ADVERTISEMENTS:
Classical Political Theory:
What we call political theory today is not the product of any particular period or the by-product of research of any single person or few persons. Rather there is a history of development behind which lies the work and research as well as philosophy of numerous persons.
Political scientists and researchers have felt that the political theory can be divided into few stages and some of these are classical political theory, traditional political theory, and modern political theory and post modern political theory. It is to be noted here that this classification is not final. Many political scientists do not agree with this classification. But for clarity of thought and convenience of analysis this classification may be followed.
One aspect of classical political theory is it was dominated by certain eternal values and philosophy. This is specifically to be found in the writings of Plato, Aristotle and some others. Both the Greek philosophers thought of establishing ideal state though the modus operandi of both of them was not same.
But there is a resemblance between “the ideal states of Plato and Aristotle. To Plato the mechanism of setting up an ideal state was to entrust a philosopher king with the task of administration of the ideal state because it was believed that he would be able to keep himself above narrow interests and ensure communism of wife, children and property.
Plato believed that in an ideal state there shall be uniformity in education, mode of living etc. But his disciple Aristotle did not give any importance to uniformity. He relied upon the abolition of different forms of inequalities and he arrived at the conclusion that only in polity there can exist such an arrangement.
Both Plato and Aristotle were enamoured by the concepts of good and noble life and they thought that eternal values, goodness and nobleness of life can be realised only through the state and for that reason they were thinking of an ideal state.
Only through unconditional surrender to the authority of ideal state an individual can build up his goodness and nobleness of character. Thus, in the thought system of Plato and Aristotle ethics, philosophy, morality, eternal values etc. were completely mixed together.
In the writings of Plato and Aristotle and many others rationality had a very crucial role to play. Since men are rational they are not supposed to disobey the diktat of eternal values, morality and idealism. Throughout the middle Ages there was a long standing and damaging conflict between the church and the state and the central theme of this conflict was state and politics should be controlled by church and religion.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Some medieval thinkers such as St. Augustine (354-430), St. Thomas Aquinas (1227- 1274) and Marsilius of Padua (1270-1340) were all religious-minded and honest persons. All of them thought of state and politics in the light of religion and honesty. So the classical political theory was shrouded with morality, ethics, religious conceptions and many subjective notions.
Natural Law and Classical Political Theory:
Not only morality, ethics and eternal values managed a vintage position in the classical political theory, concept of natural law earned abundant prominence, wide publicity and approval of large number of philosophers in this stage of political theory. We have already noted that both Plato and Aristotle were profusely influenced by rationalism. Natural law had also a great impact upon their political thought and general ideas.
A large number of thinkers believed that the natural law was the greatest manifestation of reason, rationality, correctness and human intellect. Rational knowledge, goodness, reasonability, justice, structured reality and morality are all embedded in natural law. Politicians, statesmen, philosophers and even a large number of educated people were inclined to give maximum importance to natural law.
In the whole period of classical political theory people were reluctant to give any credence to man-made laws; natural law was the real guiding force of all activities and particularly the political activities of state and men.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The exponents of the classical political theory were so much imbued with the thought and importance of natural law that they started to think both natural law and rationalism as the two sides of the same coin and here the coin is society and its political structure.
The influence of natural law was so much prominent in earlier periods that Christian thinkers and philosophers could not come out of its influence. We know that both Hobbes and Locke paid a good deal of attention to the concept of natural law. They wanted to build up a civil society through the instrumentality of contract.
But even the society made by contract could not get rid of the overwhelming influence of natural law. Many thinkers wanted to build up future society upon the natural law and in their thought and attempt utopianism played the most vital role. They thought of a golden age and good society the basis of which would be natural law. In Rousseau’s political thought we find a very fine combination of Plato’s idealism, morality and natural law.
Rousseau thought that only the revival of state of nature and that is through the system of contract an ideal society could be built up. Even Marx was not free from the influence of natural law. He tells us that in ancient society there was no discrimination among men and also no exploitation. Everything was managed by law of nature.
The emergence of private property which is an innovation of some men heavily told upon the efficacy of natural law. Natural law was replaced by man made laws and this precipitated the exploitation and degradation of society. Hence we see that classical political theory was dominated by idealism, ethics and natural law.
Modern Traditional Political Theory:
Why Traditional?
It is very difficult to say assertively when the appearance of modern political theory actually took place and subsequently to thrive but there is an almost agreement in this regard that after Machiavelli (1469-1527) the political theory began to assume a different shape because of the fact that he was the first thinker who strongly advocated for forging a separation between politics and religion.
This attempt of Machiavelli initiated a new trend in political theory and it is politics or political theory has a separate existence and both must maintain separate identity. Machiavelli performed a good job by assertively advocating the divorce between religion and politics. But in spite of this after Machiavelli political theory could not assert itself. Religion clandestinely and sometimes overtly began to influence political theory.
He was thus a political thinker of transition period. West European society was not completely free from the influence of religion. In the political thought of Christian thinkers religion had an important part to play. That is why post-Machiavellian political theory was both modern and traditional.
Modern in the sense that the tremendous influence of church and religion on politics and functions of state that existed in the Middle Ages began to recede. But religion was still a force to reckon with. Hence post-classical political theory is sometimes called modern traditional political theory.
The State as a Machine:
The important characteristic feature of political theory of the modern traditional period is that the state is a machine. In the classical period the state was also considered as a vehicle through which men can realise their noble aspirations. But this role of state could not earn widespread approval from wider sections of society because people were not profoundly interested in ethical, moral and ideological values.
The two exponents of contract theory—Hobbes and Locke—introduced a new thought and vision and it is that the state is a machine through which individuals can achieve certain ends which are associated with their ground to earth life and existence.
According to Hobbes these are peace and security and according to Locke the chief objectives of any political organisation (Locke also uses the term civil society) to ascertain life and liberty and to make proper arrangements for the protection of private property. The political theory adumbrated by Locke unfolded a new concept and it is liberalism. Liberalism is a very complex concept that embraces so many ideas and views and in fact modern traditional theory revolves around this particular concept.
On the other hand, Hobbes gave very little attention to the protection of property and realisation of liberty. To him security and peace were of utmost importance. However, during the early years of modern political theory state appeared to be a machine and the machine was considered to be powerful. To sum up, in the modern traditional period the state has primarily been viewed as a machine and the inner meaning is that the state has been set up to fulfill certain limited functions just like machine. A particular machine is manufactured to do a particular job.
Individualism and Democracy:
Individualism and democracy received tremendous encouragement and support from the writings of a number of thinkers many of whom were well known. In the political thought of Hobbes and Locke individualism was greatly emphasized. Both the contract thinkers considered various rights as of prime importance. Though Hobbes was a great monarchist and not a democrat in our sense, he treated people’s right to take food and medicine very important.
Hobbes also said that no authority had any power to force man form taking food and medicine. Priority was always given to man and his all round development and it was firmly believed that if the importance of state is not brought to minimum level individual’s freedom could never be achieved and mainly for that reason in Western democracy man was always given utmost importance.
In this period theory of natural rights was treated with special care. It was believed that since the state was not the creator of rights it cannot take them away from individuals. It was also strongly argued that individual and his rights existed before the establishment of civil society and government and because of this the rights of man must always get first importance. In this way in the stage of modern political theory individual was deliberately brought into the limelight. The best way to protect the rights of individuals is to bind both with contract.
The political thinkers of modern traditional period also focused their attention on individualism because they thought that non-interference on the activities of man was the best for man’s progress. It was thought that only democracy was a viable form of government and through it people can develop their inherent qualities.
It is said that though Hobbes was a worshipper of absolutism it cannot be assertively said that he hated democracy. Locke, Rousseau and a score of thinkers were staunch believers of democracy though the forms they advocated were not uniform types. In this connection we can remember Jefferson’s famous dictum that government governs best that governs least. Today what we call minimal state in the early modern period that concept was advocated by many celebrities and Jefferson was one of them.
Emancipation of individual became practically the core idea of many political philosophers. Wasby writes “Modern democracy the rise of Protestantism and the development of capitalism are all associated with the emancipation of the individual in Western political thought”. Hence democracy and individualism in this period developed simultaneously. But these two concepts were not the solitary occupiers of the entire thought system of this period. Democracy was viewed from different standpoints.
Capitalism and Marxism:
Two important tributaries of political theory that earned prominence in the modern period are capitalism and Marxism. Several states of Western Europe witnessed unprecedented changes in social, political and economic fields in the second half of the eighteenth century and those changes were considered the tangible products of Industrial Revolution.
Industrial Revolution generated fabulous amount of wealth and goods but a major part of which went to a microscopic fraction of society who used it for its own consumption and for further generation of wealth. Through this from the very beginning of nineteenth century developed a new phenomenon which is popularly known as capitalism. The most unpopular product of capitalism is the inequality of income and wealth.
This inequality of wealth and income created a lot of resentment among a large number of thinkers and Karl Marx tops the list. He’ squarely blamed capitalism for the growing misery of working class. He also believed that the bourgeois state machinery was manipulated by the capitalists in their favour.
Marx’s sweeping conclusion was that only a protracted class struggle and permanent revolution can emancipate the common people from the exploitation of capitalist class. From Marxism there arose another doctrine which constituted a very important aspect of modern political theory and it is socialism. Some of its forms are Scientific Socialism, Fabian Socialism etc.
Idealism:
While exploring the various facets of political theory it would never be prudent to ignore idealism which once upon a time was popular and at the same time formed an important part of political theory. Idealism was first explained and vigorously argued by Plato and Aristotle and later on it received elaborate treatment at the hands of German philosophers, Kant (1724-1804), Hegel (1770-1831) and Fichte (1762- 1814) and Oxford idealists. Idealism is opposed to empiricism. The doctrine propounds that knowledge and sense cannot be derived from experience but from thought.
Idealism also believes that certain eternal values and principles are of vital importance and they have developed through ages and their evolution has reached a stage which cannot be questioned and challenged. These values and principles are manifested in the state to which the individuals must display absolute obedience.
It also preaches that individuals are basically rational and they want fuller blossoming of the values, ideals ethical and moral principles and according to idealism, this ambitious objective can be achieved through the membership of state. Up to the first half of the nineteenth century Idealists’ philosophy occupied a niche in the whole gamut of political theory. Idealism has various interpretations and versions but the mere fact is that its association with political theory is a fait accompli.
Nationalism:
The involvement of nationalism with political theory may be contested by many, but a scrutiny of the various aspects of political theory reveals that its association with political theory cannot be ruled out. The nationalist feeling, the concept of nation, state, urge for right to self-determination etc. were all very much active behind the emergence of nationalism.
If we look at the history of Western political thought we shall find that in the fields of nationalism and nation state Machiavelli was the pioneer. In The Prince he advised the prince to unify the various parts of Italy by any means and to establish a nation-state. In fact, nationalism or nation-state per se help flourish the political theory, but its multi faceted developments helped political theory to thrive and one such facet is the concept of sovereignty.
The indomitable urge of the industrialised nations of Europe to dominate the vast territories of Africa and Asia inflamed the nationalist feeling of the people of Asia and Africa. Almond and Powell have rightly observed that in the first-half of the twentieth century there was a clear absence of political theory and political developments that took place in the Third world states.
These developments were the outcomes of nationalism. This leads to the birth of comparative politics. However, the fact is that the rise and development of nationalism have assisted the progress of political theory. Today comparative politics is an integral part of political theory and their integration has enriched political science to a considerable extent.
Modern Period: Empiricism:
Factors Contributing to the Emergence of Empiricism:
After the Second World War (1939-1945) some top ranking political thinkers of America took a venture to explain the subject by borrowing techniques from different science subjects. This attempt laid the foundation of a new approach to the study of political science.
In the second place, the rapid advance of Marxism in the first few decades of the twentieth century and particularly after the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) in Russia created panic in the minds of political scientists and educationists. The main cause of the panic was that the rapid advance of Marxism and socialist thought was about to expose the real picture of capitalism which was exploitative in nature. To the protagonists of capitalism this was a potent cause of anxiety and tension.
They apprehended that socialism might dethrone capitalism from its present position. All of them decided to combat this situation in an academic way. They thought that a confidence should be created in the minds of people that liberal political thought was much superior to Marxism and in order to do that liberal political analysis must be based on scientific methods and this mentality created a tremendous impact upon the way of explaining the subject.
Thirdly, in the 1940s a good number of scholars and political scientists from Europe migrated to America and their intention was to introduce new methods of analysis. This point has been aptly pointed out by a critic in the following way, “Beginning in the 1940s, the basic values of American political science were fundamentally challenged by an ideologically diverse group of emigre scholars who coalesced around the project of initiating the first root and branch critique of the discipline”.
All of them defended that the discipline must be explained scientifically. This strong determination brought sea changes in the methods of analysis and the fact is that the attempt brought good results.
Fourthly, the Cold War and other connected factors stressed upon science. It was believed in those days that only a proper cultivation of science could yield good and desirable results. Scholars and educationists of USA began to perceive science not simply as an end but also a means and the means would be used to achieve perfection or improvement. Scientists invested their energy and genius to make war weapons more destructive. Political scientists wanted to improve the method of analysis.
Another reason is the traditional political theory for long periods of time revolved around norms and values which means that political science is a normative science. Its emphasis on “is” and “ought” was so important and the penchant for that emphasis made political theory unattractive. Many scholars decided to improve the methods of analysis. Just at that time the Rockefeller Foundation launched a project to facilitate the research of mass communication and American Political Science Association came forward to take this lucrative opportunity.
The purpose was to lay the foundation of a “value-free operational language of political enquiry and as an exercise in scientific political theory”. The Rockefeller foundation wanted thorough and fruitful research on the conflict between liberal political theory and the Bolshevik or Marxist approach to political theory.
It also wanted to make a thorough inquiry on war, famine, atomic destruction and their collective impact upon the study of political theory. Two important alternatives appeared before the researchers—to scrupulously adhere to the traditional value added political theory or to posit the theory on scientific foundation and the second alternative finally triumphed. From the 1950s we witness the triumphant advance of empirical analysis of political theory.
Postmodernism:
Another offshoot of modern political theory is post-modernism. It is difficult to define this concept precisely. Since the 1950s political theory was embraced by a new phenomenon which is called postmodernism. It implies that there is nothing like certainty, absolute and universal truth. The whole world is changing as well as outlook and behaviour of individuals and in such situation nothing can be fixed or permanent. It emphasizes on discourse, debate and democracy.
The important feature of postmodernism is that “it stands for the end of science, the death of history, the elimination of objectivity and the very idea of truth, the denial of the world of things and events, the end of cause and effect”. Another critic has put the concept in the following words, “As a tool of social and political analysis postmodernism highlights the shift away from societies structured by industrialisation and class solidarity to increasingly fragmented and pluralistic information societies”.
We thus see that postmodernism believes in atomic individualism. In its opinion individual is the only final determiner of everything. It denies the authority. But post modernism is silent about anarchism. However, its view leads to anarchist structure of society.
Rational Choice Theory:
Origin and Central Idea:
In the fifties and sixties of the last century political theory witnessed a new development in its own arena and it is popularly known as rational choice theory. In modern time the theory found its roots in the analysis of Hobbes who said that society with a government of absolute powers far better than state of nature. Here is a clear choice of individuals. Because of certain deficiencies people preferred civil society to state of nature.
There are clear hints of the theory in the writings of other thinkers. The rational choice theory originated in Anthony Dawn’s noted book An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957). Duncan Black published The Theory of Committee and Elections in 1958. Herbert Simon’s Models of Man was published in 1957. Between 1957 and 1973 there were published a number of books which deal with rational choice.
The central idea of the doctrine is when a man or group of men are given a number of alternatives they, after calculating all the aspects, decide a particular course of action. That is, they arrive at a decision. Behind the arrival of the decision rationality of the person concerned plays a vital role. In other words, rationality is the chief guiding force and because of this it is called rational choice theory.
By the mid-1970s the theory was very popular and it was first applied to economics and then political scientists took interest. Hence the central idea of the rational choice theory of politics is reason or rationality is the main determiner of people’s choice. Moved by rationality men select an action.
Features of the Theory:
From what has been said by its proponents certain features can be derived. One such feature is there is an identifiable set of actions which lead to an identifiable set of outcomes or results of these actions. Here the word identifiable is very important. Both actions and outcomes can be identified. In the second place the participants in the actions are rational and reasonable and they can order the preferences considering outcome. They can identify the actions and at the same time the consequences.
This enables them to take a particular course of action. In the third place, several alternatives are placed before the participants or actors and they are given the freedom to choose any one of the alternatives. In the fourth place, the actors or participants select that alternative which can assure the maximum benefit or utility.
In the fifth place, while selecting the alternative the actor applies his intelligence or reason so that he can arrive at a comfortable or viable position. In the sixth place, the rational choice model assures that while going to select a particular alternative the individual is not faced with any restriction the meaning of which is he enjoys full freedom.
Finally, the rational choice model starts with the individual level and reaches the collective level. That is, from micro level to macro level. The rational choice level is the hyphen between micro and macro levels.
Assessment:
The rational choice theory has been subjected to a number of criticisms. It gives emphasis on alternatives and their outcomes. The problem is what is the exact number of the alternatives and their outcomes? The advocates of the theory cannot throw light on this issue and this creates confusion and deficiency.
The supporters of the theory claim that it can help the researchers to arrive at a fruitful discussion of politics and political theory will get inspiration from it. But critics are of opinion that since the back bone of the theory is rationality this very rationality can be questioned. How many individuals possess the rationality?
Heywood observes: “In proceeding from an abstract model of individual, rational choice theory pays insufficient attention to social and historical factors”. There is another objection. For the proper functioning of the theory a liberal or democratic set up of the society is essential.
All the individuals or at least the rational persons will be given sufficient freedom to select the most desirable alternatives so that he/she can maximise his/her utility or benefit. But such an atmosphere is not easily available. It is alleged that the doctrine may effectively work at the micro level, but its success at the macro level is not encouraging at all.
A clash of interest, choices, and tastes is inevitable and how is an equilibrium to be attained? Its advocates cannot assure us on this issue. There is still a limitation of the theory. For the development of rationality or reason education and favourable circumstances are required which are not easily available.
The Task of Political Theory:
We have very briefly surveyed the revival or resurgence of political theory in the 1950s and 1960s. A pertinent question which peeps into our mind is why a large number of political scientists and researchers took so much trouble and time to do the research work for the resurgence of political theory? The answer to this vexed question lies in the importance or task of political theory.
Almond, Powell, David Easton, Robert Dahl, Lasswell, and Kaplan etc. took special care in regard to the comprehensive analysis of political system which the traditional thinkers avoided. Easton says: “For a variety of reasons a theoretical frame work is essential to an adequate analysis of political system”. Only a systematic and well-built theory is capable of identifying the important political variables and analysing the relations among them.
In the second place, according to Easton a political theory “maps out the areas in which additional or new research is badly needed”. Finally, a political theory “adds to the reliability of the results of both new and old research in a way impossible without the existence of a relatively consistent body of concepts.
The function of a political theory (some critics call general theory though there is difference between the two), is to construct a conceptual framework through which to make sense of disparate phenomena.
Classification of Political Theory:
Value Theory and Causal Theory:
The political scientists of the second half of the twentieth century were quite conscious of the importance of theory and remembering this they framed a structure of political theory. Easton says that a theory is used to mean many things. In the first place according to Easton a theory is used for explaining the values or philosophical aspects of politics.
Here the word value is used not in the sense of economics but in philosophical or moral or ethical sense. In cases more than one theory is used to indicate value. Easton calls it Value Theory. We can say value comprises a part of political theory and in that sense it is called Value Theory.
There is a second type of theory designated by Easton and it called Causal Theory. A causal theory is one which is used to find out a relation between facts. The researcher collects facts and tries to find out relationship among them and while doing so in his mind there is always a picture of theory which is quite active.
Easton points out the importance of causal theory in the following words: “The importance of causal theory lies in the fact that it is an index of the stage of development of any science, social or physical, towards the attainment of reliable knowledge. Very briefly, causal theory is a device for improving the dependability of our knowledge”.
Factual Theory:
For building up of a theory it is essential that facts are to be collected and analysed. But mere collection of facts is not enough, their analysis is also important and for that purpose theoretical knowledge is also essential. Before entering into a detailed analysis we want to define facts and we shall do it in the words of Easton: “A fact is a particular ordering of reality in terms of a theoretical interest”.
But the collection of facts or data like a blind man is not enough. While collecting data or facts sufficient intelligence and knowledge are to be applied because only with the help of facts and data we can build up the foundation of a theory. When a researcher collects facts and data he carries with him a clear picture and frame of a theory and on the basis of that he starts his work of collecting facts. For this reason Easton says—”Facts therefore imply duty”.
In Easton’s analysis of factual theory we further observe that facts and data are to be collected with a good deal of acumen and after that two functions are to be performed. One is the relationship among the data is to be established and the other is facts and data are to be generalised. “Every generalisation,” Easton continues, “is in a sense a theory; it is a statement of relationship which is only probably, not certainly and finally, true”. Facts and data are to be critically examined.
Three Propositions:
Easton discusses the political theory in the light of behaviouralism. He is of opinion that though there are differences in the political behaviour of individuals, a close observation reveals that there are also uniformities in the political behaviour and on the basis of those uniformities the political scientists form generalisations and theory. Easton points out three such forms. One is Singular Generalisation. Second is Narrow-Gauge theory and the third is Broad Gauge theory.
In Easton’s opinion the Singular Generalisations are not in the strict sense theories. The researcher collects uniform behaviour of individuals and after analysing them prepares at certain conclusions or we can say he forms generalisations. Easton calls it singular generalisations.
The political scientist analyses very few variables and on the basis of that he forms generalisations. This approach is not a sufficient way of framing an acceptable theory. Singular generalisations are the primary level of a political theory and it is not surprising that he does not call it a political theory.
At the higher level there is a Narrow Gauge Theory. It is also called Synthetic Theory. In the words of Easton the narrow gauge theory “consists of a set of interrelated propositions that are designed to synthesise the data contained in an unorganised body of singular generalisations”.
The supporters of the narrow gauge theory are accustomed to viewing political theory and political science in terms of power enunciated by Lasswell. He viewed political science as simply the study of the struggle of or for power. According to Lasswell, in any society there are various groups and, consequently, many centres of power. Each group or each centre always tries to capture power by defeating the other group.
This is particularly the characteristic feature of any pluralist society. According to Lasswell and several others power always remains at the centre of any political analysis because no society can be analysed without power. The narrow gauge theory, no doubt, is broader than the singular generalisation but it is not really broad because power cans never be the central theme of a theory.
Finally, there is a Broad Gauge Theory. It can also be called Systematic Theory. Hierarchically viewed broad gauge theory is at the highest stage of the whole series. It is neither narrow nor singular. In the considered judgment of Easton in any society there occur large number of incidents and facts and all these are not relevant for any political scientist. Only few or selective facts or data may be useful for him.
Here the problem is how he will select these facts and data? Before a political scientist starts to collect and analyse data and facts he forms a conceptual framework and this acts as a guidance. The conceptual framework is a kind of sieve which selects data and facts.
Status of Political Theory:
We have already noted that the gravest charge against the traditional political theory is—it is extremely reluctant to apply improved and sophisticated methods of other -sciences, particularly natural sciences. If the traditional political theory could do that it would have been able to improve its status as a branch of science subjects such as economics and psychology.
Many serious persons and policy-makers refuse to put political science or political theory, economics, psychology and several other subjects within the same bracket. It is lamented that since political scientists do not use sophisticated data, its conclusions have failed to satisfy many.
Easton says that political theory as well as political science has not been able to establish itself as a distinct branch of social science. In earlier epochs large number of persons associated with the disciplines treated it as a branch of history or economics and this was never a matter of prestige for political scientists.
It has been observed that this lower status of political theory or political science was chiefly due to the reason that it was not able to draw the attention of serious scholars and researchers. But Easton claims that “Political science does constitute a distinct field of research, not for problems of application alone, but, what is more significant, for analytical and conceptual purposes as well”.
For the enhancement of status, utility, importance etc. of a discipline it is essential that it (the discipline) must construct a theoretical framework and political theory up to the fifties has not been able to do that. Easton concludes that political science must accept that venture boldly.
Again, prediction is an important function of a science subject. Subjects of social science in general and political science in particular are not always able to make proper predictions). But that drawback must not be over-emphasized. Political theory can be elevated to that status and, for that purpose; political theory must be made a comprehensive theory.
Let us again quote Easton. “Where research has been quantitatively and qualitatively adequate to permit of prediction its success is geared neatly to the existence of a comprehensive body of consistent theory”. If a comprehensive and consistent theory exists prediction becomes feasible.
Easton’s main point is that to enable political theory to make prediction its research work must be improved and must be made a distinct discipline. During the first half of the twentieth century there was a lot of resentment in the academic world of political science in America because of the inadequacy of research in this subject. A large number of political scientists have, however, been able to change it.
Conclusion:
In conclusion few words may be added. If we go through the various concepts, approaches and models prepared by the political scientists we shall witness an interesting fact. Time has not yet arrived to say anything about the subject (political science) assertively. The excessive stress on values, judgment and, norms was challenged by empiricists. Again in the seventies there has occurred a revival of traditionalism and it is highly prominent in Rawls’ analysis of justice.
In his revised version of behaviouralism (which is popularly knows post-behaviouralism) Easton argued in favour of values and norms. Postmodernism puts a challenge to both traditionalism and empiricism. It claims that there is not such thing as absolute or universal truth, norms and values. It even challenges the social and economic structure of society based on industrialisation.
From 1950s to 1990s people renewed their faith on socialism but the collapse erstwhile Soviet Union has destroyed that faith. We have now liberalism or neoliberalism. The truth is that we want neoliberalism, socialism, crucial role of the state which will be able to protect our rights and liberties, we want minimal state, we want globalisation for economic regeneration, we want rejuvenation of nation-state to safeguard the benefits produced by globalisation. Needless to say that all these are contradictory. Is it possible for political theory to encompass all these?