Response Paper:

Sartori, Giovanni (1973). “What is Politics”, Political Theory, 1 (1): 5-26.

URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/191073

The journal written by Giovanni Sartori explains a fundamental question: What is

politics? The author conceptualizes the meaning of Political Science as coming from

the interaction of two variables: the state of the organization of knowledge and the

degree of structural differentiation within the framework of human collectivities. The

state of the organization of knowledge means an organization that can manage all

information, knowledge, and systems to produce, change, and manage a policy for the

realization of the common interests of society.

Meanwhile, the degree of structural differentiation within the framework of human

collectivities means a series of activities connected to the decision-making process

within a group or other forms of power relationships between individuals, such as the

distribution of power or status. The author also emphasizes the fundamental differences

between science and philosophy in politics. Precision in science can be realized by

separating philosophical knowledge.

I agree with the concept of political definition explained by the author because

science cannot explain scientifically what is called opinion, theory, doctrine, and

ideology. After all, the social dynamics in society move very quickly, so there is no

answer or concrete views that can explain a social phenomenon.1

On the other hand, the author also explains how economic behavior differs from

moral behavior. This difference can be seen from various criteria. If economic behavior

is based on benefits and utility, then moral behavior is based on goodness criteria. If

1
Martono, Nanang (2012). Sosiologi Perubahan Sosial. (Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindo Persada), p. 455.
economic behavior maximizes assets, profits, material, and personal interests, then

moral behavior emphasizes obedience and is altruistic. Then what about political

behavior? This journal argues that political behavior does not have the same criteria as

economic and moral behavior.

Historically, political behavior has been identified with the criteria of decreasing

the call of duty and increasing the temptation to seek profit. This means that politicians

tend to focus solely on seeking power rather than working for the people. Therefore,

according to Gabriel A. Almond (structural-functional analysis), David Easton (general

system analysis), Karl W. Deutsch (communication theory), David Truman, and Robert

Dahl state that political institutions or political beliefs must be more focused on

observing political behavior. 2

In a political system, input will be received through support or demands from

society. Then, this input will be processed into output through policies or regulations.

These outputs will be returned to the environment at a particular stage to find feedback

or new input. That way, stability will be realized, and this happens in a black box.3

Political behavior should not be understood literally because an expression cannot

indicate a specific type of behavior. In my opinion, these things can be elaborated more

easily; for example, in Indonesia, political behavior can be seen from various activities

such as campaigns, general elections, process actions, or demonstrations. In practice,

political culture in Indonesia still tends to focus on power rather than considering the

interests of its people.4 If the nation's leaders can focus more on policies and the

2
Budiardjo, Miriam (2008). Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Politik, (Jakarta : PT. Ikrar Mandiriabadi), p. 10
3
Blindenbacher, Raoul and Nashat, Bidjan (2010), The Black Box of Governmental Learning
The Learning Spiral -- A Concept to Organize Learning in Governments. (USA: World Bank
Publications), p. 48.
4
Isabela, Monica Ayu Caesar dan Nailufar, Nibras Nada (2022), Budaya Politik di Indonesia in
https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2022/02/17/00300031/budaya-politik-di-indonesia (7th of Oct 2023)
common good, I believe the people will become subjects of power from a democratic

system, not objects of power.

This journal also discusses how politics can be different from morality and religion.

Machiavelli was an Italian political thinker who stated the difference between politics

and ethics and emphasized their autonomy. Independent politics must be adhered to by

politicians, while morality and religion are essential elements in politics as tools to

achieve a goal. Therefore, the author states that Machiavelli was the one who

discovered politics and not Aristotle. For example, if a country leader is being attacked,

then as a defense effort, he is forced to fight back, even though his actions can be

categorized as crimes or against ethics and religion.

This logic emphasizes that politics and ethics must be separated if a leader wants to

maintain power. Machievelli's thinking is substantial and pragmatic. It gives the

impression that a leader must have the courage to do whatever it takes to gain power,

even if the method is dirty. In his work entitled The Prince, Machiavelli explains that

relations between two countries only consist of two parts: according to what should

happen (should or ought to be) or the part that upholds the values of morality and

goodness.5 However, in my view, authoritarian power will only harm society because

authoritarian leaders tend to use all means to maintain their power, even through dirty

(immoral) means.6

5
Hadiwinata, Bob Sugeng (2017). Studi dan Teori Hubungan Internasional: Arus Utama, Alternatif,
dan Reflektivis. (Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia), p. 105.
6
Snyder, Timothy (2020). Tentang Tirani: Dua Puluh Pelajaran dari Abad Kedua Puluh. (Jakarta :
Gramedia Pustaka Utama), p. 5.