Elements of politics

Edited by

Remi Anifowose

And

Francis C. Enemuo

In 5 volumes
Volume 1 of 5
Chapters 1-5
Transcribed in tobraille
By
Soroptimist Braille Centre
Unilag
Table of contents
Acknowledgements v
Preface vi
Table of contents viii
List of contributors x

Section One: Foundations of political science

1: The nature and scope of political science Remi Anifowose 1-15
2: Approaches and methods to the study of politics Francis C. Enemuo
16-28
3: Political behavior Remi Anifowose 29-37
4: Perspectives on political economy Abubakar Momoh and Taiwo
Hundeyin 38-59

Section Two: Political thought and concepts

5: Political ideas and ideologies Francis C. Enemuo 60-84
6: State, society and nation - Remi Anifowose 85-105
7: Power, influence and authority Remi Anifowose 107-125
8: Political and social change Cyril I. Obi 126-140
9: Democracy, human rights and the rule of law Francis C. Enemuo 141-
155
Section Three: Political systems, government and the citizen
10: Constitutions and constitutionalism Remi Anifowose 157-
170
11: The structure and organization of government Remi
Anifowose 171-190
12: Political parties and pressure groups Adigun Agbaje 191-209
13: Political culture and political socialization Tunde Babawale
210-225
14: Gender and -women empowerment Francis C. Enemuo 226-
237
15: Nigerian government and politics Solomon O. Akinboye and
Remi Anifowose 238-260

Section Four: Public administration

16: Public administration: basic principles, techniques and
processes - Browne Onuoha 262-280
17: What is public policy? Adesina Sambo 281-310
18: Decentralization and local government: models, principles
and purpose Francis C. Enemuo 311-326

Section Five: International politics

19: International relations Ayo Akinbobola 328-342
20: International organizations Ayo Akinbobola 343-363
21: Nigeria's foreign policy - S. O. Akinboye 364-383
List of contributors
Adigun Agbaje, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Political Science, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Ayo Akinbobola, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Political Science, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Solomon O. Akinboye, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Political Science, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Remi Anifowose, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of
Political Science, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Tunde Babawale, MSc Senior Lecturer, Department of
Political Science, University of Lagos, Nigeria. Francis
Chigbo Enemuo, PhD, Lecturer, Department of Political
Science, University of Lagos, Nigeria, Taiwu Hundeyin, MSc,
Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Lagos State
University, Ojo, Nigeria.
Abubakar Momoh, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Political Science, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos, Nigeria.
Cyril I. Obi, PhD, Research Fellow, Nigerian Institute of
International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos, Nigeria. Browne Onuoha,
PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science,
University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Adesina Sambo, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of
Political Science, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Chapter 1: The nature and scope of political science
Remi Anifowose
The great Greek political philosopher, Aristotle, began his
famous work, Politics, with the observation that "man is by nature
a political animal. By this, he means that the essence of social
existence is politics and that two or more men interacting with
one another are invariably involved in a political relationship.
Aristotle also means that very few people prefer an isolated life to
one that includes social companionship. Men are engaged in
politics as they try to define their positions in society, as they
struggle for scarce resources and as they try to convince others to
accept their points of view Aristotle men concluded that the only
way to maximize one's Individual capabilities and to attain the
highest form of social life was through political interaction with
others in an institutionalized setting, a setting designed to resolve
social conflicts and to set collective goals - the state.
What therefore is politics? A search through political science
textbooks confounds the student with numerous definitions,
stating that politics is the process of making and execution of
governmental decisions or policies the authoritative allocation of
values; or who gets what, when and how; the quest for power,
order and justice; the art of influencing, manipulating and
controlling others; a process of resolution of conflict, in society
and a struggle among actors pursuing conflicting desires on
public issues.9 "Politics is the activity (negotiation, argument,
discussion, application of force, persuasion, etc.) by which an
issue is agitated or settled."
The Greek concept of politics more .accurately refers to a
process by which men debate matters concerning the 'polls' that
is, the political community, and take actions in an attempt to
realize the public interest or the common good. Thus, politics is
seen as controversy, a process of resolution of conflict through
discussion, bargaining and compromise. For Max Weber,
politics is the operation of the state and its institutions. Politics
for him means striving to share power or striving to influence
the distribution of power among individuals and groups within a
state. Harold Lasswell thus defines politics as the shaping and
sharing of power.
The most important factor leading to the development of
knowledge in any-field of study is agreement among its members
about the content of that field In other words, the scholars in the
field must agree on a fairly clear-cut definition what they are
studying. But, as noted by the English historian, Morse Stephens,
after teaching-in the United States for two years, reported that
"he had not been able to find anyone who could tell him
precisely what political science was
While there has been a wide range of definitions, most of them
can be classified as being one of two types - the
classicalist/institutionalist or behaviouralist school of thought.
The classicalists/institutionalists identify politics with
government, "legal government" or the "state", while others, the
behaviouralists, revolve around the notions of "power"
"authority", and or "conflict". Alfred de Grazia says that
"politics" or the "political" includes the
events that happens around the decision-making centers of
government.14 Charles Hyman claims that legal government is
the subject matter of politics.
This definition which equates politics with the formal
institutions of the state is too restrictive. The emphasis of the
definition should be placed not on institutions, but in David
Easton's words, on "a kind of a activity that may express itself
through a variety of institutions".16 Politics is concerned with the
activities within and related to the political system.
An alternative definition equates politics with "power",
"authority" or "conflict". Thus, to some, politics involves power
and influence. 'Politics gives an answer to the question "who
gets what, when, and how? Another is that politics involves
"influence" and the influential. These concepts, power and
influence, are central to the study of politics, but are, as well
among the most difficult concepts to define.
William Bluhm, a political scientist explains: "Reduced to its
universal elements then, politics is a social process
characterized by activity involving rivalry and cooperation in
the exercise of power and culminating in the making of
decisions for a group". The appeal of the definition flows out of
its apparent flexibility or wide scope. "Politics is found
wherever power relationships or conflict situations exist which
means that the political scientist can legitimately study the
politics of a labour union or corporation, religious
organizations, as well as what goes on in a legislature or
administrative agency." The emphasis of this kind of definition
is on a type of activity or behaviour rather than a particular
kind of institution.-There is a practical difference between a
definition based on government, and one based on politics.
The Eastonian definition of politics as the "authoritative
allocations of values for a society, is considered useful by
political scientists. It emphasizes political activity rather than
institution. The authoritative allocation of values is, Easton
argues, the kind of activity we should be interested in. The
first
assumption is that in every society, values are desired, that is,
people have different interests or objectives, and these must be
allocated; or distributed by someone or something]
In a sense, this is a power and conflict situation. Every society' has
different political systems allocating values authoritatively.
According to Easton, "a policy is authoritative when the people to
whom it is intended to apply or who are affected by it consider
that they must or ought to obey it20 In other words, it is considered
binding.
To most political scientists, therefore the behaviouralist
approach to definition is more comprehensive. Politics is
considered as the activities and process that take place m the
political realm. Thus, in this vein, Quincy Wright in his classic
study of international relations defines international politics as
"the art of influencing, manipulating or controlling major groups
in the world so as to advance the purposes of some against the
opposition of others. This definition could be readily applied to
domestic as well as international politics. Vernon Dyke agrees
with Wright. According to him, Politics can be defined as "a
struggle among actors pursuing conflicting desires on public
issues". Herbert Winter and Bellows suggest a definition that
contains elements of the thoughts by Vernon Dyke and David
Easton, namely, mat "politics is a struggle between actors
pursuing conflicting desires on issues that may result in an
authoritative allocation of values".
Most contemporary, political scientists question the usefulness of
any attempt to define politics on the grounds that there is no final
solution to a problem of definition, as reflected in the many
existing definitions of politics. Thus, a leading political scientist,
Frank Goodnow, wrote that:
Such an attempt to define politics is not only dangerous but even if
successfully made, it is not in my opinion sufficiently fruitful of practical
results to justify the expenditure of thought and time necessary to secure the
desired end."
While there is no best definition of politics, most political
scientists agree that politics has something to do with power,
influence and authority, which are the central organizing concepts
of the study of politics However, the elusiveness of these
concepts, as will be explained in another chapter in this book,
confirms the confusion among political scientists over the
appropriate categories for classifying the phenomena of politics,

What is political science?

Political science as an academic discipline within the social
sciences is 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 political actors, political events and institutions. Stephen
Wasby, defines political science as "an identifiable field of study,
with oft-disputed scope and content, whose practitioners are found
mostly in institutions of higher education, where they teach and
conduct research, or in the government.
Political Science is a relatively young academic field of study
in many countries. The subject was first taught in American
Universities in the 1850s. The teaching of the subject grew
speedily and spread to many European and African Universities.
In the past, political Science was taught as part of other
academic disciplines - Law, History, Philosophy or Economics.
Today, it is taught as a distinct discipline and academic subject.
Those who study and teach the subject have formed professional
associations in various countries, such as the Nigerian Political
Science Association (NPSA), American political Science
Association (APSA) and the African Association of political
Science (AAPS). What are the values of studying political
science? The function of political science is to discover the
principles that should be adhered to in public affairs and to study
the operations of governments in order to demonstrate what is
good, to criticize what is bad or inefficient, and to suggest
ways of
improvements. The study of politics provides findings and
conclusions which may be of immense practical use to legal
draftsmen, constitution-makers, members of the legislature,
executive and judiciary, all of whom need models for rules of
behavior. Although the study of politics does not provide any
systematic knowledge which can serve as a definite guide to
statesmen, me knowledge of, and critical analysis of past events
can serve as a rough guide. Political Science teaches citizenship
in the sense of providing data, facts and methods of analysis
pertaining to political process and systems in the hope that people
can become interested in politics and become more intelligent
observers of, and participants in the political arena. While
political science may not have ready-made answers to all
political issues and problems, they can educate students in
citizenship.
Since, political science is concerned with the "science of the
state" that is, facts about the essential nature of statehood, political
authority, the relationships among individuals within a state,
between individuals and the state and between one state and
another, it would seem an intelligent course for the individual to
learn as much as possible about it. Finally, political science helps
prepare the students for certain careers; it provides academic and
professional training for public service in the federal, state and
local governments.

Is politics an art or a science?

Politics as on art
Many political scientists see politics as less than a science than an
art. The artist is one who develops skill along certain lines not so
much because of knowledge of general principles but because of
native talents and long practice in his craft. As in other arts, there
are certain factors in the art of governing and being governed
which relate not so much to science as to common sense,
intuition, imagination and experience, that is, qualities of mind of
personality.
Practical politics calls for a practical skill that distinguishes one
man from another. Long training and experience elevates one
man above another and when training and aptitude increase a
skill, we have conditions typical of an art.
Politics is in a sense, as described by Lord Bismarck, the art of
the possible". It is the act of selecting the most worthwhile
among whatever policies are possible. Politics is choice. It is
concerned with practical matters instead of highly imaginary and
visionary creations. Like some great artists. Many effective
politicians have not been educated in the theory of science of
politics but seem to have been born to it in the sense that they
have talents perpetually suited to practical politics. Like artists,
they have been capable of making intuitive adjustments aided by
an innate sense of taste, balance and harmony.
Science provides the principles; the corresponding art applies
them. The political scientists provide the principles for the
politicians. However, political science cannot make a politician
out of a scientist any more than physiology can make an athlete
out of a physiotherapist. Nor can political science make up to any
great extent for the wealth of experience and insight that the
practical politicians or administrator bring to bear on individual
political problems. Except in rare cases, many political scientists
do not possess the aptitude for politics.
We think of politics as an art because a politician is judged
primarily in terms of his results. On the other hand, a political
scientist is judged at least as much in terms of the methods he has
used in his work as in terms of results because the methods affect
the validity of his results.

Scope of political science

Political science encompasses a wide range. At the broadest level,
the discipline of political science can be divided into at least five
sub-fields.
International relations
Political theory
Comparative politics
Public administration
National politics
Political theory:
Political theory or political philosophy constitutes the oldest form of
political inquiry. It dates back to Plato and Aristotle. It asks such
questions as: What is tile good life" What is good government? Why
should I obey the state? When is revolution justified? Obviously, mere are
different answers to those questions. Such an approach is necessarily
concerned with judgment that is, with determinations of right and wrong
or good and bad.
The approach is basically normative, speculative, value-laden,
impressionistic, idealistic and conjectural. It is concerned with ethical and
moral prescriptions."

International relations:
Specialists in international relations analyze how different nations interact
with one another. The focus usually includes international organizations,
international law, international conflict, international economic relations
and foreign policy.

Comparative politics:
This involves the comparing and contrasting of different governments.
Comparative analysis is undertaken in terms of forms of government
(democratic and non-democratic; democratic, authoritarian and
totalitarian); stages of economic development, domestic and foreign
policies, political cultures and political socialization patterns. Through
such comparison, meaningful generalizations about government and
politics, cross-culturally, are formulated. Nations are categorized into
industrialized, communist and the Third World (less developed countries
(LDCS) or 'North-South' divide.

Public administration:
The focus of this sub-field is on how the bureaucracy implements
governmental policies. Usually, the emphasis is on national, state and
local government and inter-governmental relations. Students of public
administration seek to understand what helps as well as what hinders the
bureaucracy in carrying out its assigned functions. Bureaucratic
structures, procedures and processes are examined in an attempt to
improve efficiency and reduce waste and duplication.
National government:
This involves the study of a specific government (typically one's
own) and the analysis of its components. Every aspect of the
domestic politics is given attention. This includes the
executive, legislative and judicial processes, constitutional law,
interest groups, political parties, elections and voting behavior.
The primary reason for the study of ones own governmental
institutions and processes is to enable one understands the
immediate environment fully.

Relationship of political science to other academic disciplines

Political science cannot be studied in isolation. The discipline is
enriched by recognition of its interrelationship with the branches
of learning, such as history, sociology, anthropology,
economics, geography, psychology, law and mathematics.
Political scientists borrow from these disciplines, the research
methods and techniques, concepts, theories and models for
application to the study and understanding of political
phenomena.
First, the study of history provides political scientists accurate
data on the past experience of states and their governments.
Thus, the observation that "history is past politics and politics
present history". The political scientist, therefore, frequently
adopts a "historical approach", and employs knowledge of the
past when he seeks to interpret present and probable
developments in political phenomena.
Secondly, political science and economics (the study of the
production, distribution, conservation and consumption of
wealth), are also intimately related. They are jointly concerned
with the fact mat economic conditions affect the organization,
development and activities of states which in turn modify or
even prescribe economic conditions through their public policy
measures. The political scientist often adopts an "economic
approach" when seeking to interpret such matters as "welfare
states", international trade, tax policy, public finance, and the
relationship between government and business. The emphasis
on political economy by political scientists shows the mutual
impact and interrelationship of politics and economics.
Thirdly, geography influences political science in such areas as
strategic frontiers, population, spheres of influence, colonial
expansion and sources of raw materials. Geo-politics, (a
science concerned with the dependence of the
domestic and foreign politics of a people upon the physical
environment), is an approach often adopted by political
scientist to explain certain political problems. Political analysts
have found that several physical characteristics are correlated
with national power.
Fourthly, sociology and anthropology are both behavioral
sciences like political science. Sociology focuses on the study of
society as a whole while the anthropologist studies mankind in
relation to physical, social and cultural development. They are
all deeply concerned with the origins and nature of social
control and governmental authority, as well as with the patterns
of human behavior in society.
Fifthly, the psychologists as well as the political scientists,
engage in studies of the mental and emotional processes
motivating the political behavior of individuals and groups. The
'psychological approach' to political analysis is therefore useful
in understanding social, psychological and cultural influences
on behavior in the political realm.
Sixthly, political science and political philosophy are mutually
dependent. The concepts and doctrines of Plato, Aristotle, Locke
and other political thinkers are useful: these concepts have been
the underlying forces in the framing of constitutions and laws of
most countries.
Seventh, to maintain a full understanding of the facts of political
life, die political scientists requires a knowledge of law. An
understanding of the nature of law (and of statutes made by
legislatures) is indispensable to the political scientist.
Finally, a political scientist needs a broad scientific background to
enable him gather and evaluate data and draw conclusions. The
scientific methods involves a proper application of statistical
procedures for the quantitative measurement of social phenomena
and logical procedures for the analysis of reasoning

The science of politics

Is there a science of politics - a body of laws, rules or principles
bringing phenomena within the range of control and prediction?
Can one speak of the laws of political behavior; the principles
underlying the state or the rules for
establishing and maintaining the most just and efficient
government? to what extent is political science a science? This is
a crucial and controversial debate.
In the sense of the precision that is attributed, often mistakenly,
to such sciences as physics, mathematics, zoology and botany,
perhaps political science is not a science. Political science
cannot be considered an exact science because it is a soft or
behavioral science. It deals with people rather than with matter.
Scientific knowledge is usually defined to mean any body of
systematic knowledge about a well-defined area of inquiry. It is
a body of organized and verifiable knowledge based upon
observation and experience. Basically, science involves a
method, some assumptions and certain goals. It is an outlook, a
means of study which involves precision, rigour and
systematic way of proceeding. Thus, the identifying mark of
science is in the methods of study used: the painstaking
accuracy in observation and in collection of facts as well as the
systematic analysis of close logical reasoning. The major
objective of any science is the description of phenomena and
the establishment of general principles by which the phenomena
can be explained and predicted.
A fundamental test of the scientific potential of any discipline is
its capacity for clearly classifying its subject-matter in terms of
discrete and mutually exclusive categories. These categories
must in turn readily lend themselves to the construction of
variables. A variable is any given set of phenomena that have
measurable properties.
For clarity, let us summarize the assumptions, or principles,
which characterize science or scientific knowledge:
(a) Patterns of behavior: This involves the discovery and
description of uniformities and regularities in the behavior of
natural phenomena.
(b) Empiricism: This involves verification or observation of
facts or experimentation in a laboratory setting.
(c) Inter-subjectivity: This means mat scientific knowledge
should be communicable or transmissible. It should be subject
to study in the same way by more than one person anywhere.
(d) Objectivity or value-free analysis: The purpose of this is for
precision or accuracy in the presentation of facts by using reliable
techniques, e.g. mathematics and statistics.
(e) Systematization: This refers to the systematic and orderly
collection and analysis of data; seeking out similarities and
differences and organizing them into an intelligible pattern or
structure.
(f) Universal laws or generalization: Possibility of laying down
general principles (through the discovery of recurrent uniformities)
which have for practical purposes a universal application.
(g) High-level theory: Collection of logically related generalizations to
explain events and situations and to predict future happenings.
When we talk about a scientific study of politics, we mean that the
study will be systematic and orderly and that students will attempt to
find out what is or what actually exists. In short, they will use the
scientific method. They will use the available information to form law
or generalizations and construct theories with explanatory and
predictive powers about political life. Thus, a group of behavioral
and quantitatively oriented political scientists, the behaviouralists, has
as their goal the scientific study of politics. Behaviouralism or the
behavioral approach, seeks to develop generalizations about
political behavior; i.e.' to advance hypotheses about relationships, to
discover uniformities or regularities or laws and to suggest theories
with explanatory and predictive capacities.
How systematic is the political scientist's knowledge of politics, that is,
his area of inquiry? As we have said earlier, political scientists do not
agree on the appropriate categories for classifying the phenomena of
politics. The large variables are difficult to control and quantify.
There are formidable difficulties in the way of the scientific study of
politics. Some relate primarily to the political scientist himself and
others to his subject-matter or elements of science as outlined above,
yet, many political scientists, especially the anti-behaviouralists, deny
that political science can ever meet the requirement. They advance
reasons as follows to prove that we cannot talk of political science in
the sense we will of physics, chemistry or biology.
1. It is difficult to observe regularities and uniformities in human
behaviour, the subject matter of political science; unlike the constancy
of the behaviour of matter, the subject matter of the natural scientists.
2 Useful generalizations about human behavior cannot be made as
human beings can always change their actions whenever they wish.
They can always adapt themselves to changing situations. Almost all
discoveries about human behavior relate to a particular time and
locality and therefore cannot be made the basis of absolute or universal
law. In other words, it is difficult to formulate laws of political
behavior. Man is free to modify his actions in keeping with, or in
violation of, such laws once they are made known. There are no
discoverable uniformities in human behavior.
3 The basic principles of laboratory experiment, associated with "the
physical sciences, are not possible in political science. Human
behavior is not amenable to experimental inquiry.
4 Problem of explaining and predicting me behavior of individuals.
5 Variable factors too much in political science and far less subject
to measurement or control than in the natural sciences.
6. Problem of subjectivity. It is very difficult to eliminate the
subjective element, personal values, feelings, attitudes, opinions,
preferences and biases, from political investigation. The student of
political science may find himself deeply involved with his subject-
matter and therefore scientific objectivity is difficult. As David Butler
has aptly remarked, "although the aim of every academic writer on
politics should be a detached search for the truth, objectivity is only a
goal that can be striven for, it is not one that can be achieved.
7 Quantification or precision is still an unattainable goal because of
the lack of agreement on the basic concepts and categories of the
study of political science. Political science deals with imprecise and
immeasurable Concepts as well as with moral and ethical issues.
8 Human behaviors cannot be directly observable as such, only overt
political .actions can be seen. This creates a major problem of
objectivity in research because the larger part of political life lies
beneath the surface of human action which cannot be directly
understood.
From the above, it seems therefore more realistic to assume that there
exists no systematic body of knowledge that can, to use MacIvers
phrase, serve as a
definitive guide to the statesman, a science, of how to govern,
an applied science, that can do in its field what medicine or
engineering does in its field." "Political science," according to
Harold Lasswell, "has not the axiomatic quality of mathematics.
In its equations, the variables are human beings whose
uniqueness prevents their reduction to law in the scientific sense
of that much abused word.Human beings are the least
controllable, verifiable, law-obeying and predictable of subjects.
He has the freedom of choice at any given time in the political
process. Thus, as Leslie Lipson observes:
The word "science" in the title "political science" is quite
misleading if it is taken too seriously. The study of science can
be considered "scientific" only to the extent that we seek to
know the truth, to discover the facts with accuracy and to
correlate causes with their sequences/Beyond that, the methods
conventionally attributed to the physical sciences,
generalizations formed inductively from empirical observations
and from experiments under conditions of partial control, have
only limited usefulness in the field of social inquiry.

In the same vein, Truman notes that:

Political science does not have a paradigm, a common set of
beliefs constituting a kind-of open-ended model that more or
less explicitly defines the legitimate problems and methods of a
research field.
However, in spite of these limitations, political scientists have
been able to improve the methods of study of their discipline by
borrowing for use from the physical sciences and other social
sciences, their research skills, tools, techniques, and concepts.
Thus, contemporary political scientists, especially the
behaviorally inclined, in their research investigations,
demonstrate commitment to rigorous empiricism, in the
collection of data and analysis. There is now extensive use of
sample survey for gathering information, and statistical
methods for quantifying the data, the use of computers, as well
as the recording of these on charts, graphs, scales and tables.
Having examined the nature and scope of political science, in the
next chapter, we turn our attention to the approaches or methods
used by political scientists to study political phenomena.

Review questions
1. Define the following:
i) Politics
ii) Political Science
iii) Scientific knowledge
iv) Value-free
v) Inter-subjectivity
2. What is the relationship between (i) political science and
history; (ii) political science and economics?
3. Explain the statement "politics is the art of the possible''
4. How does political science differ from the natural and physical
sciences?
5. Explain on what grounds political science may be regarded
as a true science.
6. Are there laws of politics?
7. What are the obstacles to a scientific study of politics?
8. What are the values of studying political science?
9. Examine the effects of the attempt by political scientists to
study politics scientifically.
Chapter 2: Approaches and methods to the study of politics -
Francis Chigbo Enemuo

Introduction
In the preceding chapter, we learnt that politics has been
defined in various ways. For instance, it has been seen as, 'the
struggle for power', 'the authoritative allocation of values' and
the process of determining who gets what, when and how'. One
possible implication of these definitions is that politics exists in
all social groups. This is because there is not as yet a human
organization in which the available elements of power are
enough to go round. Consequently, there is always some form of
contestation or struggle over the available power resources. We
may also note that every organisation needs an acceptable
mechanism to regulate the inevitable conflicts over power and
to allocate the scarce resources.
It may be further deduced from the definitions that politics is a
very crucial and complex social phenomenon. It is therefore not
surprising that the study of politics has engaged the attention of
scholars from the time of ancient Greek philosophers in the 5th
century BC. What we propose to do in this chapter is to outline
a sample of the various approaches and methods that have
been employed in the study of political events and processes.
An approach to inquiry: what is it?
According to Alan C. Isaak, an approach to political inquiry
may be defined simply as 'a general strategy for studying
political phenomena.' It is, in the opinion of Vemon Van Dyke, a
term that denotes, the criteria employed in selecting the
questions to ask and the data to consider in political inquiry.-
Thus, while a particular approach may, for instance, emphasise
economic or sociological data, another may focus on
psychological and ideological factors. We can therefore suggest
that an approach in political research is a type of lens for
focusing on a particular aspect of political life. It is an angle pr
perspective from which to view political reality. An approach to
research leads the political scientist to concentrate on specific
aspects of political phenomena and thereby conditions his study.

Uses and categories of approaches

The political system generates data in large quantities and at
random. A student of politics therefore needs an analytical
approach in order to enable him make a coherent choice of the
data to concentrate on and to arrange them logically. More
importantly, approaches suggest hypothetical relationships
among political forces and events which can be investigated by
researchers.
Many approaches exist in political science' and each of these
stresses different, ideas and aspects of political reality. The
different research frames of reference can be grouped into two
broad categories: In the first place are the normative approaches
which seek to describe ideals and to prescribe standards of what
'ought', or 'should' be the right political order or conduct. The
second category consists of the empirical approaches, which, in
contrast, emphasise facts and statistical inquiries. We may also
note that political scientists sometimes employ research
approaches which are .derived from other disciplines. Such
approaches are usually labelled after these fields of study.
Among them are the philosophical, historical, sociological,
economic and geographic approaches.
According to Stephen Wasby, approaches to political science
research can also be categorized into three groups based on
the aspects of political phenomena which they emphasis. The
three groupings consist of the philosophical and ideological
approaches, the institutional and structural approaches, and the
behavioural approach.
We shall now attempt to present a synopsis of some of the
leading approaches in political science. It may be necessary to
note that there is some overlap among the approaches and that,
'no approach is right or wrong [although] some may be more
useful than others. Each approach helps to throw some light on
specific aspects of political life.

The philosophical approach

According to Vernon Van Dyke, philosophy denotes efforts to
arrive at truth through the use of reason'. Philosophical inquiries
usually result in statements of preference, description of ideals
and prescription of values. The application of the philosophical
approach in political science usually leads to a focus on the great
ideas, values and doctrines of politics and the reflections of great
political thinkers. The objectives of such efforts have been
identified as being to 'establish standards of the good, the
right, and the just and to appraise or prescribe political
institutions and practices in the light of these standards.

The sociological approach

As a discipline, sociology studies human behaviour within the
context of social environment. Its basic premise is that
membership and interaction within human groups affect the
behaviour of the individual. Political scientists who adopt the
sociological approach therefore investigate issues such as the
relationship between social environment, on the one hand and
political behavior on the other hand. Such analysts make
considerable use of sociological concepts like society, culture,
status group, and role. They also employ sociological variables
such as education, income and occupation in their studies.
The psychological approach
Psychology studies human behaviour by reference to the
individual. Accordingly, political scientists who employ the
psychological approach seek to investigate the impact of
personality and other psychological variables such as motivation,
perception and attitude on politics. For instance, studies of public
opinion, voting behavior and socialization have often involved
the use of psychological data of citizens.

Geographical approach
The geographical framework to politics seeks to explain political
phenomena by reference to certain facts of geography- such as
location, climate, rivers, mountains, seas, availability of natural
resources, etc. Students of international politics have regularly
relied on geographical features to explain and predict the foreign
policies of different countries. For instance the presence of crude
oil is generally perceived as an important element of power of the
Nigerian state and a major determinant of its foreign relations.

The political economy approach

As a frame of reference for the analysis of political 1 phenomena,
the political economy approach derives from the writings of
Karl Marx, a German philosopher. The central premise of his
perspective is that: "The mode of production in material life
determines the general character of the social, political, and
spiritual processes of life. The political economy framework,
thus requires the analyst to take cognisance of the 'mode of
production' which refers not only to the state of technique but to
the way in which the means of production were owed and the
social relations between men which resulted from their
connections, with the process of production. Marxian political
economy in effect, provides a framework for an integrated study
of political reality by reference to relevant economic, social,
legal and moral factors.
The institutional approach
In broad terms, an institution can be defined as 'any persistent
system of activities, or any pattern of group behaviour. More
concretely, an institution has been conceived as 'offices and
agencies arranged in a hierarchy, each agency having certain
functions and powers. Accordingly, the institutional approach to
political inquiry focuses on the formal structures and agencies of
government. Political science research which is informed by
this approach usually describes and classifies the agencies of
government such as legislatures, the judiciary, the executive
agencies, party systems, etc. Such studies also examine the
constitutional and legal arrangements of governments. The
institutional approach has been criticized for the neglect of the
informal aspects of politics, norms, beliefs, values, attitudes,
personality and the processes

The behavioral approach

The key assumption of the behavioral approach is that there are
certain uniformities in political behavior which can be stated as
generalizations or theories and which are capable of
explaining and predicting political phenomena.
Behaviouralists argue that research in political science should
seek to establish these regularities in political behavior and
their causes that it should desist from descriptive, normative
studies in favour of rigorous, analytical examination of politics.
The behavioral approach has been distinguished on the
grounds of its nature, goals, methods and frame of reference.
Accordingly, it has been noted that: (1) Behavioral political
analysis insists on the use of "scientific" methods, on making
accurate statements about political phenomena, on cumulative
research and on broad generalizations. (2) That the goal of
behavioral political science is not the attainment of the good life
but to understand and describe political phenomena realistically
and to predict trends. (3) Behavioral political science
emphasizes the systematic gathering and analysis of data to
confirm or reject hypotheses. It has also been noted that
behaviouralism specifies the behavior of persons and social
groups rather than events, institutions,
structures or ideologies as the units of both theoretical and empirical analysis.
The behavioral approach generated much controversy when it evolved in the
political science discipline. Critics questioned its basic assumption and
argued that political reality consists mainly of unique elements and that
whatever regularities mat exist are trivial in nature. It was further posited mat
political phenomena are not amenable to experimentation and mat any laws
concerning political behavior that may be formulated are certain to be vitiated
by human ingenuity. Behaviouralists have also been criticized for their use
'of numbers and emphasis on methodology. It should be noted, however,
that despite its perceived shortcomings, the behavioral approach has greatly
encouraged the scientific study of political phenomena. .

The systems approach

David Easton is usually credited with pioneering the application of the
systems approach to the analysis of die political process. He defines the
political system as 'the system of interactions in any society through which
binding or authoritative decisions are made and implemented. He considers
the political system as existing within an environment of other systems
physical, biological, social, psychological, etc., which affect it and are in
turn affected by the political system - through continuous transactions and
exchanges.
According to Easton, the political system functions by getting inputs from its
environment. Inputs are events in the environment which evoke response
from it. The inputs could be demands that values be allocated in a particular
way or they could be supports, that is, expressions of approval for particular
decisions. The inputs from the environment undergoes a conversion process
within the political system and come out as outputs, which are usually
authoritative decisions such as government policies, judicial decisions, acts
of parliament, etc., promulgated by the authorities. These authoritative
outputs usually affect die environment as outcomes and in turn excite some
form of feedback, mat is, changes in the intensity and volume of demands
and support from the environment.
The Eastonian systems model has been summed up in the diagram below. It
may be noted, however, mat his formulations have been criticized as being
too abstract, and too isolated from concrete reality. However, the approach
can be consider helpful in the understanding of political events that we do
not directly experience.
Structural-functional approach
Structural functionalism has been found particularly useful in the
comparison of political systems. According to Gabriel Almond,
one of the chief proponents of the approach in political science,
every political system performs certain functions. Taking
Easton's systems analysis as a starting point, Almond looks for
the functions which could be included among the input and
output functions of all political systems. On the input side are
the functions of (1) interest articulation and (2) interest
aggregation. Second, on the output side are the functions of (3)
rule making, (4) rule-application and (5) rule adjudication. The
function of (6) political communication is undertaken to inform
all within the political system and outside of these diverse
activities. Additionally, every system performs (7) systems
maintenance and adaptation functions through political
socialization and recruitment of people.
According to Almond, the functioning of any political system
may also be viewed in terms of its capabilities defined as 'the
way it performs as a unit in its environment.' The concepts of
regulative, extractive, distributive and responsive. capability are
employed as criteria to assess how a system is performing within
its environment, how it is shaping its environment and how it is
being shaped by it.
Almond's formulations have been faulted on three grounds.
First, it has been noted that it is not easy to distinguish between
the 'deliberate aims of the participants and what takes place
because the system seemed to achieve certain aims.' Second, the
identification of functions is alleged to rest on the
interpretation the analyst places on observed developments.
Thus there cannot be complete objectivity. In effect, the number
of the identified functions can be more or less than the seven
listed by Almond. Third, the approach has been seen as culture-
bound since the functions attributed to the political system are
too closely modelled on Western political systems. However,
Almond's structural-functional approach has been recognized as
the major existing tool for genuine comparative analysis of
political systems and has been described as a 'fairly realistic
interpretation of the nature of political life.
The group approach
Arthur Bentley is widely acknowledged to have originated the
group approach to the understanding of politics in his classic,
The Process of Government. The framework got further
elaboration from David Truman in his, The Governmental
Process. The group approach seeks to explain politics by
reference to groups. As Bentley puts it: 'when the groups are
adequately stated, everything is stated. When I say everything I
mean everything. The complete description will mean the
complete science, in the study of social phenomena, as in any
other field. This statement clearly equates a description of
group activity to a description of all politics. There are,
however, proponents of the group approach who do not share
this extreme position. Instead, such theorists, including David
Truman, hold that politics is not the sum of group behaviour but
is at the centre of the political process.
To most group theorists as with most political scientists, 'a
political group exists when men with shared interests organise,
interact, and seek goals through the political process. What is
emphasised is not the structural composition of a group but its
activities. The interaction among its members must be both
relatively frequent, sufficiently patterned and be directed towards
the attainment of certain interests by its members. The group
approach conceives of society as a mosaic of numerous interest
groups with cross-cutting membership. Exponents of the
approach posit that the form of politics of any society is
ultimately determined by the interaction among groups within
the society and the competition among such groups to influence
government in the allocation of societal resources and exercise
of power. Each group therefore seeks to gain access to decision
points within the government and its success in this regard is
usually affected by factors such as group cohesion and
organisation, status, quality of leadership and wealth.
Although the group approach has been criticised for leaving
out the characteristics of individuals and for not considering the
nation, the state and the society, it still remains a useful
framework for explaining politics. It has also been found useful
in the study of community power structure.
Decision-making approach
The decision-making approach has been widely employed in the
study of international relations and in public policy analysis.
The central assumption of the approach is that if we seek to
understand any political action we must analyze it from the
position of the actors. According to Richard C. Snyder, 20 one of
the foremost exponents of this approach, decision-making lies at
the heart of all political actions, and, therefore it alone provides
the common focus under which we can bring together, the
political actors, situations and processes for the purposes of
analysis. He posits that understanding a particular political
action requires the analysts (a) to ascertain who made the
decisions that resulted in the action and, to (b) examine the
interactive and intellectual factors that influenced the decision-
makers.
Snyder categories the factors which prompt decision-makers
into three sets namely, (i) the internal setting, (ii) the external
setting and (iii) the decision-making process. According to him,
the internal setting includes such variables of the local society
as public opinion, dominant value orientations, organizational
dynamics and social structure. The external setting consists of
such factors as the actions and reactions of other actors in the
international (or national) arena and the physical environment.
Among the forces which make up the decision-making processes
are the organizational division of spheres of competence, the
flow of communication and the motivation of decision-makers.
The motivational factors compose of the interests which an
official acquires in the decision-making organization and
personality traits acquired from childhood. It is the combined
impact of these factors that influence decision-makers and
thereby their actions.
The decision-making approach has been faulted for requiring an
analyst to take cognisance of too many factors and for
attributing too much rationality to the process of decision-
making by assuming that officials carefully weigh the pros and
cons before arriving at any particular decision. It has also been
alleged that the approach emphasises the process of decision-
making and not the outcome of the decisions made. Regardless
of its shortcomings,-the decision-making approach has helped to
underline important variables in the analysis of foreign and
domestic policies.
The methods of political inquiry
According to Vemon Van Dyke, the term methods of political
inquiry denotes processes for acquiring and treating data. He
identified a number of such methods, including the analytical
method, the inductive and deductive methods, the comparative
method, and the scientific methods. We shall attempt a brief
exposition of each method or technique as follows:

The analytical method

The analytical method seeks to ascertain the different
components of what is being examined and to explain how
these parts are related and fitted into a whole.

Quantitative and qualitative methods

Quantitative methods are those that entail the measuring or
counting of data. Numerical figures such as dates are also
recognised as quantitative data. It is usually required that items
to be counted be defined and identified with care and in such a
way as to permit replication: In' contrast to quantitative method,
the qualitative method of data collection relies entirely on the
logical abilities, judgment or insight, or the imagination or
intuition or impressions of the researcher to generate data and
establish relationships.

Inductive and deductive methods

The inductive method seeks to establish truth by observation.
This is in contrast to the deductive method which attempts to
draw conclusions from premises that are taken as given.
Deductive methods are essentially logical whereas inductive
methods are both logical and empirical.
The comparative method
The comparative method seeks to establish similarities and
differences among political phenomena as a source of data for
concept formation and classification.
In this regard, it has been observed that by comparing and
contrasting events, institutions, processes or even expectations
and experiences, 'one gets clearer image of things observed and
a sharper understanding of the meanings of the symbols we
employ.

Scientific methods
The principal operation of the scientific method usually
involves: (i) the statement of the problem to be investigated; (ii)
the formulation of hypotheses, that is tentative statements about
the relationships among the variables to be examined, and (iii)
the collection of data to test the stated hypotheses, in other
words, data is generated to prove or disconfirm the relationships
which were assumed to exist among the variables. It is to be
noted that these activities are not always undertaken in the order
in which we have highlighted them.

Conclusion
We have attempted, in this chapter, to outline the nature of
approaches and methods in political inquiry. We noted that an
approach denotes a general framework, perspective or
orientation for raising questions and considering data in political
inquiry. Our examination of a sample of extant approaches
shows that they differ in their focus. While some derive from the
orientations of certain academic disciplines - philosophy,
sociology, psychology, etc., others concentrate on specific
features of political life such as institutions, the decision-making
process, or political behaviour. We took the methods of political
inquiry to consist of the various processes for acquiring and
treating data. These include the analytical method, quantitative
and qualitative methods, inductive and deductive methods,
comparative method and the scientific method. It is to be
stressed that while particular approaches help to underline
particular features of the political process, specific methods
have been found most useful in generating certain kinds of
data. It is therefore not surprising that political scientists use
combinations of approaches and methods in their investigations.
Review Questions
1. Distinguish between a research approach and method.
2. Write brief notes on the philosophical, sociological and
psychological approaches.
3. What are the basic features of the political economy approach
to political science research?
4. Examine the assumptions of the behavioural approach.
5. Attempt a brief review of the systems approach to the study
of political processes.
6. What issues are raised by the group approach to the study of
politics.
7. What kinds of data are regarded as (a) quantitative (b)
qualitative, and (c) comparative.
8. Differentiate between the deductive and inductive methods of
data collection and consideration.
Chapter 3: Political behavior - Remi Anifowose
Introduction
In the post World War II era, the major growth area in the study of
politics has been the area designated political behavior. There
has been an extensive comment on what political behaviouralism
is, Political behavior refers to a particular approach, a set of
methods for the study of politics, and the study of human
behavior in politics. Robert Dahl, for example, has this to say of
this approach:

The behavioural approach is an attempt to improve our

understanding of politics by seeking to explain the empirical
expects of political life by means of methods, theories, and
criteria of proof that are accepted to be canons, conventions and
assumptions of modern empirical science.
Political behaviour is not a new field of Political Science, rather it
is a new approach to the study of political and governmental
phenomena. The goal of
behavioural study of politics is to make political science a more
scientific discipline, one which analyzes politics empirically,
that is, using the scientific method.
Political behaviour approach is distinguished by its attempt to
describe government as a process made up of the actions and
interactions of men and groups of men. It is concerned with the
activities of governments, political parties, interest groups and
voters. Institutions are rejected as the unit of analysis because,
government, after all, is not made up merely of documents,
containing laws and rules or of structures of a particular form
but is fundamentally based upon patterns of actions and
activities of men. Thus, the units of analysis of behavioural ism
should be the observed behaviour and relationships of men.

The rise of behaviouralism

Historically, the term "behavioural science", subsequently called
"behavioural science", or "behaviouralism", was coined by a
group of quantitatively oriented, rigorously inclined social
scientists, at the University of Chicago.
Behaviouralism developed swiftly and spread remarkably in the
post-1945 period for a number of reasons:

1. There was a wide-spread dissatisfaction with the "state of the

discipline." This could be traced to many sources:

(a). the discovery that the talents and skill of political scientists
were not highly valued by governmental personnel officers;
(b). a growing sensitivity to, and unhappiness with the
basically descriptive nature of the discipline;
(c). a knowledge of apparent advances in other social sciences
and a mounting fear that political science was lagging behind its
sister professions;
(d). the inability of traditional political science to account for or
explain many political phenomena.
2. The need by American political scientists to be relevant in the
provision of political and administrative knowledge to other
countries, especially non- western nations. This encouraged cross
culture and trans-national studies.
Traditional political scientists were seen essentially as being
historical, prescriptive, legalistic, normative, philosophical and
institutional, in their approaches. Thus, the new political
scientists, the political behaviouralists, are dissatisfied with such
approaches because of the:

(a). low level of generalization of findings:

(b). untenable assumptions and premises that influenced and
distorted findings:
(c). value-laden findings and conclusions:
(d). emphasis on the study of institutions to the exclusion of
political processes:
(e). neglect of the findings of other social science disciplines
that would contribute to the understanding of political behaviour;
and
(f). accumulation of facts that had no relevance to a comprehensive
theory with explanatory and predictive powers.
3. The expanding use of public opinion polls and the refinement
of survey techniques. These provided instruments for developing
vast new bodies of data. Research in this area was greatly
facilitated by advances in mathematics, statistics, and the
increased availability of electronic computers for tedious
computations.
4. The partiality to behaviouralism manifested by those who
controlled the allocation 6f research grants. The (American)
Social Science Research Council's Committee (SSRCC) in
political behaviour, through which considerable money was
channeled, was behaviorally-inclined. The Foundation poured
huge sums into behavioural projects.

Behaviouralism is an orientation which has affected research in

most fields of political science, including public administration,
comparative government and politics. Behaviouralism was
associated with studies in electoral behaviour, public opinion and
political socialization.
Behaviouralism is thus a "scientific revolution" in political science. It is an
attempt to move political science from, if you like, non-scientific, condition
to scientific stage. Science can be defined as "a body of systematic and
orderly thinking about a determinate subject-matter. The study of politics
therefore becomes an attempt to emulate the methodology or scientific
methods of the natural science, that is, the assumption, procedures,
standards, results and mode of explication of a scientific study.
Over the past few years, the basic outlines of the behavioural position have
emerged with increasing clarity. Apart from David Easton, a number of
persons - David Truman, Robert Dahl, Heinz Eulau, Evron Kirkpatrick, and
Mulford Sibley, inter alia, have written thoughtful, dispassionate analyses of
the behavioural movement. While they do not agree on every point, a
basic consensus can be discerned. By way of a summary, let us go over what
are now generally regarded as the major tenets of behaviouralism, The
key behaviouralist articles of faith are as follows:
5. Political science can ultimately become a science capable of explanation
and prediction. Given this possibility, the political scientist should engage in
an unrelenting search for regularities of political behaviour. He should
avoid purely descriptive studies in favour of the rigorous, analytical
treatment essential to the systematic development of political knowledge.
6. Political science should concern itself with phenomena which can actually
be observed, i.e. with what is said or done. The behavior may be that of
individual or political aggregates. The behaviouarlist deplores the
institutional approach because it is impossible to study institutional
behavior other than as manifested in the actions and words of those who
carry out institutional functions.
7. Data should be quantified and findings based upon quantifiable data.
In the final analysis, the behavioural argues, only quantification can make
possible the discovery art precise statement of relationship and
regularities.
8. Research should be theory-oriented and theory-directed.
Ideally, inquiry should proceed from carefull developed
theoretical formulations which yield in turn "operationalizable"
hypothesis, i.e. hypothesis which can be tested against empirical
data. The behaviouralist, thus speaks of 'low-level', 'middle-lever
and general theory. The ultimate objective is the development
of over-arching generalizations which will accurately describe and
interrelate political phenomena to the physical world.
9. Political Science should be concerned with "pure" research
aimed at solving specific, immediate social problems and
programmatic ventures.
10. Political Science should be more interdisciplinary. Political
behaviour is only one form of social behaviour and the
profession would profit tremendously by drawing on the skills,
techniques and concepts of its sister Social Sciences -
Anthropology, Sociology, Economics, Psychology, etc.
11. The truth or falsity of values (democracy, freedom, equality,
etc.) cannot be established scientifically and are beyond the
scope of legitimate enquiry. From this, it follows that political
scientists should abandon the "great issues" except where
behaviour springing from or related to these issues can be treated
as empirical events. Political Science has no proper concern with
moral or ethical questions.
12. Political Science should become more self-conscious and
critical about its methodology. Its practitioners should develop a
greater familiarity with and make better use of, such tools as
multivariate analysis, sample surveys, mathematical models and
simulation.
13. Political Scientists should be aware of, and discount their
own value preferences in planning, executing, and assessing
their research undertakings.
The views of anti-behaviouralists
1. Political Science is not, nor is it ever likely to become a
science in any realistic sense of the term. It cannot become a
science for a number of reasons:
(a). The phenomena with which political scientists deal do
not lend themselves to rigorous study. We cannot treat human
behaviour,
individual or social, with the dispassion needed for scientific
knowledge.
(b)Neither political science (nor any other social science) is
amenable to experimental inquiry.
(c). There are too many variables and historical contingencies
to permit other than the most general statement of regularities.
(d). Laws of political behaviour cannot be stated for a sentient
creature such as man, because he is free to modify his actions in
keeping with, or in violation of such laws, once they are
made known. Man's behaviour is purposive.
(e). The use of hypotheses are good but .rigid adherence to them
pay stifle, rather than advance research.

2. Overt political behaviour tells only part of the story.

Different individuals may perform the same act for quite
different reasons. To understand what they do, one must go
beyond, or behind observable behaviour. Moreover, individuals
and groups act within an institutional or a social setting, and
knowledge of that setting is essential to any meaningful
explanation of their behaviour. The anti-behaviouralists hold that
the larger part of political life lies beneath the surface of
human action and cannot be directly apprehended.
3. Whatever the theoretical merits of quantification, for most
practical purposes, it is now and will continue to be an
unattainable goal. Quantification requires precise concepts and
reliable metrics - and political science possesses neither:
Significant questions normally cannot be quantified. As for
mathematics how can one mathematicise that which is both
imprecise and immeasurable?
4. While it is desirable that research be informed by theory, the
behaviouralists' aspirations have far outrun their data. There is
too much preoccupation with general theory when political
science still lacks low-and middle-level formulations. It has led
to the proliferation of concepts which cannot successfully be
operationalized.
5. Significant political issues invariably .involve moral and
ethical issues. Political science has historically been, and must
continue to be concerned with questions of right and wrong,
even if these cannot be "scientifically" resolved. Were the
discipline to turn its back on such matters, it could have
little justification for continued existence.
6. There are many areas where an interdisciplinary approach
may be useful, but care must be taken to preserve the identity
and integrity of political science. All too often, the anti-
behaviouralists feel there has been, an indiscriminate borrowing
of concepts and techniques which are simply inappropriate for
political inquiry.
7. Self-consciousness about methodology can be and has been
carried too far. Overly critical and unrealistic standards impede
rather than advance the pursuit of knowledge. Many of the
technical innovations are still too sophisticated and refined for
the raw material with which political scientists must work.
8. As for 'scientific objectivity' there is almost universal
skepticism among the anti-behaviouralists that it is unattainable.

There has been disagreement among anti-behaviouralists on a

number of matters. Some are satisfied with political science as it
has been practiced in the past and see no cogent reason for
drastic change. Others are less complacent about the state of the
discipline. They admit that political science has yet to
accumulate a very impressive body of knowledge and many even
feel that it has lost ground to the other social sciences.
However, in their own view, behaviouralism, is not considered
an alternative to the kind of political science it seeks to displace.
Whether a given political scientist falls into the one or the other
category depends, in the final analysis, on his state of mind
rather than on readily applicable objective criteria.

The behavioural influence

The following can be stated as the general influence of
behaviouralism on the discipline or Political Science:
1. Behaviouralism has made the discipline and political
scientists more self- conscious and self-critical about their
goals, procedures and findings. Vast energy has gone into a
stock-taking and self-evaluation which was long overdue. .
2. There has been a dramatic change in the vocabulary of
political science. The older generations spoke about checks and
balances, sovereignty, pressure group, proportional
representation, state, state of nature and so on. From
today's younger practitioners, we hear phrases such as,
boundary maintenance, bargaining, cognitive dissonance,
conflict resolution, feedback, cross-pressure, political culture,
political socialization, input-output, interaction, model, multiple
progression, etc.
3. The vocabulary associated with behaviouralism also testifies
to the extent that political science has become interdisciplinary,
for matt of the concepts and theories were borrowed from otter
fields of academic inquiry.
4. There has been a sharply increased attention to research
techniques and to analytic theory. Formal courses in
methodology are now established in most universities at both
undergraduate and graduate levels.
5. The behavioural influence is also greatly reflected in the
contents of the American Political Science Review (APSR),
from 1950 to date. There has been increased attention to
analytic theory as well as powerful quantitative techniques. A
number of Political Science Journals in Europe, Africa Asia,
also reflect this new orientation.
6. Most political science departments and professional bodies
(e.g. the American Political Science Association), in the United
States of America, have made significant contributions to the
advancement of the behavioural movement through the
research publications of their scholars, including - Lasswell,
Dahl, Almond, Key, Simon, Hyneman, Truman, Lipset, and
Easton. They are all of the behavioural persuasion.
7. In spite of its limitations, behaviouralism has been able to
improve the methods, and techniques of political science in
data gathering and analysis. These include:
(a). data collection through sample survey, interview and
questionnaire techniques;
(b). metric techniques, scalogram and factor analysis;
(c). the use of tables, graphs and charts;
(d). use of statistics and mathematical models; and; the
(e). use of high - speed, sophisticated, mechanical and electronic
equipment in data analysis, e.g. the computer. This has
assisted in developing techniques for data manipulation and
analysis that previously had been either impossible to perform or
so time-consuming as to be impractical.
The computer has made made possible more comprehensive
and complex analyses with increasing efficiency and accuracy.
In summary, as we have seen in this chapter, political behaviour
signifies a commitment to methodological rigour which stresses
more precise techniques for gathering, classifying and
measuring data. It emphasizes empirical and new methods of
research and formulation of concepts, hypotheses and
explanations in systematic terms. However, as the anti-
behaviouralists have observed, behaviouralism has not provided
a perfect approach to political analysis.

Review questions
1. What is the behavioural approach to political science?
2. Examine the "behavioural-traditional" debate in Political
Science.
3. Account for the origin and causes of behaviouralism.
4. What are the limitations of the political behaviour approach
to Political Science?
5. Discuss the general influence of behaviouralism on the
discipline of Political Science?
6. "Political Science is not, nor is it ever likely to become a
science in any realistic sense of the term." Do you agree?
7. Examine the beliefs and commitments of the behavioural
movement in Political Science.