POLITICAL SCIENCE oo Q 5 5 via | for Civil Services Main Examination 1S Nel |POLITICAL SCIENCE for Civil Services Main ExaminationAbout the Author N D Arora was an Associate Professor in PGDAV College, University of Delhi. He has more than four decades of experience in teaching graduate and post-graduate classes and was a guide for MPhil and PhD scholars who obtained their degrees under his able supervision. There are more than twenty books to his credit, in addition to scores of articles published in academic journals. Presently, he writes books for competitive examinations.POLITICAL SCIENCE for Civil Services Main Examination N D Arora Formerly of PGDAV College (University of Delhi) New Delhi Cd) McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited NEW DELHI McGraw Hill Education Offices New Delhi New York St Louis San Francisco Auckland Bogota Caracas Kuala Lumpur Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Montreal San Juan Santiago Singapore Sydney Tokyo TorontoTSS McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited Published by McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited, P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi 110 016. Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination, 2e Copyright © 2016, 2010, McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise or stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior written permission of the publishers. The program listings (if any) may be entered, stored and executed in a computer system, but they may not be reproduced for publication. This edition can be exported from India only by the publishers, McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited. ebook ISBN(13) : 978-93-5260-490-6 ebook-ISBN(10) : 93-5260-490-3 Information contained in this work has been obtained by McGraw Hill Education (India), from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither McGraw Hill Education (India) nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein, and neither McGraw HillEducation (India) nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that McGraw Hill Education (India) and its authors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought. ebook Creation : Alok Ranjan Cover Designer: Rajesh Pandey visit us at: www.mheducation.co.inTo My Wife Who deserves much more than mere gratitudePreface to the Second Edition It is a privilege, indeed, to have a second edition of one’s book come out, since it testifies to the students’ need and desire to have a better version of the work. | am extremely glad of the response this work has seen so far, and | have attempted, along with the publisher, McGraw Hill, to revise, adapt and update the book so that it may continue to remain relevant in its field. The revised second edition of the Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination comes with updated content, changes in almost every chapter, and new questions added to Practice Questions at the end of chapters. The last section consisting of eight chapters on International Relations and Foreign Policy have been completely revised and are in tune with the latest developments in Indian and world politics. | hope that this serves as a comprehensive textbook for Civil Services Main and state civil services preparation and is successful in its primary aim—to cover the entire syllabus of Political Science in great detail, and yet in a language that is easy for the aspirants to grasp. Individual modules of the syllabus are covered in separate chapters, with author's notes provided in boxes. | remain grateful to many of my friends and also extend mysincere thanks to the McGraw Hill Education team, comprising of Tanmoy Roychowdhury, Shukti Mukherjee, Abhishek Kumar, Gargi Bhattacharya and Medha Arora for their efforts to refine the book. The author may be contacted at ndarora15@hotmail.com N.D. ARORAPreface to the First Edition An endeavour to write for competitive examinations such as for the civil services is, indeed, no easy a task. The attempt would not have been dared but for the constant (and sometimes critical) encouragement received through students, colleagues and friends for the author's earlier work on the civil services preliminary (Political Science) examination ( published by Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited). Writing on Political Science for the main examination with a syllabi as diverse as Political Theory and Political Thought, Indian Political System, Comparative Politics and International Relations, has been a challenging exercise. The author has been vacillating between what has been analytical and argumentative (relating to theoretical formulations in theory), what has been critical and suggestive (relating to Indian political system) and what has to be the most informative and latest (relating to problems of international and global concerns). Working on a manual related to competitive examinations is very different than writing a textbook for graduate and post- graduate students. In civil services examinations, one has to be (a) concise and precise on the contents, (b) analytical and yet presentable in dealing with questions, (c) critical to the extent of being evaluative while summing up the answers, and(d) avoid what is repetitive, irrelevant and redundant. While preparing this manual, a conscious attempt has been made to keep all these aspects in mind. This study covers the discussion of what is prescribed in the civil services examination syllabus. All the chapters (48 in all) have been thoroughly updated so as to include all the latest developments in the subject. The manual is a small yet sincere effort to help the civil services aspirants do their best in their examinations. An exhaustive list of references also lies dispersed in these pages. From a competitive examination perspective, the author has sought to include: (a) narrative description of all the available facts required herein; (b) lucid presentation of the related material; (c) scientific formulations of what is needed to make the answer as systematic as possible; (d) major points, logically ordered, in each and every topic, and (e) pratice questions to induce the reader to write his/her answer himself/herself. | am greatly indebted to many friends and colleagues, in particular Dr. Sunder Raman and Dr. Ramesh Singh who have rendered valuable help in the preparation of this work. The author also extends his gratitude to Biju Kumar, K.N. Prakash, Abhishek Sharma, Anupma Rai, and Medha Arora of Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited for their constant and continuous support to make this work see the light of the day.The author can be contacted at ndaroral5@hotmail.com N.D. ARORACONTENTS Preface to the Second Edition Preface to the First Edition . Political Theory: Meaning and Significance Introduction Political Thought, Political Philosophy, Political Theory, Political Science Political Theory: Meaning, Definitions Political Theory: Nature Evolution and Growth of the Discipline Political Theory: Classical, Modern, Contemporary Political Theory: Significance and Utility Summing Up Practice Questions . Political Theory: Approaches, Debates, Trends Introduction Approaches Great Debates Trends in Political Theory Practice Questions3. Theories of State Introduction State: Definitions Practice Questions 4. Justice: Rawls’ Theory of Justice Introduction Etymology, Meaning, Development Justice—Its Dimensions Justice and Its Relation with Liberty and Equality Conceptions of Justice—Different Perspectives Justice: Types Libertarian Justice—Hayek, Rawls, and Nozick A Word on Distributive Justice—Theories Practice Questions 5. Equality: Types, Forms, Relationship with Freedom, and Affirmative Action Introduction Meaning of Equality Equality: Evolution and Growth Types of Equality Forms of Equality: Social, Political, Economic Relationship Between Equality and Freedom Affirmative Action Protective Discrimination: Reservation Policy in India Practice Questions 6. Rights and the Concept of Human Rights Introduction Rights: Meaning, Nature, and CharacteristicsEvolution of Rights and Related Theories Analysis of Rights: Wesley Hohfeld and Lawrence Becker Kinds of Rights Functions of Rights: Will (Choice) Theory and Interest Theory Concept of Human Rights Practice Questions 7. Democracy:Representative, Participatory, and Deliberative Introduction Democracy: Meaning and Definitions Democracy: Evolution and Growth Theories of Democracy Models of Democracy Practice Questions 8. Concepts: Power, Hegemony, Ideology, Legitimacy Introduction Concept of Power Concept of Hegemony Concept of Ideology Concept of Legitimacy Practice Questions 9. Political Ideologies: Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Gandhism, Feminism Introduction Liberalism and its Variants Socialism and its Variants Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Third Way, Anarchism Fascism and Conservatism GandhismFeminism Practice Questions 10. Indian Political Thought |: Dharmashastra, Arthashastra, Buddhist Tradition, and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan Sources of Ancient Indian Polity Nature of Polity—Dharmashastra, Arthashastra, and the Buddhist Tradition Polity in Dharmashastra, Arthashastra, and the Buddhist Tradition Sir Syed Ahmed Khan Practice Questions 11. Indian Political Thought II: Sri Aurobindo, M.K. Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar, M.N. Roy Introduction Sri Aurobindo M.K. Gandhi B.R. Ambedkar M.N. Roy Practice Questions 12. Western Political Thought I: Plato and Aristotle Introduction Plato Aristotle Practice Questions 13. Western Political Thought Il: Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Mill Niccolo Machiavelli: 1469-1527Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) John Locke: 1632-1704 John Stuart Mill: 1806-73 Practice Questions 14. Western Political Thought Ill: Marx, Gramsci, Arendt Karl Marx: 1818-83 Antonio Gramsci: 1891-1937 Hannah Arendt: 1906-75 Practice Questions 15. Indian Nationalism: Strategies and Perspectives Birth of the Indian National Congress Strategy: Constitutionalism Strategy: Extremist-Militant, Revolutionary Strategy: Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements Peasants’ and Workers’ Movements in India’s Freedom Struggle Indian National Movement: Different Perspectives Practice Questions 16. The Making of the Indian Constitution Constitutional Development Legacy of the British Rule Legacy of the National Movement The Constituent Assembly The Constitution: Its Making Practice Questions 17. Salient Features of the Indian Constitution Sources of the ConstitutionPreamble of the Constitution Major Features of the Constitution Territory Citizenship Practice Questions 18. Indian Constitution: Amendment Procedure and Basic Structure Doctrine Amendment: Meaning and Definitions Why Amendment? Procedure of Amendment in India Amendments made in the Constitution Constitutional Amendments and the Shifting Judicial Stance Constitutional Amendment and Social Change Basic Structure Doctrine Practice Questions 19. Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties Debates in the Constituent Assembly Fundamental Rights Directive Principles of State Policy Fundamental Duties Practice Questions 20. The Executive in India: The President, The Prime Minister, and the Union Cabinet, The Governor, the Chief Minister and the State Cabinet The President of India The Vice President of India The Council of Ministers (The Cabinet) and the Prime MinisterThe Government of States Administration—National Level Practice Questions 21. The Legislature in India: Parliament of India and Legislatures in States The Indian Parliament State Legislatures in India Practice Questions 22. The Judiciary in India: The Supreme Court, the High Courts, etc. The Supreme Court of India The High Courts in India Judicial Review Judicial Activism Subordinate Courts Lok Adalat Free Legal Aid and Public Interest Litigation Judicial Reforms Practice Questions 23. Grassroots Democracy: Urban and Rural Government (Municipal Administration and Panchayati Raj) Urban Local Administration in India Urban Administration and the 74th Amendment: Municipal Bodies Panchayati Raj: Historical Overview Rural Administration and the 73rd Amendment: Panchayati Raj Institutions District and Metropolitan PlanningPractice Questions 24. The Statutory Institutions/Commissions The Election Commission Comptroller and Auditor-General of India Finance Commission Union Public Service Commission National Commission for Scheduled Castes National Commission for Scheduled Tribes National Commission for Women National Human Rights Commission National Commission for Minorities National Commission for Backward Classes Other Commissions Practice Questions 25. Federalism in India Nature of the Indian Federalism Federal Features ofindia’s Union ofStates Asymmetrical Federal Features in India Unitary Tendencies in India’s Federation Union-StatesRelationsinIndia Centre-State Relations’ Commission Tendencies: Integrative, Regional, Inter-State Disputes Practice Questions 26. Planning and Economic Development Development: Meaning and Implications Development: Gandhian and Nehruvian Perspectives Indian Planning: Nature and Role Role of Public SectorGreen Revolution Agrarian Relations and Land Reforms Liberalisation and Globalisation Economic Reforms in India Neoliberalism of Modi’s Government Practice Questions 27. Party System and Pressure Groups in India Evolution of Party System in India Political Parties in India Lok Sabha Elections: 1952 to 2014 Electoral process in India Nature of the Indian Party System Regional Political Parties in India Political Parties: Ideological and Social Bases Coalitional Politics in India Pressure groups in India Electoral Behaviour and Legislators’ Profile: Trends Practice Questions 28. Caste, Religion, Ethnicity, Social Movements in India Caste in Indian Politics Religion in Indian Politics Ethnicity and Politics Social Movements Practice Questions 29. Comparative Politics: Nature, Approaches, Perspectives Comparative Politics Comparative Politics: Approaches Comparative politics: PerspectivesComparative Method and Its Limitations Practice Questions 30. The State in Comparative Perspectives The State: The Twentieth-Century Notion The Changing Nature of the State in the Capitalist Economies The Changing Nature of the State in the Socialist Economies Nature and Role of the State in Advanced Industrial Societies Nature and Role of the State in the Developing Societies Developed and Developing Nations: A Comparison A Word About the Minimal State Practice Questions 31. Representation, Participation, Party Systems, Pressure Groups, Social Movements Representation: Forms and Theories Electoral System and Elections Political Participation Party Systems Pressure Groups and Interest Groups Social Movements Practice Questions 32. Globalisation: Perspectives Globalisation: Meaning, Definitions, Nature Globalisation: Evolution Globalisation: Theories, Forms and Essence Globalisation: Effects and Critique Globalisation: Responses from Developed and Developing Societies Practice Questions33. Approaches to the Study of International Relations Traditional Approaches Modern Approaches Practice Questions 34. Key Concepts in International Relations National Interest Security and Power Balance of Power and Deterrence Transnational Actors and Collective Security World Capitalist Economy and Globalisation Practice Questions 35. Changing International Political Order Rise of the Superpower Bipolarity Post Cold War World: Theories Cold War, Arms and Nuclear Threat Practice Questions 36. Non-Alignment Movement, Soviet Disintegration, Unipolarity Non-Alignment Movement Collapse of the Soviet Union Unipolarity: American Hegemony Practice Questions 37. International Economic System: WTO, CMEA, NIEO Development of Economy: Mercantilism, Capitalism, Globalisation Socialist Economies and the Council for Mutual EconomicAssistance Developing Nations: New International Economic Order Summing Up Practice Questions 38. The United Nations System The United Nations: General United Nations Specialised Agencies Independent Bodies under United Nations United Nations: Strength and Limitations United Nations: Reforms Practice Questions 39. The Regionalisation of World Politics: EU, ASEAN, APEC, SAARC, NAFTA European Union The Association of South-East Asian Nations—ASEAN Asia-pacific Economic Cooperation—APEC. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA Practice Questions 40. Contemporary Global Concerns (Democracy, Human Rights, Environment, Gender Justice, Terrorism, Nuclear Proliferation) Democracy Human Rights Environment Gender Justice Terrorism Nuclear ProliferationPractice Questions 41. India’s Foreign Policy and Its Role in NAM What is a Foreign Policy? India’s Foreign Policy and Its Determinants Phases of India’s Foreign Policy India’s Prime Ministers and Their Foreign Policy Visions Foreign Policy: Old and New India and the Non-Alignment Movement Practice Questions 42. India and South Asia Introduction South Asia: India and Its Neighbours Regional Cooperation: SAARC Impediments of Regional Cooperation India’s “Look East” Policy India-ASEAN Relations Practice Questions 43. India’s Relations with Neighbouring States (Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) India-Pakistan Relations India-Nepal Relations India-Bangladesh Relations India-Sri Lanka Relations India Afghanistan Relations Practice Questions 44. India and the Global South (Africa and Latin America) Africa: Pre-Colonial, Colonial and Post-ColonialLatin America: Colonial and Post-Colonial Era India-Africa Relations India-Latin America Relations India, WTO and NIEO Practice Questions 45. India and the Global Centres of Powers (USA, EU, Japan, China, Russia, France, etc.) Relations between India and the United States India and European Union (EU) Relations India-Japan Trade Relations India-China Relations Sino-Indian War Indo-Russia Relations India-France Relations Relations between India and other Countries Practice Questions 46. India and the United Nations System India’s Role is the United Nations System The UN Peace-keeping Operations India and UNPeace-keeping India’s Demand for UN Security Council’s Permanent Seat Practice Questions 47. India and the Nuclear Question India: National Interest and the Nuclear Question 47.1 The Evolution of India’s Nuclear Policy 47.3 India’s Nuclear Policy Nuclear Doctrine 47.7 Practice Questions48. Recent Developments in Indian Foreign Policy India’s Position in the Near North-West: Afghanistan India’s Position on the Crisis in Iraq India and the West Asia and Central Asia India-USNuclearDeal India and the Gulf War (1990-91) India and Israel South China Sea Issue Present situation between ASEAN and China India’s stand on South China Sea India and the Vision of a New World Order Practice QuestionsPolitical Theory: Meaning And Significance I. INTRODUCTION uman beings are different from all other living LH creatures. The other living creatures depend, for most part of their life and living, on conditions not made by them, and hence, do but little in changing them through their efforts. Human beings too, though, find themselves in a situation not made by them but do or can at least do a lot in changing the atmosphere they live in. This was what Marx meant when he said that man is both the product of history as well as the maker of history. Indeed, there were times when human beings, like all other creatures, lived at the mercy of nature and developed in accordance with the law of natural evolution and as such, were powerless to make changes. But as they developed, they became conscious of their environment and set themselves to explain and plan modifications and improvements. Human beings, due to their more developed mental faculties, were able to do much more than the other living creatures who remained, andstill remain, at the initial stage of their intellectual development. The highly developed mental faculties of human beings helped them to investigate, understand, comprehend, explain, define, and refine both the physical and social environment. As human beings began to know nature, learn its laws, bring its power under control as far as possible, and utilise its resources to their own benefits, they began to question their beliefs, customs, institutions; to examine their nature and their authority, and finally to plan deliberate changes and progress. All early social institutions, we must remember, brought forth unintentionally and for a long time kept developing unconsciously. It was only gradually that human beings realised their existence and the possibility of directing or improving it through their intentional efforts. The state, among all the social institutions, has been the most important, the most universal, and the most powerful. It must have emerged and its authority must have been asserted at the time when human life would have come to stay. In the process of human development and at its very early stage, people must have begun investigating about the institutions of the state, must have attempted to discover its origin, must have thought to question and uphold its authority; people must have disputed over the proper sphere of its functions, dwelt over issues relating to the relationship between the governors and the governed along with the powers of the former and the rights and liberties of the latter. It would have been about this time, indeed at very initial stages, that assumptions and beginnings about politics must have arisen. It would have been from this time onward that political activities, political phenomenan, and political issues would have come under discussion, debate, examination, and scrutiny. Indeed, politics existed much before its study as anacademic field. Il. POLITICAL THOUGHT, POLITICAL ~ PHILOSOPHY, POLITICAL THEORY, POLITICAL SCIENCE This is not an attempt to investigate the details of what came first and when: politics, political thought, political philosophy, political theory, political science, or with whatever name one likes to address it, but a clear distinction, and if possible relationship be highlighted to emphasise that something relating to politics has always been on the rise. We can assume, for reasons more of conviction than of belief, that it is political theory which is continuously rising, political thought that is related to politics, or political activity and/or what is rising is that which is relevant to politics as (A History of Political Theo: it, . It is about political life, about politics. It is not about society, and hence is not social thought, but is about society in relation to politics as is social life in relation to political life. It is not about economy, and hence is not economic thought, but is about the impact of economics on politics or vice versa. It is not about ethics, although it does contemplate about ideal political institutions and about political life: Political thought is not orderly reflection of the political institutions and political practices; about how people live under a political authority, obey it, challenge it if it does not conform to what they think is proper dispassionately; about how it is influenced by the external world and how it is influenced by the world around; about how does it work as asystem and it is related to subsystems under it and other systems of which it is only a part_- Political thought signifies, as traditionally understood, at best, political philosophy. When we speak, for example, of the history of political thought, we generally focus on the classic texts of political philosophy in Plato’s Republic, Hobbes’s Leviathan, or say Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. These classics deal with the broad-ranging explorations of politics which relate politics to the general conditions of life and experience. Plato elaborated, we must remember, the nature of relationship between knowledge, practical life, and philosophic understanding; Hobbes related the necessity of the State to man’s demand for an assuredly peaceful life; Marx highlighted the importance of materialism in our social life as well as in nature. Political philosophy becomes the political thought of a particular philosopher of a particular time. But it is not political thought only, or merely. So regarded, it is more than political thought in the sense that it also reflects a political concept which exists over a long period of time and circumstances. The concept of “justice”, for example, from Plato to Rawls, is a part of political philosophy, covering, thus, the theorisation of the concept of “justice” as travelled through the writings of numerous philosophers. Political thought and political theory are related to each other in so far as thought has a measure of theory and theory has some amount of thought. The two are really inseparable: thought and theory go together, the two supplement each other. And yet there is much that is un-common between the two. As we seek to change a phenomenon into abstraction, we attempt to build a theory. This leads us to assume that political theory admits a measure of theoretical assumption but political theory does not end up here. In fact, starting fromthis position political theory covers a wide range of practical political activities, and in the process, interprets, examines, and relates them with one another. This is to say that political theory is as much related to theory as to the practice of politics. Political theory is a pure theory as well as a practice, an inspiration as well as a goal. So widely understood, political thought like political philosophy is one part, though a significant part, of political theory. Political thought is tied to a particular time frame; political theory is above time, above all times. Political thought, by nature, is both temporary and permanent; political theory, by nature, is one that is future- oriented as well as developmental, and to that extent, has a measure of ideology. Political thought is related to history as well as politics; political thought provides political theory with the necessary data in which it contemplates and acts. Political thought is the complete philosophy of a philosopher. Hobbes’ political thought, for example, is the complete philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Political theory is concerned with, so far as Hobbes is concerned, a larger question of the Hobbesian thought—“why do the people need a State or why do they obey the law?” Political Science (the Americans regard it very comprehensive of which political theory is a part, its sub-field) and political theory share a lot. Both deal with matters related to politics; both are scientific in their discussion or understanding on what is related to politics; both take the help of history in so far as the latter helps in understanding politics. But there is much which sets them apart. Political Science is more a science than theory; political theory is more a theory than science. Political Science adopts scientific methods for its study; it is empirical, positivistic, observational, and clinical; political theory is all that Political Science is, and it is something more as well: it is normative, philosophical, andidealistic. Political Science abhors what is ideological and value-laden; political theory is both ideological and value- laden. Accordingly, Political Science is direction-free, if not direction-less, while political theory is with a direction, with a definite aim. It proceeds on theory and it also creates theory. Political theory is not only a theory of/about politics, it is also the science of politics, the philosophy of politics at that. As a theory, Bluhm explains, “political theory stands for an abstract model of the political order a guide to the systematic collection and analysis of political data” (Theories of Political System). Andrew Hacker, enlarging the point of view, says that political theory as a “theory, in ideal terms, is dispassionate and disinterested. As science, it will describe political reality without trying to pass judgement on what is being depicted, either implicitly or explicitly. As philosophy, it will describe rules of conduct which will secure good life for all in the society... ” (Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science). Political theory is not fantasy, though it may contain an element of political vision. It is not politicking, though it does take into account political realities for its study and analysis. It is not all scientism, though it seeks to reach the roots of all political activity analytically and systematically. It is not ideology, though it attempts to justify a political system and condemns another. It is theoretical, scientific, philosophical, and, at the same time, dynamic with a clear objective of attaining a better social order. It, thus, has, in varying degrees, elements of “theory”, “science”, “philosophy”, and “ideology”. Political theory is all about politics. It is an overview of what the political order is about. It is a symbolic representation of what is “political”. In its nature, it is a formal, logical, andsystematic analysis of processes and consequences of political activity. It is, in its method, analytical, exposi-tory, and explanatory. It is, in its objective, an attempt to give order, coherence, and meaning to what may be referred to as “political”. Ill. POLITICAL THEORY: MEANING, DEFINITIONS The meaning of political theory necessitates the meaning of theory; to know what political theory really is to know, first, what is theory? Originating from the Greek word theoria, theory means or at least, may mean a well-focussed mental look taken at something in a state of contemplation with the intention of grasping or understanding it. Arnold Brecht (‘What is Theory”) refers to both the broader and the narrower meaning of the word “Theory”. In the broader sense, he says, theory means, “A thinker’s entire teachings on a subject”, including the description of facts, his explanation, his conception of history, his value-judgements, and the proposals of goals, policies, and principles. In the narrower sense, he says, theory means “explanatory” thought only or at least primarily. In his book, Political Theory, Brecht uses theory in the narrow sense, saying, “... explaining is the function of theory.” Thus, for him, theory means a proposition or a set of propositions designed to explain something with reference to data or inter-relations not directly observed or not otherwise manifest. Theory has to be scientific; without the quantum of science, it is unthinkable. But theory, without philosophy, is as meaningless as it is without science. Theory is a combination of elements characteristic of both science and philosophy. Theory is not practice because doing too needs thinking. Theory involves a theoretical frame which practice really lacks. Theory is not merely “description”because “describing” is only a part of “thinking”; its other parts, for example, include “discovering”, “determining”, “augmenting”, “explaining” and “framing” a phenomenon. Theory is not hypothesis, for hypothesis denotes a tentative assumption of facts and, therefore, lacks what theory really has — “definiteness”. Thought is not philosophy because while theory is about “something”, philosophy is about “everything”. Theory is not thought because it is a thought about thought, and not an entire thought itself. There is, indeed, much that is common between thought and reason, for both have a claim on being scientific, yet theory looks beyond reason, beyond science. Theory, we may sum up with Karl Deutsch (The Nerves of Government, 1963), attempts to explain, order, and relate disjointed data, identifies what is relevant and therefore, points out what is missing in any phenomenon; predicts on the basis of observable facts. Theory is a guide to practice, adds much to what is merely description, clarifies hypothesis, and as a part of theory, explains an issue which meets the requirements of both reason and vision. Theory implies both science as well as philosophy. It is, against this background, that one may say that a theorist is both a scientist and a philosopher; a theorist is more than a scientist; he is more than a philosopher. To understand theory when applied to politics would mean understanding politics as a theory, as a science and also as a philosophy. Bluhm would, thus, explain political theory as “an explanation of what politics is all about, a general understanding of the political world, a frame of reference. Without one we should be unable to recognise an event as political, decide anything about why it happened, judge whether it was good or bad, or decide what was likely to happen next. A theory helps us identifywhat is happening in a particular case of politics... It helps us to explain why an event occurred and to predict future events . Theory also is a tool for evaluating what is happening and for guiding our political choices.” The job of the political theorist is really important. Brecht (Political theory) makes a note of it saying “It is the function of the political theorist to see, sooner than others, and to analyse, more profoundly than others, the immediate and the potential problems of the political life of society; to supply the practical politicians, well in advance, with alternative courses of action, the foreseeable consequences of which have been fully thought through; and to supply him not only with brilliant ideas, but with a solid block of knowledge on which to build.” When political theory performs its function well, he continues, “it is one of the most important weapons in our struggle for the advance of humanity”. Some of the definitions of Political Theory may be given as under: 1. Broadly, it means “as anything about politics or relevant to politics” and narrowly, “as the disciplined investigation of political problems.” (Sabine) 2. “Political theory is an explanation of what politics is all about, a general understanding of the political world, a frame of reference. It is one without which we should be unable to recognise an event as political, decide anything about why it happened, judge whether it was good or bad or decide what is likely to happen next.” (Bluhm) 3. Political theory is “a combination of disinterested search for the principles of good state and good society on the one hand, and a disinterested search for knowledge of political and social reality on the other.” (Andrew Hacker)4. Political theory is “a network of concepts and generalisations about political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements about the nature, purpose and key features of government, state, and society and about the political capabilities of human-beings.” (David Held). 5. “A body of thought that seeks to evaluate, explain, and predict political phenomena. As a sub-field of political science, it is concerned with political ideas, values, and concepts, and the explanation of prediction of political behaviour. In this broad sense, it has two main branches: one is political philosophy or normative theory, with its values, analytic, historical, and speculative concerns. The other is empirical theory, with its efforts to explain, predict, guide, research, and organise knowledge through the formulation of abstract models and scientifically testable propositions.” (Political Science Dictionary). The above definitions indicate the following: 1. The area in which political theory works extends to the realms of politics only — political life of a citizen, his political behaviour, his political ideas, the thought he establishes and the tasks the government performs. 2. The methods, which political theory applies, include description, explanation, and investigation of any political phenomenon. 3. Though political theory is all about what is “political”, yet it attempts to understand “political” in relation to “social”, “economic”, “psychological”, “ecological”, “historical”, “moral” and the like.4. The object of political theory is to ultimately build a good state in a good society and in the process create processes, procedures, institutions and structures, that are historically tested and rationally attuned. 5. As a body of thought, political theory seeks to explain, evaluate, and predict political phenomena, and in the process build not only scientifically testable models but suggest value as rules of human conduct. 6. Political theory is both prescriptive as well as explanatory. Political theory is, thus, an overview of what the political order is all about. It is a symbolic representation of what is “political”. It is a formal, logical, and systematic analysis of the processes and consequences of political activity. It is analytical, expository, and explanatory. If politics means what relates to “political”, then political theory may rightly claim to be a disciplined investigation of what constitutes “political”. If political theory deals with what relates to the domain of “political” then its subject-matter is bound to vary from time to time. From the early Greeks to about the end of the eighteenth century, political theory concerned itself mostly with what politics “ought to be”. Almost during the whole of nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, political theory largely dealt with the nature and structure of government as a decision-making body. Then came a period when some of the American Political Scientists, under the influence of scienticism, declared the death of political theory as against those, mostly the British traditionalists, who kept advocating the value and usefulness of political theory as guide to political action. With the culmination of debate about the decline and resurgence of political theory, the two sides came to realise the process andthe purpose of political activity. As such, the concern of political theory today has been both the nature and proper ends of government. Political theory, as a disciplined investigation of political problems, implies the discussion of those problems which are associated with the institution of government. Indeed, political theory is closely related to the study of what and why of a government, but it is, on the other hand, associated inescapably with the relationship between the government and the outer world. Political system is a part of social system and social system exists within a particular environment. The environmental bearings are to be understood to the extent they influence the social system. The social system, encompassing in itself the whole variety of social sciences, moulds and gets moulded by the political system. Political theory, while examining any political phenomenon, has to take account of what is non-political —be it economic, moral, geopolitical, cultural, ecological, or what not. We need to place political theory within the realm of political system; political system within the realm of social system; social system within the environment it breeds. If political theory, David Held says, is concerned with “what is really going on” in the political world and, thereby, “with the nature and structure of political practices”, then a theory of politics today must take account of the place of the polity within geopolitical and market processes, that is, within the system of nation-states, international law, and world political economy. Political theory does not, and in fact, should not exist in isolation. It exists within a context. To understand political theory is to understand the context. Political theory includes understanding of what is really “political”, to link political within what is non-political, and tointegrate and coordinate the results of the numerous social sciences for knowing its own nature. Its scope is not limited to what it constitutes but to what exists in the periphery and beyond. Political theory is what goes on in the political world. Accordingly, the basic components must be determined. Arnold Brecht refers to some units of political theory, especially the following: 1. Group and not the individual is the real basic concept in political theory. 2. As political theory deals with group, it is natural that there should be clash of interests not only among the individuals but also among the numerous groups. As a result, equilibrium or reconciliation of opposing interests has to serve the other components of political theory. 3. The group life, in the realm of politics, lies at the heart of political theory. Accordingly, the concepts with which it concerns itself are, or should be, power, influence, control, legitimacy, justice, and the like. 4. Another unit of political theory is action. Political theory is not all philosophy, it is philoso-phy associated with action. Any political theory not connected with action or policy can hardly be a political theory. 5. To understand political theory is to know its agents and its actors. In politics, they are called the elite. The elite, therefore, constitutes another component of political theory. 6. Choice and decision-making are also the units of political theory because they help know the seat where the power rests. Suggesting that the task of defining what is political as acontinual one, Sheldon Wolin includes the following in the contents of political theory: (a) A form of activity centering around the quest for competitive advantage between groups, individuals, or societies. (b) A form of activity conditioned by the fact that it occurs within a situation of change and relative scarcity. (c) A form of activity in which the pursuits of advantage produces consequences of such magnitude that they affect, in a significant way, the whole society or a substantial portion of it. IV. POLITICAL THEORY: NATURE To know clearly as to what political theory really is, is to know its nature. Political theory is said to be political thought and that is why there are some who describe political theory as denoting the works of numerous thinkers. But it is not what political thought is. There are others who equate political theory with political philosophy. It is true that political theory constitutes a part of political philosophy, but it is only a part; a part can never be a whole, and as a part, it remains only a part, a part of the whole. There are still others who are incorporating science in politics and who prefer to call it Political Science. But those who insist on a science of politics refuse to admit if there ever had been a history of politics or a culture of politics. Brecht, therefore, would say: “Political philosophy, political theory, and political science are no longer interchangeable terms.... With the emphasis placed on science and a distinction from political philosophy, political science now refers to efforts limited by the use of scientificmethods, in contrast to political philosophy, which is free to transcend these limits. Likewise political ‘theory’ when opposed to political ‘philosophy’ now is usually meant to refer scientific theory only in distinction from political human- beings. Any speculative thesis that is proposed by political philosophy can be part of (scientific) political theory only as a ‘working hypothesis’, an auxiliary in the scientific kit, and not.... or not yet.... as a piece of scientific knowledge.” Political theory is not all history but it is history in the limited sense; it is not all philosophy but it is philosophy in some degree; it is not all science but it is science in so far as it responds to reason. A political theorist has to be a part historian, a part philosopher, and a part scientist. (a) Political Theory as History That political theory is history has been emphatically advocated by scholars like George Sabine, but all history is not political theory just as all political theory is not history. Political theory without history is a structure without a base. In studying and analysing politics, what we learn to understand is a political tradition, and a concrete way of behaviour. It is, therefore, proper that the study of politics should essentially be a historical study. History, we should know, is more than the tale of the dead and the buried; it is a storehouse of experience and wisdom; successes and failures; of what has been achieved and what has been lost. It is the sum-total and simultaneously the formation-head of a new development, something, as Professor L.S. Rathore says, “Eternally significant and _ instructive, inseparably linked with contemporaneity in the perpetual progress of mankind.” “Ignore History,” he warns, “and the delight of political theory is never to be retrieved.” Political theory as history defines what has lost its value.No one cries now that the state has been a divine creation or the result of a contract in the state of nature. As history, political theory conserves what has significance and helps posterity to cherish it for a long time to come. Concepts such as justice, liberty, equality, obligation, as evolved through the annals of time, are being held high by political theory today and shall continue to be so in future. Indeed, history seldom repeats itself but it can hardly be ignored. In the attempt to divorce itself from history, political theory loses its own significance for there can be no fruits without roots as Seeley had said long ago. It is through history that political theory explains what is what. One can never understand a text without its context. Plato’s communism was significantly different from what is claimed to be Marx’s communism, and one can understand communism of each by understanding the history of their respective times. It is one’s age that prompts and propels one’s political theory: history shapes and reshapes political theory. How can then political theory ignore its one aspect—the historical aspect? Sabine writes that great political theory excels in both—“an analysis of a present situation and in suggestiveness for other situations”. As such, “a good political theory,” Professor S.P. Varma (Modern Political Theory, 1987), writes, “even though it is the outcome of a peculiar set of historical circumstances, has a significance for all times to come. It is exactly this universal character of political theory which makes it respectable”. (See George H. Sabine, “What is Political Theory?” Journal of Politics, Vol. 1, No.1, February 1939). Political theory is history in the sense that it seeks to understand the time, the place, and the circumstances in which it evolves. If it ignores its historical context, it loses its strength, its focus, and its message. Any political theory hasto have facts as the basis (the factual-historical factor as Sabine would say), circumstances in which it develops (the casual factor as Sabine describes it), and the message, i.e., political theory (the valuational factor, as Sabine would insist). Political theory is not merely or only history (the statement of facts on which it works and has worked in the past, i.e., history), it is a science in so far as it is not understood in isolation and also a philosophy in so far as it motivates. (b) Political Theory as Philosophy That political theory is a philosophy has been very well enunciated by scholars like Leo Strauss (“What is Political Philosophy?” Journal of Politics, XIX, August, 1967) but all philosophy is not political theory as all political theory is not philosophy. Philosophy as an abstract study encompassing the whole universe in general and morals, norms, and values in particular, is the sum-total of general laws governing the whole world. It has served political theory well through the ages as its valuational factor as Sabine has said. Philosophy, as Kant says, has answered three questions: e “what can | know?’, e “what must | do?”, and e “what can I hope for?”, and this is what makes philosophy a lodestar of life. With philosophy, no political theory can ever hope to exist; without an eye on future, no present can ever afford to stay as no present stands without its past. Political theory is a philosophy for it not only seeks to know the nature of things but also attempts to explain as to why things really exist. One understands an action or a thought only by evaluating it. Evaluation is a part of understanding.Philosophy as distinct from theory is a “quest for wisdom” or as Strauss holds the view, “quest for universal knowledge, for knowledge of the whole”. Political theory as philosophy is “the attempt truly to know both the nature of political things and the right, or the good, political order” (Strauss). Politics is not what one assumes or opines. In fact, a political theorist is expected to possess more than an assumption or an opinion; he has to have knowledge. Philosophy emerges when opinion/assumption attains the heights of knowledge, and that is what exactly is the task of political theory. Political theory as philosophy is an “attempt to replace opinion/assumption about the nature of political things by knowledge of the nature of political things” (Strauss). Values, Strauss believes, are an indispensable part of political theory as they are of philosophy. Every political philosopher has to be a teacher in his own right: he must profess; he must teach; he must persuade. Professor Varma, therefore, writes that the object of persuasion is always there before the political theorist. “What some of the modern writers have described as ‘folk-lore of political philosophy’, or more specifically ‘ideology’, is vital for the understanding of political theory.” Political theory not only explains, but also influencess, favourably or adversely. Evaluational aspects of a political activity are as important as its factual aspects. It is, in this sense, that values and facts form an integral part of any political theory. (c) Political Theory as Science That political theory is a science has been forcefully emphasised by scholars from Arthur Bentley (The Process of Government, 1908) to George Catlin (The Science and Method of Politics, 1927); David Easton (The Political System, 1953) to Robert Dahl (Modern Political Analysis,1963); but all science is not political theory just as all political theory is not science. Political theory is not science in the sense Chemistry or Physics or Mathematics is a science. It is not as exact a science as these natural or physical sciences are because there are no universally recognised principles, no clear cause-effect relationships, no laboratories and no predictions are made in political theory the way these are found in natural and exact sciences. It is a science in so far as it admits concepts and norms which are both observable and testable, and in so far as it responds to the requirements of reason and rationalism. The American social science researchers in general and the behaviouralists in particular, sought to create a science of politics and in the process, indulged in what may be called reductionism. Political theory is a science in so far as it can, and in fact, is applied to a social gathering and the definite rules of the exact sciences are applicable within the limitations as in any social science. Political theory as a science is only a social science. It is a science, a prime science as conclusions are drawn after study, observation, experiments,—features which go along with any normal definition of science. There is no need to go a long way to make a science of politics, and to find techniques, and tools to make politics an exact politics, no matter whether there remains, in the process, any political theory or not. The role of science in political theory should be limited to the extent that it helps understand a political phenomenon, and to that extent, science should have an entry in the realms of political theory. Political theory admits objectivity in association with subjectivity, facts together with values, research with theory. Political theory as science generates neutral, dispassionate, and objective knowledge (See, Colin Hay, Political Analysis, 2002).There are limits of social sciences. In contrast, the rules of the game (that of the exact sciences) do not change with time. The laws of physics, for instance, can be assumed to pertain to all situations at all times - past, present, and future. But this is not true of the social sciences. “The nature of the ‘economic’ and the ‘political’ is,” Colin Hay says, “different after Keynes and Marx in a way that the ‘physical’ and the ‘natural’ is not after Newton and Einstein.” We must remember that i. “Social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist independently of the activities that govern.” ii. “Social structures, unlike the natural structures, do not exist independently of the agent's conceptions of what they are doing in their activity.” iii. “Social structures, unlike natural structures, may be only relatively enduring.” (See R. Bhasker, The Limits of Naturalism, 1979) This is where the social sciences are different from the natural sciences. The limits of political theory are worked out within the ethics of political analysis. V. EVOLUTION AND GROWTH OF THE DISCIPLINE While the study of politics can be traced back to ancient times, its rise as a discipline has a late arrival in the 1870s. The first institution dedicated to the study of politics, the Free School of Politics Science, was founded in Paris in 1871, though Herbert Baxter Adams is accredited with coining the phrase “Political Science” while founding the John Hopkins Historical and Political Science Association in 1877. The first journal, the Political Science Quarterly, was inaugurated bythe School of Political Science (Columbia) in 1885 for scholarly writings on the subject. The American Political Science Association came into being in 1903, and its journal, American Political Science Review in 1906. The International Political Science Association was founded, under the auspices of UNESCO in 1949. The /ndian Journal of Political Science appeared in 1939, reflecting the aims and tradition of its parent body, the Indian Political Science Association. The study of politics in the Western tradition is first found in ancient Greece. However, the discipline has a clear set of antecedents such as in moral philosophy, political philosophy, political economy, history, and other fields concerned with normative determinations of what ought to be and with deducing the characteristics and functions of the ideal state. In each historic period and in almost every geographic area, we can find someone studying politics and increasing political understanding. In ancient India, the antecedents of politics can be traced back to the Rig Veda, Samhitas, Brahmanas, and Buddhist Pali Canons. Chanakya (c.350-275 BC) was a teacher of political science at Takshila University, and later the Prime Minister of Mauryan emperor Chandragupta Maurya. Chanakya is regarded as one of the earliest political thinkers, and is also known as the Indian Machiavelli. He wrote Arthashastra, which was one of the earliest treatises on political thought, economics, and social order, and can be considered a precursor to Machiavelli's The Prince. The antecedents of Western politics can also be traced to their roots even earlier than Plato and Aristotle, particularly in the works of Homer, Hesoid, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Euripides. Later, Plato analysed political systems, abstracted their analysis from more literary and history-oriented studies,and applied an approach we would understand as closer to philosophy. Similarly, Aristotle built upon Plato’s analysis to include historical empirical evidence in his analysis. During the times of ancient Rome, famous historians such as Polybius, Livy, and Plutarch documented the rise of the Roman Republic and the organisation and histories of other nations while statesmen like Julius Caesar and Cicero provided us with examples of the politics of the republic and Rome's empire and wars. The study of politics during this age was oriented towards understanding history, methods of governing, and describing the operation of governments. With the fall of the Roman Empire, there arose a more diffused arena for political studies. The rise of monotheism and Christianity brought to light a new space for politics and political action. During the Middle Ages, the study of politics was widespread in the churches and courts and works such as those of Augustine of Hippo (The City of God) and Thomas Aquinas (Suma Theologica) synthesised current philosophies and political traditions with those of Christianity, redefining the borders between what was religious and what was political. In the Middle East and later other Islamic areas, works such as the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and Epic of Kings by Firdawsi provided evidence of political analysis while the Islamic Aristotelians such as Avicenna and later Maimonides and Averroes continued Aristotle’s tradition of analysis and empiricism by writing commentaries on Aristotle’s works. During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli established the emphasis of modern political science on direct empirical observation of political institutions. Later, the expansion of the scientific paradigm during the Enlightenment pushed the study of politics beyond normative determinants. With the beginning of the 16th - 17th centuries,traditionalism with its speculative and normative analysis of political system and political concepts began losing ground, though historical and comparative methods of understanding politics were still in vogue. In the meantime, the empirical- scientific approaches started gaining importance. The focus on politics began to shift from the description of political institutions/concepts to their structures in the latter part of the eighteenth century when the constitutions and the governmental organs were discussed together with their legal and constitutional obligations—the approach now being descriptive—legal, though it was relatively more practical. The nineteenth century study of politics, besides debating on questions such as merits and demerits of varying forms of government, came to lay emphasis on the study of facts and on the functioning of the political systems, i.e., from the study of institutions to their working (James Bryce, American Commonwealth, 1888 and Modern Democracies, 1924). With Arthur Bentley (The Process of Government), Graham Wallas (Human Nature in Politics), and later Charles Merrim (New Aspects of Politics) and his Chicago School, the departure from the traditional political science to the modern one was complete when: i. the process aspect came to be regarded as important, ii. human behaviour came to be seen as the basic unit of study, iii. facts and data, and the interdisciplinary thinking, came to be described as realistic for analysing political phenomena. The approach that came to be recognised for political analyses was no more historical, legal-formal, or evaluative. The scientific, empirical, positivistic approaches with theirvarying degrees came to be pursued by the behaviouralists and post-behaviouralists during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The dialectical-materialistic method of the study of politics was common in the Marxian writings. From 1980s, the discipline entered its contemporary period when phenomena such as substantive democracy, social justice, human rights, feminism, environmentalism, development, terrorism, global warming, and globalisation caught the attention of political theorists. Contemporary Political Science has a full agenda of challenges before it, seeking to meet it with approaches, both traditional and modern, i.e., normative-empirical-strategic and with tools such as consensual and conversational. Additionally, contemporary political theory needs to resolve the dilemma between normative, philosophical analysis, between the philosophical and behaviour analysis, as also the re- emergence of ideological divisions as coming through John Rawls (1971) and Robert Nozick (1974) and the rise of feminism and emergence of “New Left and New Right” and “communitarianism”. Vi. POLITICAL THEORY: CLASSICAL, MODERN, CONTEMPORARY (a) Classical Political Theory Political theory, in a traditional form, emerged in ancient Greek culture, largely in the writings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and continued until the beginning of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The classical paradigm, according to Sheldon Wolin (Politics and Vision), has the following features: i. The classical political therory is related to the practice ofvi. systematic enquiry so as to acquire reliable knowledge about matters relating to the people, especially those concerning their political life. ii. As a philosophical pursuit, the classical political theory sought to establish a rational basis for belief, and as a political pursuit, a rational basis for action. The classical political theory attempted to identify the political with common involvements, which men shared as partners. The Greek polis, the Roman respublica, the mediaeval times usage of commonvweal, all denoted a sharing of what is common. . The basic unit of analysis relating to the classical political theory has always been the political whole — The state, the idea of a system, an order, and the resultant conception of balance, equilibrium, stability, and harmony. That was why that the classical political theorists always tried to analyse the sources of conflicts, anarchy, instability, and revolution, and on them, attempted to enunciate the principles of justice and morality, of duties and obligations. . The classical political theory thrived on the significance of comparative studies for supplying a more comprehensive explanation and a wide range of alternatives. That was the reason why the classical political theory developed a classification of political forms (e.g. monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, and their variants) and a set of concepts such as law, citizenship, and justice. The classical political theory had largely been ethical in nature. Its response was rooted in a moral outlook— Plato advocated the ideal state; Aristotle, a state that can achieve the best possible; St. Augustine, the city of God.vii. The classical political philosophers by projecting the best form of polity as the ideal, revealed the boldness and radicalism of classical theorising, though some dismissed such ideas as utopian and visionary. (b) Modern Political Theory Modern political theory encompasses in itself a host of diverse trends which include the _ institu-tional-structural, scientific, positivistic, empirical, behavioural, post-behavioural and even the Marxist. Thus, when one talks of modern political theory, one talks of all these trends — trends which dominated the greater part of the 20* century. It is since the 1960s-70s that contemporary political theory starts. The classical political theory, by and large, was philosophical, normative, idealistic and to some extent, historical. Ideologically, modern political theory can be classified into two divisions — the liberal including the individualists, the elitists and the pluralists on the one hand, and the Marxists including the dialectical-materialists on the other. The liberal tradition, beginning from 15th-16th centuries, arose as a reaction against the classical political theory and after traveling through its institutional-structural voyage reached scientific-positivist-empiricist goals so to make way for the behavioural and the post-behavioural political theory. The Marxist political theory offered a diametrically opposite view to the one advocated in whole of the West. Having found the classical political theory sufficiently inadequate to answer the questions posed by the changing times of the 18th-19th centuries in the West, the modern political theory, as it came to be expressed in the institutional- positivist, empiricist-behavioural, and post-behavioural trends, dubbed the whole classical tradition as dull. Their advocates,from Merriam and Key and down to Dahl, Lasswell, Easton, deplored the historical-evaluative tradition of the classical political theory. Instead, they laid emphasis on the scientific- empirical-behavioral study as the most plausible one to understand the intricacies of politics. They sought to lay stress on present rather on past; living rather on dull; immediate rather on remote; objective rather on subjective; analytic rather on theoretical. They attempted to build a science of politics-objective, clinical, value-free, observational, measurable, and operational. Historically stated, modern political theory as it arose in the West, emerged from the shadow of positivism-empiricism. Until then, political theory, mostly classical, was confined to a marginal role, being conceived at best, as a body of classic texts of mostly historical interest, and usually found in philosophy, history, and logic. Positivism-empiricism denied the early political theory the status of a legitimate form of knowledge and enquiry. According the positivist and empiricist outlooks, all knowledge is found in sensory observation; concepts and generalisations represent only the particulars from which they have been abstracted; values do not play any role in the formation of knowledge. As the meaning of concepts and theories, the positivists-empiricists believe, is directly tied to empirical observations, therefore, value judgements should not be accorded the status of knowledge. Accordingly, the normative statements of political theory are characterised as mere declarations. Though, positivism and empiricism did not last long, their legacy thrived for a long time, particularly in North America. This legacy was scienticism. The influence of scienticism on the emerging behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism was both apparent and real. Behaviouralism, on its own, had certain features: it encouraged the systematic introduction ofquantitative methods of analysis as the supreme methods of inquiry; it sought to displace the theoretical framework of normative political theorists by the development of empirical theory; and it decisively rejected the history of political theory as the primary source of interpretation. Post-behaviouralism was an extension of behaviouralism which added the credos of action, relevance and values to behaviouralism. Thus, the challenge to behaviouralism came from within, from post- behaviouralism. Modern political theory of the western shade, as it developed over time, had certain features, particularly the following: i, Facts and data constitute the bases of study. Facts are accumulated, explained, and used for testing hypothesis. ii. Human behaviour can be studied and regularities of human behaviour can be expressed in generalisations. iii. Subjectivity gives way to objectivity; philosophical interpretation to analytical explanation; purposive to procedural; descriptive to observational; and normative to scientific. iv. Facts and values are separated. While in the early period, the facts were given all values, the values had no place in research, yet in the later period, values came to make the facts as relevant as possible. v. The methods adopted for research and studies are to be self-conscious, explicit, and quantitative. vi. Political activity is an activity influenced by numerous other activities — social, economic, religious, moral, psychological, ecological, and the like. Hence, inter- disciplinary synthesis is bound to yield rather better results.vii. "What it is” is more important than either “What it was” or “What it would be” for the present is nearer to either past or future. viii. Realism holds more weight than what is dul! or what is utopian. What and how and why a State does is more relevant than what it had been doing or is likely to do. ix. Values are to support facts; substance, to forms; theory, to research. This is the theme of post-behaviouralism. x. The journey from behaviouralism to post-behaviouralism is a journey from status quo to social change. The modern Western political theory combines the merits of its empirical, formal, and normative shades. It is concerned with both facts and values, both description and prescription, both explanation and valuation. At the other end of modern political theory stands the Marxist political theory. The Marxist political theory, also called the dialectical materialist or the scientific-socialist, is one which describes the general laws of motion in the development of all phenomena. Its importance lies in change through the struggle between opposites: between relations of production and productive forces with a view to have a better mode of production; development from the lower stage to the higher one: from, say, capitalistic to socialistic and from socialistic to communistic. The dialectical-materialist theory provides a systematic and scientific framework of analysing and explaining, say, for example social and political change. It is a method of interpreting the past, understanding the present, and projecting the future. (c) Contemporary Political Theory The political theorists after the 1960s and 1970s have demonstrated the need of political theory in this fast changingworld of ours. That is why the interest in political theory is constantly growing in our times. This is partly because behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism, with their too much emphasis on science, have led us nowhere close to realities on the one hand and partly because of the failure of the Marxist model in some parts of the world on the other. Soon, it was realised that political theory is more than a philosophy as it is also more than a science. Its mere reliance on philosophy robs it from being relevant and its too much stress on science obviates it from serving as a vision. It is not that we are parting away from our immediate past but it is as if we are attempting to build on it. If the task of political theory is, as it had been, to make us understand the political phenomenon, then it becomes necessary that it should confine itself to the explanation, investigation, and ultimately comprehension of what relates to politics — concepts, principles, and institutions. This is what contemporary political theory is doing. Brian Barry (Political Argument, 1965), while seeking to reconstruct and rediscover the role of political theory, attempts to “study the relation between principles and institutions,” explanatory task of political theory should not lose sight of what existed in the past. John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 1971) refers to another task of contemporary political theory — a continuous search for truth, and suggests that the attempt can be made alongside the scientific-empirical methods. R. Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1970) while rejuvenating on the recovery of political theory from its virtual demise, reverts to the individualist model of minimal State and believes that contemporary political theory can solve many political problems by combining the classical ends with empirical means, travelling through, the great debates of the end ofideology (Bell, Galbraith, Lipset) and the end of history (Fukuyama). The consensus, for example, (John Plamenatz; Democracy and Illusion, 1973) is that the empirical analysis and reflections of a logical and moral character can co-exist in political theory. Highlighting the characteristic features of contemporary political theory, David Held refers to the following: vi. Contemporary political theory has been renewed as the history of political thought involving an attempt to examine the significance of text in their historical context. . Contemporary political theory has sought to revitalise the discipline as a form of conceptual analysis and in the process finding political theory as a systemic reflection upon, and classification of the meanings of the key forms and concepts such as globalisation, democracy, justice, and the like. Contemporary political theory has been developed as the systematic elaboration of the underlying structure of our moral and political activities — the disclosure, examination and reconstruction of the foundations of political value. . Contemporary political theory has been revitalised as a form of argument concerned with abstract theoretical questions and particular political issues. . Contemporary political theory has been championed as a critique of all forms of foundationalism either post- modernists or the liberal defenders. It, accordingly, presents itself as a stimulant to dialogue and to conversation among humanbeings. Contemporary political theory has been elaborated as a form of systematic model-building influenced bytheoretical economics, rational choice theory and game theory, it aims to construct formal methods of political processes. vii. Contemporary political theory has developed as the theoretical enterprise of the discipline of political science. As such it attempts to construct theory on the basis of observation and makes empirical generalisations. Summing up, David Held offers a number of distinct tasks of political theory “first, the philosophical-concerned, above all, with the conceptual and normative; second, the empirical- analytic-concerned, above all, with the problems of understanding and explanation; and third, the strategic concerned, above all with an assessment of the feasibility of moving from where we are to where we might like to be.” To these, one may add the historical, the examination of the changing meaning of political discourse—its key concepts, theories, and concerns — over time. The post-1970s, while witnessing new developments in political theory, gave rise to four distinct views: i. With Rawls, political theory, as branch of moral philosophy has been described as essentially normative. Accordingly, the task of political theory is not only to develop general principles for evaluating the social structure, but also to design appropriate institutions, procedures and policies, [See Ackerman, Social Justice in the Liberal State (1980); Barry, A Treatise on Social Justice (1989); and Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, 1979]. ii. Political theory is primarily contemplative and reflective enquiry concerned to understand human existence ingeneral. So understood, as was really viewed in its older form, it is neither a branch of moral philosophy nor normative in its orientation [See Taylor, Philosophical Papers (1985); MacIntyre After Virtue (1981); Connolly, Political Theory and Modernity, (1988)]. iii. Political theory is primarily concerned to articulate the self-understanding of a particular community, and that it is necessarily municipal in its scope and interpretive in its orientation. (See Walzer, Sphere of Justice, 1983). iv. Political theory needs to be tentative, exploratory, conversational, open-minded, ironic, and sensitive. Such scholars draw inspiration from post-structuralist and post-modernistic writers. (See Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, 1989). Vil. POLITICAL THEORY: SIGNIFICANCE AND UTILITY Political theory is no easy and simple enterprise. It is an elaborate and a consistent exercise, aiming to achieve a better world of politics. Philosophy and science have no privileged cognitive status in political theory. All political philosophy makes claims about the operation of the political world—claims which require detailed examinations within the model of enquiry which go beyond those available to philosophy alone. All political science raises normative questions which a dedication to the normative-explanatory does not eliminate. Political theory requires the philosophical analysis of concepts and principles and the empirical understanding of political processes and structures. Neither philosophy nor science, in their individual capacity, can easily replace the other in the projection of political theory. This is so because systematic political knowledge embodyinggeneralisations about patterns of political life is possible and the efforts to achieve it are, rather should be, the major tasks of political theory. Political theory is more than a discipline; it is an intellectual exercise as also an activity. It is needed as a philosophy just as it is needed as a science. Germino very aptly writes “Turning his back to distortions, over-implications, sloganeering and demagoguery, the political theorist speaks out with honesty on the perpetual problems confronting man and his existence in society. Political theory as a philosophy will always attempt to find out the truth in every situation, and as a science, will always reach the truth.” Plamenatz holds the view that political theory is not fantasy or the parading of prejudices, nor an intellectual game. Still less it “is a linguistic analysis,” but, “is an elaborate, rigorous, difficult, and useful understanding,” and “as much needed as any science.” John Plamenatz, in his essay entitled “The Uses of Political Theory” does not agree. As he puts it: “Political philosophy (meaning here political theory) is dead, | have heard men say, killed by the logical positivists and their successors who have shown that many of the problems which exercises the great political thinkers of the past were spurious, resting in confusions of the sight and the misuse of the language.” According to him, political theory has its uses which may be stated as under: i. Political theory is a serious and difficult intellectual activity and the need for this kind of exercise in modern times is indeed much greater. ii. It is a study of values, norms, and goals, though it does not produce the same kind of knowledge as empiricalpolitical theory does. iii. It is a study of theories which have, historically, powerfully influenced men’s images of themselves and of society, and profoundly determined their social and political behaviour. iv. It has an element of socially conditioned ideology. This ideology may be an illusion, and yet, unless man had these illusions, the course of social development would not have been what it is. v. It produces a coherent system of political principles which can guide us to an appropriate political action. Its political theorists, as Plamenatz says, “do not, like honest shopkeepers, display a large variety of goods, describing them all accurately and leaving it to the customer to choose what pleases him most. They produce a hierarchy of principles, and try to explain how men should use them to make their choices... They are not mere purveyors of ideas; they are the preachers and the propagandists.” C. Wright Mills (The Marxists, 1962) writes, “Political philosophies are intellectual and moral creations. They contain high ideals, easy slogans, dubious facts, crude propaganda, and sophisticated theories.” He describes the significance of political theory, saying: i. Firstly, it is itself a social reality; it is an ideology in terms of which certain institutions and practices are justified and others attacked; it provides the phrases in which demands are raised, criticisms made, exhortations delivered, proclamations formulated, and at times, policies determined. ii. “Second, it is an ethic, an articulation of ideal, which, atvarious levels of generality and sophistication, is used in judging men, events, and movements and as goals and guidelines for aspirations and policies. iii. “Third, it designates agencies of action, of the means of reform, revolution, and conservation. It contains strategies and programmes that embody both ends and means. It designates, in short, the historical levels by which ideals are to be won or maintained after they have been won. iv. “Fourth, it contains theories of man, society, and history, or at least assumptions about how society is made up, and how it works. It tells us how to find out where we stand and where we may be going.” Political theory aims at comprehending the world in which it comes into being. It tries to identify its salient character, to understand its crisis, and it assesses its capacity to resolve that crisis. Political theory contributes to the capacity of man to understand himself and after himself, his polity and history. It exhorts man to take command of his own common affairs. In short, it explains, illuminates, understands, evaluates, enlightens, and alters. By way of conclusion, one may say that political theory builds a model of the highest political order, serves as a guide to the systematic collection and provides an analysis of political data. As a science, political theory describes political reality without trying to pass judgement on what is being depicted. As a philosophy, it describes rules of conduct which help secure good life. SUMMING UP Political theory has in its elements of history, science andphilosophy. In relation to history, political theory is the outcome of a peculiar set of historical circumstances and as such has significance for all times to come. This makes the character of political theory as an attempt truly to know the nature of political things along with what is right, and good in them. In relation to science, political theory seeks to strive knowledge, as of facts or principles, gained by systematic system. Political theory, so understood, is philosophical as well as scientific, normative as well as empirical, evaluative as well as explanatory, historical as well as analytical. Contemporary political theory is more of continuity than of change. When the political scientists in the West were trying to bring in scienticism and empiricism, they were not rejecting all that was the essence of traditional political theory. To an extent, they were developing it to what is considered political. In a way, they were liberalising political theory from its descriptive-interpretative shackles. They did realise the utility of knowing what political had been at a particular time and under a particular situation. They did acknowledge the teachings of a particular political philosopher and his legacy. As such, they did not dismiss anything as worthless in all these philosophies. Seen in this perspective, the empirical- scientific (behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism including) trend in political theory was not a change but a continuation of normative-philosophical tradition. Likewise those who attempted to look at political theory more from a sociological point of view (de Tocqueville, Graham Wallas, Bagehot, and others) or more from a psychological point of view (Hobbes, for example), were merely adding numerous dimensions so as to understand political theory more clearly. Understood as this, the emphasis laid by the American scholars during the greater part of the post-war period, in the interdisciplinary approach inpolitics was not an attempt to denigrate it but was an endeavour to give politics a full meaning, making it more understand-able and relevant. Similarly, recent efforts to reject scientific jargons, purely empirically drawn conclusions, and _ technique-oriented models are measures to set the worthlessness of political theory aright. Contemporary political theory is not condemning all empiricism or behaviouralism. Its science element has been retained to point out the benefits of social sciences as its philosophical content useful for understanding sciences related to society. So understood, political theory is not, and has never been, a break with the past, but is one that is in the state of constant continuity. We may conclude with Isaiah Berlin, in a rather lengthy statement: “Neo-Marxism, neo-Thomism, nationalism, historicism, existentialism, anti- existential, liberalism and socialism, transportation of doctrines of natural rights and natural laws into empirical terms, discoveries made by skilful application of models derived from economic and related techniques to political behaviour and the collusions, combinations, and consequences in action of these ideas indicate not the death of a great tradition, but, if anything, new and unpredictable developments.” Political theory is an attempt of all times. It explains, examines, and investigates problems where it exists and suggests, as a corollary, the solutions to them. David Easton mentions three useful functions of political theory: i. To identify the significant political variables and describe their mutual relations. To ensure this, an analytical scheme is essential. This would render-research meaningful and arranges facts leading to generalisation.ii. The existence, and wide acceptance of and consensus by workers in the field, on a theoretical framework, would enable the results of the various researches to be compared. It would help in the verification of conclusions drawn by the earlier researches and may also reveal the area of research which require more empirical work. iii. Finally, the existence of a theoretical framework, or at least, a relatively consistent body of concepts, making research more reliable. But this is what a theory does as a science. Though such functions of political theory, in themselves, are, indeed, important, yet they help in understanding the phenomena, not the phenomenon; the whole and not a part. Theory is not merely a science it is a philosophy as well; not a phenomenon but phenomena as well; not a part but a whole as well. Indeed, political theory does make people understand as to what the present is and for what the present exists. But it does more than that. Accordingly, it rises above being the attendant of the status quo; it deals with larger functions of how the present has come to stay, on what assumptions does it exist and where would it, in future, lead to. Political theory, no doubt, arises from a specific context, but its significance extends beyond that. It, to a great extent, contributes to the capacity of man to understand himself, his system, his society, and his history. Its job is not merely to understand the system around him but is one through which he is to take the command of his own affairs himself. Political theory serves as a teacher, a guide and a philosopher of human-beings, in general, in their attempts to comprehend and control the whole environment—both social and natural.