Category: Political Science Notes

Protagonists of pure political theory or early behaviouralists do not agree that there can be any particular goals, aims or objectives of political theory. Catlin regards this problem as belonging to political philosophy, and limits the scope of Political Science to the discussion and analysis of ‘means’ only. Arnold Brecht (expired on September ii, 1977) repudiated this view, and maintained that it was the great tragedy of twentieth century. A theory must have some ends in view or pursue certain goals.

Empirical political theory aims at presenting a coherent image of the operations of political reality. It may be conceptualised, as Easton and others did, as a system and subsystems. However, all aspects of politics are not systematic, and can be, more or less conflicting, as in case of contem­porary West Asia or emergence of sub-nationalism in many parts of the Indian Union.

It may take into account only processes or structures or functions, even groups or individuals. But as a general political theory, it would have to incorporate totality of politics, micro and macro. Similarly, it has to telescope political reality in such an analytical manner that it guides academicians to fathom further and political actors to realise broader social goals, including the personal ones. As a publicly known weapon, it can be reliably used by all concerned.

However, the formulation of a scientific political theory is a general and long-term goal of theory-makers. But it has certain specific, short-term and practical objectives also. These are applied, utilitarian and humane aspects of political theory.

Some of them are:

(i) Establishment of peace and harmony, so that there may not be any fear of extermination or extinction in a nuclear or conventional war. Various races, nationalities, groups etc., may live together in grace and honour;

(ii) Development of a political theory which may lead the developing countries to the path of freedom and prosperity, and save them from anarchy, stagnation, and tyranny;

(iii) Teach the self-transforming societies of the advanced world (popularly called as rich ‘North’ in contrast to poor ‘South’) to economies for greater affluence of all and to exercise self-control for the greater freedom of every individual; and

(iv) Finding out ready-made solution of problems and crises which often break out all of a sudden and cause loss, often beyond redemption.

In view of these objectives, scope or subject-matter of modern political theory can be ascertained. Its main topics are: political man, political behaviour, political groups; institutional, administrative or international politics; theory, ideology, parties etc. They are different from the contents of traditional political theory which puts emphasis on the study of values; origin, development, organisation and forms of state and government; insti­tutions like political parties and local self-government, constitution, ideologies etc.

It can be observed that some of the topics are common to both, but the perspective and objectives are different. Before 1967, the American Political Science Association had only six sub-areas, but later, it divided them into 27 which included, among others, areas like economics, sociology, military science, research methodology, statistics etc.

In his article in the International Encyclopedia of Social Science (1968), Arnold Brecht includes eight units:

(i) group,

(ii) equilibrium,

(iii) power, control and influence,

(iv) action,

(v) elite,

(vi) decision and decision-making,

(vii) anticipated action, and

(viii) function.

Recently, it has started discussing and studying values like liberty, equality, justice, cooperation etc. Impact of sociology and anthropology has lent some new concepts like socialisation, political culture, political development, political communication, political symbols and styles, efficacy, and others.

Research methodology and statistics both have been incorporated in the syllabi of some universities in India and abroad. Of late, there is a another trend also. Some university departments are going back to good old days when scholars used to sit and study politics in libraries, and through introspection. Such people tend to treat politics a mystic activity, to be comprehended by a few, and use knowledge to gain power. It leads to an elitist view of politics.

Upload and Share Your Article:

A scientific political theory is an ideal, whereas an empirical or modern political theory is the working model which Political Science aims at to build and develop. In its ideal form, as Meehan has summed up, a theory ‘is an act of creation and a work of art. Good theories are things of beauty and aesthetic worth: fertile, suggestive, simple, productive and satisfying’. Good empirical theories are rarely available.

They perform functions as mentioned hereunder:

(1) An empirical political theory is a must for the growth of Political Science as a re-established discipline. Only an overarching or general theory can bring about integration, coherence and autonomy to its subject matter. In fact, it is an indicator of the health and youth of the discipline. No science can be fruitful or grow without having a compre­hensive theory.

(2) Theory explains political phenomena and events, finding out cause-effect relationships. It helps us to understand the political behaviour of man and systems; phenomena of violence, war or devel­opment; problems like racism, casteism, regionalism, etc. Many a time, it predicts coming events, thus warning man against their evil conse­quences. In this sense, it becomes a powerful tool to defend oneself. A theory based on empirical reality is a weapon to fight with false and motivated ideologies.

(3) Theory guides us to collect relevant facts and fill up the gaps or remove inconsistencies, if any. A science without a theory can be regarded as blind. Only theory enables a science to organise facts and give direction to research. Easton has remarked that without theory ‘political research must remain fragmentary and heterogeneous’. It enables the researcher to face the avalanche of facts and draw relevant generalisations.

(4) Abound theory (not an ideology) evokes satisfaction, self-confidence and proper understanding among all concerned. It unites human beings, groups and associations, and infuses coherence in their activ­ities. A scientific political theory often becomes a powerful weapon to win over battles or fight against enemies. Occasionally, it provides legit­imacy to the system of government or its rulers. Attainment of legitimacy reduces the cost of government, and makes it acceptable, effective and efficient. The ruling class, time and again, can spread the information that its actions are based on a sound, scientific and all-acceptable political theory.

(5) Arnold Brecht has regarded a scientific political theory as one of the greatest weapons to defend humanity. On the one hand, it can provide the basis to solve problems like war, development, and abundance; on the other hand, it can expose the ideologies propagated as scientific theories which factually are subversive of the human values. In its applied aspects a theory can control, demarcate and direct the forces of violence, racism, nationalism, sovereign status of states etc. Unless this is done, science and technology are likely to devour its own maker – man.

(6) As theory presents political reality in brief and concise form, political actors – leaders, politicians, citizens, administrators and diplomats – can make use of this knowledge, and can take appropriate decisions. The adversaries and citizens can also raise their voice, if action is not taken in accordance with the scientific theory. In the absence of non-adherence to such theory, ruling or governance becomes subjective, secretive, and segregate, people causing immense damage or harm to humanity. If the rulers themselves learn the tenets of an advanced modern political theory or act on the advice of such theorists, blunders and wasteful cost in terms of man and material can be avoided.

(7) Even with the present state of developing a modem political theory, one can hope to reach higher levels of knowing political reality, and construct structures, systems and processes suitable to a collectivity. In view of the fast developing science and technology, the speed and volume of empirical theorisation is likely to grow faster. In conse­quence, newer forms of postmodern political theory is surely to lead from micro to macro, even cosmic levels.

In the way, man can use his discretion in approximating his ultimate values in the light of empirical analysis and observation of their consequences for man. The devel­opment of such modern political theory may not allow the rulers to run governments in the name of some mystic values or to operate it as their personal estate.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, on the other hand, use ‘good governance’ to refer to a particular type of political and economic order. For them, ‘good governance’ is associated with the spread of democracy and transparency in governments and free markets. ‘Good gover­nance’ is the opposite of arbitrary and self-seeking rule, corruption and cronyism, which have been endemic in some Third World societies.

However, the World Bank and IMF’s version of ‘good governance’ has been expansive to Third World peoples. Although the World Bank and the IMF started to emphasise different priorities following the crises in East Asia in the late 1990s, their ‘good governance’ is still associated with reduction in public expenditure, emphasis on exports and less charges in hospitals and schools. Any ‘governance’ can turn out to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘efficient’ or ‘effi­cient’, or ‘effective’ or ‘ineffective’.

In order to make governance ‘good’, certain variables, attributes or functions are ascribed to it. For World Bank or the UN Funding Agencies, governance is ‘good’ if it accepts tenets of LPG and liberal democracy. But it can assume any form of its own liking.

However, in order to be effective and viable, it has to be popular, participative and inclusive, though these attributes or qualities may tell upon ‘governance’, in terms of speed, cost, effect and efficiency. Remedy lies in having good governance, not in cosmetic palliatives or plastic surgery. ‘Good governance’ is essentially free from abuse and corruption, and with due regard for the rule of law.

Good governance is a process which enables an organisation, structure or institution to anticipate and prevent problems and to take readily all steps to solve them effectively and efficiently when they arise. The true test of “good” governance is the degree to which it delivers the goods in the form of the promise of human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.

The key question is: are the institutions of governance effectively guaranteeing the right to health, adequate housing, sufficient food, quality education, fair justice and personal security? The concept of ‘good governance’ has been clarified by the Commission on Human Rights.

In its resolution (2000/64) the Commission identified the key attributes of good governance as:

(1) Transparency;

(2) Responsibility;

(3) Accountability, prompt and effective action, learning and use of knowledge; and

(4) Participation.

To bring about structural change and reforms in their favour, they extend or attach aid, grants, donations on condition of replacing their old democracy and administration in some form.

An another analysis of ‘good governance’ exemplifies eight major characteristics:

(1) Participation;

(2) Rule of law;

(3) Transparency;

(4) Responsiveness;

(5) Consensus oriented;

(6) Equity and inclusiveness;

(7) Effectiveness and efficiency; and

(8) Accountability.

Major donors and international financial institutions are increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure “good governance” are undertaken.

Andrew Taylor has proposed that a state pursuing good governance would:

(i) Actively fight corruption and the use of public office for private gain;

(ii) Enhance democratic procedures, institutions and principles;

(iii) Institute limited terms for key public offices;

(iv) Reduce government in size and function;

(v) Remove economic controls;

(vi) Privatise state and parastatal enterprises;

(vii) Establish and enforce a code of conduct; and

(viii) Promote independent and effective judiciary.

Global Governance:

At the global level, governance has been viewed primarily as intergovern­mental relationships, but it must now be understood as also involving non-governmental organisations (NGOs), citizens’ movements, multina­tional corporations, and the global capital market. Interacting with these are global mass media of dramatically enlarged influence.

Globalisation evolves its own methods, means and mechanism of Global Governance. Still Global Governance is not world government. But it is moving toward a form of World Government mainly dominated by G-7. David calls this process as ‘transformationalism’ (David Held, A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt, and J. Perraton, Global Transformation: Politics, Economics and Culture, 1999).

Upload and Share Your Article:

Global governance refers to transnational networks, institution building, norm entrepreneurship, regime creation and the management of global change. It covers many issues, such as women’s rights, human rights, development, democratisation, the environment, security and investments. It has worked out some recent achievements include the treaty banning landmines, the Kyoto climate convention, the international criminal court, the World Trade Organisation, and the ‘new generation’ UN peacekeeping operations.

However, it is power that determines whose interests, rules and standards become ‘global’. Thus, while global governance requires tolerance and accommo­dation of conflicting interests across national, racial, class, gender and ethnic boundaries, it is often the preferences of the most powerful actors that are accommodated.

1. Threat to Nation-States:

Both Globalisation and Global Governance go together. They are proving a threat to the nation-states. It should be accepted that both of them have made some positive and fruitful contribution to the entire world. But there is also a great need to overcome and remove the evils caused by it. The world has to be made safe and livable. If Globalisation aims at dismantling nation-states and democ­racies, it has got to be opposed in every possible manner.

Success of a nation-state depended on correct mixing of:

(a) Identity,

(b) Legitimacy, and

(c) Security.

All of them began to erode during the era of globalisation. Both Soviet Union and the US exercised the right of inter­vention in many sovereign countries. Few members and fewer votes from the developing countries find a place on the boards of the IMF and the World Bank.

Subscribing to the triad of human rights, free markets and democracy has been put as a condition precedent to them. Owing to expansion the TNCs (Transnational Corporations) and NGOs (non-governmental organisations) legitimacy of nation-states has lost their former shine. Global business has neutralised national boundaries. A part of power and identity has shifted upwards from the nation-states to the global agencies. About 90 per cent of foreign news and information in the print media is controlled by four news agencies located in the North.

The ‘spectre of globalisation’ haunts the earth. It has raised doubts about the relevance, role and even the need for nation-states at the end of the twentieth century. If this trend continues, there would be neither ‘state’ nor ‘nation’ at least in developing countries.

2. Threat to Democracies:

Globalisation is undermining democracy. Global governance concentrates economic power in the hands of a few individuals and corporate bodies. GATT/WTO, IMF, OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) and other financial institutions manage global political economy.

The World Bank, IMF and WTO are expected to work in a coherent manner for it. Every member of the WTO has to accept in its entirety a common set of rules and disciplines covering goods, services and intellectual property. The WTO has legal and institutional foundation for enforcement of its decisions on disputes in the areas of goods, services and the protection of intellectual property rights. Its General Council makes appropriate arrange­ments for effective cooperation with other intergovernmental organisations that have responsibilities related to the WTO.

Other international organi­sations and agencies mentioned below also operate in regulating the global economy:

1. World Intellectual Property Organization;

2. International Organization for Standardization (lOS);

3. Coadex Alimentarious Commission;

4. International Office of Epizootics; and

5. International Plant Protection Office.

All political power and capacity to decide on behalf of global community is with the western world because of the ‘unequal’ nature of distribution of economic power among the nation-states, including making of important appointments on these bodies.

Global inequality has become quite acute. Structural inequality of power between the few developed centres of capitalism and a large majority of peripheral developing states has changed the whole agenda of contem­porary discourse where the very relevance of nation-state as a centre of decision-making for national management has become questionable. According to the Pearson Commission this gap has been further widened because of the concentration of finance capital in a ‘few capitalist countries’.

Globalisation has set people to think about the political institutions, such as, state, democracy and civil society.

David Held, in search of a supra-national democracy at global level, visualises a new international order involving:

(i) The emergence of a global economic system which stretches beyond the control of a single state (even of dominant states);

(ii) The expansion of network of transnational linkages and communications;

(iii) The enormous growth in international organisation which can limit the scope for action of most powerful states; and

(iv) The development of a global military order can reduce the range of policies available to govern­ments and their citizens.

One can witness a crisis of global civilisation. It involves a counter-revolution of the powerful against the weak. In much of the Third World the processes of urbanisation and economic decline have gone with social chaos, anomie and nihilism. Its leaders in theory are accountable to the governed, in practice, they are accountable to market forces, most notably debt structures and struc­tural adjustment programmes. Their major problem is how to make economic revitalisation compatible with democratisation.

The international funding institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and the ADB pressurise the recipient countries for removal of subsidies on even essential sectors like health, education, water, irrigation, agriculture, electricity and free use of public infrastructure such as roads. There is the question of quality versus quantity. The fundamental challenge of globalisation to the state and governance is to become accountable and responsible to the ruled and also to the global institutions.

However, to counterbalance these trends, Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State has suggested steps to make major progress in the emerging international order by involving all key nations to say to themselves that this is our system. This is not an American system or anybody’s system. This is something we participated in creating it and we have an interest in maintaining it.

3. Threat to Environment and Culture:

With weakening inter-state borders, threats to environment are increasing. With the resistance of the US and Australia and indifference of Russia and China towards Kyoto Protocol (to enforce emission norms for prevention Green House effect) and Copenhagen Protocol (to ensure ozone layer protection from chlorofluoro carbons), the ecosystem is under grave threat. Globalisation has led to a new world trade market in environmental waste. The state finds it difficult to balance the trade-off between economic growth and environment preservation.

Some other major consequences of globalisation have been:

(i) The dislo­cation of traditional religions and belief systems;

(ii) The beginning of the disintegration of the traditional social fabrics and shared norms by consum­erism, cyber-culture, new-fangled religions and changing work ethics and work rhythms;

(iii) The fast spreading anomie forcing an ever incr
easing number of individuals to fall back upon the easily accessible pretentious religious banalities; and

(iv) Religion related creation and acceleration of extremist, fundamentalist and terrorist tendencies in the Third World countries.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Political development is a more elusive concept than economic devel­opment. It is more controversial in normative terms and more difficult to measure in empirical and operational terms. It is used frequently by both normative and non-normative or existential thinkers. Normative theorists stress that a political system develops as it approaches the good political order.

They devote less attention to systematic statement of conditions which give rise to and maintain political development, and are more concerned with specifying ends and justification for having such political development. The existentialists spend more time on specifying the charac­teristics of what they regard as politically developed systems and the conditions and processes which give rise to them. Lucian W. Pye has vividly examined diversity in the explanation of the concept of political development.

Political development has been variously explained as:

1. Political prerequisite of economic development;

2. The politics typical of industrial and advanced societies;

3. Political modernisation under which advanced nations are regarded as pace-setters;

4. The operations of a nation-state;

5. Administrative and legal development, it includes all colonial practices and authoritative structures;

6. Mass mobilisation and participation involving new standards of loyalty and demagoguery;

7. The building of democracy;

8. Stability and orderly change;

9. Mobilisation and power; and

10. One aspect of a multi-dimensional process of social change regards it unnecessary to isolate political development from other aspects coming under the total process of modernisation.

There are other interpretations also, such as, national self-respect, attainment of dignity in international affairs, etc. But according to Pye, most of them create confusion. According to him, these various interpretations share some broad characteristics, which can provide the basis of agreement.

He categorises them under three aspects and interlinks them in the form of development syndrome:

(a) Spirit or attitude towards equality:

It includes participation, universalistic nature, standards of achievement etc.;

(b) Capacity of political system:

It is related to outputs: economy, perfor­mance of government, effectiveness and efficiency, rationality in administration, and secularisation of public policies; and

(c) Differentiation:

It involves increase of structures, institutions, division of labour, specialisation, followed by ultimate sense of integration. Thus, political development, according to him, is a three-dimensional process of equality, capacity, and differentiation. He admits that these do not necessarily or easily fit together.

Rather, acute tensions and problems are generated by them. Pressure for greater equality can challenge the capacity of the system, and differentiation can reduce equality by stressing the importance of quality and special knowledge. His development syndrome is also unilinear. Problems of equality relate to political culture and sentiments about legitimacy and commitment to the system.

Capacity-problems involve the performance of authoritative structures of government. Problems pertaining to differentiation strike at the perfor­mance of the non-authoritative structures and the general political process in the society at large. In any case, political development revolves around the relationships between political culture, the authoritative structures, and the general political process.

Mehta opines that Pye interprets development by incorporating almost every conceivable feature of the American political system. Pye finds the development-process as evolution of society from incoherent homogeneity to coherent heterogeneity, with capacity to solve developmental problems.

Alfred Diamant conceives it as a ‘process by which political system acquires an increased capacity to sustain successfully and continuously new types of goals and demands and the creation of new types of organisation.’ For this process to continue over time, a differentiated and centralised polity must come into existence. It must be able to command resources from and power over wide spheres and regions of the society.

Almond visualises it as the acquisition by political systems of a new capability, in the sense of a specialised role structure and differentiated orientations, which together give a political system the possibility of responding efficiently, and more or less, autonomously to a new range of problems. Both Almond and Powell reiterate that political development shows the formation of new capabilities, with specialised role-structure and differentiated orientation which enables the political system to deal with new challenges.

Hagan also finds it as ‘the formation of new structures and patterns which enable a political system to cope with its fundamental problems.’ Samuel P. Huntington characterises political development as ‘institutionalisation’ which can be applied both to past and present. For him, it is the development of institutions to meet people’s demands. According to him, this process of institutionalisation can go forward and breakdown and can decay as it has happened many times in the past.

He wants to use it as a ‘value-free’ concept, applicable to all types of societies. However, Pennock and Smith put a caution that it should not be measured in terms of the ability of political systems to survive only but also to satisfy the demands of those who are subject to its rule. The system has to satisfy them with ‘political goods’. Riggs also concurs with him and observes that political development opens a number of choices to satisfy political goals.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Power theory requires that power-acts must be clearly defined and fully comprehended, who is influencing or controlling by what acts. Variables included in a two broad definitions usually are very difficult to be analysed properly. Only those acts can be understood and empirically analysed which are performed against the wishes of a person or a nation.

All political interactions, domestic or international, involve the phenomenon of power. But its concept lacks precision. Scholars have attempted to analyse sources, goals, instruments, and effects of power, but lack unanimity over its referents. The concept of power must be explained in the context of various political systems and subsystems, and in a manner that empirical generalisations are derived therefrom. Along with them, it is desirable that a scientific theory is developed which is able to explain power in its various forms and their specificity and uniqueness.

Power as a relational phenomenon to produce induced behaviour presents a unifying and centralising principle. To make the concept empirical, two things must be kept in view: (a) power is behavioural, and (b) relationship between elements of power and power-behaviour must be established in a manner that it may form the basis of explanation, prediction, and empirical experiment. This is what an empirical theory does Power is a relational, interpersonal, and interactive process.

A man or a nation can exercise power only if there is someone else to act upon. Power is not a thing or commodity which can be possessed without exercising it. Weapons, wealth, property, organisation, etc. are important elements, bases, or sources of power. They are considered important as they provide opportunity to exercise control over others. It is improper to treat them all-important, and forget to relate them with actual power-behaviour.

Empirical power goes to the extent a political actor influences the behaviour of others. Power does not exist or remains ineffective if a nation is unable to change or modify the behaviour of other nations. When we say a nation is militarily more powerful, it simply means that it alone has more weapons and a bigger army to change the behaviour of nations concerned, and also has a will to do so when an occasion arises.

Often the analysts of power have not tried to compare the variables or elements of power with power. For this purpose, an adequate concept of power must be developed. It can relate power-behaviour with elements of power, and evolve appropriate hypotheses or suggest propositions. A behav­ioural approach to power is justified on two grounds: (a) As power involves influence or control, it is an observable empirical activity. The power-weilder must be in possession of relevant elements of power.

He must comparatively be free from obstructions or restrictions, and also have capacity or ability to use them. All of these things can be subsumed as ‘capa­bility’, (b) The power-weilder must have the will or resolution to control other Power-setting requires both – capability as well as the will. Or as a potential power, it should be ingrained with credibility, so that it may be empirically observed.

The need to measure power also directs us to adopt the behavioural approach. A scientific power theory aims at comparing and measuring power. Elements or cases of power do not provide standardised units (like currency notes, weights, etc.) for measurement and quantification.

A millionaire cannot be compared with a highborn man. Scholars like Quincy Wright have also found this difficulty that political and social power, because of qualitative variations, cannot be uni-formally measured like physical power. Solution of the problem lies in making activities of political actors as basis of measurement. We can measure the behavioural conse­quences of wealth and status, jointly and separately, observing the number of persons a power-weilder controls over.

For this purpose, power has to be defined or translated into behavioural terms. According to Robert A. Dahl, A has power over B to the extent, A induces B to do acts which otherwise he would not do. Goldhammer and Shils define it as a person having power to the extent he is able to influence others behaviour according to his own intentions. Dahl’s explanation, thus, overlooks internationality of political actors, leaving aside power-acts like manipulation, propaganda, etc.

A nation, even after doing an act under the influence of another nation, can claim that it has done it at its own will. The clause ‘according to his own intentions’ makes the conventional statements, as, ‘against his will’, ‘despite resistance’, ‘which otherwise he would not have done’, etc. redundant.

But if Goldhammer and Shil’s clause is accepted, should all acts pertaining to fulfillment of one’s will or wish be regarded as acts of power? Should a small nation’s wish to live in isolation or neutral be regarded as indicator of its power? Isaac suggests that (i) such acts of power-behaviour should be performed both by the influencer and the influ­enced; and (ii) there should be some contact or communication before the actualisation of power relations between them. Without some form of contact, power relations cannot exist at all.

In accordance with the behavioural explanation of power a political actor influences the behaviour of others in terms of his own intentions or will. But there arises another difficulty. Unilateral or causal relations do not exist in power-settings. Many acts of power trigger off feedback or mutually influencing operations. If nation A influences the behaviour of nation B, there is an opportunity that B also influences the behaviour of A.

Of course, this analysis, in addition, makes the comparison of their power, at least more difficult, if not impossible. In case there is interval of time, the personal behaviour of the actor must be put under observation. Quantum of power and direction would also tell which side has more power.

Thus, influence on the acts of behaviour of the actors is regarded as the main unit of observation and measurement of power. There are various forms of political acts by which an actor can influence the behaviour of others. They can broadly be divided in three forms: (i) force, (ii) domination and (iii) manipulation. In force, there is exercise of physical acts, namely, empirically observable physical sanctions.

In a situation of domination, the actor expresses his intentions to the other party and realises that situation or intended behaviour. Often force and domination go together. Force is used to make domination effective. In manipulation, the actor does not let others know the aims or objects of his behaviour, namely, exercise of power. It includes actions, which cannot be easily understood or observed. However, techniques are developed to know latent intentions and observe and measure relevant influence. Rest of the acts are open and manifest.

Power theory requires that power-acts must be clearly defined and fully comprehended, who is influencing or controlling by what acts. Variables included in a two broad definitions usually are very difficult to be analysed properly. Only those acts can be understood and empirically analysed which are performed against the wishes of a person or a nation. In power relations, such acts among actors often take place. A strategy is required which may empirically link these stimuli and responses, and produce generalisations.

If a set of a activities is regulated before another set of activities, a correlation between them or probable association can be established. After visualising an observable contact between the two nations, if we find a form of some activity from out of their total behaviour, it can be assumed that power relations exist. Many members of parliament change their public statements after having a meeting with the prime minister. Sometimes, the principle of ‘anticipated expect
ations’ is also used and applied. Only after bringing power into observable dimensions, it becomes probable to measure it.

It is clear that a scientific power-theory cannot consider the state as the sole repository of power. Trietscke, Nietsche, Kauffmann etc. regarded the state as embodiment of power. Such an extremist view subordinates all activities, organisations, groups, etc., to the state. In modern times, state has monopoly over the exercise of legitimate power, but power, both in coercive and non-coercive forms, also operates beside the state.

There are non-state actors of power, such as the terrorists like Al-Queda. The power-principle, or theory in a loose sense, enables us to perceive political activities in an organised and meaningful manner, and is useful to understand the behaviour of nations and other political actors.

Steven Lukes in his book Power: A Radical View (1974) discusses three ways of exercise of power: decision-making, agenda-setting and thought control.’ The postmodern thinker, Michel Foucault (1926-84), discovers a link between power and systems of thought through the idea of a ‘discourse of power’.

But, it may be pointed that power is not the only sole material making up a political systems, and its legal organisation known as state. There are many other factors and contents which constitute political systems and subsystems. If the concept of power is confined only to force or coercion, the theory would prove misleading and too narrow to be of any use. Along with power, we have to study its other forms also. Most important of them are influence, authority and legitimacy.

Upload and Share Your Article: