Philippine Politics and Governance: Arman M. Bueno, RPM

PHILIPPINE POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE
PHILIPPINE POLITICS
AND GOVERNANCE
Prepared by
ARMAN M. BUENO, RPm

BICOL UNIVERSITY | LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY
UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 0

Dearest Learners,
Greetings!
Thomas M. Magstadt said, in his book Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues: “I still believe now,
as I did then, that as citizens in a country that claims to be a model democracy, students need to acquire a
working knowledge of the political and economic forces that shape the world.”
Furthermore, he accentuated that the study of politics “is a gateway to a broader and better understanding of
human nature, society, and the world.”
Additionally, he emphasized that “a successful introduction to politics must balance two key objectives: (1)
dispel anxieties associated with attempt to understand political science, especially for the uninitiated, and (2)
provide the intellectual stimulation necessary to challenge today’s college student and senior high school
students as well.”
The information reflected in these handouts came from the amazing minds of authors specializing in the field of
politics and political science and related sciences that can give you the basic and other important knowledge
about Philippine politics and governance and politics as a whole. I have cited them for you:
 Mendoza, D. J., & Melegrito, M.L.F. (2016). Politics without borders: Philippine politics and
governance: Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, Inc.
 Magstadt, Thomas M. (2013). Understanding politics: Ideas, institutions, and issues, 10th ed.
Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
 Joven, A.E. (2017). Philipine politics and governance for senior high school. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing, Inc.
 Heywood, A. (2011). Global politics: England, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Munroe, T. (2002). An introduction to politics: Lectures for first-year students, 3rd ed. Kingston,
Jamaica.
 Grigsby, E. (2009). Analyzing politics: An introduction to political science, 4th ed. Belmont,
California, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
 Lazo, R. (2003). Introduction to political science. Manila, Philippines: Rex Bookstore, Inc.
 Political science: Definition, theory, nature and scope. Political Science Notes. Retrieved June 2017
from http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/political-science/political-science-definition-theory-
nature-and-scope/711
I have included review questions to help you to check your knowledge and critical thinking questions to
challenge and level up your critical thinking about the lesson at hand and related issues regarding politics and
governance.
Compile all the lesson handouts that I will be giving to you to serve as your resource materials when you do
some sort of academic and/or “political endeavors” in the future. Treat it as my gift and remembrance to you.
More power and God bless us all.
Enjoy reading!
Respectfully yours,
ARMAN M. BUENO, RPm  

#PhilPolGov
#RatedPG

UNIT I
:
LESSON OUTLINE (PART I)
CHAPTER 1 LESSON 1 – POLITICS: ITS NATURE AND DEFINITIONS (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 1)
 Why Study Politics
POLITICS  Nature of Politics
AND  Defining Politics
THE STUDY OF  Politics: Arena vs Process
 Politics as Governance
POLITICS  Politics as about Governing
 Politics as “the Authoritative Allocation of Values for a Society
 Politics as “Who gets What, When and How?”: Politics as Power in Practice
 Politics as Public Affairs
 Politics as Compromise and Consensus
 The POJ: Three Basic Concepts of Politics
LESSON 2 - THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY ABOUT POLITICS (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 2)

 The Development of Political Science
 Thinking Scientifically: Some Foundations of Scientific Inquiry
 Thinking Scientifically About Politics and the Branches or Field of Study of Political Science
 Applying our Knowledge to “Real Politics”
LESSON 3 - POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 3)

 Power: its Nature and Dimensions
 Power and the Three Faces of Power
 Powers and its Relationship with the Government, Governance, and Citizenship
 Power and its Effects
 Responsibility and Accountability
LESSON 4 - UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 4)

 Political Ideology: Its Role and Functions
 The Political Spectrum
 Left and Right Distinctions of Ideologies
 Liberal and Conservative Distinctions of Ideologies
 Anarchism, Socialism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism
 The Broad Political Left in the Philippines
 Ideology and Governance
 Ideology and Citizenship
LESSON 5 - STATES, NATIONS, AND GLOBALIZATION (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 5)

 Defining State and Nation
 Differentiating State and Nation
 State and its Elements
 Understanding Nationhood
 Globalization

Chapter
1 POLITICS AND THE STUDY OF POLITICS
“
, , .”
-THOMAS M. MAGSTADT (2013)
,
, .
,
.
- MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO (2001)
WHY STUDY POLITICS?
A basic understanding of politics is a vital part of any undergraduate education

even those who are in high school. To realize the full benefits of politics and
governance, make a sincere effort to learn and, above all, keep an open mind.
Self-interest
Because personal happiness depends in no small degree on what government does
or does not do, we all have a considerable stake in understanding how government
works (or why it is not working). Through the study of politics, we become more
aware of our dependence on the political system and better equipped to determine
when to favor and when to oppose change. At the same time, such study helps to
reveal the limits of politics and of our ability to bring about positive change.
The Public Interest

What could be more vital to the public interest than the moral character and
conduct of the citizenry? Civil society is defined by and reflected in the kinds of
everyday decisions and choices made by ordinary people leading ordinary lives. At
the same time, people are greatly influenced by civil society and the prevailing
culture and climate of politics. People with very similar capabilities and desires can
develop quite different moral standards, depending on the circumstances. Politics
plays a vital role in shaping these circumstances, and it is fair to say the public
interest hangs in the balance.

NATURE OF POLITICS
Politics is as old as the great civilizations that took place in this world. Studying
politics is as significant as other fields that focuses to society. Before defining
politics, let us examine the various aspects of it. They are important in
understanding politics and its related concepts.
The definition of politics is flexible or changing.

To the traditional thinkers politics was the study of state and government. Today
the definition is not confined within a limited sphere of few notions. The idea of
politics encompasses numerous aspects of political behavior of individuals, groups,
associations, agents, etc. Even the elements of international relation have found
their place in the definition or analysis of politics. Politics is a broad concept and
changes its contents with the change of time.
Controversy is an important element of politics.

Politics means the existence of issues and again it means the existence of
controversy. It is argued that where there are issue (and, politics cannot be thought
of sans issues) there must be controversy. Issues are never homogenous and
heterogeneity of issues creates an atmosphere of debate and in this way politics
cannot be separated from controversy. Let us quote Wasby, “Where no controversy
exists, where no issues are being debated, politics does not exist!” The controversy
pervades to all sections of society as well as to all sorts of groups, institutions.
Disagreement nature of politics.

Political scientists like J.D.B Miller and Vernon Van Dyke believe that disagreement
is the source of struggles among the actors of politics. It is very difficult to think of
politics which does not envisage any type of disagreement. Miller also says that if
there were no disagreement among individuals, groups or organizations, political
action or activity could not get any scope to emerge.
Agreements can also take its place in politics.

It will be a misconception if we think that controversy or disagreement is the
exclusive feature of politics, there is no place of agreement or consensus. Persons,
organizations and groups debate among them on any political issues but at the
same time they arrive at agreed terms or solutions.
In the absence of agreement the functioning of society or the existence of social life
would have been an impossibility. To sum up, politics is characterized by both
agreement and conflict. It also deals with resolution.
Politics involves power and influence.

Politics is said to be the provider of the answer to the question: who gets, what,
when and how? That is only through the exercise of power and influence an
individual or organization can get what he it wants. Politics also provides the way
of getting the desired objective. It is the contention of Lasswell, Dall and many
others that if this question is ignored in the study of politics, its central idea will
lose importance. For this reason, power and influence can never be kept out of
politics. Rather they form the central part of politics. Many political scientists even
try to call power as the summun bonum of politics. This, of course, highly political.
Many do not agree.
Manifestation of politics are not the same.

But while there is politics in every kind of context of social interactions and
relationships, the manifestations of politics are not the same. They can be manifest,

loud, or visible. Or, they can be latent, subtle, and discreet. There is obviously
“politics” when lawmakers debate intensely over a bill in Congress, or when the
President declares the country under a Martial Law, or when local governments
enforce curfews. But politics can also be silent—when we pay more than what is
necessary for goods and services that we purchase, when we accept rules that we
are not even aware of their making, or when we comply without necessarily
understanding why.
One important feature of politics is its pervasiveness.

There is a common recognition among competing definitions of politics and the
study of politics—that politics is ubiquitous! It is present everywhere—at home, in
schools or universities, in organizations, and workplaces, in social and political
movements, and without doubt, in governments. Even in the Church and various
places of worship, there is politics! The nature of politics has assumed new forms
and dimensions in different ages but politics still exists. Today, we call national
politics, international politics, local politics, party politics, etc.
Conflict is not the exclusive feature of politics.

There are also institutional agreements for the settlement of conflicts. Although
conflicts are one of the characteristics in politics, it does not mean that it is the
central theme of it.
Dual character: desirable and undesirable.

Silent or otherwise, politics professes to be dual in its character. On one hand,
politics is desirable because it is important to the functioning of any society or
community. On the other hand, politics is undesirable as it is associated with
undesirable practices and outcomes, for example, corruption, violence, fraud,
partisanship, discrimination, etc.
Politics affects everyone.

Politics affects people from all walks of life—from homeless living in esteros and
informal settlements to the filthy rich residing in gated villages; from the hourly
paid laborers in factories to the highly-paid executives in corporations; from the
street parliamentarians to the members of parliaments; from the unborn to the
centenarians; and the from the fanatics to faithful; and from the ultraconservative
to queer!

DEFINING POLITICS
“
.”
-TREVOR MUNROE (2002)
The origin of the term politics can be traced back during

the Greek civilization when Aristotle created the word
‘polis’ which means city-state. In ancient Greece, the basic
unit of political organization was the city-state.
Most of us equate politics with the stereotypical politician

and because of this, most of us have the view that the
nature of politics is power-hungry, self-seeking, corrupt,
and, in some cases, violent. These ideas come from our
socialization, as well as from our exposure to social forces
and our own experiences with politicians.
ARISTOTLE Therefore, it is understandable that this is the way in

which we define politics. However, that it is understandable does not mean that it is
justifiable. It is no more justifiable to equate the nature of politics with corruption, self-
seeking behaviour, violence, and power hunger than it is to equate the nature of Islam with
terrorism.
You cannot determine the nature of a phenomenon on the basis of how people who claim to
practice it act. For example, how would we regard Christianity if we were to define
Christianity on the basis on what has been done in the name of Christianity over the years?
Remember that people were enslaved in the name of Christianity as a means of bringing
civilization to them. Nobody could
reasonably define Christianity in terms of slavery and colonialism.
Politics has been variously defined as “the art of the possible,” as the study of
“who gets what, when, and how,” as the “authoritative allocation of values,” and in countless
other ways. A simple definition of politics is surprisingly elusive, but most of us know what
politics is when we see it in action.
The nature of politics as we would consider it from our political socialization would lead us to
define politics as anything that has to do with the government of a country – elections and so
on. This definition is very similar to that found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary: “the art and
science of government.” This short definition was thought to be acceptable for a very long
time, and therefore, two or three subjects were seen as making up political study: the study of
the constitution, constitutional law, and political philosophy. However, the said definition is
inadequate for two reasons. First, in an academic point of view, there has been new changes
in politics and its scope. Second, it is too formal: that is to say, it looks only at the structure of
government and therefore does not direct our attention to what is the essence of the
government behind the structure.
However, Magstadt (2013) defined politics as “the process by which a community selects rulers
and empowers them to make decisions, takes action to attain common goals, and reconciles
conflicts within the community.” Do you agree with his meaning of politics? Does it capture
the whole thing about politics? Why or why not?
Despite that it has been defined, conceptualized, and understood in many ways, in behalf of
people who study, teach, and educate about politics, we would like to emphasize that the heart
and soul of politics is not the president, or the prime minister, not even the electorate: these
are part of the structure of national politics. The heart and soul of politics is decision-
making—choosing one thing against the other.

POLITICS: ARENA VS PROCESS

We can understand politics by differentiating between a narrow conception of
politics and a broad interpretation of politics. A narrow interpretation of politics
identifies politics where politics happens, that is, the venue; while a broad
interpretation of politics consider how politics happens, that is, the activity or
process. The former is labeled as the arena approach to politics while the latter is
the process approach to politics.
To understand politics using arena approach is to acknowledge that politics can

only happen within the formal institutions of the state, and that political behavior
can be explained as effects or outcomes of processes engaged by the state,
government and related institutions. The process approach on the other hand,
provides a comprehensive view of politics. It goes beyond what the narrow arena
approach offers in order to understand politics. Below is an illustration to better
understand the above-mentioned two lenses in studying politics.
POLITICS
ARENA APPROACH PROCESS APPROACH
• Politics is not limited to formal

political institutions within the
society such as the family, church,
and other parts of the society.
• It follows a formalistic conception • Puts premium on the activity of

of politics. governing or governance. Viewed
in this way, to understand politics
• It limits politics to the state and requires us to look at the role and
all its instrumentalities and interactions of both formal and
related institutions, its hierarchy informal institutions (civil society
of offices and personnel, laws, organizations (CSOs),
and policies. nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), advocacy groups, social
• It also covers activities and movements, etc.) and processes in
actions sanctioned by the state, decision-making.
for example, elections.
• Considers both formal political
• Also, it is also associated with the arena and the informal processes
narrow sense of political party surrounding it, that is the
and/or electoral politics. corridors of powers.
• Focuses on not only on activities

that are sanctioned by the state
but also those that contest the
powers of the state.
Figure 1. Politics: arena vs process
The two broad types of actions or activities that encompasses the process approach
to politics are those that are authorized by the state and those that challenge the
state. Elections and various legal means of citizen participation and representation
are examples of activities sanctioned by the state. On the other hand, organized
protests, rebellion, and other activities that are outside the constitutional and legal
framework aim to challenge the state.

Using the process approach the decision making process and outcomes are
understood to be the function of the intersection of state institutions with all these
informal institutions and actors and the negotiation of their similar and/or
opposing interests that lead to actual laws and policies that are binding to all.
Central to this conception of politics is the broad definition of politics as having to
do with power relations.
As power relations, politics can be viewed either “power over” or “power to,” or
both. As Huckfeldt and Sprague put it, “Politics is about winners and loser,
influence and coercion, exchange and bargaining, coalitions, and factions, conflict
and compromise.”
To better understand the process approach to politics, it is imperative to look at the

two definitions of politics: “the authoritative allocation of values for a society” and
“who gets what, when, and how”
POLITICS AS GOVERNANCE
David Easton (1917-2014) and Harold Lasswell (1902-1978) provide the widely accepted views that politics is
about governing. Easton defined politics as “the authoritative allocation of values for a society” (1953) and the
study of politics as “understanding how authoritative decisions are made and executed for a society” (1957).
Lasswell (1936) described the study of politics as “who gets what, when, and how” which was also the same title of
his seminal book, Politics: Who Gets What, When And How.
While articulated differently, the two definitions of politics and the study of politics are complementary. Both
Easton and Lasswell outline the dynamics of politics and help us understand that the ultimate and defining purpose
of politics is governing and making public policy. But first let us be clear about politics as governing.
POLITICS AS ABOUT GOVERNING
Understanding politics as about governing requires us to differentiate between

the concepts of “governing” and “government.” The notion of governing is
broader and has a wider applicability than government.
Government
Government is the term generally used to describe the formal institutions
through which a group of people is ruled or governed. The term extends to
include the persons and organizations that make, enforce, and apply political
decisions for a society.
Governing
Governing, on the other hand, includes institutions other than those of the
government that are involved in governing, at least in the broadest sense. These
other institutions can include labor and trade unions, corporations, universities,
church organizations, social movement organizations that “are involved in one
way or another in setting rules or conventions (or seeking to do so) which govern
some aspects of behavior of their members.”
Governance
The concept of “governance” is even broader than governing. A. Leftwich (2011)
captures the broad notion of governance as,

“The general patterns and interlocking systems of governing across

both public and private spheres by which the overall social, economic,
and political life of a society is organized and managed, whether
democratically or not, whether there are formal institutions or not, and
whether done by national, international, or transnational agencies and
institutions.
In short, in its broadest sense—and it is broad—governance refers to

the web of formal or informal institutions, rules, norms, and
expectations, which govern behavior in societies and without which the
very idea of a human society is impossible.”
Institutions in this broad definition of governance do not only refer to the rules,
procedures, and formal organizations of government. They also include informal
institutions loosely understood as “the customs, norms of behavior, unwritten
rules, or generally agreed ways of doing things, within a society and…
conventions within the culture covering social interaction, marriage, customs,
and burial ceremonies.”
Heywood (2011) said that governance is a broader term than government.

Although it still has no settled or agreed definition, it refers, in its wider sense, to
the various ways through which social life is coordinated. Governance is
therefore a process (or a complex of processes), its principal modes including
markets, hierarchies and networks. Although government may be involved in
governance, it is possible to have ‘governance without government’. Governance
is typified by a blurring of the state/society distinction (private bodies and
institutions work closely with public ones) and the involvement of a number of
levels or layers (potentially local, provincial, national, regional and global).
According to Joven, (2017) once a government is deemed functional, governance

follows. It is through governance that a government is able to have a direct
significant impact on the lives of its citizen.
POLITICS AS “THE AUTHORITATIVE ALLOCATION OF VALUES FOR A SOCIETY”
From Easton’s A Systems Approach to the

Analysis of Political Life published in 1957, one
can understand politics as a complex set of
interactions between inputs and outputs,
internal and external environments, feedback
and the political system. Only the authority
allocates or can allocate values and for that
purpose it adopts policy: Values are allocated
for society.
Defining policy Easton says: DAVID EASTON

“A policy whether for a society, for a narrow association or for any other group,
consists of a web of decisions and actions that allocates values. By adopting a
policy authority deprives someone of anything and allows others to have it.”
Defining authority Easton says:

Now we come to the concept of authority or authoritative. Mere adoption of
policy is not all. The policy is required to be implemented and for that purpose
the authority will take steps for enactment of law. Finally a complex

administrative structure is to be built up for the implementation of the law and

policy.
Only the authority can do all these tasks. If there is no support or role of authority
behind a policy people may be reluctant to show credence to the policy and may
refuse to obey it. So it has been observed by Easton that a policy must be
authoritative otherwise people will not obey it. If the policy is authoritative
refusal to obey it will be followed by punishment.
Defining society Easton says:

Defining society Easton has said that a society consists of persons or large
number of people who are continually interacting among themselves and
maintain a stable relationship among them. Certain minimum conditions must be
maintained so that the inhabitants of the society can live peacefully and
comfortably and for that purpose it is essential that goods and services must be
provided for all the members of the society.
In any society there are a number of groups of individuals whose objectives,

mode of living and requirements may not be similar. But it is an important duty of
the authority to provide goods and services to all of them and without the
authoritative allocation of values that objective cannot be achieved. That is why
Easton observes: authoritative allocation of values is a minimum prerequisite of
any society.
At this level we return to one of our earlier points. Politics is concerned with
conflict and cooperation. When an authority allocates values for society it
practically becomes authoritative and the decision of the authority is binding on
all.
Finally Easton says:

Authoritative allocation requires the existence of a well-defined organization
called government. In the opinion of Easton, the subject which deals with the
authoritative allocation of values can conveniently be called political science. The
study includes policy, authority, society and government. These concepts
enunciated by Easton are so linked that they cannot be separated from each
other.
Elements of Politics according to Easton

Easton identified the components of his definition of politics in which a complex
interactions take place.
Inputs
Inputs are demands and supports that are fed into the political system. Demands
can be anything that citizens and groups in society would want or ask their
governments to provide or to respond to. These could be demands for jobs or
employment, better transport system, clean air and water, high wages,
healthcare, education, etc. Supports, on the other hand, take the form of a
favorable political environment characterized by the presence of enabling laws
and rules, openness of the political system, public support, etc.
Outputs
Outputs are decision and policies that result out of the political system. Outputs
do not only take the form of actual decisions and specific policies. Outputs could
also mean no decision or no action to be taken by the government.
Environment
The environment, both internal and external, shape how demands and supports
get fed into the system and how the system processes them into decisions and

policies. While the political system has the right and discretion to screen
demands and to process only the most urgent and salient, it cannot avoid being
influenced by developments within and outside its own territory. Unless the
political system is authoritarian, wherein the government is in total control of the
reins of power within the society, the incumbent government must heed to public
opinion. Otherwise, it will invite opposition and resistance from forces inside and
outside the political environment.
The internal environment refers to the actual geopolitical, physical, and territorial
boundaries of the state within which the political system belongs. These
geopolitical boundaries are legally and rightfully recognized inside and outside of
the state. The external environment refers to the confluence of foreign influences,
forces, and dynamics that lie beyond the boundaries of the state. Actors,
institutions, rules, policies, and dynamics within and outside the state are capable
of shaping the kind of inputs that are fed into the political system, whether inputs
get into the political system, this kind of outputs that come out of the political
system, and the feedback mechanisms.
Feedback Loop
The feedback loop serves as the means to communicate to the political system the
response of the public or the larger society to the decisions and policy outputs of
the government. If the public is satisfied, then there is or there could be no
further action. Otherwise, if the larger society is not satisfied with the system
output, then a new input, that is a new demand and support enter the political
system, and start the process all over again.
It is important to note that not all demands get fed into the political system. Only
demands have supports and when demands become issues that merit
government’s resources and response that the political system processes them.
Also, demands and supports can also come from within the political system itself
and not just from the broader society outside of the political system.
Public officials and authorities, elected or appointed, can propose policies and
certain courses of actions which they think can address problems or issues that
affect sectors of the whole society. That is what happens when members of the
Philippine Senate and House of Representatives themselves make the initiative
for legislative proposals for the Philippine Congress to pass, amend or repeal
laws.
Maintain a Level of Equilibrium

The political system could suffer from a system breakdown when too much
demands and supports enter the political system. When the system breaks down,
it can elicit negative reactions from the larger society, and may lead to public
dissatisfaction of the state’s performance resulting further to opposition and even
rebellion or revolution.
Avoiding a system breakdown is one of the reasons why the political system must
be decisive on the kinds of demands that enter the political system. The political
system needs to maintain a level of equilibrium where it can balance what gets in
and what gets out without putting much pressure on itself. Otherwise, a system
breakdown is inevitable.
But how does the political system screen, filter, and decide which demands are
urgent and salient? What, or more precisely, who determines the urgency and
salience of the demands and issues?

ENVIRONMENT
Demands
OUTPUTS
THE
INPUTS
Decisions
POLITICAL
Support and Actions
SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENT
Figure 2. A simplified model of the political system.
All political systems share certain characteristics. The model above suggests that
all political systems function within the context of political cultures, which consist
of traditions, values, and common knowledge. It assumes citizens have
expectations of and place demands on the political system, but they also support
the system in various ways: They may participate in government, vote, or simply
obey the laws of the state. The demands they make and supports they provide in
turn influence the government’s decisions, edicts, laws, and orders.
From Easton’s definition of politics as “the authoritative allocation of values for a

society,” one can get a sense of complexity of decision-making process. It is a
process that is characterized by a scarcity of resources, an unevenness of the
political field, the problem of distribution, as well as the neor a legitimate
authority to decide what can be done, for whom or for whose benefits and why.
The complexity of political decision-making is succinctly captured by Lasswell’s
account of the study of politics as the “the study of influence and the influential.”
POLITICS AS “WHO GETS WHAT, WHEN, AND HOW”:

POLITICS AS POWER IN PRACTICE
In his seminal work, Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How, Lasswell defined
the influential as “those who get the most of what there is to get, “for instance, in
terms of values such as “deference, income, and safety.” According to him, “those
who get the most are elite; the rest are mass.”
Understood in this way, politics functions like a

battlefield or battle ground where political
actors try to subdue each other by any means to
get what they want or the most of what they can
get, either for public good or private gain. It is
competitive such that some end as winners and
reign supreme while others lose and join the
ranks of the opposition or the mass.
HAROLD LASSWELL It is important to understand the temporal

nature of dynamics of politics. The elite can only exercise its influence only up to
a point where it can defend itself from any attempts, organized or not, that

contest and challenge them and their influence. Otherwise, they can be ousted
from public office or any other position of “power” that they may occupy and will
be replaced by the contenders or anyone who strategically benefits from
takeover or change.
In the Philippines, the pervasiveness of political dynasties in politics helps us to

understand how the elite in society can perpetuate its influence in the society for
as long as it wants. The primordial cultural importance of kinship affiliation in
Philippine society and the lack of political dynasties help explain the
perpetuation and resilience of political dynasties in the Philippines.
To quote Alfred McCoy, in society that lacks interest groups organized as

persistent voting blocks based on categories such as class, religion, ethnicity, or
ideology, families are the units that compete for power within a local area and
combine into ever-changing factions.” In the Philippines, family has evolved into
a strong social force that did not only undermine good governance but also the
development of a sense of community outside of the family among Filipinos.
The primacy of family loyalties and resilience of political dynasties in Philippine

politics have resulted in unfavorable outcomes that advantage a few and
discriminate against the many. Aggravating the country’s highly skewed
distribution of wealth and power, political dynasties have led to a personalized
system of political and corporate relationships that easily lead to corruption.
For instance, family loyalties and political dynasties encourage nepotism and
favoritism norms in government, individual conservatism in decision-making
where the emphasis is put on preserving family wealth and status, as well as
political patronage that hinders the formation of real class consciousness among
Filipinos and class- or interest group-focused legislation.
These unfavorable consequences and outcomes have become the source of

popular disenchantment with political dynasties in the country, and most often,
have rendered the country’s politics in a bad light. Too bad such that any
mention of politics could make anyone cringe and feel sick!

POLITICS AS PUBLIC AFFAIRS
“[ ]
.
”
-HANNAH ARENDT (1958)
,
…” ’ ,
.”
-SOME LIBERAL THEORISTS
In modern time the politics is treated with a very broader outlook and it is seen
primarily as public affairs. Its chief concern is to meet the demands of public
affairs. The advocates of this conception prefer to divide the affairs of the society
into two broad categories—public and private.
The business of politics is to maintain various types of public affairs and for that
purpose it enacts laws, implements them and when necessary applies physical
force. This conception leads us to make a distinction in the social affairs between
public and private. The state, as the highest political organization, is concerned
with the public affairs.
But this does not mean that it does not see any interest in the private affairs. It
must see that the private affairs and their management do not affect the general
interest of the community.
Public and Private and their Difference

Private affairs dwell within the areas of life where individuals do manage and
decide for themselves as in cultural, artistic, personal, economic, social, and
domestic spheres. In general sense, they may represent the civil society. Civil
society is a term that describes institutions or organizations that are private in
that they are essentially independent from the state in the attainment of their
purpose. Edmund Burke called civil society as little platoons within the entire
and huge structure of political organization.
Table 1
Public and private affairs
Public Private
Civil Society:
The State: autonomous bodies like
apparatus of government businesses, trade unions, clubs,
families, and so on.
Public realm:
Personal realm:
politics, commerce, work, art,
family and domestic life
culture, and so on.
The term public refers to the apparatuses or institutions of the government that
are directly involved in the conduct of state and political affairs. They are

responsible for the collective organization of community life. They are basically
peddled by public finance generated through different means of taxation. Civil
society groups (clubs, families, businesses, and so on) are private in the sense
that they are set up and funded by individual members to cater for their interests.
Politics therefore is a public activity where people may directly and continuously
participate in the political life within the realm of the formal institutions or
structures of the state (branches of government, the police, social welfare system,
the army and so forth) and through other various channels with which they
partake interests bargaining in the struggle to promote their ends.
POLITICS AS CONSENSUS AND COMPROMISE

This particular aspect of politics is seen as very important because in any state
there inhabit different individuals. Within the geographical area of the state there
are many institutions, agencies and organizations. Sometimes the purposes of
these run counter to those of these state and this gives rise to conflict. In every
state there are organizations whose functions is to resolve any conflict.
Consensus
Consensus means agreement of the people in a class or group that characterizes
the balancing of interests in order to advance a collective purpose to promote
their welfare. Understanding consensus is viewed in two contexts. First,
consensus is an agreement of varying classes, groups, or individuals. Second,
consensus is also a disagreement among contesting parties. The appreciation of
the term consensus breeds therefore the concept consensus politics.
Towards this end, politics works to complement or compromise conflicting views

in a rather acceptable tenor. Consensus politics is coined to mean in two facets:
(a) procedural consensus and (b) substantive consensus. Procedural consensus is
the willingness to make decisions through consultation and bargaining, either
between political parties or between government and major interests.
Substantive consensus refers to an overlap of two ideological positions of two or
more political parties, reflected in agreement about fundamental policy goals.
Compromise
Compromise exists when two or more opposing parties agree to bend their self-
interests in favor of a common goal. A party is not only a receiver, but is also a
giver. When there is mutuality in an organization and when members agree to
sacrifice some of their objectives in favor of another, there is compromise as the
other party bound to concede to the other ends.
Remember that…
Disputes and their settlement do not form the core of any political analysis because
to view politics as simply the manifestation of conflicts is wrong. It is also the
bounden duty of any authority to see that cooperation among individuals and
institution comes to be a salient feature. To arrive at it, the political organization
must create a congenial atmosphere.
This is no doubt an uphill task but the state cannot deny its responsibility.
However, when the state adopts its scheme ensures an atmosphere of
cooperation that becomes a part of political science. Cooperation among the
citizens may create a peaceful situation and conflict may not be frequent. Even

after that disputes may exist and it is the duty of state authority to find out
compromise formula or to help the parties to the dispute to arrive at consensus.
:
1. What is politics? Explain it using the arena and process approaches
2. What is the difference between government and governance?
3. What does it mean when politics is defined:
a. as about governing;
b. as “the authoritative allocation of values for a society”;
c. as “who gets what, when, and how”;
d. as public affairs; and
e. as consensus and compromise?
4. What is the ultimate and defining purpose of politics? Explain.
:
1. Why is politics important?
2. Is it enough to define politics as “the art and science of government”? Why or why not?
3. As a PhilPolGov learner, you have now the basic knowledge of politics. Give at least three ways that you can
do to inculcate in the minds of people its real essence.

THE POJ: BASIC CONCEPTS OF POLITICS

Like other disciplines, political science has a lexicon and language all its own. We start our language lesson with
three words that carry a great deal of political freight: power, order, and justice.
Power
- .
,
.
,
,
.
, ;
.
-TREVOR MUNROE (2002)
Power is the currency of all politics. Without power, no government can make
and enforce laws, provide security, regulate the economy, conduct foreign
policy, or wage war. There are many kinds of power. In this text, we are
interested in political power. The means of coercion play an important role in
politics, but political power cannot be equated with force. Indeed, the sources
of power are many and varied. A large population, a booming economy, a
politics cohesive society, and wise leadership—all are examples of quite different
power sources.
power
The capacity to influence or control the behavior of persons
and institutions, whether by persuasion or coercion.
We often define power in terms of national wealth or military spending.

We once called the most formidable states Great Powers; now we call them
superpowers. Power defined in this way is tangible and measurable. Critics of
this classical view make a useful distinction between “hard power” and “soft
power.” Hard power refers to the means and instruments of brute force or
coercion, primarily military and economic clout. Soft power is “attractive,” rather
than coercive: the essence of soft power is “the important ability to get others
to want what you want.”
Power is never equally distributed. Yet the need to concentrate power in

the hands of a few inevitably raises three big questions: Who wields power? In
whose interests? And to what ends?
The most basic question of all is “Who rules?” Sometimes we have only to
look at a nation’s constitution and observe the workings of its government to
find the answer. But it may be difficult to determine who really rules when the
government is cloaked in secrecy or when, as is often the case, informal patterns
of power are very different from textbook diagrams.
The terms power and authority are often confused and even used
interchangeably. In reality, they denote two distinct dimensions of politics.
According to Mao Zedong, the late Chinese Communist Party leader, “Political
power flows from the barrel of a gun.” Political power is clearly associated with
the means of coercion (the regular police, secret police, and the army), but power

can also flow from wealth, personal charisma, ideology, religion, and many
other sources, including the moral standing of a particular individual or group
in society.
Authority, by definition, flows not only (or even mainly) from the barrel of a
gun, but it also flows from norms that society accepts and even cherishes. These
norms are moral, spiritual, and legal codes of behavior or good conduct. Thus,
authority implies legitimacy—a condition in which power is exercised through
established institutions. Note this definition does not mean, nor is it meant to
imply, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government possible. Any
government that enjoys the consent of the governed is legitimate—including a
monarchy, military dictatorship, or theocracy.
authority
Command of the obedience of society’s members by a
government.
legitimacy
The exercise of political power in a community in a way that
is voluntarily accepted by the members of that community.
legitimate authority
The legal and moral right of a government to rule over a
specific population and control a specific territory;
the term legitimacy usually implies a widely recognized
claim of governmental authority and voluntary acceptance
on the part of the population(s) directly affected
The acid test of legitimate authority is not whether people have the right
to vote or to strike or dissent openly, but how much value people attach to
these rights. If a majority of the people are content with the existing political
order just as it is (with or without voting rights), the legitimacy of the ruler(s)
is simply not in question. But, as history amply demonstrates, it is possible
to seize power and to rule without a popular mandate or public approval,
without moral, spiritual, or legal justification—in other words, without true
(legitimate) authority.
Claiming authority is useless without the means to enforce it. The right
to rule—a condition that minimizes the need for repression—hinges in large
part on legitimacy or popularity. Legitimacy and popularity go hand in hand.
Illegitimate rulers are unpopular rulers. Such rulers are faced with a choice:
relinquish power or repress opposition. Whether repression works depends, in
turn, on the answer to three questions. First, how widespread and determined is
the opposition? Second, does the government have adequate financial resources
and coercive capabilities to defeat its opponents and deter future challenges?
Third, does the government have the will to use all means necessary to defeat
the rebellion?
If the opposition is broadly based and the government waivers for whatever
reason, repression is likely to fail. Regimes changed in Russia in 1917 and 1992
following failed attempts to crush the opposition. Two other examples include
Cuba in 1958, where Fidel Castro led a successful revolution, and Iran in 1978,
where a mass uprising led to the shah’s overthrow. A similar pattern was evident
in many East European states in 1989, when repressive communist regimes
collapsed like so many falling dominoes.
If people respect the ruler(s) and play by the rules without being forced to
do so (or threatened with the consequences), the task of maintaining order and
stability in society is going to be much easier. It stands to reason that people
who feel exploited and oppressed make poorly motivated workers. The perverse

work ethic of Soviet-style dictatorships, where it was frequently said, “We

pretend to work and they pretend to pay us,” helps explain the decline and
fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, dramatized by the
spontaneous tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989
Order
Order exists on several levels. First, it denotes structures, rules, rituals,
procedures, and practices that make up the political system embedded in every
society.
order
In a political context, refers to an existing or desired
arrangement of institutions based on certain principles
such as liberty, equality, prosperity, and security. Also
often associated with the rule of law (as in the phrase
‘‘law and order’’) and with conservative values such as
stability, obedience, and respect for legitimate authority.
What exactly is society? In essence, society is an aggregation of individuals who

share a common identity. Usually that identity is at least partially defined by
geography, because people who live in close proximity often know
each other, enjoy shared experiences, speak the same language, and have similar
values and interests. The process of instilling a sense of common purpose or
creating a single political allegiance among diverse groups of people is complex
and works better from the bottom up than from the top down. The breakup
of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, after more than seven
decades as multinational states, suggests new communities are often fragile and
tend to fall apart quickly if no strong cultural and psychological bonds exist
under the political structures.
society
An aggregation of individuals who share a common
identity. Usually, because people who live in close proximity
often know each other, enjoy shared experiences, speak the
same language, and have similar values and interests.
The idea that individuals become a cohesive community through an

unwritten social contract has been fundamental to Western political thought
since the seventeenth century. Basic to social contract theory is the notion that
theorists, can be known through a combination of reason and observation. A
corollary of this theory is that whenever government turns oppressive, when it
arbitrarily takes away such natural rights as life, liberty, and (perhaps) property,
the people have a right to revolt.
social contract
A concept in political theory most often associated with
Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke,
the social contract is an implicit agreement among
individuals to form a civil society and accept certain moral
and political obligations essential to its preservation.
Government is a human invention by which societies are ruled and binding

rules are made. Given the rich variety of governments in the world, how might we
categorize them all? Traditionally we’ve distinguished between republics, in
which sovereignty ultimately resides in the people, and governments such as
monarchies or tyrannies, in which sovereignty (see below) rests with the rulers.
Today, almost all republics are democratic (or representative) republics,
meaning political systems wherein elected representatives responsible to the
people exercise sovereign power.

Some political scientists draw a simple distinction between democracies, which

hold free elections, and dictatorships, which do not. Others emphasize political
economy, distinguishing between governments enmeshed in capitalist or market-
based systems and governments based on socialist or state-regulated systems.
Finally, governments in developing countries face different kinds of challenges
than do governments in developed countries. Not surprisingly, more
economically developed countries often have markedly more well-established
political institutions—including political parties, regular elections, civil and
criminal courts—and more stable political systems than most less developed
countries.
government
The persons and institutions that make and enforce rules or
laws for the larger community
basic types and forms of government
 monarchy
Refers to a government ruled by a single person. A
monarch rule with the help of a bureaucracy
composed of ministers, court officials, and local
governors. A monarchy whose rule is defined and
limited by a constitution is called a constitutional
monarchy.
 aristocracy or oligarchy
Refers to the rule by a small group of people.
During the medieval period, the nobility
established an aristocracy where only those
belonging to the political and social elite had the
right to govern.
 direct democracy
Refers to the rule of people who directly
participate in all government activities. It is said
to be based on the ancient Athenian form of
government (Joven, 2017).
 representative or republican democracy

An innovation introduced by the Romans, where
citizens elect representatives who will defend
their interests in the government (Joven, 2017);
A form of government in which sovereignty
resides in the people of that country, rather than
with the rulers. The vast majority of republics
today are democratic or representative republics,
meaning that sovereign power is exercised by
elected representatives who are responsible to
the citizenry (Magstadt, 2013).
At present, republican democracy is the most
popular form of government throughout the
world.

The widely recognized forms and systems of democratic

governments at present are based on the means by which
power is distributed among the leaders and institutions of
government.
 presidential system
Recognizes the president as the highest official
and head of the executive branch (this branch
exists separately from legislative branch); have
legislatures organized based on a congressional
system (can be unicameral or bicameral).
 parliamentary system
Characterized by close relationship between the
executive and legislative branches; headed by a
prime minister and his or her cabinet who are
chosen among the ranks of legislators in the
parliament.
 presidential-parliamentary system
Combination of the two above-mentioned
systems; the president is elected by the citizens;
the president appoints a prime minister and his or
cabinet from the members of the legislative
branch.
 federal government
Composed of individual states with their own
democratic governments that come together as
federation; there is a clear division of power
between the federal government and the member
states.
Certain states adopt unique combinations of the different

types of government. For example, the United Kingdom is a
constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government.
The United States is a federal government that has a
presidential system. South Africa has a unique presidential-
parliamentary government where the President is both
head of state and head of government and is elected by
members of the parliament.
When we consider the government as a formal, structured

entity through which the state exercises its will, it is
understood to be formed according to what is prescribed or
mandated by the constitution, organic laws, or traditional
customs of a state. A constitution is a set of primary
principles and laws that define what government the people
intends to establish. It guides the government as it rules the
state.
In the modern world, the state is the sole repository of sovereignty. A sovereign
state is a community with well-defined territorial boundaries administered
by a single government capable of making and enforcing laws. In addition, the
state typically claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force; raises armies
for the defense of its territory and population; levies and collects taxes; regulates
trade and commerce; establishes courts, judges, and magistrates to settle

disputes and punish lawbreakers; and sends envoys (ambassadors) to represent

its interests abroad, negotiate treaties, and gather useful information. Entities
that share some but not all of the characteristics of states include fiefdoms
and chiefdoms, bands and tribes, universal international organizations (such
as the United Nations), and regional supranational organizations (such as the
European Union).
state
In its sovereign form, an independent political-
administrative unit that successfully claims the allegiance
of a given population, exercises a monopoly on the
legitimate use of coercive force, and controls the territory
inhabited by its citizens or subjects; in its other common
form, a state is the major political-administrative
subdivision of a federal system.
sovereign
A government’s capacity to assert supreme power
successfully in a political state.
country
As a political term, it refers loosely to a sovereign state and
is roughly equivalent to ‘‘nation’’ or ‘‘nation-state’’; country
is often used as a term of endearment—for example, in the
phrase ‘‘my country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty’’ in the
patriotic song every U.S. child learns in elementary school;
in the Philippines, we use to refer to our country as the
Perlas ng Silangan; country has an emotional dimension not
present in the word state.
In the language of politics, state usually means country. France, for example,
may be called either a state or a country. (In certain federal systems of
government, a state is an administrative subdivision such as New York, Florida,
Texas, or California in the United States; however, such states within a state are
not sovereign.)
The term nation is also a synonym for state or country. Thus, the only way
to know for certain whether state means part of a country (for example, the
United States) or a whole country (say, France or China) is to consider the
context. By the same token, context is the key to understanding what we mean
by the word nation.
nation
Often interchangeable with state or country; in common
usage, this term actually denotes a specific people with a
distinct language and culture or a major ethnic group—for
example, the French, Dutch, Chinese, and Japanese people
each constitute a nation, as well as a state, hence the term
nation-state.
A nation is made up of a distinct group of people who share a common

background, including geographic location, history, racial or ethnic
characteristics, religion, language, culture, or belief in common political ideas.
Geography heads this list because members of a nation typically exhibit a strong
collective sense of belonging associated with a particular territory for which they
are willing to fight and die if necessary.
Countries with relatively homogeneous populations (with great similarity

among members) were most common in old Europe, but this once-defining
characteristic of European nation-states is no longer true. The recent influx

of newcomers from former colonial areas, in particular the Muslim-majority

countries of North Africa, the Arab world, and South Asia, and post-Cold War
east-west population movements in Europe has brought the issue of immigration
to the forefront of politics in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain,
Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and even the Scandinavian countries. Belgium,
on the other hand, provides a rare example of a European state divided culturally
and linguistically (French-speaking Walloons and Dutch-speaking Flemish)
from the start.
India, Russia, and Nigeria are three highly diverse states. India’s constitution
officially recognizes no fewer than eighteen native tongues! The actual number
spoken is far larger. As a nation of immigrants, the United States is also very
diverse, but the process of assimilation eventually brings the children of
newcomers, if not the newcomers themselves, into the mainstream.
The nation-state is a state encompassing a single nation in which the

overwhelming majority of the people form a dominant in-group who share
common cultural, ethnic, and linguistic characteristics, and all others are part of a
distinct out-group or minority. This concept is rooted in a specific time and
place—that is, in modern Western Europe. The concept of the nation-state fits
less comfortably in other regions of the world, where the political boundaries of
sovereign states—many of which were European colonies before World War II—
often do not coincide with ethnic or cultural geography. In some instances,
ethnic, religious, or tribal groups that were bitter traditional enemies were
thrown together in new “states,” resulting in societies prone to great instability
or even civil war.
nation-state
A geographically defined community administered by a
government.
Decolonization after World War II gave rise to many polyglot states in which
various ethnic or tribal groups were not assimilated into the new social order.
Many decades later, the all-important task of nation-building in these new
states is still far from finished. Thus, in 1967, Nigeria plunged into a vicious
civil war when one large ethnic group, the Igbo, tried unsuccessfully to secede
and form an independent state called Biafra. In 1994, Rwanda witnessed one of
the bloodiest massacres in modern times when the numerically superior Hutus
slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, including women and children. In
early 2008, tribal violence in Kenya’s Rift Valley and beyond claimed the lives
of hundreds of innocent people following the outcome of a presidential election
that many believed was rigged.
nation-building
The process of forming a common identity based on the
notion of belonging to a political community separate and
distinct from all others; often the concept of “nation” is
based on common ethnolinguistic roots
In India, where Hindus and Muslims frequently clash and sporadic violence
breaks out among militant Sikhs in Punjab and where hundreds of languages
and dialects are spoken, characterizing the country as a nation-state misses the
point altogether. In Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), Hindu Tamils long waged a
terrorist guerrilla war against the majority Singhalese, who are Buddhist. Even
in the Slavic-speaking parts of Europe, age-old ethnic rivalries have caused the
break up of preexisting states. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia
are all multinational states that self-destructed in the 1990s.
Finally, stateless nations, such as the Palestinians and Kurds, share a sense
of common identity but have no homeland. The existence of these nations

without states has created highly volatile situations, most notably in the
Middle East.
stateless nation
People (or nations) who are scattered over the territory of
several states or dispersed widely and who have no
autonomous, independent, or sovereign governing
body of their own; examples of stateless nations include the
Kurds, Palestinians, and Tibetans (see also nation).
Justice
We willingly accept the rule of the few over the many only if the public interest—
or common good—is significantly advanced in the process. The concept of justice
is no less fundamental than power in politics, and it is essential to a stable
order. Is power exercised fairly, in the interest of the ruled, or merely for the
sake of the rulers? For more than 2,000 years, political observers have
maintained the distinction between the public-spirited exercise of political
power, on the one hand, and self-interested rule, on the other. This distinction
attests to the importance of justice in political life.
justice
Fairness; the distribution of rewards and burdens in society
in accordance with what is deserved.
Not all states and regimes allow questions of justice to be raised; in fact,
throughout history, most have not. Even today, some governments brutally and
systematically repress political dissent because they fear the consequences.
Often, criticism of how a government rules implicitly or explicitly raises questions
about its moral or legal right to rule. One of the most important measures of
liberty is the right to question whether the government is acting justly.
Questions about whether a particular ruler is legitimate or a given policy is

desirable stem from human nature itself. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–
322 BCE) observed that human beings alone use reason and language
“to declare what is advantageous and what is just and unjust.” Therefore, “it is the
peculiarity of man, in comparison with the rest of the animal world, that he alone
possess a perception of good and evil, of the just and unjust.”
The same human faculties that make moral judgment possible also make political
literacy—the ability to think and speak intelligently about politics—necessary. In
other words, moral judgment and political literacy are two sides of the same coin.
political literacy
the ability to think and speak intelligently about politics.

LESSON 2. THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY ABOUT POLITICS

“ .”
-DAVID EASTON
“ , , .
, .
-ELLEN GRIGSBY (2009)
HOW TO STUDY POLITICS
Aristotle is the father of political science. He not only wrote about politics and
ethics, but he also described different political systems and suggested a scheme
for classifying and evaluating them. For Aristotle, political science simply meant
political investigation; thus, a political scientist was one who sought, through
systematic inquiry, to understand the truth about politics. In this sense,
Aristotle’s approach to studying politics more than 2,000 years ago has much in
common with what political scientists do today. Yet the discipline has changed a
great deal since Aristotle’s time.
There is no consensus on how best to study politics. Political scientists can

and do choose among different approaches, ask different kinds of questions,
and address different audiences. This fact is often a source of some dismay
within the discipline, but it is hardly surprising and probably unavoidable given
the vast universe of human activity the study of politics encompasses. Let us
explore why and how contemporary political scientists study politics.
FOR WHAT PURPOSES?
Some of the most important questions in politics are “should” and “ought”
questions, the kind scientists seeking objective truth tend to avoid. These are the
great normative political questions that resonate throughout human history:
When is war justified? Do people have a right to revolt? Is the right to life
absolute? Does everyone have a right to liberty? Is state repression ever justified?
Is official secrecy? What about censorship? Do citizens have a right to privacy?
Some issues lend themselves to empirical analysis more than others.

Studying elections can reveal flaws in the voting process—skewed voting
districts or impediments to voter registration, for example—and lead to
appropriate changes or reforms such as redistricting or switching from written
ballots to voting machines. Opinion polls help leaders gauge the mood of the
public and better understand the effect of government policies.
The answers to many basic issues in politics, however, can only be discovered
through intelligent thought—reason, logic, and philosophical discourse.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

In 1971, university students were invited by Stanford Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo to participate in an
experiment. All the students were in good mental and physical condition, all were well-adjusted (for example, none had a
record of criminal or disorderly conduct), and all were male. Professor Zimbardo was interested in exploring the
interactions between individuals in situations wherein some had authority over others; to accomplish this objective, he set
up a mock prison in the basement of the Psychology Department and he randomly assigned some of the student
participants to be ‘‘guards’’ in this prison and others to be ‘‘inmates.’’ He intended for the experiment to last 2 weeks.
However, by the end of the second day, guards were acting aggressively toward inmates. By the fifth day, guards were
forcing inmates to surrender their clothing, to wear head coverings, to endure sleep deprivation, and to submit to sexual
humiliation. Upon the urging of a former graduate student, Professor Zimbardo called an end to the experiment after 6
days rather than allow the physical, sexual, and verbal taunts to continue.
In 2007, Professor Zimbardo reflected on this experiment. He shared his conviction that his research could offer insights
into the abuses that had taken place at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq and that had been revealed to the public in
2004; at Abu Ghraib, a group of U.S. military and intelligence agency personnel engaged in acts of physical abuse and
sexual humiliation of Iraqi detainees. In the Stanford prison experiment, Professor Zimbardo explained, students
succumbed to situational cues (for example, acting the role of ‘‘guard’’ over submissive ‘‘inmates’’ in a pretend-prison)
permitting of abusive behavior after only a few days; consider how much stronger the temptation toward aggressive
action against submissive populations in an actual prison facility under the stress of war
could become, Professor Zimbardo noted. Science—in this case, a social science experiment—revealed uncomfortable
truths about human psychology, truths relevant to both citizens and political leaders struggling to understand how Abu
Ghraib could have happened.
If Professor Zimbardo is correct—if science can provide reliable information about the ease with which power can be
abused by otherwise ‘‘good’’ people— should science be accorded special claims to authority when studying politics?
Should those investigating the political world scientifically have a greater voice than others on matters pertaining to
politics? If scientists make claims to having a reliable and disinterested expertise, should you believe them?
The Range of Political Science: Historical Developments

Political science often traces its beginnings to ancient Greece and the teachings of
political thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Political science as an
academic field, however, is much newer. In the United States, the first political
science department was organized at Columbia University in 1880, and in 1903
the American Political Science Association was formed. At the turn of the
twentieth century, probably no more than a couple of hundred people in the
entire United States thought of themselves as political scientists.3 In fact, fewer
than 500 doctoral degrees in political science were awarded between 1936 and
1942, a number all the more striking when one realizes that—according to the
U.S. Department of Education—more than 600 PhDs in Political Science were
recently awarded in a single year (2003–2004).
From these beginnings, political science has developed different subfields

(areas of specialization) and research methods, and the discipline has grown to
include more than 14,000 political scientists in the American Political Science
Association (APSA) alone. In 2007, approximately 10 percent of APSA members
resided outside of North America. Some political scientists focus on studying
normative issues (issues involving value judgments and ethics), others
concentrate on empirical (observable and factual) investigations, and still others
study both. Whatever the focus, political science begins by asking questions. Why
do people vote as they do? Why are some people conservative and others not?
Why are some interest groups more successful than others? Does money buy
elections? Are U.S. elections fair? The subject matter of politics is varied and
complex, and political science is no less so. In this lesson, we will see that political
scientists use a wide range of research methods and analytical approaches.

Traditionalism
In its early years, political science generally involved the analysis of the formal,
legal, official side of political life. This approach is known as traditionalism.
Traditionalists tried to understand politics by examining laws, governmental
offices, constitutions, and other official institutions associated with politics; they
tried to describe how institutions operated by formal rules and publicly
sanctioned procedures. A traditionalist, for example, who wished to understand
the U.S. Supreme Court might study the official rules the Court followed in
making judicial decisions, or, perhaps, the formal/legal basis of the Court’s
authority as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
Traditionalists often tended to focus on what was going on inside government as

opposed to looking at social and economic processes in the country.
Traditionalist approaches were often both historical and normative: historical in
outlining the processes by which the formal rules of politics were modified over
time through court decisions, laws, executive orders, and the like, and normative
in the sense of hoping to provide information for improving these rules.
Although traditionalist approaches are still present in political science research,
additional approaches have supplemented traditionalism.
Behavioralism
Behavioralism is one alternative to traditionalism. Behavioralism became
popular in political science after World War II. The roots of behavioralist
political science have been traced back to the 1920s and the works of political
scientists such as Charles Merriam. Merriam asserted the usefulness of looking at
the actual behavior of politically involved individuals and groups, not only the
formal/legal rules by which those individuals and groups were supposed to
abide. Thus, a behavioralist approach to the study of Congress might include
an examination of how members of Congress actually behave in their positions.
For example, a behavioralist might ask the following type of question: How
much time is devoted by members of Congress to such tasks as writing laws,
interacting with lobbyists, raising money for reelection, giving speeches, studying
domestic issues, attending committee and subcommittee meetings, casting votes,
meeting with foreign dignitaries, and the like? The behavioralist, therefore, is less
interested in how Congress looks officially ‘‘on paper’’ (for example, what the
U.S. Constitution says about Congress) and more interested in how Congress
becomes an arena of actions, the origins and motivations of which may be found
outside the formal sphere of government. That is, a behavioralist may look for
informal sources of power emanating from economics, ethnic cleavages, and
social relationships. Thus, to a behavioralist, traditionalist approaches, focused
so exclusively on government per se, were inadequate for understanding the
larger context of political life.
Behavioralist approaches stress the importance of empirical analysis.

Behavioralists ask: How better to study behavior than through careful
observation of specific actions? Indeed, behavioralism is almost synonymous
with empiricism, according to many political scientists. Empiricism is a means of
collecting data based on observation. From an empirical standpoint, X is a fact ifX
is observed. Behavioralists often favor statistical, mathematical, and economic
models of analysis, insofar as they allow for a more minute empirical
investigation of phenomena than would be provided by assessing the content of
constitutions, laws, and governmental procedures. Given its focus on empiricism,
behavioralism tends to reject historical analysis, finding little reason to explore
the past (for interpretations, insights, and opinions on matters of politics) when
observation is viewed as the most reliable route to knowledge. The empirical
orientation toward the analysis of what is (observable) also stands in contrast to
an orientation that asks what should be. Indeed, one of the defining attributes of
behavioralism is its rejection of the normative questions associated with
traditionalism. A behavioralist studying Congress does not ask how a senator or

representative should act. Rather, a behavioralist examines how a senator or

representative does act.
Postbehavioralism
Postbehavioralism is an alternative to both traditionalism and behavioralism. In
1969, David Easton announced that a postbehavioral orientation had
arrived in political science. What had inspired it? Easton was very explicit in his
answer: Postbehavioralism emerged as a reaction against the empirical
orientation of behavioralism by political scientists who found such an orientation
excessive and irresponsible. Empiricism, if taken to the extremes of denying the
importance of values and ethics and encouraging a narrowing of research
questions to only those matters self-evidently observable, could undermine
political science. In such cases, postbehavioralists warned, political science would
produce data that were scientifically reliable (empirically observed) but
irrelevant. Moreover, postbehavioralists asserted that behavioralism is not truly
value free because it implicitly affirms that understanding comes from
observation, not ethical assessments. Behavioralism is not in opposition to
values, but is itself a value statement, insofar as it upholds as reliable what is
observable and distrusts as unreliable what is intuited as ethical or moral. In
other words, behavioralism values the observable and devalues the
unobservable. Thus, if the postbehavioralists are correct, behavioralism is as
normative as traditionalism.
Postbehavioralists argue that political science should be relevant as well as

empirically reliable, and that the information produced by political science has
ethical implications. Easton tried to remind political scientists that political
phenomena were often matters of life and death—matters pertaining to war,
population growth, environmental degradation, and racial and ethnic conflict.
Political scientists have a responsibility to acknowledge that what they choose to
investigate through the empirical methods of political science and what they
discover by means of these methods affect the lives of women and men.
We can see the influence of postbehavioralism in Lucius J. Barker’s presidential
address to the APSA in 1993. Barker challenged political scientists to be
engaged citizens, actively taking part in reforming their own societies. Barker
specifically recommended that political scientists promote civil rights for all
citizens through such measures as the recruitment of African-Americans into
the discipline of political science. Note the remarkable difference between
Barker’s view of the responsibilities of the political scientist and the view of the
behavioralists who rejected normative judgments. The debates among
traditionalists, behavioralists, and postbehavioralists are important not only for
illustrating the tensions and conflicts within the discipline of political science as it
evolved. These debates are also important in raising questions at the center of
political science today:
 What is the nature of scientific inquiry? How is science different from

ethical and/or religious perspectives on truth?
 How can political science be scientific? How can anyone study complex
political phenomena in a scientific manner? What are the methods of
the scientific study of politics?
 Should science be value free? Will science be corrupted by bias if it is
not value free?
 How relevant is political science? What are other sources of knowledge
about politics?
The questions are difficult ones, and political scientists often disagree on how
best to answer them. In fact, one student of the discipline of political science has
suggested that the discipline’s history has been tragic: Political scientists have
often failed to integrate the demands of science and humanity, falling short of
Easton’s plea for relevance and reliability, even as the discipline has opened up to

include multiple research and analytical approaches. It seems that the historical
debates refuse to die, as we will see as we examine the preceding questions in
greater detail.
THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY: SOME FOUNDATIONS OF

SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
Albert Einstein believed that science creates concepts for elucidating reality.
Scientists search for ways to identify, define, analyze, clarify, and understand the
world. Religion, art, and philosophy also seek to produce languages and models
to make the universe comprehensible. Each of these pursuits—science,
spirituality, religion, art, and philosophy—may be conceptualized as ways of
coming up with names and categories for what is considered to be real.
Spirituality may name as real what is known by faith; some philosophies may
name as real what is known through reason. Science differs from these two
endeavors in terms of what and how it goes about naming phenomena as real,
but, like spirituality and philosophy, science can be thought of as a type of naming
system connecting what we think of as mind and world.
To illustrate this point, we can look to the writings of Phillip Converse. Converse
was president of the APSA in the early 1980s. According to Converse, science
uses names to point to what it sees as truth. That is, science tells us that its names
truly correspond to reality. However, science by its very nature is a process
of continuously renaming and improving on older naming schema. Science is
therefore premised on the understanding that truth, at any particular time, is
incompletely named (and incompletely known). Religion, according to Converse,
is premised on an understanding that there is a truth outside that is capable
of being named by science, even by a science so rigorous as to overcome its own
errors of naming. Converse’s discussion is valuable in highlighting the similarities
of science and religion (both are naming systems), as well as their dissimilarities
(they name different phenomena as real, and they rest on different
understandings of the nature of truth).
Scientific Method
Science names reality by means of a scientific method, a set of procedures
(for gathering information) resting on certain epistemological assumptions.
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that examines evaluations of what
constitutes truth; thus, epistemological assumptions are assumptions about the
essence of truth. Scientific method is characterized by epistemological
empiricism (insofar as it is based on the assumption that what is true is what is
observable). Its procedures reflect this epistemological assumption, for pursuing
truth by means of the scientific method entails the collection of data. The data
selected for collection are the set of data observed (not what is assumed, intuited,
revealed by faith, or judged to be good or bad on normative grounds). In this
manner, scientific method’s epistemological empiricism is reflected in its
methodological (procedural) empiricism. Once collected, the sets of data are
analyzed, and when the analysis leads to assertions concerning the nature of the
data, these assertions are subject to testing. The testing of assertions provides
verification (acceptance of the assertions) or falsification (rejection of the
assertions). Through these steps of data collection, analysis, testing, verification,
and falsification, the scientific method offers explanations of reality. Science’s

explanations are necessarily incomplete and tentative, insofar as they are always
subject to falsification at a later time.
Political scientists use science’s methods to study questions as diverse as the

causes of war and the origins of public opinions. Studying political questions in a
scientific manner often involves the following:
 Formulating hypotheses
 Operationalizing concepts
 Identifying independent and dependent variables
 Clarifying measurement criteria
 Distinguishing between causation and correlation
 Developing scientific theories
Formulating Hypothesis
Formulating a hypothesis can be a key step in the application of the scientific
method to the study of politics. A hypothesis is a statement proposing a specific
relationship between phenomena. A hypothesis puts forward an idea that X and
Y are connected in a certain, identifiable way. An example can help illustrate the
different dimensions of hypothesis formulation. A political scientist may be
intrigued by the following question: Is voting in U.S. elections related to age? The
political scientist may suspect that younger adults are less likely to vote than are
middle-aged adults. This suspicion may be articulated as a hypothetical
statement such as, ‘‘U.S. citizens 18–24 years of age will vote in lower numbers
than will U.S. citizens 45–55 years of age.’’ This hypothesis exemplifies the
definition just noted—two phenomena (age and voting) are posited as having a
specific relationship.
Operationalizing Concepts
Once formulated, hypotheses are tested. Data collection proceeds according
to the logic of the operational definitions contained in the hypothesis. An
operational definition is a definition so precise that it allows for empirical testing.
Unless a hypothesis defines the phenomenon in question precisely enough to
measure that phenomenon, the hypothesis cannot be tested empirically. We
cannot confirm/verify or falsify if we cannot measure degrees of correspondence
between what a hypothesis states as a relationship and what we observe as
actual facts. This is very important because verification often involves multiple
tests of a hypothesis.
For example, ‘‘youth’’ is a general concept. We turn the concept into an

operational definition when we define youth as ‘‘those who are 18–24 years of
age.’’ Once we have thus operationalized ‘‘youth,’’ youth is something that we
can observe with clarity and specificity. We can measure the correspondence
between what we expect to see this group doing (as stated in our hypothesis) and
what we actually see it doing.
Identifying the Variables

and Clarifying Measurement Criteria
Scientists often refer to the phenomena linked together in a hypothesis as
variables. In our example, age is one variable and voting is a second variable. A
variable is something that varies, changes, or manifests itself differently from one
case to another. Independent variables are presented as those that act on or
affect something. Dependent variables are what the hypothesis presents as
being acted on by the independent variable. Which is the independent variable
and which is the dependent in our example? Age is put forth as having an impact
on voting. Age, therefore, is the independent variable, which has an effect on
levels of voting (the dependent variable).

As scientists proceed to test hypotheses (with the operationalized variables),

they must clarify their means of testing, or measuring, the correspondence
between hypothetical relationships and what is observable empirically. This
clarification involves specifying what is taken as an indicator of the variable. An
indicator is evidence. How could we obtain evidence regarding our variable of
voting? We could poll individuals and ask about their voting behavior. Their
responses would provide evidence. As noted, operationalizing concepts and
determining measurement (indicator) criteria are closely related. In our example,
we could change our dependent variable from voting to political participation;
our operationalizations and indicators would also change. How could we
operationalize and identify indicators for political participation? We could poll
individuals and inquire about not only such activities as voting, but also joining
interest groups, identifying with a political party, writing petitions, attending
demonstrations, debating political issues, and the like.
Distinguishing between Correlation and Causation

In addition to testing hypothetical relationships, political science also points
to the importance of understanding the difference between correlation and
causation. Correlation is a relationship in which changes in one variable appear
when there are changes in another variable (for example, lower voting appears
with younger age groups). Correlation is not the same as ultimate, indisputable
causation (one variable absolutely causing or creating the other). Were we to
confirm our hypothesis on age and voting, for instance, we could not say that we
have proven that being age 20 absolutely determines whether someone will vote.
Perhaps additional variables (income, educational level, or mobility) are
associated with this person’s voting behavior. As political scientist Duncan
MacRae, Jr., has noted, there is often an alternative explanation for what we think
we have confirmed. MacRae’s insight points back to the usefulness of Converse’s
assertion—that science can name reality, but only in an incomplete, conditional,
partial, and tentative manner.
Developing Scientific Theories

Scientific research often involves the construction of scientific theories based
on empirically verified hypotheses. Although based on observable data, scientific
theory attempts to transcend the limits of the observable. Scientific theories seek
to offer explanations about why and how correlations occur. In this manner,
scientific theory also seeks to predict.31 For example, after having found a
relationship between age and voting, the political scientist might theorize that
this relationship is related to different mobility patterns among groups. Perhaps
younger people move more often than other groups and do not always register to
vote after moving to new cities. Theory building can be one of the most
interesting aspects of science because it takes the political scientist beyond the
task of merely describing and observing. Descriptions alone may offer little in
the way of meaningful additions to our understanding of politics. Explanations
delving into the why and how of politics seek a more profound level of
understanding. In fact, the search for such explanations can be one of the most
productive sources for generating new hypotheses.
The processes associated with different usages of the scientific method—

hypothesis formulation, operationalization, and so on—can be fascinating.
Political scientist James Rosenau has described his own experience with the
excitement of scientific research by noting the intense anticipation, curiosity, and
expectation one feels while testing hypotheses and seeking out correlations.
Moreover, although the method of science is orderly, often the actual practice of
science is not. The lack of regimentation can be part of the fun. Political scientist
Thomas Dye has described the scientific method as something of an adventure.
Science is not so boring as to be thoroughly predictable because scientists often
encounter the unexpected and the unusual. Rosenau and Dye are not alone in
being surprised by the direction in which science sometimes takes them. Indeed,

one offering of science is the promise of seeing the world differently, of coming to
name and interpret perceptions in ways that may depart radically from our
commonplace assumptions.
In the 1600s, Francis Bacon pointed to this dimension of science by arguing that
science can free us from various ‘‘idols’’ (errors, misconceptions, and distorted
views). Bacon categorized these misconceptions:
 Idols of the marketplace: Errors based on misunderstanding and faulty

communications; errors related to our inexact use of language.
 Idols of the tribe: Errors related to the flaws of human nature; errors
caused by the human tendency to be quick to judge and to be superficial
in our assessments.
 Idols of the den: Errors caused by our inability to see beyond our own
particular surroundings; errors related to our nearsightedness and
proclivity for viewing our particular way of life as the standard for
judging all others.
 Idols of the theater: Errors based on our beliefs in dogmatic teachings;
errors caused by believing in systems of thought characterized by
inflexibility and closed off to questioning and critical analysis.
Bacon’s insights have remained relevant over the centuries. Consider the
following examples of misconceptions assumed by many at the time to be ‘‘facts.’’
In the 1800s, U.S. women who demanded the right to vote were not infrequently
described as abnormal. In short, such women were likely to be seen as freaks. For
example, opponents of women’s suffrage sometimes charged that because such
women were acting like men in terms of wanting to vote, they must be like men
in other ways; they must be, the argument continued, hermaphroditic (half
female and half male). In the same century, a number of scholars misused
Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution to claim that some races were superior
to others. Ernst Haeckel, for one, argued that white Europeans were superior to
other peoples.
These examples illustrate the significance of Bacon’s teachings. Idols can be

powerful—seductive to those who use them in a self-justifying manner and
oppressive to those whose lives are circumscribed by their claims. Idols can form
the basis of a society’s discriminatory treatment of groups deemed unworthy of
equal rights. Idols come in many forms—stereotypes, prejudices, and biases
among them. In contrast, science, with its empiricism and logical methods of
data analysis, can offer an alternative to such distortions.
Thinking Scientifically About Politics

Political scientists use the scientific method in a variety of ways. A political
scientist interested in international politics may wish to find out how countries
become democratic. Or a political scientist may be curious about how U.S.
presidents develop strategies for managing unruly press conferences, or how a
member of Congress can sabotage a bill he or she despises. How could
these questions be answered? Case studies, survey research, experiments, quasi-
experiments, and indirect quantitative analysis are five ways in which political
scientists may investigate and answer these questions (Grigsby, 2009).
Case Studies
A case study is an investigation of a specific phenomenon or entity. A case study
might examine a single country, law, governmental office, war, riot, president,
political decision, or other phenomenon. Case studies have a major benefit over
other research approaches: They allow for in-depth examination of the
phenomenon selected. Because the research focuses on a narrowly defined topic,
the research can be thoroughly detailed in bringing to light all kinds of
information pertaining to that topic. Imagine, for example, the difference

between doing research on a single country as opposed to conducting research

on 50 or 100 countries; using the former method, all the researcher’s time,
energy, and creativity are devoted to a single case and this facilitates uncovering
minute, specific facts, which might be overlooked in the second approach of
dividing the researcher’s efforts across so many countries.
Case studies are not without problems, however. First, a case study alone
does not allow for empirically verified generalizations beyond the entity studied.
It tells us about the particular entity comprising the case but not about other
entities. For example, research about one country may produce information that
does not apply beyond that country. Second, case studies typically examine an
entity or event in a given time period but do not provide data beyond that time
period. In other words, case studies often have a time-bound limitation. For these
reasons, it is difficult to construct scientific theories and to make predictions on
the basis of single case studies.
Still, case studies can provide fascinating information. For example, case studies
of Spanish politics have provided data on the process of building a democratic
society in the aftermath of authoritarianism. Spain had an authoritarian
government, headed by Francisco Franco, from 1939 to 1975. Since 1975,
Spain has democratized its society, replacing the previous dictatorship with
political parties and elections. What makes such an astounding transition
possible?
Studies focusing on Spain have pointed to a number of factors crucial to the

democratization process: Franco’s withdrawal from politics prior to his death
(which made possible the entry into politics of competing political groups), the
existence of a growth-oriented economic structure, the existence of a stable
middle class supportive of democratic processes, and the forging of cross-class
alliances for democratization (such as support for democracy from labor and
management groups in Spanish society). A case study of Spain alone cannot,
however, determine how many of these factors are also associated with
democratization in other countries at other times and how many are unique to
Spain’s democratization.
Case Studies
Suppose you are a political scientist wishing to describe the impact of
poverty on individuals. Surveys, indirect quantitative analysis, experiments,
and case studies could be used. How would you select among these
approaches? If you wish to show depth and intensity, a case study approach
might be the logical choice.
Consider the picture Barbara Robinette Moss presents. In her autobiography,

she describes the following event from her childhood. It was 1962, and she
was living with her mother and six siblings in Eastaboga, Alabama. Her father
had traveled to another town in search of work. Everyday, she and her family
watched for the mail and hoped that money from her father would be
delivered. As days passed and the family’s food and money were used up, her
mother became desperate. At one point, the only food left in the home was a
container of corn and beans. The problem, however, was that this food had
been soaked with pesticides so that the beans and kernels of corn could be
planted as seeds the following spring. The pesticides were highly toxic. The
mother faced a very difficult decision: Should she feed her children poisoned
food or let them continue to go hungry? She decided to use herself as a test
subject. She washed and cooked the beans and corn, ate a portion of them,
and informed her children that they were to observe her for two hours and, if
she turned out to be still alive and well, they too could eat the poisoned food.
In the event that she lost consciousness, they were to call a relative living in
Birmingham and explain what had happened. At the end of two hours, she
felt well, so she offered her kids the remaining beans and corn. Moss recalls
that she and her sisters and brothers took the food gratefully. Their hunger

pains were stronger than their fears of the poison. Their mother read them a
fairy tale while they had the best meal they had eaten in days.
Could impersonal statistics and poll results describe poverty in such vivid
terms? Sometimes case studies not only instruct. They haunt.
SOURCES: Barbara Robinette Moss, Change Me into Zeus’s Daughter (New

York: Scribner’s, 2000), pp. 19–34.
Case studies have also provided a much deeper understanding of the legislative
process and the civil rights movement in the United States. For instance,
case studies of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 have pointed out the lengths to
which politicians were willing to go in trying to kill proposed civil rights laws
in the 1960s. As originally written, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 called for federal
protection against discrimination directed toward minority groups. Opponents of
the measure fought hard against it. When it appeared that passage was
inevitable, opponents scrambled to find a way to stop this bill. An ingenious
strategy struck them. What if the law were rewritten to include a provision
calling for protection against discriminatory treatment directed toward women
as well as minorities?
Wouldn’t that be so outrageous as to ensure defeat for the entire law? Assuming
the answer to that question was yes, opponents introduced such a provision. The
act passed, however. With its passage, civil rights for minorities and women were
upheld, and although the opponents failed to achieve their goal of sabotaging the
Civil Rights Act, their actions revealed volumes of information relating to U.S.
cultural assumptions. A great irony stems from this episode: A measure that has
subsequently served to uphold the legal rights of women was introduced by
opponents of both the women’s movement and the civil rights movement.
Although it is clear that we cannot generalize beyond this study without

stretching the scientific method too far, it is also obvious that a case study
approach uncovering such counterintuitive facts pertaining to this particular
legislation broadens our understanding of recent American politics.
Case study information has also enriched our understanding of presidential

politics. By looking at individual presidents, political scientists have learned of
astoundingly clever ways used by presidents to maneuver through press
conferences. Looking to the right rather than the left sounds harmless, doesn’t it?
In fact, it was a strategy employed by the Reagan administration to manipulate
press conferences. Although the television-viewing public watched President
Reagan answer questions from reporters in an apparently unorchestrated
fashion, a very meticulously thought-out orchestration program was in effect.
What was hidden from the viewers watching television? The fact that Reagan’s
staff had consciously and carefully seated pro-Reagan press representatives in
the front of the presidential podium and to Reagan’s immediate right. If
questioning from hostile reporters raised difficult or embarrassing issues,
Reagan knew he could halt these questions by calling on reporters seated to the
right in the ‘‘easy’’ section of the audience. Of course, case study materials delving
into the dynamics of press conferences of a single president do not generate data
sufficient for constructing a scientific theory about all presidents, but these
materials disclose a reality the president himself tried to conceal. From the
standpoint of democracy, that alone makes this information relevant.
Survey Research
In March 2003, a majority of U.S. citizens (approximately 64 percent) supported
the invasion of Iraq. By December 2006, a majority of U.S. citizens (approximately
62 percent) called the invasion a mistake. What makes accurate knowledge of

public opinion on the Iraq war or on other public policy questions possible?
Scientific survey research provides a basis for such knowledge. Political
scientists use survey research (questionnaires and/or interviews) to gather data.
Surveys usually consist of closed questions (questions with a range of optional
answers provided). Survey research is one of the most popular research
approaches in political science, in part because survey questions may be
administered to large numbers of people and the results may be tabulated by
means of precise statistical measurements. In other words, surveys are useful
because they make it possible to study larger populations than one can examine
using the case study approach. In this manner, survey research provides greater
breadth than that presented in single case studies. Insofar as surveys provide
data that can be measured mathematically, they allow researchers to test their
findings for statistical significance (testing to determine if a finding is likely to
have occurred randomly or by chance; if the finding is not likely to have occurred
by chance, then the finding is considered statistically significant).
Survey research is invaluable but complex. In using survey findings, it is

important to understand the limitations of this approach. First, surveys are not
designed to provide detailed probing of individual entities. Surveys identify
patterns pertaining to large numbers of individuals, but not the idiosyncratic,
unique, quirky details associated with single case studies. Second, when surveys
identify patterns they are not necessarily identifying individuals organized into
groups. However, survey findings are sometimes (mis)read so that patterns are
assumed to be identical to groups. An example can help clarify this distinction.
Imagine that a survey reveals that individuals with traits X, Y, and Z tend to feel
favorably toward Candidate N. This survey has revealed a pattern involving
individuals exhibiting X, Y, and Z, but these individuals may or may not represent
an actual self-identified group (a group of people connected together in an
organized manner at some point in space and aware of themselves as group
members).
That is, a hypothetical survey might suggest that women earning more than
$100,000 and living in urban areas strongly support candidate Mary Smith. If
these women earning more than $100,000 and living in urban areas do not
consciously associate among themselves in an organization with membership
reflecting these traits (female, earning more than $100,000, and living in urban
areas), then this hypothetical survey has identified a pattern but not a group. This
is important because if the pattern is not present in an organized group, the
pattern may be short term (not sustained over time by an ongoing organization).
In this manner, survey research findings may be as time bound as single case
studies. In addition, a number of specific difficulties may arise as the researcher
is developing the questions for the survey, selecting the population to whom the
survey will be administered, and carrying out the survey. First, if the population
chosen to participate in the survey is not randomly selected, the findings of
the survey will be unreliable. Random selection requires that each person in the
population to be studied must have an equal chance (compared to all others in
the population) of being selected. Thus, if a political scientist wishes to study
the population of registered Republicans, he or she must ensure that each
registered Republican has an equal chance of being chosen to participate in
the survey. Because it is difficult (and expensive) to get a random sample of a
very large group (such as Republicans), researchers often use a variant of
random sampling—either stratified sampling (random samples of demographic
subgroups within the population to be studied) or cluster sampling (random
samples of geographic subgroups within the population to be studied). In our
example, a stratified random sample would randomly select Republicans in
various age, sex, ethnic, occupational, religious, and other demographic
categories, whereas a cluster sample would obtain random samples from various
geographic communities of Republicans.

Sometimes even the most conscientious efforts to ensure randomness can fall
short and create erroneous results. For example, in the 1984 presidential
election, Republican pollsters experienced mild panic when their polling began to
suggest that Reagan was beginning to trail behind Democratic candidate Walter
Mondale. Republicans had been confident of Reagan’s lead over Mondale until
polling data signaled Mondale gains. Interestingly, they noticed that they tended
to pick up this Mondale surge in surveys conducted on Friday nights. Then it
occurred to them to ask, What if Republicans are more likely to go out on Friday
nights than are Democrats? If so, polling on Friday nights is not truly random (it
is skewed in favor of finding more Democrats than Republicans at home to
answer survey questions, so it is not an accurate sample of the population—
voters—it is seeking to study).
Second, if questions in a survey are leading or ambiguous, this compromises

the reliability of survey research. Researchers have found, for instance, that a
word such as ‘‘few’’ is very ambiguous. Different people have different notions of
what a ‘‘few’’ consists of, so survey researchers must be careful in wording
questions. Third, responses to questions in a survey can be affected by the
organization of the questions in a survey. Both the order of questions and the
possible answers to a question can affect how people answer the questions. Why
would this be so? In terms of the order of questions, one question can trigger a
thought or idea that influences the way someone thinks about another question.
‘‘Should governments provide health care benefits to poor residents?’’ Consider
how you might answer that question differently if it is preceded by either of the
following questions: ‘‘Do you support raising taxes to fund health care programs
for the poor?’’ or ‘‘If you had a sick relative who lacked money for health care,
would you hope to see a state program in place to provide health care for the
poor?’’ Moreover, if people are given the option of answering ‘‘I don’t know’’ to
a question, this can lead to different responses from when they are given only
‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ options.
The information levels of respondents can also seriously affect the results of a
survey. Political scientists have long known that a respondent may give an
opinion on a subject whether or not that respondent actually has any information
on that subject. Studies asking respondents about their opinions on bogus laws
often elicit opinions on the laws, even though the laws do not exist. Similarly,
surveys asking for opinions about imaginary ethnic groups have produced
answers giving detailed opinions on these groups even though the groups were
nonexistent. In fact, it is sometimes startling to consider how serious a potential
problem this lack of information can be. After the 1992 election to the U.S.
Congress, a group of freshmen representatives were asked their opinions on the
conflict in Fredonia. They gave various opinions, including support for U.S.
involvement in the country’s internal affairs. Where is Fredonia? It does not exist.
None of these newly elected representatives knew that, however. Whether you
consider these results amusing or frightening, they illustrate the limitations of
the survey method. When presented with survey results, political scientists must
always be aware that the opinions recorded may reflect low levels of knowledge.
Finally, survey findings may be compromised by the comfort level of

respondents. In short, people may not be comfortable answering a question
honestly. They may lie. Burns W. Roper, former chair of the public opinion
polling firm Roper Starch, has commented on this problem. His experience has
suggested that Roper survey results were affected by dishonest answers on more
than one occasion. For example, he believes that white respondents may be less
than candid when surveyed about issues pertaining to race. In addition, he
suspects that survey questions about AIDS have sometimes elicited dishonest
answers because the people in the survey were uncomfortable talking about
certain sexual practices.
Despite such limitations, survey research has provided enormously useful

data to political scientists. Presidential politics is one area in which survey

research has been highly successful in increasing our knowledge. For example,
surveys of U.S. voters have shown that presidential popularity tends to decline
over a president’s first year in office. This drop in popularity holds true for
Republicans and Democrats and seems to occur regardless of the personal
decisions, management styles, and policy proposals of presidents. In fact, public
opinion research has indicated that presidents can expect to see their support
levels diminish by approximately 15 percent by the end of their first year. This
finding is very significant—it suggests that we should be cautious in predicting
doom for new presidents whose popularity slips. The slippage may not mean the
president is a definite one-termer; rather, it may mean business as usual in
American politics.
To illustrate, one-term president Jimmy Carter’s approval rating (45.5 percent) in
his second year is only slightly different from two-term president Ronald
Reagan’s approval rating (43.7 percent) in Reagan’s second year. As you can
see, the actual numbers captured by the survey research are virtually identical,
although the general assumption (the idol, in Bacon’s terminology) is typically
that Reagan was one of the most enduringly popular presidents in recent history
and Carter was one of the most enduringly unpopular ones.
In addition, survey research has shown that presidential popularity is correlated

with certain types of events. For example, a president’s approval rating is
likely to rise if the United States becomes involved in a short-term military
conflict, as when President George Bush enjoyed higher than usual approval
ratings during the Gulf War and President Clinton did so during U.S. intervention
in Haiti. Some studies have suggested that presidents benefit from higher
approval ratings simply by traveling abroad. However, presidential approval
ratings may decline radically with long-term military involvement, as has been
the case with President George W. Bush. Specifically, Bush’s average 2007
approval rating was only 35 percent and citizens rated him most negatively for
his Iraq War policy. Only two previous presidents—Truman (1950–1952) and
Nixon (1973–1974)—had longer periods during which less than 40 percent of
the American public approved of the president’s leadership.
Experiments and Quasi-Experiments

An experiment investigates a hypothesis by using a test group and a control
group. The test group is exposed to a variable, whereas the control group is not.
The researcher then observes whether the variable produces the hypothesized
effect. In medicine, for example, researchers may test the effects of an
experimental drug by comparing the progress of a test group (taking the drug)
with that of a control group (not taking the drug). Clearly, the control group is a
vital element in the experiment; used as a reference point, it allows the
researcher to more accurately examine the effects of a variable (such as a drug).
In the social sciences, experiments have been used to test a variety of hypotheses,
ranging from ones postulating the negative effects of authoritarian situations
(confirmed in the Stanford Prison Experiment discussed earlier in this chapter)
to the examination of the tendency of negative campaign advertising to reduce
voter turnout (confirmed by Stephen Ansolabehere et al.).
In medicine and social science, experiments can go awry. The Hawthorne

effect is one danger that researchers must avoid. Named after a series of
experiments involving the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company,
this effect appears when members of a test group modify their behavior
because they know they are in an experiment. Subjects who know they are
being observed may not act according to their usual behavioral mode. The
Rosenthal effect can also undermine an experiment’s integrity. This effect is
produced when investigators unwittingly convey their expectations to the
subjects in the experiment. Double-blind experiments (in which neither
researcher nor subject knows pertinent details relating to the experiment) can

protect against these effects.
Quasi-experiments are also known as field experiments. Quasi-experiments are

investigations in which the effect of a variable is studied by comparing different
groups, even though the investigator knows that neither group completely meets
the criteria of a control group, or in which an investigator studies a group before
and after an occurrence to observe the effects of the occurrence, although the
‘‘before’’ group fails to fully meet the criteria of a control group. That is, quasi
experiments are experiments ‘‘in the real world,’’ in which laboratory conditions
and perfect control groups do not exist. The quasi-experiment replicates the logic
of the experiment, but only imperfectly.
Sometimes quasi-experiments are the most obvious way to study certain

questions. Suppose a political scientist wished to determine whether local
immunization programs help contain the spread of infectious diseases. The
political scientist could conduct a quasi-experiment to compare infection rates of
‘‘before groups’’ (preimmunization populations) and ‘‘after groups’’
(postimmunization populations). Data based on these studies could help confirm
or falsify hypotheses concerning the effectiveness of immunization policies, even
though no perfectly defined control group existed.
Indirect Quantitative Analysis

Indirect quantitative analysis is a research approach that is indirect in the sense
that it uses data already compiled by others (as opposed to original survey
research, for example, which collects data directly through questionnaires). It
assesses quantitative (that is, mathematical and statistical) information to
discover empirically verifiable patterns. For example, political scientists and
other researchers might study statistics compiled by the World Bank and other
international organizations to find patterns on life expectancy, infant morality,
and literacy levels in different countries. This approach formed the basis of many
of the findings in the study titled The Material World: A Global Family Portrait. In
this study, investigator Peter Menzel compared statistics on population density,
population growth, energy consumption, income levels, daily caloric
consumption, life expectancy, major causes of death, and other variables across
30 countries to provide an overview of family well-being in the late twentieth
century. The indirect quantitative analysis in this study shows that high-income
societies tend to have certain types of families (for example, having low birth
rates), whereas low-income societies tend to have other types (characterized by
high birth rates and low status for women relative to men).
Indirect quantitative analysis is a very useful research strategy providing a

means of interpreting information on a variety of empirically based political
topics. A recent study of articles published between 1906 and 2006 in the
American Political Science Review found that 60 percent of all articles were
based on empirically oriented/quantitative scientific approaches. Quantitative
analysis is especially important given the possibilities for data maintenance and
transmissions through computers. With the Internet, it is increasingly possible to
use data already collected and stored by previous investigators.
However, political scientist Frank L. Wilson has noted that this research strategy
has its drawbacks. Indirect quantitative analysis of international politics can be
problematic insofar as political scientists often depend on data collected by a
variety of investigators who may be using different standards of collection and
measurement. That is, it is sometimes difficult to compare the data when they
have been collected under vastly different conditions from one country to the
next and when the data may connote very different political realities from one
country to the next. Comparing statistical measurements across radically
different cultures, communities, and nations may produce misleading
conclusions. Wilson offers the example of voter turnout. If we compare 20
countries on the issue of voter turnout, we can discover how they rank in terms

of high or low turnout relative to one another; however, low turnout in one
country may be suggestive of something entirely unrelated to low
turnout in another country. Thus, merely comparing existing quantitative figures
on voting levels provides an ultimately limited picture of comparative patterns of
voting.
What do each of these research approaches have in common? Each

approach—from case studies to indirect quantitative analysis—proposes to use
science to help us better understand politics, with its manifold changes and its
fluctuating resources (as discussed in the introductory chapter). However, how
much can any of these approaches tell us? How far can political science extend
our understanding? Science cannot transcend its own limitations. As a result,
thinking scientifically about politics involves knowing the limits of science. It
involves realizing how much we do not know.
Table 2
Choosing research strategies in study of politics
Type of Research
Strength Weakness
Strategy
Case Study Allows for in-depth study of Information may not apply
people, events, countries, to other cases.
elections, or
other political questions.
Survey Research Large amounts of Wording, sampling, and
information can be gathered other problems with
and quantitatively surveys may
assessed; information is compromise results; survey
more general in application does not provide up-close,
than in case studies. in-depth details
of a case study.
Correlation Has high external validity Cannot establish an
Can be used to study absolute causal relationship
variables that cannot be between two variables.
easily studied using
experiments
Can examine positive or

negative relationship
between two variables.
Experiments and Experimental conditions Participants may alter their
Quasi- allow researchers to behavior because of the
Experiments carefully test hypotheses. conditions of the
experiment; many questions
Experimental Studies have cannot be tested by
high level of internal experiments; in quasi-
validity* experiments, researchers
lack perfect control groups.
Quasi-Experimental Studies
have high level of external
validity**
Indirect Researcher builds on It is often difficult to
Quantitative findings of others and compare findings collected
Analysis extends and applies large in different research
amounts of quantitatively projects under different
tested data. conditions and through
studies asking different
questions.
*Internal validity refers to whether the effects observed in a study are due to the
manipulation of the independent variable and not some other factor. In other
words, there is a causal relationship between the independent and dependent
variable.

**External Validity refers to the extent to which the results of a study can be
generalized to other settings (ecological validity), other people (population
validity) and over time (historical validity).
THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY AND THE BRANCHES OR

FIELDS OF STUDY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Thus, political science, like politics, means different things to different people.
The subject matter of politics is so wide ranging that it is diff cult to study
without being broken down into more manageable pieces. Like physicians,
political scientists often divide into specialties and subfields:
Political Theory
The origins of what we now call political science are to be found in Greek
philosophy and date back to Socrates and Plato (circa 400 BCE). The Socratic
method of teaching and seeking Truth was to ask a series of pithy questions—
What is the good life? Is there a natural right to liberty?— while questioning
every answer in order to expose logical fallacies.
Political Theory
in some ways unique among the subfields of political
science insofar as it is concerned with normative questions.
Political theory includes the study of the history of political
philosophy, philosophies of explanation or science, and
philosophical inquiries into the ethical dimensions of
politics.
Political theory seeks answers to such questions through reason, logic, and
experience. Famous names in the history of political thought include Aristotle,
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill,
among others. These thinkers ranged far and wide but met at the intersection
of politics and ethics.
Because people on opposite sides of the political fence believe that they are
right and everyone else is wrong, understanding politics requires us, at a
minimum, to be open-minded and familiarize ourselves with arguments pro and
con. Knowledge of costs and moral consequences in politics is essential to a
clear sense of purpose and coherent policy.
Are we humans rational by nature or are we driven by passions such as love,

hate, anger, and prejudice? Advocates of rational choice theory emphasize the
role of reason over emotion in human behavior. Political behavior, arguably,
follows logical and even predictable patterns. The key to understanding politics is
self-interest. This approach, which forms the basis for a theory of international
relations known as political realism holds that individuals and states alike act
according to the iron logic of self-interest
rational choice
The role of reason over emotion in human behavior.
Political behavior, in this view, follows logical and even

predictable patterns so long as we understand the key role

of self-interest.
political realism
The philosophy that power is the key variable in all political
relationships and should be used pragmatically and
prudently to advance the national interest; policies are
judged good or bad on the basis of their effect
on national interests, not on their level of morality.
Other political scientists argue that rational choice theory is an oversimplification

because states and groups are composed of human beings with disparate
interests, perceptions, and beliefs. The key is not self-interest pure and simple,
but culture and shared values. In this view, we cannot explain political behavior
by reference to logic and rationality alone. Instead, the behavior of individuals
and of groups is a product of specific influences that vary from place to place—
in other words, political behavior is a product of political culture.
Of course, it is not necessary to adhere dogmatically to one theory or the
other. Both contain important insights, and we can perhaps best see them as
complementary, rather than conflicting.
political culture
The moral values, beliefs, and myths by which people live
and for which they are willing to die.
Comparative Politics
Comparative politics seeks to contrast and evaluate governments and political
systems. Comparing forms of government, stages of economic development,
domestic and foreign policies, and political traditions allows political scientists to
formulate meaningful generalizations. Some comparativists specialize in a
particular region of the world or a particular nation. Others focus on a particular
issue or political phenomenon such as terrorism, political instability, or voting
behavior.
Comparative Politics
Focusing on examining how different political systems
operate. It can include comparisons of systems at a macro
or micro level, that is, comparing general political
structures or focusing on individual elements of political
systems. For example, comparative politics can include a
comparison of how democratic and authoritarian political
structures differ, as well as a comparison of how specific
rules governing campaign contributions differ from
one country to the next.
International Relations
Specialists in international relations analyze how nations interact. Why do
nations sometimes live in peace and harmony but go to war at other times? The
advent of the nuclear age, of course, brought new urgency to the study of
international relations, but the threat of an allout nuclear war now appears far
less menacing than other threats, including international terrorism, global
warming, energy security, and, most recently, the economic meltdown.
International Relations
Focusing on relationships between and among
states. Unlike comparative politics, which zeroes in on how
government or politics operates within a country,

international relations studies what transpires between

states. Its subject matter includes war, regional integration,
international organizations, military alliances, economic
pacts, and so on.
Although war and peace are ever-present problems in international relations,

they are by no means the only ones. The role of morality in foreign policy
continues to be a matter of lively debate. Political realists argue that
considerations of national interest have always been and always will be
paramount in international politics. 10 Others argue that enlightened self-
interest can lead to world peace and an end to the cycle of war. Realists often
dismiss such ideas as too idealistic in a dog-eat-dog world. Idealists counter that
realists are too fatalistic and that war is not inevitable but, rather, a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Still others say the distinction between the national interest and
international morality is exaggerated; that democracies, for example, derive
mutual benefit from protecting each other and that in so doing they also promote
world peace.
Public Administration
Public administration is all about how governments organize and operate, about
how bureaucracies work and interact with citizens and each other. In federal
systems, intergovernmental relations is a major focus of study. Students of public
administration examine budgets, procedures, and processes in an attempt to
improve efficiency and reduce waste and duplication. One perennial question
deals with bureaucratic behavior: How and why do bureaucracies develop vested
interests and special relationships (such as between the Pentagon and defense
contractors, or the Department of Commerce and trade associations) quite apart
from the laws and policies they are established to implement?
Political scientists who study public administration frequently concentrate

on case studies, paying attention to whether governmental power is exercised in
a manner consistent with the public interest. In this sense, public administration
shares the concerns of political science as a whole.
Public Policy
A political scientist who specializes in public policy studies how laws, regulations,
and other policies are formulated, implemented, and evaluated. This subfield
looks closely at such questions as, What makes a new policy necessary? How can
policies be designed to meet specific needs effectively? What contributes to a
policy’s effectiveness? Why are ineffective policies sometimes continued rather
than discontinued? What should be the standards for evaluating policies?
Political research methods

Political research methods focuses on a study of the many details of empirical
social science. Data collection, measurement, and analysis are key areas of
inquiry in this subfield. Political methods study seeks to understand the empirical
research process in all its complexity and to develop means of achieving scientific
rigor in the collection and interpretation of data.

APPLYING OUR KNOWLEDGE TO “REAL POLITICS”
The study of politics provides us with a view of the principles and ideals that
influence the development of politics and governance through the centuries.
Many of these ideals, however, are rendered imperfectly in the real world.
As citizens, we are aware of the ideals that our government and officials must live
up to. “Real life politics,” however, shows us that certain actions by governments
and individual politicians does not necessarily conform to what we consider as
ideal behavior. We often hear news reports on politicians accused of unethical
and illegal actions, of government, workers and members of the police allegedly
abusing authority and are inefficient. Graft and corruption have become popular
bywords that characterize Philippine politics and governance at present. This
friction between the ideal and the real is best exemplified by the notion of
realpolitik — which is politics that is primarily driven by the current needs,
circumstances, or the prevailing reality in the state, instead of political ideals and
moral and ethical standards.
realpolitik
A German word which means politics based on real and
practical considerations and not on theoretical or moral
principles
In its most negative sense, realpolitik pertains to politics that uses force and
violates moral standards to achieve its goals. Conventional ideas regarding
politics often emphasize power, access to services and opportunities, and control
over resources, particularly money.
Other perspectives that offer descriptions of regarding real politics include

political realism, which believes that politics is defined by conflicting interests
among individuals and groups as they compete for power in government and
society. This perspective believes that politics is a continuous struggle among
people with varied interests and needs. Complex interdependence, meanwhile,
is a perspective which believes that societies, governments and states are all
linked together through economic and political activities. The relationships
established among individuals and groups play an important role in defining the
characteristics of government. Global justice, on the other hand, believes that
inequality is a reality. However it also stresses that it is the role of government to
address inequality and other social issues, and promote human dignity, justice,
equality, and adherence to the law. These three views enable us evaluate more
critically the various activities and structures that define our government.
Joven (2017) stressed that it is important for citizens to have an understanding of

how government works, as well as an awareness of its various limitations and
problems. Issues such as bribery, graft, and corruption, inefficient public service,
poverty, crime, and other social problems are indications of the limitations of
government. Political scientists work to identify and define political issues in the
hope that a solution may be identified to address them. As citizens, it is our
responsibility to participate in the discussion of political issues to clarify, define,
and make sense of political problems we face. Having adequate information
regarding government and governance will enable us to work together to
formulate plans and programs that will engage the government in addressing its
limitations and, in the long run, uphold good government and effective
governance.

:
1. What is political science?
2. What are the differences separating traditionalists, behavioralists, and postbehavioralists? How would
traditionalists, behavioralist, and postbehavioralists differ in their assessments of the Stanford prison
experiment and Professor Zimardo’s obligations as a scientist?
3. Discuss hypothesis formation, operationalization, independent variables,
dependent variables, and indicators as elements of the process of studying
politics scientifically.
4. What differentiates correlation from causation?
5. What is a case study? What are the strengths and weaknesses of case studies?
6. What is survey research? What potential problems are associated with surveys?
7. Discuss experiments and quasi-experiments, including any difficulties or limitations. Do you believe one
could make a plausible case against using humans in experiments and quasi-experiments?
8. What is indirect quantitative analysis? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
9. What are the branches of political science? Name at least three and describe their focus?
10. What is realpolitik? Give examples of realpolitik in the Philippines?
:
1. For you, what could be the ways to minimize corruption in the Philippines?
2. I know you are an aspiring political scientist, what area of concentration/specialization would you like to
pursue someday? Why?
3. In what ways are science as a process of inquiry limited in terms of its contributions to our intellectual and
civic lives?

LESSON 3. POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY

“ ,
’ , .”
-ABRAHAM LINCOLN
“ .
.
-AUNG SAN SUU KYI
“ ; .”
-LAO TZU
“ - .”
-STEVEN COVEY
POWER: ITS NATURE AND DIMENSIONS

Power is an important concept in understanding politics and governance.
Government is understood to have authority and power over the people, and its
various actions bear great influence in people’s lives and society in general.
Various societies, countries, and government implement different means in
utilizing power, and these means define their respective cultures, traditions, and
prevailing political structures. Democratic societies believe that true power lies
among the people, and that it is by the consent of the people that the government
is able to exercise great power. Political power; therefore, is a subject to certain
limits and checks. The right to occupy positions of authority and power in
government is a public trust, and the people have the right to hold officials
accountable for their actions. This relationship between government and its
citizens ensures that power is exercised responsibly, and that no abuses shall be
committed by those entrusted by the people to wield power. In turn, the
government respects the right of the citizens to exercise power in reasonable
ways.
This lesson hopes that you, as the learner, know (a) the three faces of power; (b)
how power is expressed in government and governance, (c) how does power
define relations between the government and its citizens, (d) the various ways
government expresses its power, (e) the factors that influence the effective
exercise of power by the government, and (f) how does the government ensure
that it exercises power in a responsible manner.
Again, power is the currency of all politics. It is generally defined as the ability of
the person to carry out his or her will. This concept is particularly significant in
the study of social relationships since society is composed of individuals who
exercise varied degrees of power. In politics, power refers to the ability to
exercise control or impose restrictions over individuals, as well as compel other
people to do certain tasks.
Previously, we classified power, as according to Magstadt (2013) into hard and

soft power. Social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven (as cited in
Joven, 2017) view power as based on the perception and understanding of the

various participants in the society. Each member of group or society recognizes

that certain individuals in their group possess a degree of power based on the
nature of their relationships with other members of the group. Power, therefore,
could be classified according to several bases:
 Coercive power is based on a person’s ability to compel other people
threats, punishment, and force.
 Reward power is based on the ability to give rewards and benefits.
 Expert power relies on the knowledge and skills of the individual.
 Legitimate power is based on a person’s position, role, and duties in a
group.
 Referent power is based on an individual’s personality and ability to
attract followers.
On other hand, Max Weber, (as cited in Joven, 2017), a sociologist and
philosopher proposed a classification of power based on different types of
authority:
 Charismatic authority is based on the personal qualities of the
individual to who wields power. The person’s authority is recognized
based on his or her traits and how he or she is perceived by other
people in society.
 Traditional authority is rooted in traditional values and existing social
ties and institutions. An example of traditional power are monarchs
and members of royal families. In the Philippines, many of the political
and social elite are perceived to have power and authority because they
belong they belong to political families who have ruled for generations.
 Legal-rational authority is based on a system of laws and regulations,
and an established bureaucracy. A person is able to exercise power
because he or she has been empowered by law. Power, in this context,
depends on an individual’s position in the social hierarchy, and the roles
and responsibilities that come with this position.
Power also plays an important role in leadership. Leaders exercise various

forms of power in order to guide people in an organization and lead them in the
conduct of various tasks.
POWER AND THE THREE FACES OF POWER
Mendoza and Melegrito (2016) said that, like the concepts of politics, there is also
no single definition of power. Nonetheless, there seems to be a consensus among
political analysts about the centrality of power in the study of politics or political
analysis.
While political scientists remain divided by the common language of power, many
of them define political analysis quite simply as the “analysis of the nature, exercise,
and distribution of power” (Hay, 2002, 168). Nevertheless, questions like whether
power is best understood in purely structural terms or as a capacity of agents, how
power is distributed, and whether the powerful can be held accountable and other
fundamental questions, remain problematic to political scientists.
The seminal work by Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (1974) captures the
elements of what has been the key debate over the nature and definition of power—
the so-called “faces of power” controversy. Lukes built on the works of other
scholars and argued that power has three faces, namely, (1) decision-making, (2)
agenda-setting, (3) preference-shaping.

The three faces of power progress from “a narrow and yet easy to operationalize
definition” of power (decision-making) to “a more subtle and complex conception of
power yet one which is almost impossible to measure and quantify” (preference-
shaping). The three faces of power also vary in terms of their focus of analysis, their
methodological approach, and views on the nature of power. Please refer to Table
3: The Faces of Power’ Controversy: Political Power in Three Dimensions for the key
differences of the three faces, namely, power as decision-making, agenda-setting,
and preference-shaping.
Table 3
The ‘The Faces of Power’ Controversy: Political Power in Three Dimensions
One-dimensional Two-dimensional Three-dimensional

view view view
Proponents Dahl, Polsby, classic Bachrach and Lukes, Marxists,
pluralists Baratz, neo-elitists neo-Marxists and
radical
elitists/pluralists
Conception of Power as decision- Power as decision- Power as decision-

Power making making and agenda making, agenda
setting setting, and
preference-shaping
Focus of The formal political The formal political Civil society more
analysis arena arena and the generally, especially
informal processes the public sphere (in
surrounding it (the which preferences
corridors of power) are shaped)
Methodological ‘Counting’ of votes Ethnography of the Ideology critique

approach and decisions in corridors of power —to demonstrate
decision-making to elucidate the how actors come to
forums informal processes misperceive their
through which the own material
agenda is set. interests
Nature of Visible, transparent, Both visible and Largely invisible

power and easily invisible (visible —power distorts
measured only to agenda- perceptions and
setters), but can be shapes preference;
rendered through it must be
gaining inside demystified.
information)
Source: Adapted from Hay, C. (2002), “Divided by a Common Language?
Conceptualizing Power,” Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Hampshire,
Palgrave, p. 180.
Is power divisible? Can we distribute power? Who can exercise power?

Is there a difference between “power to” and “power over?”
Decision-Making: The First Face of Power

The first face of power approach, according to Lukes (1974: 15), ‘involves a focus on
behavior in the making of decisions based on issues over which there is an
observable conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as express policy preferences,
revealed by political participation’. Robert Dahl articulated this view of power as A
has power over B to the extent that A can “get B to do something that B would not
otherwise do”.

The implication of this view of power is that “the most powerful actors in the
society are those whose opinion holds sway in the decision-making arena, whether
a parliament, cabinet or diplomatic negotiation”. The powerful are able to get what
they want, that is, make others to comply with what they want or prefer and
consequently, make others behave accordingly.
A power relation exists when the actions or decisions of A produce an effect on B by

altering B’s choices , decisions, or behavior to comply with A’s actions or decisions
and with B knowing that his/her compliance is contrary to his/her interests or
preferences. Power in this context can be understood as a zero-sum game where A
gains only to the extent that B loses out and where A exercises power and B does
not (Hay, 2002).
Agenda-Setting: The Second Face of Power

The second face of power approach originates from the work of Bachrach and
Baratz (1962, 1963, 1970). Bachrach and Baratz critiqued the first pace of power
arguing that power is also exercised by being able to affect not just the actual
decision outcomes but the very conditions from which decision-making process to
include only those issues which the powerful think should be brought to public
deliberation. Hence, the powerful are those who are able to ‘set’ agenda for the
decision-making process by deciding on the “selection of what is and what is not
subject to the formal process of political deliberation” (Hay, 2002).
To quote Bachrafch and Baratz, ‘power is also exercised when A devotes his
energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values, and institutional
practices that limit the scope of the political processes to public consideration of
only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the extent that A
succeeds in doing this, B is prevented, for all practical purposes, from bringing to
the fore any issue which might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s set
of preferences.” Thus, for Bachrach and Baratz, issues which do not appear on the
political agenda can be just as important as those which do.
Power as an agenda-setting levels up the discussion of power and consequently,

that of political analysis or the study of politics. Analyzing power as agenda-setting
requires one to determine the relative impact or influence of actors and their
interests in influencing the process and outcome of decision-making. It includes the
rational calculation of costs and benefits as well as of gains or losses by actors
involved vis-à-vis other actors in determining those issues which can be subjected
to public deliberation and those that are taken off from the formal decision-making
arena.
Preference-Shaping: The Third Face of Power

Limiting the power to situations in which actual and observable conflict is present,
and actual effect of power is manifest or evident only is “arbitrary, unrealistic, and
myopic”. The third face of power approach expands the scope and effect of power
beyond these situations.
According to Lukes, a more effective and insidious form of power is exercised when
A influences or shapes B’s very preferences. As Lukes asks himself:
is it not the supreme and most insidious use of power to prevent people,
to whatever, degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions,
cognitions, and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in
their existing order of things, either because they can see or imaging no
alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchangeable, or
because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial? (Lukes, 1974,
24 cited in Hay, 2002).

Power as preference-shaping therefore identifies the powerful as those who are

capable of subverting actual or real interests of those over whom power is
exercised. Such approach to power and political analysis emphasizes the power of
actors, particularly the state to shape and influence people’s perceptions, and
interests through the operation of an ideological hegemony. Ideological hegemony
in the context of capitalist class system is defined as “the capacity of burgeois ideas
to displace rival views and become, in effect, the common sense of the age”
(Heywood, 2003, 8).
“It is important to remember that all of these Faces of Power are theoretical
concepts. They are ways of thinking about power to better understand the
underlying forces, habits, language and consciousness behind the rules and people
involved in political power. Political power exists in visible disagreement over
issues everyone sees, as in the First Face of Power. It can be invisible with people
aware of problems but unable to address them, as in the Second Face of Power. It
can also operate below the level of consciousness, with conflicts disappearing into
social myths, habits, norms and rationales. The three faces are not mutually
exclusive, and one can believe they all operate at once with different faces being
more important depending upon the situation. Nonetheless, they hold keys to
understanding political power in societies.” (Parsneau, n.d., A Summary of Three
Faces of Power; Dimensions of Power and Powerlessness).
FIRST FACE SECOND FACE THIRD FACE

A succeeds through
A promotes further shaping the
A dominates B
barriers to B’s consciousness of B
through superior
A’s power resources, such as
force or financial
 participation. B
suffers absenteeism,  about B’s best
interests through
mobilization bias and social norms, values,
resources.
non-decision-making. myths, and
information control
Defeat of B through
Defeat of B through
Defeat of B through myths, ideologies,
B’s powerlessness unequal resources
frustration and
ignorance, and false
anticipation of failure
consciousness.
Identify real interests

Open debate with
and contest myths,
B’s response
competing resources
over clearly defined
issues
 Mobilize upon issues
and barriers to action  social norms,
ideologies and false
consciousness.
Figure 3. Dimensions of power

POWER AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT,

GOVERNANCE, AND CITIZENSHIP
Power, Legitimacy, and the Government

In politics, the concept of power is closely related to the state, government,
governance, and citizenship. Political power is understood to refer to
sovereignty which is the power of the government to perform its functions and
conduct its affairs without interference from outside forces. Sovereignty also
refers to the authority to exercise control over a group or society. In ancient
times, rulers, and leaders were believed to possess sovereignty could therefore
command the respect and obedience of their subjects.
Authority within a political context is closely tied to the concept of legitimacy,

which is the acceptance or recognition of the right to exercise power. Legitimacy
is generally based on existing laws, customs, and traditions that are prevalent in a
certain society. It is also based on the exercise of certain activities that are
recognized to lend legitimacy to a government or a group of leaders.
However, always remember that “power is the ability to get your own way,
authority is the ability to get your way without the use of sanctions or threat
thereof, but by virtue of a consensus that you have the right to do so. In other
words, the legitimate right to do something is authority; the ability to impose
sanctions is power.” (Trevor, 2002)
Whatever the form of government that is implemented in a state, democracy

assumes that elected representatives in the government and the appointed
officials borrow power from the sovereign people. The exercise of political
power, therefore, is subject to limitations. Once an official finishes his or her
term of office, he or she loses the power to govern. Even when in power,
government officials do not wield all the powers of the state. Each government
branch and its officials are subject to reasonable limitations and controls with
regard to the use of their respective powers while in office.
Other forms of government, meanwhile, have their own means of determining

who exercises sovereignty. Traditional monarchical states consider the monarch
as the legitimate ruler and head of government who exercises most powers of
government. Constitutional monarchies, on the other hand, set limits on the
authority of the monarch. Modern constitutional monarchies recognize the
monarchies recognize the monarch as a legitimate ruler, but his or her role is
limited to being the “head of state” or a symbolic representative of the nation
with little or no actual power in government. The power to run the government
resides in the parliament, which is headed by the prime minister. The elected
official who performs the leadership role in the government, such as the Prime
Minister and the President, is designated the “head of government” and is tasked
with the day-to-day operations of the government. The Philippine Constitution
recognizes the President as both head of state and head of government who
performs both actual and symbolic duties for the state.
Power and Governance

The government, being the instrument by which the people enacts its will, is
empowered to enact programs, initiate activities, and take action whenever the
need arises. In this sense, sovereignty is expressed by government as a form of
“national power” that is composed of various resources and instrumentalities
such as the economy, population, and the military. National power is evident in
the actions of government agencies, officials, members of the military and police,
and other public servants.

The constitution gives the government inherent powers that it can enact in
pursuit of national goals and objectives. The kinds of power, written below,
enable the government to undertake its activities as well as ensure the safety of
its citizens.
 Police Power refers to the ability of the state to use the police force to
ensure law and order in society.
 Eminent domain is the power of the government to acquire private
property for public use.
 The power of taxation allows the government to impose and collect
taxes from its citizens.
The government also employs other means to exert control over its citizens or
influence groups and communities in the country. Laws and regulations
implemented by the state often compel citizens to perform certain actions or
impose prohibitions that limit individual behavior. The government requires its
citizens to pay proper taxes on time and imposes penalties on those who fail to
perform this obligation. Certain actions, such as assault, robbery, and murder are
considered crimes by the government and are declared as such by laws. Citizens
who commit crimes face the full power of the state as they are subject to arrest,
incarceration, and are given appropriate punishment.
The state may also express its power in less evident ways such as indoctrination
or propaganda. These may be implemented through various institutions such as
schools, churches, and the media. Democratic states often resort to these means
to influence the views and opinions of its citizens, as well as emphasize certain
policies, traditions, and values that they consider vital for respective societies.
The Philippine government, for instance, certain policies endeavors to emphasize
pride in the Filipino identity and therefore identifies certain cultural traits they
consider important such as love for family and respect for elders. It also
identifies certain objects, values, traditions as significant aspects of Filipino
identity. These are exposed in media, recognized by laws, and practiced in
communities. The National Anthem and Panatang Makabayan are examples of
cultural items that have gained state recognition and support, and are seen as
important instruments by which the state expresses the Filipino identity as well
as significant national goals and cultural values. Totalitarian states like North
Korea, however, use indoctrination and propaganda to impose certain views and
beliefs on its citizens in order to establish full control over their thoughts and
actions.
In regional and international politics, states also exercise certain forms of power
as they interact with each other. These include military power, economic power,
and psychological power.
 Military power refers to the capability of a state to wage war against
another state and is evident in resources such as military troops and
weapons.
 Economic power refers to the use of economic resources and finances,
and the ability of states to influence other nations by denying or giving
them access to certain resources.
 Psychological power refers to the ability of the state to use its image
or reputation in influencing other countries. This power requires the
wise use diplomacy, propaganda, and mass media to successfully
achieve the goals of the state.
Power and Citizenship

Power and citizenship are two closely intertwined concepts within the context of
a democratic society. As sovereignty resides in the people that compose the
state, the government provides the people with the means to exercise power.
The recognition of the sovereign citizens is evident in the rights and privileges
guaranteed by the state. The Bill of Rights (Article III of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution) enumerates the various political, social rights that citizens enjoy.
These rights, in turn, come with a set of responsibilities which citizens must fulfill
in order to exercise power and participate fully within a democracy. For
example, Filipinos have the right to speech and expression. This right, however,
imposes the responsibility to be aware of social issues, engage in critical
discussion and debate, and express concern regarding pressing issues. Citizens
who ignore these responsibilities ae unable to enjoy these rights. Also,
irresponsible exercise of the right to free speech such as spreading
misinformation, engaging in hate speech, and advocating violence, undermines
democracy and good governance. The exercise of citizen power, therefore,
becomes effective if done in a responsible manner.
The concept of citizenship has also influenced views on the powers wielded by
citizens.
 Civil citizenship. This took shape in 18th century. It focused on
individual freedoms and rights.
 Political citizenship. This concept emerged in the 19th century and
emphasized participation and exercise of political power by citizens.
 Social citizenship. This is most recent concept of citizenship which
emerged in the 20th century. This concept stressed on economic,
cultural and social well-being and set standards that must be enjoyed by
all citizens. These concepts come together in defining the rights and
responsibilities of each citizen.
The state has instituted formal means by which citizens are able to directly
participate in government.
 Suffrage. It is the power of citizens that enables them to vote in public
elections and also run for public office. During elections, people
exercise their power to choose public officials by casting their ballots.
 Referendum. It is similar to an election but instead of electing officials,
citizens vote for or against a proposal or law. These may include
approval of certain local laws or laws passed by Congress.
 Plebiscite. It refers to the process by which citizens approve of
proposed changes to the constitution.
 Initiative. It is a process by which citizens directly propose laws or
amendments to the Constitution.
Citizen participation in the political process is primarily driven by advocacy.

This is the process by which individuals or groups seek to influence decisions or
implement change within institutions, societies, social, and economic systems,
and governments. Advocacy requires citizens to be educated and well-informed
about issues in politics and society, and to be actively involved in actions and
initiatives that will advance the issues and concerns they advocate. Many
political scientists consider advocacy-building and active involvement of citizens as
a solution to the often unequal balance of power in many governments. Effective
citizens are empowered, and they have the ability to engage in advocacies and
organize themselves to pursue their goals.
Other unconventional means by which citizens are able to directly influence

politics include popular revolt. Early forms of revolt and armed rebellions were
often violent and involved citizens engaging government forces in hostilities.
During the 20th century, however, a number of popular revolts have utilized
peaceful means to advance their respective political causes. During the Indian
independence movement in the 1920s, Mahatma Gandhi led the non-violent
resistance against British colonial rule. He advocated non-cooperation, the
boycott of foreign products, and civil disobedience. During the Martial Law
Period in the Philippines, opponents of the Marcos regime also engaged in non-
violent protests that led to the 1986 EDSA Revolution. In reaction to the
widespread electoral fraud during the 1986 elections, Corazon Aquino called on
Filipinos to engage in in civil disobedience and boycott companies owned by

Marcos cronies. These actions culminated in the gathering of civilians along

EDSA to act as a human barricade between government troops and the rebel
soldiers. There was very little violence during the 1986 EDSA Revolution that
brought about the change in Philippine government. But not all peaceful mass
actions result in success. In 1989, student activists lead a mass demonstration in
Tiananmen Square in the Chinese capital of Beijing to push democratic reforms in
the Chinese government. However, the government responded with violence,
and used the military to disperse the demonstrators resulting in the death of
hundreds and the arrest of prodemocracy activists.
POWER AND ITS EFFECTS
Power when wielded by entities such as the state, often yields significant effects
on society. The exercise of political power is primarily intended to ensure social
control. This generally results in government influencing the development of
individuals in society, as well as group behavior and identity. Democratic
governments utilize their power to uphold democratic ideals and institutions,
and inculcate a democratic mindset among the citizens. Within groups and
organizations, the exercise of various forms of power by their members results in
a well-defined hierarchy that enables then to identify their individual roles,
responsibilities, privileges, and rights within the group. A well-balanced power
structure within an organization contributes to its stability and efficiency.
However, irresponsible use of power limits individual freedom and imposes

restrictions to citizens’ actions. A government that ignores lawful limits on its
powers is bound to violate the rights and freedom of its citizens consider
government actions as violations of democratic ideals and the general welfare.
This leads to wider dissent among citizens who resort to rebellion or terrorism
which is turn to bring about instability in government and society. Many
totalitarian states have successfully used the full power of the state to stamp out
dissent among its citizens and have retained power for a long time.
RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Since the exercise of political power by the government originates from the
consent of the citizens, government action should be defined by responsibility
and accountability. Responsibility is closely tied to obligation, which refers to an
action that an individual is required to perform. Accountability refers to the
acknowledgment of responsibility for an action and its consequences. Public
officials, in particular, are expected to uphold various responsibilities in
exercising authority. They have legal responsibilities, which refer to a set of
obligations outline by law, and moral responsibilities, which refers to doing
actions that are considered to be morally and socially acceptable and deserving of
praise.
Responsibility and accountability are significant concepts in governance. Elected

public officials are expected to perform the obligations of the offices they occupy.
Local officials responsible for maintaining law and order, and promoting
interests of the people within their respective jurisdictions. Members of congress

are expected to create laws that will uphold the common good. The president, as
head of the executive branch, is tasked to uphold the Philippine constitution,
implement the laws of country, and effectively administer government services.
There are various ways that power can be abused by public officials and leaders.
 Abuse of authority refers to the use of authorized power for illegal
acts or stepping beyond the bounds of authorized action. The use of
excessive force by police and arresting a suspect may be considered an
abuse of authority.
 Abuse of discretion is willful disregard for the rules or proper
procedure. This can be seen instances where public officials ignore
protocols or standard procedures in hiring employees or procuring
materials.
 Abuse of power pertains to misconduct in office, where an official
performs unlawful actions while in office. The most evident example of
abuse of power in government is corruption, which is the use of
authority or influence for private interest. Corruption is seen in
various acts or activities such as patronage, nepotism, bribery, and
influence peddling. Graft is a form is a political corruption where an
official uses public funds for his or personal gain. Many officials
commit various types of abuses in order to enrich themselves, give
favors to family members and friends, or cater to private interests.
The government has instituted various means to ensure that public officials who
violate the public trust area held accountable for their actions. Accountability is
ensured through constitutionally and legally mandated bodies or agencies that
investigate cases of abuse of power and graft and corruption in public offices.
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution defines the means by which public officials are
to be held accountable in the conduct of their duties.
 Office of the Ombudsman mandated by the Constitution to investigate
cases of alleged public officials and government employees. The
Ombudsman is empowered to investigate cases of alleged abuse,
suspend officials under investigation, and recommend cases for
prosecution after due to investigation.
 Sandiganbayan. It is the country’s anti-graft court, the Sandiganbayan,
is empowered to hear and decide on cases involving graft and
corruption and abuse of power by public officials.
 Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). It was
originally established to recover the ill-gotten wealth of former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his family members, relatives, and
business associates. The commission is also tasked with investigating
cases of graft and corruption and formulating safeguards to ensure that
corrupt practices in government are prevented.
 Commission on Human Rights. This commission is empowered to
investigate cases of violations of civil and political rights and to look
into cases of police and military abuse, extrajudicial killings, enforced
disappearances, and abuse of prisoners or persons held in jails.
 Commission on Audit. It is tasked with reviewing expenditures of
government offices and agencies to ensure that public funds are used
properly. It also has the power to disallow improper expenditures or
use of government properties.
 The Philippine Congress has also instituted a Senate Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, also known as
“Blue Ribbon Committee”, to investigate alleged wrongdoings of
government, its officials, and agencies for the purpose of drafting new
laws or amending existing laws to address the problem of abuse and
corruption in government.
Another important factor that ensures responsibility and accountability in

government is transparency and easy access to information. Article XI of the

Constitution also states that all public and employees must issue a statement of
assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN). Information regarding the assets,
liabilities, and worth of high ranking officials, including the President, Vice-
President, members of the Cabinet, the Congress, Supreme Court, Constitutional
Commissions and Offices, and officers of the armed forces shall be disclosed to
the public. The media is also an important institution that ensures the timely
discussion of events and issues that are significant to the government. Many
cases of the government corruption and abuse are often uncovered by the media
and its through their efforts and coordination with the government misconduct
are addressed.
:
1. What is power?
2. What are the three faces of power as postulated by Steven Lukes?
3. What are the inherent powers of the government? Explain and provide examples.
4. In regional and international politics, you can see different forms of power. Enumerate them. Define and
provide an example for each form.
5. Differentiate power and authority. Give at least two examples to illustrate the difference between the two
key concepts.
6. What are agencies or institutions of government in the Philippines that ensure accountability of public
officials? State their respective mandates.
:
1. Why power is considered as one of the basic concepts of politics? Why is it important to be studied in the
context of politics?
2. What are your observations about political power in the Philippines? Think of some ways on how to
improve political power usage within the government and of the citizens.
3. What do you think are the factors in order for a popular to revolt to succeed?
4. Explain the relationship of power with government, governance and citizenship?

LESSON 4. UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

“ – ’
– .”
-BRAD HENRY
Let me introduce to you this lesson by the words of Thomas Magstadt (2013):
“In Lewis Carroll’s classic tale dense forest and encounters the Cheshire Cat who is sitting on a tree branch.
“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?” asks Alice. Alice in Wonderland, Alice loses her
way in a “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” replies the Cat. “I don’t much care where,” says
Alice. “Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” muses the Cat.
Like Alice lost in the forest, we too occasionally find ourselves adrift. Governments and societies are no different.
Political leadership can be woefully deficient or hopelessly divided as to what course of action is best in a crisis or
what to do about the economy or the environment or health care or a new threat to national security. Intelligent
decisions, as Alice’s encounter with the Cheshire Cat illustrates, can take place only after we have set clear aims
and goals. Before politics can effectively convert mass energy (society) into collective effort (government), which
is the essence of public policy, we need a consensus on where we want to go or what we want to be as a society a
year from now or perhaps ten years up the road. Otherwise, our leaders, like the rest of us, cannot possibly know
how to get there. This is why it is so essential for citizens in a democracy to be politically literate. There are
always plenty of people eager to tell us what to think, but in this text we will learn how to think about politics.”
POLITICAL ENDS AND MEANS
In politics, ends and means are inextricably intertwined. Implicit in debates

over public policy is a belief in the idea of the public good, that it is the
government’s role to identify and pursue aims of benefit to society as a
whole, rather than to favored individuals. But the focus of policy debates is
often explicitly about means rather than ends. For example, politicians may
disagree over whether a tax cut at a particular time will help promote the
common good (prosperity) by encouraging saving and investment, balancing
the national budget, reducing the rate of inflation, and so on. Although they
disagree about the best monetary and fiscal strategies, both sides would
agree that economic growth and stability are proper aims of government.
public good
The shared beliefs of a political community as to what
goals government ought to attain (for example, to
achieve the fullest possible measure of security,
prosperity, equality, liberty, or justice for all citizens).
In political systems with no curbs on executive authority, where the leader

has unlimited power, government may have little to do with the public
interest. In constitutional democracies, by contrast, the public good is
associated with core values such as security, prosperity, equality, liberty, and
justice. These goals are the navigational guides for keeping the ship of
state on course. Arguments about whether to tack this way or that, given the
prevailing political currents and crosswinds, are the essence of public policy
debates.

POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES: ITS ROLE AND FUNCTIONS
Is our government doing a good job? Do our public officials uphold the
welfare of the people? Are the actions of our government and its officials
good or bad? What is your idea of good governance? If you were to change
one thing about politics and governance, what would it be? These are
questions that are often asked by citizens whenever they ponder upon the
actions and nature of their government. The ideas that come to mind when
addressing these questions form the core of a political ideology that all
members of the state have. As members of the state, we share certain views,
beliefs, and values with our fellow citizens, and we expect our government to
uphold these shared values and beliefs in its policies and programs. We also
know that not all citizens share the same ideas and beliefs regarding the
government, and these influence their actions whether they are supportive
or critical of the government. Understanding political ideologies, therefore,
is an important task for citizens as they seek to understand how government
works and how they can better participate in the affairs of the state.
Today people may have only vague ideas about government or how it works
or what it is actually doing at any given time. Even so, many lean one way or
another, toward conservative or liberal views. When people go beyond
merely leaning and adopt a rigid, closed system of political ideas, however,
they cross a line and enter the realm of ideology. Ideologies act as filter that
true believers (or adherents) use to interpret events, explain human
behavior, and justify political action. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs and
ideas that shape an individual’s or a group’s views, actions, and interaction
with the world. For Magstadt (2013), an ideology is any set of fixed,
predictable ideas held by politicians and citizens on how to serve the public
good. For Joven (2017), political ideology is a set of beliefs and ideas that
define political activities, policies, and events.
Political Ideology Defined

Melegrito and Mendoza (2016) stated that there is no settled or agreed
definition of ideology. Oftentimes, “political ideology” is confused with
“political culture.” Both concepts refer to political attitudes, values, and
beliefs, but ideologies are more coherent and often codified while political
culture is more general rather than abstract.
According to Heywood (2003, 12), “the complexity of ideology derives from

the fact that it straddles the conventional boundaries between descriptive
and normative thought, and between political theory and political practice”
and accordingly, “brings about two kinds of synthesis: between
understanding and commitment, and between thought and action.” The
definition of ideology below captures such complexity of ideology.

“An ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas

that provides the basis for organized political action,
whether this is intended to preserve, modify, or
overthrow the existing system of power.
All ideologies therefore:
(a) offer an account of the existing order, usually in the

form of a ‘worldview’,
(b) advance a model of a desired future, a vision of the

‘good society’, and
(c) explain how political change can and should be

brought about—how to get from A to B (Heywood,
2003, 12).
Functions of Political Ideology

As defined, political ideology has three functions:
First, it offers an analysis of the status quo by
examining what works, and what does not work, as
well as other various issues and problems that the
state and the broader society are confronted with.
Second, it evaluates alternatives to the status quo and

prescribes a preferred or desired social order.
Third, it specifies the means by which the preferred

or desired social order can be achieved.
The first function gives us a picture of the existing reality, answering

questions: “what is wrong, or what went wrong, and why?” The second
function provides a picture of an “ideal” alternative reality, providing an
answer to the question of “what ought to be?” The third function bridges the
first and second functions and answers the important question of how
should change be brought about, that is, how do we change the undesired
problem- and conflict- ridden status quo in order to achieved our preferred,
desired alternative social order.
Different political ideologies provide different responses to these questions.

Political ideologies can be supportive or critical of the status quo, or can be
middle ground for the two. They can also be revolutionary or transformative
in terms of goals, or be midway between the two. In terms of social change,
ideologies can be open or closed to change, or in-between.
These varied positions of ideologies are best understood when we arrange

ideologies in a political spectrum that is, whether ideologies are oriented
toward the left or oriented toward the right, or whether ideologies are liberal
or conservative.

LEFT AND RIGHT DISTINCTIONS OF IDEOLOGIES
The terms “left” and “right” trace their origins to the French Revolution in
1789 and the seating arrangements adopted by the different groups at the
first meeting of the Estates-General, the legislative body of the French
government. Supporters of the King sat to his right, while radicals, members
of the Third Estate, sat to his left. Subsequent French Assemblies followed a
similar seating pattern and since then, ideological opinions and positions
have been classified most often in terms of a single left-right dimension. The
term “left” became a label for revolutionary or egalitarian sympathies and
the term “right” for reactionary or monarchist (Heywood, 2003).
Contrary to traditional expectations, the “right” can be as revolutionary or

radical as the “left.” A radical to the left is as likely as the radical of the right
to use force and violence but for the different reasons.
The radical left uses violence and force to change the status quo. The radical
right resorts to violence and force to maintain the status quo. The more
fundamental the change that is needed, the more the violent the means of the
radical left are. On the other hand, the greater the threat to the status quo,
the more the radical right resorts to force and violence. The radical left calls
for use of force and violence a revolution. The radical right calls it a war.
In recent times, however, the left-right dichotomy has become increasingly

complex such that the distinction between left and right is no longer a choice
between revolution and reaction. Heywood captures this dynamics in the
following manner:
“For example, although right-wing views may often be reactionary and

preach a return to an earlier and better time, fascism, on the extreme
right, has also been revolutionary, and in the case of Italian fascism,
positively forward-looking. Similarly, although left-wing views have
usually been progressive or revolutionary, socialists and communists
have at times resisted change. For instance, they have sought to
defend the welfare of the state, or to prevent centrally planned
economies from being reformed or abolished (Heywood, 2003, 17).”
In more recent times, it has become increasingly common in Western

societies to substitute “liberal” and “conservative” for “left” and “right,
respectively.” This shift in the usage of the concepts, however, still reflects
the long-lasting ideological divide concerning preferences for change versus
stability as well as age-old disputes concerning the proper role of authority,
hierarchy, and inequality, which goes back at least as far as 1789.

Table 4
Left and right distinctions of ideologies
LEFT CENTER RIGHT

Liberal-Socialist Moderate Conservative-Fascist
1. Emphasis on personal liberty and 1. Combines ideas and principles 1. Emphasis on the welfare of the
human rights. from both the left and the right. state or the “common good”.
2. Government regulation of the 2. Emphasizes balance between 2. Individual interests should give
market. extreme views and ideas. way to national or state interests.
3. Government control over 3. Seeks the “middle ground” in 3. Markets should be free and
essential services and economic political issues. unregulated.
activities.
4. Seeks to maintain the status quo 4. Emphasizes the rule of law and
4. Envisions an egalitarian society in politics and society. the power of the state, especially
where there is no distinction in times of crisis (authoritarian).
between people based on 5. May lean toward some leftist
economic status or identity ideas or policies (center-left), or 5. Often nationalistic and ethnic-
(socialist). may prefer some right-wing centered.
ideas or policies (center right).
5. Seeks a limited role for the 6. Prefers a strong military and
government, especially with seeks to project a powerful
regard to private matters and image in international affairs.
individual decisions (libertarian).
7. Most extreme views demand
6. Often advocates political and total control over all aspects of
social change through the lives of their citizens
revolutionary means. (totalitarian).
7. Most extreme views advocate the

dismantling of the government to
be replaced by community-based
governance (anarchist)
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
The political spectrum is a graphic representation of political ideologies

along a line from left to right. The left side of the line includes those that
adhere to liberal and socialist ideologies, while the right side of the line
presents those that conform to conservative and fascist ideologies. The
center of the line represents a moderate or “centrist” ideology which
balances the ideas from the left and right sides of the political spectrum. The
following is a presentation of the major political ideologies arranged along
political spectrum.
Major Political Ideologies and Related Ideas

The following are the major political ideologies most prevalent in states
throughout the world.
Anarchism
This is the most extreme of the ideologies on the left as it advocates the total
dismantling and elimination of the state. It is considered as an

antigovernment ideology. For anarchists, the state is undesirable as its

various aspects such as control, political authority, and hierarchy represent
everything that is detrimental to freedom and individualism. Instead of the
state, anarchists advocate the establishment of self-governed communities
where individuals manage their affairs through cooperative effort and
mutual respect. A close relative of anarchism is nihilism, which glorifies
destruction as an end in itself, rather than as a means to overthrow the
existing system or rebuild society. In Russia during the last half of the
nineteenth century, anarchists helped to precipitate the discontent that led
to the 1905 Revolution, sometimes called a dress rehearsal for the 1917
October Revolution.
anarchism
A system that opposes in principle the existence of any
form of government, often through violence and
lawlessness.
nihilism
A philosophy that holds that the total destruction of all
existing social and political institutions
is a desirable end in itself
Socialism
Socialism envisions the establishment of a state characterized by public
ownership of resources and the means of production. Production is done for
profit, but to meet basic human needs. There is democratic control over the
use of resources and the production of goods and services are done in a
cooperative manner. The government ensures that all citizens have free
access to goods and services. Communism is a socialist ideology that
believes that inequality is a result of capitalism and existence of a class
system. Society, therefore, must be transformed to eliminate class divisions
in order to achieve equality. Marxism is communist ideology that believes
capitalist societies are characterized by class conflict or the struggle between
the working class and the capitalists. Marxists believe that the working class
or the proletariat will lead a revolution that will establish a communist
society. Communism is more revolutionary in its orientation in as it
advocates mass action and even armed struggle in order to achieve its goals.
socialism
An ideology favoring collective and government
ownership over individual or private ownership.
communism
A political system based on radical equality; the
antithesis of capitalism.
Marxism
The political philosophy of Karl Marx (1818–1883),
who theorized that the future belonged to the
industrial underclass (‘‘proletariat’’) and that a
‘‘classless society’’ would eventually replace one based
on social distinctions (classes) tied to property
ownership. During the Cold War (1947– 1991), the
term was often mistakenly applied to everyone who
embraced the ideology or sympathized with the

policies of the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of

China against the West.
There are two competing views or tendencies within socialism:

fundamentalist socialism and revisionist socialism. These two are different
in terms of “goals” and the “means” to achieve socialist ends.
Fundamentalist socialism follows the communism and Marxism which
believe in absolute social equality by abolishing private property and
collectivizing productive wealth. On the other hand, revisionist socialism
believe in relative social equality to be achieved by redistributing wealth
through the welfare state and by applying a system of progressive taxation.
Revisionist socialism is represented by social democratic traditions.
Social Democracy
Social democracy, as an ideology, seeks to implement socialist reforms in
society within the framework of a democratic government and capitalist
economy.
Social democrats advocate government regulation in the economy, income

distribution, and the promotion of social welfare. Social democracy
envisions the establishment of a socialist state through legal, non-violent
means.
Liberalism
This ideology considers economic and social inequality as undesirable and
seeks to establish a society that provides opportunities for growth to all
individuals. Public policy, therefore, must be oriented toward eliminating
discrimination and barriers to growth, and development. All citizens must
have access to essential services such as health care, education, and social
security. Liberalism upholds the recognition of human rights and freedoms
such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, gender equality, and a
secular government.
Early or classic liberals have believed in the “negative” conception of liberty

characterized by the absence of external restrictions or constraints upon the
individual. Negative liberty means that individuals are left alone, free from
interference and able to act in whatever way they may choose. Modern
liberals, on the other hand have subscribed to a more “positive view” of
liberty, that is, the ability of the individual to be his/her own master, to be
autonomous.
While anarchists believe that both law and government are unnecessary,
liberals believe otherwise. Liberals, however, believe that while the liberty
of the individual is a supreme value, such liberty needs to be restrained and
safeguarded from encroaching upon others’ liberty. Accordingly, classic
liberals strongly supported the presence of a sovereign state, capable of
restraining all individuals and groups within society. At the same time,
liberals are also acutely aware of the dangers that government embodies. A
government exercises sovereign power and therefore poses a constant threat
to individual liberty. Hence, liberals fearing arbitrary government uphold
the principle of limited government through the establishment of
constitutional constraints and by democracy.

Neoliberalism
This ideology is based on laissez-faire economics which upholds free markets
and trade liberalization. Neoliberals believe that economic growth is key to
human progress, and that the government must not intervene in the
activities of markets and capitalists. This ideology gained popularity during
the 1980s and was implemented by the governments of the United Kingdom
and the United States. In particular, the Reagan administration of the United
States advocated “trickle down” economics – a policy that reduced taxes on
the wealthy and business. It was believed that the policy would result in
economic benefits for the rest of the population of the United States.
Conservatism
This ideology upholds a strong, stable government and the firm
implementation of laws. Conservatives value continuity of tradition and are
more nationalistic, religious, and moralistic in their political views. This
view also upholds the existence of a free market with limited intervention
from the government. Conservatives also prefer a strong military and
advocate a strong presence in international affairs. In the United States, a
conservative thought adheres to the belief in a “limited government” in the
sense that government should not interfere in the individual beliefs and
decisions of its citizens. It is the view of conservatives that social problems
are not the concern of the government and should be addressed at the local
or community level.
Immoral and criminal behavior in society to conservative is not a product of

inequality or social disadvantages as socialists and modern liberals believe,
but rather by human imperfection. Hence, conservatives prefer strong
government and the presence of law as effective deterrents to impulsive and
violent behavior of individuals. The law is needed to preserve social order
but not to uphold liberty.
Conservatism is also wary of any change or reform, and are generally

opposed to liberal (such as openness, debate, and self-determination) and
socialist ideas. They defend tradition, values, practices, and institutions that
have survived the test of history as an accumulated wisdom of the past and
as a source of a sense of identity for both the society and the individual.
These explain why conservatives have been known to be resistant or
opposed to change. They have also believed that the society is naturally
hierarchical, hence social equality is unachievable. Their belief in hierarchy
is accompanied by a strong emphasis on authority which is necessary to
provide guidance, support, and security to the society (Heywood, 2003).
Reactionism
This ideology is a variation of conservatism. While conservatism seeks to
maintain the status quo, reactionism advocated a return to the “old ways.”
Reactionaries consider the present state of society as flawed and looks to the
past which they consider as a more orderly and better time. Society,
therefore, should change in a way that traditional practices and previous
state policies are revived.
Fascism
This is a radical right-wing ideology that is based on fierce nationalism and
authoritarianism. According to Heywood, as cited in Mendoza and Melegrito
(2016), fascists are “anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-conservatives, anti-

capitalist, anti-bourgeois, anti-communist, and so on.” Furthermore,

Heywood said that rejecting almost all of the aspects of the western tradition,
fascists defined
 freedom as “unquestioning submission,”

 democracy as “absolute dictatorship,” and
 progress as “constant struggle and war.”
Fascism advocates a very strong central government, with many of the

aspects of democratic government subject to restrictions or even eliminated.
Fascism emerged as a significant political ideology in Italy during 1930s,
although this ideology also influenced the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany
and militarism in Japan. It was founded by Benito Mussolini. For fascists,
society is in danger from various threats such as invasion, war, or rebellion,
and a very strong government with unlimited powers is needed to address
this threats. The fascist government is centered on dictatorship, and political
opposition and dissent is suppressed. For fascists, the interests of the state is
considered paramount, and individual liberties and interests must give way
to the interests of the state.
fascism
A totalitarian political system that is headed by a
popular charismatic leader and in which a
single political party and carefully controlled violence
form the bases of complete social and political control.
Fascism differs from communism in that the economic
structure, although controlled by the state, is privately
owned.
Rejecting as well equality, fascists are deeply elitist and fiercely patriarchal.
They believe that absolute leadership and elite rule are natural and
desirable. The “leader principle” was widely accepted as a guiding principle
of the fascist state. Heywood (2003) describes the leader principle as,
leader principle (in fascism)

“the principle that all authority emanates from the
leader personally, thus became the guiding principle
of the fascist state. Intermediate institutions such as
elections, parliaments, and parties were either
abolished or weakened to prevent them from
challenging or distorting the leader’s will. This
principle of absolute leadership was underpinned by
the belief that the leader possesses a monopoly of
ideological wisdom: the leader, and the leader alone,
defines the destiny of his people, their ‘real’ will, their
‘general will.’

Socialism Liberalism Neoliberalism Reactionism
Anarchism Social Democracy Centrism Conservatism Fascism
Figure 4. The political spectrum
In recent time, we have witnessed significant changes in what it means to be an anarchist, socialist, liberal,
conservative, or fascist. What these labels meant in the twentieth century may have differed significantly and
have acquired new meanings and/or symbols in the twenty-first century.
For instance, the term ‘liberal’ has come to have a different meaning compared to its technical meaning
traditional political thought. In North America, for instance, the fundamental differences between left-wing
and right-wing ideologies revolve around the rights of individuals vis-à-vis the power of the government.
Ideologies oriented to the left are deemed liberal because they believe society is best served with an expanded
role for the government. Ideologies oriented to the right, on the other hand, believe that the best outcome for
society is achieved when rights and civil liberties of individuals are “maximized” and the power of the
government is reduced to its minimum.
In Europe, the collapse of communism in the eastern European revolutions of 1989-91 ushered in a shift or
reversal in the socialists’ agenda. Instead of uniting around the traditional principles of western social
democracy, parliamentary socialist parties in many parts of the world embraced and policies that are more
commonly associated with liberalism or even conservatism (Heywood, 2003).
IDEOLOGY AND GOVERNANCE
Ideology is a major influence on the way government organizes itself and

conducts its activities. The ideas and principles espoused by political
ideologies become the bases of state policies and principles, which in turn
defines laws and political traditions. Citizens are also influenced by state
ideologies as they are influenced and even indoctrinated to conform to a
political culture defined by the accepted ideologies of the state.
In actual practice, most advocates of political ideologies does not fully

embrace all ideas of their preferred ideologies. Many political groups have a
core ideology as basis for their fundamental beliefs, but may adopt some
ideas from other political ideologies. M any governments seeks a balance
between left-leaning and right-leaning policies while states declare
themselves to be fully committed to a certain ideology. States that advocates
communist or socialist ideologies include China, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam.
Fascist regimes emerged in Spain during the 1930s during the reign of
Francisco Franco, while the Peron administration of Argentina was also
primarily influenced by Fascist ideals. Many states have active political
parties that advocate ideologies across political spectrum. Governments may
also experience changes in their political ideologies due to historical
developments or social change.
Political systems may be established based on a single ideology or a

combination of ideas from various ideologies. Authoritarianism and
totalitarianism, for instance, are influenced by right-wing ideologies.

Authoritarianism is a political system with a strong central government,

limited freedom for citizens, and constraints on political institutions.
Totalitarianism, meanwhile, is a political system where government
authority is unlimited and the state has control over the public and private
lives of its citizens. Libertarianism, on the other hand, a political system
where the government has limited influence over the economy and society,
appeals to some liberal and conservative groups.
Political Ideologies and Philippine Politics

In Philippine politics, one important evidence of the influence of political
ideologies in governance is the Philippine Constitution. The 1987
Constitution has various sections that embody certain liberal, socialist,
conservative, and even fascist ideas. For instance, Section 18 of Article VII,
which defines the president’s power to suspend writ of habeas corpus for a
limited period of time and declare martial law in times of emergency is an
essentially fascist power. This power, however, is tempered by the fact that
it is subject to the review and approval of the other branches of the
government. Article III (Bill of Rights) and Article XIII (Social Justice and
Human Rights) are expression of liberal and socialist ideals, as the rights
included uphold individual liberties, the interests of specific sectors of
society, and serve as a check of power of state. Article XV (The Family) is
influenced by conservative ideas that upholds the value of the Filipino family.
Filipino party politics, however, is not fully-influenced b political ideology in

the sense that adherence to a certain political ideology does not define the
identity and purpose of political parties in our country. Unlike in countries
such as the United Kingdom and the United States where major political
parties have definite political ideologies that define their programs and
policies, Philippine political parties are seen more as political machines for
individual candidates to gain political office rather than platforms for
advocating political ideas. In fact, the programs and platforms of major
political parties at present are very similar to one another. Political
commenters have noted that Philippine politics is primarily personality
driven, and citizens often based their participation in government on
whether or not they identify with or “like” a certain political leader or official.
The prevalence of patronage politics, where politicians use state resources
to reward resources, is also another factor that prevents the emergence of an
ideology-based party politics in the country.
However, one political ideology that has gained popularity among Filipino
politicians in recent times is populism, which emphasizes the interests of
the masses. This view often presents the masses as being oppressed by the
elite or an oligarchy, and that it is the role of the government to limit the
privileges of the elite and uplift the condition of the masses. Populism does
not fall nearly along the political spectrum as its ideas are often used by
various ideological groups to advance their respective causes and gain
popularity among the people.
On the other hand, there are several non-government interest groups and
organizations in our country that are influenced by political ideologies.
Organizations such as AKBAYAN and Kilusang Mayo Uno profess an agenda
that is primarily influenced by socialist ideas. The Communist Party of the
Philippines is an organization that advocates the establishment of
communism in the country through an armed struggle. Religious
organizations, meanwhile, primarily adhere to conservative beliefs and ideas.

These and other organizations continually interact with the government in

an effort to uphold their respective agendas.
IDEOLOGY AND CITIZENSHIP
All individuals have their respective ideologies that enable them to make
sense of the world and their place in it. Political ideologies, in particular, are
a product of state indoctrination and an individual’s own background,
experiences, and acquired knowledge. Political views and beliefs, in turn,
determine the actions and behaviors of citizens. Political ideologies,
therefore, are a basis of citizen action and participation in governance. The
influence of political ideology on citizen action is evident in four key areas:
1. Respect for law and order;

2. Political participation;
3. Humanitarianism;
4. Political dissent, protest, and civil disobedience.
As awareness of one’s political ideology is essential as it helps citizens

participate effectively in politics. Ideology can be a source of stability and
unity, especially if majority of the citizens believe in the principles and values
of the government. Citizens who do not share in prevailing doctrines and
ideas of the state, on the other can be an effective counter-balance to the
state and provide a voice of dissent and opposition whenever necessary.
Being aware of one’s political belief s and values also helps in critically
examining government actions and programs. Citizen support for the
government should not be unconditional and uncritical, thus awareness of
what one stands for and how government should uphold the shared beliefs of
its citizens is necessary to prevent any action of the government that might
go against the principles and values of a democratic state.

LESSON 5. STATES, NATION, AND GLOBALIZATION

“ !”
-E. M. FORSTER (1910)
The modern world is now more interconnected than ever, and individuals and societies often influence each
other in various ways through constant political, economic, and cultural interactions. Globalization is an
important development that continually shapes and defines various aspects of the modern world. The state
and nation are two significant concepts that go hand-in-hand in understanding politics and governance with
the context of globalization. Participating global politics gives rise to various opportunities and challenges in
the political, economic, and cultural arena, and a state must adequately rise to global challenges and take
advantage of opportunities that will bring about benefits for its people.
DEFINING, DIFFERENTIATING, AND UNDERSTANDING

STATES, NATIONS, AND NATION-STATES
Most often, states and nations are confused or used as if they are
interchangeable. On the most basic level, nations are commonly defined as
cultural entities, that is, groupings of people bound together by shared values
and traditions. In particular, nations share a common language, religion,
history, and usually occupy the same geographical area, but to define a
nation in this manner is rather problematic.
First, nations exist in varied contexts and have distinct histories that makes
the task of identifying shared commonalities among its people applicable to
almost all cases difficult if not impossible. Second, the cultural unity that is
central to nations lacks objective criteria. Ultimately, nations can only be
defined ‘subjectively’ by their members, not by any set of external factors
(Heywood, 2003).
For example, in terms of a common language, there are people who share the
same language but not a common national identity. Americans, Australians,
and New Zealanders may speak English as a first language but they would
not consider themselves as members of an ‘English nation’.
Others have enjoyed a substantial measure of national unity without

possessing a national language as in the case of Switzerland.
In terms of religion, people may speak the same language but are divided
across religious lines as in the case of Northern Ireland. Nations are also
based on a sense of ethnic or racial unity as exemplified by Germany during
the Nazi period. But ethnic unity does not necessarily lead to national
identity.
Finally, while nations share a common history and traditions based on

shared memories or a common past, cultural unity may little to do with it. In
the US, national identity has been forged out a common commitment to the
constitution and the values of liberal capitalism for which the US stands
rather than on common history and traditions.

Adding to the complexity of defining a nation are two opposing conceptions

of the nation—the “exclusive” and “inclusive” concepts of the nation.
exclusive concepts of the nation

stress the importance of ethnic unity and a share
history. By viewing national identity as ‘given’,
unchanging, and indeed unchangeable, this implies
that nations are characterized by common descent and
so tends to blur the distinction between the nation and
the race.
inclusive concepts of the nation

highlight the importance of civic consciousness and
patriotic loyalty, suggesting that nations may be
multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious, and so forth.
This in turn, tends to blur the distinction between the
nation and the state.
Authors like, Reedler and Enloe (1969, 143 cited in Oommen, 1997, 18-9)
noted the difference between a nation and a state as:
“ ‘state’ … is primarily a political-legal concept,

whereas ‘nation’ is primarily psychocultural.
Nation and state may exist independently of one

another, a nation may exist without a state, a state
may exist without a nation. When the two coincide,
the result is a nation-state.”
While a nation may be the core component of a state, some nations exist
without states. The Kurdish people in the Middle East is an ethnic located in
a region that encompasses parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The Kurds
consider themselves a nation but have not been able to establish a state
because of opposition from the countries that form their homeland. The
Kurdish region in northern Iraq, however, enjoys, autonomy from the Iraqi
government since the 1970s and may be considered a de facto state. Other
nations exist beyond states, or may include several states within its scope.
The Arab nation, for example, includes several nations in West Asia and
North Africa. The Filipino nation, at present, is not merely confined to the
Philippines, but also includes Filipino communities found in other countries
throughout the world.
According to Oommen (1997), a state is a legally constituted entity which
provides its citizens protection both from internal and external insecurity
and aggression.
Elements of a State
A state has four essential elements, namely, people, territory, government
and sovereignty. Among these four elements, sovereignty is the ultimate and
defining feature of every state.
 People. It refers to those whom the state is obliged to protect and

provide services to. They are the citizens who enjoy and exercise
rights and authorized by the state and mandated by the constitution
and law. Without the people a state cannot exist.
 Territory. It refers to well-defined physical and geographic
boundaries wherein the state reigns supreme and where the state’s

exercise of sovereignty is recognized both inside and outside these

boundaries.
 Government. It refers to the formal institutions through which
people are ruled.
 Sovereignty. It is the absolute or supreme exercise of power
expressed either as unchallengeable legal authority or
unquestionable political power. It has two aspects: Internal
sovereignty refers to the ability of the state to govern and control
its people and territory, and external sovereignty which is the
freedom from outside influences or foreign intervention.
The state is considered the highest form of human association, and it is the
product of man’s basic desire for survival and attainment of wants and
needs. The state is considered by Enlightenment philosophers such as
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau as a product of an
established order brought about by human cooperation and agreement. The
state is primarily an organization with a legal purpose which is to impose law
and order to ensure the welfare of the people. It is this nature of the state
that imbues it with the power to enact and enforce laws.
The state is considered a product of the interaction of its various elements,

and cannot be reduced to a single institution such as the government. As
citizens, we encounter aspects of the state in our everyday lives but it is most
evident in the laws and regulations we live by and the public services we
avail of. The state is also embodied by our public officials, members of the
police and armed forces, and the government officers and workers. Their
actions as they conduct their duties and responsibilities are considered
manifestations of the power of the state. The state is also embodied by
symbols such as the flag, the national anthem, monuments, and other
symbols used by the government.
As the previous discussion on political ideologies revealed, the state is seen

differently in terms of its nature and significance. Liberals regard the state as
the protector of individual rights. Conservatives defend the state as an
instrument of reform and the source of social justice. Anarchists see the
state as evil and unnecessary. Fascists subordinate the state to the elite’s
absolute leadership. While socialists are divided over whether the state is an
instrument of oppression or an embodiment of the common good.
Like political ideologies, the “sovereign” state was also not spared by the
wide-ranging implications of globalization. Globalization has also challenged
the relevance and salience of the state in today’s highly globalized world.
Like the “end of ideology” problem of political ideologies, states also face the
same dilemma, the “end of the nation-state” in the context of globalization.
But is it really the end of the nation-state? Does globalization lead to the end
of the nation-state?
GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

No development has challenged the conventional state-centric image of

world politics more radically than the emergence of globalization.
Globalization, indeed, can be seen as the buzz word of our time. Amongst
politicians, for instance, the conventional wisdom is that the twenty-first
century will be the ‘global century’. But what actually is ‘globalization’? Is it
actually happening, and, if so, what are its implications?
During the 20th century globalization was advanced by various political

developments. In the 1920s, in a desire to promote peace and security in
Europe and in the rest of the world, western governments spearheaded the
creation of the League of Nations as a forum for diplomatic negotiations. In
1945, towards the end of the Second World War, members of the Allied
Forces organized in a global union of nation-states with the aim of
preventing another global conflict. In 1948, the United Nations (UN) was
founded with the goal of promoting global peace, cooperation, and dialogue
among countries. The Philippines is one of the founding members of the UN.
The emergence o0f supranational organizations that adopt common policies
for member state, and whose members surrender certain powers to higher
authorities, is also another indication of globalization. Examples includes
regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian (ASEAN)
and the European Union (EU), and institutions such as the International
Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, Netherlands.
Explaining Globalization
Globalization is a complex, elusive and controversial term. It has been used
to refer to a process, a policy, a marketing strategy, a predicament or even an
ideology. Some have tried to bring greater clarity to the debate about the
nature of globalization by distinguishing between globalization as a process
or set of processes (highlighting the dynamics of transformation or change,
in common with other words that end in the suffix ‘-ization’, such as
modernization) and globality as a condition (indicating the set of
circumstances that globalization has brought about, just as modernization
has created a condition of modernity) (Steger 2003). Others have used the
term globalism to refer to the ideology of globalization, the theories, values
and assumptions that have guided or driven the process (Ralston Saul 2005).
The problem with globalization is that it is not so much an ‘it’ as a ‘them’: it is
not a single process but a complex of processes, sometimes overlapping and
interlocking but also, at times, contradictory and oppositional ones. It is
therefore difficult to reduce globalization to a single theme. Nevertheless, the
various developments and manifestations that are associated with
globalization, or indeed globality, can be traced back to the underlying
phenomenon of interconnectedness. Globalization, regardless of its forms or
impact, forges connections between previously unconnected people,
communities, institutions and societies. Held and McGrew (1999) thus
defined globalization as ‘the widening, intensifying, speeding up, and
growing impact of world-wide interconnectedness’
globalization (Heywood, 2011)

is the emergence of a complex web of
interconnectedness that means that our lives are
increasingly shaped by events that occur, and
decisions that are made, at a great distance from
us.
The central feature of globalization is therefore

that geographical distance is of declining relevance

and that territorial borders, such as those between

nation-states, are becoming less significant. By no
means, however, does globalization imply that
‘the local’ and ‘the national’ are subordinated to ‘the
global’. Rather, it highlights the deepening as well as
the broadening of the political process, in the sense
that local, national and global events (or perhaps local,
regional, national, international and global events)
constantly interact.
The interconnectedness that globalization has spawned is multidimensional

and operates through distinctive economic, cultural and political processes.
In other words, globalization has a number of dimensions or ‘faces’. Although
globalization theorists have championed particular interpretations of
globalization, these are by no means mutually exclusive. Instead, they
capture different aspects of a complex and multifaceted phenomenon.
Globalization has been interpreted in three main ways (economic, cultural
and political):
 Economic globalization is the process through which national

economies have, to a greater or lesser extent, been absorbed into a
single global economy. This is evident in the growing trade and
financial relations among countries and the reduction and removal
of trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
The establishment of regional trade blocs, common markers, and

free trade areas is an indication of the growing tendency of states to
pursue collective action in the realm of international trade of
economics. Examples of these initiative include the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which established a North
American trade bloc and free trade area that includes Canada, the
United States of America, and Mexico. Another significant regional
organization is Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a trade
forum participated in by 21 countries located in the Pacific Rim.
 Cultural globalization is the process whereby information,

commodities and images that have been produced in one part of the
world enter into a global flow that tends to ‘flatten out’ cultural
differences between nations, regions and individuals.
This is evident in the transmission of ideas and the growth of

multicultural societies throughout the world. Technology is an
important factor in the rapid spread of knowledge and has led to
communities being exposed to varied ideas and cultures. People are
now exposed to values and traditions from other cultures thereby
diminishing cultural stereotypes and misconceptions. Globalization
has also lead to revival of national pride and an appreciation of
cultural identity due to the openness to diversity.
 Political globalization is the process through which policymaking

responsibilities have been passed from national governments to
international organizations. This aspect of globalization is also
concerned with security and military matters.

Many of the current security threats we face are global in scope.

Terrorism is a security concern that affects several states
throughout the world. Other threats such as organized crime, the
illegal drug trade, and human trafficking often operate in multiple
countries and across borders. Military conflict such as civil wars
and armed conflict between states, also has regional and
international effects. Addressing these global threats require action
from regional and international organizations. For instance, the UN
Security Council is tasked with leading the efforts in maintaining
global peace and security. This primarily done through
peacekeeping missions in places experiencing conflict of
humanitarian crises. The North Atlantic Organization (NATO)
composed of European Nations and the United States, was originally
established to defend against the threat of communism during the
Cold War. Presently NATO focuses on security concerns in Europe
and has initiated military intervention during the Balkan Crisis in
the 1990s, and most recently during the war on Terrorism, assisting
the United States in the wars in Afghanistan.
Globalization provides the nation-state various opportunities for growth but

likewise, the increasingly complex relations among nations bring about
various challenges. In political, economic, and military concerns, the nation
state must carefully balance national interests with global interests, and
work together with various nations in addressing global concerns.
Effects of Globalization
The effects of globalization on nation-states are varied. There are scholars
who believe that globalization weakens the nation-state, particularly its
capacity to govern vis-à-vis the forces of a free-market, capitalist system.
Free trade agreements, for instance, create a marketplace governed not by
states but by undemocratic international monetary institutions. As market
forces and actors globalized states compete against each other for corporate
jobs at the expense of public welfare and interest.
In contrast, there are those who believe that nation-states remain central to
governance in the context of globalization. While their power may have been
diminished, states remain relevant as they are needed to provide for the
appropriate political policy and legal framework within which states and
market forces do their business.
There are also those who believe that there are aspects of globalization that
link to nationalism. Heywood summarizes the impact of globalization on the
nation-state in the following manner, highlighting both the negative and
positive effects of globalization.
“Globalization for its part, has contributed to the

growth of insular, ethnically- or racially-based forms
of nationalism by weakening the nation-state and so
undermining civic forms of nationalism.
Political nationalism, linked to national self-

determination, may have become redundant in a
world in which nation-states operate in ‘post-
sovereign’ conditions.

On the other hand, forms of cultural, ethnic and

religious nationalism may be strengthened by the fact
that the state is losing its capacity to generate political
allegiance and civic loyalty.
Examining the effects of globalization on nationalism in the context of the

Philippines, De Dios (2000, 30-1), in his book, Between Nationalism and
Globalization, pointed to certain problems posed for nationalism by
globalization.
First, locational competition may compel countries to

proceed with globalization at a pace and in directions
not chosen by them.
Second, the effect of globalization of social sectors

with differing mobilities and endowments can cause
deep social divisions and conflicts.
Despite these problems, however, De Dios argued for the role of nationalism
to play. As globalization favors the more mobile, the more adaptable, and the
globally scarce, socioeconomic disparities within the society widen as some
social actors are presented with wide opportunities than others. Such result
can undermine the solidarity on which nationalism is based.
Nonetheless, De Dios noted that in such a situation, nationalism gains

relevance and importance because it will serve “as a check on the private
behavior of the more talented and endowed in society whose private actions,
while yielding private benefits, may yield a sub-optimal collective outcome.
For example, observance of tax laws, respect for the integrity of collective
institutions, and solidarity with the less privileged must be counted among
the practical benefits of nationalism.”
The pragmatic value of nationalism in a period of economic globalization is

summarized by De Dios (2000, 30) in the following convincing manner.
The pragmatic value of nationalism lies in whether it

can check excessively individualistic behavior that
causes damage to collective goods and promote
actions that reduce the costs of social transactions and
undertaking of large social projects. Nationalism
essentially asks individuals making decisions to take a
larger view, namely the view of the nation or of
society, and in so doing internalize collective interests
that they would ordinarily neglect.
Given the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges brought about by globalization, states should carefully
weigh the consequences of participating in global politics against their own state interests. Sovereign states,
therefor, should protect the interests of its citizenry when venturing into international relations. Governments

should determine the advantages and minimize the disadvantages before entering into any agreement with
other states. Economic and political relations should be established with the assumption that all participating
states are on equal footing as sovereign states. Globalization is an inescapable reality, and states should
exercise good judgment on order to reap more of its rewards and minimize it negative effects.
:
1. Define political ideology and identify its important functions.
2. Give some general features of ideologies on the left and right side of the political spectrum.
3. Describe the viewpoint of anarchism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and fascism regarding the state.
4. Differentiate state and nation.
5. What are the elements of a state? Explain each.
6. What is globalization?
7. What are the three ways globalization is interpreted?
:
1. How can understanding of political ideologies benefit you as a citizen?
2. How do political ideologies influence the conduct of governance? Discuss an example in Philippine politics.
3. What is the relationship between the nation and the state? How do they define each other?
4. How does globalization impact politics and governance in the international and national level?

Philippine Politics and Governance: Arman M. Bueno, RPM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Politics and Governance: Arman M. Bueno, RPM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHILIPPINE POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE

ARMAN M. BUENO, RPm

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 0

ARMAN M. BUENO, RPm  

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 1

LESSON OUTLINE (PART I)

LESSON 2 - THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY ABOUT POLITICS (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 2)

LESSON 3 - POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 3)

LESSON 4 - UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 4)

LESSON 5 - STATES, NATIONS, AND GLOBALIZATION (JOURNAL ENTRY NO. 5)

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 2

WHY STUDY POLITICS?

A basic understanding of politics is a vital part of any undergraduate education

The Public Interest

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 3

The definition of politics is flexible or changing.

Controversy is an important element of politics.

Disagreement nature of politics.

Agreements can also take its place in politics.

Politics involves power and influence.

Manifestation of politics are not the same.

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 4

One important feature of politics is its pervasiveness.

Conflict is not the exclusive feature of politics.

Dual character: desirable and undesirable.

Politics affects everyone.

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 5

The origin of the term politics can be traced back during

Most of us equate politics with the stereotypical politician

ARISTOTLE Therefore, it is understandable that this is the way in

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 6

POLITICS: ARENA VS PROCESS

To understand politics using arena approach is to acknowledge that politics can

ARENA APPROACH PROCESS APPROACH

• Politics is not limited to formal

• It follows a formalistic conception • Puts premium on the activity of

• Focuses on not only on activities

Figure 1. Politics: arena vs process

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 7

To better understand the process approach to politics, it is imperative to look at the

POLITICS AS ABOUT GOVERNING

Understanding politics as about governing requires us to differentiate between

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 8

“The general patterns and interlocking systems of governing across

In short, in its broadest sense—and it is broad—governance refers to

Heywood (2011) said that governance is a broader term than government.

According to Joven, (2017) once a government is deemed functional, governance

POLITICS AS “THE AUTHORITATIVE ALLOCATION OF VALUES FOR A SOCIETY”

From Easton’s A Systems Approach to the

Defining policy Easton says: DAVID EASTON

Defining authority Easton says:

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 9

administrative structure is to be built up for the implementation of the law and

Defining society Easton says:

In any society there are a number of groups of individuals whose objectives,

Finally Easton says:

Elements of Politics according to Easton

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 10

Maintain a Level of Equilibrium

UNIT I – INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 11

Figure 2. A simplified model of the political system.

From Easton’s definition of politics as “the authoritative allocation of values for a