BPSM - 161

INTRODUCTION TO
POLITICAL THEORY
 BPSM-161

INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL
THEORY

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
EXPERT COMMITTEE (2016)
Prof. D. Gopal (Chairman) Prof. (Rtd.) Valarian Roudrigues Prof. Anurag Joshi,
Faculty of Political Science School of International Studies Faculty of Political Science
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Jawaharlal Nehru University School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068 New Delhi-110067 Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068
Prof. Gurpreet Mahajan Prof. Meena Deshpande Prof. Krishna Menon
Centre for Policy Studies Dept. of Political Science Centre for Gender Studies
Jawaharlal Nehru University University of Bangalore, Bengaluru Ambedkar University, Delhi
New Delhi – 110067
Prof. Shefali Jha Prof. S. V. Reddy Prof. Jagpal Singh
Centre for Policy Studies Faculty of Political Science Faculty of Political Science
Jawaharlal Nehru University School of Social Sciences, IGNOU School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
New Delhi – 110067 Maidan Garhi, New Delhi -110068 Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068
COURSE REVISION PANEL (2024)
Prof. A. S. Narang (Retd.) Prof. D. Gopal (Retd.) Prof. A.P. Vijapur (Retd.)
SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi AMU, Aligarh, UP
Prof. Anurag Joshi Prof. Jagpal Singh (Retd.) Prof. Satish Kumar
SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi
Dr. D. Ananda Dr. Madan Kumar Yadav
SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi
COURSE PREPARATION TEAM
Unit 1 What is Politics? Dr. Manoj Sinha, University of Delhi, Delhi
Unit 2 What is Political Theory? Dr. Rajendra Dayal & Dr. Satish Kumar Jha, University of Delhi, Delhi
Unit 3 Liberty Dr. (Mrs.) Anupama Roy, Centre for Women’s Development Studies, New
Delhi
Unit 4 Equality Prof. Krishan Menon, Ambedkar University (AUD), Delhi
Unit 5 Justice Dr. Rachna Suchinmayee, Magadh University, Patna
Unit 6 Rights Dr. N.D. Arora, University of Delhi, Delhi
Unit 7 Democracy Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Academic Associate, Faculty of Political Sciences,
IGNOU, New Delhi
Unit 8 Gender Dr. Rachna Suchinmayee, Magadh University, Patna
Unit 9 Citizenship Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Academic Associate, IGNOU & Hemalatha
Gunasekaran, Research Scholar, SIS, JNU, New Delhi
Unit 10 Civil Society and State Dr. Ankita Dutta, Indian Council of World Affair, New Delhi
Unit 11 Democracy Vs. Economic Growth Dr. Anurag Tripathi, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru
Unit 12 Liberty Vs. Censorship Dr. Shalini Gupta, University of Delhi, Delhi
Unit 13 Protective Discrimination Vs. Ms. Chinmoyee Das, Research Scholar, JNU, New Delhi
Principle of Fairness
Unit 14 Family, Law and State Dr. Surabhi Gupta, Sardar Patel University of Police Security & Criminal
Justice, Jodhpur
COURSE COORDINATOR & GENERAL EDITOR
Prof. Anurag Joshi, Faculty of Political Science, School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
EDITOR (UNIT FORMATTING, VETTING & CONTENT UPDATING)
Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Consultant, Faculty of Political Science, IGNOU, New Delhi
SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Rakesh Chandra Joshi, AE (DP), SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi
PRINT PRODUCTION
Shri Rajiv Girdhar, DR, MPDD, IGNOU New Delhi
Shri Hemant Kumar Parida, AR, MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi
November, 2024
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2024
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeography or any other means, without permission in
writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open University.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the University’s Office at Maidan
Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or visit our website: [Link]
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, by Director, School of Social Sciences.
Laser Typeset by: Mr. Rakesh Chandra Joshi, AE (DP), SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi.
Printed at:
 Course Contents
Page No.
BLOCK 1 INTRODUCING POLITICAL THEORY 5
Unit 1 What is Politics? 7
Unit 2 What is Political Theory? 20

BLOCK 2 CONCEPTS 33
Unit 3 Liberty 35
Unit 4 Equality 45
Unit 5 Justice 54
Unit 6 Rights 64

BLOCK 3 CONCEPTS 75
Unit 7 Democracy 77
Unit 8 Gender 87
Unit 9 Citizenship 101
Unit 10 Civil Society and State 111

BLOCK 4 DEBATES IN POLITICAL THEORY 121

Unit 11 Democracy vs. Economic Growth 123

Unit 12 Liberty vs. Censorship 132
Unit 13 Protective Discrimination vs. Principle of Fairness 141
Unit 14 Family, Law and State 149

SUGGESTED READINGS 159

COURSE INTRODUCTION: INTRODUCTION
TO POLITICAL THEORY
Theories are the conceptual lenses through which we can sort out the plethora
of facts that we confront daily. A good theory has certain features. The first
virtue is parsimony. A theory should be parsimonious to forgo unnecessary
speculation and confusing details. Second feature of a sound theory is accuracy.
Theories must be sufficiently detailed to allow for accurate assessments and
explanations of the world. An elegant theory simply yet precisely interprets,
describes, explains or predicts some aspect of the world. However, these virtues
are mostly identified as features of scientific theories. The explanatory and
predictive behaviour of natural sciences is not found in social sciences as too
many uncontrolled and unforeseen forces affect political and social life and that
is why, social and political practices are seldom replicable. In the light of these
problems, some experts have argued that social scientists should not try to mimic
the natural sciences; instead, they should develop their own standards and procedures.
For theorists of social and political life, therefore, the ability to feel and think in
ways similar to the object of study a is crucial component of their task.
Political theory does not exist in a vacuum and it should reflect social realities
and human concerns. A good political theorist is able to move between social
conditions and political concepts. Political theory must involve a good deal of
knowledge of political practice and should explain how states, cultures and
societies respond to political, social and economic changes. Another aspect of
political theory is that it is always defined by the specific situations and problems
political thinkers have witnessed. To understand political theory, we need to
understand both the history of ideas on which the thinkers draw and the problems
they considered themselves to be facing and to which their work was addressed.
Studying the context in which political theory originally arose allows us to
critically assess whose particular interests it reflected.
In the light of the above discussion, this course on Introduction to Political
Theory is divided in four blocks.
Block 1 is Introducing Political Theory and has two units namely What is
Politics and What is Political Theory. This section introduces the students to
the idea of political theory, its historical evolution and main approaches to study
it. This section also provides an insight into concepts of politics, state and power.
Block 2 is Concepts and has four units namely, Liberty, Equality, Justice and
Rights. Block 3 is also Concepts, having four units namely, Democracy, Gender,
Citizenship, Civil Society and State. These key concepts lay down the
foundation for understanding of political theory and these two blocks cover
their various interpretations.
Block 4 is Debates in Political Theory and has four units namely, Democracy
vs. Economic Growth, Liberty vs. Censorship, Protective Discrimination
vs. Principle of Fairness and Family, State and Law. These debates prompt us
to consider that there is no settled way of understanding concepts and new insights
and challenges help in understanding new political debates. Each unit has inbuilt
Check Your Progress Exercises which would help students in examining their
conceptual understanding of the subject. At the end of the course, Suggested
Readings cover a list of useful books for further analysis.
 Block 1
Introducing Political Theory
Introducing Political Theory
BLOCK 1 INTRODUCTION

Block 1 titled Introducing Political Theory is the introductory block of the

present course and contains two units dealing with political theory. Political
theory is political science in the full sense, and there could be no science without
theory. So, political theory may legitimately and accurately be used as
synonymous with political science. In this context. Unit 1 What is Politics?
deals with concepts of politics, state, power, legitimation and also the relationship
among them. Unit 2, What is Political Theory? highlights concepts like politcal
theory, thought and idealogy. It also covers major approaches to study political
theory.

6
 What is Politics?
UNIT 1 WHAT IS POLITICS?*

Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Politics as a Practical Activity
1.2.1 Politics Difficult to Define Precisely
1.2.2 Nature of Politics
1.2.3 Politics: An Inescapable Feature of the Human Condition
1.3 What is Politics?
1.4 What is State?
1.4.1 State: Differences on Account of Political Institutions/ Social Context
1.4.2 Ralph Miliband’s Views on State
1.4.3 Various Forms of State
1.5 Politics as a Vocation
1.6 The Legitimate Use of Power
1.6.1 Max Weber on Legitimation
1.6.2 Legitimation: Central Concern of Political Science
1.6.3 Process of ‘Delegitimation’
1.6.4 Manipulated Consent
1.6.5 Personnel of the State Machine: The Elite
1.7 Let Us Sum Up
1.8 References
1.9 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

1.0 OBJECTIVES
This introductory unit of the first block of the new course in political theory at
the Bachelor’s Degree level tells you about the basic meaning of politics and
thus, about the fundamentals of the discipline of political science. After going
through this unit, you should be able to:
Explain what is politics;
Explain the meaning of state;
Describe and explain the concept of power; and
Discuss legitimation and delegitimation.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this unit is to understand the concept of ‘political’. The
essence of political is the quest for bringing about an order that men consider
good. The term politics is derived from the Greek word polis meaning both
‘city’ and ‘state’. Politics among the ancient Greeks was a new way of thinking,
feeling and above all, being related to one’s fellows. As citizens they all were

* Contributed by Dr. Manoj Sinha, University of Delhi, Delhi, Adapted from Unit 1, EPS-11 7
Introducing Political Theory equal, although the citizens varied in positions in terms of their wealth,
intelligence, etc. It is the concept of political which makes the citizens rational.
Politics is the activity specific to this new thing called a citizen. A science of
politics is possible, because politics itself follows regular patterns, even though
it is at the mercy of the human nature from which it arises.

Greek political studies dealt with constitutions and made generalisations about
the relations between human nature and political associations. Perhaps, its most
powerful component was the theory of recurrent cycles. Monarchies tend to
degenerate into tyranny, tyrannies are overthrown by aristocracies, which
degenerate into oligarchies exploiting the population, which are overthrown by
democracies, which in turn degenerate into the intolerable instability of mob
rule, whereupon some powerful leader establishes himself as a monarch and the
cycle begins all over again. It is Aristotle’s view that some element of democracy
is essential to the best kind of balanced constitution, which he calls a polity. He
studied many constitutions and was particularly interested in the mechanics of
political change. He thought that revolutions always arise out of some demand
for equality. Ancient Rome is the supreme example of politics as an activity
conducted by human beings holding offices that clearly limit the exercise of
power. When the Romans thought about power, they used two words in order to
acknowledge an important distinction.

1.2 POLITICS AS A PRACTICAL ACTIVITY

Politics as a practical activity is the discourse and the struggle over organisation
of human possibilities. As such, it is about power; that is to say, it is about the
capacity of social agents, agencies and institutions to maintain or transform
their environment, social and physical. It is about the resources, which underpin
this capacity, and about the forces that shape and influence its exercise.
Accordingly, politics is a phenomenon found in all groups, institutions and
societies, cutting across private and public life. It is expressed in all the relations,
institutions and structures that are implicated in the production and reproduction
of the life of societies. Politics creates and conditions all aspects of our lives and
it is at the core of the development of collective problems, and the modes of
their resolutions.

1.2.1 Politics Difficult to Define Precisely

A crisp definition of politics-one that fits just those things we instinctively call
‘political’ – is impossible. Politics is a term with varied uses and nuances. Perhaps,
the nearest we can come to a capsule statement is this: politics is the activity by
which groups reach binding collective decisions through attempting to reconcile
differences among their members. There are significant points in this definition.

1.2.2 Nature of Politics

Politics is a collective activity, involving people who accept a common
membership or at least acknowledge a shared fate. Thus, Robinson Crusoe could
not practice politics. Politics presumes an initial diversity of views, if not about
goals, then at least about means. Were we all to agree all the time, politics would
be redundant. Politics involves reconciling such differences through discussion
and persuasion. Communication is, therefore, central to politics. Political
8
decisions become authoritative policy for a group, binding members to decisions What is Politics?
that are implemented by force, if necessary. Politics scarcely exists if decisions
are reached solely by violence, force, or use of threat, undermining the process
of reaching a collective decision. The necessity of politics arises from the
collective character of human life. We live in a group that must reach collective
decisions: about sharing resources, about relating to other groups and about
planning for the future. A family discussion where to take its vacation, a country
deciding whether to go to war, the world seeking to limit the damage caused by
pollution – are examples of groups seeking to reach decisions which affect all
their members. As social creatures, politics is part of our fate: we have no choice
but to practice it.

1.2.3 Politics: An Inescapable Feature of the Human Condition

So although the term ‘politics’ is often used cynically, to criticize the pursuit of
private advantage under the guise of public interest, politics is in fact, an
inescapable feature of the human condition. Indeed, the Greek philosopher
Aristotle argued that ‘man is by nature a political animal’. By this, he meant not
just that politics is unavoidable, but rather that it is the essential human activity;
political engagement is the feature which most sharply separates us from other
species. For Aristotle, people can only express their true nature as reasoning,
virtuous beings through participation in a political community. Members of a
group rarely agree; at least initially, on what course of action to follow. Even if
there is agreement over goals, there may still be a skirmish over means. Yet a
decision must be reached, one way or the other, and once made it will commit
all members of the group. Thus, politics consists in procedures for allowing a
range of views to be expressed and then combined into an overall decision. As
Shively points out, ‘Political action may be interpreted as a way to work out
rationally the best common solution to a common problem - or at least a way to
work out a reasonable common solution.’ That is, politics consists of public
choice.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What is politics as a practical activity?

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

2) Discuss the essential nature of politics.

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................
9
Introducing Political Theory
1.3 WHAT IS POLITICS?
Everybody has some idea about the meaning of the term politics; to some people
the question may even appear quite superfluous. ‘Politics’ is what one reads
about in the papers or watches on television. It deals with the activities of the
politicians, notably the leaders of political parties. What is politics all about?
Why, precisely, are these activities ‘political’ and what defines the nature of
politics? If one starts with a definition couched in terms of the activities of
politicians, one might say that politics concerns the rivalries of politicians in
their struggle for power. This would certainly be the kind of definition with
which most people would agree. There would, also, probably be agreement that
politics refers to the relationship between states on an international scale. ‘Politics
is about power and how it is distributed.’ But power is not an abstract entity
floating in the void. It is embodied in human beings. Power is relationship existing
wherever a person can impose his will on other persons, making them obey
whether they want to or not. Hence, a situation arises characterized by leadership,
a relation of domination and subordination. Max Weber, in his famous lecture of
1918, ‘Politics as a Vocation’, started by proposing that the concept of politics
was ‘extremely broad-based and comprises any kind of independent leadership
in action.’ In whatever context such leadership in action exists, politics is present.
In our terms, political would include any situation where power relations existed,
i.e. where people were constrained or dominated or subject to authority of one
kind or another. It would also include situations where people were constrained
by a set of structures or institutions rather than by the subjective will of persons.
Such a broad definition has the advantage of showing that politics is not
necessarily a matter of government, nor solely concerned with the activities of
politicians. Politics exists in any context where there is a structure of power and
struggle for power in an attempt to gain or maintain leadership positions. In this
sense, one can speak about the politics of trade unions or about ‘university
politics’. One can discus ‘sexual politics’, meaning the domination of men over
women or the attempt to alter this relation. In a narrower sense, however
everything is politics, which affects our lives through the agency of those who
exercise and control state power, and the purposes for which they use that control.
In the lecture quoted above, Weber after initially giving a very broad definition
of politics in terms of general leadership, went on to produce a far more limited
definition: ‘We wish to understand by politics’, he wrote, ‘only the leadership,
or the influencing of leadership, of a political association, hence today, of a
state’. In this perspective, the state is the central political association. A political
question is one that relates to the state, to the topic of who controls state power,
for what purposes that power is used and with what consequences, and so on.

1.4 WHAT IS STATE?

A new issue comes here: what is state? The question is by no means an easy one
to answer, nor is there a general agreement as to what the answer should be. It
must first be noted that there are various forms of the state, which differ from
one another in important ways. The Greek city-state is clearly different from the
modern nationstate, which has dominated world politics since the French
Revolution. The contemporary liberal-democratic state, which exists in Britain
and Western Europe, is different from the fascist-type state of Hitler or Mussolini.
10 It is also different from the state, which existed in the former USSR and in
Eastern Europe. An important part of the study of politics, and certainly an What is Politics?
integral element of this book, is the explanation of what is meant by those terms.
The purpose is to show how each form distinguishes itself from the other and
what the significance of such distinction is.

1.4.1 State: Differences on Account of Political Institutions/

Social Context
States differ in terms of their political institutions as well as in terms of the
social context within which they are situated and which they try to maintain. So,
while the liberal-democratic state is characterized by representative institutions
such as a parliament and an independent judiciary, the leader controls the fascist
state. With respect to the social context, the crucial contrast is between Western
and Soviet type systems in so far as the former are embedded in a society which
is organized according to the principles of a capitalist economy, while in the
latter case the productive resources of society are owned and controlled by the
state. In each case, therefore, the state is differently structured, operates in a
social framework of a very different kind, and this affects and influences to a
large extent the nature of the state and the purposes, which it serves.

There are different forms of the state, but whatever form one has in mind, the
state as such is not a monolithic block. To start with, the state is not the same as
the government. It is rather a complex of various elements of which the
government is only one. In a Western-type liberal-democratic state, those who
form the government are indeed with the state power. They speak in the name of
the state and take office in order to control the levers of state power. Nevertheless,
to change the metaphor, the house of the state has many mansions and of those,
the government occupies one.

1.4.2 Ralph Miliband’s Views on State

In his book The State in Capitalist Society, Ralph Miliband registers those
different elements, which together constitute the state. The first, but by no means
the only element of the state apparatus, is the government. The second is the
administrative element, the civil service or the bureaucracy. This administrative
executive is, in liberal-democratic systems, supposed to be neutral, carrying out
the orders of politicians who are in power. In fact, however, the bureaucracy
may well have its own authority and dispose of its own power. Third, in
Miliband’s list come the military and the police, the ‘order-maintaining’ or the
repressive arm of the state; fourth, the judiciary. In any constitutional system,
the judiciary is supposed to be independent of the holders of government power;
it can act as a check on them. Fifth, element is the local government. In some
federal systems, these units have considerable independence from the central
government, controlling their own sphere of power, where the government is
constitutionally debarred from interfering. The relationship between the central
and the local government may become an important political issue, as witnessed
by the controversy in British politics over the abolition of the Greater London
Council and the metropolitan counties, the argument about financing local
government, ‘rate capping’, and so on. Sixth and finally, one can add to the list
representative assemblies and the parliament in the British system. One may
also mention political parties, though they are not normally part of the state
apparatus, at least not in a liberal democracy. They play their obvious role in the
11
Introducing Political Theory representative assembly and it is there that, at least partly, the competitive fight
between the government and the opposition is enacted.

1.4.3 Various Forms of State

Modern state is identified as the nation state. The state has come to acquire its
present character through a historical process that extends to thousands of years.
It is interplay of various factors like religion, kinship, war, property, political
consciousness and technological advances. In the process of historical evolution
of state, there have been following forms – Tribal State, Oriental Empire, Greek
City State, Roman World Empire, Feudal State and the Modern Nation State.
The Modern Nation state arose after the Treaty of Westphalia was signed in
1648. It led to emergence of territorial state consolidating political authority
within a particular territory excluding domestic from external. The separation
of territory into distinct states each with their own national spirit paved the way
for establishment of Modern Nation State along with rise of international law,
legal equality of states and modern theory of sovereignty. American and French
revolutions further contributed to emergence of nation states.

The modern concept of state is dominated by Liberal and Marxist perspectives.

The liberal perspective is dynamic as it has changed with time depending on
interests and needs of individuals and the society. The early liberal view of state
was negative as it favored non-interference in individual matters. However, 20 th
century liberalism is associated with welfare state which tries to reconcile
individual liberty with social good. The Marxist notion rejects liberal idea of
state, calling the state as an instrument of class and seeks to establish a classless
and stateless society through the proletarian revolution. However, that did not
happen after the Russian revolution in Russia and instead of a classless and
stateless society, we saw power getting concentrated in hands of a few during
Soviet times. Feminist perspectives on state can be mainly seen from two angels
– liberal and radical. Liberal feminists say that state can play a role in bringing
equality among men and women by taking steps like increasing seats for women
in parliament, extending welfare schemes to women etc. However, radicals see
state as an instrument of power and blame unequal distribution of labor in a
family for women’s unequal status in society. Hence, they contest the liberal
view that state is impartial and neutral.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What do you understand by the term politics?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
12
2) Describe Ralph Miliband’s views on state. What is Politics?

..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) Discuss various forms of state.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

1.5 POLITICS AS A VOCATION

The point brings us back to Weber and his already quoted lecture, ‘Politics as a
Vocation’. After arguing that politics is concerned above all with the central
political association, the state, Weber continued by maintaining that a definition
of the state could not be given in terms of the tasks which it undertakes or of the
ends it pursues. There was no task, which specifically determined the state.
Therefore, one had to define the state in terms of the specific means, which it
employed, and these means were, ultimately, physical force. The state, Weber
wrote, ‘is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’. There are three distinct
elements combined here: a given territory, or geographical area, which the state
controls; the use of physical force to maintain its control and thirdly, but most
important, the monopoly of the legitimate use of such force or coercion. This
legitimacy must be acknowledged by most, if not all, of those who are subject to
the state’s power. Weber concluded that for him politics meant ‘striving to share
power or striving to influence the distribution of power either among states or
among groups within a state.’ It was also mentioned that each state exists within
a particular social context. The study of politics is vitally concerned with the
relationship of state and society. A state centered perspective on politics does
not imply that its study should neglect what happens in the wider sphere of
society and how that may, as Weber says, ‘influence the distribution of power’.
A further fact cannot be ignored: this is the continued growth and centralization
of state power. If one sees the state in terms of a specialized apparatus of
domination, then the history of modern times has been marked by the extension
of its scale and grip. The modern state requires an increasingly complex
bureaucracy dealing with a mounting variety of tasks. It needs larger and more
sophisticated armed forces, more regulative welfare agencies, and engages in a
wider range of activities than was the case before. This extension of the state’s
sphere of action, its growth and development, applies both to liberal-democratic
systems in their capitalist socio-economic context, and to socialist systems with
their collective economic framework. Weber saw such growth manifested above 13
Introducing Political Theory all in the emergence of a trained, skilled and rationally effective bureaucracy.
Someone of quite a different political and theoretical background, Marx, agreed
with him on this point. Marx wrote in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
about the growth of state power in France, which he saw as typical of the modern
state. He described how through socialism, eventually the state would be
abolished and society would govern itself without a specialised apparatus of
repression. Weber, on the contrary, believed that socialism would need even
more officials to administer a collectivised economy and society.

1.6 THE LEGITIMATE USE OF POWER

The point is that, although the state depends on force, it does not rest on force
alone. Here, the notion of the legitimate use of power comes in. Power, in general,
and so the power of the state, can be exercised in different ways. Coercion is
one form of power and perhaps the easiest to understand, but it is not the only
one. Not all power relations are to be understood on the basis of the same crude
model. If a lecturer through force of argument and breadth of knowledge helps
students to form their ideas, such a person exercises a kind of power, though not
against the students’ will. More to the point, all holders of power try to get those
who are subject to their rule to believe in the rightness and justness of the power
they wield. This attempt at justification in order to make people consent
constitutes the process of legitimation. One can refer to such justified or accepted
power as ‘authority’ to distinguish it from such power as is obeyed only because
of a fear of sanctions. In such a situation of legitimate power, or authority, people
obey because they think it is right to do so. They believe, for whatever reason,
that the power-holders are entitled to their dominant role. They have the legitimate
authority, a right to command. In the words of one recent analyst of power,
‘Legitimate authority is a power relation in which the power holder possesses
an acknowledged right to command, and the power subject, an acknowledged
obligation to obey.’

1.6.1 Max Weber on Legitimation

According to Weber, there are three types of legitimation, i.e. three methods by
which the wielding of power can be justified. The first type pertains to traditional
domination. There, power is justified because the holders of power can appeal
to tradition and habit; authority has always been vested in them personally or in
their families. The second type is charismatic legitimation. People obey the
power-holder because of the exceptional personal qualities displayed by the
leader. Finally, the third type is of the legal-rational kind. People obey certain
persons who are authorized by specific rules to command in strictly defined
spheres of action. One might also say that the first two types are of a personal
nature, while the legal-rational type shows a procedural character. As such it
corresponds to the modern conception of political authority. It is, as Weber says,
‘domination as exercised by the modern “servant of the state” and by all those
bearers of power who in this respect resemble him.’ It is obvious that the power-
holders in any system will wish to have their power accepted as legitimate. Seen
from their point of view, such an acceptance will permit a considerable ‘economy’
in the use of force. People will obey freely and voluntarily. The means of coercion,
then, will not need to be constantly displayed; they can rather be concentrated
on those who do not accept the legitimacy of the power structure. In any political
14
system, there will be those who comply with the rules only because non- What is Politics?
compliance will be punished. Clearly, however, the stability of any political
system is enhanced to the degree that people voluntarily obey the rules or laws
because they accept the legitimacy of the established order. Hence, they recognize
the authority of those empowered by the rules to issue commands. In reality, all
political systems are maintained through a combination of consent and coercion.

1.6.2 Legitimation: Central Concern of Political Science

These are the reasons because of which, as C. Wright Mills puts it, ‘The idea of
legitimation is one of the central conceptions of political science.’ The study of
politics is centrally concerned with the methods by which holders of power try
to get their power justified, and with the extent to which they succeed. It is
crucial in studying any political system to investigate the degree to which people
accept the existing power structure as legitimate, and thus, how much the structure
rests on consent as distinct from coercion. It is also important to ascertain the
actual justifications of power, which are offered; that is to say, the methods by
which a system of power is legitimised. This, as the elitist theorist Mosca points
out, is the ‘political formula’ of any political system. The question of legitimacy,
furthermore, is highly important in dealing with the topics of stability and change
of political systems. Consent may be granted or withdrawn. It is true that political
systems can survive in situations where large sections of the population cease to
accord any legitimacy to the system. The case of South Africa may be cited as
an example; similarly, that of Poland, where it seemed that the Jaruzelski regime
had little legitimacy in the eyes of substantial popular elements. The point is
that in such a situation, a regime has to rely mainly on force. It then finds itself
in a more precarious position, vulnerable and open to the impact of fortuitous
events. The system may survive for quite a time. However, once it rests on force
far more than on consent, one condition for a revolutionary change presents
itself.

1.6.3 Process of ‘Delegitimation’

This explains why a revolution is often preceded by a period when the dominating
ideas of the system are subjected to sustained criticism. One may call this a
process of ‘delegitimation’ whereby the ideas, which justify the existing structure
of power, come under attack. Long before the fall of the ancient regime in France,
the ideas of Divine Right and of autocracy were ridiculed and refuted by the
philosophers, the critics of the absolute state. Such a movement of delegitimation
contributed to undermine the foundations of the old order. It prepared the way
for its revolutionary overthrow. A case in point in modern times would be the
fate of the Weimar Republic when large sections of the German population lost
confidence in the democratic regime and, fearing a communist alternative, gave
their support to Hitler’s National-Socialist party. The result was the fall of the
republic without much of a struggle. Similar causes had similar effects all over
the European Continent. Many western systems of liberal democracy were
overthrown and replaced by fascist or semi-fascist authoritarian systems as
happened in Italy, Spain, Austria and Hungary. The conclusion, in a general
sense, must be that any system loses its stability once it ceases to enjoy legitimacy
in the eyes of its subjects. Finally, it must be noted that even in normal times,
processes of legitimation and delegitimation are permanent features of any
political system. The process of legitimation is carried on in more or less subtle
15
Introducing Political Theory ways through many channels available for the legitimation of the existing order.
Legitimising ideas are absorbed from the earliest stages of education, diffused
through a variety of forms of social interaction, and spread especially through
the influence of the press, television and other mass media. Views, which are
accepted or considered to be within the boundaries of the system, are almost
forced on readers, listeners and viewers. Action, which goes beyond those limits,
is presented as illegitimate. Being made to look very unattractive blocks off a
range of political alternatives.

1.6.4 Manipulated Consent

There are still more effective methods available to prevent subversive ideas
from even arising. They may be intercepted at source, the source being the
conscious and even the subconscious mind. An important dimension of power
is the capacity to affect and mould people’s consciousness so that they will
accept the existing state of affairs without ever becoming aware of alternative
possibilities. Consent, then, becomes manipulated consent. To a certain extent
we are all affected by the prevailing ‘climate of opinion’. From there an ascending
scale leads to a position where the moulding of minds, manipulation, is made
the deliberate purpose of the state in order to create a monolithic popular
mentality. Such was the purpose of Goebbels’ propaganda machine in Nazi
Germany and this is still, the purpose of any totalitarian regime. Manipulation is
‘power wielded unknown to the powerless’, as C. Wright Mills defines it. Peter
Worsley points out that ‘the mechanisms by which consciousness is manipulated
are of growing importance in modern society.’ In Marxist language, such
manipulated consent would eventually produce a ‘false consciousness’. Against
that, it could be argued that where people are free to choose and to express their
choice as in liberal-democratic systems, the manipulation of consciousness is
not possible. Manipulation can only occur where free choice does not exist, as
in one-party systems. It is also argued that wherever people are free to choose,
but do not infact choose an alternative to the existing order-for example, by
supporting parties committed to radical changes-it is safe to assume that the
existing structure of society is broadly ‘what people want’. This would lead to
the conclusion that the importance of political choice and the ability to freely
express that choice cannot be overrated. However, ‘what people want’ is to some
extent conditioned by various factors. Choice does not take place in a vacuum.
In short, the choice itself cannot be considered as completely free from the impact
of a process of legitimation.

1.6.5 Personnel of the State Machine: The Elite

From the short survey we have so far made of political problems, a few points of
importance emerge which will recur in the following discussion. They chiefly
stem from the fact that state power is structured or broken up, so to speak, into
distinct sectors. It has already been mentioned that the specific relationship of
the various sectors is determined by the political system within which they
operate. The internal structure, say, of a communist state. A further question
involves the personnel of these sectors. The state, after all, is not a machine;
though the phrase ‘machinery of the state’ may be used. The state is a set of
institutions staffed by people whose ideas and basic attitudes are largely
influenced by their origin and social environment. The composition of the state
elite is an important problem in the study of politics. J.A.C. Grifith in The Politics
16
of the Judiciary, exemplifies what is meant by the term ‘state elite’ with reference What is Politics?
to a study done earlier. It shows that in Britain, ‘in broad terms, four out of five
full-time professional judges are products of the elite. It is not surprising that
while discussing ‘judicial opinion about political cases’, Griffith finds ‘a
remarkable consistency of approach in these cases concentrated in a fairly narrow
part of the spectrum of political opinion.’

It must be noted here that from different theoretical points of view, different
answers will be given to the question as to how decisive the nature and
composition of the state elite are. Elitist theories accord the highest importance
to this factor. In their perspective, the nature of a political system is best explained
by an analysis of its elite, that ruling minority, which controls the state apparatus.
In this perspective, almost everything depends on the talents and abilities of the
leaders. A low quality of leadership will have disastrous consequences. For that
reason, Max Weber was much concerned with the nature of Germany’s political
leadership. He was in favour of a strong parliament, which, he believed, would
provide an adequate training ground to produce leaders willing and capable of
responsible action. Alternatively, leadership would fall into the hands of the
bureaucracy whose training and life style made them unsuitable material for
creative leadership. Marxist theories would view the matter differently. They
would accord less importance to the nature of the state elite. The argument would
rather be that the purpose and the aims of state activity are determined less by
the elite, but far more by the social context and the economic framework within
which the state system is located. This structure is of greater significance, in
this view, than the character of the personnel that staff the state machine.
Generally, ‘structural’ theories would emphasize the constraints on the
government stemming from the social structures within which the government
has to operate. Nevertheless, the two types of interpretation need not be mutually
exclusive. This brings us to a final question, which deals with the relation of
state and society. The phrase, which Marx applied to the Bonapartist state, that
its power was not ‘suspended mid-air’, can be generalised to apply to all types
of state systems. Then, several problems present themselves. How does the power
structure of society affect and constrain the political leaders? To what extent
does the state interfere to maintain and legitimise or, alternatively, mitigate the
inequalities of the social system? To what extent indeed is ‘civil society’
independent of the state? For some theorists, the concept of ‘totalitarianism’ is
meant to suggest a situation where society is totally controlled by state power
and, therefore, has no independence at all.
Check Your Progress 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What is understood by politics as a vocation?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
17
Introducing Political Theory 2) What is legitimation? What are Max Weber’s views on it?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) What is deligitimation?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
4) How is consent manipulated?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

1.7 LET US SUM UP

It may be conceded that understanding the political means understanding the
needs, objectives and goals of human life. It is related with the political activities
of human beings. Politics is the game of power. Various players play this game
at the same time and compete with each other. The state forms the central point
of this whole activity, since in the national affairs it is within the state and in the
international affairs, it is among the states. The state is authorized for the
legitimate use of power. Authority is the right to rule. Authority is a broader
notion than power. The dictates of the situation mean the understanding of the
political. It is the product of a situational event. The rise of modern nation state
has given stability to international system but there are a number of challenges
that are before today’s nations. Some communities are scattered over many parts
but feel united based on common culture, language or religion. For ex, Kurds
are scattered over Iraq, Syria and Turkey but demand a separate state. There
have been opposite examples as well, where various ethnic groups formed a
state but were not able to assimilate as a nation, for ex former Soviet Union.
Then there are issues of people who have migrated to other countries and have
become naturalized citizens but they continue to have links with countries of
their origin. There are non-traditional threats like terrorism, climate change,
drug trafficking, food security etc which cannot be tackled by a country alone
but require cooperative security. This would also require that states cede some
18
of their authority and sovereignty in the larger interest of humanity. Hence, the What is Politics?
modern nation state needs to address these issues to stay relevant in changing
times.

1.8 REFERENCES
Ball, Alan R. (1988). Modern Politics and Government. London: Macmillan.
Bhargava, R and Ashok Acharya. (ed) (2015), Political Theory: An Introduction.
New Delhi: Pearson.
Friedrich, Carl J. (1967). An Introduction to Political Theory, New York, Harper
and Row.
Held, David (ed). (1991). Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.

1.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1
1) Your answer should highlight how politics is an all pervasive activity
permeating every section of society
2) Your answer should highlight it is a collective activity, assumes diversity
of views/goals and means, reconciliation of differences through
discussion/persuasion, collective and authoritative decision making and
an inescapable feature of human condition

Check Your Progress 2

1) Your answer should highlight popular perception – rivalries of politicians
in their struggle for power, relationship between states on an international
level and meaning of power especially with reference to Max Weber’s views
2) Your answer should mention the name of his book and discuss the elements
of state described in it
3) Your answer should mention the sequence of emergence of different forms
of state, Treaty of Westphalia and the Liberal and Marxist perspective of
state

Check Your Progress 3

1) Your answer should highlight views of Max Weber as given in his lecture
‘Politics as a Vocation’, Marx’s views on state in the ‘Eighteenth Brumaire
of Louis Bonaparte’
2) Your answer should define legitimation and discuss Weber’s three types
of legitimation
3) Your answer should define it and give examples from history
4) Your answer should highlight mechanisms for manipulating consent

19
 What is Political Theory?
2.2 POLITICAL THEORY AND OTHER
INTERRELATED TERMS
A distinction can be made between political theory and similar terms like political
science, political philosophy and political ideology, though many treat them
interchangeably. The differentiation between political theory and political science
arises because of the general shift in intellectual perceptions brought about by
modern science. Political Science has tried to provide plausible generalisations
and laws about politics and political behaviour. Political theory reflects upon
political phenomenon, processes and institutions and on actual political behaviour
by subjecting it to philosophical or ethical criterion. It considers the question of
the best political order, which is a part of a larger and a more fundamental
question; namely, the ideal form of life that a human being ought to lead within
a larger community. In the process of answering immediate and local questions,
it addresses perennial issues, which is why a study of the classical texts form an
important component of the discipline. A classic in political theory has the
essential ingredients of a great literary work, which in spite of its local setting,
deals with the perennial problems of life and society. It contains the quintessence
of eternal knowledge and is an inheritance not of any one culture, place, people
or time, but of the entire humankind.

Specific political theories cannot be considered as the correct or final

understanding of an event. The meaning of an event is always open to future
interpretations from new viewpoints, each explaining and analysing from a
particular standpoint or concern in political life. Furthermore, political theory is
critical in its endeavour, for it gives an account of politics that rises above those
of ordinary people. There is no tension between political theory and political
science, for they differ in terms of their boundaries and jurisdiction, and not in
their aim. Political theory supplies ideas, concepts and theories for the purpose
of analysis, description, explanation and criticism, which in turn are incorporated
in political science.

Political philosophy provides general answers to questions such as what is justice,

concepts of right, the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ and the larger issues
of politics. Political philosophy is a part of normative political theory, for it
attempts to establish inter-relationships between concepts. It is, perhaps, accurate
to say that every political philosopher is a theorist, though every political theorist
is not a political philosopher. Political philosophy is a complex activity, which
is best, understood by analysing the many ways that the acknowledged masters
have practiced it. No single philosopher and no one historical age can be said to
have defined it conclusively, any more than any one painter or school of painting
has practiced all that we mean by painting.

Political thought is the thought of the whole community that includes the writings
and speeches of the articulate sections such as professional politicians, political
commentators, society reformers and ordinary persons of a community. Thought
can be in the form of political treatises, scholarly articles, speeches, government
policies and decisions, and also poems and prose that capture the anguish of the
people. Thought is time bound; for instance, the history of the twentieth century.
In short, political thought includes theories that attempt to explain political
behaviour, and values to evaluate it and methods to control it.
21
Introducing Political Theory Political theory, unlike thought, refers to the speculation by a single individual,
usually articulated in treatises as models of explanation. It consists of theories
of institutions, including that of the state, law, representation and of election.
The mode of enquiry is comparative and explanatory. Political theory attempts
to explain the attitudes and actions arising from ordinary political life and to
generalise about them in a particular context: this political theory is concerned
about/with the relationships between concepts and circumstances. Political
philosophy attempts to resolve or to understand conflicts between political
theories, which might appear equally acceptable in given circumstances.

Political ideology is a systematic and all embracing doctrine, which attempts to

give a complete and universally applicable theory of human nature and society
along with a detailed programme of attaining it. John Locke is often described
as the father of modern ideologies. Marxism is also a classic example of an
ideology summed up in the statement that the purpose of philosophy is to change
and not merely interpret the world. All political ideology is political philosophy,
though the reverse is not true. The twentieth century has seen many ideologies
like Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Liberalism. A distinctive trait of political
ideology is its dogmatism, which unlike political philosophy, precludes and
discourages critical appraisal because of its aim to realise the perfect society.
According to Gamine and Sabine, political ideology is a negation of political
theory because an ideology is of recent origin, and under the influence of
positivism is based on subjective, unverifiable value preferences. Gamine,
furthermore, distinguishes a political theorist from a publicist. According to him
while the former has a profound understanding of issues, the latter is concerned
with immediate questions.

Furthermore, Germino, like Plato has distinguished between opinion and

knowledge and the latter being the starting point of a political theorist. Every
political theorist has a dual role; that of a scientist and a philosopher and the
way he divides his roles will depend on his temperament and interests. Only by
combining the two roles can he contribute to knowledge in a worthwhile manner.
The scientific component of a theory can appear coherent and significant, if the
author has a preconceived notion of the aims of political life. The philosophical
basis is revealed in the manner in which reality is depicted.

Political theory is dispassionate and disinterested. As a science, it describes

political reality without trying to pass judgement on what is being depicted either
implicitly or explicitly. As a philosophy, it prescribes rules of conduct which
will secure a good life for all in the society and not simply for certain individuals
or classes. The theorist, will not himself have a personal interest in the political
arrangements of any one country or class or party. Devoid of such an interest,
his vision of reality and his image of the good life will not be clouded, nor will
his theory be special. The intention of an ideology is to justify a particular system
of power in society. The ideologue is an interested party : his interest may be to
defend things as they are or to criticise the status –quo in the hope that a new
distribution of power will come into being. Rather than disinterested prescription,
we love rationalisation. Rather than dispassionate description, we have a distorted
picture of reality.

22
 What is Political Theory?
2.3 DEVELOPMENTS IN POLITICAL THEORY
Developments in political theory always reflect the changes which occur in
society. Political theories are produced in response to the challenges which emerge
at different times. Hegel’s symbolic characterisation of political theory as ‘the
owl of Minerva takes flight when shadow of darkness falls’ is very apt. However,
we will do well to remember that political thought, which also emerges due to
societal challenges, is bound by time as well as space, and is therefore, different
from theory which breaks such barriers and proves its worth in understanding
and explaining political phenomena of different nature and origin. This happens,
because theories are purged and purified from ideologies and biases and arrive
at certain principles, which are not only timeless, but may even be called
knowledge. Political theorists, while indulging in theorisation, pursue ideas not
for the sake of fulfillment of their fads and fantasies, but in order to search those
principles whose understanding can make life better. And in this enterprise,
theorists, by and large, are motivated by the concrete political situation. The
history of political theory bears out how ills and maladies afflicting societies
have lubricated the tools of theorisation, through which various accepted
principles and practices and the assumptions behind them were questioned and
the blueprint for the future was drawn. It is, however, true that the stimulus for
theory always comes from some sort of failure and a related conviction that
things can be bettered through an improved understanding and may, ultimately
be resolved. Hence, political theory’s task is not limited to providing a fleeting
response and getting contented with a compromise. Rather, it has to reach at the
root of the problem and has to discover remedies in the form of an alternative
set of principles. Hence, any project on theory requires a ‘vision’ through which
a theorist could think not only about the problems at hand, but also beyond
them. It is here that political theory might be differentiated from art or poetry. In
terms of vision, reflections and ruminations, there is not much difference between
political theory and other creative activities like art and poetry. But what sets
apart the political theorist from the poet is that his urge and search are a conscious
act with a definite design, whereas a poetic act is one of spontaneity. Therefore,
it is not creativity, but consciousness that denies poetry the status of a theory.

2.4 TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF POLITICAL

THEORY
Political theory is defined in different ways by different people. The definitions
vary on the basis of emphasis and understanding of its constitutive elements.
Sabine’s well known definition of political theory is that it is something ‘which
has characteristically contained factors like the factual, the causal and the
valuational’. To Hecker, political theory is ‘dispassionate and disinterested
activity. It is a body of philosophical and scientific knowledge which regardless
of when and where it was originally written, can increase our understanding of
the world in which we live today and we live tomorrow’. Therefore, one may
say that what we mean by political theory is a coherent group of propositions,
with some explanatory principle, about a class of political phenomena. It implies
that a theory unlike thought, cannot consider a multitude of phenomena at a
time, and will have to get concerned with a class or type of issues only.

23
Introducing Political Theory Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What do you understand by political theory?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Distinguish political theory from other inter-related terms.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

2.5 IMPORTANCE OF KEY THEORETICAL

CONCEPTS
A reader getting introduced to political theory for the first time may think it
sufficient to study the institutions rather than abstract concepts in order to
understand the character and nature of society. While a study of institutions is
possible, one has to realise that institutional arrangements vary from society to
society because they are based on divergent sets of ideas. This realisation takes
us to the heart of the matter as to what is more important, reality or ideas, facts
or concepts. Do ideas reflect reality or is reality based on ideas?

2.5.1 Is Political Theory Dead?

In the middle of the twentieth century, many observers readily wrote an obituary
of political theory. Some spoke of its decline. Others proclaimed its death. One
referred to political theory as being in the doghouse. This dismal view is because
the classical tradition in political theory is, by and large, loaded with value
judgements beyond the control of empirical testing. The criticism of normative
theory came from logical positivists in the 1930s and from behaviouralism,
subsequently. Easton contends that since political theory is concerned with some
kind of historical form, it had lost its constructive role. He blames William
Dunning, Charles H. Mcllwain, and George M. Sabine for historicism in political
theory. This kind of political theory has dissuaded students from a serious study
of value theory and rejects elements of history and philosophy in political theory.

Easton examined the reasons for the decline of political theory in general and its
decline into historicism in particular. First, and foremost, is the tendency among
24
political scientists to conform to the moral propositions of their age leading to a What is Political Theory?
loss of the constructive approach. The emphasis is to uncover and reveal one’s
values which imply that there is no longer the need to enquire into the merit of
these moral values, but merely understand their ‘origins, development and social
impact’. History is used to endorse existing values. Secondly, moral relativism
is responsible for the attention a theory received with history. Overall, he gave
four reasons for decline of political theory – historicism, moral relativism, hyper
factualism and positivism.

2.5.2 Revival of Political Theory

In the 1930s, political theory began studying the history of ideas with the purpose
of defending liberal democratic theory in opposition to the totalitarian tenets of
communism, fascism and nazism. Lasswell tried to establish a scientific political
theory with the eventual purpose of controlling human behaviour, furthering the
aims and direction given by Merriam. Unlike the classical tradition, scientific
political theory describes rather than prescribes. Political theory in the traditional
sense was alive in the works of Arendt, Theodore Adorno, Marcuse, and Leo
Strauss. Their views diametrically differed from the broad ideas within American
political science for they believed in liberal democracy, science and historical
progress. All of them reject political messianism and utopianism in politics.
Arendt focussed mainly on the uniqueness and responsibility of the human being,
with which she initiates her criticism in behaviouralism. She contended that the
behavioural search for uniformities in human nature has only contributed towards
stereotyping the human being.

Strauss reaffirms the importance of classical political theory to remedy the crisis
of the modern times. He does not agree with the proposition that all political
theory is ideological in nature mirroring a given socio-economic interest, for
most political thinkers are motivated by the possibility of discerning the principles
of the right order in social existence. A political philosopher has to be primarily
interested in truth. Past philosophies are studied with an eye on coherence and
consistency. The authors of the classics in political theory are superior because
they were geniuses and measured in their writings. Strauss scrutinises the methods
and purposes of the ‘new’ political science and concludes that it was defective
when compared with classical political theory, particularly that of Aristotle. For
Aristotle, a political philosopher or a political scientist has to be impartial, for
he possesses a more comprehensive and clearer understanding of human ends.
Political science and political philosophy are identical, because science consisting
of theoretical and practical aspects is identical with philosophy. Aristotle’s
political science also evaluates political things, defends autonomy of prudence
in practical matters and views political action as essentially ethical. These
premises Behaviouralism denies, for it separates political philosophy from
political science and substitutes the distinction between theoretical and practical
sciences. It perceives applied sciences to be derived from theoretical sciences,
but not in the same manner as the classical tradition visualises. Behaviouralism
like positivism is disastrous, for it denies knowledge regarding ultimate principles.
Their bankruptcy is evident, for they seem helpless, unable to distinguish the
right from the wrong, the just from the unjust in view of the rise of totalitarianism.
Strauss counters Easton’s charge of historicism by alleging that the new science
is responsible for the decline in political theory, for it pointed to and abetted the
general political crisis of the West because of its overall neglect of normative
25
Introducing Political Theory issues. Vogelin regards political science and political theory as inseparable and
that one is not possible without the other. Political theory is not ideology, utopia
or scientific methodology, but an experiential science of the right order in both
the individual and society. It has to dissect critically and empirically the problem
of order. Theory is not just any opining about human existence in society, it
rather is an attempt at formulating the meaning of existence by explicating the
content of a definitive class of experiences. Its argument is not arbitrary, but
derives its validity from the aggregate of experiences to which it must
permanently refer for empirical control.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) Examine the debate about relevance of political theory.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

2.6 APPROACHES IN POLITICAL THEORY

It is quite difficult to identify and categorise various conceptions of political
theory which are put into use by theorists. The difficulty emanates from a tendency
among theorists to go for an exercise in which they start drawing on different
conceptions and traditions. This is truer, as we will see later, with contemporary
political theory than with the ones which preceded it. In the past, theorists
somewhat maintained a purity of conception in theory – building and seldom
out stepped the framework they had chosen. But this does not apply to the
contemporary times, which are a witness to a crop of theory which appears
hybrid in nature. But broadly speaking, three different conceptions emerge in
political theory on the basis of which both the past and the present theories can
be conceptualised, judged and evaluated. They are: Historical, Normative, and
Empirical.

2.6.1 Historical Approach

Many theorists have attempted theory – building on the basis of insights and
resources from history. Sabine is one of the main exponents of the historical
conception. In his opinion, a question such as what is the nature of political
theory can be answered descriptively; that is, how theory has responded to
historical events and specific situations. In other words, in this perspective,
political theory becomes situation dependent in which each historical situation
sets a problem, which in turn is taken care of through solutions devised by the
theory. This conception of political theory is deferential to tradition. Cobban
also believes that the traditional mode, in which a sense of history is instilled to
the full, is the right way to consider the problems of political theory. It is true
26 that the past acts as a valuable guide in our endeavour of theory – building and
teach es us not to be too sure of our originality. It also hints that it is possible to What is Political Theory?
think in ways other than those which are fashionable and dominant, besides
shedding light on the sources. The historical understanding also sensitises us
about the failings of the past generations and ties them with the collective wisdom
of the present and promotes imaginativeness in us.
Over and above this, the historical conception also contributes significantly to
our normative vision. The history of ideas may tell us that our social and political
universe is a product of things whose root lies in the past. And knowing them
better would tell us how we have certain values, norms and moral expectations
and from where they have come. With this sense in us, it is possible to interrogate
these values and critically assess their utility. But a blind adherence to this
conception is not without its folly. The novelty of the project called political
theory is that each specific situation is unique, riddled with new challenges.
Hence, worth of the past sometimes becomes redundant and could even be a
hindrance, if one is oblivious of this aspect. Therefore, the utility of this approach
in political theory beyond a certain level is doubtful as it is always wedded to
outmoded ideas from outmoded ages. The suggestive values of the ideas remain,
but the theoretical function recedes considerably.

2.6.2 Normative Approach

The normative conception in political theory is known by different names. Some
people prefer to call it philosophical theory, while others refer to it as ethical
theory. The normative conception is based on the belief that the world and its
events can be interpreted in terms of logic, purpose and ends with the help of the
theorist’s intuition, reasoning, insights and experiences. In other words, it is a
project of philosophical speculation about values. The questions, which are asked
by the normativists, would be: what should be the end of political institutions?
What should inform the relationship between the individual and other social
organisations? What arrangements in society can become model or ideal and
what rules and principles should govern it? One may say that their concerns are
moral and the purpose is to build an ideal type. Hence, it is these theorists who
have always conceived ‘utopia’ in the realm of political ideas through their
powerful imagination. Normative political theory leans heavily towards political
philosophy, because it derives its knowledge of the good life from it and also
uses it as a framework in its endeavour to create absolute norms. In fact, their
tools of theorisation are borrowed from political philosophy and therefore, they
always seek to established inter-relationships among concepts and look for
coherence in the phenomena as well as in their theories, which are typical
examples of a philosophical outlook. Leo Strauss has strongly advocated the
case for normative theory and has argued that political things by nature are
subject to approval or disapproval and it is difficult to judge them in any other
terms, except as good or bad and justice or injustice. But the problem with the
normativists is that while professing values which they cherish, they portray
them as universal and absolute. They do not realise that their urge to create
absolute standard for goodness is not without pitfalls. Ethical values are relative
to time and space with a heavy subjective content in them, which precludes the
possibility of any creation of absolute standard. We will do well to remember
that even a political theorist is a subjective instrument in the assessment of the
world and these insights are conditioned by many factors, which may be
ideological in nature. The exponents of empirical theory criticise normativism
for: 27
Introducing Political Theory a) Relativity of values
b) Cultural basis of ethics and norms
c) Ideological content in the enterprise and
d) Abstract and utopian nature of the project.
But in the distant past those who championed normative theory always tried to
connect their principles with the understanding of the reality of their times. In
recent times, again the old sensibility within the normative theory has re-emerged
and the passion for good life and good society has been matched by
methodological and empirical astuteness. John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice is a
case in point which attempts to anchor logical and moral political theory in
empirical findings. Rawls, with his imagination, creates ‘original position’ to
connect normative philosophical arguments with real world concerns about
distributive justice and the welfare state.

2.6.3 Empirical Approach

What has dominated political theory in the twentieth century is not normativism,
but another conception known as empirical political theory which derives theories
from empirical observations. Empirical political theory refuses to accord the
status of knowledge to those theories which indulge in value judgements.
Naturally, therefore, normative political theory is debunked as a mere statement
of opinion and preferences. The drive for value – free theory started in order to
make the field of political theory scientific and objective and hence, a more
reliable guide for action. This new orientation came to be known as positivism.
Under the spell of positivism, political theorists set out to attain scientific
knowledge about political phenomena based on the principle which could be
empirically verified and proved. Thus, they attempted to create a natural science
of society and in this endeavour; philosophy was made a mere adjunct of science.
Such an account of theory also portrayed the role of a theorist as of a disinterested
observer, purged of all commitments and drained of all values.

This empirical project in political theory was premised on the empiricist theory
of knowledge which claims to have the full blown criteria to test what constitutes
truth and falsehood. The essence of this criterion is lodged in the experimentation
and the verification principle. When political theory was reeling under this
influence, a so called revolution started and became popular as ‘Behavioural
Revolution’. This revolution reached a commanding position within political
theory in the 1950’s and engulfed the entire field of study and research by
advocating new features. They included :
a) Encouragement to quantitative technique in analysis
b) Demolition of the normative framework and promotion of empirical research
which can be susceptible to statistical tests
c) Non-acceptance and rejection of the history of ideas
d) Focus on micro-study as it was more amenable to empirical treatment
e) Glorification of specialisation
f) Procurement of data from the behaviour of the individual and
g) Urge for value-free research.
28
In fact, the behavioural climate got surcharged by an anti-theory mood and those What is Political Theory?
who lambasted theory in a conventional sense had a field day. Theory was
caricatured and made synonymous with ideology, abstraction, metaphysics and
utopia. Some adventurists even advocated farewell to theory as an enterprise. In
the zeal of attaining objective knowledge, they even reduced thought to an aspect
of reality and blurred the distinction between thought and reality. Thus, they
soon attracted the ire and fire of some philosophers of science who offered a
vision for a post-positivist approach to science. Karl Popper set the new mood
by laying down the principle of ‘falsification’ as a criterion of scientific
knowledge and argued that all knowledge was conjectural, tentative and far
from the final truth. The real turn or breakthrough came in the philosophy of
science when Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Mary Hesse blasted the so called
scientific theory. Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolution was a pioneer
in bringing out the shortcomings and failures of the positivist theory and it
demonstrated how all cognitions were dependent on understanding and
interpretation as a means of inter-subjective communication. Kuhn cogently
argued that it was not only the irrational conventions which lurked behind the
construction of the semantic framework, but were also informed by rational
discourses framed by interpretation and criticism.
Check Your Progress 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) Distinguish between the empirical and normative conceptions of political
theory.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

2.6.4 Contemporary Approach

Contemporary political theory made its appearance on the intellectual scene in
the 1980s and 90s, mostly as a reaction against the established traditions in
theory and put the categories of Enlightenment like reason and science to which
all traditions in political theory were tied, to a scathing and searching criticism.
They brought in many aspects which were conquered as the foundation of truth
by political theory under the scanner and set out to lay down the new principles
to understand and imagine the new social and political universe which some of
them put as ‘post-modern condition’. However, it would be arbitrary to yoke the
various theoretical trends visible today under one broad frame of analysis. For
example, discussing post–structuralism and post-modernism with
communitarianism and multiculturalism together would amount to intellectual
atrocity against them and their concerns and commitments. Because their history, 29
Introducing Political Theory their normative concern as well as the theoretical apparatuses and empirical
referents have a significant dissimilarity and diversion. But still one can layout
the theoretical terrain on which their engagement with political theory takes
place. The broad thrusts which bring many of the contemporary theorists and
theories together could be put under the following:

a) Opposition to Universalism
Political theorisation in contemporary times has gone for subjecting the
universal claims of political theory of yesteryears, irrespective of the
tradition to which they belonged, to critical scrutiny. Liberal universalism
has appeared to them as devoid of a social and temporal context and in
their opinion, the hidden ‘particularism’ mostly based on the experience of
western society has masqueraded as universal values and norms. They argue
that the appeal to universal principles is tantamount to standardisation;
hence, violative of justice which may be inherent in a particular community
or form of life and which may embody its own values and normative
principle. The communitarian theory and the multicultural theory in recent
times have highlighted it quite forcefully and called this so called
universalist theories as ‘exclusivist’ at the core, which has always presented
one vision of ‘good’ as the only vision of mankind.

b) Critique of Grand Narratives

The grand narratives of both the liberal and the Marxist variety have come
under fire on the premise that there is an overarching or transcendental
‘foundation’ of reality and truth. Some of the contemporary theories have
been declared ‘anti-foundational’, because of the continuous contestation
of all well accepted foundations in political theory, viz, state, sovereignty
and power. In all fairness to them, they do not reject all foundations, but
only transcendental ones. The post–modernists are in the forefront in
attacking the grand narratives and argue that there is nothing like objective
pre-given reality or an objective social good which can support such grand
narratives and their designs.

c) Post-positivism
It is reminiscent of the earlier engagement with value neutrality in social
science once championed by the behaviouralists in political theory. The
contemporary theories call value-free enterprises as useless and believe
that political theory is an inherently normative and politically engaged
project, which is supposed to offer prescription and a vision for the future.

d) Empirical and Comparative

The post-positivist thrust among contemporary theorists do not stop them
from advocating the need for empirical and comparative approaches before
any generalization attempt is made. Multiculturalism is one such example,
which is sensitive to the context. In fact, this kind of empirical – comparative
methodology would be a check on the broad generalisation across cultures
and continents. In spite of the new insights which come from contemporary
political theory, they suffer from many weaknesses. Unlike classical political
theory, there is not much comparative – empirical inquiry as yet and the
tendency among theorists to borrow from the other theorists is galore. The
30 normative enterprise can be useful only when it is tied to reality. Therefore,
 the real challenge lies in grounding normative theory to empirical reality What is Political Theory?
of society and politics. This is the only way a valid political theory with
just generalisations can emerge, which would also overcome the limitation
of the post–modernist perspective and its weaknesses of relativity and
diffusion which are not always congenial for political projects. This may
fructify what Sheldon Wolin calls ‘epic theory’.
Check Your Progress 4
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) Discuss some of the broad thrusts which bring contemporary theorists
together.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

2.7 LET US SUM UP

Since we have different conceptions of political theory, they acquire different
meanings in different traditions. We have seen why political theory emerges
and how it shapes and decides the course of history by facilitating human
intervention in politics. What are the different conceptions held by the theorists
have also been discussed and their pitfalls highlighted. The contemporary
enterprise, which claims to open new vistas in our understanding of social and
political reality, has been discussed along with its limitations. What emerges
clearly from the preceding discussion is that philosophy and science cannot
replace each other in the project called political theory, if a vision for the
emancipation of mankind is the mission and that even in the absence of anything
called objective ‘good’ or objective ‘truth’, the practical basis for theory should
be attempted. It is not only desirable, but also derivable. Any project in political
theory which unifies empirical findings with normative thinking by subjecting
them to rigorous criticism can open the gate for creativity in political theory on
the basis of which we can navigate into the future.

2.8 REFERENCES
Barry, B. (1989). The Strange Death of Political Philosophy’ in Democracy,
Power and Justice : Essays in Political Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Berlin, S. I. (1964). Does political theory still exist? in P. Laslett and W.G.
Runciman, Philosophy, Politics and Society, 2nd series (eds.) Oxford: Blackwell.

Lasslet, P and W. G. Runciman (eds) (1957). Philosophy, Politics and Society.

Oxford: Blackwell.

31
Introducing Political Theory Sabine, G. H. (1939). What is Political theory, Journal of Politics. Vol. 1, No. 1
(Feb., 1939), pp. 1-16.

Wolin, Sheldon. (1960). Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western
Political Thought. Boston: Little Brown.

2.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress 1

1) Your answer should highlight the following points:

How political theory is synonymous with political science
Discuss inter-relationship of political theory and political philosophy
Elaborate on Hegel’s quote on political theory
Variations in defining political theory.
2) Your answer should explain how it is different from political science,
political thought and political ideology.

Check Your Progress 2

1) Examine the debate on whether political theory is dead and also discuss
views of Levi Strauss.

Check Your Progress 3

1) Your answer should highlight the fact-value dichotomy and mention their
strengths and weaknesses.

Check Your Progress 4

1) Highlight opposition to universalism, critique of grand narratives, Post-

positivism and focus on empirical and comparative.

32