Political science is the discipline that studies how societies are governed. It asks who holds power, how that power is gained and used, what rules and institutions control it, and how ordinary people take part in it or are affected by it. Every student of Political Science meets the subject at the very start of the course, and the way it is understood shapes the study of the Constitution, public administration, comparative politics and international relations that follows.
This note explains the meaning, definitions, nature, scope, history and approaches of political science in a connected way. It also shows how political science differs from political theory and political philosophy, which were treated in the earlier notes of this series, and how it is related to history, economics, sociology and law. The topic appears in Unit I of the undergraduate NEP syllabus, in the postgraduate course on Political Science, in the OPSC and UPSC optional syllabi, and in the UGC NET paper, so the note is written to serve all five levels at once.
1. Meaning and definitions of political science
The name and its roots. The word “politics” comes from the Greek polis, the city-state, which was the unit of political life in ancient Greece. Aristotle’s Politics took its name from it, and he called the study of the state the “master science” because the state decides the conditions in which all other human activities are carried on. The phrase “political science” became common in the nineteenth century, when universities in Europe and the United States began to teach the subject as a separate discipline. In India the same field was known in ancient texts as Dandaniti (the science of the use of authority), Rajadharma (the duties of the ruler) and Arthashastra (the science of material welfare and statecraft).
Why the definitions differ. Writers have defined political science in different ways because they have chosen different things as its centre. Some place the state at the centre, some government, some power, and some the whole political system. The definitions can therefore be grouped into three families: the state-centred (traditional) definitions, the government-centred definitions, and the power- and system-centred (modern) definitions. The table below gives a quick view, and the scholar-wise explanation follows.
| Family of definitions | Centre of study | Representative scholars |
|---|---|---|
| State-centred | The state, its origin, nature and purpose | Bluntschli, Garner, Gettell, Paul Janet |
| Government-centred | Government, its forms and working | Seeley, Gilchrist |
| Power-centred | Power, authority and the shaping of decisions | Lasswell, Lasswell and Kaplan, Dahl |
| System-centred | The political system and the authoritative allocation of values | Easton, Almond |
State-centred definitions. Johann Caspar Bluntschli, a nineteenth-century Swiss jurist, described political science as the science that is concerned with the state and tries to understand it in its conditions, its essential nature, its forms and its development. Paul Janet, a French writer, defined it as that part of social science which deals with the foundations of the state and the principles of government. R. G. Gettell, in his Introduction to Political Science, described it as a historical investigation of what the state has been, an analytical study of what it is, and a political and ethical discussion of what it should be. This three-part definition is useful for examinations because it joins history, analysis and values in one sentence. Raymond Garner, in Political Science and Government (1928), summed up the same view in a short line: political science begins and ends with the state.
Government-centred definitions. Sir John Seeley, in his Introduction to Political Science (1896), compared the subject to political economy: just as political economy deals with wealth, political science deals with the phenomena of government. R. N. Gilchrist, in his Principles of Political Science, likewise described it as the study of the general problems of the state and government. These definitions are narrower than the state-centred ones, because they leave out the wider social setting in which governments work.
Power-centred definitions. After the behavioural movement of the 1920s to 1950s, writers turned from institutions to the actual exercise of power. Harold Lasswell, in Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (1936), described politics as the study of influence and the influential. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, in Power and Society (1950), defined political science as the study of the shaping and sharing of power. Robert Dahl, in Modern Political Analysis (1963), took political systems to be any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves, to a significant extent, power, rule or authority. This wider view brought families, parties, pressure groups, trade unions and even firms within the reach of political study, since power operates in all of them.
System-centred definitions. David Easton, in The Political System (1953), defined politics as the authoritative allocation of values for a society. Easton’s idea is that every society has to decide who gets what from scarce resources, and the political system is the body whose decisions on this matter are accepted as binding. Gabriel Almond, with G. Bingham Powell, developed this line in Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (1966), by asking what functions every political system must perform and what structures perform them.
A working definition. Taken together, these views allow a simple working definition for examination answers: political science is the systematic study of the state, government, power and the political system, together with the ideas, institutions and behaviour through which collective decisions are made and enforced in society. The older definitions give the subject its institutional core, while the modern ones show that politics extends beyond the state into the wider life of society.
Politics and political science. The two terms are related but not identical. “Politics” usually refers to the activity itself: contests for power, policy-making, elections and the running of the state. “Political science” refers to the organised and disciplined study of that activity. A minister who negotiates a coalition is engaged in politics, while a scholar who studies why coalitions form and survive is doing political science.
2. Nature of political science
Is political science a science? This question has been debated since the nineteenth century, and the answer depends on what we mean by “science”. If science means exact laws that can be proved by repeated laboratory experiments, as in physics or chemistry, then political science is not a science in that strict sense. If science means the systematic, orderly and evidence-based study of a subject, then it is a science. Most modern writers accept the second meaning and describe political science as a social science, or an inexact science, that has its own methods and standards of evidence.
The case for calling it a science. Aristotle studied 158 constitutions in order to classify them and to draw general conclusions about stability and change, and this comparative method is still used. Comte placed the study of society among the sciences, and Bryce (in Modern Democracies, 1921) used observation and comparison across countries. The behavioural movement of the twentieth century added surveys, statistics and testable hypotheses: Dahl’s Who Governs? (1961) examined actual decision-making in the American city of New Haven, and Almond and Verba’s The Civic Culture (1963) compared political attitudes in five countries. Political scientists can also classify facts, find regularities (for example, that first-past-the-post elections tend to favour two-party systems, a pattern known as Duverger’s law), and make cautious predictions, such as forecasts of election results from opinion polls.
The case against. Sceptics such as Maitland and Bryce pointed out several difficulties. Political events cannot be repeated in a laboratory, because a revolution or an election happens only once in its particular setting. Human beings are not predictable like atoms, since they change their behaviour when they know they are being studied. The student of politics is himself a citizen with views, so complete value-neutrality is hard to achieve. The key terms, such as democracy or justice, are disputed. Finally, results from one country or period may not hold in another, so universal laws are rare.
A balanced position. The sound conclusion for an examination answer is that political science is a science in method but not in precision. It uses observation, comparison and evidence, and it can state tendencies and probabilities, but it cannot offer the exact and certain laws of the natural sciences. It is also an art, because it guides practical decisions about how to govern, and a normative study, because it asks what ought to be done. Many scholars therefore call it both an empirical and a normative discipline.
Characteristics of political science.
- A social science. Political science studies human beings in their relations with one another, specifically in the sphere of power and decision-making. Because human behaviour is complex and changing, its conclusions are tendencies and not iron laws. For example, a study may show that higher literacy is generally linked with higher turnout, but individual exceptions will always exist. In answers, this point should be used to explain why the subject is called an inexact science.
- Study of the state and government. The state remains the central institution studied, because it holds the highest authority in a territory and makes binding laws. Political science examines the origin, structure and purpose of the state, as well as the working of the legislature, executive and judiciary. In India, this means the study of the Constitution, Parliament, the Supreme Court and the federal structure. The point links the subject to the traditional definitions of Garner and Gettell.
- Study of power and authority. Modern political science also studies how power is gained, used and justified, and why people obey. Weber’s three types of authority (traditional, charismatic and legal-rational) and Lasswell’s idea of politics as the shaping and sharing of power belong here. The study of power explains politics inside and outside the state, for example in a political party or a village panchayat.
- Empirical. The subject collects and analyses facts about political life, such as voting patterns, party systems and the decisions of governments. This empirical side grew strong after the behavioural revolution, with the use of surveys and statistics. The Lokniti-CSDS surveys on Indian elections are a familiar example of empirical work, and examiners often ask students to explain how empirical study differs from philosophical reflection.
- Normative. Political science does not only describe; it also asks what governments ought to do and which arrangements are just. Debates on the right to vote, reservation, or the limits of free speech involve values and not only facts. This normative side connects the subject with political theory and political philosophy, and it reminds students that facts and values cannot be completely separated.
- Comparative. Political science learns by comparing constitutions, party systems and governments across countries and periods. Aristotle’s study of Greek constitutions started this tradition, and modern comparative politics continues it, for example by comparing parliamentary government in India with presidential government in the United States. Comparison helps to separate what is general from what is particular to one country.
- Interdisciplinary. The subject draws on history, economics, sociology, law, philosophy, psychology and geography. A study of electoral behaviour in Odisha, for instance, needs history to understand regional patterns, sociology to understand caste and community, and economics to understand the effect of welfare schemes. This is why political science is placed among the social sciences and not treated in isolation.
- Dynamic. Political life changes continually, and the subject changes with it. Earlier study concentrated on the city-state and the sovereign; later it covered parties and pressure groups; today it also deals with social media, populism, climate politics and digital surveillance. A student must therefore keep up with current events as well as classical texts.
- Both theoretical and practical. Political science develops concepts and theories, but it also supplies knowledge that is used in framing laws, designing institutions and evaluating policies. The reports of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre–State relations and the work of the Election Commission on electoral reform draw on political science ideas. The subject is thus useful to administrators, legislators and citizens alike.
- Concerned with the past, present and future. Political science studies what the state has been (history), what it is (analysis) and what it should be (values), as Gettell’s definition says. A study of federalism, for example, looks at its origin in the Government of India Act 1935, its present working and the reforms proposed for the future. Examiners value answers that show this three-fold concern.
- Value-conscious but evidence-based. A good political scientist tries to separate personal preferences from findings, and to support claims with evidence, while accepting that choice of topic and concepts is influenced by values. This balance is why the subject is described as disciplined but not value-free. The point is useful in the debate on behaviouralism and post-behaviouralism.
3. Scope of political science
Why scope is difficult to fix. The scope of a subject means the range of topics it studies. In political science this range has widened over time, and writers still disagree on where it should stop. A narrow view confines the subject to the state and government, while a wide view includes all relations of power in society. For examinations it is best to explain the scope in two stages: the traditional scope and the modern scope.
Traditional scope. Older writers such as Garner, Gettell and Gilchrist placed the state at the centre. The subject then covered the origin, nature and purpose of the state, sovereignty and law, the forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy), the organs of government (legislature, executive and judiciary), political ideas and thinkers, and relations between states. Gettell’s three-fold scheme gave a neat summary: what the state has been, what it is, and what it should be. This view treated the subject mainly as a study of formal institutions and of ideas.
Modern scope. After the behavioural movement, the scope widened beyond formal institutions. Political scientists now study how people actually behave in politics: how they vote, why they join parties or movements, and how public opinion is formed. They study power and decision-making within and outside the state, political culture, political socialisation, political development and modernisation, and the working of the political system as a whole, following Easton, Almond and Dahl. Newer areas include public policy, gender and politics, identity and ethnic conflict, environmental politics, global governance and digital politics.
The UNESCO scheme. In 1948 UNESCO convened an international meeting of political scientists in Paris to agree on the field. Its report, published as Contemporary Political Science (1950), grouped the subject into four areas: political theory, political institutions, parties, groups and public opinion, and international relations. This four-fold scheme is still the most widely used summary of the scope, and the International Political Science Association, founded in 1949, grew out of the same effort.
Reading the diagram. The four areas are not separate compartments. A study of the Indian Parliament, for example, uses institutions (the rules of the Lok Sabha), parties and groups (how members vote along party lines) and theory (ideas of representation and accountability).
Scope in the Indian setting. In India, the Odisha NEP syllabus and the UGC NET paper reflect the same range. Students study political theory and Indian political thought, the Indian Constitution and government, comparative politics, public administration and international relations, along with the political processes of caste, religion, region and gender in Indian politics. The subject is therefore wider than the study of the state alone and closer to the study of how power works in society.
4. Evolution of political science
Ancient Greece. The systematic study of politics began with the Greeks. Plato’s Republic asked what a just state is and proposed an ideal state ruled by philosophers. Aristotle’s Politics took a more practical and comparative path: he examined many existing constitutions, classified governments by the number of rulers and by whether they ruled for the common good, and described the middle class as a source of stability. For this reason Aristotle is called the “father of political science”, while Plato is remembered as the great idealist of the subject.
Ancient India. Indian writers developed their own tradition of political reflection under the names Dandaniti, Rajadharma and Arthashastra. Kautilya’s Arthashastra (traditionally dated between about the fourth century BCE and the third century CE) gave a detailed account of the seven elements of the state (saptanga), the duties of the king, administration, law, taxation, spies and foreign policy. The Mahabharata (especially its Shanti Parva), the Manusmriti and the Buddhist Aggannasutta also discuss kingship and the origin of authority. These sources show that political inquiry in India was independent and not borrowed from the West.
Rome and the medieval period. The Romans contributed law and the idea of citizenship, and Cicero wrote on natural law and the republic. In medieval Europe, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas discussed the relation between the Church and the state, and Marsilius of Padua (Defensor Pacis, 1324) argued for secular authority. In India, Ziauddin Barani’s Fatawa-i Jahandari and Abul Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari examined kingship and administration under the Sultanate and Mughal rulers.
The modern state and the social contract. Machiavelli’s The Prince (written in 1513) separated the study of politics from religious morality and examined power as it is practised. Jean Bodin gave the first full account of sovereignty in the sixteenth century. The social contract thinkers then explained the state as a product of human consent: Hobbes in Leviathan (1651), Locke in the Two Treatises of Government (1689) and Rousseau in The Social Contract (1762). Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748) studied how laws depend on climate, custom and the form of government, and put forward the separation of powers. These writers made political study a matter of reason and not of religion.
Nineteenth century: becoming a university subject. The nineteenth century turned political study into an organised academic subject. Bentham and J. S. Mill developed utilitarian liberalism, Hegel studied the state as the realisation of freedom, and Marx and Engels analysed politics through class conflict. Comte urged that society be studied by scientific methods. Teaching institutions followed: the Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques was established in Paris in 1872, John W. Burgess founded the School of Political Science at Columbia University in 1880, and the London School of Economics began in 1895. Seeley’s Introduction to Political Science (1896) belongs to this period.
Early twentieth century. Graham Wallas, in Human Nature in Politics (1908), argued that politics depends on human feelings as much as on reason, and Arthur Bentley, in The Process of Government (1908), proposed that politics should be studied through the activity of groups. The American Political Science Association was founded in 1903. Charles Merriam and the Chicago school, in New Aspects of Politics (1925), called for the use of psychology, statistics and field study, and Harold Lasswell added the study of power and personality.
The behavioural revolution. After the Second World War, David Easton, Robert Dahl, Gabriel Almond and others urged that the subject should study the actual behaviour of voters, legislators and groups, with testable hypotheses, measurement and comparison. Easton’s The Political System (1953), Dahl’s Who Governs? (1961) and Almond and Verba’s The Civic Culture (1963) belong to this period. The movement brought rigour but was criticised for neglecting values and relevance.
Post-behaviouralism and after. In his 1969 presidential address to the American Political Science Association, “The New Revolution in Political Science”, Easton announced post-behaviouralism and called for relevance and action alongside rigour. The period after 1970 saw the revival of normative theory (Rawls, 1971), a return to institutions (the new institutionalism of March and Olsen, 1984), the rise of rational choice, and the growth of feminist, postcolonial and ecological perspectives. Present-day political science also uses large datasets, experiments and computational methods.
Political science in India. The study of the subject in modern universities grew with colonial education in the nineteenth century, and the Indian Political Science Association was founded in 1938. After independence, the subject expanded rapidly with the study of the Constitution, party politics and elections. The Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), set up in 1969, has sponsored surveys of research in political science. Scholars such as Rajni Kothari (Politics in India, 1970) developed an Indian way of analysing party competition, caste and the political process.
| Period | Main development | Key names |
|---|---|---|
| Ancient | Foundations of political inquiry in Greece and India | Plato, Aristotle, Kautilya |
| Medieval | Church, state and kingship | Augustine, Aquinas, Marsilius, Barani, Abul Fazl |
| Sixteenth to eighteenth century | Sovereignty, contract and separation of powers | Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu |
| Nineteenth century | University discipline; liberalism, idealism and Marxism | Bentham, Mill, Hegel, Marx, Comte, Seeley |
| 1900s to 1930s | Study of groups, human nature and statistics | Wallas, Bentley, Merriam, Lasswell |
| 1940s to 1960s | Behavioural revolution | Easton, Dahl, Almond, Verba |
| 1969 onward | Post-behaviouralism, revival of theory, new institutionalism | Easton, Rawls, March and Olsen |
5. Approaches to the study of political science
Traditional approaches. The older approaches include the philosophical approach (Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau), which asks what ought to be and reasons from values; the historical approach (Sabine, Wolin), which explains institutions through their past; the institutional and legal approach (Dicey, D. D. Basu), which studies constitutions, laws and organs of government; and the comparative approach, which compares systems, from Aristotle’s constitutions to present-day comparative politics. They are valuable for depth and for judgment, but they tend to be descriptive and to neglect informal power.
Modern approaches. The modern approaches include the behavioural approach (Merriam, Lasswell, Easton, Dahl), which studies actual conduct with scientific methods; the systems approach (Easton, 1965), which views politics as inputs, conversion and outputs with feedback; the structural-functional approach (Almond and Powell, 1966), which asks what functions every system performs and which structures perform them; the rational choice approach (Downs, Olson), which assumes that individuals pursue their goals; and the Marxist, feminist and postcolonial approaches, which examine economic, gender and imperial power. Each has strengths and limits, and a good answer shows that they are complementary and not rivals.
Choosing among approaches. No single approach answers every question. A study of why voters in a state shift their support may use the behavioural approach for survey data, the institutional approach for the electoral rules, the rational choice approach for the voter’s calculation, and a critical approach for the role of caste and money. A student should therefore know several approaches and select the one that fits the question.
6. Political science, political theory and political philosophy
Syllabi usually place these three terms together in Unit I, and students are asked to distinguish them. They overlap, and different authors draw the lines differently, but the working distinctions below are widely accepted. The earlier notes on Political Theory and Political Philosophy in this series treat the other two in detail.
| Term | Main concern | Typical method | Sample question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political philosophy | The ultimate ends of politics and the justification of political values | Philosophical reasoning | What is justice, and what makes a state legitimate? |
| Political theory | Concepts, values and institutions, and how they are justified | Conceptual analysis, argument, historical and empirical evidence | How should liberty or democracy be understood? |
| Political science | How political systems, institutions and behaviour actually work | Observation, comparison, surveys and data | Why do voters support certain parties, and how does a federal system work? |
How the three are related. Political philosophy asks the deepest questions of value. Political theory takes those questions, clarifies the concepts involved and links them with history and evidence. Political science, in its narrower modern sense, studies how institutions and people actually behave. Yet the three cannot be cleanly separated, because a political scientist who studies democracy needs a concept of democracy (supplied by theory), and a theorist who recommends a reform needs evidence of how institutions work (supplied by political science). In broader usage, “political science” is the name of the whole discipline, with theory and philosophy as parts of it, which is how the UNESCO scheme of 1950 treated them.
7. Relationship with other social sciences
Political life is connected with every other part of social life, so political science depends on neighbouring disciplines and also contributes to them. The table shows the main links, and the paragraphs explain them.
| Discipline | What it gives to political science | What political science gives back |
|---|---|---|
| History | Records of past states, wars and reforms | Concepts to interpret past events |
| Economics | Analysis of resources, markets and distribution | Study of how the state shapes economic choices |
| Sociology | Study of class, caste, religion and community | Study of power within social groups |
| Law | Constitutions, statutes and judicial decisions | Ideas behind law and the working of legal institutions |
| Philosophy | Logic, ethics and concepts of justice | Real cases to test philosophical ideas |
| Psychology | Understanding of motives, attitudes and leadership | Study of political attitudes and behaviour |
| Geography | Territory, resources and boundaries | Study of boundaries, geopolitics and administration |
History. Seeley expressed the link in a well-known saying: history without political science has no fruit, and political science without history has no root. History supplies the evidence from which political ideas and institutions are explained. A study of the Indian federal system, for example, begins with the Government of India Act 1935 and the debates of the Constituent Assembly. Political science in turn gives history its concepts, such as sovereignty, nationalism and revolution.
Economics. In earlier centuries the two subjects were studied together as “political economy”. Economic conditions affect politics: unemployment, inflation or farm distress can change election results. Equally, state decisions on taxation, planning, subsidies and welfare shape the economy. The rise of public choice and rational choice theory has brought the two subjects closer again.
Sociology. Sociology studies society as a whole, including caste, class, religion, family and community, while political science focuses on power and government. The two meet in the study of political parties, voting behaviour, social movements and political socialisation. In Indian politics, the role of caste in elections or of religion in public life cannot be understood without sociology.
Law. Political science studies the making of laws and the working of the legislature, executive and judiciary, while law studies the content and application of rules. The Constitution of India belongs to both. The judgments on privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017) or reservation (Indra Sawhney, 1992) have legal reasoning but also raise questions of liberty, equality and the limits of state power, which are political questions.
Philosophy and psychology. Philosophy gives political science its ethical concepts and its methods of reasoning, and the normative side of the subject is closest to it. Psychology helps to explain why people vote as they do, why leaders behave as they do, and how propaganda and public opinion work. Wallas’s Human Nature in Politics (1908) and Lasswell’s work on personality and politics are early examples of this link.
Geography and public administration. Geography affects politics through territory, borders, resources and location, and gives rise to the field of geopolitics. Public administration, once a part of political science, studies how policies are carried out by the civil service and other agencies, and it is now a related discipline of its own.
8. Importance and limitations of political science
Importance of political science.
- Understanding the state and government. Political science explains how the state is formed, how power is distributed among the legislature, executive and judiciary, and how laws are made and enforced. A citizen who knows this can understand why the Parliament passes a law, why a court strikes it down, or why the Union and the States disagree on a subject. This knowledge is the base of every later paper in the course.
- Training citizens. Democracy works well only when citizens understand their rights and duties and take part in public life. Political science teaches how to read a manifesto, to judge a policy, and to vote with reasons and not by habit. The NEP syllabus names the growth of democratic values and civic responsibility as an aim of the subject.
- Supporting good governance. Administrators, legislators and policy-makers use political science in framing laws, designing institutions and evaluating schemes. The Sarkaria Commission on Centre–State relations, the Administrative Reforms Commissions and the work on electoral reform all drew on political science ideas. The subject therefore helps to make government more accountable and effective.
- Protecting liberty and rights. By studying how power can be abused, the subject explains why constitutional limits, an independent judiciary and a free press are needed. The history of the Emergency (1975–77) shows what happens when such limits are weakened, and why the Constitution’s safeguards matter. This gives practical meaning to the idea of rights.
- Promoting democracy and peaceful change. Political science shows how disputes can be settled through elections, courts and negotiation instead of violence. Studies of coalition government, federalism and local self-government show how diversity can be accommodated. This is of special importance in a country as varied as India.
- Understanding national and international affairs. The subject gives the concepts, such as sovereignty, power, balance of power and interdependence, needed to understand foreign policy and global events. A student who knows these ideas can follow the debates on India’s relations with its neighbours, the United Nations or climate negotiations with insight, and not as a series of news items.
- Developing analytical and critical skills. Studying the subject trains students to define terms, compare cases, weigh evidence and meet objections. These skills are used in answer writing in every examination and in careers in the civil services, teaching, journalism and research. Examiners reward answers that show comparison and evaluation.
- Linking theory with practice. Political science helps to test political ideas against facts. For example, the idea that proportional representation produces fairer outcomes can be checked against the experience of countries that use it. This link keeps theory realistic and practice informed.
- Forecasting and policy planning. Within limits, political science can say what is likely to happen under given conditions: how a change in electoral rules may affect the number of parties, or how decentralisation may affect local participation. Such cautious forecasts help planners and parties. Opinion polls and election studies are examples.
- Foundation for other disciplines and careers. Public administration, law, international relations, journalism, and social work all rest on an understanding of how politics works. The subject therefore opens the way to civil services, teaching, research, think tanks and public service, which is also why it is among the most chosen optional subjects in UPSC and OPSC examinations.
Limitations of political science.
- Lack of exactness. Political events involve human choices and cannot be measured or repeated like physical events. Political scientists can state tendencies, such as that economic distress hurts governing parties, but exceptions are common. This is the main reason why the subject is called an inexact science.
- Difficulty of experiment. A scientist can repeat an experiment in a laboratory, but a political scientist cannot repeat an election or a revolution under controlled conditions. The subject therefore relies on observation and comparison, which are less certain methods and allow more than one explanation of the same event.
- Unpredictability of human behaviour. People act from habit, interest, emotion, ideology and chance. Voters may change their minds in the last week of a campaign, and leaders may behave differently from what theory expects. Election forecasts have sometimes failed for this reason.
- Problem of value-neutrality. The choice of topic, concept and method is influenced by the writer’s values, and the subject cannot wholly separate facts from values. A study of “democracy indexes”, for example, depends on what the author counts as democratic. This is the central criticism made of the behavioural approach.
- Disputed concepts. Basic terms such as democracy, justice, power and sovereignty have many meanings (Gallie called them “essentially contested”). Writers therefore often talk past one another, and agreement on definitions is rare.
- Influence of time and place. Findings from one country or period may not apply elsewhere. A theory of party systems built on European or American experience may not explain the Indian party system, with its caste, region and coalition politics. Political science must therefore be tested against local experience.
- Western bias. Much of the vocabulary and many of the theories have come from Western experience, and postcolonial writers such as Said and Chakrabarty argue that this has shaped what counts as universal. Indian and other non-Western sources, such as Kautilya, Gandhi and Ambedkar, need greater attention.
- Lack of agreed methods and theories. There is no single accepted method or paradigm, and approaches such as the behavioural, rational choice and Marxist often reach different conclusions. This can confuse beginners, though it also shows the richness of the subject.
- Closeness to politics and ideology. Because the subject deals with live issues, researchers may be influenced by party loyalty, funding or the pressure of events. Findings may also be used by governments to defend their policies. Honest scholarship requires awareness of this risk.
- Limited power to guide action. Knowledge of politics does not guarantee wise decisions, since political choices also depend on interests, power and chance. Rational advice from experts may be set aside for electoral reasons. The subject can inform decisions but cannot make them.
9. How to use this note in examinations
What each examination expects.
| Examination | What is usually expected | How to prepare |
|---|---|---|
| UG (NEP) | Meaning, definitions, nature, scope and importance of political science, with examples | Learn two or three scholar-wise definitions, the four-fold scope and the nature-and-characteristics list |
| PG (MA) | Critical discussion of the science debate, evolution, approaches and relation with other disciplines | Master the behavioural and post-behavioural phases and the approaches in section 5 |
| OPSC | Structured answers on nature, scope and relations with other disciplines, with illustrations | Write 150 to 250 word answers with a short introduction, points and conclusion |
| UPSC (PSIR) | Analytical answers linking the discipline with Indian politics and current affairs | Use Indian examples (Constitution, elections, federalism) in each answer |
| UGC NET | Scholar–work matching, definitions and one-line facts | Revise the authors table, UNESCO scheme and dates in the evolution table |
Practice questions.
- Define political science and explain its scope. (UG, long answer)
- Is political science a science? Discuss. (UG, PG, OPSC)
- Distinguish between political science, political theory and political philosophy. (UG, PG)
- Explain the traditional and modern approaches to the study of political science. (PG, OPSC)
- Trace the evolution of political science from the Greeks to the behavioural revolution. (PG, UPSC)
- Discuss the relationship of political science with history, economics and sociology. (UG, OPSC)
- Evaluate the contribution of the behavioural approach and the post-behavioural reaction to it. (PG, UGC NET)
Answer outline: is political science a science?
- Introduction. State what is meant by “science” (exact laws tested by experiment, or systematic study based on evidence) and say that the answer depends on which meaning is taken.
- Body, point 1: arguments for. Aristotle’s comparative study of constitutions; observation and classification; surveys and statistics (Dahl, Almond and Verba); tendencies such as Duverger’s law; cautious forecasting.
- Body, point 2: arguments against. No laboratory experiment; unpredictable human behaviour; values enter the study; disputed concepts; results not universal (Maitland and Bryce).
- Body, point 3: the middle position. Science in method but not in precision; an inexact, social science that is also normative and practical.
- Conclusion. Political science is a science in the broader sense of disciplined study, but its conclusions are probabilities and not exact laws.
Sample answer (about 200 words). Question: Is political science a science?
Introduction. Whether political science is a science depends on the meaning of the word. If science means exact laws proved by repeated experiments, as in physics, the answer is no. If it means systematic, evidence-based study, the answer is yes.
Arguments for. Aristotle compared many constitutions to draw general conclusions, and modern scholars use surveys, statistics and comparison. Dahl’s Who Governs? (1961) and Almond and Verba’s The Civic Culture (1963) are examples of empirical study. Regularities such as Duverger’s law, that first-past-the-post voting tends to favour two parties, show that patterns can be found.
Arguments against. Political events cannot be repeated in a laboratory. Human beings are unpredictable and change their behaviour when studied. The researcher’s own values influence the choice of subject, and key concepts such as democracy are disputed.
Conclusion. Political science is therefore a science in method but not in exactness. It is best described as an inexact social science, which also has a normative and practical side, and which gives probable and not certain conclusions.
Common mistakes to avoid.
- Giving only one definition. Examiners expect at least two or three scholars, grouped as state-centred, government-centred and power- or system-centred.
- Saying flatly that political science is or is not a science, without explaining the meaning of “science” and presenting both sides.
- Treating political science, political theory and political philosophy as identical, or as completely separate.
- Giving names without works and dates, such as Easton (1953), Dahl (1961) or Almond and Verba (1963).
- Describing the behavioural revolution without mentioning its criticism and the post-behavioural reply of 1969.
- Leaving out Indian examples in OPSC and UPSC answers.
Critical analysis for OPSC and UPSC. Mains answers earn marks for balanced evaluation and not for description. Use the points below to argue, and cite scholars to support each.
- The science debate is partly a quarrel about words. If “science” means only the natural sciences, then no social science qualifies, yet economics and sociology are accepted as sciences. A fairer test is whether a subject is systematic, evidence-based and open to correction. By that test political science qualifies, though with lower predictive power.
- Facts and values are linked. The behavioural claim to be value-free is open to doubt, because even the choice of what to count (turnout, corruption, democracy) carries values. Post-behaviouralism (Easton, 1969) accepted this. The sound position is rigour with open acknowledgement of values.
- Narrow or wide scope. A state-centred scope gives clarity but leaves out parties, movements and informal power, while a power-centred scope covers every group but risks losing focus, since power appears everywhere. Most modern writers choose a middle path: the state and the political system at the centre, wider power relations around it.
- Western origin and Indian relevance. Most of the concepts and the history of the discipline come from Europe and North America. India has Kautilya’s Arthashastra, the Dharmashastra tradition, Gandhi’s swaraj, Ambedkar’s social democracy and Kothari’s study of party competition. A strong answer treats these as sources of political science in their own right.
- Method versus relevance. The behavioural movement raised the standard of evidence, but it was criticised for avoiding the pressing problems of poverty, inequality and conflict. Easton’s “credo of relevance” tried to restore the balance. Today, big data and experiments make the question fresh: precision must not replace purpose.
- Usefulness to practice. Political science can warn against institutional design errors (for example, weak coordination in federal systems) but cannot decide policy, because policy also depends on values and interests. Evaluate the discipline as a guide, not as a ruler.
- Contemporary challenges. Populism, misinformation, digital surveillance, climate politics and polarisation need both empirical study (who is affected, how opinion spreads) and normative thought (what is just). This shows why the field must keep both its scientific and its philosophical sides.
A model concluding line: “Political science is neither a laboratory science nor a mere collection of opinions; it is a disciplined inquiry into how power is organised and justified, and it is most useful when it combines evidence with judgment.”
Authors and books: summary table for UGC NET.
| Author | Work (year) | Idea or relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Aristotle | Politics | Comparative study of constitutions; man as a political animal; father of political science |
| Plato | Republic | Ideal state; justice; philosopher-king |
| Kautilya | Arthashastra | Statecraft; saptanga theory of the state; Dandaniti |
| Machiavelli | The Prince (1513) | Politics separated from religious morality |
| Bodin | Six Books of the Commonwealth (1576) | First systematic account of sovereignty |
| Hobbes | Leviathan (1651) | Social contract; absolute sovereignty |
| Locke | Two Treatises of Government (1689) | Natural rights; limited government |
| Montesquieu | The Spirit of the Laws (1748) | Separation of powers; laws and environment |
| Rousseau | The Social Contract (1762) | General will |
| Comte | Course of Positive Philosophy (1830–42) | Positivism; scientific study of society |
| Marx and Engels | The Communist Manifesto (1848) | Class struggle; economic base of politics |
| Bluntschli | Theory of the State | State-centred definition of political science |
| Seeley | Introduction to Political Science (1896) | Government-centred definition; history and political science |
| Wallas | Human Nature in Politics (1908) | Role of psychology in politics |
| Bentley | The Process of Government (1908) | Group approach |
| Bryce | Modern Democracies (1921) | Comparative study of democracies |
| Laski | A Grammar of Politics (1925) | Pluralism; rights and liberty |
| Merriam | New Aspects of Politics (1925) | Call for scientific study; Chicago school |
| Catlin | The Science and Method of Politics (1927) | Politics as a science of control |
| Garner | Political Science and Government (1928) | State-centred definition |
| Lasswell | Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (1936) | Politics as power and distribution |
| Gettell | Introduction to Political Science | Past, present and ideal state |
| Lasswell and Kaplan | Power and Society (1950) | Political science as shaping and sharing of power |
| UNESCO | Contemporary Political Science (1950) | Four-fold scope of the subject |
| Easton | The Political System (1953) | Authoritative allocation of values |
| Dahl | Who Governs? (1961) | Pluralism in New Haven |
| Almond and Verba | The Civic Culture (1963) | Political culture; five-nation survey |
| Dahl | Modern Political Analysis (1963) | Power and rule in any political system |
| Easton | A Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965) | Input–output model of the political system |
| Almond and Powell | Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (1966) | Structural-functional approach |
| Easton | “The New Revolution in Political Science” (1969) | Post-behaviouralism; credo of relevance |
| Kothari | Politics in India (1970) | Indian party system and caste in politics |
| Rawls | A Theory of Justice (1971) | Revival of normative theory |
| March and Olsen | “The New Institutionalism” (1984) | Return to institutions |
10. Key takeaways
- Political science is the systematic study of the state, government, power and the political system, with definitions that are state-centred (Garner, Gettell), government-centred (Seeley), power-centred (Lasswell, Dahl) and system-centred (Easton).
- It is a science in method but not in exactness, because political events cannot be repeated and values enter the study. It is best called an inexact social science.
- Its scope is traditionally the state and government, and today the whole political system. The UNESCO scheme (1950) divides it into political theory, political institutions, parties, groups and public opinion, and international relations.
- Aristotle is called the father of political science. The subject became a university discipline in the nineteenth century, passed through the behavioural revolution (Easton, Dahl, Almond) and was reshaped by post-behaviouralism (Easton, 1969).
- Political science is linked with history, economics, sociology, law, philosophy, psychology and geography, and it overlaps with political theory and political philosophy without being identical to them.
- Indian sources (Kautilya, Dharmashastra, Gandhi, Ambedkar) and Indian scholars (Kothari) belong in advanced answers.
11. Sources and further reading
Official course resources (to be checked against the current syllabus before use):
- Odisha State Higher Education Council, Model Curriculum for Three Year Degree Course in Political Science (NEP-2020).
- UGC NET Bureau, Syllabus: Political Science (Code No. 02).
- Union Public Service Commission and Odisha Public Service Commission syllabi for the optional subject Political Science and International Relations.
- eGyanKosh (IGNOU), study material on introduction to political science.
- NCERT, Political Theory, Class XI textbook.
- Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), surveys of research in political science.
- International Political Science Association (IPSA) and American Political Science Association (APSA), for the history of the discipline.
Books and articles.
- Johari, J. C. Principles of Modern Political Science. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
- Gauba, O. P. (2023). An Introduction to Political Theory. New Delhi: National Publication.
- Heywood, A. Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan (various editions).
- Appadorai, A. (1942). The Substance of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Garner, J. W. (1928). Political Science and Government. New York: American Book Company.
- Gettell, R. G. Political Science. Boston: Ginn (various editions).
- Laski, H. J. (1925). A Grammar of Politics. London: Allen and Unwin.
- Easton, D. (1953). The Political System. New York: Knopf.
- Dahl, R. A. (1963). Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Almond, G. A. and Powell, G. B. (1966). Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Little, Brown.
- Seeley, J. R. (1896). Introduction to Political Science. London: Macmillan.
- Bhargava, R. and Acharya, A. (eds.) (2008). Political Theory: An Introduction. New Delhi: Pearson Longman.
- Vinod, M. J. and Deshpande, M. (2013). Contemporary Political Theory. Delhi: PHI Learning.
- Ramaswamy, S. (2014). Political Theory: Ideas and Concepts. Delhi: PHI Learning.
- Barker, E. (1951). Principles of Social and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Catlin, G. E. G. (1927). The Science and Method of Politics. London: Kegan Paul.
- Goodin, R. E. and Klingemann, H.-D. (eds.) (1996). A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan (various editions).
- Kothari, R. (1970). Politics in India. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
- Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Editorial note. This note was written by Brajabandhu Mahanta from the sources listed above, and is revised when syllabi change. Titles and dates are given for study purposes; please check the original publication before citing it in your own work. To report a mistake, use the Contact page. PoliPrepHub is an independent educational resource; see the Disclaimer.
12. Frequently asked questions
What is political science in simple words? It is the organised study of how societies are governed: how power is gained and used, how the state and its institutions work, and how people take part in politics.
Who is called the father of political science? Aristotle, because he studied many constitutions and classified them in his Politics. Plato is remembered for the idealist tradition, and Kautilya for the Indian tradition of statecraft.
Is political science a science? It is a science in the sense of systematic, evidence-based study, but not in the sense of exact laws proved by laboratory experiment. It is therefore called an inexact social science.
What is the difference between politics and political science? Politics is the activity of seeking and using power and making collective decisions. Political science is the disciplined study of that activity.
How is political science different from political theory? Political science, in its narrower sense, studies how political institutions and behaviour actually work, using observation and data. Political theory studies the concepts and values of politics and how they are justified. In the wider sense, theory is one part of political science.
Which books should I start with? Begin with a clear introductory text such as Heywood’s Politics or Johari’s Principles of Modern Political Science. Add Gauba or Vinod and Deshpande for examination needs, and read the syllabus of your examination alongside.