CHAPTER ONE Concept & Subject Matter Prof Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura Aristotle described politcal science as 'the master science * The premise for this statement, perhaps, was because Aristotle believed that man by his very nature is a political animal. Politics, therefore, is the most important form of human activity. This is because according to Arendt (1958) : politics involves interaction amongst free and equal citizens. It gives meaning to life and affirms the uniqueness and raises the potentials of each individual. The idea of a science of politics modelled on the natural sciences (Adcock and Bevir, 2005) indeed sets not only the very subject matter of the discipline; it also arguably defines its identity. In any case, political science is a coherent intellectual discipline albeit with cross-disciplinary exchanges and inter and intra-disciplinary conflict. The scientific study of politics is thus the primary subject matter of political science. Political science is a discipline that overlaps substantively and diverges in approach (Gunell,, 2004a and b; Oren, 1995; Amadae, 2003; Gilman, 2003; Oren, 2003). The scientific study of politics has been one of the serious efforts towards divorcing it from value orientation of its apologists and practitioners. Thus scientific study of politics or political science seeks to discover what is not what ought to be in the political realm (Gerring and Yesnowitz, 2006). Gerring and Yesnowitx further noted that Plato and Aristotle. form the foundation of political studies sought to identify the characteristics of a good polity, the ideal state. Modern political science, however, seeks to identify the features of polities, their cause and effects devoid of moral judgements regarding their badness or goodness. Conceptually political science is both a science and an art that denotes the systematic study of phenomena of the state and the totality of activities,which obviously have to do with the administration and structure of the affairs of the state, the ultimate objective of which is to promote peace, stability and development. As a science, political studies provides a mass and huge theoretical knowledge regarding the state and as an art it seeks to provide solutions to concrete problem and therefore concerned with the processes and means by which government, its institutions and other agencies operating within and outside its boundaries actually conduct their activities in terms of the ends to be realised and accomplished. Narrowly defined, political science Is concerned with the processes and frameworks of government formation methods such as electioneering, coup d'etat, hereditary, etc by which public officials are choosen and public policies and programmes are promoted The later definition has limited the scope of political science to one process of electioneering methods and the promotion of public policies. A Political science or science politique further denotes a systematic study of the general affairs of the state. Put more succinctly, it is the systematic study of the origin, development and operations of political systems and public policy. Further to this is that political science questions revolved around the state, its fundamental conditions and objects, its essential features, it's various forms of manifestations, its development and decay. In this context, at the beginning and perhaps up to the middle of the last century, political science though limited to the study of the state but in the same vein considers the state as an institution of power, in the sum total of its relations, its origin, its setting, its objects, its ethical sign ification, its economies, its developmental processes and indeed its differentiated process of development and collapse. The broadening definitional scope of political science studies beyond the boundaries of the state has not actually limit its enormous power as an institution of governance through which man historically and contemporarily continue to realise his potentials and achieve 'good life.' However, the broadening effect of the political studies though transformed the institutional powers of the state, nevertheless, arguably and seemingly the state has 'failed' to ensure that every individual develop his/her potentials, let alone achieve the 'good life' envisaged by the godfathers of political science. . The questions of this failure could only be explained within the pragmatic premise of injustice and inequality as functions of power and governance. Thus students of political science are, therefore, anticipated to be exposed to the logics of not only governance and power but to the substance and signification of justice as the principal determinant of development and decay of the state. Moreover, the other side of the broadening effect in political studies has been the shift from normative to empiricism. This change is easily equated with Kuhnian paradigm shift in which case the study of politics became empirically standardised. Put differently, the idea of the discipline of political science stems from the need to study politics scientifically. According to McLean (1996:385): "The twentieth century debate about political science has been part of a broad dispute about methodology in social studies. Those who have sought to make the study of politics scientific have been concerned to establish a discipline which can meet two conditions: it must be objective or value-free (wertfrei), and it must seek comprehensive and systematic explanations of events." The chief progenitor of this shift has been the behaviouralist. Behavioural revolution in political science sought to radically alter the way and manner political studies are viewed. Again, it is within this revolution that student of political science must appreciate the changing contents and subject matter of the discipline And, it is also from within this and the colonial legacies of the Third world countries that students from any of these socio-cultural and economic enclaves should understand and appreciate not only the origin and development of the discipline and its impact on the politico-economic and social fortunes and misfortunes of the countries (see Jinadu,1987). Therefore that in Nigeria and indeed many former colonial appendages, the content of political science, especially immediately after independence, was coated by both external and internal factors, albeit with no assume "strict separation" and thus the relationship of which was dialectical (Jinadu, 1987:59). Accordingly, the subject matter of political science in the premier Nigerian universities: "...] reflected with the formal and informal legal, constitutional, and socio-political processes of government- the roles of parliaments and political parties, political leadership roles, and other mechanisms of institutional transfer and national integration- which formed the basic concerns of the modernisation school, particularly in the US, in their application of pluralist theories and structural functionalism to the study of the nations." As a field of study, political science seeks to understand and provide solutions to fundamental problems affecting societies. Thus even though political science does have universal origin and appeal, however, its internal development has always been defined by its environmental contexts. The context-specific perspectives to the origin and development of political science had also influence its subject matter and conceptual derivations. For example, as stated earlier, political science was at the beginning limited to the study of the state and all its institutions. The fact is that political science is concerned with varied and numerous issues that "lie beyond the regular boundaries of government at any given time" (Pennock and Smith, 1964:3). The fundamental problem with a state-limited definition of political science is that it may exclude the politics of societies that were "too primitive" to be called states, emphasised form and legalism, and thereby detracting students the attention from power and influence, defined as the stuff of politics. Similarly, exclusive focus on power and its processneglects the concepts of authority or legitimacy. And, concern on the process and role again may not necessaily specify a group or agency (Pennock andSmith, 1964:3). In this context, any conceptualisation of political must be central and broad to embrace not only the state, its attributes, institutions, processes, power but also some other issues, which affect the activities of the state and, which also seemingly, affect the operations of the state as well. Understanding of political science as an academic field of study suggests a discipline that is concerned with the systematic and scientific study and critical analysis of all aspects of politics (Anifowose, 1999). It therefore, involves all actors and institutions, events, factors, societies, individuals and groups that shape and are shaped by political processes. Historically, as a field of study, political science is a very young discipline (Anifowose, 1999) that is believed to develop out of moral philosophy during the last quarter of the 19th century. Chronologically, its development could be logically explained in four phases (Smith et al, 1976) as follows: Phase I: The Classical period up to 1850. During this period the concern was on philosophy with emphasis on deductive methods of explanations; Phase II: The Institutional period, 1850-1900. Emphasis was on institutional and comparative methods and the concerns were formal governmental institutions; Phase III: The Transitional period, 1900-1923 This is the first quarter of the 20th century in which empirical observation, survey and measurement were emphasised in the study of politics. The period was further characterised by series of movements in the discipline; Phase IV: The Behavioural period, 1923 to the present. This period was characterised by increasing reliance upon psychological variables in dealing with politics and emphasis was on the individual and group as unit of analysis. Consequently, quantitative techniques become increasingly and continuously being refined and the need for general empirical theories of politics started and continued to be part of the technical drive and contents of political science (Smith et al, 1976). This period continued up to today. Political scientists are now seriously engaged in measurement and quantification, notwithstanding the fact that qualitative techniques are fruitfully supreme. The End Discussion Question How does political science represents the essence of social man? CHAPTER TWO The Behavioural Revolution in Political Science Prof Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura Behavioural Revolution The behavioural period popularly designated as behavioural revolution is a turning point in the development of political science. This period marked a radical difference between the traditional political studies and modern political science in which theories, models and scientific concepts and methodologies become central to its content and subject matter. Conceptually, behaviouralism in political science, as movement seeks to provide an objective, quantitative methods and approaches in studying, explaining and predicting political behaviour. According to Guy (2008) behaviouralism emphasised the systematic understanding of all identifiable manifestations of political behaviour. It also connotes the application of rigorous scientific and quantitative methods to standardisation, test and attempts to conduct value-free inquiries of politics. Thus, the role of political science is essentially to gather and analyse data as rigorous and objective as possible devoid of bias and personal aggrandisement. Petro (1995), similarly, notes that behaviouralist broadly believed that politics should be studied much in the same way natural sciences are critically studied. In this way, behaviouralism must be appreciated with in the larger and more complex scientific movement that occurred simultaneously in all the spectrum of social sciences. Furthermore, the logic of behaviouralism is premised on the fact that studying the actions, behaviours and acts of individuals as units of analysis. The idea here is that individuals rather thancharacteristics of institutions andorganisations are the hub of such institutions. Thus understanding individuals and groups and their acts and behaviour in relations to their institutions, and socio-political settings would help to appreciate political systems, their functions, performance and services. Moreover, to understand individual and group behaviour, behaviouralists emphasised the methodological use of sampling, interviewing scoring and scaling and statistical analysis. In sum, behaviouralists emphasised the use quantitative methods of data collection and analysis in understanding human political behaviour. David Easton for example noted that: "Behaviouralism was not a clearly defined movement for those who were thought to be behaviouralists. It was more clearly definable by those who were opposed to it, because they were describing it in terms of the things within the newer trends that they found objectionable. So, some would define behaviouralism as an methods of natural sciences to human behaviour. Others would define it as excessive emphasis upon quantification, others, as individualistic reductionism. From the inside, the practitioners were of different minds as what it was that constituted behaviou ralism. [...] And few of us were in agreement." The behavioural revolution in political science, represents a paradigm shift in the extent to which the methodological techniques and scope of political inquiry fundamentally has changed. And, this change was not simply accepted unchallenged and un-critiqued. In fact, the thrust of behaviouralism as sums up by Easton's eight intellectual foundation stones demonstrate the paradigmatic shift achieved in political science through behaviouralism. Eight intellectual foundation stones of behaviouralist revolution: 1. Regularities - the generalisations and explanation of regularities; 2. Commitment to verification - the ability to verify generalisations; 3. Techniques - an experimental attitudes towards techniques; 4. Quantification - express results as number where possible and meaningful; 5. Values - keeping ethical assessment and empirical explanations distinct; 6. Systematisation - considering the importance of theory in research; 7. Pure science - deferring to pure science rather than applied science; and 8. Integration - integrating social sciences and value. As the above thrust of behaviouralism suggests, the discipline of political science, become propelled into a new direction of intellectual inquiry not only by charting a new channel of intellectualism, but also with a capacity to grapple and deal with political phenomena adequately (Akindele and Adebo, 2005). The behaviouralists seem too ambitions in their intellectual drive to revolutionise political science. They want every thing about political science to be methodological and research-oriented. Therefore, that they apparently sought to reconstruct the content of political science along purely quantitative and scientific attributes and emphasised on micro political analysis. Indeed, this effort has reinvigorated and rejuvenated the scientific character of political science. Behaviouralists believe that political science, with its all-emphasis on science is indeed capable of scientific prediction and explanation through politically-observed behaviour/phenomena and variable measurement. This is perhaps why today political science has believe more interdisciplinary and political scientists across the world, especially in the United States of America, are increasingly becoming more familiar with simple and advance quantitative research instruments, such as sample surveys, mathematical modes, multivariate analysis, etc (Black, 2002; Laxter et al., 2009; Leeds, 1981; McNabb, 2004). Further to this, behaviouralism has also expanded the scope of political science to include variables, such as political attitudes, role, perception, voting behaviour, role of leaders and elites, individuals and group behaviour and the interaction of all these with a political system. In sum, behaviouralists attempt to answer two critical questions: "is it possible for political science to more closely approximate a science, and if so, is it desirable to attempt to do so? The upsurge of behavioural revolution in political science demonstrated the definitive 'yes' response. The answers were supported with the following arguments: - Political science can eventually more closely approximate a science capable of prediction and explanation. Thus, the goal of political science is the construction of systematic empirical theory; - Research should be theory-oriented and directed. There should be a close interplay between theory and data in political inquiry; -It is desirable that questions of fact be kept analytically separate from questions of value; - There is an essential unity among the various social sciences. They could profit by working more closely together in an inter-disciplinary manner; - Political scientists should become more self-conscious, precise, and sophisticated in their methodology; and - Analysis should focus on individ ual and/or group behaviour rather than merely on political institutions (Smith et al., 1976) With level of development in political science in terms of its changing content and subject matter, and in terms of its methodological rigour, theory-building and predictions, the study of politics has come to stay as a science and political science is truly a science in the real sense of the study, understanding and predicting human social and political behavior Criticism The behavioural approach has been severely intellectually and ideologically attacked and punctuated by what was commonly called anti-behaviouralists The revolutionary movement has been criticised for giving much unnecessary emphasis to quantification. It is argued that the subject-matter of political since does not render itself easily to such methodological quantification. In fact, as anti-behaviouralists claimed, it is not needed. Political science, they further argued should not deviate from its historical concern for moral and ethical issues. The anti-behaviouralists also stressed that too much adherence to inter-disciplinary approach would undermine the unique and proud "identity" of political science The obsession of modern political science to the idea of methodological rigour has displaced the objective of any inquiry into political phenomenon (Akindele and Adebo, 2005; Smith et al, 1976; Anifowose, 1999; Enemuo, 1999; Riemer, 1997; Baer, 1991).. Specifically, anti-behaviouralists also submitted that: - the subject matter of political science does not lend itself to rigorous study and analysis; political science is never amenable to experimental inquiry as obtained in natural sciences; -there are too many variables and historical contingencies and conjunctions that make general statements of pattern and regularities difficult; - human behaviour is not easily predictable because it is purposive and goal-directed and so on (Anifowose, 1999). Conclusion The arguments of the anti-behaviouralists though relatively valid, it is important for students of political science at both introductory and advance level to note that these criticisms only engaged the behaviouralists seriously and helped to strengthen and address these shortcomings. The revolution has come to stay. Behaviouralism has changed the landscape of methodological inquiry in political science. Advance students of political science would surely come to learn these changes and especially in post-behavioural period where computerised techniques become tools of analysis This should not frighten students from studying and engaging themselves in debating about the science of politics. It should rather equip them to face the challenges of policy formulation and implementation and/or governance generally both at domestic and international levels. The End Thank you!!!
