Discuss the meaning and nature of political theory.
What is Politics and Political Science?
Common people, renowned scholars and political scientists of
high repute fairly often use the words politics and politics to denote an
equivalent thing that's they use the 2 terms interchangeably. But a correct
scrutiny and hair split analysis will reveal that there's a difference between
the terms though this difference can easily be ignored. it's believed that the
term politics springs from the word Polis the precise meaning of which is
city-state.
In ancient Greece, polis or the town state was the foremost
popular and general sort of political organisation. Every polis or city- state
had its own sort of government, administration, management etc and every one
these didn't depend on the dimensions of the polis or city-state. Thus politics
means the politics or administration of polis. Thus politics is known to denote
something about polis or city-state.
In today’s world there's practically no existence of
city-state but the term politics derived from polis has gained popularity,
publicity and importance. Now-a-days by politics we generally mean the
activities related to the governance of a rustic or area. We thus cannot
separate the term politics from the affairs of state and these affairs are
related to the administration and deciding problems with state. Politics during
this way has been inextricably connected with state because it was in ancient Greece with the polis.
We have thus far noted just one meaning of the term politics
but there's another meaning which is additionally to be found in wide circulation.
This meaning is—activities aimed toward improving some one’s status within an
organisation. during this sense politics is employed to mean as a kind of
instrument or vehicle to realize definite purpose.
The purpose could also be of a specific person or group of
persons and it's going to be good or bad. However it's going to be, politics
acts as an instrument and it carries with it pejorative sense or connotation.
We are thus during a position to conclude that politics has two distinct
meanings—one is academic which is related to the administration or management
of state and therefore the other is non-academic which is usually pejorative.
It is the latter meaning which has introduced a difference
between politics and politics . A general and numerously accepted definition of
politics is: The study of state, government and politics and this study must be
supported scientific principles and reasons. politics is, therefore, a tutorial
discipline.
Some academicians are
inclined to treat it within the following way:
Political science
isn't only the study of state and state but also it's the appliance of
empirical theory and scientific methods to the analysis of political matters.
After the Second war (193-9-1945) a really good number of political scientists
of us applied number of scientific methods for the investigation and analysis
of political matters incidents and issues and then they framed models and ideas
and every one these have finally constituted body of politics .
Hence it can naively be observed that while in non-academic
sense the politics is employed pejoratively, politics is blessed academic and
wider meaning. an outsized section of common men is familiar with using the
non-academic connotation of the term politics. We fairly often say that behind
of these activities there's politics.
- The meaning of which is that persons concerned use their official position or other means to realize particular objectives to which they're not legally and normally entitled. Politics during this sense is an unfair means. Therefore, the non-academic meaning of politics has nothing to try to to with fairness. In both national and international politics this meaning of politics has gained precedence.
- In international politics we are well familiar with the term gunboat diplomacy . Many big powers use politics as a weapon to determine their authority in – Systeme International d'Unites and to reinforce their image and influence. But politics is sort of satisfied with academic meanings. Some conclude that politics is only a tutorial concept and a discipline while politics when used un-academically can't be treated as a discipline. However, this narrow meaning has acknowledged a secure place within the whole gamut of the topic .
A few more words could also be still added to our analysis
about politics in academic sense and non-academic sense. A recent author aments
by observing that politics may be a “dirty” word and it's fairly often related
to some kind of self-seeking interests and hypocrisy and within the name of
politics many nefarious activities are gleefully performed and this tendency is
considerably vitiating social atmosphere.
Easton’s Definition:
We have analysed variety of definitions of politics and that
we shall now address David Easton’s famous definition which he has given in his
noted work The form of government (1971). He says: politics is described
because the study of the authoritative allocation of values for a society.
The point to notice is that this particular definition is
sort of different from all other definitions. The meanings of the three
concepts are to be enquired and that they are: policy, authority and society.
Only the authority allocates or can allocate values and for that purpose it
adopts policy: Values are allocated for society.
NATURE OF Political Orientation
To know clearly on what political orientation really is, is
to understand its nature. political orientation is claimed to be political
thought, which is why there are some who describe political orientation as
denoting the works of various thinkers. But it's not what political thought is.
There are others who equate political orientation with political philosophy.
it's true that political orientation constitutes a neighborhood of political
philosophy, but it's only a neighborhood ; a part can never be an entire , and
as a neighborhood , it remains only a neighborhood , a neighborhood of the
entire . There are still others who after incorporating science in politics,
like better to call it politics
Political Theory as History
That political orientation is history has been emphatically
advocated by scholars like George Sabine, but all history isn't political
orientation even as all political orientation isn't history. political
orientation without history may be a structure without a base. In studying and
analysing politics, what we learn to know may be a political tradition, and a
concrete way of behaviour. It is, therefore, proper that the study of politics
should essentially be a historical study. History, we should always know, is
quite the story of the dead and therefore the buried; it's a storehouse of
experience and wisdom; successes and failures, of what has been achieved, and
what has been lost. it's the sum-total and simultaneously the formation-head of
a replacement development, something, as Professor L.S. Rathore says,
“eternally significant and instructive, inseparably linked with contemporaneity
within the perpetual progress of mankind.” “Ignore history”, he warns, “and the
delight of political orientation isn't to be retrieved.”
Political theory as history defies what has lost its value.
nobody cries now that the state has been a divine creation or the results of a
accept the state of nature. As history, political orientation conserves what
has significance and helps posterity to cherish it for an extended time to
return . Concepts like justice, liberty, equality, obligation, as evolved
through the annals of your time , are being held high by political orientation
today and shall still be so in future. Indeed, history never repeats, but it
can hardly be ignored. within the plan to divorce itself from history,
political theory loses its own significance, for there are often no fruits
without roots as Seeley had said
long ago. it's through history that political orientation
explains what's what. One can never understand a text without its context.
Plato’s communism was significantly different from what's claimed to be Marx’s
communism, and one can understand communism of every by understanding the
history of their respective times. it's one’s age that prompts and propels
one’s political orientation : history shapes and reshapes political theory. How
can, then, political orientation ignore its one aspect, the historical aspect?
Sabine writes that great political orientation excels both in “an analysis of a
gift situation and in suggestiveness for other situations”. As such, “a good
political theory”, Professor S.P. Varma (Modern political orientation , 1987)
writes, “even though
it is the result of a peculiar set of historical
circumstances, features a significance for all times to return . it's exactly
this universal character of political orientation which makes it respectable”.
(See George H. Sabine, “What is Political Theory?” Journal of Politics, Vol. I,
No. 1, February 1939).
Political theory is history within the sense that it seeks to
know the time, the place and therefore the circumstances during which it
evolves.
Political
Theory as Philosophy
That political orientation may be a philosophy has been
alright enunciated by scholars like Leo Strauss, (“What is Political
Philosophy?” Journal of Politics, XIX, August 1967), but all philosophy isn't
political orientation as all political orientation isn't philosophy.
Philosophy, as an abstract study encompassing the entire universe generally ,
and morals, norms, and values especially , is that the sum-total of general
laws governing the entire world. it's served political orientation well through
the ages as its valuational factor, as Sabine has said. Philosophy, as Kant
says, has answered three questions: “What am i able to know?” “What must I do?”
and “What am i able to hope for?” and this
is what makes philosophy a lodestar of life. Without
philosophy, no political orientation can ever hope to exist; without an eye
fixed on future, no present can ever afford to remain as no present stands
without its past.
Political theory may be a philosophy, for it not only seeks
to understand the character of things but also attempts to elucidate on why
things really exist. One understands an action or an idea only by evaluating
it. Evaluation may be a a part of understanding. Philosophy as distinct from
theory may be a ‘quest for wisdom’ or as Strauss holds the view, “quest for
universal knowledge, for knowledge of the whole”. political orientation as
philosophy is “the attempt truly to understand both the character of political
things and therefore the right, or the great , political order” (Strauss).
Politics isn't what one
assumes or opines. In fact, a political theorist is predicted
to possess quite an assumption or an opinion; he has got to have knowledge.
Philosophy emerges when opinion/assumption attains the heights of data , which
is what exactly is that the task of political orientation . political
orientation as philosophy is an “attempt to exchange opinion/assumption about
the character of political things by knowledge of the character of political
things” (Strauss).
Values, Strauss believes, are an important a part of
political orientation as they're , of philosophy. Every political philosopher
has got to be an educator in his own right: he must profess; he must teach; he
must persuade. Professor Varma, therefore, writes that the thing of persuasion
is usually there before the political theorist. “What a number of the
fashionable writers have described as “the folk-lore of political philosophy’,
or mere ‘ideology’, is significant for the understanding of political
orientation .” political orientation not only explains, but also affects,
favourably or adversely. Evaluational aspects of a political activity are as
important as its factual aspects. It is, during this sense, that values and
facts form an integral a part of any political orientation .
Political Theory as Science
That political orientation may be a science has been
forcefully emphasised by scholars from Arthur Bentley (The Process of state ,
1908) to George Catlin (The Science and Method of Politics, 1927); David Easton
(The form of government , 1953) and Robert Dahl (Modern Political Analysis,
1963); but all science isn't political orientation , even as all political
orientation isn't science. political orientation isn't science within the sense
Chemistry or Physics or Mathematics may be a science. it's not as exact a
science as these natural or physical sciences are, because there are not any
universally recognised principles, no clear cause-effect relationships, no
laboratories and no predictions are made in political orientation the way these
are found in natural and exact sciences.
It is a science in thus far because it admits concepts and
norms which are both observable and testable, and in thus far because it
responds to the wants of reason and rationalism. The American science
researchers generally , and therefore the Behaviouralists especially , sought
to make a science of politics and within the process, indulged in what could
also be called ‘reductionism’. political orientation may be a science in thus
far because it can, and actually , is applied to a social affair and therefore
the definitive rules of the precise sciences are applicable within the
restrictions as in any science . political orientation as a science is merely a
science . it's a science in its methodology, in its approach
and in its analysis. thereto extent, it's a science, a major
science as Aristotle had described it. it's a science in thus far as its
conclusions are drawn after ‘study’, ‘observation’, ‘experiments’, features
which go along side any normal definition of science. there's no got to go an
extended thanks to make a ‘science’ of politics, and to seek out ‘techniques’,
and ‘tools’ to form politics a particular science, regardless of whether there
remains, within the process, any political orientation or not. The role of
science in political orientation should be limited to the extent that it helps
understand a political phenomenon, and thereto extent, science should have an
entry within the realms of political theory. political orientation admits
objectivity in association with subjectivity, facts in reference to values,
research along side theory. political orientation as science generates neutral,
dispassionate and objective knowledge (See, Colin Hay, Political Analysis,
2002).
There are limits of social sciences. In contrast, the
principles of the sport (that of the precise sciences) don't change with time.
The laws of physics, as an example , are often assumed to pertain to all or any
situations in the least times – past, present and future. But this is often not
true of the social sciences. “The nature of the ‘economic’ and therefore the
‘political’ is,” Colin Hay says, “different after Keynes and Marx during a way
that the ‘physical’ and therefore the ‘natural’ isn't after Newton and
Einstein”. We must remember that (i) “Social structures, unlike natural
structures, don't exist independently
of the activities they govern”, (ii) “social structures,
unlike the natural structures, don't exist independently of the agent’s
conceptions of what they're doing in their activity.” (iii) “social structures,
unlike natural structures, could also be only relatively enduring.” (See R.
Bhaskar, the bounds of Naturalism, 1979). this is often where the social
sciences are different from the natural sciences. the bounds of political
orientation are figured out within the ethics of political analysis.
WhatsApp Contact : 8130208920
