UNIT III

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND OTHER DISCIPLINES

Aristotle has called Political Science “the Master Science’ as it deals with human beings who
is a social being having many dimensions; historical, political, economic, psychological,
sociological etc. Political Science is concerned with the political aspect of this social man and
his interaction with the various dimensions of his social life, be it economical, social,
psychological, sociological, historical etc.

One question which comes to mind, therefore, is it correct to call Political Science
the master science? or is it just one of the social sciences? Until 18th Century
specialization of Political Science didn’t exist since various aspects of society was
studied under single discipline known as moral philosophy. In the words of Lipset “'Until the
18th Century the moral sciences, as the social sciences were then known, possessed greater
unity than diversity. The beginning of 19th century brought industrialization and with it
came specialization of social sciences as it became beyond the scope of Political science
to study the various aspects of the complicated social phenomenon under a single discipline.

Easton writes, the purely physical need for a division of labour helps to account
for the distinctions among the social sciences…the social sciences have grown up as separate
disciplines because and only because of this historical necessity. The actual allocation of
subject matter to the various disciplines is simply a matter of accident…even though
distinctions in social knowledge have existed from the every beginning of human inquiry into
the society.

What distinguishes political science as an academic discipline is its emphasis on

government and power. However, the study of government and power is not confined
to political science: it naturally permeates into other social sciences and hence its
association with the other social sciences and the growth of interdisciplinary study in social
sciences.

According to Easton, Specialization in social sciences has stimulated a movement

towards a reintegration of our compartmentalized knowledge; which should go a long way
towards remedying these defects. Even though the future must witness an increase in the rate
of cross-fertilization and in the degree of cooperation among the social sciences, there
are few realists who envision the ultimate fusion and disappearance of all specialties into
one body of knowledge. In fact it was the growth of empirical theory in political science which
developed after the Second World War which shifted the focus from the study of state
and government to the study of political behaviour and attitudes. It was this application of
scientific methods to the study of political phenomenon and behavoiralism which brought
in the need for interdisciplinary study of political science. Thus Easton has rightly
commented, “Theoretical revolution in the study of the political phenomena, in the form of
empirical theory has opened the door to a new and more meaningful relationship between
political science and the other disciplines”. Thus political science borrowed many theories
and concepts, methods and techniques from other social sciences. For example decision
making theory from organizational field, structural functional approach from sociology and
anthropology, action theory from sociology, system analysis from communication sciences etc.
even new concepts like political culture, political socialization, political communication,
political development etc are being adopted and hence emphasis is being laid on the study of
community power structure. Hence one could say that it is this so called behavioral
revolution in social science and the growth of empirical enquiry to the issues of politics
which has given rise to the interdisciplinary approach in political science. The following
section deals with the relation of political science with some of the other social sciences.

RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH HISTORY

The relationship between Political Science and History is very close and intimate. John
Seeley expressed this relationship in the following couplet–

History without Political Science has no fruit, Political Science

without History has no root

Seeley’s emphasis seems exaggerated, yet no one can discount the two disciplines’ dependence
on one another. The State and its political institutions grow instead of being made. They are
the product of history, and m order to understand them fully, and one must necessarily know
the process of their evolution, how they have become what they are, and to what extent they
have responded to their original purposes.
All our political institutions have a historical basis as they depict the wisdom of
generations. History furnishes sufficient material for comparison and induction, enabling us to
build an ideal political structure of our aspirations. In the absence of historical data, the study
of Political Science is sure to become entirely speculative or a priori. And a priori Political
Science, as Laski observes, ‘is bound to break down simply because we never start with the
clean slate.

The writings of historians, in brief, form a vast reservoir of material that a student of Political
Science can analyze into meaningful patterns and guide him in understanding the present and
outlining the future. Moreover, with its chronological treatment, history offers a sense of
growth and development, thereby providing a base or an insight into the social changes.

Robson thinks that some knowledge of History is clearly indispensable for

Political Science and cites the explanation offered by Professor R. Solatu at the Cambridge
Conference (from 6 to 10. April-1952).

Professor Soltau said,“that he had been baffled all through his teaching Career, especially
during the 20 years he had spent in the Middle East, about how to teach the history of political
philosophy to students whose historical background is usually inadequate, and often limited to
purely political theory since the French Revolution.”

Where Political Science is not approached through History, he remarked, the student may easily
get a confused outline, in Which most historical allusions are lost on him, supplemented by a
slight acquaintance with a few classical texts of political philosophy, the background of which
he scarcely understands. Moreover, a knowledge of History is particularly necessary for the
sphere of Comparative Government.

History, in its turn, has much to borrow from Political Science. Our knowledge of history is
meaningless if the political bearings of events and movements are not adequately evaluated.
The history of nineteenth-century Europe, for example, is an in the complete narration of facts
unless the full significance of the movements, like nationalism, imperialism, individualism,
socialism, etc., are brought out. Similarly, the history of India’s independence is devoid of all
logic if we do not sufficiently explain the political result of the rise of the Indian National
Congress, the Muslim demand for separate electorates, the benevolent despotism of the
Government of India Act, 1909 Montagu’s August 1917 Declaration, the Reforms of 1919 and
the experiment with, Dyarchy, the recommendations of the Simon Commission, the
deliberations of the Round Table Conferences, the Communal Award, the Government of India
Act, 1935, the implications of the Atlantic Charter, 1942 Quit India Movement, Cripps
Proposal, Simla Conference, declarations of Lord Wavell and Pethick-Lawrence, the Cabinet
Mission Plan, the June 3, 1947, Announcement and the Independence Act, 1947. Political
Science, Says. Bryce “stands midway between history and politics, between the past and the
present. It has drawn its materials from the one; it has to apply them to the other. ”

Both Political Science and History are contributory and complementary. So intimate is the
affinity between the two that Seeley maintained “Politics is vulgar when not liberalized by
History, and History fades into mere literature when it loses sight of its relation to Politics.”
Separate them, says Burgess, and the one becomes a cripple, if not a corpse, the other a will-o
-the-Wisp.

However, it does not mean that Political Science is a beggar at the door of History, Nor does it
mean, as Freeman says, that history is past polities or that politics is present history. Political
Science is, undoubtedly, dependent on History for its material, but it supplies only a part of the
material.

History is a chronological narration of events, including wars, revolutions, military campaigns,

economic upheavals, religious and social movements, and the rest. Political Science does not
require a good part of this material.

A political scientist’s main concern is to study the evolution of the political institutions and the
facts that bear, directly or indirectly, on the State and government, and its socioeconomic
problems. Political Science selects facts out of History. We are not so concerned with the
causes of the Revolution of 1688 m Britain. We are concerned with the advent of limited
monarchy m that country and the beginning of the government’s response form.

Likewise, we are not interested in the causes of World War II and the strategy of the fighting
powers. Our interest is to study and evaluate whether World War -II was, in reality, a war of
Democracy vs. Dictatorship and whether it fulfilled the purpose for which it was fought. We
are also interested in the shape of things that came over in the world’s post-war political
structure due to this war.

History deals with concrete and matter of fact things. It presents to us not only facts but the
causal connection between the facts. Political Science is speculative as well since it deals with
what the State ought to be. This speculative character of the subject necessitates the
consideration of abstract types of political institutions and laws. History has hardly anything to
do with this aspect of Political Science. Finally, the historian’s task is not to pass moral
judgments, but the political scientist is bound to do so. It is here that Political Science joins
hands with Ethics and parts company with Sociology, History, and Economics.

The conclusion is obvious. Political Science and History are two distinct disciplines with
separate problems. Yet, they have a common subject in the State’s phenomena, and, as such,
their spheres touch at many points and overlap at others. Leacock succinctly remarks that some
of History “is part of Political Science, the circle of their contents overlapping an area enclosed
by each”

RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH ECONOMICS

Till recently, Economics was regarded as a branch of Political Science. The Greeks
called Economics the name of Political Economy Aristotle, in classifying the States declared
that the key fact-is whether the State is ruled by the rich or the poor. He also observed that the
way the bulk of the people earn their living, whether they are farmers, herdsmen, mechanics,
shopkeepers, or day-laborers, will have much to do determining the State’s nature its
government. His discussion on revolution is also based on the proposition that the struggle
between the rich and the poor is the underlying cause of most revolutions.

Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government discusses topics that nowadays would be
considered the province of Economics. Adam Smith, the English classical economist, in his
famous book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, refers to two
important Objects of Political Economy to provide sufficient revenue for the people, and to
supply the State, or what he calls commonwealth, with a revenue sufficient for the public
administration. Without clinching the matter, he summed up that political economy “proposes
to enrich the people and the sovereign.”

Modern economists disagree with the older point of view. They regard Economics as a separate
discipline, which seeks to inquire how a man gets his income and uses it. Alfred Marshall, the
celebrated economist, considers it “on the one side the study of ‘ the wealth and on the other
and more important side a part of the study of man.” Its scope is the study of human welfare
and includes a discussion on Consumption, Production, Exchange, and Distribution, the four
pillars on which the edifice of Economics is built.
Despite its treatment as a separate discipline, there IS now no difference in opinion that
Political Science and Economics are auxiliary. Man in society is a common factor in the study
of both these sciences, and it is the welfare of man and society for which each Strives.

The study of both Political Science and Economics is directed to the same common end. The
welfare of man can only be obtained under an orderly society because both are inseparable. It
is the State’s function to secure these conditions so that every individual gets an opportunity
for pursuing his activities, economic activities, of course, preceding the rest.

But no State can remain cement merely to provide conditions of peace and order. The purpose
of the State is to create an atmosphere conducive to man’s good life and give all an equal
opportunity for growth and development. The State performs Certain functions to achieve its
purpose.

It is one of the important functions of the State to see what its citizens consume. Every State is
vitally concerned with its people’s health, as the people are the State’s health. The weak, the
infirm, and the destitute cannot be good citizens, and a State inhabited by such people is
socially, economically, and politically a disabled person.

It is the duty of the State to see that its nationals get sufficient and wholesome feed to eat. It
must also see that the people are adequately provided for, especially during times of crisis and
emergency, With the requisite necessaries of life and that, too, at a reasonable level of prices.
Simultaneously, the State may either prohibit or restrict the use of certain commodities like
liquor and other intoxicants for reasons of health of the people.

It also becomes necessary for the State to see how commodities are produced and their
product’s nature and conditions. For example, India’s Government is now making ceaseless
efforts to grow and produce more, as the existing scale of production does not keep pace with
the country’s total demand with its explosive growth of population and agriculture; the
mainstay of the people is a gamble in rains. It is the duty of the government to maintain
sufficient reserves of food to Cope with the vagaries of nature and other natural calamities.

When demand exceeds supply, conditions of scarcity ails created, and prices rise. Rising prices
cause distress for the masses and throw out of gear the orderly conditions of society. It is the
government’s primary duty to remove distress conditions and alleviate the suffering of the
people.
But no country produces only for its internal needs. Some goods cannot produce and imports
from other countries. Others it produces advantageously and m abundance. It is for the State to
determine its import and export policy, and such a policy influences the scale of production.

The producer of one commodity is the consumer of another commodity. No man produces
everything for himself. He must rely upon others and exchange with them his surplus goods.
But goods are not exchanged for goods. A barter system is highly inconvenient, and the money
economy has taken its place Money is now the medium of change and the measure of value.

It is the function of the State to coin money and regulate it. The total amount of money in the
hands of the people affects prices Stable are the need of every State. The government carefully
watches fluctuations in prices and determines whether more or less money should circulate.
Similarly, banks, too, play an important role in controlling the price level by regulating credit.

It’s Central, or Reserve Bank issues the paper currency of a modern State. The Central Bank
may either be a State-owned bank or the result of private enterprise. But whatever it is, a Central
Bank must necessarily be creating a special Act of the legislature.

Moreover, the economic prosperity of every country depends upon the soundness of its banking
organization. It is within the jurisdiction of the State to regulate the functions of banks by
necessary laws or even to nationalist them, if necessary.

The most baffling problem Which confronts every country is that of distribution. In Economies,
under the heading distribution, we study how the landlord, the worker, the capitalist, and the
organizer are paid for each production’s work. With its production and distribution system, the
capitalist society has brought about an uneven distribution of wealth.

The theory of Socialism aims to bring about that political structure of society where the national
wealth is most evenly distributed. One section of society does not thrive at the rest’s cost. The
theories of Individualism and Socialism, with its different varieties, illustrate better than any
other the interaction of Political Science and Economics.

Political and economic conditions act and react on one another. As a matter of fact, the solution
to many of the economic problems must come through political agencies, and the major
problems of every State are economic in character. World War II was characterized as a war of
democracy against dictatorship. But the causes of the War were really economical.
The rise of Nazi-ism was also due to Germany’s economic crippling by the victorious powers
after World War I. The failure of the League of Nations may be ascribed to the policy of
economic aloofness and economic self-Sufficiency to which every member-State steadfastly
clung after World War I. Britain’s political policy in India and her reluctance to grant Indians
independence were more economic expediency than political advantage.

The burning questions of present-day politics, Viz government control of industries, the
relations of the State to industries, its attitude towards labor and capital, and a multitude of
other similar problems are all economic questions intertwined in the political issues. The cry
that economic democracy should precede political democracy has revolutionized the political
structure of every State.

One may even say that government administration’s theory is largely economic in its approach
when seeking to interpret matters Concerning the Welfare State, public financial policies, and
relationships between government and private enterprise. When the government itself
undertakes the production, it performs an economic function purely.

A good government, in brief, judiciously plans for the plenty. It is judged in terms of specific
economic achievements, that is, by the harsh realities of administrative performance by the
production of food and arrangements for its distribution at a reasonable price, by the growing
production and equitable distribution of essential commodities, by the growth of employment
opportunities, by the timely and efficient completion of development projects and by the
judgment of their priorities.

Till recently, contemporary political theory heavily relied upon sociology in explaining the
process and impact of politics But of late, it has more tilted towards Economics and noted
economists, such as Downs, Buchanan, Tullock, Rothenburg, Olson, and quite a few more,
now define the basic issues of new political analysis in terms of economics and are constructing
new concepts, findings and theories.

“The New Political Economy,” the name given by William C Mitchell, to this analysis, has not
taken any tangible shape so far. Still, a convincing beginning has been made in “Welfare
Economics” and in the development Of such tools as “Cost-benefit analysis,” “System
Theory,” “Program budgeting” and “Economic Theory” more generally The tools it adopts are
descriptive and statistical, but “mathematics and deductive model-building.”
 RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH SOCIOLOGY

The terms “Sociology” and Political Science are closely related. They both lack clearly
defined meaning. The origin of the term “Political Science” is rather old as it is associated with
the Greek word polis. In contrast, the term “Sociology” was coined by Auguste Comte in 1839
to designate the science of society. Comte had earlier used the term “Social Physics” in the
same sense but later replaced it with sociology. Since then, the use of the term has changed
little.

Sociology is the parent science of all the social sciences. It is the science of society viewed as
an aggregate of individuals or men’s science in their associated process. It deals with social
development in general and analysis and describes social life in all its phases and complexities
through all ages and climes.

Sociology may thus be defined as the science of the origin and development, Structure and
functions of social groups, their forms, laws, customs, institutions, modes of life, thought and
action, and their contribution to human culture and civilization. It seeks to discover the general
principles underlying all social phenomena and social relationships and establish the laws Of
change and society’s growth.

Political Science and Sociology are so intimately connected that the Political embedded in the
social and if Political Science remains distinct from sociology will be because the breadth of
the held calls for the specialist, not because any well-defined boundaries are marking it from
Sociology.

They are mutually contributory. Political Science gives to Sociology facts about
the organization and functions of the State and obtains from its knowledge of the origin of
political authority and laws which controlled society. The State in its early stages was more of
a social than a political institution, and Giddings is of the Opinion that “to teach the theory of
the State to men, who have not learned the first principles of sociology, is like teaching
astronomy or thermodynamics to men who have not learned the Newtonian law of motion.”

A political scientist must be a sociologist, and a sociologist ought to be a political scientist. For
example, marriage is an element in a man’s social life and is a sociological concern. But if a
code of marriage, like the Hindu Marriage Act, is enacted to regulate it in a particular way, it
at once falls within the domain of Political Science as it comes within the scope of organized
control and obedience.

The Hindu, the Sikh, the Muslim, and the Christian communities themselves are sociology
subjects, being parts of the Indian society. Still, when they quarrel among themselves and their
quarrel flares up into communal riots, it represents not only the pathological side of Indian
social life but also a problem of deep political concern to prevent their recurrence and to remove
the causes of conflict to weld them into a patriotic nation Likewise, if we study revolutions, we
must take into account their social as well as their political causes as appearing in different
environments.

The analysis of political parties cannot be divorced from their relationship to social classes.
The sociology of man’s electorate-behavior in the associated process-solves the difficulties
emerging from the basic democratic mechanism.

Despite this close affinity between Sociology and Political Science, the study of both
the sciences is distinct, and their problems are by no means the same. Giddings has said that
the province of Political Science is not co-extensive with “the investigations of society but that
the lines of demarcation can be drawn” Sociology deals with man in all his varied social
relations and all forms of human associations. Its study is not confined to one aspect of man
alone. On the other hand, political science is a study of man’s political governance, and it is a
Specialized branch of Sociology.

It has a narrower and more restricted field to cover than Sociology. Secondly, the political life
of man begins much later than his social life. Sociology is before Political Science. Thirdly,
Sociology embraces the study of organized and unorganized communities and the conscious
and unconscious man’s activities. The province of Political Science is the politically organized
society and conscious political activities of man.

Finally, Political Science aims at the past, present, and future determination of humanity’s
political organization. In contrast, Sociology is the study of various social institutions that exist
or have hitherto existed. It does not and cannot predict the future of society and social
relationships. Its study is empirical and has no philosophical trend to follow. The distinction
between Political Science and Sociology has been apt, described by Ernest Barker.

He says, “Political theory only deals with political associations, united by a constitution and
living under a government sociology deals with all associations Political theory assumes as a
datum that man is a political being, it does not explain, as sociology seeks to do, how he came
to be a political being.”

Relationship of political science with Political Sociology:

During the past two decades or so, a collaboration between Political Science and Sociology has
been increasingly emphasized, and the sociological foundation of politics stressed. As pointed
out earlier, the revolution in the study of American politics is the consequence of the penetration
of sociological, anthropological, and psychological methods and theories.

There is the social and cultural matrix of politics. Explaining it, Pennock and Smith say,
“Some politically relevant patterns of behavior are imposed on man by the conditions of social
life itself, and certain psychological traits are brought out by society which in turn determine
the social milieu.”

The result is a new branch of study. Political Sociology explains the sociological interpretations
of political phenomena, and quite a sizable literature on the subject has been made
available Lipset, whose contribution is well-recognized, explains, “No Sociologist can
conceive of a study of society that does not recognize the political system as a major part of
the analysis.

And many political scientists, particularly in recent years, have argued, sometimes with others
in their own field, that it is impossible to study political processes except-as special cases of
more general sociological and psychological relationships.”

Political sociology takes the concept of the political system, first developed by David Easton.
It seeks to examine it in sociological terms, on the basic assumption that the political system is
“integrally related to its social system.” A system, therefore, implies interdependence of parts
By. Interdependence means that when the properties of one component in a system change, all
the other components, and the system are affected. For example, when the rings of an
automobile wear away, the motor car burns oil, the functioning of the other parts of the machine
or system deteriorates, and the vehicle’s power declines.

In the political system, the emergence of mass political parties, or media of mass
communications, like the press, the radio, and the television, have changed the performance of
structures of the system and the general capabilities (that is, the way it performs as a unit in its
environment) the system in its domestic and foreign environments. To quote Almond and
Powell, “when one variable in a system changes in magnitude or quality, others are subjected
to strains and are transformed the system changes the regulatory mechanism disciplines its
pattern of performance or the unruly component.”

Sartori has precisely summed up the sociological approach to politics. He says Political
sociology is only born when the sociological and political approaches are combined at the point
of intersection. If the sociology of politics deals with non-political reasons, while the people
act the way they do in political life, then political sociology should also include the political
reasons why people act the way they do. Real political sociology is then a cross-disciplinary
breakthrough, seeking enlarged models reintroduced as variables given each component
source.

Talking in concrete terms, Political Sociology is a connecting bridge between Sociology and
Political Science. It believes in a two-way relationship between Sociology and Political
Science, gives equal emphasis to social and political variables. Take, for example, the party
system. Here, political sociology does not explain the party systems working only in terms of
their response to and reflects the socioeconomic scene and investigates how the party system
influences society. India offers an apt and familiar illustration to explain the point.

While Sociology of politics analyses Indian politics in terms of its caste-ridden society,
Political Sociology adds to that inquiry how politics in India has affected the Indian caste
system, giving rise to the politicization of caste. The distinction between the sociology of
politics and Political Sociology would help us understand the meaning of Political Sociology
on which the specialists have so far disagreed.

RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH ANTHROPOLOGY

Anthropology deals with man’s racial divisions, physical characteristics, geographic division,
environmental and social relations, and cultural development. It is a science that studies
humanity about physical, social, and cultural development. The contribution of Anthropology
to Political Science is considerable, and modem researches in the racial division, habits,
customs, and organizations of primitive man help us to know the real origin of the State and
the development of various political institutions.

Man’s political behavior is greatly influenced by his racial origin and the environments in
which he lives. Two common sayings illustrate that there is something run in man’s blood, and
man is the shuttlecock of his environments. The theory of nationalism as preached by Hitler
and his dogma of superiority of the Aryan race solve many a knotty problem of recent political
thought. Finally, race unity is one of the strongest bonds of nationality, and geographic unity is
another important factor that fosters the sentiment of nationality.

We seek Anthropology’s help to prove that early society was communal in character; that is, its
basis was the group rather than the individual, whom we now accept as our society’s unit.
Anthropology also tells us that temporary marriage was the rule rather than the exception in
the early stages of society’s development. But such a condition of society could not last for
long, and regulating management was felt.

With the regulation of marriage, civilization advanced, and people permanently settled down
as territorial units paving the way for the State’s emergence. Thus, Anthropology greatly helps
the study of Political Science. Without a good knowledge of early societies, their laws, customs,
manners, and government modes, we cannot understand accurately. The modem institutions
and the political behavior of the people.

Hitherto Anthropology was regarded as applying wholly or mainly to primitive society, But its
scope is now widening and includes all society types. Knowledge of social anthropology,
says Robson, “is essential for the study or practice of colonial administration and it is a
necessity also for several other special topics of political science such as area studies, color and
racial conflicts, international organizations for assisting underdeveloped countries,
immigration, and emigration.”

Harold D. Lasswell approvingly cites C.D. Lerner and says that the links between students of
folk society-the distinctive subject-matter of social anthropology-and Political Science have
been closed in recent years as “whirlwind modernization added to the turbulence of politics in
Asia, Africa, South America, and many heretofore-isolated island communities.” He thinks that
in future years, “the data of anthropology will be highly pertinent to the consideration of various
problems that are likely to grow into large dimensions.”

Anthropology has an inexhaustible source of data on every sphere of man and his culture, and
Political Science, as Robson says, “will draw on various parts of this repository as problems
gain in their urgency.” During the last two decades, a voluminous literature has been published
on the modernization of traditional societies of Asia and Africa’s intricate tribal communities.

Almost all those countries that became sovereign States after World War II started their careers
with democratic institutions, generally of the parliamentary type, but barring a few, all of them
succumbed to some or other authoritarian Regine dictatorial form rule military or totalitarian.
Political Anthropology, which is now recognized as a fairly independent discipline, helps solve
the Western model of democratic institutions’ failure in these countries.

The traditional elements, attitudes, values, patterns of behavior and leadership weigh very
heavily in the developing countries as compared with the more rationalized developed nations
of the West and, consequently, the operational aspects of the democratic institutions can
scarcely be understood in terms and manner familiar to the Western States. Bryce has aptly said
that there are institutions which, like plants, flourish only on their hillside and under their own
sunshine.