INTRODUCTION

Behaviouralism is an approach in political science that emerged in the 1930s in the United
States. It represented a sharp break from previous approaches in emphasizing an objective,
quantified approach to explain and predict political behaviour. It is associated with the rise of the
behavioural sciences, modeled after the natural sciences. Behaviouralism claims it can explain
political behaviour from an unbiased, neutral point of view. Behaviouralists seek to examine the
behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals – rather than the characteristics of institutions such as
legislatures, executives, and judiciaries – and groups in different social settings and explain this
behaviour as it relates to the political system (Baer, 1991).

The study of political behaviour is not only the study of behaviour as such, but also political
opinions, political attitudes, beliefs and values more broadly, all of which are part of political
behaviour. This field also extends to opinions, beliefs and values without necessarily
transforming them into behaviour. It is not only behaviour and action, but also attitudes,
opinions, beliefs and values that are behind it (Beehler & Drengson, 1978).

NORMATIVE APPROACH OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR

Normative political theory is as old as reflection about politics and we can easily regard Plato
and Aristotle as its founders. There are several aspects of their philosophical reflection of politics
(or practical philosophy) which build up a normative theory: there is no separation between
ethics and politics (thus between‘ought’ and ‘is’, they are mutually dependent), the nature of
political theorizing is both descriptive (e.g. Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens) and prescriptive
(Plato’s The Republica and The Laws, Aristotle’s Politics), politics has a teleological character
and as an activity is concerned with telos, which is primarily defined as the good life of the
political community. Classical political theory was a predecessor of political science and for
many centuries political theorizing had had mainly a normative character, but it was often a
response to a certain empirical context. For instance, Jean Bodin’s concept of sovereignty was
developed during his service to the French monarchy and in a way justified the already
developing system of governing. It was not, however, presented as a description of empirical
phenomena, but as a normative theory. In the concept of sovereignty Bodin found a principle
upon which a political order should be based. Thus it can be said that ‘political theories are

1
shaped by the important cultural, intellectual, and political currents of their time and place, and it
is natural to think of these currents as, in a sense, the “foundations” of a political theory’ (Moon,
2015).

DESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO POETICAL BEHAVIOUR

What has dominated political behaviour in the twentieth century is not normativism or normative
behaviour, but another conception known as descriptive political behaviour which derives
theories from descriptive or empirical observations. Descriptive political behaviour refuses to
accord the status of knowledge to those theories which indulge in value judgements. Naturally,
therefore, normative political behaviour is debunked as a mere statement of opinion and
preferences. The drive for value – free theory started in order to make the field of political
behaviour scientific and objective and hence, a more reliable guide for action. This new
orientation came to be known as Positivism. Under the spell of positivism, political theorists set
out to attain scientific knowledge about political phenomena based on the principle which could
be empirically verified and proved. Thus, they attempted to create a natural science of society
and in this endeavour; philosophy was made a mere adjunct of science. Such an account of
theory also portrayed the role of a theorist as of a disinterested observer, purged of all
commitments and drained of all values. This descriptive project in political behaviour was
premised on the empiricist knowledge which claims to have the full blown criteria to test what
constitutes truth and falsehood. The essence of this criterion is lodged in the experimentation and
the verification principle. When political behaviour was reeling under this influence, a so called
revolution started and became popular as the ‘Behavioural Revolution’. This revolution reached
a commanding position within political theory in the 1950’s and engulfed the entire field of
study and research by advocating new features. They included: a) Encouragement to quantitative
technique in analysis b) Demolition of the normative framework and promotion of empirical
research which can be susceptible to statistical tests c) Non – acceptance and rejection of the
history of ideas d) Focus on micro–study as it was more amenable to empirical treatment e)
Glorification of specialisation f) Procurement of data from the behaviour of the individual and g)
Urge for value – free research. In fact, the behavioural climate got surcharged by an anti – theory
mood and those who lambasted theory in a conventional sense had a field day (Lasslet &
Runciman, 1957).

2
CONCLUSION
Political behaviour refers to any form of individual or collective involvement in the political
process, or any activity which has political consequences in relation to government and policy.
This broad definition embraces both legitimate forms of political participation (such as voting in
elections, activism in interest groups, or social movements) and illegitimate political activities
(including coups d’état, terrorism, and revolutions. Two approaches of the political behaviours
which are the normative and the descriptive were reveal the different approaches involved in a
political theory.

REFERENCES
Baer, M. A. (1991). Jewell, Malcolm E.; Lee Sigelman (eds.). Political Science in America: Oral
Histories of a Discipline. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-
0805-5.
Beehler, R., Drengson, A. R. (1978). The Philosophy of Society. Routledge. ISBN 0-416-83490-
6.
Moon, D.J. (2015). Foundations of Political Thought. In: M. Gibbons (ed.). The Encyclopedia of
Political Thought (pp. 1341–1351). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lasslet, P. & Runciman, W. G. (1957). Philosophy, Politics and Society. Oxford: Blackwell.