservient to philosophy. David Easton in his The
Political System has drawn our attention to this “ignoble” position of political science
in general and political theory in particular. The application of scientific methods to
the analysis of political science, the emergence of behaviouralism and emergence of
empiricism have been able at least partially, to free political science from the clutches
of philosophy, logic and theory of knowledge.

Nature of Politics:
If we study the various definitions given above we shall come across several
features or various aspects of the nature of politics and some are stated below:
One, the definition or idea of politics is flexible or changing. To the traditional
thinkers politics was the study of state and government. Today the definition is not
confined within a limited sphere or few notions.

The subject is variously defined and includes many notions. The idea of politics
encompasses numerous aspects of political behaviour of individuals, groups,
associations, agents etc. Even the elements of international relation have found their
place in the definition or analysis of politics. To sum up, politics is a broad concept
and changes its contents with the change of time.
Two, Controversy is a very important element of politics. Let us elaborate it. Politics
means the existence of issues and again it means the existence of controversy. It is
argued that where there are issues (and, politics cannot be thought of sans issues)
there must be controversy.

Issues are never homogeneous and the heterogeneity of issues creates an atmosphere
of debate and in this way politics cannot be separated from controversy. Let us quote
Wasby, “Where no controversy exists, where no issues are being debated, politics
does not exist”. The controversy pervades to all sections of society as well as to all
sorts of groups, institutions, individuals, organisations etc.

Three, J. D. B. Miller, emphasies the disagreement nature of politics in his The Nature
of Politics. It is true that the controversial nature of politics indicates the disagreement
among opinions issues and explanations. When there is disagreement among
individuals, organisations, institutions, groups, controversy or debate is bound to crop
up. The point to note is that according to Miller, the disagreement is the true nature of
politics.

It is very difficult to think of politics which does not envisage any type of
disagreement. Because of this disagreement, it is observed, there arise struggles
among the actors of politics. Vernon Van Dyke (Political Science: A Philosophical
Analysis) believes in these times. Miller also says that if there were no disagreement
among individuals, groups or organisations, political action or activity could not get
any scope to emerge.

Four, It will be a misconception if we think that controversy or disagreement is the

exclusive feature of politics and in the arena of politics there is no place of agreement
or consensus. Persons, organisations and groups debate among them on any political
issues but at the same time they arrive at agreed terms or solutions.

In the absence of agreement the functioning of society or the existence of social life
would have been an impossibility. To sum up, politics is characterised by both
agreement and conflict. It also deals with resolution.

Five, a number of modern political scientists (Lasswell and Robert Dahl are
prominent among them) believe that politics involves power and influence. In an
analysis of politics an important question is raised—Who gets, What, When and
How? Politics is said to be the provider of the answer to this question. That is only
through the exercise of power and influence an individual or organisation can get
what he it wants.

Politics also provides the way of getting the desired objective. It is the contention of
Lasswell, Dahl and many others that if this question is ignored in the study of politics,
its central idea will lose importance. For this reason power and influence can never be
kept out of politics. Rather they form the central part of politics. Many political
scientists even try to call power as the summun bonum of politics. This, of course, is
highly political. Many do not agree.

Six, one important feature of politics is its pervasiveness. In all forms of state and
society (primitive, tribal, modern, developed, developing and underdeveloped) there
always exists politics. Even in past in all types of society/state there existed politics.
The form and nature of politics have changed no doubt.

This is due to the fact that in every state or society there is management or
administration and for this politics is essential. However, the nature or politics has
assumed new forms and dimensions in different ages but politics still exists. Today,
we call national politics, international politics, local politics, party politics etc. Politics
is everywhere.

Seven, conflict is not the exclusive feature of politics. There are also institutional
arrangements for the settlement of conflicts.

Finally we turn to an interesting feature of politics pointed out by the author of the
essay, “Politics” published in Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. According to this
view politics, in fact, is the manifestation of civilised and ordered society. In such a
society, people are endowed with reason and because of that quality there arises
disagreement and there are also procedures for the resolution of this conflict or
disagreement.

Now these two (disagreement and the resolution of it) generate an atmosphere of
politics. Guided by reason individuals do not want to continue the disagreement and
they start to find out ways of settlement. It is generally regarded as politics.
The state of nature was neither a political society nor a ‘civilised’ one. Muscle power
and physical force were the ways were freely used by this members of the state of
nature for the settlement of disputes. The state of nature was a state of war. Some
people wanted to do things and by dint of muscle power they did it.

Hardly there is any place of politics in monolithic society because such a society is
characterised by complete agreement among the members of society on various issues
which crop up from time to time. Viewed from this angle one can conclude that the
three great contractualists (Hobbe, Locke and Rousseau) may be called the introducers
of the concept of politics because all these three thinkers started their political analysis
with the state of nature. This view, however, is contested by many.

Is Political Science a Science?

The controversy whether political science is science or not is as old as the subject
itself. Even today the controversy has not died down. There are a large number of
people, many of whom are prominent in their own fields, who believe that to call
political science a science is simply a travesty of the word science.

The central idea of science is the experimentation and after that correct prediction and
it is unfortunate that these two have hardly any scope in political science and because
of this political science cannot be placed in the same rank of physics or chemistry.

But the opponents of this view forcefully argue that physics and chemistry are science
no doubt but they are not only sciences, there are others types of science. Physics and
chemistry are physical science but there are also social sciences and political science
is a prominent branch of social science. When we call political science a branch of
social science, we invariably use the word science in a broad sense.

In this sense the word science means systematic study of any subject in a very
methodical way and to arrive at certain conclusion based on information, facts
collected and analysed in a scientific way. Thus in political science there is certain
amount of scope of prediction and generalisation which are based on scientific study
and investigations.

One points more. When one calls political science a science one need not use the word
science in a conservative and literal sense, but in a broad and unorthodox sense. For
example, in the eighteenth century the Glasgow University set up a chair of Physics in
the name of Natural Philosophy. The Moral Sciences Tripos of Cambridge University
taught philosophy. In 1895 London School of Economics and Political Science was
established.

It is interesting to note that the persons associated with its formations used the word
‘science’. Webb couple and many other dignitaries were associated with this
institution and they preferred the word science. Till today a very large number of
people like the word science. Politics and political science both are interchangeably
used.

A few decades back there was great hesitation’ regarding the use of the word science.
But today the subject has reached such a stage of development that there is no sign of
hesitation.

W. J. M. Mackenzie in his small and illuminating work Politics and Social Science
makes the following observation which is pertinent in more than one respects. “So far
as I can judge, political science is still the name which carries meaning to the general
public. The word ‘science’ here indicates, simply that there exists an academic
tradition of the study of politics a discipline communicated from teacher to pupil, by
speech and writing for some 2500 years now. It does not mean that this discipline
claims to be a material science or that it could be improved by copying the methods of
Physics and Chemistry more exactly”. The argument of Mackenzie is unassailable.

Greek philosopher Aristotle called politics a master science that is a science subject
with great importance. In’ 1741 Hume published his essay “Politics may be reduced to
a science”. “Hume’s main objective was to show that some constitutions necessarily
worked better than others and that politics was not just a question of personalities”
(Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics).

Today attempts are being made to make the subject scientific and for this purpose
researcher, students and scholars are trying hard to make the subject objective as well
as value-free. They are also endeavoring to explain and analyze the events
systematically. Behavouralism is an example.

In support of the contention that political science can reasonably be called science
Mackenzie has drawn our attention to some of the recent developments. He says,
“Techniques of data collection and data processing have developed enormously”.
More emphasis is being given to the training in the subject and it is gradually
intensified.

Mackenzie also points out that a large number of natural scientists are taking more
and more interests in political science. For example, physical scientists are interested
in war and peace as well as disarmament treaties as the decisions of politicians and
statesmen considerably influence the research in physics and allied subjects. Today
the political science is treated as a system which means that it is a part of bigger
environment.

The various units of environment influence each other. The tangible result is political
science influences other branches of social and physical science and at the same time
it is also influenced by other sciences. Hence biology, botany and other disciplines
come to be related with political science. Political science borrows methods of
analysis from these disciplines. In this way political science is gradually improving
itself and this has raised its status as a science.

Political scientists are now borrowing materials and methods from games theory, and
cybernetics. New methods of scientific analyses are being applied to political science.
Of all these methods the most important is statistical or mathematical method. The
empirical approach to the study of politics uses the statistical method.

In past there were gulf of differences between political science and physical science.
In fact, there was a Chinese wall between the two. But today the barriers are wearing
thin. A young political scientist is well versed with the terms and concepts of
mathematics, physics and other branches of pure science.

Not only is this, the interchange between political science and other branches of social
science gradually increasing. Mackenzie says that today’s political science is not what
it was several decades ago. It is not simply political science it is “Meta-politics”. If
this is the position there is no reason to refuse to call it a science subject. The methods
of analyzing political science are gradually refined and perfected and this process will
continue in future. So we conclude that political science is a science though a science
of different category.
Political Science is a Social Science:
In the last section of our analysis we mentioned that though political science is not
pure science like physics and chemistry it is undoubtedly a prominent branch of social
science. This observation is laconic in nature and therefore requires elaboration. We
have already noted Morgenthau’s definition of political science.

For the sake of relevance we quote him again, “Political science grew not by virtue of
an intellectual principle germane to the field, but in response to pressures from the
outside. What could not be defined in terms of traditional academic disciplines was
defined as political science”. Wasby says that this definition of political science is true
with respect to both content and method of political science.

From the above observation we again conclude that what we declare as the content of
political science is, in fact, derived from many other subjects which are known as
branches of social science. Hence there is hardly anything like pure political science,
various aspects and matters of political science are derived from a number of social
sciences. Even political science borrows its method of analysis from other subjects.

With the passing away of time and the development of man’s knowledge and interest
the dependence of political science upon other social sciences is increasing. It is also
to be noted here that this dependence is never a one way traffic. Other disciplines of
social science are in one way or other dependent on political science. To sum up,
political science and other disciplines of social science are interdependent.

It is to be noted here that no science physical or social can claim purity and it is due to
the interdependence of subjects. Today we are acquainted with the terms such as bio-
physics, bio-chemistry, ethical economics, welfare politics etc.

Political Science is Dependent on Society:

The materials which build up the structure of political science, it is asserted, are
derived from society. Bernard Crick, a prominent English political scientist has
specifically given stress on this aspect of political science. He says that the political
and related issues and events of society considerably influence political science.

When a political scientist starts to analyse any aspect of political science his thoughts
and views are circumscribed by the prevailing situation and happenings of the society
in which he lives. Beginning from Plato down to Marx not a single political scientist
or philosopher could deny the influence and pressure of the prevailing time and
situation. Even the political scientists of the present epoch cannot evade the influence
of incidents and circumstances around them.

The degrading condition of democracy and devaluation of values, morality, ideals etc
influenced Plato and Aristotle to declare their opinion against democracy and to
devise an ambitious plan for an ideal state. The near anarchical condition of Britain
led Hobbes to think that only an absolute sovereign power could restore peace and
tranquility in society.

When Locke began to write his treatise liberal thought was about to flourish and
because of that he strongly advocated for liberalism. The miserable conditions of
workers of Britain pained Marx and Engels so much that they devoted their entire life
to the way of emancipation of the working class.

Bernard Crick says that whenever a society is plagued by crises, the impact falls upon
the society and it is reflected on political science. Hence the study of politics is
everywhere, a response to a belief that there is a crisis. Political science studies the
crisis and after that prescribes ways how to get rid of the crisis. Crises are of
numerous types and political science studies them.

The Great Depression of the thirties of the last century and various civil wars may be
cited as examples. To combat the Depression the American president took drastic
measures which intervened with the freedom of private entrepreneurs of America. The
civil war among the various units in Italy and the prevalence of anarchical condition
compelled Machiavelli to think of the Unification of Italy and consolidation of power
of the prince.

He also believed that the mixture of politics with religion and ethics as well as
morality was one of the main reasons of anarchy from which Italy was suffering the
palliative suggested by Machiavelli (1469—1527) was the complete separation of
politics from religion, morality and ethics. This sufficiency laid the foundation of
secularization of politics. All these illustrations undoubtedly demonstrate that political
science cannot keep itself aloof from society which is the root of other social sciences.
Political Science and General Theory:
The relationship between political science and other social sciences has been stressed
in a larger degree. The main purpose is to broaden the scope and other aspects of the
subject. As a result of it political science in collaboration with other social sciences
has been able to build up a scheme of general theory.

The relation between the two has been specifically mentioned by a recent critic.
“Political science is now less parochial than before the war, but this exercise in
togetherness has demonstrated all too clearly that there is little difference between the
social science disciplines, save only as they are shaped by their influential history, the
vested interests of the departments”.

The author of these significant lines wants to point out that in ultimate analysis all the
branches of social science are very closely related. The various disciplines of social
science draw their sustenance from the society, they deal with the problems of society
and they invest their energy and intellect to the solution of manifold problems from
which the society suffers. But there are differences in approaches. Again the elements
or subject matters of the social sciences are not similar. These differences help
establish separate identity.

Attempts are being made to build up a general theory which will embrace all the
branches of all social sciences. This attempt has emanated from the idea that since all
the disciplines are inter-related particularly the various branches of social science and
all contribute to the formation of a social theory it would be better if they are
combined together.

But it is to be noted here that the contributions of all disciplines are not equal or
identical. That is each discipline of social science contributes in its own way,
according to its own ability and approach. Naturally the differences in contribution of
various branches of social science are bound to crop up. In spite of these differences
the contribution of each discipline cannot be minimized whatever small that
contribution be.

Here we shall quote the pertinent observation of Wasby. “For those who feel that
our goal should be a general theory of all behaviour, each component of social
sciences is valuable to the extent that it contributes to such a general theory, and
findings true in only one area of human behaviour are less valuable than findings
duplicated with respect to other aspects of life . Thus one component of social
sciences that can contribute, or has contributed more to such general theory qualifies
as the master social science”.

It is very difficult to say beforehand that there is a particular discipline in social

science which can be said as master or the most important social science, the
contribution of the discipline is crucial for our analysis.

Associated with this is our desire to use the subject and also our goal. To put it in
other words, how and for what purpose we want to utilize the subject that will decide
the contribution. It is however, a fact that tendency is gradually becoming more and
more active in favour of a general theory which will embrace all the disciplines of
social science.

There are several reasons behind this tendency and one such reason is the complexity
of social and political system. All modern political systems are highly complicated
and embrace economic, sociological, geographical, political issues. Naturally if any
researcher proceeds to build up a general view about society he must study seriously
all the disciplines of social science.

Moreover, any political scientist or researcher of social problem does not take rest by
analysing the issues or problems He prescribes certain recommendations. On
experience it has been found that the study and the recommendations are spread over
all the branches of social science. Naturally any segregation of one discipline from
another cannot help either the political scientist or the policy maker.

An in depth analysis of social problems and various issues reveals that the whole
society can be treated as a system and each unit of the system in one way or other
influenced by another unit and this unit again influences other units. In other words no
unit of any social system is an isolated one.

This notion gathered additional importance in the fifties of the last century when a
number of political scientists from both sides of the Atlantic channelized their energy
and intellect to the development of general systems theory. Hence the tendency of
formulating a general theory is quite rational.
Comparative Study of Different Disciplines:
A comparative study of the contributions of different disciplines of social science will
strengthen the concept of relationship among the disciplines. Today economics is
regarded as the most important branch of social science. Some call it master social
science because in one way or other economics dominates all other disciplines.

The policy makers of the-state are heavily preoccupied with the economic problems
and finding out their solutions. Planning, industrialization, liberalization, globalization
all are involved with economic problems. The governments of both developed and
developing countries are profoundly pressed by the problems created by these No
administration in any part of the world can ignore economic issues. Economists
always play the crucial role in state administration.

But the importance of economics does not mean that the role of political scientist is in
a negligible position or political science has nothing or very little to do. The
economists offer their suggestions while the policy makers may or may not accept
that. In fact the state, which belongs to political science, is the final determiner of
various political decisions and policies and all these are implemented by the state
officials. Both political science and economics are involved in investigative analyses
and studies of problems with which the state and society are confronted.

The conclusions of these studies are integrated and the state authority incorporates
them into the policy and administration. Thus politics and economics are combined.
No modem state can be effectively administered without economics and political
science.

Sociology is a very important branch of social science group. Sociology in general

terms is called the study of society so also economics and political science. For
balanced and overall progress of society a thorough and penetrating study of society is
essential. But any study launched by a sociologist will not be a complete one without
any help from or reference to economics and politics. “Sociology as the study of
society necessarily integrates more specialized studies such as economics and political
science”.

There is a new subject called political sociology which is a combination of sociology

and politics. Sociology is also connected with economics and other disciplines.
Sociologist cannot arrive at acceptable and creditable conclusions without any
analysis of economic aspects of society. In this way sociology combines economics
and political science.

Normally geography is not a branch of social science but its contribution to social
science in general and preparing a general theory in particular cannot be overlooked
There are several branches of geography such as economic geography, cultural
geography, human geography etc.

These separate branches of geography guide and control human behaviour and are
also concerned with social progress. Political science also is not completely unrelated
with geography. The authority of the state adopts various schemes to utilise
geography for the development of human resources.

There are also other disciplines of social science and all are directly related with
human behaviour and general theory and by virtue of that they are also connected with
political science. For example, history is an important branch of social science and its
relation with political science is as old as political theory.

A major part of the materials used in political science is derived from history. Political
science, on the other hand, also helps in various ways the study of history. Again both
are the study of society and also mould the progress of society.

In the light of the above analysis we can observe that alt the disciplines of social
science help in accordance with their own ability to the study of society and contribute
to the formation of general theory. But the extent of this contribution cannot be
assessed in a definite way. What we can say, at best, is the contribution of a particular
discipline is greater than that of the other.

But this should not lead one to jump upon the conclusion that because of this
difference in contribution a particular discipline can be called a master social science.
Wasby writes “Regardless of the relative virtues of particular disciplines many
scholars would reject the idea that any one field could be the master social science…
individual disciplines would be reduced in importance, although each could contribute
to general social theory in varying degrees, as well as to each other”.
Exact Position of Political Science:
In the background of above analysis one can reasonably ask what is the exact position
of political science in the whole gamut of social science? We are of opinion that the
role or contribution of politics or its position cannot be assertively stated. It is mainly
because political science deals with social issues and problems which are volatile.

Notwithstanding this primary difficulty one can say that the importance of political
science as a guide to social policy and in the field of decision-making is increasing
day after day. Even a few decades back political scientists were neglected.

But today on numerous crucial issues their advice is sought. This happens both in
developed and developing political systems. This no doubt posits a challenge to
political scientists and from the events it is clear they are performing their
responsibility with a lot of success and have earned eulogy from various corners.

Does the above analysis mean that political science is going to be rated as master
social science? The answer may be both positive and negative and because of this
controversy we refrain ourselves from taking any side. However, political science can
be treated separately because of its position among all the branches of social science.

Keeping this in mind Wasby says—”Some do consider that political science is primus
inter pares in the social science, both because Aristotle called politics, the master art
and because modern social scientists have felt that the polity performs the goal-
attainment function for the society as a whole”.

We have already noted that political science is a social science and this status of the
subject is not all about it. There are a good number of social sciences and a pertinent
question may arise in this regard. Whether political science is at par with other social
sciences and in this respect political scientists have confidently said that this subject is
first among the equals or in Latin phrase primus inter pares.

Political science of the second half of the twentieth century or even at the beginning
of the twenty first century is remarkably different from what it was at the beginning of
the twentieth century. The large scale application of scientific methods and
sophisticated tools has brought about sea change in the study of the subject.
Wasby says, “Now an increasing number of political scientists are borrowers. Perhaps
one important factor in this change was the war time experience of many political
scientists as government employees working on in the midst of manifold complicated
problems. They recognized that they needed to be a combination of political
economist, political geographer and political psychologist because as administrators
they did not find problems neatly divided into political science, economics, sociology
et at, the problems, had to be handled in their totality.”

Scope of Political Science:

Political science is the most important branch of social science and its chief concern is
with the political behaviour of individuals, groups of individuals, agencies,
institutions, organization et al. Since all these are subject to change and they are
changing continuously the subject matter of political science is bound to change, so
also the scope of Political Science.

Now the interesting fact is that various scholars and political scientists have made
sincere attempts to view its scope from their respective angles and perspective
resulting in wide variations in the treatment of scope.

A renowned author has analysed the scope of Political Science from four different
angles and these are: Politics as the art of government, politics as public affairs,
politics as compromise and consensus, politics as power and distribution of resources.
But this categorization of scope of political science cannot be treated as final because
the emergence of new phenomena and situation will Impact the decision making
process of government, government and governed relation, attitude of people towards
politics and government, people’s ideas about the functions of state etc.

No serious thinker can neglect all “these issue whilst analyzing politics. Two or three
decades ago even a well-versed political scientist paid little thought and attention to
globalization and neo-liberalism. But today these two concepts have covered a
significant portion of the subject while analyzing the scope, we must note it.

Politics as the Art of Government:

A large number of people are unwilling to call politics as a science, (since it is
controversial we abandon it for the purpose of present analysis.) The general opinion
is that politics is an art and the art is closely related with the management of
government.
According to Aristotle a polity is a type of social organization (and also a political
organization) where political authority was exercised by large number of people
whose main concern was to achieve general welfare. Researchers have found that in
ancient Greek polity politics took place and in those days politics meant management
and administration of Polity.

It is also said that though in Greek city states there was direct democracy but in all
affairs people were not found to be directly involved in the functioning of the state.
Politics was practiced among small number of men and in the process of final
decisions only few and experts participated. Scholars have come to know this from the
history of Western political thought. Politics meant adoption of decision, enactment of
laws, their implementation, administration of justice etc.

The participants were politicians, government servants and some other people who
were interested in political affairs. Their acts were combinedly called politics. This
Greek tradition passed through ages and in this way politics has come to be known as
art of government.

In recent decades politics as an art of government has undergone considerable changes

because of the fact that in the management and administration of society government
alone is not the only player. Numerous social, political organisations also play crucial
part and this has been necessitated by the growing complex character of society.
Naturally the scope of politics as an art of government has to a considerable extent
enhanced. Not only this, into the scope of politics is included certain negative aspects
of society.

For example in many parts of the world particularly in the states of Third World the
criminalization of politics, is assuming alarming dimension and in this arena no
government can sit idly. A government worthy of its name must devise means to
tackle this development and ultimately this comes to be a part of art of government.

It may be noted that Italian philosopher Machiavelli lamented that corruption,

degradation of politics and internecine war among the different provinces of Italy
were the chief factors of the backwardness of Italy and failure of Italy to be influenced
by renaissance which had overwhelmingly influenced other parts of Europe.
So his advice to the prince ultimately came to be a part of politics and as an art of
government. His advice to the prince has produced a plethora of questions and created
an atmosphere of heated controversy. But the fact still remains that Machiavelli’s
opinion can logically be treated as politics in an art of government.

Politics as Public Affairs:

The scope of politics as an art of government is very narrow. In modern time the
politics is treated with a very broader outlook and it is seen primarily as public affairs.
Its chief concern is to meet the demands of public affairs. The advocates of this
conception prefer to divide the affairs of the society into two broad categories—
public and private.

The business of politics is to maintain various types of public affairs and for that
purpose it enacts laws, implements them and when necessary applies physical force.
This conception leads us to make a distinction in the social affairs between public and
private. The state, as the highest political organization, is concerned with the public
affairs.

But this does not mean that it does not see any interest in the private affairs. It must
see that the private affairs and their management do not affect the general interest of
the community.

The association or politics of political organization of state was first brought to light
by famous Greek philosopher Aristotle (BC 384-BC-322). He believed that the
purpose of politics is to ensure “good life” and set up a just society. This is purely an
ethical standpoint and Aristotle viewed politics in that light.

The failure of politics to achieve this will degrade its position and status. That is why
he always insisted that politics must always try to make its citizens good and virtuous.
This function of politics is noble and for this reason he called politics a master
science.

It is necessary to draw a line between public and private affairs. Public affairs
generally mean the affairs of various governmental organs such as the three arms of
government—the police, the army and numerous public security arrangements. If we
closely look at politics we shall find that the state or government is quite busy with all
these departments or agencies.
Any fruitful study of politics cannot ignore all the above noted aspects. There is no
doubt that the functions and behaviour of all the above noted organs are changing with
the change of time and attitude of men. But the fact remains that the involvement of
state or political organisation with them has not gone out of sight.

Now we shall see why politics is regarded as the management of public affairs.
Besides public affairs there are number of affairs which may be called private and
these are activities of various social, political and cultural groups, business
organisations, clubs, pressure groups etc.

All these private organisations constitute what we call Civil Society. Edmund Burke
(1729-1797) called civil society as little platoons within the entire and huge structure
of political organisation. The activities of the state are restricted to politics,
commerce, security and foreign affairs. Whereas the functions of civil society relate to
family and different private affairs.

The division between political organisation which is called state and civil society is
never water tight. For the sake of general interest and greater welfare of the
community the authority of the state very often interferes with the functions and
management of civil society.

This has come to be an important aspect that falls within the jurisdictions of state.
Thus politics deals with matters of civil society. Marx and his followers have
specifically dealt with the relation between civil society and state. It is found in
Marxist literature that capitalist ruler of state always tries to control the agencies of
civil society by means of influencing art, literature, history, law and other things
which generally belong to civil society. Thus in Marxist conception politics is a much
broader idea.

Neo-liberals of the eighties of the last century have strongly argued in favour of the
curtailment of the functions and powers of state and enhance the same of civil society
with the sole purpose of giving more freedom to individuals. Viewed from this angle
it may be observed that according to neo-liberals politics comes to be a restricted
conception.
Politics as Compromise and Consensus:
This particular aspect of politics is seen as very important because in any state there
inhabit different individuals. Within the geographical area of the state there are many
institutions, agencies and organisations. Sometimes the purposes of these run counter
to those of these state and this gives rise to conflict. In every state there are
organisations whose functions is to resolve any conflict.

Apparently it should not be the concern of state but in ultimate analysis settlement of
all sorts of disputes forms crucial part of political science because for this purpose the
state is to frame laws, it takes steps for their implementation. Any political analysis
effectively deals with the conflicts and their resolution. In this way the state plays the
role of a compromiser.

Disputes and their settlement do not form the core of any political analysis because to
view politics as simply the manifestation of conflicts is wrong. It is also the bounden
duty of any authority to see that cooperation among individuals and institution comes
to be a salient feature. To arrive at it the political organisation must create a congenial
atmosphere.

This is no doubt an uphill task but the state cannot deny its responsibility. However,
when the state adopts its scheme ensures an atmosphere of cooperation that becomes a
part of political science. Cooperation among the citizens may create a peaceful
situation and conflict may not be frequent. Even after that disputes may exist and it is
the duty of state authority to find out compromise formula or to help the parties to the
dispute to arrive at consensus.

Politics Embraces all Social Activities:

One very interesting feature of modern day politics is two quite opposite forces have
engulfed the study of this subject. One group believes that state is the true custodian
of its citizens’ interests and welfare and hence the state should perform those activities
which will ensure the above objective.

The opinion of the other group is the role of the state should be minimal. Performing
the essential services the state should leave all other activities to the responsibility of
the individuals. “Adrian Leftwich in his What Is Politics? The Activity and Its study”
(1984) has said that if we scrutinise various political activities and the role of the state
we shall find that everywhere the positive and even crucial role of political
organisation will be found.

In other words state is at the centre of all activities which are termed political. These
activities may be private or public, formal or informal. All these categories do not
matter at all. What matters most is the state is present everywhere. He says, “Politics
is at the heart of all collective social activities”.

Today if we took at all the aspects of state we shall come across the fact that state is
present everywhere. The opposite picture is neo-liberals want to restrict the state
activity to minimum function. However, such an attitude has not been universally
acclaimed and as a result state practically embraces all sorts of social activities.

Politics is Viewed in Terms of Power:

Power is always at the heart of whatever the state performs. We have earlier noted that
the importance lies in ensuring cooperation among man, institutions, organisations
etc. It also settles disputes and tries to arrive at consensus. Needless to say that power
remains at the very centre of all these activities.

There are number of exponents of this concept and most renowned of them are Harold
Lasswell and Kaplan. Both of them viewed politics in term of power. Lasswell’s
famous book: Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (1936) once created ripples in
the academic world of political science. Without power, decision and policy cannot be
properly implemented.

The resources of any society are scarce and for their proper distribution it is essential
that the distributing authority must have power. However, to have power does not
mean that it will be used indiscriminately. It may be used judiciously and rationally.
Politics encompasses both these aspects of the use of power.

Indiscriminate and ruthless use of power lies at the centre of dictatorial form of
government and rational application characterises a government as democratic.
Marxists however see power as the main idea of bourgeois politics. Though this
Marxist view has been contested by many there is no doubt that in capitalist state
power runs through all stages gleefully.
This is called the power approach to politics. It means that power is the central part of
politics and state is unable to do even the minimum and normal functions without
power. Not only this if the state wants to play the role of a compromiser or instrument
of public affairs or a weapon for the settlement of disputes the application of power is
essential. So we may, for the sake of debate, disagree with Lasswell or Kaplan, but we
cannot deny the importance of power.