Brief on Political Analysis
Brief on Political Analysis
Politics
The frontiers of Political inquiry have continued to expand overtime. The word “politics” is derived from the Greek word ‘Polis’, meaning a city. In ancient , the basic unit of human organisation, coterminous with the State, was the city. From ‘Polis ‘ came the word ‘Polities’ meaning ‘citizen’, and ‘Politikos’, an adjective meaning ‘appertaining to the city, the citizen, and citizenship’. (Khan, et al, 1987:3). From ‘Politikos’ is derived the English word “politics” which implies the study of the general principles on which government can be carried on successfully; in other words, the study of the exercise of power.
The truth remains that the entire gamut of human activities falls within the sphere of political control. The above brings to fore the Aristotlean conception that ‘every man is a political animal’. Not animal in the lower animal sense but simply because politics dictates man’s basic existence. The American Political Scientist, Robert Dahl (1990:1) puts it more succinctly: Politics is one of the unavoidable facts of human existence and if politics is inescapable, so are the consequences of politics”.
Thus, since politics is the concern of everybody, no one should ever pride himself as being ‘not interested in politics’.
Harold Lasswell conceives politics as “Who gets What, When and How?” (Lasswell, 1936). The above definition conceives politics from the sense of people who are in power at a particular moment or those who can influence incumbents to determine how the power and resources of the State are appropriated. Also, George Kousolas (1981) limits the scope of politics to the State and its institutions by explaining it as “those activities that are closely related to the State and its structure of government” (Kousolas 1975:4). On the other hand, David Easton views the issue from the perspective of resource and value allocation by defining politics ‘as the authoritative allocation of values’. (Easton, 1965:50). It may be noted however, that all these divergent definitions and opinions about the concept of politics can be resolved by synthesizing all of them to posit politics as the conscious attempt to control the minds and resources of men and nations.
What then is Political Science?
There is no universally accepted definition of Political Science. The variation in the definition reveals the dynamism of the discipline and its inherent human factors. Kousoulas (1975:4) defines Political Science as “the discipline which deals with activities and interactions which are closely related to the State and its structures of Government”. Also, Alfred de Grazia (1965:24) perceived Political Science as involving “a study of the events that happens around the decision-making centers of Government”. Furthermore, the discipline can still be defined as “the means by which authoritative allocation of societal values are made” (Van Dalen and Harmon Ziegler (1977:9). Above all, Dipo Kolawole (1997:3) posited that Political Science is “the science of human co-existence within a given state and under a government which regulates behaviour, allocates resources and defines the basis for internal and external relations.
From the foregoing, it will be appropriate to define Political Science as the systematic study of governance by the application of empirical and generally scientific methods of analysis. As traditionally defined and studied, political science examines the state and its organs and institutions. The contemporary discipline, however, is considerably broader than this, encompassing studies of all the societal, economical, legal, cultural and psychological factors that mutually influence the operation of government of States across the globe.
Is Political Science, a Science?
The debate as to the scientific nature of political science is as old as the subject matter. It has created a dichotomy among scholars. Those who cannot see the need for esoteric subjugation of political inquiry into the scientific criteria are known as the traditionalists. The other school of thought which demands a scientific analysis and understanding of political issues are the behaviouralists. First and foremost, there is need to conceptualise science so as to know the appropriateness or otherwise of political science as a scientific discipline. Science refers to the “acquisition of knowledge whereby , on the basis of systematic and orderly analysis of collected data, predictive and reliable propositions are formulated”(Khan et.al, 1987:11-12) Thus, the four fundamental components of any scientific method are according to Khan (ibid) are shown below:
i.Observation and collection of data;
ii.Classification of collected data into meaningful categories;
iii.Formulation of generalization and predictions; and
iv.Verification of the generalizations to patterns, laws and tendencies.
The traditional school of thought advocates descriptive approach to the analysis and examination of political inquiry. They argue that politics involves purpose in a way in which physical science cannot approximate and for such areas of purpose; wisdom and intuitive grasp are required. The traditionalist believes that it is not possible to formulate laws in the study of human behaviour. This argument is informed by the importance of trigger mechanism in human affairs whereby the smallest events often produce the greatest effects.
On the other hand, the behavioural school requires the construction and application of theories in analysing political issues. The proponents argue that their demand of, and request for theories do not imply a laboratory testing of findings of issues of social value. This is because science is a branch of study in which knowledge is organised around empirically confirmed general laws.
The first kind of political scientists are sometimes called ‘interpretivists’, the latter ‘behaviouralists’. Interpretive political scientists are most likely to deal in historical and philosophical aspects of politics of politics and to seek detailed, non numerical information on a few cases. Behaviouralists lean more to abstract, mechanical theories of politics and to statistical analysis of issues. They find numerical information especially attractive because it distils a set of complex details down into something very simple.
Perhaps the oldest philosophical dispute has to do with the relative importance of subjectivity and objectivity. Many political scientists have attempted to develop approaches that are value-free and wholly objective. In modern political science, much of this debate takes place between structuralists and cultural theorists. Structuralists claim that the way in which the world is organized (or structured) determines politics and that the proper objects of study for political science are power, interests, and institutions, which they construe as objective features of political life. In contrast, cultural theorists, who study values, opinions, and psychology, argue that subjective perceptions of reality are more important than objective reality itself. However, most scholars now believe that the two realms feed into one another and cannot be totally separated.
Although some political scientists continue to insist that only quantified data are legitimate, some topics are not amenable to study in these terms. The decisions of top officials, for example, are often made in small groups and behind closed doors, and so understanding them requires subjective descriptive material based on interviews and observations—essentially the techniques of good journalists. If done well, these subjective studies may be more valid and longer-lived than quantitative studies.
Prior to the development of reliable survey research, most political analyses focused on elites. Once a sizable amount of research had become available, there was a considerable debate about whether rulers are guided by citizen preferences, expressed through interest groups and elections, or whether elites pursue their own goals and manipulate public opinion to achieve their ends. Despite numerous studies of public opinion, voting behaviour, and interest groups, the issue has not been resolved and, indeed, is perhaps unresolvable. Analyses can establish statistical relationships, but it has been difficult to demonstrate causality with any certainty. This debate is complicated by two factors. First, although there is a considerable body of survey and electoral data, most people ignore politics most of the time, a factor that must be considered in attempting to understand which part of the “public” policy makers listen to—all citizens, all voters, or only those expressing an intense view on a particular matter. Political analyses based on elites are hindered by a dearth of reliable elite-level data, as researchers are rarely invited into the deliberations of rulers. Accordingly, much is known about the social bases of politics but little of how and why decisions are made. Even when decision makers grant interviews or write their memoirs, firm conclusions remain elusive, because officials often provide accounts that are self-serving or misleading.
Political science has had difficulty handling rapid change; it prefers the static (stable political systems) to the dynamic. If historians are stuck in the past, political scientists are often captives of the present. For some the collapse of the showed that the theories and methods of political science are of only limited utility. Despite decades of gathering data and theorizing, political science was unable to anticipate the defining event of the post-World War II era. Critics charged that political science could describe what is but could never discern what was likely to be. Others, however, maintained that this criticism was unfair, arguing that such upheavals can be predicted, given sufficient data. Still, the demise of the spurred some political scientists to develop theories to explain political changes and transformations. Examining the collapse of authoritarian regimes and their replacement with democratic governments in , , , , , and the during the last three decades of the 20th century, they sought to develop a theory of transitions to democracy. Others argued that no such universal theory is possible and that all democratic transitions are unique.
At the beginning of the 21st century, political science was faced with a stark dilemma: the more scientific it tried to be, the more removed it found itself from the burning issues of the day. Although some research in political science would continue to be unintelligible to the layperson and even to other scholars, many political scientists attempted to steer a middle course, one that maintained a rigorous scientific approach but also addressed questions that are important to academics, citizens, and decision makers alike. Indeed, some political scientists, recognizing that many “scientific” approaches had lost their utility after a decade or two, suggested that the discipline should cease its attempts to imitate the natural sciences and return to the classic concerns of analyzing and promoting the political good.
Although political science, like all modern sciences, involves empirical investigation, it generally does not produce precise measurements and predictions. This has led some scholars to question whether the discipline can be accurately described as a science. However, if the term science applies to any body of systematically organized knowledge based on facts ascertained by empirical methods and described by as much measurement as the material allows, then political science is a science.
Power: Power is the central issue in government and politics. A chairmanship candidate in a Local Government election is out to acquire power (political). A young man who schemes to marry from a wealthy family or vice versa is seeking power (economic), likewise, the military boys who frequently incur in African politics are out to exercise power ( military). Naturally man loves power because of the benefits it carries and he will go to any extent to acquire it.
Thomas Hobbes assessed human life and saw it as tied to “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death”. Power is the ability to get other individuals to do what perhaps ordinarily, they would not have done. As Kousoulas puts it, it is “the capacity to make other human beings do what they would not ordinarily have done of their own accord”. (Kousoulas 1975:16). In a similar vein, Schuman (1989: 272) explains power essentially as the ability to win friends and influence people, to evaluate sympathy and to command obedience. In other words, power is the ability to compel obedience.
Man acquires power principally through who he is (personality), what he has (property) and where he belongs to (organisation). Man also submits to power due to threat of punishment; promise of pecuniary reward and exercise of persuasion. Apart from the economic, military and political variants of power already mentioned above, others are industrial power, gender power, physical power and spiritual powers. Nevertheless, the most important variant which stands as the core of other powers is political power. It is exercised in the context of the State.
Authority: Authority is the right to exercise power. Rais Khan et al are of the opinion that authority is the right to influence the behaviour of others. If power is the ability or capacity to compel obedience, it simply means that whoever possesses the right to compel obedience possesses authority. It is power wrapped in legitimacy.
For instance, by virtue of the mandate given President Goodluck Jonathan in the recent constitutional power succession in Nigeria, he has acquired authority from the electorate to influence their behaviour for a given time, that is, until his mandate for governance expires. One important fact to note is that the person who is being influenced must accept that the person influencing him has the right to do so. The above probably influenced Robert Dahl to posit that “Legitimate power or influence is generally called authority” (Dahl, 1990:33). In other words, authority provides legitimacy for power.
Legitimacy: Joseph LaPalombara stated the obvious when he declared: “Legitimacy is a state of the mind and not a condition of legality” (LaPalombara, 1974:48). This is to say that an action simply becomes acceptable if it is legitimate. This concept has much to do with the conscience of an individual upon which certain actions are to be operated.
Corroborating the above is George Kousoulas, who opined that the extent to which citizens regard the State, its institutions, its policies and personnel as morally right and acceptable determines the legitimacy or otherwise of a State action (Kousoulas, 1975:73). The commonest test question that citizens employ in determining the moral acceptance of State action is “do I accept that the person exercising power over me has the basis to do so?”.
Capitalism: economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services through a complex network of prices and markets. Although rooted in antiquity, capitalism is primarily European in its origins; it evolved through a number of stages, reaching its zenith in the 19th century. From Europe, and especially from England, capitalism spread throughout the world, largely unchallenged as the dominant economic and social system until World War I (1914-1918) ushered in modern communism (or Marxism) as a vigorous and hostile competing system.
The term capitalism was first introduced in the mid-19th century by Karl Marx, the founder of communism. Free enterprise and market system are terms also frequently employed to describe modern non-Communist economies. Sometimes the term mixed economy is used to designate the kind of economic system most often found in Western nations. The individual who comes closest to being the originator of contemporary capitalism is the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, who first set forth the essential economic principles that underguard this system. In his classic An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith sought to show how it was possible to pursue private gain in ways that would further not just the interests of the individual but those of society as a whole. Society's interests are met by maximum production of the things that people want. In a now famous phrase, Smith said that the combination of self-interest, private property, and competition among sellers in markets will lead producers “as by an invisible hand” to an end that they did not intend, namely, the well-being of society.
Throughout its history, but especially during its ascendency in the 19th century, capitalism has had certain key characteristics. First, basic production facilities—land and capital—are privately owned. Capital in this sense means the buildings, machines, and other equipment used to produce goods and services that are ultimately consumed. Second, economic activity is organized and coordinated through the interaction of buyers and sellers (or producers) in markets. Third, owners of land and capital as well as the workers they employ are free to pursue their own self-interests in seeking maximum gain from the use of their resources and labor in production. Consumers are free to spend their incomes in ways that they believe will yield the greatest satisfaction. This principle, called consumer sovereignty, reflects the idea that under capitalism producers will be forced by competition to use their resources in ways that will best satisfy the wants of consumers. Self-interest and the pursuit of gain lead them to do this. Fourth, under this system a minimum of government supervision is required; if competition is present, economic activity will be self-regulating. Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts. This 19th-century view of government's role in the capitalist system was significantly modified by ideas and events of the 20th century.
For several decades after World War II, the mixture of Keynesian ideas with traditional forms of capitalism have proved extraordinarily successful. Western capitalist countries, including the defeated nations of World War II, enjoyed nearly uninterrupted growth, low rates of inflation, and rising living standards. Beginning in the late 1960s, however, inflation erupted nearly everywhere, and unemployment rose. In most capitalist countries the Keynesian formulas apparently no longer worked. Critical shortages and rising costs of energy, especially petroleum, played a major role in this change. New demands imposed on the economic system included ending environmental pollution, extending equal opportunities and rewards to women and minorities, and coping with the social costs of unsafe products and working conditions. At the same time, social-welfare spending by governments continued to grow; in the , these expenditures (along with those for defense) accounted for the overwhelming proportion of all federal spending.
The current situation needs to be seen in the perspective of the long history of capitalism, particularly its extraordinary versatility and flexibility. The events of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century show that modified “mixed” or “welfare” capitalism has succeeded in building a floor under the economy. It has so far been able to prevent economic downturns from gaining enough momentum to bring about a collapse of the magnitude of the 1930s. This is no small accomplishment, and it has been achieved without the surrender of personal liberty or political democracy. The elusive goal for capitalist nations is to secure, simultaneously, high employment and stable prices. This is a formidable task, but given the historical flexibility of capitalism, the goal is both reasonable and attainable.
State: This is another word which has several meanings in the English Language depending on the context in which it is employed. It can simply mean a country, as when we say ‘War has broken out between the two States.’ It can mean a constituent unit, with its own government, of a Federal republic, as when we talk of or of . It can also mean the government of a country, as when we talk of State land, or State ownership of industry.
Actually, the State represents the level of organisation and civilisation in human societies. It is a well defined geographical territory with human population, government and sovereignty. This implies that a State must not only have distinct border demarcations, it must of necessity be occupied by people with a constituted machinery for the organisation and realisation of their individual and group interests.
State is also used to mean an association of men and women formed for specific purposes, with a clearly defined territory and an organised system of government.
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the State, it shall be defined from three perspectives:
(i) Legal Perspective
(ii) Philosophical perspective
(iii) Political perspective.
Legal perspective of the State: From this perspective, the State represents a territorial entity that has government as its administrative organ or arm, with some other essential elements that include an organized population and sovereignty. The essential elements contained or implied in this sphere are:
A definite territory (some states may exist without definite territories as evinced by ).
A State must have a determinate geographical territory or boundary that is internationally recognized. And importantly, any person within the boundaries of a state is be bound by the laws of such State. Geographical territory includes the land area, sea and water areas and outer space within the boundaries of a State.
A government organised to achieve the purposes for which the State was set up.
This is the machinery by means of which law and order are maintained, and which carries out all functions on behalf of the State. Unusually government is said to consist of three branches or arms viz: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The three constitute the administrative organ of the State. Government runs the State for the common good of the members of society.
Population (A body of men and women having a purpose).
It is not merely a group of people. Here population means a group of people organised to obey the same set of laws and distinguished from other peoples by their loyalty to the same central government. Such a people may be of same or diverse cultures or races.
A system of laws (A constitution)
This system of laws refers to the body of rules, which directly or indirectly regulates the arrangement, and the exercise of power in a State. It is the collection of principles upon which the powers of the Government, the rights of the governed and the relations between the two are designed.
Sovereignty - the power of the State to make laws and enforce them with all the means of coercion it cares to employ; and the independence of the State from foreign control.
It has two aspects. The first aspect is the internal supremacy within the state and the second aspect is the external independence from direct political control by any other State or political authority. Legal sovereignty is the most important aspect of the State. The ability and the right to manage one’s own internal and external affairs is what distinguishes a State from other units or entities such as an association, a union, a protectorate or the constituent part of a federation.
Philosophical conception of a State
The philosophical conception of the state is concerned with speculating or prescribing what a state ought to be. In other words, it is concerned with outlining the essentials of an ideal state rather than describing the elements of a state that is already in existence.
The philosophical conception of State concerns itself with the followings:
*It speculates on how the State came into being, what social life was before the State came into being, and a comparison of the two cases.
*It tries to justify the existence of the State and what its duties/responsibilities should be.
*It focuses on the essence of the State. It speculates on how best the State is organised and why it should be so organised.
Different schools of thought have contributed to this philosophical conception of the state. There is the social contract theorists like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. There are also the organic theorists like Aristotle and Fredrick Hegel.
Political conception of State
The political conception or the Marxist Perspective of State contends that the State has not always existed and will not exist forever. The State is a product of the class struggle inherent in society. It emerged to moderate the struggle and antagonism that exist between the exploited and the exploiters. It assumes the existence of dominant class (es) standing in antagonistic relationship with the dominated class(es). This is the decisive element of the State, the most important and one that actually defines the State.
It is noteworthy that, State refers essentially not to the institutions of domination and control but to the structure of power relations between classes. The institutions merely reflect the structure of power relations and the nature of the struggle between two antagonistic classes.
The State perpetuates an order in society in which the interests of the dominant class are favoured if not in the short run, then in the long run. However if the state serves only the interest of the dominant class it will not survive for too long. For its survival, it must serve some interest of the dominated class. Even so, the State will still wither away at a point in history when the conditions that created it disappear.
Theories of Origin of the State
Organic Theory: The organic theorists see the State as evolving naturally. Aristotle, a foremost scholar in this realm believes that the State emerged naturally because it is the evolutionary apex of the movement from the family to the village, the city and the ultimate culmination in the complex association of people – the State. Aristotle also believes that the State is ultimately a natural occurrence that hinges on human development and evolution.
Also, Hegel sees the State as a natural creation because it exists on earth to symbolize law and order in a bid to govern the society.
Divine Theory: This theoretical perspective argues that States are divinely created by God. Thus, both spiritual and temporal authority comes from God. Appadorai (1960) summarized the position of these theorists in the following way: (1) the State has been established by an ordinance of God; (2) its rulers are divinely appointed, and (3) the rulers are not accountable to any other authority but God. This school of thought is greatly inspired by religion.
Patriarchal Theory: This school of thought argues that the unit of ancient societies is the family in which descendancy was traced through males. This school further argues that members of the patriarchal family should trace their genealogy to the male person and that it is the patriarchal affinity that formed the basis of the modern state.
Matriarchal Theory: This is the opposite of the Patriarchal theory. This theory posits that the State emerged out of blood relationships that are better traced to mothers. It argued that masculinity has limitations and that the ancient societies were firmly built by feminine bonds.
Force Theory: The thrust of this theory is the proposition that all contemporary political communities developed out of successful warfare. The State is thus founded when a leader with his army occupies a conquered territory and establishes control and authority. The continuation of such exploits according to some theorists, in some respect, culminates in the modern State.
The Social Contract Theory: This is the most popular theory of State formation. It was postulated and developed (with similar propositions) by the trio of John Locke (1690), Thomas Hobbes (1651) and Jean Jack Rousseau (1962). A common argument in their theoretical escapades is that the society emerged by a decision of men who agreed to be under the same political body with a superintending authority. The three scholars argued that men used to live in a state of nature where the hands of every man was over every other man and life was said to be very short, brutal and nasty. In other words, the state of nature was a phenomenon under which might was considered to be right. The modern state is therefore a product of the contract between the people and the ruler, and both parties have responsibilities and obligations in accordance with the terms of the contract. The postulation of the social contract theorists can be summarized thus:
No man can make himself emperor or king;
a people sets a man over it to the end that
he may rule justly, giving to every man his
own, aiding good man and coercing bad; in
short, that he may give justice to all men.
If then he violates the agreement according
to which he was chosen, disturbing and
confounding the very things which he was
meant to put in order, reason dictates that
he absolves the people from their obedience;
especially when he has himself first broken the
faith which bound him and the people together
(Carlye, 1977).
Democracy: Democracy stresses the principle of numerical equality. It asserts, as against monarchy or aristocracy, that the mere fact of free birth is sufficient to constitute a claim to a share in political power. Abraham Lincoln, a former President of the stated what have become the simplest and arguably the most popular definition of the concept. “Government of the people, by the people and for the people”. However, the existing party and electoral system in to all intents and purposes reflects a re-definition of 's view in the sense that democracy is pursued as nothing other than: government 'off ' the people, ' buy ' the people and ' force ' the people. Apart from the above, Reo Christenson, et.al. (1973:1979) conceives democracy as a “Political system in which the people voluntarily consent to and are major participants in their government”.
However, a preponderance of the literature defines democracy in relation to its basic features: popular participation in the decision making process, open and fair competition within firmly and generally accepted rules of the game and a normative dimension that consists of the acceptance of majority rule, respect for the rule of law, protection of individual and minority rights and the safeguard of the interests of disadvantaged group. (Mimiko, 1995:1),
Democracy allows the majority to determine the direction of things, and accepts the rationality of the people in making decisions that affect them. It allows the majority to choose their leaders and decide when to change such leaders, the fundamental principles of democracy being freedom of the individual, popular sovereignty, human equality, majority rule and the principle of government by consent and contract.
In modern States, the clear expression of democracy is found in the equal rights of all normal adults to vote and to contest election; periodic elections; freedom of speech, publication, and association, public accountability rather than in specific institutional forms.
Politics
The frontiers of Political inquiry have continued to expand overtime. The word “politics” is derived from the Greek word ‘Polis’, meaning a city. In ancient , the basic unit of human organisation, coterminous with the State, was the city. From ‘Polis ‘ came the word ‘Polities’ meaning ‘citizen’, and ‘Politikos’, an adjective meaning ‘appertaining to the city, the citizen, and citizenship’. (Khan, et al, 1987:3). From ‘Politikos’ is derived the English word “politics” which implies the study of the general principles on which government can be carried on successfully; in other words, the study of the exercise of power.
The truth remains that the entire gamut of human activities falls within the sphere of political control. The above brings to fore the Aristotlean conception that ‘every man is a political animal’. Not animal in the lower animal sense but simply because politics dictates man’s basic existence. The American Political Scientist, Robert Dahl (1990:1) puts it more succinctly: Politics is one of the unavoidable facts of human existence and if politics is inescapable, so are the consequences of politics”.
Thus, since politics is the concern of everybody, no one should ever pride himself as being ‘not interested in politics’.
Harold Lasswell conceives politics as “Who gets What, When and How?” (Lasswell, 1936). The above definition conceives politics from the sense of people who are in power at a particular moment or those who can influence incumbents to determine how the power and resources of the State are appropriated. Also, George Kousolas (1981) limits the scope of politics to the State and its institutions by explaining it as “those activities that are closely related to the State and its structure of government” (Kousolas 1975:4). On the other hand, David Easton views the issue from the perspective of resource and value allocation by defining politics ‘as the authoritative allocation of values’. (Easton, 1965:50). It may be noted however, that all these divergent definitions and opinions about the concept of politics can be resolved by synthesizing all of them to posit politics as the conscious attempt to control the minds and resources of men and nations.
What then is Political Science?
There is no universally accepted definition of Political Science. The variation in the definition reveals the dynamism of the discipline and its inherent human factors. Kousoulas (1975:4) defines Political Science as “the discipline which deals with activities and interactions which are closely related to the State and its structures of Government”. Also, Alfred de Grazia (1965:24) perceived Political Science as involving “a study of the events that happens around the decision-making centers of Government”. Furthermore, the discipline can still be defined as “the means by which authoritative allocation of societal values are made” (Van Dalen and Harmon Ziegler (1977:9). Above all, Dipo Kolawole (1997:3) posited that Political Science is “the science of human co-existence within a given state and under a government which regulates behaviour, allocates resources and defines the basis for internal and external relations.
From the foregoing, it will be appropriate to define Political Science as the systematic study of governance by the application of empirical and generally scientific methods of analysis. As traditionally defined and studied, political science examines the state and its organs and institutions. The contemporary discipline, however, is considerably broader than this, encompassing studies of all the societal, economical, legal, cultural and psychological factors that mutually influence the operation of government of States across the globe.
Is Political Science, a Science?
The debate as to the scientific nature of political science is as old as the subject matter. It has created a dichotomy among scholars. Those who cannot see the need for esoteric subjugation of political inquiry into the scientific criteria are known as the traditionalists. The other school of thought which demands a scientific analysis and understanding of political issues are the behaviouralists. First and foremost, there is need to conceptualise science so as to know the appropriateness or otherwise of political science as a scientific discipline. Science refers to the “acquisition of knowledge whereby , on the basis of systematic and orderly analysis of collected data, predictive and reliable propositions are formulated”(Khan et.al, 1987:11-12) Thus, the four fundamental components of any scientific method are according to Khan (ibid) are shown below:
i.Observation and collection of data;
ii.Classification of collected data into meaningful categories;
iii.Formulation of generalization and predictions; and
iv.Verification of the generalizations to patterns, laws and tendencies.
The traditional school of thought advocates descriptive approach to the analysis and examination of political inquiry. They argue that politics involves purpose in a way in which physical science cannot approximate and for such areas of purpose; wisdom and intuitive grasp are required. The traditionalist believes that it is not possible to formulate laws in the study of human behaviour. This argument is informed by the importance of trigger mechanism in human affairs whereby the smallest events often produce the greatest effects.
On the other hand, the behavioural school requires the construction and application of theories in analysing political issues. The proponents argue that their demand of, and request for theories do not imply a laboratory testing of findings of issues of social value. This is because science is a branch of study in which knowledge is organised around empirically confirmed general laws.
The first kind of political scientists are sometimes called ‘interpretivists’, the latter ‘behaviouralists’. Interpretive political scientists are most likely to deal in historical and philosophical aspects of politics of politics and to seek detailed, non numerical information on a few cases. Behaviouralists lean more to abstract, mechanical theories of politics and to statistical analysis of issues. They find numerical information especially attractive because it distils a set of complex details down into something very simple.
Perhaps the oldest philosophical dispute has to do with the relative importance of subjectivity and objectivity. Many political scientists have attempted to develop approaches that are value-free and wholly objective. In modern political science, much of this debate takes place between structuralists and cultural theorists. Structuralists claim that the way in which the world is organized (or structured) determines politics and that the proper objects of study for political science are power, interests, and institutions, which they construe as objective features of political life. In contrast, cultural theorists, who study values, opinions, and psychology, argue that subjective perceptions of reality are more important than objective reality itself. However, most scholars now believe that the two realms feed into one another and cannot be totally separated.
Although some political scientists continue to insist that only quantified data are legitimate, some topics are not amenable to study in these terms. The decisions of top officials, for example, are often made in small groups and behind closed doors, and so understanding them requires subjective descriptive material based on interviews and observations—essentially the techniques of good journalists. If done well, these subjective studies may be more valid and longer-lived than quantitative studies.
Prior to the development of reliable survey research, most political analyses focused on elites. Once a sizable amount of research had become available, there was a considerable debate about whether rulers are guided by citizen preferences, expressed through interest groups and elections, or whether elites pursue their own goals and manipulate public opinion to achieve their ends. Despite numerous studies of public opinion, voting behaviour, and interest groups, the issue has not been resolved and, indeed, is perhaps unresolvable. Analyses can establish statistical relationships, but it has been difficult to demonstrate causality with any certainty. This debate is complicated by two factors. First, although there is a considerable body of survey and electoral data, most people ignore politics most of the time, a factor that must be considered in attempting to understand which part of the “public” policy makers listen to—all citizens, all voters, or only those expressing an intense view on a particular matter. Political analyses based on elites are hindered by a dearth of reliable elite-level data, as researchers are rarely invited into the deliberations of rulers. Accordingly, much is known about the social bases of politics but little of how and why decisions are made. Even when decision makers grant interviews or write their memoirs, firm conclusions remain elusive, because officials often provide accounts that are self-serving or misleading.
Political science has had difficulty handling rapid change; it prefers the static (stable political systems) to the dynamic. If historians are stuck in the past, political scientists are often captives of the present. For some the collapse of the showed that the theories and methods of political science are of only limited utility. Despite decades of gathering data and theorizing, political science was unable to anticipate the defining event of the post-World War II era. Critics charged that political science could describe what is but could never discern what was likely to be. Others, however, maintained that this criticism was unfair, arguing that such upheavals can be predicted, given sufficient data. Still, the demise of the spurred some political scientists to develop theories to explain political changes and transformations. Examining the collapse of authoritarian regimes and their replacement with democratic governments in , , , , , and the during the last three decades of the 20th century, they sought to develop a theory of transitions to democracy. Others argued that no such universal theory is possible and that all democratic transitions are unique.
At the beginning of the 21st century, political science was faced with a stark dilemma: the more scientific it tried to be, the more removed it found itself from the burning issues of the day. Although some research in political science would continue to be unintelligible to the layperson and even to other scholars, many political scientists attempted to steer a middle course, one that maintained a rigorous scientific approach but also addressed questions that are important to academics, citizens, and decision makers alike. Indeed, some political scientists, recognizing that many “scientific” approaches had lost their utility after a decade or two, suggested that the discipline should cease its attempts to imitate the natural sciences and return to the classic concerns of analyzing and promoting the political good.
Although political science, like all modern sciences, involves empirical investigation, it generally does not produce precise measurements and predictions. This has led some scholars to question whether the discipline can be accurately described as a science. However, if the term science applies to any body of systematically organized knowledge based on facts ascertained by empirical methods and described by as much measurement as the material allows, then political science is a science.
Power: Power is the central issue in government and politics. A chairmanship candidate in a Local Government election is out to acquire power (political). A young man who schemes to marry from a wealthy family or vice versa is seeking power (economic), likewise, the military boys who frequently incur in African politics are out to exercise power ( military). Naturally man loves power because of the benefits it carries and he will go to any extent to acquire it.
Thomas Hobbes assessed human life and saw it as tied to “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death”. Power is the ability to get other individuals to do what perhaps ordinarily, they would not have done. As Kousoulas puts it, it is “the capacity to make other human beings do what they would not ordinarily have done of their own accord”. (Kousoulas 1975:16). In a similar vein, Schuman (1989: 272) explains power essentially as the ability to win friends and influence people, to evaluate sympathy and to command obedience. In other words, power is the ability to compel obedience.
Man acquires power principally through who he is (personality), what he has (property) and where he belongs to (organisation). Man also submits to power due to threat of punishment; promise of pecuniary reward and exercise of persuasion. Apart from the economic, military and political variants of power already mentioned above, others are industrial power, gender power, physical power and spiritual powers. Nevertheless, the most important variant which stands as the core of other powers is political power. It is exercised in the context of the State.
Authority: Authority is the right to exercise power. Rais Khan et al are of the opinion that authority is the right to influence the behaviour of others. If power is the ability or capacity to compel obedience, it simply means that whoever possesses the right to compel obedience possesses authority. It is power wrapped in legitimacy.
For instance, by virtue of the mandate given President Goodluck Jonathan in the recent constitutional power succession in Nigeria, he has acquired authority from the electorate to influence their behaviour for a given time, that is, until his mandate for governance expires. One important fact to note is that the person who is being influenced must accept that the person influencing him has the right to do so. The above probably influenced Robert Dahl to posit that “Legitimate power or influence is generally called authority” (Dahl, 1990:33). In other words, authority provides legitimacy for power.
Legitimacy: Joseph LaPalombara stated the obvious when he declared: “Legitimacy is a state of the mind and not a condition of legality” (LaPalombara, 1974:48). This is to say that an action simply becomes acceptable if it is legitimate. This concept has much to do with the conscience of an individual upon which certain actions are to be operated.
Corroborating the above is George Kousoulas, who opined that the extent to which citizens regard the State, its institutions, its policies and personnel as morally right and acceptable determines the legitimacy or otherwise of a State action (Kousoulas, 1975:73). The commonest test question that citizens employ in determining the moral acceptance of State action is “do I accept that the person exercising power over me has the basis to do so?”.
Capitalism: economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services through a complex network of prices and markets. Although rooted in antiquity, capitalism is primarily European in its origins; it evolved through a number of stages, reaching its zenith in the 19th century. From Europe, and especially from England, capitalism spread throughout the world, largely unchallenged as the dominant economic and social system until World War I (1914-1918) ushered in modern communism (or Marxism) as a vigorous and hostile competing system.
The term capitalism was first introduced in the mid-19th century by Karl Marx, the founder of communism. Free enterprise and market system are terms also frequently employed to describe modern non-Communist economies. Sometimes the term mixed economy is used to designate the kind of economic system most often found in Western nations. The individual who comes closest to being the originator of contemporary capitalism is the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith, who first set forth the essential economic principles that underguard this system. In his classic An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith sought to show how it was possible to pursue private gain in ways that would further not just the interests of the individual but those of society as a whole. Society's interests are met by maximum production of the things that people want. In a now famous phrase, Smith said that the combination of self-interest, private property, and competition among sellers in markets will lead producers “as by an invisible hand” to an end that they did not intend, namely, the well-being of society.
Throughout its history, but especially during its ascendency in the 19th century, capitalism has had certain key characteristics. First, basic production facilities—land and capital—are privately owned. Capital in this sense means the buildings, machines, and other equipment used to produce goods and services that are ultimately consumed. Second, economic activity is organized and coordinated through the interaction of buyers and sellers (or producers) in markets. Third, owners of land and capital as well as the workers they employ are free to pursue their own self-interests in seeking maximum gain from the use of their resources and labor in production. Consumers are free to spend their incomes in ways that they believe will yield the greatest satisfaction. This principle, called consumer sovereignty, reflects the idea that under capitalism producers will be forced by competition to use their resources in ways that will best satisfy the wants of consumers. Self-interest and the pursuit of gain lead them to do this. Fourth, under this system a minimum of government supervision is required; if competition is present, economic activity will be self-regulating. Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts. This 19th-century view of government's role in the capitalist system was significantly modified by ideas and events of the 20th century.
For several decades after World War II, the mixture of Keynesian ideas with traditional forms of capitalism have proved extraordinarily successful. Western capitalist countries, including the defeated nations of World War II, enjoyed nearly uninterrupted growth, low rates of inflation, and rising living standards. Beginning in the late 1960s, however, inflation erupted nearly everywhere, and unemployment rose. In most capitalist countries the Keynesian formulas apparently no longer worked. Critical shortages and rising costs of energy, especially petroleum, played a major role in this change. New demands imposed on the economic system included ending environmental pollution, extending equal opportunities and rewards to women and minorities, and coping with the social costs of unsafe products and working conditions. At the same time, social-welfare spending by governments continued to grow; in the , these expenditures (along with those for defense) accounted for the overwhelming proportion of all federal spending.
The current situation needs to be seen in the perspective of the long history of capitalism, particularly its extraordinary versatility and flexibility. The events of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century show that modified “mixed” or “welfare” capitalism has succeeded in building a floor under the economy. It has so far been able to prevent economic downturns from gaining enough momentum to bring about a collapse of the magnitude of the 1930s. This is no small accomplishment, and it has been achieved without the surrender of personal liberty or political democracy. The elusive goal for capitalist nations is to secure, simultaneously, high employment and stable prices. This is a formidable task, but given the historical flexibility of capitalism, the goal is both reasonable and attainable.
State: This is another word which has several meanings in the English Language depending on the context in which it is employed. It can simply mean a country, as when we say ‘War has broken out between the two States.’ It can mean a constituent unit, with its own government, of a Federal republic, as when we talk of or of . It can also mean the government of a country, as when we talk of State land, or State ownership of industry.
Actually, the State represents the level of organisation and civilisation in human societies. It is a well defined geographical territory with human population, government and sovereignty. This implies that a State must not only have distinct border demarcations, it must of necessity be occupied by people with a constituted machinery for the organisation and realisation of their individual and group interests.
State is also used to mean an association of men and women formed for specific purposes, with a clearly defined territory and an organised system of government.
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the State, it shall be defined from three perspectives:
(i) Legal Perspective
(ii) Philosophical perspective
(iii) Political perspective.
Legal perspective of the State: From this perspective, the State represents a territorial entity that has government as its administrative organ or arm, with some other essential elements that include an organized population and sovereignty. The essential elements contained or implied in this sphere are:
A definite territory (some states may exist without definite territories as evinced by ).
A State must have a determinate geographical territory or boundary that is internationally recognized. And importantly, any person within the boundaries of a state is be bound by the laws of such State. Geographical territory includes the land area, sea and water areas and outer space within the boundaries of a State.
A government organised to achieve the purposes for which the State was set up.
This is the machinery by means of which law and order are maintained, and which carries out all functions on behalf of the State. Unusually government is said to consist of three branches or arms viz: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The three constitute the administrative organ of the State. Government runs the State for the common good of the members of society.
Population (A body of men and women having a purpose).
It is not merely a group of people. Here population means a group of people organised to obey the same set of laws and distinguished from other peoples by their loyalty to the same central government. Such a people may be of same or diverse cultures or races.
A system of laws (A constitution)
This system of laws refers to the body of rules, which directly or indirectly regulates the arrangement, and the exercise of power in a State. It is the collection of principles upon which the powers of the Government, the rights of the governed and the relations between the two are designed.
Sovereignty - the power of the State to make laws and enforce them with all the means of coercion it cares to employ; and the independence of the State from foreign control.
It has two aspects. The first aspect is the internal supremacy within the state and the second aspect is the external independence from direct political control by any other State or political authority. Legal sovereignty is the most important aspect of the State. The ability and the right to manage one’s own internal and external affairs is what distinguishes a State from other units or entities such as an association, a union, a protectorate or the constituent part of a federation.
Philosophical conception of a State
The philosophical conception of the state is concerned with speculating or prescribing what a state ought to be. In other words, it is concerned with outlining the essentials of an ideal state rather than describing the elements of a state that is already in existence.
The philosophical conception of State concerns itself with the followings:
*It speculates on how the State came into being, what social life was before the State came into being, and a comparison of the two cases.
*It tries to justify the existence of the State and what its duties/responsibilities should be.
*It focuses on the essence of the State. It speculates on how best the State is organised and why it should be so organised.
Different schools of thought have contributed to this philosophical conception of the state. There is the social contract theorists like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. There are also the organic theorists like Aristotle and Fredrick Hegel.
Political conception of State
The political conception or the Marxist Perspective of State contends that the State has not always existed and will not exist forever. The State is a product of the class struggle inherent in society. It emerged to moderate the struggle and antagonism that exist between the exploited and the exploiters. It assumes the existence of dominant class (es) standing in antagonistic relationship with the dominated class(es). This is the decisive element of the State, the most important and one that actually defines the State.
It is noteworthy that, State refers essentially not to the institutions of domination and control but to the structure of power relations between classes. The institutions merely reflect the structure of power relations and the nature of the struggle between two antagonistic classes.
The State perpetuates an order in society in which the interests of the dominant class are favoured if not in the short run, then in the long run. However if the state serves only the interest of the dominant class it will not survive for too long. For its survival, it must serve some interest of the dominated class. Even so, the State will still wither away at a point in history when the conditions that created it disappear.
Theories of Origin of the State
Organic Theory: The organic theorists see the State as evolving naturally. Aristotle, a foremost scholar in this realm believes that the State emerged naturally because it is the evolutionary apex of the movement from the family to the village, the city and the ultimate culmination in the complex association of people – the State. Aristotle also believes that the State is ultimately a natural occurrence that hinges on human development and evolution.
Also, Hegel sees the State as a natural creation because it exists on earth to symbolize law and order in a bid to govern the society.
Divine Theory: This theoretical perspective argues that States are divinely created by God. Thus, both spiritual and temporal authority comes from God. Appadorai (1960) summarized the position of these theorists in the following way: (1) the State has been established by an ordinance of God; (2) its rulers are divinely appointed, and (3) the rulers are not accountable to any other authority but God. This school of thought is greatly inspired by religion.
Patriarchal Theory: This school of thought argues that the unit of ancient societies is the family in which descendancy was traced through males. This school further argues that members of the patriarchal family should trace their genealogy to the male person and that it is the patriarchal affinity that formed the basis of the modern state.
Matriarchal Theory: This is the opposite of the Patriarchal theory. This theory posits that the State emerged out of blood relationships that are better traced to mothers. It argued that masculinity has limitations and that the ancient societies were firmly built by feminine bonds.
Force Theory: The thrust of this theory is the proposition that all contemporary political communities developed out of successful warfare. The State is thus founded when a leader with his army occupies a conquered territory and establishes control and authority. The continuation of such exploits according to some theorists, in some respect, culminates in the modern State.
The Social Contract Theory: This is the most popular theory of State formation. It was postulated and developed (with similar propositions) by the trio of John Locke (1690), Thomas Hobbes (1651) and Jean Jack Rousseau (1962). A common argument in their theoretical escapades is that the society emerged by a decision of men who agreed to be under the same political body with a superintending authority. The three scholars argued that men used to live in a state of nature where the hands of every man was over every other man and life was said to be very short, brutal and nasty. In other words, the state of nature was a phenomenon under which might was considered to be right. The modern state is therefore a product of the contract between the people and the ruler, and both parties have responsibilities and obligations in accordance with the terms of the contract. The postulation of the social contract theorists can be summarized thus:
No man can make himself emperor or king;
a people sets a man over it to the end that
he may rule justly, giving to every man his
own, aiding good man and coercing bad; in
short, that he may give justice to all men.
If then he violates the agreement according
to which he was chosen, disturbing and
confounding the very things which he was
meant to put in order, reason dictates that
he absolves the people from their obedience;
especially when he has himself first broken the
faith which bound him and the people together
(Carlye, 1977).
Democracy: Democracy stresses the principle of numerical equality. It asserts, as against monarchy or aristocracy, that the mere fact of free birth is sufficient to constitute a claim to a share in political power. Abraham Lincoln, a former President of the stated what have become the simplest and arguably the most popular definition of the concept. “Government of the people, by the people and for the people”. However, the existing party and electoral system in to all intents and purposes reflects a re-definition of 's view in the sense that democracy is pursued as nothing other than: government 'off ' the people, ' buy ' the people and ' force ' the people. Apart from the above, Reo Christenson, et.al. (1973:1979) conceives democracy as a “Political system in which the people voluntarily consent to and are major participants in their government”.
However, a preponderance of the literature defines democracy in relation to its basic features: popular participation in the decision making process, open and fair competition within firmly and generally accepted rules of the game and a normative dimension that consists of the acceptance of majority rule, respect for the rule of law, protection of individual and minority rights and the safeguard of the interests of disadvantaged group. (Mimiko, 1995:1),
Democracy allows the majority to determine the direction of things, and accepts the rationality of the people in making decisions that affect them. It allows the majority to choose their leaders and decide when to change such leaders, the fundamental principles of democracy being freedom of the individual, popular sovereignty, human equality, majority rule and the principle of government by consent and contract.
In modern States, the clear expression of democracy is found in the equal rights of all normal adults to vote and to contest election; periodic elections; freedom of speech, publication, and association, public accountability rather than in specific institutional forms.
Without any doubt, this is a great writeup on political analysis.
ReplyDeletethank you for sharing
ReplyDeletepolitics
very nice
ReplyDeletePolitics
the nice
ReplyDeletePolitics