Introduction

The study of politics is not limited to understanding governments or elections; it is about exploring
how power, authority, and decision-making operate in society. To study politics in a systematic and
scientific way, scholars use different approaches.

An approach in political science means a particular method, perspective, or framework used to

analyze political phenomena. It provides a way of looking at political reality, explaining how political
systems work, why people behave politically, and what factors shape political decisions.

Over time, political thinkers have developed various approaches—such as traditional, behavioral,
post-behavioral, structural-functional, systems, and Marxist approaches—to make the study of
politics more comprehensive and meaningful.

Each approach focuses on different aspects of political life:

The traditional approach emphasizes institutions, laws, and government structures.

The behavioral approach studies political behavior and human actions.

The post-behavioral approach connects theory with practical political issues.

Thus, approaches help political scientists explain and predict political events more logically and
objectively. In short, approaches are the foundation for understanding and analyzing political science
in an organized and comparative way.
Alan C. Isaak’s Definition of Approach

Political scientist Alan C. Isaak defined an approach as:

“An approach in political inquiry is, in general, a strategy for studying political phenomena.”

Explanation

In this definition, Isaak emphasizes that an approach is not just a single method or technique — it is a
broad strategy or overall plan for understanding and analyzing political events, behavior, and
institutions.
Vernon Van Dyke’s Explanation of “Approach”

Political scientist Vernon Van Dyke described an approach in political study as a process that involves:

“Analyzing, problem-solving, and measurement of information.”

Explanation

Van Dyke’s explanation highlights that an approach is not just about observing politics — it is a
systematic way of thinking and studying political problems
Main Division of Political Approaches
1. Normative Approach
2. Empirical Approach

1. Normative Approach
The normative approach is concerned with what ought to be — it deals with values, ideals, and
standards in politics.
It focuses on how politics should work, not only how it actually works.

This approach studies political ideas like justice, liberty, equality, rights, and good governance.
It is philosophical and moral in nature.
Main Approaches under the Normative Category:
a. Philosophical Approach

Focuses on political ideas and values (like justice, liberty, equality, and democracy).

Studies the works of great thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and
Marx.

Seeks to answer questions like: What is the best form of government? What should be the purpose of
the state?

It is abstract and value-based.

b. Historical Approach

Studies political institutions and ideas in their historical development.

Believes that to understand present political systems, we must study their past evolution.

Example: To understand modern democracy, we study the history of British Parliament.

Thinkers like Sabine and Seeley supported this approach.

c. Legal (or Juridical) Approach

Focuses on laws, constitutions, and legal frameworks of the state.

It studies the legal rights and duties of citizens and institutions.

Example: Examining how the Constitution defines the powers of the President and Parliament.

Thinkers like A.V. Dicey and Holland supported this method.

d. Institutional Approach

Studies political institutions such as the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

Analyzes their structure, powers, and functions.

Example: Comparing the U.S. Congress and the British Parliament.

It is often used in the traditional study of politics.

Empirical Approach
The empirical approach is concerned with what actually is — it focuses on facts, evidence, and
observation, not on values.
It studies politics scientifically, using data, surveys, experiments, and measurable evidence.

This approach became popular in the 20th century, especially after the rise of behavioralism in
political science.

Main Approaches under the Empirical Category:

a. Behavioral Approach

Focuses on the behavior of individuals in political situations.

Studies why people vote, how they form opinions, and how leaders make decisions.
Uses scientific methods (surveys, statistics, observation).

Thinkers: David Easton, Robert Dahl, Charles Merriam.

b. Post-Behavioral Approach

Emerged as a reaction to behavioralism.

Says that political science should not only be scientific but also relevant to solving real-world
problems.

Focuses on both facts and values (a balance).

Thinker: David Easton (again emphasized political relevance).

c. Systems Approach

Introduced by David Easton.

Views politics as a system of inputs (demands/support) and outputs (decisions/policies).

Shows how political systems interact with their environment.

Example: Citizens demand → government policy → feedback → new demand.

d. Structural-Functional Approach

Developed by Gabriel Almond and Talcott Parsons.

Studies how different structures (institutions) perform specific functions within a political system.

Example: Legislature makes laws, Executive implements them, Judiciary interprets them.

e. Marxist Approach

Based on Karl Marx’s ideas.

Studies politics in terms of class struggle, economic power, and ideology.

Focuses on economic structures rather than institutions.

Says the state serves the interests of the ruling class.

Limitations of the Traditional Approach

The traditional approach (also known as the normative or institutional approach) focuses on studying
political institutions, laws, and government structures rather than actual political behavior.

While it helped form the early foundation of political science, it has several major limitations,
especially when compared with modern empirical and behavioral methods.

1. Too Much Focus on Institutions

The traditional approach studies formal institutions (like legislature, executive, judiciary) and
constitutional rules,
but ignores how politics actually works in real life.
It does not study informal forces like political parties, pressure groups, or public opinion.

2. Neglect of Human Behavior

It focuses on laws and structures, not on how people behave politically.

Politics, however, depends heavily on the attitudes, beliefs, and actions of individuals.

This makes it incomplete for understanding modern political processes.

3. Lack of Scientific Method

Traditional scholars used descriptive and historical methods, not scientific or empirical ones.

There was no use of data, surveys, or measurable evidence.

Hence, the findings were often subjective and unverified.

ô 4. Static and Rigid Nature

The traditional approach mainly studies what exists, not how it changes.

It cannot explain dynamic political change, revolutions, or social movements.

It treats political institutions as fixed and permanent, which is unrealistic.

5. Normative Bias

It is value-laden — that means it studies what should be rather than what actually is.

This introduces moral and personal bias, reducing objectivity.

For example, it often judges a system as “good” or “bad” instead of just explaining how it works.

6. Limited Scope

It ignores many important areas like political culture, decision-making, public opinion, and interest
groups.

As a result, it provides only a partial understanding of the political process.

7. Lack of Predictive Power

Because it focuses only on description, it cannot predict future political trends or outcomes.

Modern political science, however, aims to build theories that can explain and predict political
behavior.
Too Much Focus on Formal Institutions

It mainly studies structures like the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

It ignores informal political forces such as political parties, interest groups, and social movements.

8 Lack of Comparative Study

Traditional scholars did not compare political systems of different countries systematically.
Each system was studied separately, which prevented the development of universal theories of
politics.

9. Absence of Multiple Analysis

It uses only one perspective — the institutional or legal one.

It ignores economic, social, psychological, and cultural dimensions of politics.

This makes its analysis narrow and incomplete.

10 Narrative and Descriptive Nature

The method is mostly descriptive and historical, telling the “story” of institutions instead of analyzing
causes and effects.

It lacks scientific explanation or testing of political ideas.

11. Limited to Formal Discussions

Traditional political science is limited to constitutional and legal discussions.

It does not study how power actually operates in society or how decisions are made in practice.

12. Lack of Predictive Power

Because it is descriptive, it cannot predict future political behavior or changes.

It only explains what exists, not what might happen next.

13 Discourages Modernization

The approach is static and conservative.

It focuses on old institutions rather than new political realities like globalization, communication, or
social change.

This makes it unsuitable for modern political analysis.

14 Too Simple and Theoretical

Traditional study is too simple and idealistic.

It does not deal with the complex realities of modern politics such as public opinion, leadership, or
political culture.

15 Lack of Objectivity

It is normative and value-based — concerned with what ought to be rather than what actually is.

This leads to subjective judgments instead of objective scientific understanding.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the study of political science becomes meaningful only when it is guided by proper
approaches.
An approach provides a framework or direction for understanding political life, helping scholars
decide what to study, how to study it, and why it matters.

The traditional (normative) approaches focus on values, institutions, and ideals, while the modern
(empirical) approaches emphasize facts, behavior, and scientific methods.
Both are important — the normative approach gives moral and philosophical depth, and the empirical
approach ensures objectivity and practical understanding.

Therefore, no single approach alone can fully explain the complexity of politics.
A balanced combination of value-based (normative) and fact-based (empirical) methods provides a
more comprehensive and realistic understanding of political phenomena.
Ultimately, the use of multiple approaches makes the study of politics systematic, comparative, and
relevant to the changing world.