POL 101 Notes PDF

**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. Th...

**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 hav**e **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. 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: 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: Appadorai (1975: 6-7) can be taken to represent those who believe and argue that political science is scientific. In his argument: 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: 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 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 pro**pounded 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.