APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICAL THEORY

An approach, according to Vernon Van Dyke, consists of "criteria for selecting problems
and relevant data".

Approaches to the study of Political Science or Political Theory are broadly

classified into Traditional and Contemporary (Modern). There are three basic differences
between the two approaches:

1) Firstly, approaches which were developed and popular before the end of the Second
World War (1945) have come to be known as Traditional Approaches while those that have
been developed after the Second World War come to be known as Contemporary
Approaches.

2) Secondly, Traditional Approaches tend to focus on values while Contemporary

Approaches tend to focus on facts.

3) Thirdly, philosophical, historical, legal and institutional approaches are identified as

Traditional Approaches while power, behaviour, systems and structural- functional
approaches and the like are considered Contemporary Approaches.

A. TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICAL THEORY

Philosophical, historical, legal and institutional approaches to the study of politics may
be taken to represent the main traditional approaches.

1) Philosophical Approach:

The Philosophical Approach is also known as Deductive Approach. In this

approach, principles are deduced from a series of general assumptions or truths. It
admits an abstract ideal and draws deductions from it concerning the nature, functions
and aims of the state. Besides, a certain view of human nature is taken for granted and
deductions about the nature of political institutions are made.

The Philosophical Approach is concerned with the clarification of concepts used in

a particular discipline. Philosophical Approach aims to enhance linguistic clarity and to
reduce linguistic confusion; it assumes that the language used in descriptions reflects
conceptions of reality, and it wants to make conceptions of reality as clear, consistent,
coherent and helpful as possible.

The Philosophical Approach also aims at evolving standards of rights and wrong
for the purpose of a critical evaluation of the existing institutions, laws and policies. The
object of philosophic inquiry in this sense then is to establish standards of the good, the
right, and the just, and to appraise or prescribe political institutions and practices in the
light of these standards.

1
 This approach is the oldest of all the approaches. Most of the classical political
theory represents philosophical approach. Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, Rousseau, etc, adopted the
philosophical approach.

Of the contemporary champions of the philosophical approach to the study of

politics, Leo Strauss is the most outstanding. According to Strauss, political science and
political philosophy are coterminous (having the same meaning); they denote an attempt
to obtain true knowledge of political things as well as the standards of the right and the
good. Political Philosophy is a product of our quest for good life and society. Values as
well as facts are indispensable part of political philosophy which enables us to undertake
a critical and coherent analysis of political institutions and activities. Without such
analysis, assumptions regarding the political things take the character of opinions.
Political philosophy seeks to replace opinion by knowledge, as originally postulated by
Socrates. Strauss has severely criticized the contemporary behavioural approach which
insists on 'value free' analysis and thus destroys the essence of true knowledge of
politics.

Criticism: The Philosophical Approach is criticized for being too abstract and unrealistic
that critics say can neither be properly understood nor put to scientific tests. One classic
example is Plato's theory of the ideal state which he himself admits is laid up in heaven
and is unattainable here on earth, but he nevertheless continues to advocate its
realization in the hope of ending all ills in the society.

2) Historical Approach:

The term 'historical approach' to the study of Political Theory or Political Science may
be used in two senses.

Firstly, it may denote the process of arriving at the laws governing politics through
an analysis of historical events, that is, of the past, as exemplified by theories
propounded by Hegel and Marx.

In the second place, historical approach stands for an attempt at understanding politics
through a historical account of political thought of the past, as exemplified by George H.
Sabine's 'A History of Political Theory'.

In other words, this approach attempts to understand politics with the help of facts
derived from history. According to Sabine, the subject-matter of Political Science
coincides with the major themes of discussion in the writings of the well- known
political philosophers - Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill, Green, Marx
and others. Leading examples of the questions raised by these philosophers are: what
ideals are sought to be realized through the state; what is the meaning of freedom and
equality; what are the grounds and limits of political obligations, etc.
Sabine points out that each political theory is formulated or developed in response
to some specific situation. It is necessary to recapitulate the circumstances under which a
particular theory was produced for understanding its relevance to the present situation.
Moreover, any political theory is not only a product of history; it also served as an
instrument of moulding history itself by its ideological force. Sabine further says that all
great political theories are valid for all times.
2
 Criticism: Karl Popper has described this approach as 'historicism'. It implies
that historical processes are determined by their inherent necessities which are beyond
the control of human ingenuity. Popper has criticized historicism because it insists on
discovering what is inevitable, and then advocates totalitarian methods for its
realization, as Hegel and Marx have done for the realization of their respective visions
of future society.

Critics of the historical approach point out that it is not possible to understand
ideas of the past ages in terms of the contemporary ideas and concepts.

Moreover, ideas of the past are hardly any guide for resolving the crises of the
present-day world which were beyond comprehension of the past thinkers.

David Easton has warned against living 'parasitically on ideas a century old' and
failing to develop a 'new political synthesis'. This challenge to historical approach of
course encouraged the development of the behavioural approach.

However, the recent revival of interest in values has led to a renewed interest in
the rich heritage of political thought for evolving guiding principles for our own age.
Herbert Marcuse has built his neo-Marxist theory of freedom by reverting to Hegel's
concept of 'civil society'. Again, C.B. Macpherson has built his theory of democracy by
reverting to Aristotle, Rousseau and J.S. Mill while rejecting Bentham's utilitarianism
and the contemporary elitism of Schumpeter and Dahl. All this illustrates the
continued relevance of the historical approach to the study of Political Science.

Recently, Arnold Joseph Toynbee, British historian whose twelve-volume analysis

of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History (1934-1961), made extensive
use of the study of history in making generalizations. He says that civilizations are not
murdered by external forces but they commit suicides. He also says that human
history or civilization is to be interpreted in terms of challenges and responses, those
that successfully respond to challenges live but those that fail die.

3) Legal Approach:

Legal Approach stands for an attempt to understand politics in terms of law. It focuses
its attention on the legal and constitutional framework in which different organs of
government have to function, inquires into their respective legal positions, their powers
and the procedure which makes their actions legally valid.

For example, Legal Approach to Indian politics will proceed to analyze legal
implications of various provisions of the Indian Constitution, duly documented by the
decisions of the Supreme Court of India as well as by the opinion of the legal
luminaries, procedure of formation and legal position of the two Houses of the Indian

3
 Parliament and the State Legislatures, procedure of election or appointment, powers
and position of the President, Prime Minister, Governors, Chief Ministers, Central and
State Cabinets, etc., role and powers of the Supreme Court of India and High Courts,
full legal implications of the federal set up, position of Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy, etc.

Similarly, Legal Approach to international politics will largely tend to analyze it in

terms of the requirements of international law.

Jean Bodin, John Austin, Hobbes, Bentham, etc have made use of the legal approach.

The Legal Approach is criticized for being too narrow and for reducing the study
of politics into the study of the legal system. The Legal Approach may prove
inadequate in understanding the complex political forces, processes and behavior
which might operate outside legal framework.

However, the Legal Approach has certain merits.

Both the procedures and the substance of political action at every level are often
controlled by law. In the field of both domestic and international politics, law frequently
prescribes the action to be taken in given contingencies; it also forbids action or fixes the
limits of permissible action.

Moreover, all political processes to become effective and stable must culminate in
legal provisions whether it is an independent movement in a colonized country or an
agitation for civil rights or certain concessions for any sections of society.

In spite of its limited use in understanding politics, continues to play a pivotal role
in the social and political life of almost every country.

4) Institutional Approach:
According to MacIver and Page, institutions are established forms of procedure.
Institution may also be defined as a set of offices and agencies arranged in a hierarchy,
where each office or agency has certain functions and powers. Each office or agency is
expected by persons with definite status and role, other persons also expect them to
perform this role.

Family, government and state; political parties, pressure groups and interest groups,
legislature and judiciary are examples of institutions.

The Institutional Approach focuses its attention on activities, roles and procedures of
institutions and views politics primarily in terms of institutions. It does not consider
individuals constituting the institutions as units of investigation.

4
 Accordingly, the Institutional Approach proceeds to study the organization and
functioning of government, its various organs, political parties and other institutions
affecting politics.

Specifically, the chief concerns of the Institutional Approach are:

(1)Classification of Governments, starting from Aristotle (monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy,

oligarchy, polity and democracy) to modern classification (dictatorship, parliamentary and
presidential, unitary and federal, etc.)

(2) Identification of Levels of Government (i.e., federal, state and local) as well as branches
of government (executive, legislature and judiciary),

(3) Composition and Powers of each of these and their interrelationships (largely in
legal terms).

It aims at giving an elaborate description of facts. Hence it exemplifies a shift

from normative to empirical approach and from a historical to a contemporary concern
within the sphere of traditional approaches. However, it relies heavily on description
rather than explanation. Bryce, Laski, Duverger, Sartori, etc, are the main exponents
of this approach.

Some of the drawbacks of the Institutional Approach are:

(a) With its preoccupation with the institutions, it neglected the individual; hence
during the ascendancy of this approach, the study of voting behavior and political
attitudes of the individuals was left to sociologists;

(b) In the absence of over-arching institutions governing international politics, it

practically neglected the study of international politics; it confined its attention to
international relations and description of the United Nations and its associated
agencies and left the study of international politics to historians and students of
international law;

(c) Being concerned with the established institution alone, it neglected the role of violence
or threat of violence, political movements and agitations war and revolutions, etc.

(d) It neglected the role of informal groups and processes in shaping politics.

However, it should not be forgotten that institutions form a very important part
of politics. Any discussion of politics without reference to the corresponding

5
institutions will lead us nowhere.

Moreover, in the present-day turmoil, particularly in the developing countries,

constitution-making and institution-building are the order of the day. All non-
institutional approaches therefore will also be incomplete without paying due attention
to institutions.