Notes on Political Theory Part A
Part One
The Nature and Scope of Political Theory
Political
Theory is a subdivision of political science that is traditionally concerned
with the body of ideas expressed by political philosophers who have asked not
only how politics work but how it should work. These philosophers have been
concerned with the nature and justification of political obligation and
authority as well as the goals of political action. Although their
prescriptions have varied, and some have been utopian in concept; they have shared
the conviction that it is the political philosopher's duty to distinguish
between what is and what ought to be, between existing political institutions
and potentially more humane institutions.
Political
Theory – Nature and Content
Theory
building in Political Science is predicated on the notion of Scientism. As the movement from interpretivism became
consolidated and the scientific posture emerged solidified, the need to
establish basic frameworks upon which political discourse could be situated became
imperative. A theory is a higher form of generalisation that enables prediction
about a given phenomenon. In a simplified form, a theory is a systematic
explanation of the event which identifies the variables needed to explain the
event and suggests the nature of the relationship among these variables, thus,
providing a basis for predicting the outcome in future repetitions of the
event. Dipo Kolawole (1997:46) opined that “Political theory relates to the
understanding of the thoughts of political thinkers the interrelationship of
power and authority and the state and its institutions.
Simply stated, political theory came about because there was a need
for humankind to meet the challenges of group or social life. It was invented to enable people to tackle
internal and external organizational problems and relations in their group
life. It is principally in
acknowledgement of this fact that Sabine and Thompson (1973:3) observed that
political theory is simply “man’s attempts to consciously understand and solve
the problems of his group life and organization”. In essence, political theories hinge on two
major needs of group or social life -understanding and solutions. In the first place, we must note that
political theory strives to generate understanding. It does this through a conscious attempt to
grasp the essential problems that confront group life and organization. Second, it does not only strive to
understand, it also recognizes the need to provide solutions. In this way, political theory also represents
an attempt to provide solutions to the problems of organizing group or social
life.
Theories
are usually arrived at through two ways – induction and deduction. By inductive reasoning, generalisation is
induced from specific observations. On
the other hand, in deductive reasoning, a generalisation is derived from experimentation. David Easton (1973:48) stated that a
political theory consists of three elements: (1) factual or descriptive
statements (2) pure or causal theory which attempts to find out the assumed
relationship between facts, and (3) value theory “which lays down the
inter-related statements of preferences.
His emphasis is that a theory that is not rooted in facts is mere
speculation. The focus of political theory is broadly to know the nature of
political issues especially the dynamics and utilisation of power over men and the
resources of States.
Raison d'être for the Study of Political
Theory
The raison d'être for the study of political theory is according to
Forsyth and Keens-soper (1992:1-6)
identified as follows:
- Stimulates the mind:
In the first place political theory stimulates the mind. We study political theory because it
stimulates and provokes the mind of evolving or succeeding generations;
and this includes our present generation.
In order to clearly understand or explain the present and the
future we must be appropriately provoked to grasp the past and the present
in a better perspective.
- Addresses relevant issues: Political theories
address issues that are relevant or coterminous with human existence. Despite the vast differences between
different writers and in the fact that governments and forms of rule are
various and have varied greatly in time and space, the issues they raise
remain relevant.
- Generates an impulse for transformation: The study of political
theory generates impulse for the transformation of our world and
ourselves. We are certainly not
passive subjects destined to accept impersonal fate but authors as well as
actors, who submit as well as create.
Our life revolves around the world as we find it, and the world, as
we would shape it or like it to be.
Political theory thus helps to generate impulse for the formation
of our world.
- Prompts a relentless search: The specific assumption
of political theory is that it is possible, in some sense necessary, to
respond to the fact or rule of government by exercising reason or a
relentless search for ‘right rule’ and ‘right order’. The ideas and matters that were of
interest to earlier political theorist and philosophers are still
important to us today. For example,
Plato talks about justice and the ideal state. He sees the state as a political
institution that protects and provides for the welfare of its
citizens. The issue of justice and
the power of the state is still of concern to contemporary political
theorists.
- Access to the thoughts of classical thinkers: The study of political
Theory facilitates access to the thoughts of classical and related
writers. Whereas they were stirred
to write by serious contemporary issues of their time, it is the task of a
study like this to indicate such contextual factors and differences.
- Provides a starting point: Political theories
plumb deeply (generate good understanding) into the predicament of human
political existence. It is because
of this that they provide the best starting point from which we can today
derive our own answers to the political predicaments of our own time. In this sense, political theorists and
philosophers and their writings/ideas constitute formidable whetstones for
our powers of reasoning. Although
they do not contain prescriptions for current policy issues, their concern
for the larger issues of the nature and right ordering of the body politic
is of no less significance to our study.
- Profiles of early political philosophers: The study of political
theory offers us the opportunity to be acquainted with the profiles of
great political theorists and philosophers of the past and present. By placing them in a clear historical
context, the study also gives us a lucid picture of not only the political
thinkers, but also their relationship to the major characteristics,
governments and institutions of the period.
- Generates frameworks of analysis: The study of political
theory provides us with the necessary frameworks, patterns, methods and
techniques of investigation and analysis of not only political theory but
also the length and breadth of political science. Political theory enables us to understand
and appreciate the role pattern and workings of state institutions and
processes and to be fairly equipped to predict what may result in specific
political situations or courses of action.
Political
Theory, Philosophy, Ideas and Thought – An Interface
Political Philosophy
This refers to philosophising about politics. It is the conscious inquiry into the problems
of man and the society he lives in. Leo
Strauss in “What is Philosophy” argued that it is an attempt to know both the
nature of political things and the right or the good political conduct through
critical and coherent analysis. Philosophy is rooted in the love (phillia) of
wisdom (Sophia), or the quest for wisdom rather than the possession of it. Philosophy is “the science of wisdom” or, as
Plato and Aristotle perceived it, “the search for truth”. It is the most
comprehensive mode of thinking or reflection.
Accordingly, philosophy studies “the most general laws governing the
universe, man and humanity as a whole; it studies the very foundations of the
unity of man and society, of man and nature” (Kirilenko and Korshunova,
1985:42). In other words, it attempts to explain everything. In political philosophy, we have in our
minds the world of political activity and also “another world” and our concern
is to explore the coherence of the two worlds together. It examines not only
what is, but also what ought to be, or ought to be done, or to be
approved. It is not limited to the
physical world, but entitled and even supposed to mediate also about
metaphysical questions. Nor is it
limited by rules of the pre-established scientific procedure, or by the
requirements of exact proof, but it entitled and even supposed to engage in
speculation beyond the reach of observational tests.
Political Ideology
Antoniue Destott de Tracy (1972) posited thus: Political ideology is nothing but a science
of ideas. Also, Reo Christenson (1980)
in Ideologies and Modern Politics argued that political ideology is the
belief system that explains and justifies a preferred political order for a
particular society either existing or proposed, and offers a strategy for its
attainment. Political ideology refers to
a set of generalizations, which rationalize or justify a given political
system.
According to Gamble (1981:12), it is “any systematic set of moral
and factual beliefs held by a group, or members of a moral and factual belief
held by a group, or members of a party or class.” For example Socialism, capitalism, Fascism
e.t.c. are ideologies that have been propagated at one point or the other in the
history of man. Each was based on its
apparent preference over and above other strategies. Ideologies are always
rooted in sound philosophy while its adherents are usually dogmatic and rigid
because it generates blind faith and fanaticism such that “any sacrifice on the
part of the individual is not too great” (Thakurdas: 11).
Political
Thought
Political
thought is the thought, which is concerned with the phenomenon of power in
human society. It is concerned with the
study of the political thinking or ideas of a whole community over a certain
period. It has two objectives. (1) It is cognitive and (2) It is didactic. In
the first place political thought is cognitive and therefore seeks to know or
understand the facts of man’s behaviour within the realm of power and to relate
that behaviour to abstract consideration as to the meaning of liberty and
authority in human communities. Secondly, political thought is didactic since
it attempts to translate these abstract considerations into practical advice to
rulers and statesmen about specific matters.
Political
thought has recently become increasingly analytical. It is mainly concerned with the larger
question of man’s existence as they are manifested in relation to power. It also put emphasis on the comparative
interpretation of existing political systems in terms of their legitimising
myths, operationalisation and their possible impact on the future of mankind.
Despite
their interchangeable usage, political theory; ideology; philosophy and thought
are distinct frameworks. Nevertheless, it could be established that political
thought is the ingredient of political philosophy and it produces political
ideology (ies). The applicability of an
ideology is manifested in a theory.
Above all, the analyses of the above enumerated concepts form the crux
of political science.
Approaches to the Study of Political Theory
A good understanding of political theory is predicated on a good
grasp of the approaches to its study. First, we may ask, what is an
approach? Simply stated, an approach is
a way of looking at a specific reality.
An approach, according to Chandra (1979), is “a set of standards
governing the inclusion and exclusion of questions and data of academic
purposes”. It is a technique or method of selecting problems and data as they
relate to a specific political phenomenon.
It can also be taken as a way of understanding and explaining the
reality of concern to a political thinker or theorist. Thus an approach in political science is
often seen as a realistic guide for understanding political reality.
According to
Biereenu-Nnabugwu (2003) there
are essentially two prevailing broad approaches to the study of political
theory, viz:
- Normative or
traditional approaches.
- Empiricist
or modern approaches.
In a nutshell, approaches are important and necessary because they
enable us to tackle the variegated nature and aspects of the subject matter of
political theory and political science in general.
Normative or Traditional Approaches
As the name suggests, normative or traditional approaches are older
and inclined to value-laden methods and techniques. Normative or traditional approaches are
rooted in the use of logic, normative issues and qualitative statements. They are essentially goal driven,
interpretative, descriptive and grand theory oriented. In recognition of this, Johari (1987:116)
observes that the distinguishing feature of traditional approaches is that by
nature, “they are heavily speculative and prescriptive.” On account of this, normative approaches are
substantially non-scientific and doubt, the possibility of the scientific study
of political theory and political science in concrete or practical terms.
Empiricist and Modern Approaches
This method is essentially positivist, scientific and quantitative
in orientation. This approach relies on observation, verification and
measurement. As opposed to the traditional approach, the hallmark of the modern
approach is the application of scientific methods and processes in the study of
political phenomenon. Nevertheless, both the traditional and the modern
approach borrow ideas and techniques from related disciplines.
Political Theory and Political Analysis
An analysis is a process of trying or attempting to investigate
facts or reality. Although a clear-cut
boundary between political theory and political analysis is not easily
established, Johari (1987:23) usefully note that the meaning of political
analysis has two major ingredients. In
the first place, the specific approach or set of techniques adopted by the
inquirer or investigator can distinguish political analysis. Second, the uniqueness or distinctiveness of
political analysis may reflect on the subject, which is investigated or that is
the object of investigation.
Political analysis is fundamentally related to the question or task
of political theory. As Easton
Part Two
Major Political Ideas
This chapter explores some major political ideas in the annals of
man and the contemporary State system. While not claiming to be exhaustive, as
much as possible, this chapter will attempt to elaborately showcase the
nitty-gritty of some of the enduring political ideas.
Absolutism
Absolutism is a political system in which there is no legal,
customary, or moral limit on the government’s power. The term is generally
applied to political systems that are ruled by a single dictator, but it can
also be applied to seemingly democratic systems that grant sweeping powers to
the legislature or executive.
Absolutism was one of the most common forms of government for much
of the 20th century, and it is still common today. Absolutism has taken
wide-ranging forms such as military dictatorships in Latin
America , authoritarian communism in the implosed Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR) and Eastern Europe ,
and dictatorships in Africa . Nearly all
absolutist regimes concentrate power in the hands of the president or prime
minister. Typically the leader abolishes the courts and the legislature or
allows them to survive without any real power. In Germany Germany
The chief executive in absolutist regimes may also eliminate town
councils and other local government structures, giving the central government
control over even minor local issues. Most absolutist governments closely
control the police and military, and establish secret police agencies to squelch
dissent. This extreme concentration of power sets absolutism directly at odds
with the emphasis on openness and accountability that is at the core of
democratic forms of government. Absolutist regimes usually take control of
social groups such as trade unions, churches, and student organizations. These
groups and institutions are either abolished altogether or taken over by the
official political party of the government. This gives the absolutist regime
deep control throughout society and discourages organized resistance.
Philosophers of ancient Greece
First and foremost, French Renaissance philosopher Jean Bodin
asserted that kings should not be under the power of the Holy
Roman Empire , which governed much of Europe
from the 9th century until early in the 19th century. At the same time, Bodin
argued that kings had the right to rule over all of their subjects and their
political institutions. In Six livres de la République (1576) (Six Books of the Republic) (1606), he
claimed that a state has "supreme power over citizens and subjects
unrestrained by laws," and he defined a state as a group of families
governed by a "supreme and perpetual power."
This notion that governments have broad powers over citizens became
a central element in the theory of absolutism. Also, Thomas Hobbes argued for
the absolute power of governments. Hobbes developed his argument partly because
of the political turmoil in England
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a tradition stemming
from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill posited that an action
is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to
produce the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the
action but also that of everyone affected by it. Such a theory is in opposition
to egoism, the view that a person should
pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical
theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong independently
of their consequences. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that
make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the
agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to
be done from a bad motive.
Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical
question “What ought a man to do?” Its answer is that he ought to act so as to
produce the best consequences possible. In assessing the consequences of
actions, Utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value: something
is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other
values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic
good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed
happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings
alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is
possible to compare the intrinsic values produced by two alternative actions
and to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham believed that a hedonic
calculus is theoretically possible. Thus, he developed the ‘felicific calculus’
with which the surplus of pleasure over pain could be calculated. Such precise
measurement as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is
nonetheless necessary for the Utilitarian to make some interpersonal
comparisons of the values of the effects of alternative courses of action.
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 United States of America Nigeria Lincoln
Apart from the
above, Reo Christenson, et.al. (1980:1979)
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.
At a minimum, an ideal democracy would have the following features:
* Effective
participation. Before a policy is adopted or rejected, members of the dēmos
should have the opportunity to make their views about the policy known to other
members.
* Equality
in voting.
Members of the dēmos should have the opportunity to vote for or against
the policy, and all votes are counted as equal.
* Informed
electorate. Members of the dēmos should have the opportunity, within a
reasonable amount of time, to learn about the policy and about possible
alternative policies and their likely consequences.
* Citizen
control of the agenda. The dēmos, and only the dēmos should
decide what matters are placed on the decision-making agenda and how they are
placed there. Thus, the democratic process is “open” in the sense that the dēmos
can change the policies of the association at any time.
* Inclusion.
Each and every member of the dēmos is entitled to participate in the
association in the ways just described.
*
Free, fair, and regular elections. Citizens may participate in such elections
both as voters and as candidates (though age and residence restrictions may be
imposed).
* Fundamental
rights. Each of the necessary features of ideal democracy prescribes a right
that is itself a necessary feature of ideal democracy: thus every member of the
dēmos has a right to communicate with others, a right to have his vote
counted equally with the votes of others, a right to gather information, a
right to participate on an equal footing with other members, and a right, with
other members, to exercise control of the agenda. Democracy, therefore,
consists of more than just political processes; it is also necessarily a system
of fundamental rights.
Capitalism
This is an 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.
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 United
States
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.
Socialism
Socialism is an economic and social cum political doctrine that
demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and
distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing
capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic,
and parliamentary means. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of
natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public
utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized
branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public
welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the
ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel.
Smaller and less vital enterprises would be left under private ownership, and
privately held cooperatives would be encouraged.
These are the tenets of the Socialist party of the U.S. Britain
The terms socialism and communism were once used interchangeably.
Today, however, communism designates those theories and movements that, in
accordance with one view of the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
advocate the abolition of capitalism and all private profit, by means of
violent revolution if necessary. Marx organized the International Workingmen's
Association, or First International; when this congress met at Geneva USSR East Germany
The modern socialist movement, as distinguished from communism, had
its origin largely in the revisionist movement of the late 19th century. The
worsening condition of the proletariat, or workers, and the class war predicted
by Marx for Western Europe had not come about.
Many socialist thinkers began to doubt the indispensability of revolution and
to revise other basic tenets of Marxism. Led by the German writer Eduard
Bernstein, they declared that socialism could best be attained by reformist,
parliamentary, and evolutionary methods, including the support of the
bourgeoisie.
Communism
This is a theory and system of social and political organization
that was a major force in world politics for much of the 20th century. As a
political movement, communism sought to overthrow capitalism through a workers’
revolution and establish a system in which property is owned by the community
as a whole rather than by individuals. In theory, communism would create a
classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal
social and economic status. Such a society would ultimately be governed by the
principle of ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to his
need’.
In practice, communist regimes have taken the form of coercive,
authoritarian governments that cared little for the plight of the working class
and sought above all else to preserve their own hold on power. The idea of a
society based on common ownership of property and wealth stretches far back in
Western thought. In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist
movement of 19th-century Europe . At that time,
Europe was undergoing rapid industrialization
and social change. As the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics
blamed capitalism for creating a new class of poor, urban factory workers who
laboured under harsh conditions, and for widening the gulf between rich and
poor. Foremost among these critics were the German philosopher Karl Marx and
his associate Friedrich Engels. Like other socialists, they sought an end to
capitalism and the exploitation of workers. But whereas some reformers favored
peaceful, longer-term social transformation, Marx and Engels believed that
violent revolution was all but inevitable; in fact, they thought it was
predicted by the scientific laws of history. They called their theory
“scientific socialism,” or communism. In the last half of the 19th century the
terms socialism and communism were often used interchangeably. However, Marx
and Engels came to see socialism as merely an intermediate stage of society in
which most industry and property were owned in common but some class
differences remained. They reserved the term communism for a final stage of
society in which class differences had disappeared, people lived in harmony,
and government was no longer needed.
The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir
Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics USSR Soviet Union ) from the former Russian Empire and tried to
spark a worldwide revolution to overthrow capitalism. Lenin’s successor, Joseph
Stalin, turned the Soviet Union into a
dictatorship based on total state control of the economy and the suppression of
any form of opposition. As a result of Lenin’s and Stalin’s policies, many
people came to associate the term communism with undemocratic or totalitarian
governments that claimed allegiance to Marxist-Leninist ideals. The term
Marxism-Leninism refers to Marx’s theories as amended and put into practice by
Lenin.
After World War II (1939-1945), regimes calling themselves communist
took power in China Eastern Europe , and other regions. The spread
of communism marked the beginning of the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union and the United States
Communist societies encountered dramatic change in the late 1980s
and early 1990s, as political and economic upheavals in the USSR Eastern Europe , and elsewhere led to the disintegration
of numerous communist regimes and severely weakened the power and influence of
communist parties throughout the world. The collapse of the USSR China Cuba Laos North Korea Vietnam
Anarchism
Anarchism is a cluster of
doctrines and attitudes which centres on the belief that government is both
harmful and unnecessary. The first person willingly to call himself an
anarchist was the French political writer and pioneer socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. In his controversial
study of the economic bases of society, Qu'est ce que la propriété? (1840;
What Is
Property?), Proudhon argued that the real
laws of society have nothing to do with authority but rather stem from the
nature of society itself, and he foresaw the eventual dissolution of authority
and the emergence of a natural social order.
As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.
Anarchy, the absence of a sovereign is the form of government to which we are
every day approximating. The essential elements of Proudhon's philosophy
already had been developed by earlier thinkers. The rejection of political
authority has a rich pedigree. It extends back to classical antiquity—to the Stoics and the Cynics and runs through the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance, as illustrated by dissenting Christian sects such as the medieval Catharists
and certain factions of Anabaptists. For such groups—which are often mistakenly
claimed as ancestors by modern anarchist writers—the rejection of government
was merely one aspect of a retreat from the material world into a realm of
spiritual grace, and as part of the search for individual salvation it was
hardly compatible with the socio-political doctrine of anarchism.
In all its forms, that doctrine consists of (1) an analysis of the
power relations underlying existing forms of political authority and (2) a
vision of an alternative libertarian society based on cooperation, as opposed
to competition and coercion, and functioning without the need for government
authority.
Conservatism
Conservatism is a political
philosophy that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices.
Conservatives prefer institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and
are manifestations of continuity and stability. In answer to the question “What
should be the scope of government?” Conservatives insist that government must
be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life and must resist the
temptation to transform society and politics. Conservatives are generally,
though not invariably, suspicious of government activism. Conservatism thus
stands in marked contrast to liberalism, which is a modernizing,
anti-traditionalist movement dedicated to correcting the evils and abuses
resulting from the misuse of power. In The Devil's Dictionary (1906),
the American writer Ambrose Bierce cynically (but not
inappropriately) defined the conservative as “a statesman who is enamoured of
existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them
with others.” Conservatism must also be distinguished from the reactionary
outlook, which favours the restoration of a previous, and usually outmoded,
political or social order.
The
originator of modern, articulated conservatism (though he never used the term
himself) is generally acknowledged to be the British parliamentarian and
political writer Edmund Burke, whose Reflections on
the Revolution in France (1790) was a forceful expression of
conservatives' rejection of the French Revolution and a major inspiration for
counter revolutionary theorists in the 19th century. For Burke and other
pro-parliamentarian conservatives, the violent, untraditional, and uprooting
methods of the Revolution outweighed and corrupted its liberating ideals. The
general revulsion against the violent course of the Revolution provided
conservatives with an opportunity to restore pre-Revolutionary traditions, and
several brands of conservative philosophy soon developed.
A common way of distinguishing conservatism from both
liberalism and radicalism is to say that conservatives deny the perfectibility
of humanity. In other words, they deny the optimistic view that human beings
can be morally improved through social and political change.
Federalism and Unitarism
Federalism
and Unitarism are the two most enduring modes of political arrangement in the
world today. Federalism refers to a political arrangement that allows for at
least two levels of government, in which case there is always the existence of
a central government otherwise called the federal government and other States
labelled variously as States, region, republic, canton, province or union. This
form of political organisation is such that the central, or federal government,
does not have unrestricted power, but shares it with the governments of the separate
regions or States which make up the federation, and which have certain
specified powers laid down by the constitution.
Federalism
is a mode of political organization that unites separate states or other
polities within an overarching political system in such a way as to allow each
to maintain its own fundamental political integrity. Federal systems do this by
requiring that basic policies be made and implemented through negotiation in
some form, so that all the members can share in making and executing decisions.
The political principles that animate federal systems emphasize the primacy of
bargaining and negotiated coordination among several power centres; they stress
the virtues of dispersed power centres as a means for safeguarding individual
and local liberties.
The commonest reasons for the adoption of
federalism are: the need for a common defense; fall out of a colonial policy; a
shared historical experience; attraction in economies of scale; administrative
convenience and above all, political willingness on the part of the constituent
units. The essential principles that enhance the workability of any federalism
are a written constitution; bicameral parliament, supremacy of the judiciary
and an indivisibility clause.
On the other hand, Unitarism, which connotes
supremacy of the central government, is the system of government that
centralises and concentrates political authority in one central government.
This arrangement has no constitutionally recognised lower levels of
administration, but in the opinion of Dipo Kolawole (1997: 162), the executive
can delegate some powers or functions to the subordinate units, which can be
withdrawn at will.
An
essential fact worthy of note is that States that practice unitarism are
usually homogeneous in their ethnic and cultural composition. Besides the
homogeneity of unitary States, also unique to the system is the small size of
the States, geographically and demographically. (Rodee, et al
1983:285). Examples of States, which have these features, which therefore made
the unitary system of government expedient for them, are Britain Denmark Italy France Greece Israel Japan
Liberalism
Liberalism is a political doctrine
that takes the abuse of power, and thus the freedom of the individual, as the central problem of
government. For liberals, power is most importantly abused by governments, but
it may also be abused by the wealthy; by monarchs, aristocrats, and others with
inherited authority and privileges; and indeed by any group that has the means
and the inclination to act oppressively.
Historically, liberalism has come to mean two rather
different things. The doctrine originated as a defensive reaction to the
horrors of the wars of religion of the 16th century and then divided into two
strands, the first a narrowly political doctrine emphasizing the importance of
limited government, the other a philosophy of life emphasizing individual
autonomy, imagination, and self-development. In addition, contemporary
liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans.
In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe
liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic
outlook.
Liberalism derives from two related features of Western
culture. The first is the West's preoccupation with individuality, as compared
to the emphasis in other civilizations on status, caste, and tradition.
Throughout much of history, the individual has been submerged in his clan,
tribe, people, or kingdom. Liberalism is the culmination of developments in
Western society that produced a sense of the importance of human individuality,
a liberation of the individual from complete subservience to the group, and a
relaxation of the tight hold of custom, law, and authority. The emancipation of
the individual can be understood as a unique achievement of Western culture,
perhaps its very hallmark.
Liberalism also derives from the practice of adversariality
in European political and economic life, a process in which institutionalized
competition—such as the competition between different political parties in
electoral contests, between prosecution and defense in judicial procedures, or
between different producers in a free-market economy—is used to generate a
dynamic social order. Adversarial systems have always been precarious, however
it took a long time for the belief in adversariality to emerge from the more
traditional view, traceable at least to Plato, that the state should be an organic
structure in which the different social classes cooperate by performing
distinct yet complementary roles. The belief that competition is an essential
part of a political system and that good government requires a vigorous
opposition was still considered strange in most European countries in the early
19th century.
It is evident that liberalism has a close relationship with
democracy, but not too much should be made of
this association. At the centre of democratic doctrine is the belief that
governments derive their authority from popular election; liberalism, on the
other hand, is primarily concerned with the scope of governmental activity.
Liberals often have been wary of democracy because of fears that it might
generate a tyranny by the majority. One might briskly say, therefore, that
democracy looks after majorities and liberalism after minorities.
Like other political doctrines, liberalism is highly
sensitive to time and circumstance. Each nation's liberalism is different, and
it changes in each generation. The historical development of liberalism over
recent centuries has been a movement from mistrust of the state's sovereignty
on the ground that power tends to be misused, to a willingness to use the power
of government to correct inequities in the distribution of wealth resulting
from a free-market economy. The expansion of government power and
responsibility sought by liberals in the 20th century was clearly opposed to
the contraction of government advocated by liberals a century earlier.
In the 19th century liberals were generally hospitable to
the business community, only to become hostile to its interests and ambitions
for much of the 20th century. In each case, however, the liberals' inspiration
was the same: hostility to concentrations of power that threaten the freedom of
the individual and prevent him from realizing his potential, along with a
willingness to re-examine and reform social institutions in the light of new
needs. This willingness is tempered by an aversion to sudden, cataclysmic
change, which is what sets off the liberal from the radical. It is this very
eagerness to encourage useful change; however that distinguishes the liberal
from the conservative.
Pacifism
This is the opposition to war and
violence as a means of settling disputes. Pacifism may entail the belief that
the waging of war by a state and the participation in war by an individual are
absolutely wrong, under any circumstances.
In the ancient world, war was taken for granted as a
necessary evil by some societies, while in others it was not even regarded as
an evil. Individual voices in various lands decried the evils of war, but the
first genuinely pacifist movement known came from Buddhism, whose founder demanded from his
followers absolute abstention from any act of violence against their fellow
creatures. In India
In classical antiquity, pacifism remained largely an ideal
in the minds of a few intellectuals. The Greek
conceptions of peace—including Stoicism—were centred on the peaceful conduct of
the individual rather than on the conduct of whole peoples or kingdoms. In Rome Rome
Authoritarianism
Authoritarianism is the principle
of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought
and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that
concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not
constitutionally responsible to the body of the people. Authoritarian leaders
often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law,
and they usually cannot be replaced by citizens choosing freely among various
competitors in elections. The freedom to create opposition political parties or
other alternative political groupings with which to compete for power with the
ruling group is either limited or nonexistent in authoritarian regimes.
Authoritarianism thus stands in fundamental contrast to democracy. It also differs from totalitarianism,
however, since authoritarian governments usually have no highly developed
guiding ideology, it tolerates some pluralism in social organization, lacks the
power to mobilize the entire population in pursuit of national goals, and
exercises power within relatively predictable limits.
Monarchism
Monarchism refers to the undivided
sovereignty or rule of a single person. The term is applied to states in which
the supreme authority is vested in a single person, the monarch, who is the
permanent head of the state. The word has, however, outlived this original
meaning and is now used, when used at all, somewhat loosely of states ruled by
hereditary sovereigns, as distinct from republics with elected presidents, or
for the “monarchical principle,” as opposed to the republican principle.
The most conspicuous example of an elective monarchy was
the Holy Roman Empire , but in Europe all monarchies were, within certain limits,
originally elective. After the introduction of Christianity, the essential
condition of the assumption of sovereign power was not so much kinship with the
reigning family as consecration by the divine authority of the church. The
purely hereditary principle was of comparatively late growth, the outcome of
obvious convenience, exalted under the influence of various forces into a
religious or quasi-religious dogma.
The old idea of monarchy—that of the prince as representing
within the limits of his dominions the monarchy of God over all
things—culminated in the 17th century in the extreme version of the doctrine of
the divine right of kings, and was defined in the
famous dictum of Louis XIV: L'état c'est moi! (“I am the state!”). The
conception of monarchy was derived through Christianity from the theocracies of
the eastern Mediterranean and of Rome
The ancient Greeks knew monarchy mainly in two
forms: the Homeric and the Macedonian. In the first the king was a hereditary
ruler whose authority was intimately bound up with his prowess in battle. In
the second he was an imperial ruler who acquired divine properties, as in
Hellenistic times his conquests, like Alexander's, took him farther away from
the restraints of Greek rationalism and democracy into an Oriental despotism.
World War I brought ruin to those monarchs who had retained so much
personal power that they could not escape blame for defeat or social injustice.
Among such victims were the monarchies of Russia Germany Austria-Hungary China Japan
In Europe , monarchy
survived in Britain Norway Sweden Denmark Belgium Greece Denmark Africa , Monarchs only reign
and no longer rule as was the case in the pre-colonial age.
Part Three
Popular Political Theories
This
chapter is set to evince some of the popular theories in Political Science. The
explanations, though succinct is not without deep explanations of the
respective theories.
Game Theory
Games theory involves using mathematical models to
take decisions or solve conflict, where pay offs (outcomes) are determined by
the strategies of the players. Games theory as a tool of political analysis
originated with the works of Von Neumann and Oscar Morgestern in early 1950s’,
Plane and Riggs (1973) sees it as a body of thought dealing on rational
decision making strategies in situation of conflict and competition, when each
player seeks to maximise gains or minimize losses.
This is a mathematical analysis of any situation involving a
conflict of interest, with the intent of indicating the optimal choices that,
under given conditions, will lead to a desired outcome. Although game theory
has roots in the study of such well-known amusements as checkers,
tick-tack-toe, and poker—hence the name—it also involves much more serious
conflicts of interest arising in such fields as sociology, economics, and
political and military science.
Basic Concepts
In game theory, the term game means a particular sort of conflict in
which an individual or group (known as players) participate. A list of rules
stipulates the conditions under which the game begins, the possible legal
“moves” at each stage of play, the total number of moves constituting the
entirety of the game, and the terms of the outcome at the end of play.
A. Move
In game theory, a move is the way in which the game progresses from
one stage to another, beginning with an initial state of the game through the
final move. Moves may alternate between players in a specified fashion or may
occur simultaneously.
B. Payoff
Payoff, or outcome, is a game-theory term referring to what happens
at the end of a game. In such games as chess, payoff may be as simple as
declaring a winner or a loser. In poker or other gambling situations the payoff
is usually money; its amount is predetermined by bets amassed during the course
of play, by percentages or by other fixed amounts calculated on the odds of
winning, and so on.
C. Extensive and Normal Form
One of the most important distinctions made in characterizing
different forms of games is that between extensive and normal. A game is said
to be in extensive form if it is characterized by a set of rules that
determines the possible moves at each step, indicating which player is to move,
the probabilities at each point if a move is to be made by a chance
determination, and the set of outcomes assigning a particular payoff or result
to each possible conclusion of the game. On the other hand, a game is said to
be in normal form if the list of all expected outcomes or payoffs to each player
for every possible combination of strategies is given for any sequence of
choices in the game. This kind of theoretical game could be played by any
neutral observer and does not depend on player choice of strategy.
D Perfect Information
A game is said to have perfect information if all moves are known to
each of the players involved. Checkers and chess are two examples of games with
perfect information; poker and bridge are games in which players have only
partial information at their disposal.
E Strategy
A strategy is a list of the optimal choices for each player at every
stage of a given game. A strategy, taking into account all possible moves, is a
plan that cannot be upset, regardless of what may occur in the game.
KINDS OF GAMES
Game theory distinguishes different varieties of games, depending on
the number of players and the circumstances of play in the game itself.
A. One-Person Games
Games such as solitaire are one-person, or singular, games in which
no real conflict of interest exists; the only interest involved is that of the
single player. In solitaire only the chance structure of the shuffled deck and
the deal of cards come into play. Single-person games, although they may be
complex and interesting from a probabilistic view, are not rewarding from a
game-theory perspective, for no adversary is making independent strategic
choices with which another must contend.
B. Two-Person Games
Two-person, or dual, games include the largest category of familiar
games such as chess, backgammon, and checkers or two-team games such as bridge.
(More complex conflicts—n-person, or plural, games—include poker, Monopoly,
Parcheesi, and any game in which multiple players or teams are involved.)
Two-person games have been extensively analyzed by game theorists. A major
difficulty that exists, however, in extending the results of two-person theory
to n-person games is predicting the interaction possible among various players.
In most two-party games the choices and expected payoffs at the end of the game
are generally well-known, but when three or more players are involved, many
interesting but complicating opportunities arise for coalitions, cooperation,
and collusion.
C. Zero-Sum Games
A game is said to be a zero-sum game if the total amount of payoffs
at the end of the game is zero. Thus, in a zero-sum game the total amount won
is exactly equal to the amount lost. In economic contexts, zero-sum games are
equivalent to saying that no production or destruction of goods takes place
within the “game economy” in question. Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern showed
in 1944 that any n-person non-zero-sum game can be reduced to an n + 1 zero-sum
game, and that such n + 1 person games can be generalized from the special case
of the two-person zero-sum game. Consequently, such games constitute a major
part of mathematical game theory. One of the most important theorems in this
field establishes that the various aspects of maximal-minimal strategy apply to
all two-person zero-sum games. Known as the minimax theorem, it was first
proven by von Neumann in 1928; others later succeeded in proving the theorem
with a variety of methods in more general terms.
Power Theory
Often traced to the writings of Thomas Hobbes, the concept of power
has been extensively analysed by Harold Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan. They see the power theory not only as the
most fundamental in the whole discipline, but also the most fundamental in “the
shaping, distribution and exercise of power” in the poitical process.
George Catlin, Harold Lasswell and Peter Odegard also contributed to
the development of the Power Theory.
They see that the characteristics of political activity, that property
which distinguishes the political from the economic, the social, philosophical,
religious, moral or any other situation, is the attempt to control others. In this view the motivating question behind
political circumstances is who holds power and how is it used? According to the power theorists, any
activity that is characterised by the general property of being able to
influence others immediately acquires political relevance.
The power theory finds its brilliant manifestation in the political
philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. The
grandest conclusion of the Hobbesian politics is his clearest and most perfect
expression of the naturalistic conception of human nature wherein he tells us
that man desires power and greater power which ceases only in death.
According to Hobbes, the search or desire for power is the root
cause of competition among the individuals.
Interests collide in the race to acquire more and more riches, honours
and commands and, for this sake, the competitors take to the means of killing,
subduing, supplanting and repelling their opponents.
After Hobbes, the power theory has its reiteration in the woks of
Head who absolutised the sovereign authority to the extent of discarding the
ethics of morality. Also Prof. Hans J. Morgenthau in Politics among Nations
stated that international politics like all politics is a struggle for power,
whatever the aims of international politics, power is always central. Power
theory hinges on the proposition that states have no choice but to maximise
their power because of the anarchic political system in which they have to
operate.
The power theory found its concrete manifestation in Niccolo
Machiavelli’s The Prince in which he described not what rulers ought to
do with power but what in fact they were doing with it. He re-developed the vast complexity of
political events to the behaviour of a few basic units.
1. Competitors for Power: Prince
and Would Be Princes
The world as
Machiavelli saw it, consisted of only three kinds of people, each with its own
kind of goals. A minority consisted of
“Princes” – that is, rulers – and of those who were trying to become princes
through intrigues, conspiracies or revolts.
All such princes and would be princes were striving primarily for power.
Any prince
who was too lazy, ignorant or benevolent to struggle for power would be
eliminated sooner or later by a more active and ruthless competition who would
take his power. In a sense, Princes are
selected by a ceaseless competition for power in which they had to struggle for
survival. In other words, the more power
a prince had, the more likely he was to survive, provided that he used his
power to get still more power.
2. Objects of Power: “The
Vulgar”.
The great majority of
people however were not princes. He
called them the vulgar.
He wrote that the vulgar
are cowardly, fickle and ever ready to be deceived.
Princes could rule them
easily by means of force and threats.
There were only two
things that the vulgar
really cared for – their property and their women – and these,
a prudent prince ought to
leave undisturbed. As long as their taxes
remained
moderate and their
property fairly secure, the vulgar would obey the prince and
care little about what
else he might be doing. All virtues like
generosity, honesty
and piety must be
subordinated to the search for power.
Social Contract
The central theme of the social contract theory is that the state
came to be as a result of an agreement citizens freely entered into for that
purpose. Prior to this agreement, there
was no law, no organization, no government and no state; men simply lived in ‘a
state of nature’. Under the state of
nature, men were liable only to the rules and regulations in which nature was
capable of providing. According to the
proponents of this theory, in a state of nature, there was no human authority
to formulate or enforce rules but following the agreement they opted to set up
a government. In doing this, they parted
with their natural rights and agreed to obey laws prescribed by the government.
Notable political theorists, namely Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, in
the later part of the early modern period, propounded the social contract
theory. Their writings were part of the
matrix of interaction of theory and praxis that saw the decline and indeed the
demise of the divine right of kings.
One unique and interesting thing about the writings of this trio is
that each characterized his state of nature differently but came to the
conclusion, in each case, that there was enough justification for popular
sovereignty. In other words, despite
different premises, their interpretations and conclusions were the same.
Another important fact is that by taking recourse to metaphysical
concepts (state of nature) the trio took sides with secular understanding, and
interpretation of reality including political phenomena. Having said this, it must be borne in mind
however that the state of nature was essentially an analytical or conceptual
device rather than a historical reality.
Along this line, the idea of ‘a state of nature’ that existed before
society was created was merely used within the period by countless writers
“less as an historical argument, more as an analytical device for bringing out
what was distinctive about individuals and about society” (Gamble:41).
In a nutshell, the value of the social contract theory lies in the
fact that the theory tackled the question of how society came to be and how
states were formed. In this way, it
provided ample justification or rationale, not only for the state but very
importantly also for popular sovereignty.
It provided the theoretical basis for wresting power from the kings who
had hitherto believed that their power was divinely ordained.
This is the most popular theory of State
formation. 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).
Political Economy
Political
Economy is a novel field of enquiry which originated from the interdisciplinary
efforts of social scientists. Although, the concept ‘political economy’ used to
be synonymous to the concept ‘economics’; the two concepts has since assumed
separate identities. According to Alt and Chrystal (1993) “when ‘political economy’
was brought back into circulation alongside the general term ‘economics’, the
focus is no longer on economic phenomena in general but, much more
specifically, on the interaction between politics and economics”. Also, Lane
and Ersson (1997) argued that the new orientation of political economy is
conceived in a broad fashion as it covers both how economic factors impact upon
political entities and the effects of politics upon economic entities.
Staniland (1985:5-6) undertook a survey of new literature in the
emerging field of political economy and declared thus:
There are
several kinds of political economy theory.
The criterion
for identifying such theory is whether
or not it
claims to depict a systematic relationship
between
economic and political processes. Such
a
relationship may be conceived in different ways
as a causal relationship between one process or
another……as a
relationship of reciprocity…or as
behavioural
continuity. Whether or not the theory
in question
is labeled ‘political economy’ is
secondary;
the important issue is its claim to
empirical
explanation.
Lane and Ersson (1997:3) argued that modern political economy
focuses on the unresolved problems pertaining to how political and economic
institutions interact to produce specific economic, social and political
outcomes. They noted that political economy is different from macroeconomics as
it employs different approaches and not committed to neo-classical paradigm of
economics.
It is important to note that there are three distinct variants of
the political economy approach and a succinct discussion of each of the
variants will suffice. The first is the Marxian variant, developed by Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels. It is a well established body of knowledge which explains
the contradictions and crisis in capitalist societies (Bangura, 1991:15). The
Marxian political economy which is premised on the fundamental philosophies of
(i) historical materialism and (ii) dialectical materialism; developed as a
response to the struggles of the new industrial class described as
‘proletariat’. Marx for instance hinges so much on the place of the economy in
societal relations, hence, his theory of ‘economic determinism’.
Apart from the above, the two other variants are the: World System
Perspective and the Liberal Political Economy approach. The World System
perspective is derived largely from the classical Marxian perspective, which
holds that the future of socialism and capitalism will be determined by
developments in Europe . This perspective
reveals some fundamental facilitating factors of economic crisis in the third
world as well as the impact of colonialism on development.
The third variant, Liberal Political Economy gives primacy to
material conditions particularly economic factors, in the explanation of social
life. According to Momoh and Hundeyin (1999:53) “ the liberal political economy
approach probes into the depth of issues, the interconnection of phenomena,
policies etc, with a view to knowing their class origin, character and composition
as well as the logic of their existence.
From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that among existing
theoretical frameworks and methods of inquiry into political and socio-
economic phenomena and conditions; there is hardly any other that is better
equipped to help explain the integration of political and economic factors as
explanatory elements in the analysis of societal issues than the political
economy perspective.
We must note that in its most general formulation, the political
economy perspective provides a method of inquiry and analysis, anchored on the
dialectical materialist paradigm in its perception and interpretation of issues
and problems of society. By this we mean
that its method of studying and comprehending the phenomenon of nature is
dialectical, while its theoretical and philosophical perspective, within which
it conceive and interprets the phenomena of nature is materialistic. The dialectical approach to the study of
society, therefore, views the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement
and undergoing a continuous process of change.
This approach explains the development of society or any aspect of it,
essentially as an on-going and progressive process, determined by certain forces
and dynamics inherent in society itself.
The specific elements or features of the phenomena of nature as
perceived by the dialectical method are three fold and it is these that are in
constant interaction, which determine the nature, scope, direction and
implications of change in society.
First, the phenomenon of nature from the dialectical point of view
is conceived as constituting an integrated whole, implying that things are not
only inter-connected with each other.
Every phenomenon ought, therefore, to be examined within the context of other
associated phenomena with which it is linked because no phenomenon can be
understood if taken by itself. Hence it
is only through a dialectical analysis of society, any aspect of it, or
problems associated with them that we can reveal the true nature of such
problem, their causes, dimensions and possible solution.
The Systems Theory
The Systems Theory integrates the
analytic and the synthetic method, encompassing both holism and reductionism.
It was first proposed under the name of "General System Theory"
by the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy.
He noted that all systems studied by physicists are closed: they do not
interact with the outside world (Varma, 1993:44). When a physicist makes a
model of the solar system, of an atom, or of a pendulum, he or she assumes that
all masses, particles, forces that affect the system are included in the model.
It is as if the rest of the universe does not exist. This makes it possible to
calculate future states with perfect accuracy, since all necessary information
is known.
However, as a biologist von Bertalanffy
knew that such an assumption is simply impossible for most practical phenomena
(Heylighen,
1994). Separate a living organism from its surroundings and it will die shortly
because of lack of oxygen, water and food. Organisms are open systems: they
cannot survive without continuously exchanging matter and energy with their
environment (ibid). The peculiarity of open systems is that they interact with
other systems outside of themselves. This interaction has two components:
input, that what enters the system from the outside, and output, that what
leaves the system for the environment.
Varma (1993) also posited “in order to
speak about the inside and the outside of a system, we need to be able to
distinguish between the system and its environment”. System and environment are
in general separated by a boundary. The output of a system is in general a
direct or indirect result from the input (ibid). However, the output is in
general quite different from the input: the system is not just a passive tube,
but also an active processor. The transformation
of input into output by the system is usually called throughput (ibid). This
has given us all the basic components of a system as it is understood in
systems theory (see Fig.1.)
Fig.1 A system in interaction with its
environment
When we look more closely at the
environment of a system, we see that it too consists of systems interacting
with their environments. For example, the environment of a person is full of
other persons. If we now consider a collection of such systems, which interact
with each other, that collection could again be seen as a system. For example,
a group of interacting people may form a family, a village, or a city. The
mutual interactions of the component systems in a way "glue" these
components together into a whole. If these parts did not interact, the whole
would not be more than the sum of its components but because they interact,
something more is added. With respect to the whole the parts are seen as
subsystems. With respect to the parts, the whole is seen as a super system.
Modernization Theory
It is essentially a mixture of theories of socio-economic and
political development put forward in the 1950s and 1960s by mostly western
scholarship. It sought to suggest what
non-Western societies should be doing to become like the West. Major advocates include Lucian Pye, Kenneth
Organiski, David Apter, Gabriel Almond, G Powell, Fred W Riggs and Samuel
Huntington. Modernization theory explored the conditions for economic and
political development from a “traditional” to a “modern” society. The theory
was premised on the belief that other countries could and should develop a
political system similar to that of the United States
Dependency Theory
The dependency theory is often seen as a perspective or analytical
approach that explains Third World
underdevelopment as a direct consequence of metropolitan development. It
emerged in the 1960s and addresses the problems of poverty and economic
underdevelopment throughout the world. Dependency theorists argue that
dependence upon foreign capital, technology, and expertise impedes economic
development in developing countries.
Until the 1960s, the prevailing theory of economic development,
known as modernization theory, maintained that industrialization, the
introduction of mass media, and the diffusion of Western ideas would transform
traditional economies and societies. These influences would place poor
countries on a path of development similar to that experienced by Western
industrialized nations during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Dependency theory rejects the central assumptions of modernization
theory. In the 1960s advocates of dependency theory—mostly social scientists
from the developing world, particularly Latin America—argued that former
colonial nations were underdeveloped because of their dependence on Western
industrialized nations in the areas of foreign trade and investment. Rather
than benefiting developing nations, these relationships stunted their
development. Drawing upon various Marxist ideas, dependency theorists observed
that economic development and underdevelopment were not simply different stages
in the same linear march toward progress. They argued that colonial domination
had produced relationships between the developed and the developing world that
were inherently unequal. Dependency theorists believed that without a major
restructuring of the international economy, the former colonial countries would
find it virtually impossible to escape from their subordinate position and
experience true growth and development.
In the 1960s, dependency theorists emphasized that developing
nations were adversely affected by unequal trade, especially in the exchange of
cheap raw materials from developing nations for the expensive, finished
products manufactured by advanced industrial nations. They argued that
modernization theory did not foresee the damaging effect of this unequal
exchange on developing nations. Even the achievement of political independence
had not enhanced the ability of former colonial nations to demand better prices
for their primary exports.
Some developing countries attempted to counter the inequalities in
trade by adopting import-substitution industrialization (ISI) policies. ISI
strategies involve the use of tariff barriers and government subsidies to
companies in order to build domestic industry. Advocates of ISI view
industrialization as the precondition of economic and social progress. However,
many developing nations that managed to manufacture their own consumer products
continued to remain dependent on imports of capital goods. ISI also encouraged
multinational companies with headquarters in the industrialized world to
establish manufacturing subsidiaries in the developing world.
Dependency theorists have also focused on how foreign direct
investments of multinational corporations distort developing nation economies.
In the view of these scholars, distortions include the crowding out of national
firms, rising unemployment related to the use of capital-intensive technology,
and a marked loss of political sovereignty.
From the perspective of dependency theory, the relationship between
developing nations and foreign lending institutions, such as the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), also undermines the sovereignty of
developing nations. These countries must often agree to harsh conditions—such
as budget cuts and interest rate increases—to obtain loans from international
agencies. During the 1980s, for example, the foreign debt of many Latin
American countries soared. In response to pressure from multilateral lending
agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF, these nations enacted financial
austerity measures in order to qualify for new loans. In the short term, these
economic policies led to higher levels of unemployment and slower economic
growth.
The impressive rise of the newly industrializing countries of Latin America and East Asia
since the 1960s defied the bleak prognosis of dependency theorists. Both Mexico Brazil South Korea Taiwan
In the 1970s, sociologist Fernando Henrique Cardoso (later president
of Brazil
Other scholars, such as American sociologist Peter Evans, have gone
even further than Cardoso in recognizing the importance of negotiations between
governments in developing countries and governments and firms from
industrialized nations. These analysts believe the way nations respond to
dependence on foreign capital can be as important as the dependence itself.
These refinements to dependency theory suggest the promise of new approaches to
the problem of development, approaches that seriously take into account the
role of politics and government-level negotiations in determining economic
outcomes.
Communication Theory or Cybernetics
The communication theory/cybernetics is a direct product of
political science’s efforts to be more scientific in its theoretical
orientation.
The theory of cybernetics sets the task of government as essentially
that of steering and coordinating human efforts towards the achievement of
identified goals. The theory was
initially associated with electrical engineers such as Norbert Weiner, W.R. Ashby
and Claude Shannan. The credit for the introduction of the concept or theory of
communication into political analysis however goes to Karl Deutsh who drew
inspiration from the works of the earlier scientists.
Cybernetics is actually an interdisciplinary science that deals with
communication and control systems in living organisms, machines, and
organizations. The term, derived from the Greek word kybernētēs (“steersman” or
“governor”), was first applied in 1948 to the theory of control mechanisms by
the American mathematician Norbert Wiener. Cybernetics developed as the
investigation of the techniques by which information is transformed into
desired performance. The science arose out of problems that were encountered
during World War II in the development of so-called electronic brains and of
automatic-control mechanisms for such military apparatuses as bombsights.
Systems of communication and control in living organisms and those
in machines are considered analogous in cybernetics. To achieve desired
performance from human organs or from mechanical devices, information concerning
the actual results of intended action must be made available as a guide for
future action. In the human body, the brain and nervous system function to
coordinate the information, which is then used to determine a future course of
action; control mechanisms for self-correction in machines serve a similar
purpose. The principle is known as feedback, which is the fundamental concept
of automation.
One of the basic tenets of cybernetics is that information is
statistical in nature and is measured in accordance with the laws of
probability. In this sense, information is regarded as a measure of the freedom
of choice involved in selection. As the freedom of choice increases, the
probability that any particular message will be chosen decreases. The measure
of probability is known as entropy.
In natural processes, occurring without assistance or control, the
tendency is toward a state of disorganization, or chaos. Thus, according to the
principles of cybernetics, order (lowering of entropy) is least probable and
chaos (increased entropy) is most probable. Purposive behavior in humans or in
machines requires control mechanisms that maintain order by counteracting the
natural tendency toward disorganization.
Theories of Group Formation
Several attempts have been made to explain why and how people form
groups. Some of the theoretical
explanations are:
1. Propinquity Theory – Role of Environment. Those living close together tend to belong to
the same group.
2. Social Comparison Theory – The motivation to belong to a group
arises from the need to use the group to evaluate individual opinions and
abilities – members quits group if opinion differs.
3. Emotional Affiliation Theory – group provides source of information
and feedback – Group membership reduces anxiety.
4. Social Exchange Theory – People remain in a group when it satisfies
their social, psychological and material needs, - members quit group if cost of
participation exceeds rewards derived from it.
5. Psychoanalytic Theory – Adolescent emotional conflicts precipitate
peer group formation.
6. Development Theory – Group formation results from the need to
resolve adolescence crisis.
7. Social Learning Theory states that group formation among adolescents
results from the need to find meaning in life.
Comments
Post a Comment