Category: Political Science Notes

Religion as Ideology has played its role in history several times, and still continues to do so. Colton has rightly remarked that ‘Man will fight for religion, write for it, fight for it, anything but live it’. But is also equally true that in many cases it is religion, which has made man to do so. But one should differentiate between religion as ‘religion’ and religion as ideology which political leaders still like to call it their religion. Usually, the central contents and items of ‘religions’ are regarded abstract, unverifiable, non-empirical and subjective.

They may be real or non-real or fantasy. Nothing can be said with certainty about the existence or non-existence of the contents of the ‘religion’, definiteness of particular ways and means to know them, or about the outcome of knowing them. Hardly anyone can confirm the experiences of a person that one has attained such realization.

Most of these things or ways and means to realize them are based on subjective knowledge, faith and belief of the claimant. When a claimant announces his experience as the best and highest goal of life of man and society, and calls upon others to attain it by and through living a particular way of life, adopting specific form of worship, and unite as a community of believers, he transforms his ‘religion’ into an ‘ideology’. It is an ideology to the believers.

When these claimants, founders, prophets, seers, and teachers (gurus) of that religion or their successors or nominees apply, propagate and spread teachings and rules of prescribed behaviour among common people, and use means to motivate them, it turns into an ideology of religion. It may be pointed out that there have been, from time to time, many claimants of ‘religions’.

There have been many religions. Owing to the very nature of a ‘religion’ and claims made about it which, no other claimant or non-believer can contradict, owing to subjective nature of religious experi­ences, or oppose the experiences and expressions of the other claimant. In due course of time, power gained this way by religions becomes irresistible as well as unchallengeable.

The claimed experiences stand beyond reason or above every kind of controversy. Millions of believers or followers stand by them and are found to fight and die for it. Thinkers, scholars and rulers have been concerned with this use of religion. It proves to be a powerful engine for operating a government, society and community.

Important writers who have recognised the use of religion as ideology have been Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Pascal, Hegel and some others. Kant regarded three beliefs necessary to make man moral and happy: in God, in the freedom of the will, and immortality of the soul. Marx regarded religion as fantasy of the alienated man.

Religion, used in this way, is a form of false consciousness or an ideology. Political leaders use religion as ideology, as in religion man sees himself as subject to higher beings. Religion confirms his experience that he is not yet his own master. He has not yet learned to adapt his environment to his needs and is the victim of circumstances as yet beyond his control, but he has aspiration to be his own master.

It reinforces prevailing morality by promising rewards and threatening punishments in an afterlife, but make man willing to suffer during this life. Undergoing incessant suffering men tend to propitiate malevolent spirits and to invoke the help of benevolent ones. Communities, social groups and political parties resort to religion as an ideology as a system of beliefs regardless to its truth. It is an effect of ignorance and curiosity. It consists of fantasies that give the illusion that men have knowledge where they in fact lack it.

It allays fears and gives an outlet to men’s inability to control the forces of nature, society and economy. Communities and groups hold together in unity on the basis of its declared sacred character. It reinforces men’s motives for observing social rules on threat of punishment by some other-worldly being or beings more powerful than man. Religion provides man with a conception of himself and of his place in the world that satisfies him.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Social scientists have managed to keep their professions, at the level of witchcraft, magic and folklore.’ As the goal of making a scientific political theory has not been realised, it is advisable to deal with acceptable substitutes or ‘theorisation- in-practice’. These are analysis and explanation.

Analysis:

Conceptual Clarification:

Analysis is logical examination of a problem or subject matter by using some formalised or non-formalised means and methods of study. It is an attempt to know reality with a specific perspective. A perspective allows us to select and organise our perceptions, and guide our actions.

Analysis can relate to old or new approaches. Older approaches move around reason, law, laws of nature, values, institutions, and are mostly non-empirical. Modern approaches are conceptual, empirical and theoretical. But there is no reluctance or reservation on the part of an analyst when he undertakes to study ideas, ideals, and other metaphysical realities by following philosophical method; or background of events, tradi­tions, culture and ethos adopting on the basis of historical method; or reality of psychological phenomena by adopting psychological methods including introspection. It is freedom from methodological formalities which makes analysis amenable to all aspects of non-empirical areas of Political Science. It has grown over thousands of years, both in the East and the West, and has thrived in all cultures.

To narrow the focus, analysis is the process of mental or factual breaking down of a whole into its component parts and elements. It is a method of obtaining fresh knowledge, separating the essential from the non-essential and reduce the complex to the simple. The breaking down of the object into its component parts reveals its true structure, form or pattern. It is used in all mental operations such as, abstraction, conceptuali­sation, generalisation etc.

It appears differently according to the nature of the object or problem of study. As a developing process, it reveals various stages which may be cohesive or contradictory. The analyst proceeds from the complex to the simple, from the fortuitous to the necessary and from multiformity to identity and uniformity. The purpose of analysis is the cognition of the parts as elements of a complex whole, particularly less observable, less empirical and too big and too subtle for measurement and comprehension.

Analysis is the use of reason in an understanding of a problem or an issue. In the absence of a general theory, it can be regarded as a workable device to obtain knowledge. It is an action-frame of inquiry with a purpose.

From that point of view, it is not so value-free or scientific. Every analyst adopts his own intellectual posture or has his own conceptual priorities. This is his privilege. This can be regarded as an underlying assumption that precedes his analysis. It may not be deduced from his analysis of the phenomena he undertakes to describe and evaluate.

In this sense, analysis is different from a theory, approach, ideology or explanation. It is an intel­lectual process to know reality in a limited manner. Often analysis in Political Science is circumscribed by given historical conditions and prevailing circumstances. It caters to know specific problems and feels free to make use of any method and seek counsel of any discipline or source of knowledge.

An analyst may take micro or macro problems and conduct his enterprise at any level – higher or lower. It has imprint of its user in matter of purpose, style and strategy. Each analysis attempts to yield some conclu­sions in the form of propositions, working hypotheses and generalisations that may not be regarded by others as valid and general.

Forms of Analysis:

Analysis is a much-used mental activity in academics. Still it is not uniform.

It appears special in three areas:

(i) Empirical research,

(ii) Elaboration, explanation and drawing conclusions, and,

(iii) In submitting individualized statements.

In a way, all of them are sub-theoretical attempts made by individual scholars. However, we are more concerned with second area, i.e., elaboration, explanation and drawing conclusions as actual form of theorisation.

Analysis, in the first area of empirical research is used when the whole body of the gathered data is at hand. It is also known as ‘data analysis’. That comes after data-processing. It involves scrutiny of the assembled data, outlining the major aspects of the data, classification, coding, tabulation, statistical analysis, inferring cause-effect relationship and formulating scientific law. It begins with hypotheses, concepts and variables developed around some research questions.

Coming to the second area, it can be said that all politics is not amenable to observation or sensory treatment, therefore, may not be scien­tifically studied. No doubt politics is largely temporal, human, relational and oriented to big and small groups, still, all of its subject-matter is enmeshed with and moved by non-empirical forces like values, ideals, ideas, ideology, tradition, faith, myths and ignorance.

If we confine ourselves only to empirical or behavioural part of organised life, the discipline would be able to retain only a small fraction of presently available subject-matter. We may broaden our outlook by adopting ‘scientific value relativism’ and feel free from the charge of apolitical scientism. But still some of the real source and forces of politics are left over.

They do reflect in behaviour, thought and communication, but their abstract, subjective and ephemeral nature prompts pure science scholars either to isolate them or treat them as givens. This is an scientific attitude towards them. Some of these forces are responsible for the generation and germination of all types of politics. Therefore, even if they do not appear in concrete or semi-concrete forms, their study should be made part of Political Science.’” Without knowing them, concrete structures, institutions, behav­iour-patterns and other isolated political activities may not be properly comprehended.

Their force continues to operate in air, changing sometimes, the very meaning, goal and purposes of popularly known political activities, institutions and structures. At times, scholars and politicians are taken aback on sudden turns of political events only because they happen to neglect them and fail to appreciate them in a suitable manner.

Their knowledge does not stand on empirical grounds, but their force and potency is unparalleled, subtle and unique. However their task of knowing them fully may not be left to the field of analysis. In this sense, both scientific method and analysis stand complementary to each other replacing and removing their limitations and weaknesses by mutual strength.

This is not a concession to analysis, as till today, there is little ‘science’ with Political Science. A large part of the knowledge of politics is produced by Analysis. Most of politics continues to operate on the basis of analysis, and there is little of it with Political Science. Till Political Science assumes all over responsibility, there is no alternative to resorting to political analysis.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Almond and Coleman’s conceptual apparatus is made of political system and its seven functional requisites described in Parsonian pattern-variables. The basic unit of Almond’s political system is ‘role’, and not ‘interaction’ among individuals. Almond’s political system performs the functions of integration and adaptation by means of employment, or threat of employment, of more or less legitimate physical compulsion. Legitimacy of the physical compulsion governs the inputs and outputs of the political system, and separates the latter from other social systems.

Almond’s concept of political system involves:

(i) A concrete whole influencing, and, in turn, influenced by the environment and the ultimate presence of legitimate physical force,

(ii) Interaction taking place between roles adopted by individuals, and

(iii) An open system engaged in a continuous communication with entities and systems beyond its own boundaries.

Thus, the political system, more or less, is the legitimate, order-maintaining or transforming system in the society. ‘Political’ relates to ‘politics’ which is interaction among roles related to legitimate physical compulsion.

As a ‘system’, political system has three characteristics:

(i) Comprehen­siveness,

(ii) Interdependence, and

(iii) Existence of boundaries.

Comprehensiveness includes all interactions and structures, differentiated or undifferentiated, in their political aspects. Interdependence involves a change in one subset that produces changes in all other subsets. Boundary is the conceptual line where other systems end and the political system begins.

Mixed Universalistic Diffuse Achievement-oriented:

Like all other systems, a political system has also a tendency to move towards equilibrium harmony, stability or balance.

Apart from conceptual characteristics mentioned above, political systems have four operational properties:

(i) All have a structure,

(ii) All perform similar type of functions,

(iii) All political structures perform more than one function, and

(iv) All political systems are ‘mixed’ in the cultural sense.

None is all-modern or all-traditional. Functions are the mainstay of this political system. Almond approaches structures through functions. For maintaining itself, a political system has to perform certain essential functions. Much depends on the efficiency of performance of these functions.

Political development relates to the proportionate measure of that performance-efficiency. Functions are much more necessary. In maintaining order, functions may spill over here and there into other struc­tures. They may be less observable, intermittent, dysfunctional, etc. If functions are to be there, structures must there be. Structures can be multifunctional and also belong to other systems. In comparison with struc­tures, functions are more important and their analysis leads to accurate representation of the dynamic processes of a political system.

As functions or processes are responsible for the maintenance of a system, he has worked out a list of seven categories of functions, called functional requisites, found essential for the maintenance of a political system. The basis of their efficiency depends equilibrium or development of that system. Greater the efficiency, more will there be political development.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Considering the development of an all-inclusive and universal or abstract theory as unattainable by empirical methods, political scientists have adopted the limited perspective of ‘ systems theory’. Several disciplines have contributed to its making and development. It represents interdisciplinary nature of modern Political Science. ‘Systems’ concept makes empirical and comparative study possible even of those political institutions, apart from the state, such as, international political system, city, political party, etc.

The concept is helpful in studying changes like transformation, feedback, exchange, tension, conflict and development. Besides Easton, Gabriel Almond, Talcott Parsons, Karl Deutsch, Morton Kaplan and others have made such studies. Systems theory analyses interactions, structures, institutions, and processes pertaining to politics. Politics involves power, authority, physical coercion, and allocation of values for society.

In all shades of politics, political processes, and structures are enmeshed with several other elements, factors, and considerations. As such, a ‘political system’ cannot be physically separated from its non-political aspects, and is, therefore, usually understood and studied in an analytical manner. Society as a whole makes up the general social system, which contains many subsystems.

Political system is one of these subsystems. When the political system is to be studied as a whole along with its intra-subsystems, then, it is treated as a ‘system’. Besides that, ‘system’ can be considered as a part of environment. Thus, the concept of ‘system’ both in interlocking micro and macro forms saves us from the error of considering ‘systems’ as isolated, separate, or independent entities.

Besides throwing light on their interconnections, one can examine their discrete nature, and separate empirical existence. According to Almond, the political system in a society, is ‘legitimate, order maintaining’ or transforming system’. Wiseman maintains that every political system involves political structures, actors, or roles performed by their agents, interaction-patterns existing between individuals or collectivities, and political processes. In the ‘political system’ of Kaplan also, there are recog­nisable multivariate interests.

Instead of always being opposite, sometimes they are complementary to each other. There are regular structures and channels to reach the decisions and judgments related to particular interests. General rules are prescribed to govern the actors and activities relating to particular decisions and judgments. Easton, therefore, regards the political system engaged in decision-making and implementing the authoritative allocation of values for society.

A political system, according to Michels, has the following features:

(a) It is a permanent entity, existing amidst a broader environment and includes many other units;

(b) It consists of an identifiable and measurable set of interdependent elements or variables;

(c) It has boundaries which keep it separate from general environment;

(d) It is constituted around certain problems, objectives or goals, and builds up certain structures;

(e) Along with the increase of specific problems and evolution of goals, it develops specific structures and processes, leading to more and more differentiation.

Still political scientists, sociologists, and political sociologists have analysed political systems with varying frames of references and different goals. More important among them are Talcott Parsons, David Easton, Gabriel Almond, and Morton Kaplan. Perspectives of Parsons and Easton are more conceptual. Almond and Kaplan have gone towards empirical research and theory making. Thus there are many variations among them.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The word ‘value’ is used in two but interrelated senses. In the first sense, it is used by political actors for desirable or undesirable things such as, democracy, justice, freedom, power, etc. Easton mostly uses it in this sense. In the second sense, it is a criterion or basis of evaluation which an individual, group or society uses it to accept or reject some goals, means to achieve them, procedures, ideals, etc. In the latter sense, values influence political behaviour.

As such, origin, relevance, and interrelation among various values must be studied and analysed. Various values when put together make up the ‘value system’. An individual carries them within himself either as a whole or in part. The value system can be consistent, cohesive, specific, latent or manifest.

It can take the form of an ideology, policies, goals, laws, rules, ideals, and moral precepts. All of them can be directly stated as in a party manifesto. Otherwise, the values or value system can be known by studying behaviour patterns, value statements, culture-symbols or works, literary or artistic expressions, institutional presentation, or language formulations.

A value judgement involves a statement which connects a trans-empirical value with an individual, thing or abstraction. As it is non-empirical, it cannot, therefore, be easily refuted by objective means. Most of the value judgements are the formalised expres­sions of sentiments and emotions derived from culture and invoke men to action. One can also reach values through observation of action or one’s culture leading to value judgements. Values are major determinants of human behaviour. They become, thus, major areas of study for Political Science.

Many things contribute to the making of values – intellect, will, senti­ments, religion, ego, superstition, ignorance, tradition, etc. On the basis of values, a man regards a thing or activity as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and may act accordingly. The individual may express them in form of his ideas, desire, act, will, goal, or opposition. It is difficult to validate the bases or sources of those values, but the latter, to a large extent, determine his attitudes, choices, activities, and aspirations. Therefore, the problem of values has to be studied, at least from the view of developing a science of politics.

Normally, the term ‘value’ is used in the following sense:

(1) All the economic or physical means helpful to achieve some immediate cause or purpose. They are mostly called as instrumental values.

(2) Some express purpose or objective as aid to fulfill some other tacit or indirect purpose.

(3) Humans, things or tangibles for which there is clash, conflict, rivalry or competition to own.

(4) Pleasure-giving things, activities, ideas, purposes, or desires expressed to have them.

(5) Ultimate goals or ends which cannot be expressed through other aims, actions or purposes.

(6) Dispassionate actions involving no self-interest, such as making sacrifice for a general cause.

It may here be pointed out that all values do not influence an individual or group equally. The same value may have varying influence. There is lack of consensus among scholars about what place should be accorded to values.

The problem is discussed below:

Study of Values:

Early behaviouralists, with a view to developing a ‘science of politics’ by adopting the scientific method, stood for a ‘value-free’ Political Science. The traditionalists, on the other side, always talked of ubiquitous role of values and value preferences. They had them from religion, nature, philosophical meditation, axiomatic postulates, introspection, history, law and morality. The relationship of values with the individuals was based on faith, belief, confidence, intuition, superstition or ignorance. As such, few could claim to know them or understand their implications.

The rulers could easily sustain themselves in power in the name of those mystic ideas or esoteric values. Against them, there arose a sharp reaction banishing all values from scien­tific studies. The latter group of behaviouralists tried to eliminate all emotional attitudes, particularistic fallacies, false idols, bias and prejudice, ethnocentrism, vested interests, moral values, and even ideals. They wanted to mould Political Science in the form of physics and chemistry.

Very soon, they began to face difficulties in developing a value-free Political Science. They confined themselves to mere description and classifi­cation of facts in the hope to realize a descriptive, empirical, operational and causal political theory. But their hopes withered within no time. It was pointed out that these adventures too had their own hidden values, ideals, and prejudices, which influenced their choices of problem, methods and findings.

Thus, the whole discipline was split into two warring camps, and stood on a cross-road. Felix Kaufmann in 1944 had found that in social sciences, controversy relating to values was greatest among all the method­ological problems. Values have a role to play before and after every research venture. No scholar can afford to avoid it.

From the viewpoint of values, scholars of Political Studies can be divided into three categories:

1. Social scientists who keep their studies completely away from values. They can be named as ‘value-neutralists’.

2. Scholars who stand for values and regard safeguarding certain values as their main objective, are known as ‘traditionalists or classicists’.

3. Scholars who, while keeping themselves as value-neutral, regard study of values as possible and desirable. Brecht calls them as ‘scientific value relativists’.

Position of first and third categories is relevant to the discussion of values and making of a scientific political theory.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The concept of ‘political technology’ contains seven clusters of variables and each cluster contains many variables or attributes:

1. Traits of Political Leader:

In the cluster, the Personality of the Political Leader plays the key-role.

Its traits can further be divided in two groups:

(a) Knowledge of mass psychology, specialization in anticipating public responses, skill in maintaining public relations, and timely use of political technologies; and,

(b) Political personality: Charisma, spirit of making self-sacrifice, attributes of divinity, high social status, strong will-power, willingness to tolerate/adjust with others, attitude towards opponents and the like.”

2. Values and Goals:

These include temporal as well as other worldly objectives, identification with some god, religion, sub-religion, nation, nationality, race or ethnicity, caste, colour, norms and mores, ideology, hero or superman;

3. Type of Instruments and Tools:

Solidarity among members of associ­ation or relationship, socialisation and training of followers, discipline, number, span of discretion and direction, speed and style, use of non-coercive, coercive or Gandhian technologies;

4. Issues, Demands and Problems:

Their nature, impact, quantum of pressure – immediate and distant, situation, coverage – national, regional or local;

5. Patterned or Repeatable Use:

Political technology should be a repeatable or patterned affair;

6. Power-sharing:

Those who are part of a political technology should have a feel of some power-sharing; and,

7. Resources at Hand (on either side of input and output-ends):

These can briefly be stated as:

(a) Material goods: Sociability and size of the collectivity, status, property (land, money, building, business, industry etc.),

(b) Leadership, type and quality of organisation, management skills, including communication and control over media; legitimacy,

(c) Friends and allies: Open, secret, links with bureaucrats, mafia, middlemen and contractors, and

(d) Closeness to potential resources and chance factor.

Upload and Share Your Article: