M.A.

(Political Science) Part-II 38 Paper-VI

M.A. (POLITICAL SCIENCE) PART II PAPER-VI

Political Theory

LESSON NO. 4 Author: Dr. Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu

State of Political Theory Today: Decline or Resurgence

In much of the discussion of post-Second World War political philosophy, it

is often argued that (a) the 1950s and the 1960s marked the decline or even the
‘death’ of political philosophy; that (b) the resurgence was caused, or at least
stimulated, by a sharp rise in the level of political and ideological struggle brought
about by such factors as the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement in the United
States, the disintegration of the post-war consensus, and the emergence of the new
left; and that (c) Rawls’s work A Theory of Justice symbolized the rebirth of political
philosophy.

The importance of political theory or philosophy was challenged in the

beginning of the second half of the 20th century. David Easton and Alfred Cobban
talked of political theory’s ‘decline’ and Peter Laslett and Robert A. Dahl declared it
as already dead. David Easton said: Political ideas had generally flourished during
periods of social turmoil and change, as was born out by the fact that the writings
of the greatest among the political thinkers belong to ancient Greece when it was
undergoing social upheavals, or to England in the 16 th and 17th centuries when she
was torn by religious and political conflicts, or to France in the 18 th century when
political ideas led to great revolution there. In the middle of 20th century, Easton
believes, we were again in the midst of widespread social conflicts and fundamental
cultural changes. Yet the surprising thing was that political thought had not
flourished to any considerable extent in any part of the world. he wrote in 1951:
Contemporary political thought lives parasitically on ideas a century old and, what
is more discouraging, we see little prospect of the development of new political
synthesis.

Reasons of Decline of Political Theory

Political theory has a long tradition of its evolution spreading over 2500
years. However, in mid-twentieth century the exponents of new political science
began to question the continued relevance of the traditional political theory.
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 39 Paper-VI

The relevance of the traditional political theory was particularly challenged

on the ground that it was based on sheer speculation. David Easton, an American
political scientist, was in the lead to demise the traditional political theory. In his
Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (1953), he asserted that
traditional political theory was devoid of acute observation of the political reality. In
order to lay scientific foundations of the study of politics, it was necessary to rescue
it from the study of classics and the history of political ideas. Easton argued that
the traditional political theory was the product of turmoil that characterized the
past ages. It particularly flourished in the Greece in the pre-Plato days, in Italy in
the fifteenth century or in France in the eighteenth century which were the days of
widespread social and political upheaval. It had no relevance in contemporary
society.

It was further argued by Easton that while economists and sociologists had
produced a systematic study of human behaviour in their respective spheres of
investigation, political scientists have lagged behind. They failed to acquire suitable
research tools to explain the rise and continuance of Fascism and Communism.
Again, during the Second World War (1939-1945) economists and psychologists
had played an active role in the decision-making process, but political scientists
were ignored. Easton, therefore, appealed for building up a behavioral political
science, closer to other social sciences, to take its due place in the decision-making
process. He suggested that while traditional political theory was primarily
concerned with evolving suitable values for society, modern political science need
not make efforts in this direction. Instead, political scientists should only focus on
building causal theory.

David Easton1 ascribes the ‘poverty’, ‘impoverishment’ and ‘decline’ of

political theory to contemporary political scientists: (a) living parasitically on ideas a
century old; (b) failing to develop a new political synthesis. Contemporary political
scientists had been much too busy analyzing political thought of the earlier
centuries and tracing the political philosophy of individual political thinkers to the
peculiar circumstances that existed in their time.

Another reason for the decline of political theory should be traced in taking
the subject very close to the discipline of history with a view to lay down certain
inexorable laws of social development as we may find in the great books written by
G.H. Sabine, R.W. Carlyle, A.J. Carlyle, W.A. Dunning, H.C. MacIIwain, C.K. Allen

1
David Easton in Alfred in Gould and Thursby (eds.), Contemporary Political Theory: Issues in Scope,
Value and Direction, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 40 Paper-VI

and A.D. Lindsay. These writers have studied political theory and its development
in the context of the Western (European) countries. They have been motivated less
by an interest in analyzing and formulating new value theory than in retailing
information about the meaning, internal consistency, and historical development of
contemporary and past political values. Easton said: This kind of analysis has
played a major part in destroying a species of mental activity that has prevailed in
literate civilizations and which emerges out of universal human needs. It has
unwittingly helped to divert the attention and energies of political theorists from the
task of building systematic theory about political behaviour and the operation of
political institutions.

Easton is not satisfied with the contributions of those who subscribe to the
way of historical analysis. He calls some theorists (like Carlyle and MacIIwain) as
“institutionalists” who usually treat the history of ideas as the study of
epiphenomena, as mere froth on the ocean, as it were, that has little effect on the
waves. For them, political theory involves a discussion of the kind of ideas that
have emerged to help rationalize political interests and institutional development.
They seem to be in agreement with the prevailing indictment that such ideas are
just ‘myths’ and therefore incapable of determining political activity. To some (like
Dunning and Allen), he calls “interactionists”, who insist that ideas do play a vital
part in political life interacting with institutions as a significant variable in the
whole process of social change. For them, the task of political activity is to unveil
the actual role of ideas at each historical juncture. Finally, others (like Sabine and
Dunning), whom he calls “materialists”, approach political theory with the objective
of uncovering the historical and cultural conditions that gave rise to the prevailing
political conceptions of an age. The common thing about all is that they are
historicists in their fundamental orientation. Easton: In the interstices of their
works lurks the prevailing conceptions of social science, that all a social scientist
can legitimately say about moral categories is that they are a product of the
historical situation.

The tendency of historicism suffers from want of dynamism. Instead of

discovering the new set of values congenial to the changed conditions of human life,
the theorists try to assess the utility of the present notions in the light of age-old
values some of which have certainly lost their relevance and, for that reason, it
cannot be taken as a determinant of political activity. Easton: The history of
political values has led theorists to concentrate on the relation of values to the
milieu in which they appear rather than on the task of attempting to create new
conceptions of values commensurate with men’s needs. Political theorists have
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 41 Paper-VI

been devoting themselves to what is essentially an empirical rather than a value

problem, at least in terms of the traditional disjunction between facts and values.
In doing so, they have assimilated value theory into empirical or causal social
science.

Alfred Cobban, like Easton, believed that political theory was on the decline
and was not too optimistic that it would necessarily survive.2 The first argument
raised by Cobban is that political theory is a product of active political life. It was
the active political life of ancient Greeks that led to the emergence of political life.
Political theory developed during the days of struggle between the Church and the
State during the later part of the middle ages. It had the same development in the
17th and 18th centuries when people took an active part in struggling against the
monarchical absolutism.

Alfred Cobban had also argued in his paper on 'The Decline of Political Theory
(1953)' that political theory had lost its significance both in the capitalist as well as
the communist systems. He argued that Hegel and Marx were interested in small
part of the world. Hegel was primarily concerned with 'territorial state' and Marx
with 'proletarian class'. Contemporary politics was operating on such a large scale
that it could not be analyzed in the light of any partial or narrow theory. Besides,
logical positivists, who sought to concentrate on facts to the exclusion of values,
were also responsible for the decline of political theory. However, Cobban came to
the conclusion that all was not lost. Political science has to answer questions which
the methodology of social sciences may not be able to answer. It must evolve the
criteria of judgement which will revive the relevance of political science, and hence,
the political theory. Likewise, Lipset had also questioned the continued relevance of
political theory at that time.

The success of the democratic system should be held responsible for the
decline of political theory in its own way. People look like satisfied with the aims of
their life and, for that reason, active political life has come to an end. Whatever
political activity we may take not of in a democratic system is an indication of
search for power by any means whatsoever and not an endeavour in the direction of
finding out a better alternative to it.

Another factor that has played its part in the decline of political theory in the
modern age is the obsession of some great writers and theorists to align it

2
Cobban, Alfred in Gould and Thursby (eds.), Contemporary Political Theory: Issues in Scope, Value and
Direction, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 42 Paper-VI

exclusively with the concept of power as given by Machiavelli of Italy and Hobbes of
England and revisited by Max Weber of Germany.

The case of values in the study of politics is sacrificed at the alter of the
power theory of politics having its first vulgar manifestation in the works of
Machiavelli and witnessing its reiteration in the recent writings of Morgenthau,
Niebuhr and O.Y. Gasset. In other words, one more reason for the decline of
political theory may be traced in the affirmation of cynical pessimism that discards
the place of morals in any discussion of politics and more curiously, comes to hold
that somehow good would come out of the evil.

Another reason for the decline of political theory should be traced in making
the study of politics a matter of mere academic study. Cobban’s argument is that in
the past political theory was essentially practical.

Finally, Cobban points out that, in contemporary political theory, a sense of

direction is lacking. There is no feeling of purpose. Hegelian politics is already dead,
Marxist politics is increasingly revealed as a dialectical apologia for the pursuit of
power for its own sake. Mad craze for empiricism has created a wide chasm
between facts and values. The result is that in the absence of a rational theory to
justify its sense of political obligation and the rightful purpose of political activity in
a governed community has fallen victim to an irrational theory of power politics.

Revival of Political Theory

However, almost after fifteen years, Easton changed his view. In his
presidential address to the American Political Science Association in 1969, he
launched his 'post-behavioural' revolution. In fact, Easton was trying to convert
political science from a 'pure science' to 'applied science'. He insisted that scientific
investigation should enable the contemporary society to tide over the prevailing
crisis. This also involved a renewed concern with values which were sought to be
excluded in the earlier behavioural approach and that too under the leadership of
Easton himself. Thus, the folly of total neglect of values in political theory was soon
rectified.

No doubt the exponents of behavioural approach sought to strengthen

scientific basis of the study of politics and to delink it from political philosophy, but
the champions of political philosophy never approved the behaviouralists' stand.
For instance, Leo Strauss argued (in 1957 and 1962) that the new science of
politics was in fact, a symptom of the alleged decline of political theory. By adopting
positivist approach it had ignored the challenge of normative issues.
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 43 Paper-VI

Dante Germino in his Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political Theory (1967)
argued that in most of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century there
were two major causes of the decline of political theory: (a) the rise of positivism
which had led to the craze for science, and; (b) the prevalence of political ideologies
culminating in Marxism. Germino states that political theory was now again on the
path of revival. It found ascendancy in the political thought of Michael Oakeshott,
Hannah Arendt, Bertrand de Jouvenal, Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin. Besides, the
works of John Rawls, C.B. Macpherson, Christian Bay, Robert Nozick, Herbert
Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas, Alasdaire MacIntyre and Michael Walzer had
contributed a lot for the revival of grand tradition of political philosophy.

In its revived form, the political theory was taken more as philosophy than as
a science. Germino suggested that in order to understand the new role of political
theory, it was imperative to identify it with political philosophy. As we know that
political philosophy is essentially a critical study of the principles of right order in
human social existence, involving inquiry into the issues of right and wrong. It is
neither reductionist behavioural science where everything is reduced to sense-
experience, nor opinionated ideology which accepts some principles to be true
without inquiring into their validity. It comprehends both the knowledge of facts
and the insight with which that knowledge is comprehended. Political philosophy
deals with perennial problems confronting man in his social existence. Detachment
is not ethical neutrality. A political philosopher cannot remain indifferent to the
political struggle of his times as behaviouralists would claim. Germino opines that
political theory cannot grow under the positivist 'value-free' approach which ignores
the perennial concerns of political philosophy.

Easton is generally known as an advocate of empirical political theory. And

yet this impression should not be formed that he accords no place for values in the
field of political inquiry. What he really attacks is the excessive emphasis on the
role of values in the field of political investigations. It was felt that the adoption of a
value-frame of reference “would either distract the empirical worker from his main
interest in observing human behaviour, or distort his results, since the wish easily
becomes father to the thought”. However, whatever effort is exerted, values cannot
be shed in the way a person removes his coat. They are an integral part of
personality and as we are human, we can assume that our mental sets and
preferences will be with us. A way out of this problem of political theory should be
discovered in formulating a new kind of theory what Easton calls ‘creative theory’. It
is that kind of theory which is by and large, empirical but at the same time
sustained by certain moral considerations having relevance to the determination of
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 44 Paper-VI

political activity. Neither a purely normative nor an absolutely empirical but a new
kind of theory should come up having a judicious blinding of the two. This is the
function of sensitively responding to the urgent problems of society and to the
emerging social needs so that it becomes possible to articulate a sophisticated
system of values that will help both the citizen and the statesman to define their
situation. Such a definition requires the conjunction of three elements: a statement
of the actual situation, a statement of goals, both long-run and proximate, and a
statement of means to achieve these goals.

This may be called 'bridge-building' exercise. It would establish a link

between the needs of the society and the scientific knowledge of the social sciences.
It would help both the statesmen and the citizens to define their situation and
thereby service to clarify for them the grounds of political action. If the discipline of
political science is to be saved from decline and instead if it is to be resurged, it is
needed that it should be recast in a new conceptual framework what Easton calls
'broad-gauge theory'. Both the traditionalists (by and large normativists) and the
modernists (by and large empiricists) have committed the common mistake of
setting the cart to draw the horse. The decline of political theory is due to barren
normativism as well as due to crude empiricism. 'Contemporary knowledge in
political science can be criticized not because it fails to measure up to the rigorous
canons of unadulterated science but because it does not use the more modest
methods and techniques that are at present available in the social sciences as a
whole and that have proved exceedingly fruitful in research.

If Easton and Cobban are or one side, as seen in the preceding section,
Berlin, Blondel and Strauss are on the other side of the controversy who with equal
force contend that political theory is neither dying nor dead, it very much exists. We
may briefly discuss the views of these great writers as under:

What Easton and Cobban have said about the decline of political theory in
the early 1950s finds its forceful rebuttal at the at the hands of Prof. Isaiah Berlin.
First, he takes up the main points on which the contention of the decline of political
theory depends. These are:

1. The principal symptom, which seems to support this belief, is that no

commanding work on political philosophy has appeared in the present century. By
a commanding work in the field of general ideas is meant, at the very least, one that
has in a large area converted a paradoxes into platitudes or vice versa.
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 45 Paper-VI

The conceptual propositions of political theory, whether empirical or

metaphysical or logical, are no longer accepted because they have (with the world of
which they were a part) withered away, or because they have been discredited or
refuted.

2 Many new disciplines have come up to perform the work originally

undertaken by the older study. These disciplines may have their own limitations
but they exist, they function, and have either inherited or usurped the functions of
their predecessors. There is no room left for the ancestors for whom they spring.
This is the fate that overtook astrology, alchemy, phrenology (positivists, both old
and new, would include theology and metaphysics). The postulates on which these
disciplines were based were either destroyed by argument or collapsed for other
reasons; consequently they are today regarded merely as instances of systematic
delusion.

3. Among the topics that remain obstinately philosophical and have, despite
repeated efforts, failed to transforms themselves into sciences, are some that in
their very essence involve value judgments. The mere fact that value judgments are
relevant to an intellectual pursuit is clearly not sufficient to disqualify it from being
recognized a science.

Berlin refutes all such points in order to prove that the discipline of political
exists in a society where ends collide. The end of politics may be possible in the
future society of Marx, but it is not at all possible in a liberal order and, as such,
political theory can never see its end. It follows that the only society in which
political philosophy in its traditional sense, that is an inquiry concerned not
solely with the elucidation of concepts, but with the critical examination of
presuppositions and assumptions, and the questioning of the order of priorities
and ultimate ends, is possible, is a society in which there is not total acceptance of
any single kind. There may be a variety of reasons for this: no single end has been
accepted by a sufficient number of persons because no one end can be regarded as
ultimate, since there can be, in principle, no guarantee that other values may not at
some time engage men's reason or their passions; because no unique, final end can
be found inasmuch as parts of, one another; and so on. Some among these ends
may be public or political; nor is there any reason to suppose that all of these must,
even in principle, be compatible with one another. Unless political philosophy is
confined to the analysis of conflicts or expressions, it can be pursued consistently
only in a pluralist, or potentially pluralist, society.
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 46 Paper-VI

Berlin does admit that some portions of political theory may lose their
relevance or significance for being outdated or outmoded, but it does not mean that
the subject as a whole goes out of existence. For instance, when the theological and
metaphysical models of the middle ages were swept away by the science of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they disappeared largely because they could
not compete in describing, predicting, controlling the contents of the external world
without new disciplines. 'Great scientists like Galileo and Newton with their power
of reason and experiment sentenced for ever the idle chatter of ignoramus, the dark
muttering of the metaphysician, the thunder of the preacher, they hysterical
shrieks of the obscurantist. But new political theories came up so as to expand the
horizons of this discipline. Thus, Berlin asserts: "To suppose, then, that there have
been, or could be, ages without political philosophy, is like supposing that as there
are ages of faith, so there are or could be ages of total disbelief. This is an absurd
notion."

Like Berlin Blondel examines this question and concludes in like manner. To
him, the term 'decline of political theory' means: (i) scientific professionalism and
positivist assertiveness have taken over the study of politics; (ii) in this climate old
ways of reflecting on politics are viewed as no longer relevant on the grounds that
old methods of investigation were usually too simple and that the problems used to
be badly pursued; (iii) moral consideration were often discussed in the midst of the
analysis of facts. This appeared as a breakthrough. To many new political
scientists, this passing away of political theory is, by and large, real progress. But,
for the traditionalists, a vacuum was kept in the centre of the discipline because
the really important problems were now being ignored: political scientists had
ceased to be interested in the broad questions relating the organization of society to
fundamental moral standpoints, or they arrogantly and impossibly tried to fill the
vacuum by scientific analysis of behaviour as if what 'ought to be' could be deduced
from an examination of what could be done."

Above all, empirical political theory is not the enemy of its normative
counterpart; it may well supplement as well as strengthen the value-based or goal-
oriented study of politics. A good number of exercises done with such a
consideration have enriched the stock of political science by contributing to, what
may be called, second-order or middle-theories. The correct view, as Blondel
forcefully asserts, should be that political theory far from being killed by empirical
analysis can thrive better in those fields in which empirical work has also been
most successful; empiricists identified the difficulties and the paradoxes which
political theories came to find increasingly intriguing. Political theory, conceived as
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 47 Paper-VI

an analysis and based on or triggered by empirical findings, leads therefore to

significant results and can find a new raison d' etre.

On the basis of such strong affirmations, Blondel concludes; Politician

theory does exist. It seems to know little better in the 1980s where it is going and
how it should proceed. Not that political theory is a critique or empirical political
analysis has ceased to exist; what might be described as its civilized and skeptical
form still interests thinkers whose main ambition is to continue the tradition of
historians of political thought, a tradition which has its importance. 'Critical'
political theory is also alive, but it is constant danger of becoming an ideology
highly charged with emotions but covered with strong layer of abstract vocabulary,
and it is even more in danger of concentrating on the past and present while leaving
the delineation of the Promised Land for future generations. It is often content with
apocalyptic and convoluted description of the current land; by doing so, and on the
basis of its own action-oriented theory, it ensures that the Promised Land is truly
remote. For it is by talking to man about ideals that one can make these ideals
come near.

But the most outstanding of all is Prof. Leo Strauss of Chicago University
who affirms that though political philosophy may be in a state of decay and
perhaps putrefaction, it has not vanished altogether. The distinctive thing about
him is that he identifies theory with philosophy in the fashion great classicists and
more than that, he presents himself as a speculative political philosopher after
forcefully discarding the lines of positivism, historicism, and crude empiricism.
Strauss gives three important reasons to emphasis the eternal significance
of normative political theory what he calls by the name of political philosophy:
1. Political life is characterized by the struggle for power between groups of
men who defend their claims to rule in terms of what is good or bad for the whole
community. Philosophy is the highest activity of man, it is the attempt to replace
opinion about all things by the knowledge of all to things. It is impossible to think
about the fundamental and comprehensive problems of philosophy without being
inclined towards a desirable, perhaps ideal, solution. The significance of the
classics of political philosophy is that they have touched this important issue in
relation to the 'soul' of man so as to find out a perfect solution to the problem
standing before them.

2. What has really given a rude setback to such a glorious tradition of political
philosophy is, according to Strauss, the modern trend of historicism and
positivism. Political philosophy is a futile enterprise according to positivism,
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 48 Paper-VI

because it proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the knowledge of values is

useless.

3. It is said that the growth of liberal democracy has created conditions for the
decline of political theory by offering standard solution to complex human
problems. Strauss refutes this point on the ground that specifically liberal
democracy can be defended on the classical principle that the rule of wise laws
administered by prudent men is superior to such form of absolute rule as can be
expected in practice. Moreover, philosophy has a better chance to survive under
liberal democracy than under the modern forms of tyranny.

Thus, Strauss comes to hold that evaluation is indispensable to an adequate

understanding of social and political things. Education towards virtue is
indispensable to liberal democracy at its highest.
What should be the proper decision of this, rather futile, debate? Two points
may be put in this regard. First, the creation of the debate on the present state of
political theory emanates from the contributions of those recent theorists who have
studied politics in terms of human behaviour, or who have made elaborate models
of political system by sticking to the course of empirical inquiry, or who have
attempted to quantify basic concepts such as power and the like. Such theorists,
rather analysts, have gloomily felt that the discipline of politics has lost its soul.
Such a melancholy feeling has been described as the decline, nay demise, of
political theory. Second, this term decline refers to the case of classical political
theory and that too in a wrong way as we have already seen. The empirical
tradition has supplemented as well as strengthened the normative tradition of the
classical theory in its own right. It has assumed a dominant position that cannot be
reversed now to the satisfaction of the traditionalist. Thus, we may come to this
definite conclusion that political theory, even in its classical form, has neither
demised nor so declined, nor is it ever possible must take it happily that "an
agonizing reappraisal of political theory now leads to this end that scientism is here
to stay and that accommodation (with goals, norms and values) is the best and
perhaps the only sensible line of conduct.
We may agree with the view of Karl Popper, or not, that it is theories,
whether true or false, that are important and not the meaning of words. In fine,
there has developed out of the revolution in philosophy a broadly philosophical
subject called political theory which is analytical theory in style and concerned with
methodology, clarification of concept and, in contrast with logical positivists the
logic a of political appraisal. But in the recent past some writings (as Rawls and
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 49 Paper-VI

Nozick) "have breathed a new life into the discipline so that to say that political
philosophy is dead as was once said so confidently, would be a gross exaggeration.

The significance of political theory lies in the purpose it serves. Political

theory enables us to understand and solve the problems of our collective life; to
understand the causes of conflict and violence in society and gives us insights for
preventing their outburst; guides us to find remedies of political instability and
various types of social crises. It is a form of all-embracing system of values, which a
society adopts as its ideal, with a view to understand the political reality and, if
necessary to change it.

Political science and political philosophy play complementary role in the

realm of political theory. As such, political theory is part philosophy and a part
science. In other words, it is neither a complete political philosophy nor a full
political science. Defining political theory as the "critical study of the principles of
right order in human social existence," Dante Germino declares that political theory
is "neither reductionist behavioural science nor opinionated ideology."3 It is a
science but not a science which confines itself to propositions capable of sensory
verification, but a science that fulfils the requirements of any social science.
Political theory as a science, comprehends both the knowledge of facts and the
insight with which this knowledge is comprehended and evaluated. As a political
philosophy, political theory is not a utopian construction, but is one that finds out
the truth of life. Again to quote Germino, "Turning his back to distortions, over-
simplifications, sloganeering, and demagoguery, the political theorist speaks out
with honesty on the perennial problems confronting man in his existence in
society."4

As we know, the political philosophy is primarily concerned with what is

right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust in social life. When we find
something wrong in our society and polity, we look for logical grounds for criticizing
it and speculate about the creation of a good society. A galaxy of political
philosophers, like Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke,
Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Mill and McPherson, have pointed to the prevailing ills in
society and they have given their own schemes of social reconstruction. We cannot
accept these proposals as the final truth. But they give us ample insights into the
possible ills of social life and their remedies. For example, Plato exposed selfishness

3
As referred by N.D. Arora and S.S. Awasthy, Political Theory, Har-Anand Publications, New Delhi,
2001, p.30
4
ibid
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 50 Paper-VI

of the politicians in a democracy, while Marx analyzed the sources of conflict

between the owners and non-owners of property. Thus, the political theory as
political philosophy, seeks to find the truth in a particular situation, attempts at
making generalizations about the cause as well as the solution of the possible
problems. Accordingly, political theory would continue to be needed as is needed
science or art for, it is, as Plamenatz says, 'not fantasy or the parading of
prejudices; nor is mere an intellectual game.' For him, the political theory is an
elaborate, rigorous, difficult, and a useful undertaking and as much needed as any
of the sciences.

Brecht avers that the importance of a political theorist is to: see, sooner than
others and to analyze, more profoundly than others, the immediate and potential
problems of the political life of the society; to supply the practical politician, well in
advance, with alternative causes of action, the foreseeable consequences of which
have been fully thought through; and to supply him not only with brilliant asides,
but with a solid block of knowledge on which to build. He further adds: When
political theory performs its functions well, it is one of the most important weapons
in our struggle for the advance of humanity. To imbue people with correct theories
may make them choose their goals and means wisely so as to avoid the roads that
end in terrific disappointment5. The task of a political theorist, avers David Held, is
really demanding because, in the absence of systematic study, there is a danger
that politics will be left to the ignorant and self-seeking people who only want to
pursue it as 'power'.6

David Easton is of the view that as a science, political theory can perform
certain useful functions, like: (a) to identify the significant political variables and
describe their mutual relations. To ensure this, an analytical scheme is essential.
This would render research meaningful and arrange facts leading to
generalizations; (b) the existence, and vide acceptance of and consensus by workers
in the field, on a theoretical framework, would enable the results of the various
researches to be compared. It would help in the verification of conclusions drawn
by the earlier researches and may also reveal the areas of research which require
more empirical work, and; (c) the existence of a theoretical framework, or at least, a
relatively consistent body of concepts, making research more reliable.

5
Brecht, Arnold,
6
David Held, Political Theory Today, Polity Press, Cambridge,1991, p. 21
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 51 Paper-VI

O.P. Gauba has rightly observed that since 1970s the dispute between
political science and political philosophy has largely subsided7. While post-
behaviouralists show due concern for values, the exponents of political philosophy
did not hesitate in testing their assumptions by empirical method.

The Importance of Classical Tradition

The classical tradition of political theory broadly begins from 6th century
B.C. and covers the political ideas of a large number of Greek, Roman and
Christian thinkers and is said to have continued until the beginning of the
nineteenth century. Plato and Aristotle are the two great giants of the classical
period. Classical theory, in its classical tradition, is not related as much to time as
to the major themes of the study. The classification of political theory into classical,
modern, and contemporary is indeed thematic. What divides the classic or the
traditionalist from the modern is the element of science in the latter and its absence
in the former. Philosophy dominates the classical tradition and science dominates
the modern. There may be an Aristotle and a Thomas in the ancient and medieval
periods of the West, who may emphasize on the science element while discovering
the laws of public life, and there may be a Strauss in our times, who may find
philosophy more useful in the study of politics.

The classical political theory aimed at acquiring systematic knowledge

about matters concerning the people. It identified the political with the common
involvements, which men shared as partners. In other words, its basic unit of
analysis has always been the political whole: the Greek Polis, the Roman res publica
and the medieval times usage of commonweal and in the process, attempting to
specify the significant parts of the whole; how they functioned and what their effect
was on the quality of life in the political whole-the State. Also, the classical political
theory thrived on the significance of comparative studies for comprehensive
explanation and a wider range of alternatives. It developed a classification for
political forms like monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, and their variants and
concepts like law, citizenship, justice, and participation and so on. It had been, by
and large, ethical in nature. Its response was rooted in a moral outlook: Plato
advocated the ideal state, Aristotle, a state that can achieve the best possible, state,
Augustine, the City of God, etc.

Despite the tremendous growth in sophistication in political theory, history,

ethics, philosophy, and law still play important role modern political studies

7
O.P.Gauba, op.cit.,p12
M.A. (Political Science) Part-II 52 Paper-VI

although no longer monopolizing it. A.R. Ball has rightly observed that "A great
number of political thinkers from Plato to Edmund Burke have made use of history,
philosophy and law to lay down the principles of political theory. It is owing to this
that important concepts like liberty, equality, rights, justice, law, etc. have come
into being and that have contributed to enrich literature on normative political
theory"8. Political theory must concern itself both with theoretical and practical
issues, with philosophical as well as organizational questions. The project of
political theory can be based neither purely on political philosophy nor purely on
political science.

Further Readings

Varma, S. P.: Modern Political Theory, 2004

Held, David, Political Theory and the Modern State, 1989

Johari, J. C., Contemporary Political Theory 2001

8
A.R. Ball, Modern Politics and Government, Macmillan, London, 1971, p.4