1.

0 Introduction to Political Science

The concept ‘politics’ is one of the most as the contentious concepts in the
world of social sciences. It defies a generally acceptable definition. It is also one of
the concepts that have been misused, abused and misconceived by different
commentators. The concept of politics in the developing world is usually
associated with anything that is negative, bad and unethical. For instance, Godwin
Unanka (2008:1–2) has traced the misconception of politics to the dubious
way Nigerian politicians go about politics. According to him:
The misconception and misunderstanding of ‘politics” and the
“political” is rooted in the acts of discredited individuals who claim the titles
politicians’ and poiitica1 leaders’. This is evident in the volumes of unfulfilled
political campaign promises, political corruption, bribery, election rigging,
hooliganism and violence that have characterize the political environment of most
of third world countries, such as Nigeria.

The negative conception of politics by most people in the developing

countries has engendered the negative attitude of many people to it. To talk of
politics and to identify oneself as a politician in most of the African countries is to
be labeled a crab, a dishonest and an immoral person. Some religious bodies and
denominations even discourage their members from participating in the political
affairs of their country in particular, a Christian who claims to be a politician is
often regarded as a backslider.
Politics as a word is capable of myriad of definitions, depending on the way
diverse but equally competent people view it. This diversity in the definition of
politics may also have to do with the changing nature of politics. To be sure,
politics based on mere logic and reason in the ancient Greek city states has not
only transformed to the extent that it is not only being studied with various
scientific procedures and methods in the twentieth century, but it has to brace up to
meet the emerging sophisticated, technological environment. Toda); the evolving
sophisticated, technological environment is transforming national and international
political processes, governance as well as the tools of analysis. In the current
century; we now talk of e-governance and internet politics (Margetts, 2010), for
instance. Consequently, because of the transformation of the global environment
and the concomitant commitment to keep pace with the emerging realities, politics
has not been “is”; politics is becoming.
Another misconception that should be cleared on the definition of politics is
the Aristotle’s dictum that “Man is a political animal”. Most laymen and even
some professional political scientists fail to understand what Aristotle meant by
this statement. Unanka seems to be one of them when the writes.
Though Aristotle suggested that every man and woman is a political
animal, in reality politics cannot be the business of every man and
woman. Every man and woman ma yin varied degree participate in
politics, but definitely politics cannot be the business of every one
(Unanka, 2008, p.2)
For the sake of clarity, Aristotle never meant that everyone is a born-
politician. What he observed was the nature and composition of man and the
ultimate goal of man which is happiness. His contention therefore is that the
goal of man and the actuality of his potentials can only be fulfilled in a
society, through his interaction with others.
1.1 Defining Politics
In the attempt to define politics and the political, two major perspectives
have emerged. There are the contributors that link politics essentially with
institutions of the state; and there are those who view politics in relation to the
behavior of the officials of the state. These two perspectives, and in addition to the
views of a few other passive observers, do not only presume that their views
oppose each other but also that they are conflicting. Here, the difference is a matter
of semantics. The institutional view of politics is, of course, the older and offers
the traditional conception of politics. Belonging to the school of the institutional
view of politics is Rode et al who define politics as: “The science of the state, a
branch of the social sciences dealing with the theory, organization, government and
practice of the state” (1967, p. 4). According to this school, all that is political and
that can be called politics are those things that go on in the various organs,
institutions and agencies of the state. It is the study of the legislature, the executive
and the judiciary and their related institutions that define what politics is, in other
words. Politics is therefore concerned with how policies and laws are formulated or
made and how they are executed and implemented. In addition, what is political is
what is directly linked with the state. This view is equally shared by Duverger
(1972): Duverger equated the study of politics to the of the state and how power
was exercised by the institution of government. Indeed, according to him, political
science is the science of both power and the state (p.12&13).
David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (2010) however held the view that the
conception of politics by this school was too narrow. They agreed that state power
was central to the meaning and business of politics. Nevertheless, they were unable
to capture the whole essence of politics or political science. They stated thus:
Politics is about more than what government chooses to do or
not: it is about the uneven distribution of power in the society;
how the struggle overpower is conducted and its impact on the
creation and distribution of resources, life chances and well-
being.
(Marsh & Stoker, 2010, p. 7)
 The functional/behavioral school which developed after the Second World
War saw politics beyond the state functionary. Belonging to the functional/
behavioural school According to him, “Reduced to its universal element then,
politics is a social process characterized by activity involving rivalry and
cooperation in the making of decision fora group” (1965, p. 5). In the opinion of
David Easton, politics is concerned with the allocation of values. Averting, he
stressed that politics revolves around allocation. Through the allocation, values or
resources are distributed among the members of a society to drive home his point,
Easton used an analogy on how resources may be allocated. He of other noted that:
In providing safety, a policeman helps to allocate this value
differently from the way it would have been allocated without his presence. In-
building roads, a government values offers a benefit to its users and a deprivation
to its tax gets what, payers for whom it may have no importance at all.
(Easton, 1972. p. 286).
Central in this definition is the allocation of values or can be resources: politics is a
way of allocating and distributing the scarce resources of a community. No society
ever has enough to meet the needs and aspirations of everybody to member. Yet
human needs are unlimited. However, the values or desires of the people are
sometimes conflicting, and Politics then comes to play when the people recognize
a body (an authority) that will help in ordering and allocating these scarce values
or desires in a just and equitable manner. This perhaps explains why Hoffman and
Graham (2009) argued that “politics is about conflict the in all societies, at all
levels”. In doing this, the state power is necessary.
The necessity to allocate scarce resources to meet some Through immediate
pressing demands and needs of the society among or a section of it at a given time
and the decision to
Easton differ the allocation of resources to meet the demand. He of other groups at
a future date is something that those in authority and whose responsibility it is to
allocate resources cannot shy away from. It was this notion of politics as the
authoritative allocation of resources or values that made Lasswell to define politics
as: “Who tax gets what, when and how”. The import of this definition since
resources are often scarce and the desires or the wants of the members of any
political community can be conflicting, there should be a body saddled with the
responsibility of regulating the affairs of the community. Hence, it becomes the
responsibility of the of everybody to decide “Who” (that is, the segment of the
people) should get ‘What’ (that is particular part of the value) and “When” (that is
a particular time). This is necessary because neither can the needs of everybody be
met simultaneously nor can everybody have the same thing at the same time; so,
some have to wait.
Those in the arena of decision making and resource allocation must however
be seen to be responsive to the people’s demands and aspirations and very wise, so
that in their period of “waiting” the people will not get discouraged or frustrated.
The ‘Hoy” of value and resource allocation refers to the method or scheme adopted
in the sharing of values. This requires a lot of political sagacity. Good reasons have
to be marshaled and sometimes element of force will be required. In this respect,
Niccolo Machiavelli described politics in terms of power.
The argument of this functional/behavioural school is that the real meaning of
politics cannot be fully grasped without looking into some factors that help the
state to function. Therefore, there is the need to investigate into what is a political
entailing issue like: the electoral processes, the political parties, pressure groups,
public opinion, and so on. These factors have so much influence on the smooth
operation, or otherwise, of the state.
From the two perspectives discussed above, there is no discernible hard line
between the views of the two schools. The institutional school concentrates its
efforts on defining politics and what is political in the state and its operation. The
institutional school cannot however be blind to the relevance of what Unanka calls
the “Parapolitical systems” (2008, p. 10). The para-political systems include
families, churches, unions, political parties, interest groups, international
organizations, and others. The point of the argument of the institutional school is
that the that the para-political systems are necessarily influenced by the activities
of the state. The functional school reinforces the important roles of the para-
political systems and that the state, its operation, are greatly influenced and
affected as well as shaped by the roles of the para-political systems.
As a matter of fact, the success or failure of any society or political system,
that is, of all the levels of government, is determined by the para-political systems.
Nwankwo (2008: 3) is definitely right writing that “in its most basic into meaning,
therefore, politics has to do with the state and its organization. Thus, one may
define politics in terms public of the notion of the state, institutions, power,
allocation of values and resolution of conflict. However, as we
shall see, the machinery of the state as an institution has remained very central’
Politics is apparently more or less the management of the meager resources of a
political community for the maximum and overall benefits and of all the members
of the community It is the sharing
and the shaping of the community’s goods and resources for the benefit of all, and
the conciliation and reconciliation of the disputes that may arise in the process.
And indeed, central to politics is the concept of governmental power, because
power is necessary for rid school is the allocation of resources and for the
reconciliation of the disputes that are bound to arise in the process.
The sphere of politics, no doubt, transcends the looks at the political realm
to include the economic, social and cultural business or spheres. Our view
therefore agrees with that of is acquired, Nwankwo that: “politics is the art of
government: the powers are art of the possible, the art of making what is necessary
the leader possible or even making seemingly impossible possible” resources
(2008:6). Having explained the meaning of politics, what political science entails is
the question requiring an answer next.
1.2 What then is Political Science?
Political science, which has politics as its central theme, cannot but be as
complex as politics itself is. It is expected that there will be diverse definitions of
what political science by
science is. Maxi Mbah (2007:15-16), for instance, put science as:” an academic
discipline within the social science that concerned with the systematic study and
analysis of politics. It attempts to understand the political behavior of individuals,
groups and societies, the factors and conditions that affect politics”. Neal, Douglas
and Joseph (2011; 506-507) defined political science as the “Field of study
characterized by a search for critical understanding of the good, the political life,
significant empirical understanding and wise political and policy judgments”.
Whichever way one looks at the discipline of political science, the main business
or concern of it is politics. How political power is acquired, how politicians
struggle for power, how powers are shared, used, misused and abused, and how the
leaders and the led are related, as well as how resources are rationally or
irrationally allocated or misallocated, are all the concerns of political science.
and in doing this, the political scientists take cognizance of the para-political
systems.
Political science is one of the social sciences that make ambitious efforts at
studying political phenomenon scientifically, despite the limitation imposed on it
by its object of study – man. The definition of political science by Ezeani (2012)
corroborates the assertion.
According to him, political science is the academic discipline devoted to the
systematic description, explanation, analysis, and evaluation of politics.
It is noteworthy that the study of political science as a separate discipline is
relatively new. Even though politics is a very old concept, and as early as 380 BC
Aristotle has described it as the “Master of science”, the subject was not studied as
a distinct subject or discipline then. It was studied then as an affiliated course of
philosophy, history, economics and law. Historically, the Greeks are credited with
the foundation of politics. They lived in a small city-state called polis, from which
came the term politics. In the city-state, citizens of age gathered and discussed
matters affecting them and everyone was free to air his view, and at the end a
decision would be arrived at, policies and laws were made by the people, and they
executed them. The citizens all put to trial anyone who acted contrary to the
common decision. For that reason, it is said that the Greek people ruled
themselves. The Americans became the first set of people to see political science
as a distinct subject and make effort to make it so. By the end of 1903, the people
of the United States of America formed an association called the American
Political Science Association (APSA).
Subsequent) other nationalities started emulating the Americans. Over the time,
political science has become a world-wide discipline with virtually all universities
having a department of
Political Science and associations of political scientists. There is the African
Association of Political Science (AAPS); and in Nigeria, there is the Nigerian
Political Science Association (NPSA).
1.3 The Science of Political Science.
If politics and political science are contentious concepts, the science of
politics is an essentially more contentious concept. Determining the science-ness of
politics is more contentious in that competent brains in and outside the discipline
have actually argued for and against the scientific nature of political science. Some
of the brains have engaged in endless debates; while some have even denied that
political science can be scientific, others feel that it can be scientific. Before
considering those views, it is pertinent to explain in brief the meaning of science as
well as its method.
Science has been variously defined, but all its definitions have settled on the
fact that science is an organized body of knowledge and its method of arriving at
scientific knowledge is systematic and empirical. Arriving at the scientific
knowledge is systematic because if every scientist adopts the same method, they
are likely to arrive at the same answer all things being equal Arriving at the
scientific knowledge is empirical in that the method is observable it is open to
verification. Appadorai (1975) defined science “as the classification of facts and
the formation upon that basis of absolute judgment, which are consistent and
universally valid”.
The methods of science are: observation, verification classification, analysis,
interpretation and prediction. To study politics or any other social phenomenon
scientifically, the data collected, using the appropriate scientific method, must be
classified. This will enable the political scientist who applies the scientific method
to categorize his data. By arranging his data into their distinct classes based on
their distinguishing attributes the political scientist is able to interpret and make
informed judgment about the political phenomenon.
The scientific method is systematic and empirical, as noted already. In this
respect, Isaak (1985) observed that “A systematic or scientific knowledge is one
based on empiricism” and “An empirical proposition is one that reflects and is
based upon the world of experience
and observation” (p. 26). Thus, to the extent to which a political Scientist who
embarks on studying a political phenomenon complies with and applies the
procedure of science his or her study will be adjudged scientific. Oyediran (1998),
in the same vein, identified some attributes of science to include empirically based
knowledge; systematic search for knowledge; verifiability of prepositions and
statement; as well as observation.
According to Grigsby (2009), “science searches for ways to identify, define,
analyze, clarify, and understand the world”. Grigsby further stated that studying
political questions in a scientific manner often involves the following formulating
hypothesis: (ii) operationalizing
concepts; (iii) identifying independent and dependent variables; (iv) clarifying
measurement criteria; (v) distinguishing between causation and correlation; and
(vi) developing scientific theories.
Consequently, the scientific method may be applied in a variety of ways by a
political scientist.
Despite what may appear to be a persuasive and convincing argument, that
political science can be adjudged to be a discipline that lends itself to the
application of scientific method in order to study politics, there are challenges that
those who subscribe otherwise to the argument often raise. Those who deny the
scientific nature of political science argued that objectivity and predictability are
the hallmarks of science, and in this regard a political scientist on research, as
much as he tries, cannot but be biased because his “interests” will consciously or
unconsciously find their way into his task. For instance, Grigsby so averred that “in
the process of interpreting our data we often impose meanings on what we
observe”. Grisby obviously meant that the political scientist’s research can hardly
be divorced from his or her personal prejudice and preference. And the personal
prejudice and preferences will erode the research objectivity, as some measure of
bias find its way into the study analysis. Grigsby asserted that no pure empiricism
results from observation. Furthermore, with the intrusion of biases, the research
results of the political scientist will be subjective.
Reinforcing the argument against the science-ness of political science, it is
yet argued that the political science’s object of study is man who can deliberately
manipulate and affect the outcome of the research. No one can predict how a
particular man X will behave, respond or react to a particular act Y at a particular
time T It is only subjects like Physics, Chemistry or Biology; because they deal
with natural objects that can be claimed to be scientific in nature. W. J. M.
Mackenzie, for instance, contended:
So far as I can judge, “Political science is still the name which
carries meaning to the general public... The word science here
indicates simply that there exists an academic tradition of the study of
politics, a discipline communicated from teacher to pupil, by speech
and writing, for some 2500 years now It does not mean that this
discipline claims to be a natural science or that it could be improved
by copying the methods of Physics and Chemistry exactly

(Maxi, 2007, p. 19).

Appadorai (1975: 6-7) can be taken to represent those who believe and argue that
political science is scientific.
In his argument:
Those who deny the existence of political science, if they mean that there is
no body of rules or law from which a prime minister may infallibly learn
how to command a majority in parliament, would be right as to the fact, but
would betray a rather inadequate notion of what science is. Politics, like
other social sciences, has a scientific character because the scientific
 method is applicable in its phenomena, viz: the accumulation of facts, the
liking of those together in causal sequences and the generalization from the
latter of fundamental principles or laws. It is true that the laboratory
method of experiments difficult with social sciences, but the whole field of
historical fact and the facts of contemporary world are there for students to
observe, classify, connect and compare for the formulation of general
principles... The larger the number of facts studied, the wider the area from
which these facts are observed is, and the greater the care with which they
are studied in relation to their environment, the greater the possibility of the
precision and value of generalization to be obtained. The development of
Psychology, the scientific use of history and the application of quantitative
methods of political data will enhance the claim of politics to be considered
a science.

Thus, as much as those who hold the contrary view have their reasons to
deny that politics can be studied scientifically, to think of political science as a
natural science may be misleading. The peculiarity of the discipline and the nature
of the object it studies mean that the scientific procedure may still be realistically
adapted to study politics.
Political science is scientific and to claim its science-ness is justifiable. Appadorai
rightly observed that those who denied the scientific nature of political science to
seemed not to have fully grasped the nature and meaning of science. Ironically,
Appadorai, himself is a victim. W J. M Mackenzie talks of natural science in the
earlier quotation. Appadorai also talks of social sciences.
If we agree that science is a systematic and empirical study of a
phenomenon, it is easy to see here that there are two types of science natural
sciences like chemistry and physics that deal with natural objects and social
sciences like economics, political science, sociology, and the others dealing with
social matters concerning men. If there are two types of sciences, natural and
social, the claim that one is scientific and the other is not is cheer arrogance, or
better still, ignorance. The method of the natural sciences and the social sciences
may be similar (or the same), but nothing informs us that they must be the same.
True, both natural sciences and social sciences observe, a collect and analyse
data, make or formulate hypotheses and theories, and make some predictions with -

“verisimilitude” (according to Karl Popper) or near exactness, it does not follow

that one is more scientific the other. Natural sciences study natural objects and
social sciences deal with social objects: it amounts to baseless pride and arrogance
to use the standards of the natural sciences as the parameter for judging what is
scientific or not, just as it is wrong to say that a woman
is not a human being simply because he is not a man. Therefore, political science is
a science qua science.
1.4 Approaches to the Study of Political Science
Issues in politics and political science are often viewed from different
perspectives. Different approaches are adopted in the conduct of political inquiries.
Adejoh (2009:29) described approaches in political Inquiry as a framework for
explanation and prediction. In his definition, approaches are the varieties of
orientations to look at the world of politics and they provide the
framework for explanation and prediction” Alan Isaak (1969:159) stated that an
approach in political science is:
A type of lens focusing on a particular aspect of political life. It is an
angle or perspective from which to view political reality. An approach to
research leads the political scientist to concentrate on specific aspects of
political phenomena and thereby condition his study.
 From the above, an approach can simply be seen as the aperture from which
a political scientist views approach issue with the mind to unravel it. It is the sum
total of his perception, analysis and understanding of an issue of political interest.
The various approaches past than
to the study of political phenomena can be grouped into two categories: the
traditional approaches and the behavioral approaches to solve holds the
1.4.1 Traditional Approaches
This is the earliest form of approach in political inquiry politics inquiry. It
addresses issues of importance from both the historical and normative perspectives.
It is prescriptive, in that it is
not concerned about what is but with what ought to be. The founder of this
approach is Plato. Plato in his work ‘The Republic” leaves the states of affairs and
postulates an ideal state. Under the category of traditional approaches are
philosophical, historical, institutional and legal approaches.
A. Philosophical Approach:
The works of the of likes of Plato and Aristotle are philosophical that they adopt
reason to postulate about an ideal state. Philosophical approach is purely normative
because it moves from what obtains to what should obtain. As Strawson pointed
out, reason is the only tool that is adopted in this method or approach.
B. Historical Approach:
This approach holds that there are some political phenomena of the past that are
still relevant today. It is then suggested that the knowledge of the past events and
its comparison with the present events can help to solve some future problems.
This approach holds the view that to study politics effectively knowledge of
history is required. Indeed, today’s politics is seen as the history of tomorrow A
major criticism of the historical approach to political inquiry however is that events
in the past may be similar to the present but the political outers are not the same.
C. Institutional Approach: The institutional approach seeks to understand
what goes on among the formal institutions of government. That is, it focuses its
attention on the organs and the institutions of the state and its parastatals. The
institutional approach is adopted based on the assumption that major decisions are
taken by the members of the legislature, judiciary and the executive council, and
that state power resides with them. Furthermore, the approach is descriptive,
prescriptive and judgmental. It places emphasis on the institutions rather than
the individuals whose activities and actions define the behavior of the
institutions.
D. Legal Approach:
This approach seeks to study and understand political phenomena by the study of
the constitution and the use of legal codes. Those who subscribe to the legal
approach study politics on the basis of the legal codes or the constitutional
framework on which the institutions in the state derive their powers. As much as it
is legalistic, the approach is equally unscientific and static. The legal approach
does not recognize the fact that the behavior of the occupant of political office may
determine or shape institutional behaviour

1.4.2 Behavioural Approach

The behaviorists claim that the conception of politics by the traditionalists is
too legalistic and too narrow. This approach is a reaction to the traditional
approach,
that is to say Heinz Eulou argued
Behaviouralism concentrates on the theoretical and empirical
analysis of the behavior of persons and social groups and not on the
origin of the state, political institutions and functions of government.
 It tries to develop rigorous empirical research methodologies and
apply it to political problem.
The main concern of the behaviouralist approach is the scientific explanation
of political issues and the description of what obtains and not what ought to obtain.
Notable among the proponents of the behavioral approaches are: Charles Merriam,
Gabriel Almond, Harold Lasswell and David Easton. Although these political
scientists do not agree on every point, all of
them agree on the principles of regularity verification, technique, quantification,
value, integration, generalization and systemization. Some of the approaches in the
behavioral approach are: the elite approach; group approach; systems approach;
decision-making approach; and structural/functional approach.
1. Elite Approach:
Among those who adopt this approach are Gaetamo and Pareto. This approach is
based on the assumption that the social or the elite class in every state has a lot of
influence in the political affairs of their state. They are powerful and influential
even when they do not hold any political posts. They are usually rich and they
affect government’s decisions. Any serious analysis of politics therefore, according
to this approach, must take the elite into consideration.
2. Group Approach:
The leading exponents of this approach were Arthur Bentley and David Truman.
According to this approach, individuals in a society belong to groups, and the aims
and goals of the groups determine the behaviour of the individual members. Each
group seeks to have access to the government and to influence its decision. It is
therefore suggested that these groups in the society must be carefully studied and
the interaction among them should be harmonized by a political scientist. The
emphasis in this approach is that: individuals do not act in isolation. Hence,
Bentley wrote: “When groups
are adequately stated, everything is stated”.
3. Systems Approach:
David Easton is a leading exponent of this approach. This approach holds that the
political system operates in the community of other systems, like the physical,
social, religious, biological and economic environments.
The political system affects these systems, which in turn affect it. The relationships
between these other systems and the political system arc matters of input, process
and output. The demand and the supports that the political system receives
from these systems form the inputs. The institutions of the state then work
(process) those in-puts and the results of the processing become the output. The
output are often in the forms of policies and legislations.
4. Decision-Making Approach:
Exponents of the approach holds that decision-making is central to government.
Their studies must be concentrated in the decision makers and the decisions made.
Salient questions of this approach include: who are the decision makers and what
are the decision made and why? When decisions are made, Richard Synder opined
that some factors must have played significant roles, thus determining such
decisions. Some of these factors include the personal beliefs of the political actors;
their upbringing; public opinion; national interests; and the reactions of the
international communities. Therefore, in the study and analysis of political acts, all
these factors must be taken into consideration.
5. Structural-Functional Approach:
This approach is a modification of the Eastonian systems approach. It was
championed by Gabriel Almond and James Coleman in their joint seminar essay in
1960. The approach itself was first propounded by social anthropologists like
Radcliffe Brown and B. Malinoski. Talcott Parsons, Marion Levy and Robert
Merton introduced it to sociology from where Gabriel and Coleman introduced
it to politics.

This approach agrees in totality with the David Easton’s systems theory but
only claim that every political system has a structure and that each structure is
multi-functional. Furthermore, the structural/functional approach presumes that
every society is a mixture of the traditional and the modern. It classifies what
Easton called inputs and outputs into
functions. Accordingly; five functions are associated with the inputs and three with
output The five input functions are: (i) political socialization of the young ones; (ii)
political recruitment of leaders and their training (iii) interest articulation which
has to do with the identification of the people’s need (iv) interest aggregation
which is the harmonization of the
conflicting demands; and (v) political communication which emphasizes the
transmission of messages from the government to the people.
The three output functions are the legislative executive and judicial
functions. A political scientist would put all these into consideration in his political
inquiries.