COURSE MANUAL

POL 201: POLITICAL ANALYSIS

Forward from the VC

Table of contents
Development Team

Development Team could comprise

*ODL Expert
*Content Author:
ADEBOWALE I. ADEYEYE PhD
Department of Political Sciences
OSUN STATE UNIVERSITY, OSOGBO, NIGERIA
EMAIL: [email protected];
[email protected]
GSM +234-803-578-4744

*Content Editor
*Production Editor
*Managing Editor
*Instructional Designer
*General Editor

*Course Code and Course name:

POL 201: POLITICAL ANALYSIS

* Credit Points 3

*Year/level YEAR 2/200L

*Facilitator's name:
ADEBOWALE I. ADEYEYE, PhD
Department of Political Sciences

1
 OSUN STATE UNIVERSITY, OSOGBO, NIGERIA
Email:[email protected];
[email protected]
GSM +234-803-578-4744

"Information about the course

*Study Session* 2020/2021

*Title: POL 201: POLITICAL ANALYSIS

ADEBOWALE I. ADEYEYE, PhD

Department of Political Sciences
OSUN STATE UNIVERSITY, OSOGBO, NIGERIA
EMAIL: [email protected];
[email protected]
GSM +234-803-578-4744

COURSE CODE: POL 201

Reviewed and Adapted from National Open University and Open Distance Learning,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria

2
Table of Content

Table of Content

General Introduction

MODULE ONE

Introduction

Politics and Man

The Essence of Politics

What is Politics?

References

MODULE TWO

Conceptions of Politics

Introduction

Politics as the Pursuit of the Public Interest

Politics as Operation of the State

Politics as the Determination and Execution of public Policy

Politics as Relations and Conflicts among Classes

References

MODULE THREE

Content

Meaning of Political Analysis

Political Analysis as Explanation and Prediction of Political Phenomena

Types of Political Analysis and Problems

Development of Political Analysis

The Quest to be Scientific

References

MODULE FOUR

3
Political Analysis and the Use of Scientific Method

Introduction

Aims of Science of Politics

References

MODULE FIVE

Political Analysis and the Multidisciplinary Approach in the Social Sciences

Introduction

Social Science and Multidisciplinary approach

The Political System and the Social System (Society)

References

The Distinctiveness of Political Analysis

MODULE SIX

Introduction

CONTENT

Modes of Political Analysis

Relatedness of Models of Analysis

References

MODULE SEVEN

Introduction

Theory and Political Analysis

Theories and Theorisation and Political Analysis

What is Theory?

Theory Building for Political Analysis

The Systems Approach

References

MODULE EIGHT

Structural-Functionalist Analytical Approach

4
Introduction

CONTENT

References

Systems Approach and Structural-Functionalist Approach

MODULE NINE

Types of Political Systems

Introduction

Meaning of Political System

Typologies/Classification of Political Systems

Advantages of Classificatory Scheme

Criteria for Classification/Typology

Examples of Typologies of Political System

References

MODULE TEN

Similarities in Political System

Introduction

Similarities of Political Systems

MODULE ELEVEN

Differences in Political Systems

Introduction

Differences in Political System

References

MODULE TWELVE

Who are the Participants in Politics?

Introduction

CONTENT

Democracy and the Significance of Participation

5
What is Political Participation?

Typologies of Political Participation

References

MODULE THIRTEEN

Why Levels of Political Participation Differ

Introduction

CONTENT

Why do Individuals Participate in Politics Unequally?

References

Bibliography

6
 General Introduction

The core of the work of Political Scientists is political analysis. Political analysis is
concerned with systematic study of political problems, issues, decisions, policies or
situations by organizing the available information into elements or categories and then
relating these to one another. The purpose of analysis is to explain and predict
political occurrences-why things happen the way they do, why people behave the way
they do, and under what conditions such events and enables us to understand the
political world in which we live. It is very important because if we do not understand
our political lives, we cannot hope to solve our problems.
As stated political analysis represent the main subject in the political science
discipline. Therefore, in this course, efforts are made to cover and introduce you to
the elements; issues, the theories and practice of political analysis. Within this
premise, three (3) fundamental objectives guide our discussion. First, is to make you
familiar with some of the basic concepts we use in political science. The second is to
make you develop the skill of recognizing and asking relevant political questions.
Finally, the objective is for you to learn how to apply the knowledge and skill you
will acquire in analysing political issues, events, behaviour and processes. In
summary, at the end of this course, it is expected that you will become an “expert”
Political Analyst in your own right because, political analysis is best done by experts
not commentators. The topics treated in this course are: the essence of politics,
description of political analysis, problems of political analysis, development of
political analysis, types of political analysis and the features and importance of
political analysis. We shall also treat epistemology and science in political analysis,
ethics and political analysis, development of political analysis, plagiarism and
political Analysis, research and political analysis. Other topics that shall be parts of
our discussion include the types of political systems, participants in politics, and
political socialisation. As much as possible, I will make the approach refreshing and
expect that you will find the topics very interesting. Let me at this point give you a
few hints on how you can easily follow and understand the course. First, you should
realise that political science has its own “technical” language. Because this course is
central to the discipline, you will come across many news words or what we call
concepts. At times, you may find it difficult to understand some of the concept,

7
especially at first reading. Do not be scared by the seeming ambiguity of the concepts.
I shall try to explain everything as simple enough as possible.
Secondly, most of the topics are related; hence, it is important that you endeavour to
understand one chapter before moving on to the next one. This way, you will find
reading interesting. Thirdly, assignments are included in every lecture, as well as
references for further reading. You should endeavour to do all the assignments on
your own. This is the only way you can convince yourself that you are following the
teaching. As for the references, I need not overemphasize their usefulness. Lastly, let
me elaborate a little bit more on the assignments by telling you what I expect from
you. Although the requirements would naturally vary from one lecture to the other,
you should first make sure you understand the question before starting on the
assignment. At the end of the lecture, you should compare your answers with those
you had at the beginning.
I expect that you will enjoy the course, and that you will profit greatly from it. Have a
nice time.

MODULE ONE

Introduction

From the introduction, attempt is made to provide an explication for this course by
drawing your attention to the need for political analysis. It is derived from it that
politics is essential. It is almost impossible to do without politics because it is an

8
everyday phenomenon. This is why it is important to have some basic skills in
political analysis. This will enable you to make desirable changes to your political
world.
Objectives

At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:

1. (1) Give meaning to the statement to the that politics is not only
for Politicians
2. You should be able to appreciate and explain the need for
Political Analysis.
Pre-Test Questions
1. Man is a political animal, True or False? Why is he a political animal?
2. Is it true that all political scientists are politicians? Express your opinion
3. What is politics? Does politics matter?
4. Define and give examples of politicisation

CONTENT
Politics and Man
In many instances, people discuss politics without consciously setting out to do so.
In the family, as a father or mother; as a farmer, teacher, passenger in a commuter
bus, indeed, in most roles we play, people are constantly drawn into talking and
commenting on politics. As a parent, you are concerned with the future of your
children and, as such you are interested in government policies on education. Even

9
as a student, the policies and decisions of government attract your interest. What
are the advantages and disadvantages of free education? Should special concession
be granted to children from educationally backward states? What becomes of
children when they leave school? Are there jobs for them? You would always want
to or interested in finding answer to these questions, especially when you discuss
with other parents or colleagues.
As a farmer, you are aware that climatic conditions play a large part in determining
your successes or failure, but you still think that government can help you in many
ways. After all, food which you produce is man’s basic need. What is government
doing to ensure that fertilizers, farm implements and storage facilities are within
the reach of the average farmer? Would you benefit from the agricultural loan
scheme?
As a bus passenger probably travelling from Ibadan to Abuja you “while away”
time rubbing minds with other passengers over a wide range of subjects: inflation,
especially the rising costs of transportation, minimizing accidents on your roads,
specific government policies, the performance of the police force and so on.
In each of these instances, what you are doing is discussing politics, expressing
that part of you which makes you an integral part of society. This is so because you
are a political animal, as Aristotle, one of the founding fathers of political science,
wrote a long time ago. The implications of this are two. First, that politics is the
essence of social existence because our interactions with others in the society
invariably involve politics. Except one prefers to live in isolation which only very
few men would do, no one can avoid politics. Second, that every man is a
“politician”. This could appear strange. You probably believe that politicians are
those who belong to political parties, contest elections and canvass for vote, in
short, those who are directly involved in politics. True indeed, these are the
“conspicuous” politicians, but they are not the only politicians. To the extent that
man is a political animal, every member of society is at one time or the other a
politician for, after all, a politician is simply a political actor, one who takes active
part in politics in any form, including discussing politics and contesting for
political offices . You and I are politicians in this sense because when we talk
politics, vote or attend a meeting of teachers, we directly or indirectly hope to
influence decision taken by government. Nevertheless, it will not be correct to say
that you are as much of a politician as the head of state or the minister is; what is

10
true is that even as we are all politicians, some of those at the core of the political
process who are directly involved in making decisions are more political than we
are. It is important to point out here that not all politicians are political scientists
and vice-versa.
Many people wonder what is the true nature of politics, but most do not really
understand that politics is everywhere from the class setting to the local market
store. You should take note from the various examples above that indeed politics is
ubiquitous. Therefore with politics impacting every component of our lives, this
will hopefully help you and others become more aware of the issues that are
important to the political arenas and in turn start a chain reaction of more citizens
becoming involved in the political process on all levels.
The Essence of Politics
In our everyday life and activities, politics is paramount. This is because, by
necessity, everyone is either an actor or a subject in the web of politics. Also,
everything happens within the context of politics. For instance, natural disasters
like drought, earthquake and flooding are usually addressed by policies from
government. Manufacturing drugs to cure diseases such as Covid-19, Ebola and
Lassa fever must be approved by a governmental law. In other words we live in a
politicized world. Politicization refers to those matters or issues in which there are
conflicting interests requiring the intervention of the government or other
authorities. Today, you will find that even trivial and private matters like football,
family planning, family matters, marriage and divorce attract government
intervention. The more government intervenes in political matters, the more
politicization increases. Therefore, we realise that there is very little we can do
without politics. We are affected directly or indirectly by political outcomes and
decisions.

11
Human freedom and well-being can be achieved through politics if applied wisely.
Although we may not be able to realise all our desires through politics but, we can
through political pursuit, exercise more choice and achieve some of our
aspirations, to render our lives more secure and master a greater degree of our own
fates. From the above discussion, you would realise that politics affects your life
and the lives of other people in many ways, especially in the allocation of scarce
resources by government. However, this does not mean that government
determines all aspect of our lives. If it did, our society will be a completely
totalitarian one. But the fact that the allocation of scarce resources will definitely
affect us one way or the other, and that we pursue interests which conflict with
others in society means that whether we like it or not, politics matters in our lives.
If taken that politics is fundamental to our lives; how then do we
describe/conceptualise politics?
What is politics?

Politics: Politics like most concepts in the social sciences has no universally
accepted definition. Every political scientist defines the term through his/her own
lenses. Political scientists hold on to varying at times conflicting conceptions of
politics, including the assumptions on which they make enquiries-As a practice; as
government, as ‘the art of compromise’ or ‘manipulation’ or ‘the struggle for
advantage and identifying politics with government, legal government, or the state;
while others revolve around the notions of power, authority, and/ or conflict. The
allocation of power and responsibility, the process of reconciling interests in
organised groups, making of authoritative decisions and the authoritative allocation
of values (David Easton). Politics is about determination of who gets what when
and how (Harrold Lasswell) Politics as the essence of social existence because
where two or more men interact; they invariably involved themselves in politics.
(Aristotle). And, politics as involving struggle among actors pursuing conflicting
desires on public issues (Vermon van Dyke).
The conflict of different interests, people or groups of people who want different
things be it power, money, and liberty etc. - face the potential or reality of conflict
when such things are in short supply. Politics begins when interests clash. At the
micro level we use a variety of techniques to get out own way: persuasion, rational

12
argument, irrational strategies, threats, entreaties, bribes, manipulation anything we
think will work. At the macro level, democratic states establish complex
procedures for the management of such conflicts codified in the form of written
constitutions (except in Britain). However, the political order is essentially
peaceful. But if violence is involved on a widespread scale e.g. war between
sovereign states; it would be fair to say that politics has been abandoned for other
means. I must point out to you here that, political order within a state is ensured
through the implicit threat of force which a state’s control of the police and army
provides. There are many situations in the world, for example in Northern Ireland
or the Lebanon, and Nigeria, where violence is regularly used to provide both a
context for and an alternative to peaceful political processes. So while political
activity is peaceful for most of the time in most countries, the threat of violence or
its reality are both integral parts of the political process.

These various definitions can be synchronized into main themes as follows:

• Politics as collective decision and action: As the process whereby a group of people,
with hitherto divergent views and interests are able to reach collective decisions that
are generally accepted as binding on them as a group and enforced on them as a
group.
• Politics as the operation of the state: As activities of the state and the public realm.
• Politics as the peaceful resolution of societal struggle and conflict: As an accepted
and preferable means of conflict resolution.
The definition of politics as involving struggle among actors pursuing conflicting
desires on public issues given by Vermon van Dyke points to the nature of political
activities, as they take place in the “public realm”, i.e. that part of society in which
issues affect virtually all members. But the definition does not tell us the outcome
of the struggle among political actors. This is where the second definition is useful.
It tells us that politics is directed at decision-making. The third definition
emphasizes the notion of power, which is one of the central concepts of politics.
Let me inform you that power related issues occur everywhere in the family,
associations, state and inter-state levels. That is what the fourth definition
emphasizes. Politics occurs everywhere. The outcome of the struggle among
political actors is to influence those who decide who gets what, when and how.
Actors struggle because the resources at the disposal of decision-makers are scarce

13
and, consequently, not everyone can get what he or she wants. This is a recurrent
issue in every society.

The above definitions are therefore related. The definition below combines all the
elements of all the above perspectives.
Politics can be defined as a struggle among actors pursuing conflicting
desires on issues to influence the authoritative allocation of values in terms
of who gets what, when and how which occurs at intra-state, state and
inter-state levels.
The perspectives raised in the definitions are discussed below:
Decision making
Much political activity end up in the taking of decisions, and all decisions involve
choice. Let me now illustrate the micro and macro senses of politics and also
introduce to you some important related terminology.

Decision making 1: Micro politics

You are a 17 year old girl who wishes to go on holiday to

UK with three other girls. Your father is strongly opposed
to the proposal on the grounds that you are too young and
vulnerable for such a risky undertaking.

I will use some political science terms to analyse the situation.

Interests: In politics, interests are those things which you want or care about;
usually financial resources; others are status, power, justice, liberty etc. In this
example, your interest lies principally in gaining permission to enjoy your first
holiday abroad, without your parents. Your father’s interests clearly lie in
protecting you and to avoid personal worry.

Political actors: In this instance includes you and your father (principal actors)
plus your mother, brother friends, relations and even neighbours that may be drawn
into the debate.

14
Power: In politics, this is the ability to get others to act in a particular way. This
can be achieved through the exercise of threats and rewards and also through
exercise of authority: or the acceptance of someone’s right to be obeyed.
The power relationship in this case is that you could offer ‘rewards’ to your father
in terms of a promise of mature and responsible behaviour, substantial self-funding
of your holiday and a firm resolve to work hard for the coming years exams. Your
threats could include a unilateral decision to defy your father and go on holiday.
Your father could offer to pay the full cost of a ‘safe’ holiday or threaten to refuse
funding of the trip or cut your pocket money. Your father is obviously in a stronger
position: he has both financial power and authority: acceptance by you of your
father’s right to respect.

Decision making II Macro-politics

The Nigerian Labour Congress seeks a pay increase three times the rate of
inflation in order to “catch up with pay settlements in the private sector.
The government offers only a rate of inflation increase, but offers to discuss
further pay increases along with proposals to increase productivity and
weaken terms of employment.
As Nigerians, you and I know that this familiar situation is quintessentially
political.
Interest: The government’s interests are clearly financial: It wishes to restrict
public expenditure or ‘sell’ a pay increase in return for its austerity measures which
will increase efficiency and save money in the future. The union’s interests are
primarily financial but it will also wish to resist any erosion of its members, job
security or status.
Actors: You should note that the actors are potentially numerous in this particular
drama – other government departments, public and private unions, the media, local
government pressure groups etc.

15
From the above description, you will observe that the degree of involvement
depends on how protracted and intense the process becomes.
Power: As you can see, the power relationship in circumstances would be
influenced by the ability of each side to deliver rewards or enforce threats. The
government can ‘reward’ the unions by giving way on the pay demand in exchange
for union flexibility on other issues. As paymaster, the government you know can
threaten to withhold any reward, sit out strike action and impose its proposals
notwithstanding.
Let me also add that the union on the other side can reward the government by
giving way on the award-related proposals. Its principal threats lie in its ability to
disrupt government activity and possibly national life, through industrial activity.
Authority: You should understand that two kinds of authority are in conflict here.
Which side is stronger? On the face of it, the government holds the key cards.
Ultimately the government controls the resources. However, it retains a key
interest in maintaining good relations with its work-force. The union’s strength will
depend among others, on the degree of rank and file support for the leadership; the
density of union membership; the strength of the union’s claim and the degree of
public support for it, the willingness of other trade unions to render support; the
union’s financial resources; and the negotiating skills of its leaders.
Lecture Summary
1. Politics exists everywhere around us partly because we live amongst
others who do not necessarily share our interests and views and partly
because man is a political animal
2. We cannot do without politics because resources are scarce and,
consequently we directly or indirectly seek to influence those who
decide who gets what, when and how.
3. Politics involves the struggle among actors pursuing conflicting
desires on issues to influence the authoritative allocation of values.
4. We live in an increasingly politicized world.
5. Political analysis is mainly concerned with helping us to understand the political
world in which we live, so we can help to bring about desirable changes

16
 Key concepts
Politics, Political animal, conflicting interests, politicization,
politician, political actor, scare resources, authoritative allocation,
government, political analysis.
Instructions
i. Attempt to identify at least five (5) key points in this lecture.
ii. Write out questions which arise from your reading of this lecture.

Post-Test
1. Man is a political animal, true or false? Why is he a political
animal?
2. Who is a politician? Mention some notable politicians in Nigeria
you know.
3. Give at least three definitions of politics? Does politics matter to
you and others?
4. What is politicization and why do we need to analyse political
issues?
This should be done in your tutor marked assignment notebook for
reference sake.

References
Jones, B. Gray, A., Karanagh, D., Moran. Norton, P., and Seldon, A. (1991).
Politics UK. Philip Allan, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain
Vernon Van Dyke (1960).Political Science: A Philosophical Analysis Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press, p. 134
David Easton, (1967). An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems”, World
Politics, Vol. 9. pp. 383-400: A Fraamework for Political analysis, (New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1965) p. 45ff and The Political system: An Inquiry into the state of
political science, 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1971), p. 129ff.

17
 MODULE TWO

Conceptions of Politics
Introduction

In our previous lecture, we have been able to establish the importance of politics
and that we must be able to understand politics. In this lecture, we attempt to
elaborate more on politics. This is done by introducing you to the various
conceptions of politics. This is important because as said in our previous lecture
political scientists do not agree on a single definition of politics.

Objectives

At the end of this lecture, you should be able

(i) To discuss the numerous dimensions of politics.
(ii) To explain why different definitions of politics have been
given and their major focus.
Pre-Test
1. Examine in full the conception of politics as the determination of
public policy.
2. How true is the assertion that politics is not restricted to the
public realm?
3. What do you understand by state? Would you agree that there are
“stateless” societies? If yes, give examples.
4. What are the similarities in the various conceptions of politics?
5. How does our understanding of class conflicts relate to politics?

18
 CONTENT
Conceptions of Politics
Politics is found everywhere at the same time, that is, it is ubiquitous. Therefore,
politics has been observed or conceptualized or defined to mean several things. It is
this that we mean when we talk of conception of politics. Identifying the various
conceptions is important for specifying what aspects of politics are to be analysed.
These conceptions can be assessed based on how well they explain political
activities and behaviour in a wide variety of societies. You should look out for the
similarities and differences in the various conceptions.
The major conceptions are:
(a) Politics as the pursuit of the public interest;
(b) Politics as collective decision and action;
(c) Politics as the peaceful resolution of societal struggle and conflict;
(d) Politics as the operation of the State;
(e) Politics as the determination and execution of public policy;
I shall elaborate on each of these conceptions.
Politics as the Pursuit of the Public Interest
The traditional conception of politics found expressions in the views of the Greeks
who defined politics as belonging to the public realm as distinct from the private
realm. In differentiating the public realm with the private realm, issues such family
relationships, friendship, farming, etc. constitutes private matters, while the public
realm concern issues which affects the whole community and on which actions are
taken in pursuit of the public good. The public realm was viewed by the Greeks to
be morally superior to the private realm, and was represented by the polis or “city-
state.” Plato and Aristotle, two famous Greek philosophers, were at the forefront of
this conception of politics. The primary interest of these early Greek philosophers
was in the moral purposes that the decision makers ought to pursue to realize the
public or common good of all members of the state. According to Aristotle, the
‘highest good” was to ensure happiness of all men. This happiness was not
however defined as the attainment of more pleasure, but as the conformity of ideas
and actions with perfect goodness. Thus, Aristotle wrote that “What the statesman
is most anxious to produce is a moral character in his fellow citizens, namely a
disposition of virtue and the performance of virtuous actions”.

19
On the contrary, the Greek polis which in the views of Aristotle and other early
philosophers described as the public realm is not the same as the contemporary
modern state. The two are different in a number of ways. First, the modern state is
largely secular and is distinct from the church, the polis as Aristotle used it was a
union, rather than, a division of functions. The polis was a political association, a
religious community and an educational agency, all at once. Secondly, in the
modern state, individuals are divided and unequal in terms of power and authority
in the polis, there was a common agreement on moral beliefs. Thirdly sovereignty
in the Polis lay with the public assembly in the modern state, presidents and
representative institution like the legislature exercise sovereignty.
Although there has been great changes has taken place since the times of Plato and
Aristotle, some political philosophers still define politics in terms of moral beliefs
and the moral ends of the state. Notable among these are John Rawls who
formulated a theory of justice whose ends are liberty and equality, and Martin
Luther King Jr. who also voiced a concept of justice as involving the equality of all
men irrespective of race and other circumstances of birth. As laudable as the
conception of politics as the pursuit of the public interest sound, it has been
criticized on some grounds. These include the following:
(1) It has been argued that public interest is myth which is usually employed by
political leaders to rationalize private interests
(2) Politics is not restricted to the public realm because matters in the private
realm both influence and determine behaviour in the public realm
(3) The modern state is too large and divided to allow for agreement on
common goods.

Politics as the Operation of the State

The foremost proponent of this conception is the popular German Sociologist, Max
Weber. He argued that the state cannot be defined in terms of its ends largely
because there is no task that is peculiar to it. Ultimately Weber contends that the
modern state can only be defined in terms of the means that are peculiar to it which
is the use of physical force. To this extent, Weber conceptualised the state as “a
human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of
force within given territory…”

20
Therefore, Weber’s view is that, politics should be equated with the activities of
the state, a state being a concrete administrative structure which uses force to
compel obedience. From Weber’s definition, a number of features of state can be
identified. These include:
1. That state is made up of several specialized structures-offices, roles, and institutions
2. That state has the right to, and processes monopoly of coercive power as
embodied in military, police and prison officers
3. State exercises sovereignty, i.e., the absolute right to make final decision binding
on society; and
4. State has clearly defined territorial boundaries.
5. State has a compulsory jurisdiction; which means it can control and regulate
everything within its jurisdiction.
For several decades, politics was popularly defined in terms of the state.
Specifically, it was in the 1940 that the state-centric definition of politics began to
be queried on the ground that the perception is inadequate and cannot fully espouse
the entire focus of politics. The conception was found inadequate because politics
exists in all societies and villages where the state is yet to emerge. Also, the
conception of politics as the activities of the state does not accommodate what goes
on in international politics (which is “stateless). Equally, we now know that in
some states, the state does not have a monopoly of coercion. As a corollary, no
states rules by sheer force or power for a long time. It has to be accepted by the
people, so it becomes legitimate. Legitimacy then transforms power into authority,
in which case the state uses force only sparingly. Notwithstanding the
shortcomings, the conception of politics as the activities of the state is still popular
amongst those who see politics as revolving around the government which
embodies the state.
Politics as the Determination and Execution of public Policy
In the previous lecture, we defined politics as a struggle among actors pursuing
conflicting desires to influence the authoritative allocation of values in terms of
who gets what, when, and how. That definition derives from the conception of
politics as the determination and execution of public policy. Political scientists who
conceive of politics in this way focus attention primarily on how binding decisions
are made and carried out for society, rather than on state structures as the sole
centre of political life.

21
The conception of politics above shares the view of those who conceive politics as
the pursuit of public interest. However, it differs in that it recognizes the
conflicting interests and desires that individuals and groups have in society. It
further recognizes that resources are scarce and cannot meet everyone’s desire. The
conception therefore sensitizes us to the interactions among the individual, cultural
beliefs, social structures and public (political) policies. Beyond this, proponents of
this conception of politics are also interested in the implementation or execution of
public policies once they are made because a policy that is not implemented or
cannot be implemented for all practical purposes is a non-policy. In linking the
determination of policies to their execution, crucial questions like how policies are
determined, the effects of these policies on the society, group and individuals, and
whether they meet the purposes for which they were meant, are asked. Perhaps, the
conception of politics as the process of determining and executing policies is the
most useful of all conceptions of politics because it offers the most useful
explanation of political life in a wide variety of societies, including stateless
societies. This is because fundamentally, it points to certain important features of
politics such as:
(1) That politics is an activity;
(2) That politics may be performed by specialized structures;
(3) That politics deals with acceptable decisions which do not require force;
(4) That political decisions affect the vast population of members of the society,
therefore public rather than private;
(5) That political activities often change from one particular problem to the other
and according to the effects of policies on society as a whole and
(6) That political activities do take place outside of the state structure.
Politics as the Relations and Conflicts among Classes
This is a conception of politics which derives from the writings of Karl Marx.
According to Marx, every society is interlocked in a struggle between two broad
classes in society. These classes are differentiated in terms of their relations to the
mode of production in society: those who own and control the means of production
constitute the class of oppressors, and they have not belonged to the class of the
oppressed. Political activity centres on the struggle between these two classes for
supremacy. Ultimately, Marx believed the oppressed class will be victorious, and
will establish socialists’ society in which all men will be equal.

22
This conception is important because, as I have emphasized at various points,
politics involves struggle: those who are powerful (i.e. those who control the
means of production) control more than a fair share of political resources, and
disproportionately influence the determination of public policies. However, the
conception underrates importance of ethnic, religious, racial and other identities
which, in addition to class, influences political behaviour of individuals and
groups.
Synthesis
There are overlaps in the various conceptions. For example, most of them place
emphasis on the state as the base and core of all political activities. However, since
politics takes place everywhere and in all societies, in a later lecture, I will discuss
the concept of the political system which, more than the state constitutes the Centre
of political activities.

Lecture Summary
1. Politics is ubiquitous. Accordingly, it has many
interpretations, each which draws attention to
particular aspects of it.
2. Politics can be seen, according to- the Greeks,
as involving matters which belong to the public
realm.
3. Politics involves the activities of the state.
4. Politics can also be seen as involving the
determination and execution of public policy.
5. Politics involves the relations and conflicts among classes.

Key Concepts
Polis, Public realm, Public interest, Public Policy,
Common good, State, Stateless societies,
Legitimacy, Authority, Power and Class.

Post-Test
1. Examine in details the conception of politics as the determination of public
policy.
2. How true is the view that politics is not restricted to the public realm?
3. What is a state? Are there “stateless” societies? Give examples.
4. Examine the similarities (if any), the various conceptions of politics?
5. How does an understanding of class conflicts relate to Politics?
*This should be done in your tutor marked assignment notebook for reference
sake.

23
References

Onah, E. I. (2010) Contemporary Political Analysis. Concept Publications

Thomson, J. A. K. (1953). Aristotle: The Ethics. Hardmondsworht Middlesex:
Penguin Books, p. 44.

John Rawls, (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Mass, Harvard University

Press.

Scott, C. King (1969) My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Holt,
Rhineheart and Winston.

Max Webber, “Politics as a Vocation”, in From Max Weber ed.

Gerth, H. H. and Wright, C Mills (New York. Oxford University Press, (1949)
pp.77-78.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1967) The Communist Manifesto Harmonsworth,

Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Miliband, R. (1978) Marxism and Politics, Oxford University Press.

24
 MODULE THREE

In the last two lectures, we looked at the definition and importance of politics. In
this lecture we want to familiarise ourselves with the subject matter of political
analysis. We would also look at the meaning and significance of political analysis;
the types, problems and the development of political analysis. The lecture will also
look at the methods and approaches and discuss the scientific nature of political
analysis.

Objectives

At the end of this lecture, you are expected to be able to:

1. Conceptualise political analysis
2. Discuss the types and importance of political analysis
3. Explain the approaches and scientific nature of political analysis
Pre-Test questions
1. What is political analysis, and in what way (s) is political analysis related to
political analysis?
2. What is the significance of political analysis?
3. What are the method and approaches adopted in political analysis?
4. Can we argue for the scientific nature of political analysis?
5. Give an outline of the scientific explanations in political analysis

25
 CONTENT
Meaning of Political Analysis

Political Analysis is a core subject within the discipline of Political Science. This
means that Political scientists should be best in the analysis of politics. In a simple
term, analysis is the separation or breaking up of the whole into fundamental parts
and subjecting them to detailed qualitative or quantitative examination which may
involve clarification or explication. According to Roberts and Edwards, 1991)
Political analysis is an enquiry into political issues, phenomena and problems for
the purpose of definition, clarification, explanation, or resolution. Therefore,
Political analysis requires studying a political problem, decisions, issues or
situation by organising the data (information) available to you into categories or
elements and then relating these into one another for the purpose of explanation.
It is the study of processes, principles and structures of government and political
institutions; a means to developing strategic method to political issues and involves
dealing with theory and practice of politics. Practically, political analysis helps us
to understand the world we live in, to make intelligent choices among the
alternatives that we face, and to influence the various changes that are in the
society (Dahl, 1976). It enables us to understand and clarify political issues such as
political events, policy decisions, electoral behaviour, intergovernmental relations,
etc., and to resolve and adjudicate political matters (Onah, 2010:11).
From the description above, it can be said that political analysis is an importance
area in political science with fundamental objectives and goals. What then are
these goals? The main goals of political analysis include the following:

i. To know what is important in politics: Those things that influence or

determine the outcome of events. For instance, there are different factors that
influence or determine voting behaviour of an individual or group of individuals
such as issues, class, ethnicity, party affiliation, ideology etc. If party affiliation
seems to have a stronger influence on voting behaviour, party affiliation is
considered as important in your analysis.
ii. To know what is valuable, i.e. the difference every political outcome will
make to our desires, both individually and collectively. The choice of party
affiliation in the above example implies that special attention should be given to
party affiliation when considering why voters behave they behaved. The preference

26
for party affiliation shows your interest in using the factor to explain voting
behaviour and advance your argument.
iii. To know what is real or true by systematically subjecting our guesses,
impressions, popular beliefs, even rumours, to verificatory tests. The hypothesis
(an initial theory a researcher starts with, to be proved by evidence) that party
affiliation determines voting behaviour can be tested in another area or country for
confirmation or rejection.
In summary, political analysis aims at political knowledge that is relevant to our
values, that can be confirmed by empirical tests and experience, and that will
enable us explain assess and predict outcomes. If therefore, you ask the question,
why analyse politics, the answer is simple “Political analysis helps one to
understand the world one lives in, to make more intelligent choices among the
alternatives one faces, and to influence the changes inherent in all political
systems.”
Political Analysis as Explanation and Prediction of Political Phenomena
As stated earlier, political analysis can be seen as simply the explanation and
prediction of political phenomena. The primary objective of gathering information
(data) and analysis is to explain such phenomenon or predicting its future. When
we say that we ‘explain’, we are attempting to answer the ‘what?’ question, i.e., to
explain is to strip the reality of its veiled appearances so that the bare reality can be
seen (Duhem, 1962 cit. Onah, 2010:12). Therefore, it goes beyond ordinary
description of the phenomenon but by providing an explanation of the phenomena
it investigates. All explanation must start with the analyst becoming intimate with
available information (data). The Political Analyst must read through the
information or data and identify the fundamental stages, events and experiences
regarding the phenomena under analysis. It is at this stage that the analyst
incorporates all relevant data that are likely to the interpretation of the phenomena.
In the final stage, the analyst must edit his data to come up with a coherent
outcome.
Political Analysis often extends to prediction. These analytic predictions are
reflections for the future. Prediction give answers to the ’why?’ question. It must
be mentioned that philosophically, the ‘why’ question is not to be seen as the
appeal to a reality beyond all experience, but attempt to gain control over future

27
experience. This is usually done by observing or measuring the trend of data to see
the direction of the future and what the phenomenon portends.
Types of Political Analysis and Problems
In the earlier discussion, I stated that Political Analysis is the core of Political
Science and that Political Scientists should be the best analyst. These statements
show that in some case it may not be so and that other people who are not in the
field also carry out analysis. Therefore there are two forms of political analysis-
Political Analysis by experts, those who are trained in the field of political science
and those that are not trained in the field. In many cases, we have seen Lawyers,
Engineers, Doctor, etc. attempting to analyse political issues. The two categories
are Specialised Political Analysis and Public Commentary.
i. Specialised Political Analysis is the professional analysis. This is the type of
analysis carried out by specialist trained in the areas of his analysis. Such analysts
are often equipped with empirical orientations, i.e. Political analysis that is based
on what can be seen, quantified and measured. The empirical/scientific orientation
enables analysts to systematically describe, explain and predict evens under
analysis by way of discovering causal relationships.
ii. Public Commentary is the everyday, popular political analysis that are often
seen in the media. Public commentators are not specialist trained in political
science. They however usually substitute training with passion. The method or
approach adopted is usually normative. Normative orientation is descriptive which
often seeks to find out what ought to be. The approach seeks to compare ‘what is’
to ‘what ought to be’. It is based primarily on ethical consideration and often
rooted in beliefs and biases-unscientific, as against the scientific method.
Characteristics of Political Analysis: Emphasis on political behaviour,
Emphasising on new tools and techniques, Observation and Interview
Problems of Political Analysis
Although Political Analysis has been credited with many benefits; it faces a
number of problems. Identifying these problems at this stage will help you guide
against them in your analytical endeavour. The problems are as follows:
i. Boundary problem: This is concerned with the difficulty in correctly situating
or defining the issue at stake and what it entails. Usually, analysts go beyond or at
times do not adequately cover their topics, thereby leaving many issues unattended
to or introducing a lot of irrelevances into the analysis.

28
ii. Bias/ prejudices in the process of data gathering and interpretation: The
problem of bias and prejudice is another fundamental issue in political analysis
during data gathering and interpretation. Bias often creeps in at different stages of
analysis and often renders analysis undependable, therefore such analysis may not
stand the test of time.
iii. Generalisation: This is related to the problem of under/overgeneralisation.
Analysts are usually not conscious or aware of the materials they need or have.
Either way, there is the problem of generalisation. Facts may not enough as such
any generalisation drawn from this will not be correctly applicable to similar
situations and circumstances. It is also possible that the facts are enough but
inadequately handled and any generalisation flowing from this will be bogus.
iv. Theoretical Framework: In order to properly conduct political analysis,
theory/theories must serve as the base, i.e. Political analysis must be grounded in
theory or theories as framework of analysis and this has often been a major
concern. In analysis, theory/theories must be clearly identified, and data must also
be organised in line with whatever framework of analysis chosen by the analyst.
However, analysts are usually unable to do this, thereby rendering their analysis
disjointed and unorganised.
v. Interdisciplinary Synthesis: In order to provide for rounded and wholesome
analysis, political analyst must be able to always harness knowledge from other
disciplines into their analysis. It is when this is lacking that analysis is narrow and
limited in application.
Development of Political Analysis
The development of political analysis is synonymous with the history of political
science itself. Specifically, political analysis arose from the desire to address the
issues relating to or arising from the organisation of power in the society, i.e., to
discuss the use of power, control and freedom in society, etc. The ways and
methods such issues have been discussed have been dynamic progressing from
traditional, normative methods/approaches to the contemporary /modern, empirical
(scientific) approaches.
Traditionalism: This political analysis is mainly descriptive and focuses on
institution- which was believed to be the determinant of every political action.
Traditional analysis was initially historical, amounting to attempts to trace and
describe a given political phenomenon or the growth of a political institution

29
through time. It later grew to include philosophical analysis of such concepts as the
state, sovereignty, law, rights, justice equality freedom, etc. Political analysis
moved from the philosophical stage to the legal-functional aspects of institutions,
and functions of institutions such as executive, legislature, judiciary etc. Finally,
political analysis culminated into normative-prescriptive approach, whereby
political scientists started discussing issues bordering on the merits and demerits of
political institutions such as parliamentary or presidential system of government,
unitary, federal forms of government, etc.
Behaviouralism: The Second World War and other events around the time showed
the irrelevance of the political analysis at the time. The discipline could not predict
the events that took place, nor were political analysts relevant during the war. After
the war, scholars such as David Easton, Arthur Bentley, and Charles Merriam,
argued for political science to become scientific in the true sense, and for political
analysis to become empirical. This is the period described as the Behavioural
Movement. It essentially focused on the observable behaviour of individuals and
groups in political situations, with the view to formulating and testing hypothesis
concerning uniformities of behaviour in different political setting. The intellectual
requirements of behaviouralism are:
i. Regularities: This is concerned with the search for uniformities in political
behaviour which can be expressed in generalisations or theories capable of
explaining and prediction political phenomena.
ii. Verification: This implies that all evidence must be observable and all
knowledge must consist of propositions that have been subjected to empirical tests.
iii. Techniques: This refers to the adoption of current tools for acquiring and
interpreting data and the use of research methods which generate valid, reliable and
comparable data.
iv. Quantification: This means that imprecise qualitative judgements must be
replaced by quantitative (empirical) measurement and data manipulation
procedures for precise and accurate knowledge about the complexities of political
life.
v. Value Neutrality: This explain that facts and value are two distinct things and
must always be kept distinct in our analysis. You will recall that value and bias
were mentioned as a problem to scientific analysis as such should be kept away
from our analysis.

30
vi. Pure Science: This means that research must always gear towards the
understanding and explanation of political behaviour, even if it cannot be applied
to social problems.
vii. Integration: Implies that political behaviour can only be understood in the
wider context of one’s entire life. Political analysis must always be integrated with
other social sciences.
The Quest to be Scientific
As political analysts, our endeavour is to ensure that our lives or dislikes, biases,
values, or personalities’ do not distort our analysis, that is, to be ‘objective in our
analysis, Also, we attempt to ensure that our studies provide explanations and
generalizations which can be tested or verified by other analysts. In doing this, we
seek to be “scientific”, i.e. to be systematic in our studies. This is the sense in
which we are Political Scientists, i.e. we seek to use the scientific method.
Usually, you may have always thought that “science’ is exclusively used in relation
to the natural sciences like Chemistry, Biology and Physics. This is not the case
because science-from the Latin word ‘scire’- simply means ‘to know”,
consequently, any study which advances knowledge is scientific. Today, most
people think of science as precise and factual, supported by experiments and data.
But this is not all. Science could be a matter of method, i.e. how to study, or of
substance, i.e. what is studied, or both. The natural sciences are scientific in both
senses. Political Science like the other social sciences (Sociology, Economics,
Psychology, and Geography) is scientific only in the sense of its methods because
it seeks to apply the systematic tools of study of man in society. Some political
analysts have attempted to become like natural scientists; they quantify data and
manipulate them statistically to validate hypotheses. Although these political
scientists have made some good contributions, they focus on small questions of
detail rather than on large questions of meaning. You should be informed that this
is as a result of limited areas of political science that can be quantified: public
opinion, voter turnout, election returns and legislative voting.
Opinions are however divided on whether politics can be studied in a scientific
manner such as would disallow our own prejudices or values to colour our
analysis. In the next lecture, I will examine the arguments against a science of
politics. But just now, I want to discuss the essential elements of the scientific
method, and how political analysts have sought to be scientific.

31
An Outline of Scientific Method
Let us begin by presenting in broad outline, the basic procedure of the scientific
method. A simple outline involves:
1. Making explicit (in a clearer form), in advance, your assumptions and
expectations about what you are studying;
2. Making explicit, in advance, the rules and/or guidelines by which you will
proceed in your study. You do not change the rules of a football game at half-time.
3. Making careful observations of the phenomena in which you are interested, with
a view to discovering the elements of the study and the regularities (consistent
patterns of behaviour of occurrence) which may exist.
4. Seeking, through one or more explicit frames of reference (theories, perspective)
to map out the relationships among the things you have observed;
5. Seeking to explain the relationships you identify.
6. Making verifiable (testable) predictions based on your explanations and
7. Reporting fully and clearly, your conclusions in such a way that another
Scientist could, if he wished, repeat the study by making similar observations.
Conceptualisation of Major Terms
Before going further, it is important to define certain key terms which you will
encounter as discussion progresses. These include:
Generalizations: These are statements which describe general conditions or
properties of the things we are interested in. They are usually stated in law like
terms which are testable. An example of a generalization is; most women are not
interested in politics. Notice that I have used most, rather than all because
generalizations are not laws which give no exceptions.
Laws: Are statements of universal uniformities used as explanations of specific
phenomena, which, because of their explanatory character can be viewed as
predictive statements. Law talks of absolute properties with no exceptions. The
unpredictable nature of human behaviour makes it difficult, if not impossible, to
develop laws in the social sciences. It is difficult, for example, to say that “All
human being love power,” because we would certainly find those, no matter how
few, who would not love it.
Theories: Are those explanations of uniformities that involve two or more
generalizations but which, even though widely held, require empirical validation
for confirmation. A theory is different from a law in that a theory offers at one and

32
the same time less certainty and greater explanatory power; it explains in effect
why laws work, but it is not as useful as a law in predicting particular events.
Hypothesis: Tentative explanations, suppositions, or assertions that are formulated
to be tested and, when extensively tested and confirmed by collected data, either
themselves take on the character of laws or theories or else modify existing laws.
There are two major hypotheses in scientific analysis, namely Null Hypothesis
denotes by H0and Alternative Hypothesis denotes by H1.
Values: The importance individuals or groups attach to phenomena and ideals in
terms of their views of the world. The scientific method aims at eliminating such
values from analysis.
What the Scientific Method Entails
The scientific method has two major aims, namely to explain and to predict on the
basis of regularities which have been observed and found to be reliable. I shall
elaborate briefly on these goals of science.
Explanations: Let me illustrate this point with this illustration. If you are
requested to explain why the All Progressive Congress (APC) won the presidential
election in Nigeria in 2015, considering that APC as an opposing political party
contested against the ruling party-Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).You would
probably say it won because of its attractive manifestos, the personality of its
candidate, the quest for change by Nigerian citizens and the charisma of its
national leader. This is an explanation. In scientific terms, we say that explanation
entails specifying the conditions under which a particular event occurs. Put
differently, explanations take the form of establishing relationships among
variables, a variable being a property that takes on different values or assumes
different characteristics. There are two types of variables. First, there is the
dependent variable, which is what is to be explained. An example is the victory of
the APC in the Presidential election in 2015. Second, there is the independent
variable, which is the variable which explains the dependent variable like the
APC’s people –oriented programme or the personality of its candidate-
Muhammadu Buhari in our example. An explanation therefore involves identifying
the independent variables which account for the dependent variable, and takes the
form “if A, then B” However, the connections we draw between variables must be
such that they provide reasons for the occurrence of a particular event rather than

33
other occurrences. This means that “if A then B” is a more acceptable explanation
then, if A, B, C, D”.
Let us move one further step. Scientific explanation involves an appeal to laws or
generalizations which specify relationships among variables, in addition to the
conditions present in our explanatory situation. In other words, we can explain an
event by deducing it from one more statements of individual fact in conjunction
with one or more generalizations or laws. Thus, a particular event A explains
another, B, only if there is some generalization or law that justifies the inference
from A to B. Let me illustrate, using the example of the APC victory. Recall the
four factors which I have already given. I shall take one of these, say personality of
the candidate. Next, I have to find out if there are any generalizations which
specify conditions under which popular candidates win elections. There is one
which says that people who are ruled by bad leaders are likely to vote for credible
candidates with integrity. Our explanation then takes the following form:
1. Initial conditions: most people in Nigeria are not ruled well by their leaders;
2. The APC is a progressive party with credible candidates;
3. Generalization: Most people who are ruled by bad leaders are likely to vote for
a progressive party with credible candidates. Therefore, most Nigerians were likely
to vote for the APC.
Let us consider another simple example.
(a). If the political elite can unite then
(b). the soldiers will withdraw totally for Nigerian politics
(c). but the political elite can never unite.
(d). Generalisation: Therefore soldiers will not withdraw totally from Nigerian
politics.
The point in scientific explanations is that if the premises (1. and 2. (a) and (b)
above) are true, then the conclusion (3) (c) and (d) above) is true. The
generalization and the facts about the condition of most Nigerians and the character
of APC together provide an explanation for why they APC won. Also, the
generalization and the unity among the political elite provide an explanation for
military’s participation in Nigerian politics.
This is the logical structure of scientific explanations. Ultimately, adequate
explanations rely on theories. However, I shall not go into further details about
this, as I am sure your will learn more about theories in your other political science

34
courses. For now, suffice it to know that the theories we use in political science
could be empirical (based on what is) or normative (based on what ought to be).
For scientific purposes however, empirical theories are more useful for explanation
because they can be tested and retested in a variety of cases. Normative theories
are not usually open to such tests.
Prediction
The other goal of science is prediction. Prediction basically has the same logical
form as explanation but, unlike explanation, it involves inferring (predicting) future
unknown occurrences from particular facts and laws that are already known. When
we predict, we specify conditions under which a future event is likely to occur.
This is quite close to explanations. The major difference is that in explanation, we
specify conditions under which events which have already taken place occurred
while in prediction, we project into the future by stating that certain types of events
are likely to occur given certain conditions. In the case of our APC example, we
may predict that if Nigerian remains under bad leadership, and the APC
progressive with credible candidates; Nigerians are likely to vote for the party
again. In the second example, we may predict that lack of unity among the political
elite will make military intervention in Nigerian politics possible.
By their nature, predictions can either be reliable or unreliable. (of course, the
reliability depends on how factual or true to life the conditions we specify are. This
is a major problem in the social sciences where, because of the unpredictability of
man’s actions and behaviour, our predictions cannot be absolutely certain, no
matter how adequate our explanations on which such predictions are based may be.
To this extent, in Political Science, we talk of the probabilities of events actually
taking place. For example, we may say that if Nigerians are not ruled by credible
leaders and if the APC remains progressive, there is a high probability that they
will vote for the APC. Words like “most likely” “tend to” and “most probably”
convey the probabilistic nature of predictions in political science.
Lecture Summary
1. Political analysis is the core concerned with the systematic events and
actions of political science, and is study of political phenomena,
2. Because it aims at true and reliable political knowledge, political analysis
seeks to be scientific and objective in their study.
3. The major goals of science are explanation and prediction.

35
4. In a scientific explanation, the conclusions are true because the premises on
which they are based are true
5. Predictions cannot be made with certainty in political science because
man’s behaviour and actions are unpredictable.

Post-Test
1. What is political analysis, and how is it related to political science?
2. What is the scientific method? Why does political analysis seek to be scientific?
3. What are the major goals of science?
4. Can we make accurate predictions in political science? Why or Why not?
5. Give a broad outline of the structure of Science explanation.
This should be done in your tutor marked assignment notebook for reference sake.
References
Robert Dahl, (1976). Modern Political Analysis 3rded. New Jersey:
William A. Welsh, (1973). Studying Politics London: Thomas Nelson. P. 27
May Brodbeck, (1968) “General Introduction” Readings in the Philosophy of the
Social Sciences London: Macmillan. pp 1-11

MODULE FOUR

36
Political Analysis and the Use of Scientific Method
Introduction
In the previous lecture, you told what the scientific method entails. In this lecture, I
want us to consider the question of whether a science of politics is actually
possible. As you were told at the beginning of the last lecture, there are those who
argue that it is not. Our attempt here is to try to balance the two perspectives
concerning the science of politics.
Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be more than equipped to answer the
question: is a science of politics possible?
Pre-Test
1. Is a science of politics desirable?
2. Why explanations and predictions are considered inadequate in political
science?
3. Can political analysis be value-free?
4. Are there political phenomena which can be studied scientifically?
5. Is a science of politics possible?
CONTENT
Aims of Science of Politics
We shall begin by summarizing most of what I already told you in the last lecture.
This would provide a useful background to our considerations in this lecture.
A Science of politics aims at the following important goals:
i. Value-Free Analysis: This refers to the quest for objectivity and neutrality in
political analysis. To be scientific, the analyst must analyse facts (data) as they are
rather than or they ought to/should be. As much as possible, our personal likes and
dislikes, preferences, interests or values or biases must be kept out of our analysis.
ii. Empirical analysis: concern with ‘what is’ rather than ‘what ought to be’
implies an emphasis on direct observation to discover things as they really are,
their relationship with other things, and the regularities of their occurrence. It is on
observed regularities of their occurrence. It is on these observed regularities that
we premise our explanations and predictions.
iii. Explanation: scientific explanations appeal to generalization and theories in
explaining specific occurrence. If these generalisations and the particular
conditions/premises are true, then the conclusion (s) must be true.

37
iv. Prediction: takes the same logical form as explanation, but is different because
it is forward looking, and involves specifying conditions/premises under which
certain occurrences are likely to take place.
v. Theories: a scientific theory is a set of generalization which specifies the
direction of relationships among variables. Theories are therefore the major
ingredients of explanation. But for them to be really helpful in this regard, they
should be general and restrictive. Finally, a good theory should be open to further
empirical tests.
vi. Laws: are statements of universal uniformities which relate to all the cases of a
particular phenomenon i.e., they do not allow for exception. They are useful for
both explanations and predictions, but do not possess as much explanatory power
as theories do though they have greater certainty.
Is a Science of Politics desirable?
The desirability of science of politics has been determined in the last lecture. You
were told that the importance of science of politics or the use of scientific method
in political analysis lies in the fact that it will help to explain and to predict on the
basis of regularities which have been observed and found to be reliable. It is
desirable to use scientific method in order to have an analysis that is value –free,
empirical and verifiable that will produce generalizations, theories and laws that
can be used to explain and predict. The next relevant question relating to the use of
scientific method in political analysis is “is a science of politics possible?
Is a Science of Politics Possible?
Now we are in a position to answer the question on the possibility of science of
politics or political analysis that makes use of scientific method. We shall however
rely on the writings of numerous authors who believe that a science of politics is
not possible. We shall take the major issues one after the other:
1. Value Free Analysis: Some political scientists believe that it is difficult, if not
impossible, for political analysis to be value-free. You may have certain personal
reasons for deciding to study local government administration rather than say,
electoral behaviour. You may believe for example that elections are not free and
fair, and so, do not require analysis. Once you have selected your topic, it becomes
difficult for your values to be eliminated from your analysis because you are an
interested part of what you study. This is why you normally find that people

38
analysis of the same event differ, sometimes so markedly, that you find it difficult
to believe that they are analysing the same thing.
The other problems is, is it desirable for the political analyst to be objective for its
own sake? After knowing things as they are (assuming that he is value-free),
should the political analyst not go ahead to tell us what ought to be? Without
doubt, political scientists do have a responsibility to society as they are involved in
the search for a better society. Would their quest for objectivity for its own sake
not reduce the relevance of political scientists?
2. Empirical analysis: This rests on “hard” facts which are observable and capable
of being subjected to laboratory and quantitative analysis. But, can we really get
such “hard” fact in politics? Much of what we study is man’s behaviour, we cannot
rely on what we think made him behave in a particular way. We have to mostly
depend on what he tells us and this may not be reliable because man is capable of
lying. This is different from the hard facts in say physics or chemistry which can be
described in purely physical terms based on observation. In politics, even such a
simple action like voting cannot be described as a purely physical activity.
If direct observation and hard facts are difficult then quantitative analysis is more
difficult. First, we cannot subject men to the same laboratory conditions under
which natural scientists carry out their analysis. As a result, if we really seek to be
scientific, we would have to concentrate on political phenomena which can be
directly observed and are quantifiable. This diverts attention away from the main
stuff of politics like leadership, and decision making which cannot be subjecting
political phenomena to empirical analysis. Opinion polls and survey research
methods which are based on questionnaires have been conducted, and computers
and advanced statistical (mathematical) techniques have been devised to study
political phenomena.
3. Uncertainties and Unpredictability in human life: The other essential of the
scientific method- explanation and predictions which are based on theories and
laws- may be summarized by saying that they all rely on observed regularities in
particular occurrences. In other words, they rely on consistent patterns of
occurrences to be able to explain and predict. This is where a science of politics is
particularly handicapped. Man’s behaviour remains uncertain and unpredictable,
no matter how much we know him bout. Consequently, it is difficult to formulate
universal or general theories much less “laws” because there would always be

39
exceptions to observed regularities. As long as this cannot be overcome, our
explanations and predictions will remain incomplete and inadequate. It is important
to inform you that much of politics especially when one is dealing with how and
why decisions are made is just too complex to be quantified or measured. Political
science is an empirical discipline that accumulates both quantified and qualitative
data. In spite of these difficulties, we still have generalizations and theories which,
to the extent that they are stated empirically and therefore open to confirmation or
information, can be considered scientific. If we cannot be purely scientific, at least
we can try to approximate science.
Continuation of the debate on the science of politics
The debate over whether a science of politics is possible or desirable may not be
completely resolved. The traditionalists, i.e. those political scientists who argue
that it is not possible to be Scientifics and emphasize normative theories certainly
have their points, as do the empiricists or behaviouralists (see next lecture) who
seek to be scientific. At the present stage, the agreement seems to be that political
phenomena can be studied while those which cannot be subjected to scientific
analysis be studied philosophically using normative theories.
Meanwhile, political science also takes after a natural science when the
researchers, if they are professional, study things as they are and not as they wish
them to be. You need to know that most political scientists have viewpoints on
current issues, and it is not difficult to let these views taint their analyses of
politics. I should let you know that any scientific analysis of politics requires four
major ingredients. A scientific analysis of political issues or scholarly work
“should be reasoned, balanced, supported by evidence, and a bit theoretical.”
Reasoned analytical work requires you to spell out your reasoning, and it should
make sense. It is imperative for you to say so, if your perspective is coloured by an
underlying assumption. For instance, you might say, ‘for the purpose of this
analysis, we assume that people are coherent or rational,’ or ‘This is an evaluative
analysis of female voters in a rural area.’ It is well known that your basic
assumptions influence whatever you try to study or analyse, but you can minimize
bias by honestly stating your assumptions. We need to be careful in the way we
structure our analysis to avoid error of structuring analysis to come out to support
our views or a given view. Another way by which you can minimize bias is by
acknowledging that there are other ways of looking at your topic or issue at stake.

40
This is what is called a balanced analysis. For a balanced analysis, you need to
mention various theoretical approaches that you considered relevant in the
literature to your topic and what they stand for. You may go further to criticize the
main argument of each of the approaches and explain why you think they are
weak, inadequate or faulty. You may argue convincingly that Aristotle’s
classification of democracy as a bad system of government is untenable because he
based his classification on his experience of political systems of that time. It is
more important to admit that your view is one among several than totally
committing yourself to a particular viewpoint or theoretical approaches.
Also, your analysis must be supported with evidence. It is a major requirement for
all scholarly or scientific analysis to be supported with quantifiable or qualitative
evidence or both. In the case of political analysis, it utilizes both. Apart from
common knowledge which does not have to be supported (for example, you do not
need to interview the President of Nigeria to ‘prove’ that Nigeria obtained her
independence in October 1st 1960) any statement that is exposed to controversy or
interpretation had better supported with evidence. If it is hard to find empirical
evidence, at a minimum, you ought to cite a scholar who has much evidence to
demonstrate or illustrate the point you are trying to express. This is categorized as
‘secondary source’ evidence because it has passed through the mind of someone
else. The evidence you are using must be made open for its validity to be judged. It
is difficult if not impossible to keep your evidence or sources of information secret.
Lastly, a thoughtful analysis is always connected, at least a little, to a theoretical
point of view. While you may not need a sweeping new theory, it should advance
the discipline’s knowledge. It is expected that your theory at a minimum, should
either confirm or refute an existing theory. Mere description of something is not a
theory, which is why Wikipedia or Google are not considered adequate for political
analysis. It is imperative for you to relate the description to another factor,
supported with enough empirical evidence. It is significant to point out that theory
building helps to lift our analysis beyond an argument for or against something.
Condemning Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria is not a scientific analysis or
scholarship, but determining why people join the insurgent group would have a
significant theoretical and practical impact in the search for an end to insurgency.
Lecture Summary
1. The scientific method emphasizes value-free and empirical analysis, as

41
well as explanations and predictions based on the theories and laws.
2. Those who argue that a science of politics is not possible also say that it is
not desirable
3. It is difficult for political analysis to be value-free because the analysis is
often a part of what he studies
4. Hard facts are rare in politics because direct observation is difficult
5. Explanations and predictions are frequently inadequate in political analysis
because man’s behaviour is unpredictable
6. Scientific analysis of political phenomena is possible if our analysis or
study is reasoned, balanced, supported by evidence, and a bit theoretical.

Key Concepts
Value-free analysis, empirical analysis, objectivity explanation, prediction,
theories, laws, traditionalists, empiricists, behaviouralists, observation,
normative theory, empirical theory, quantification, balanced, empirical,
theoretical evidence.
Post Test
1. Is a science of politics desirable?
2. Why are explanations and predictions inadequate n political science?
3. Can political analysis be value-free?
4. Are there political phenomena which can be studied scientifically?
5. Is a science of politics possible?
Reference
S.P. Vama, (1979). Modern Political Theory, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.

MODULE FIVE
Political Analysis and the Multidisciplinary Approach in the Social Sciences

42
Introduction
This lecture attempts to look at another very important aspect of political analysis.
This is its reliance on analysis undertaken by other social scientists, and in turn, the
reliance of these other social scientists on it. As you will learn, this is one of the
best ways to make political analysis complete because man does not live only in a
political world.
Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. Explain why Political Science, Sociology, Economics human Geography and
Psychology are very close, and why they are called Social Sciences
2. Discuss in clear terms the ways by which they complement each other and the
basis of multi-disciplinary; and
3. Explain why political science is distinct.
Pre-Test
1. Why and how is society regarded as a social system?
2. Trace the evolution of the multidisciplinary approach in the social sciences.
3. Identify the relationship between political science and other Social Science
disciplines
4. How can you distinguish political analysis from analysis in other social science
disciplines?
5. What are the advantages of the multidisciplinary approach?
CONTENT
Social Science and the Multidisciplinary Approach
Political science, sociology, economics and human geography are called the Social
Science, because they all are interested in the study of man as a social being; as a
member of society. Each discipline however concentrates on a distinct aspect of
man in society. Sociology deals with the totality of man’s social behaviour and
relations, with his economics relations and behaviour under different conditions,
and human geography i.e. how he adapts his behaviour to his environment
In spite of these distinctions, there are considerable overlaps in what we study
because, certainly, man’s political and social relations would have implications for
his economic behaviour. A Political Scientist would similarly be interested in
man’s economic and psychological behaviour in explaining his political behaviour.
Since the disciplines study basically the same thing from different perspective and

43
their interests often overlap, we would expect their studies to be collaborative and
complementary. In practice this is usually the case and no analysis - whether in
political science or economics is complete if all the relevant data much of which
comes from other disciplines are not considered. It is when such other relevant data
are considered, that we talk of the interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach in
the Social Sciences. As the name suggests, multidisciplinary analysis is analysis
that uses data or method(s) from more than one discipline.
The Basis of Multidisciplinary Political Analysis
For a beginning, I shall briefly relate to you how the multidisciplinary approach
has come to be an integral part of political analysis. For a long time, political
scientists were concerned with the moral ends of the state as well as the formal
structures (constitutions) of government. At this time, our closest friends were
lawyers, historian, theologians and philosophers, as we were all commonly
interested in the origins of the states, its formal structure, the purpose these
structure served, and how they could be put to the betterment of man in society.
This was the mood in which traditional scholars such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,
including others like Jean Bodin, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, John
Locke, Nicollo Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill and other political philosophers
wrote. These scholars adopted Normative Philosophical Approach (NPA) in their
study and analysis of politics. As I said in the earlier lecture, the normative
approach was considered the oldest and the least scientific but is still useful in
modern political analysis.
Later, the focus of attention shifted to the political process and institutions, to the
study of legislatures, executives, judiciary, political parties, interest groups and so
on, and the relationships among them. The dominant approach then was
Descriptive Institutional Approach (DIA).
Then finally, in the 1940s, the behavioural revolution which had swept across
psychology and sociology, caught up with political science. Behaviouralism aims
mainly at subjecting the study of man’s behaviour to scientific analysis as we
discussed in the two previous lectures. The approach adopted by the
behaviouralists is known as Scientific Behavioural Approach (SBA). Its major
impact on political science however, has been that by placing emphasis on human
behaviour, it has expanded the scope of political analysis to include man’s social,
economic and psychological behaviours as they are related to, and help to explain,

44
his political behaviour. It has now come to be realised, more than ever, that society
is an all-inclusive entity, a composite system, whose component parts (or
subsystems) are closely related. It follows then that, to understand one part, we
require an understanding of the others. In short, one of the principles of
behavioural approach is integration of disciplines in the field of social sciences.
This is the basis of the multidisciplinary approach.
You now have some ideas of the nature of politics as an activity. It is the process
by which conflicting interests are managed and authoritative choices made in
social institutions. The most important set of political institutions are
conventionally called “the state” and it is the state which is the focus, of the
discipline called “political science”. The emergence of political science as a
separate discipline organized on a large scale in universities and colleges first
developed in the United States of America in the early decades of the 20th century.
Before the emergence of political science, the subject was divided between
specialists in different disciplines.
Constitutional lawyers studied the legal forms taken by states. Historians studied
the relations between and the organizations of states in the past. Philosophers
discuss the moral foundations, if any, of state authority. In large part, modern
political science is the heir to these earlier approaches. At this point, it is important
for me to bring to your knowledge the main approaches. They are the institutional,
the policy cycle and the socio-political approaches.

History Economics Sociology

45
 Social Anthropology

Philosophy POLITICAL SCIENCE Geography

Law
Statistics Psychology

Fig. 5.1 above shows some of the disciplines that contribute to Political Science
Their Approaches Focus Their assumptions Examples of
characteristics evidence
examined
Institutional Formal machinery Formal structures and legal Structures of Parliamentary
of government rules are supreme cabinets, Civil Service
Public cycle Choices made by Government action shaped Kinds of resources (money, etc.)
government by mix of demands and patterns of policy making and
resources, policy affects implementation
wider society
Socio-Political Socio contexts, Structure and production of Economy and class structure;
links between government shaped by organisation of interest group
government and wider society
society

Table 5.1 above shows the summary of important approaches to the study of politics

The Political System and the Social System (Society)

The political system is a part of the society which constitutes an overall social system. The
other parts of the social system include the economic system, biological system, cultural

46
system and ecological system. All of these systems are called subsystems because they
constitute a “whole” (society). They are closely related and interact in an interdependent
manner, as shown in fig 5.2 below

SOCIAL SYSTEM

Political System
Economic System Cultural System

Biological System Ecological System

SOCIETY

Fig. 5.2: The Social System and its parts

I shall elaborate more on what we mean by a system in a later lecture, but for the immediate
purpose, it is enough for you to know that a system is any collection of elements (or parts)
that interact in some persistent and interdependent way with one another. From this
definition, it is clear that politics should be studied as a part of a whole, which is greatly
influenced by what goes on in the other parts. Thus, to say that a society is democratic is to

47
say that its political subsystem is democratic, and at the same time, that the other subsystem
contribute directly and indirectly to the sustenance of the democratic political process.
Given the complex web which society is, and the interdependence among its parts, a political
analyst should not focus attention only on the political system or the overtly political
behaviours and actions just as the economic cannot analyse economic behaviour to the
neglect of other relations of man in society. To focus on any of the systems in isolation is to
provide incomplete analysis. An economist who is interested in studying inflation for
example would be interested in government policies on price, imports and exports (politics)
as well as the effects of status (sociology) on spending habits. Similarly, a political scientist
who is interested in the occurrence of coups has to know the prevailing economic conditions
(economics), the motivations of the officers involved, as well as their personalities
(psychology), and the societal norms of political succession (sociology).
The distinctiveness of Political Analysis
From the above, you will see that social scientists require one another. As a student of
political analysis, you must always consider this point and put it in your mind at all time. Be
that as it may, you may ask the question: does this mean that each social science discipline is
not distinct or, more specifically, is political science not a distinct discipline. The answer is
no because each discipline has its own aspect of man which it singles out for study. The fact
is that each depends on the others for adequate explanation and, even so, each develops its
own theories and methods which may or may not be related to other disciplines. One good
way of distinguishing political science from the other social sciences is to say that political
behaviour in which we are primarily interested is the dependent variable (i.e. what is to be
explained , while the economic, social, cultural and psychological factors which help us to
explain constitute the independent variables (i.e. factors which explain). As long as our
dependent variables are political, our analysis remains distinct. In other words, in spite of its
dependence on other social sciences disciplines, political science still maintains its integrity,
independence and identity.

Summary
1. The social science disciplines are all related because they all study man in society.
2. The behavioural revolution which spread through the social sciences gave birth to the
multidisciplinary approach

48
3. Society is a social system that the political, economic, biological and cultural parts
constitute subsystem. These parts are interdependent
4. The complex web which society is, makes the political analysts interested in
sociological, economic and psychological analyses to facilitate adequate explanation
5. Political science remains distinct, in spite of the popularity of the multidisciplinary
approach, because its dependent variables are political.

Key Concepts
Multidisciplinary approach, social sciences, behaviouralism, political system, social
system, dependent variable, independent variable

Post Test Questions

1. In what sense is society regarded as a social system?
2. Trace the evolution of the multidisciplinary approach in the Social Sciences.
3. Identify the relationship between political Science and other Social Science disciplines
4. In what way (s) can you distinguish political analysis from analysis in other social science
disciplines?
5. Highlight the advantages of the multidisciplinary approach
References
Ekstein, H. (1953) “A Perspective on Comparative Politics Past and Present in his
(ed), Comparative Politics: a reader, (New York: The free press) pp 3-32.
Varma, S. P. (1962) Modern Political Theory, pp 36-114
Kirkpatrick, E. M (1953) The Impact of the Behavioural Approach on Traditional
Political Science in Austin Ranney (ed,) essay’s on the Behavioural Study of
Politics , Urbana : University of Illinois Press,) pp 10-11;
Wirth, L. the social sciences” in M. Curti (ed), American Scholarship in the
Twentieth Century, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Sabine, G. H. and Thomas, T. L. (1973). A history of political theory 4 th ed.
Illinois: Dryden Press.
Jones, B., Gray, A., Karanagh, D., Moran, M., Norton, P. and Seldon, A
(1991).Politics UK. Philip Allan, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain).
Robert Dahl, Modern Political Analysis pp 4-11

49
 MODULE SIX
Introduction
CONTENT
Modes of Political Analysis

50
SEMANTIC ANALYSIS: In semantic analysis or what is called conceptual analysis, we try
to clarify the meaning of the key terms or concepts that we use. This is particularly important
because many of the concepts that we use in politics, like power; influence, even politics
itself, have no commonly accepted definitions. Therefore, if you do not clarify your concepts,
many people may disagree with your analysis. There are two ways of going about semantic
analysis.
First, a term or concept can be defined by appealing to an authority whose definition is
widely accepted, or by relying on definitions offered in Standard English or “technical”
dictionaries such a s Oxford English dictionary, Britannica, Wikipedia etc. This is called
nominal definition. Second, in the case of very nebulous concepts like democracy, freedom,
or equality which are often coloured by ideological considerations, we can devise certain
“objective” indices according to which they can be defined, and insist that they mean exactly
what we want them to mean. This is called “operationalization” of concepts. Operationalised
concepts are referred to as variables that are measureable and quantifiable.
Let us say you want to define freedom. You may say that it means a very low degree of
government intervention in the lives of individuals that can be ascertained from indices like
whether or not human right are guaranteed, whether or not opposition is suppressed, whether
or not the rule of law prevails, and so on. The major advantage in this kind of definition is
that even if people do not agree with your definition, they can at least see things from your
point of view.
Which of these two ways of semantic analysis you choose would, of course, depend on the
nature of what your analyse, what is already known about it, and the particular elements you
may wish to emphasize.
NORMATIVE ANALYSIS: When you say that something is bad, you are at the same time
saying that you have an idea of what is good. But what exactly do we seek to convey when
we use terms like good, bad, right and wrong by which we usually judge? What are the
criteria for these judgments? Are the criteria objectives in such a way that everyone can
easily recognize good and bad things; or are they subjective, in which case, everyone has his
own set of criteria for judging things? Must we always search for the good, and if so, why?
These are the kinds of questions asked in normative analysis.
Normative analysis involves questions of what ought to be, rather than what is. What ought to
be is determined by the values we have, whether these are divine, natural laws, or are purely
subjective. This is probably why normative analysis is a major preoccupation of students of
religion and moral philosophy who are continually in search of what is good and righteous.

51
But political scientists also engage in normative analysis because, as some writers argue, our
primary responsibility to society is to more beyond what is (empirical), to tell society what
ought to be. Since society looks up to us for ways of bringing about a better society, it may be
correct to argue that political analysis will be incomplete without normative analysis.
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS: If an analyst says that political instability results from the
unfairness of the electoral process, he is making an empirical proposition which is open to
verification as Robert Dahl puts it, ‘empirical propositions, experiments or interpretations”.
The point is that in empirical analysis, the concern is with what is. When you ask the
question, what causes destitution; you are asking an empirical question based on what is. The
possible answers, like destitution results from inadequate care for the old and handicapped or
that it results from frustration can be put to test. In essence, empirical analysis and
conclusions reflect the implications of (the) empirical evidence rather than (the analyst’s)
personal values, preferences, or presuppositions.” But again, the old question arises: is it
possible for you to divorce yourself (your values, biases and beliefs) from your analysis? We
have said it is difficult. But it can at least be minimized if we systematically follow the
scientific procedure. If the facts we have are not “coloured”, and can be said to reliable, and
analysis is based strictly on the facts as they are, then even if our values intrude, they would
be minimal.
POLICY ANALYSIS: Policy analysis involves the search for policies or courses of action
which will take us from the present state to that which we desire. In other words, policies are
solutions which we think will bring desired and satisfactory results. Certainly, in any
unsatisfactory situation, there would be more than one possible solution. For example, if we
desire a higher level of literacy in our society, many options are open to us. We may
introduce a Universal Primary Education programme, accelerate and expand the awards of
scholarships, lower entry grades into schools, etc. each of these options will make us achieve
our desired goal. But whichever we choose would depend on many considerations: how we
define the goal or problem, the relative costs and benefits of each option, the practicability of
each option, and so on. These considerations are the major elements in policy analysis.
Relatedness of the Modes of analysis
Although each orientation of analysis emphasizes a particular focus, the four modes of
analysis are not mutually exclusive i.e. none is independent of the others. Normative analysis
requires prior empirical knowledge: to know what ought to be, we require to know what is
Policy analysis makes use of both empirical and normative analysis because, in a sense, it
attempts to bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be. Furthermore, normative

52
assumptions provide us the criteria for evaluating polices. Underlying all analysis is, of
course semantic analysis, without which few analyses can be made.
Summary
1. There are four orientation of political analysis empirical, normative, policy and
semantic
2. Empirical analysis relates to what is and explanations for why it is so.
3. Normative analysis relies on certain criteria and norms to tell what ought to be.
4. Policy analysis involves at a course of action appropriate for moving from the present
state to the desirable state.
5. Semantic analysis seeks to clarify the terms that one used in analysis.
6. The four modes of analysis are not mutually exclusive.
Concepts
Normative analysis, Empirical analysis, Policy analysis, Semantic analysis, norms,
criteria, policy, evaluation.

MODULE SEVEN
Introduction
Theory and Political Analysis
The last module looks at the interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary aspect of political science and
the importance of to the development of reliable analysis. In this lecture and the next one, we
shall be looking at theories, theoretical approaches in the study of politics and modes of

53
analysis. Theories represent an important aspect of political analysis that cannot be wished
away. It determines the approach to political analysis and guides and defines our analysis
giving it meaning. Theories also guides the selection of the questions to ask and the data to
consider in political enquiry and help us to clarify our perspectives or angles of perception of
issues relating to the topic, the data that we require and how we interpret the data leading us
into conclusion. I shall also introduce a number of theories and theoretical approaches to
studying politics to you.
Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
1. Give an explanation on how to organize whatever analysis you wish to undertake,
especially how to delimit the boundaries of analysis given the close relationship between
politics and other aspects of society
2. Identify and explain the theoretical approaches
3. State the advantages and the weaknesses of the approaches
4. Discuss what to look out for each time you undertake analysis.
Pre-Test
1. What is a theory?
2. What is the usefulness of theory in political analysis?
3. What is Systems Theory?
4. What are the major criticisms of the system approach?
CONTENT
Theories and Theorisation and Political Analysis
As previously mentioned, the importance of theory in political analysis cannot be
overemphasised. In fact, all political analysis is, in a sense, political theorisation. Starting all
analysis from the basics is always cumbersome, from the scratch as it were. Fortunately, we
often refer to existing knowledge regarding to a given issue of phenomenon as we undertake
analysis of new developments concerning the issue or phenomenon. Such existing knowledge
is often in the form of theories or deductions based on existing data.
What is theory?
Roberts and Edwards, 1991:142), defines theory as an integrated set of laws or
generalisations which is capable of providing systematic explanation of some area of
knowledge or body of events or which prescribe conduct. The goal of theories is to proffer
scientific or empirically based general explanatory laws of issues and phenomena.
Theorisation would then mean an attempt at synthesising and integrating empirical data for

54
maximum clarification of issues or areas of knowledge. Political theorisation and political
analysis go hand in hand. This is because, while the objective political analysis is the
explanation and understanding of features of political life of the people and the setting under
study, the purpose of theory is the understanding or explaining features of political life
beyond the particular people and setting being studied or analysed. Therefore, while political
analysis is immediate, political theory is cumulative. It encompasses data collected and
analysed over time, and so has a wide explanatory and predictive capacity and powers. In this
case, political theories are important and useful guide to political analysis.
Theory Building for Political Analysis
In political analysis, theory building is a continuum, with the building and verification of
theory being the only different stages in theory in the theory-building process, and all
contained in the development of political analysis. Majority of political analyses are directed
towards building theory. There have been differing opinions on whether the purpose of social
enquiry and analysis is the development or verification of theory, or both. The grounded
theory approach is geared towards developing or generating social theory and concepts. The
analytic induction approach argues that social enquiry should both develop and verify or test
theories about the nature of social life. Building theory takes a number of steps. First, we
collect data, often by observation. Next, we identify themes or develop concepts and ideas
based on the data. Then we make generalisations based on the data. Next we review and
compare other data and collect additional data. Finally, we confirm or discard or refine our
generalisations or elaborate on the themes, concepts or ideas, such that out theory fits the
data. We usually label theories according to their range or level of general applicability.
Narrow range or partial theories are, for instance, theories that theories about legislative
behaviour in Nigeria’s fourth republic. Middle-range theories will concern legislative
behaviour in Nigeria generally, while general theory will go further to cover all political
actions or the Nigerian political system.
Theories of Political Analysis
Generally, theory determines the approach to political analysis. An analytical/theoretical
approach represents a guide to political analysis. It is the guide that defines analysis in terms
of meaning and extent of enquiry. It guides the selection of the questions to ask and the data
to consider in political enquiry. It is theory that political analysts use to organise their
analysis, in terms of clarifying their perspectives and angles of perception of issues relating to
the topic of analysis, the necessary data and how to interpret such data and the direction of
our conclusion.

55
Analytic methods or theories can be normative or empirical. Normative approaches refer to
those of political analysis that ought to or should be the right political order or conduct. They
are value-laden. Traditional political analysis is normative. Normative theories include
institutionalism. Empirical approaches are those theories of politics which seek to observe
and explain political phenomena and predict their future trends based on available data.
Therefore, empirical approaches emphasise observation, facts or data and generalisation
(Enemuo, 1999).
Behavioural political analysis is empirical. Empirical theories include the Political Systems
theory, Functionalist theory/Structural-Functionalism, Game theory, Elite theory, Group
theory, Political Economy/Marxism/Dependency theories, etc. As political analysts, we are at
liberty to adopt any of these theories to organise our data and undertake our analysis.
The Systems Approach
This is a theory that developed from the General Systems theory, which first arose in
Biology, and then was adopted in Anthropology and Sociology before ultimately coming
down in Political Science. The approach is one of the most popular ways of organizing
political study. It enables us to selectively identify and organize what is political when we
look at the whole society. It also enables us to identify the interrelationships among political
phenomena – cabinet office, political parties, and ethnicity etc. and between these and other
phenomena which are politically relevant but belong to other realms of society – family,
economic relations, industrial relations, educational system, etc.

A system is an abstract construct to represent what goes on in the real world for purpose of
analysis. It is a pattern of stable relationships among the parts which make it up. There are
many kinds of systems, like the heating system in a house, the human physiological system
and, of course, the political system. What makes any system a system is that it meets the five
major characteristics of systems:
1. A system is made up of parts. The human physiological system for example, is made up of
the brain, liver, kidney, heart, lungs, etc.
2. Each of these parts performs important functions which sustain the system and ensures its
survival.
3. The parts interact, i.e. that have patterned relationships.
4. The parts are interdependent, meaning that what happens in one part directly or indirectly
affects the other parts.

56
5. A system has boundaries which can either be concrete or physical, as in the boundaries of a
political system (which is not synonymous with the nation-state or country). An abstract
boundary is a way of specifying what we are interested in analysing as developed by David
Easton. It is also called the input-output model, and is presented in Fig. 6.1
The Total Environment: BOUNDARY
Ecological
Biological
Personality
Social system INPUTS OUTPUTS
International
System

Demands Rule-Making
The Political
Rule
Apathy System or Application
Decision-
Supports Making Rule
Authority Adjudication

Feedback Loop

Fig. 6.1: David Easton’s Input – Output model

According to this simple model, the major parts of the political system are the boundary, the
total environment, the inputs, the structures of the political system concerned with the
authoritative allocation of values, out-puts, and the feedback loop. All of these parts are inter-
related and are in-interdependent, as the directions of the arrows in Fig. 6. 1 indicates. For
you to fully grasp the conception of the arrows in Fig. 6.1 indicate. For you to fully grasp the
conception of the political system, I shall elaborate on each of these parts and the ways which
they are related. The notions of boundary and total environment are fairly straight-forward.
Boundary refers to the limit or dividing line within which political activities take place. The
total environment refers to the totality of the society in which we live and how its nature
determines what we want, what we do, and so on. Certainly, this environment will include
both internal and international elements because the entire world has become one integrated
mass in which what happens in USSR would likely affect what goes on in Nigeria.

57
From the total environment, come the inputs which consist of demands, supports and apathy.
Demands refer to actions people want those in authority to undertake or reject. These
demands may be articulated (or expressed). However, in this model, demands are viewed as
sources of societal stress which can largely be managed or bated by supports given to those in
authority. Supports could be given to the political system as a whole, and consists of implicit
or explicit agreement with government policies, or encouragement to follow certain courses
of action. Generally, if support is lacking, the political system cannot survive for long.
Apathy refers to lack of enthusiasm to participate in the political system. This implies non
contribution in terms of making inputs and not significantly affected by the outputs.
The inputs are transmitted to the decision-making centers where they are processed and
converted into authoritative allocation of values as outputs. I have simplified these outputs
according to the functions of the three major organs of government, namely, rule-making by
the legislature, rule-application by the executive, and rule-adjudication by the judiciary.
Basically, outputs are the policies formulated by the decision-makers. The feedback loop
represents the process by which the political system informs itself about the consequences of
its outputs. Do the outputs meet demands? Or create new problems? The extent to which the
political system is able to meet the demands made determines the level of supports it is likely
to get.
From what I have said so far, it should be clear to you that one of the major goals of the
systems approach is to account for how a given political system maintains its existence over
time. It focuses particular attention on the factors which make for stability and instability in
political systems by examining how they are able to manage the demands, threats and
supports directed towards them in such a way as to maintain their existence. In summary, the
approach has three major features. First, it is concerned with how order is maintained,
because it suggests that the maintenance of the system depends on its ability to maintain
order. Second, it recognizes that change is inevitable as it is interested in how political
systems are able to meet the challenges posed by change. Third, it draws attention to the
importance of goal-realization as a central aspect of the political system because it assumes
that no political system can survive for long without articulating and pursuing identifiable
goals.
Advantages
1. It provides a framework for comparing political systems. Theoretically, the systems
approach is not limited to nation-states alone, as there are political systems in unions, clubs
and other organized associations in society.

58
It provides a standardized set of concepts such as inputs and outputs to describe activities
which take place in all political systems. As such, they can be compared.
2. The approach takes cognizance of the inevitability of change and addresses itself to how
the system can adapt itself and survive when faced with changes. This is particularly useful
for studying African, Asian, and Latin American societies which continuously undergo rapid
changes resulting from the process of development. However, I shall point out shortly that its
conception of change is inadequate.
3. By drawing attention to the external environment of every political system, it is a useful
approach for analysing the international political system, especially the linkage between the
domestic and the international environments.
Criticisms or Weaknesses
1. The most popular criticism is that the approach is ideologically oriented towards retaining
the status quo. By laying emphasis on order and system maintenance, the approach is not well
suited to studying revolutionary changes. In fact, some authors have argued that the approach
seeks, from a Western ideological standpoint, to be an alternative approach to Marxism
which suggests that only revolutionary changes can bring about desired changes in society.
2. The approach fails to give a clear definition of what is political, and what differentiates
political interactions from other types of social interaction. It seems to assume that all
political interactions are directed towards the “authoritative allocation of values”. Such
emphasis seems to imply that politics only takes place in National Political System. This
criticism can however be mitigated by the fact that the systems model can be applied to any
political system, insofar as the analyst defines its boundaries.
3. The approach seems to suggest that all parts of the political system are equally important.
This is however untrue because some parts are more important than the others and in any
case, different parts perform similar functions in different political system. This means, for
example, that the functions performed by the Political Parties in the United Kingdom may be
performed military in Nigeria. Rather than generalize, as the systems approach seems to
suggest, the analyst requires specifying which parts are crucial in a particular system, and
how they affect and are, in turn, affected by others.
Summary
1. The systems approach provides the political analyst a useful framework for
organizing his analysis.
2. Every political system is made up of boundaries, total environment, in-puts, outputs
and feedback process.

59
3. These parts are interdependent.
4. The approach is especially useful for comparing systems.
5. It does not provide a useful framework for analysing revolutionary changes.

Key Concepts to Remember

System, parts, interdependence, boundary, patterned interaction, total environment,
inputs, demands, supports, political system, outputs, policies, rule-making, rule-
application, rule adjudication, feedback, order, system maintenance, stability.
Post Test
1. Define a system?
2. In what way(s) is the systems approach useful for political analysis?
4. Identify the major parts of the political systems approach?
5. What are the major goals of the systems approach?
References
D. Easton, (1957) “An Approach to the Analysis of P olitical Systems” and A Framework for
Political Analysis.
W.A Welsh, Studying Politics, p. 60.
David Easton, (1965). AFramework for Political Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

MODULE EIGHT
Structural-Functionalist Analytical Approach
Introduction
As you were told earlier, the systems approach and the structural functionalist approach
provide frameworks for political analysis. Having treated the systems approach let me now
turn to structural-functionalism.
Objective

60
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to identify the major assumptions of and
criticize the structural functionalist analysis.
Pre-Test
1. In what are systems approach and structural-functionalist approach similar?
2. Distinguish between manifest and latent functions
3. Identify and elaborate on the requisite political functions
4. What are the merits of the structural-functionalist approach?
5. What are the criticisms of the approach?
CONTENT
Systems Approach and Structural-Functionalist Approach
The structural-functionalist approach has a lot in common with the systems approach, and, in
fact, some political scientists treat them as essentially the same approach. In other words,
Structural Functionalism is seen as an offshoot of System approach. The major difference in
the approaches however, is in their areas of emphasis. Remember I said in the last lecture that
the systems approach has three major interests, namely, how the system maintains order, how
it adapts to changes and survives in spite of them, and how its goals are realized. Also recall
that the political system has parts- inputs, outputs, etc. What do these parts do? They
functions to maintain the system and to keep it at equilibrium. This is the major concern in
the structural-functionalist approach. It is assumed that every political system has certain
basic structure or institutions which perform essential functions without which the system
cannot survive. The search then is for these functions and the structures that perform them.
Structures or institutions refers to persistent relationships among individuals and groups, to
patterns of action, which are assumed to have consequences (functions) that lead either to
stability or instability. Examples include the family, legislature, political parties, and roles. A
distinction is however often made between concrete and analytical structures. Concrete
structures are membership units such as the family and the cabinet, whose parts (Parents,
children, ministers, etc.) can be separated physically. The society is regarded as the most
inclusive, general concrete structure because it contains all other concrete structures, while
the government represents the most important concrete political structure.
Analytical structures, in contrast to concrete structures, have parts that cannot be physically
separated. The best example of an analytical structure is “role”. A role is a part played by an
individual, or an office/position occupied by a political actor. Defined as such, we find that an
individual plays more than one role at a time. Thus, a permanent Secretary is a father, a
member of Joggers club, a voter, a television personality, etc. Whether these roles are

61
performed at different times and places or simultaneously, the essential point is that they
cannot be physically separated.
Functions are the “duties” performed by political structures in the political system. They may
also be seen as consequences of their existence. A structure may however perform more than
one function as, for example, the bureaucracy does when it performs the functions of
communication, law-making and law-interpretation. In the same vein, many structures can
perform the same functions as, for example, schools, families, mass media and political
parties, all perform the function of political education.
Requisite Functions
The most important functions without which the system cannot survive are called requisite
functions. Can you think of some such functions? Let me help you: no society can continue
without reproduction, child rearing, rule-making, order, and goal attainment. Political
scientist do not agree on what requisite functions are necessary. However Gabriel Almond
has identified seven of them which enjoy wide acceptance. These are:
1. Political recruitment, which involves filling new political roles or offices, replacing
individuals who can no longer perform, and promoting individuals to new offices. A great
deal of the success or effectiveness of any political system would depend on who plays what
role, and how they are recruited.
2. Political socialization, which refers to the process by which the individual imbibes or
learns his political attitudes, beliefs and values which enable him function wells as a member
of the political system.
3. Interest Articulation, involving demands by individuals or groups that government changes
or continues a specific policy to take no action at all.
4. Interest Aggregation which relates to the combination or aggregation of demands into a
smaller number of policy alternatives. This activity is usually associated with political parties
which try to compromise and combine the numerous demands in order to build coalition of
electoral support.
5. Policy making which is the rule-making process by which values are authoritatively
allocated.
6. Policy Implementation which refers to the process of carrying out or executing policies
7. Political communication which involves the flow of political information, especially
between the government and the governed through representatives of the latter. Demands and
the feedback process would be impossible without political communication.

62
These requisite functions can be divided into input functions and output functions. Political
recruitment, political socialization, interest articulation and interest aggregation are
categorized as input functions, while policy making, policy implementation and political
communication are regarded as the output functions.
Manifest and Latent Functions
Another distinction usually made in talking about functions is between manifest functions
and latent functions. A manifest function is an intended function or consequence for which
particular structures exist. For example, the manifest functions of a university are teaching,
research and the dissemination of knowledge. Latent functions, on the other hand, are
unintended functions or consequences which may actually be detrimental (dysfunctional) to
the health of the system. To take the University example once more, the breeding of
revolutionary youths or increasing sexual promiscuity may be regarded as latent functions
which are at the same time dysfunctional.
Resume
In general, structural functionalism is concerned with the nature of the functions that are
performed in a political system, and the structures which perform them. It asks what
functions are required to be performed in order that the system may survive?
Advantages/Merits
1. Like the systems approach, the structural- functionalist approach facilitates comparison
among political systems. If political systems- whether village or industrialized- required the
same basic functions to survive they can be compared if these functions are identified.
2. Although the approach emphasizes the structures in a system, it is more interested in the
behaviour of these structures. Specifically, it focuses on what structure do rather than on what
their characteristics. In other words, it wants to find out what the behaviour is and why it is
important. By so doing, we come to know that some structures perform other functions apart
from the manifest ones.
Criticisms
1. Like the systems approach, its emphasis on system-maintenance makes it ideological
opposed to revolutionary change. In fact, as is the case with the systems approach, it seems to
counter Marxism. As W.G. Runciman has argued, “functionalism can indeed be interpreted
as a conscious alternative to Marxism. Some of its writers have wanted to interpret it as a
political ideology conditioned by the structure of American capitalism”.

63
2. The approach relies heavily on national political systems, thereby suggesting that politics
does not take place outside of the state realm. In addition, it does not actually specify what
political activities are.
3. By placing a lot of emphasis on functions and functional behaviour, the approach diverts
attention away from the institutions/structures themselves which are then taken for granted
because they are assumed to exist simply because they perform certain functions.
4. The laudable abstract analysis of functions has not been matched by an equal concern with
or linkage to the concrete structures.
Summary
1. The structural-functionalist approach is similar to the system approach because both
of them are concerned with system-maintenance.
2. Structural-functionalism however emphasizes the search for those functions without
which the system cannot survive, and the structures which perform them.
3. There are three major kinds of functions, namely, requisites, manifest and latent
functions
4. The major merit of the approach is that it facilitates comparison between political
systems.
5. The major criticism of the approach is that it is opposed to revolutionary change.
Key Concepts to Remember
Structure, Institution, function, system-maintenance political recruitment, political
socialization, interest aggregation, interest articulation, policy making, policy
implementation, political communication, requisite functions, manifest functions, latent
functions.

Post- Test
Post- Test
1. In what ways are systems approach and structural functionalism similar?
2. Distinguish between manifest and latent functions
3. Identify and elaborate on the requisite political functions.
4. What are the merits of the structural-functionalist approach?
5. What are the criticisms of the approach?
References
Marrison J. Levy, Jr. (1966). Modernization and the Structure of Societies.New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, pp. 20-23.

64
Gabirel Almond and Bingham Powell, Jr. (1978).Comparative Politics, System, Process and
Policy 2nd ed. Boston Little, Brown and Company. Gabriel Almond, (1960) “Introduction: A
Functional Approach to comparative Politics”. Almond and James Coleman (eds). The
Politics of the Developing Areas. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 5-57.

MODULE NINE
Types of Political Systems
Introduction
As a way of organizing analysis, the classification of political systems is a necessity. In this
chapter, I want to discuss the necessity for classification, and some of the criteria for doing
so. This is a necessary background to what I shall be considering in the two lectures after this.

65
Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should able to
1. Define what a typology is;
2. Identify and explain necessary requirements for constructing a good typology;
3. Evaluate existing typologies or classification schemes; and
4. Formulate your own typology or classificatory scheme of political system.
Pre-Test Questions
1. What do you understand by a typology?
2. Is classification necessary in political analysis?
3. What are the criteria for evaluating typologies?
4. Discuss Weber’s idea types of authority?
5. Is there one best typology of political systems?

CONTENT
Meaning of a Political System
If a political system is defined as any stable pattern of interrelations which involves power
and authority, meaning that a political system is not narrowed down to countries alone, we
certainly have millions of political systems in the world. By the time we include all business
firms, trade unions, private clubs, and so on which have interaction involving power and
authority, the number must be quite high. However, we may restrict the meaning of political
system to countries only. This way, we can probably tell how many political systems exist in
the world. But even this shows quite a high number of political systems.
Along with the large number of political system is the large body of data about them that we
have. If Aristotle performed a feat collecting data on 158 Greek city-states, then the infinite
data we have on political systems today is more than spectacular. The development of
advanced technology in communication and information gathering has resulted in an
information explosion in the study of politics. With so much data, how do we organize
analysis? Because, after all, when we analyze, we are not interested in all the data. How can
we arrive at valid generalizations that would aid our analysis of different systems? This is
what I shall be concerned with in the next three lectures. The basic point which ties all the
three lectures together is that we can organize the mass of the data by classifying political
systems on the basis of certain. In the present lecture, I shall consider the typologies of
political systems that have been developed, and see how political systems have been
classified.

66
Typologies/Classification of Political Systems
A typology is a proposed way of classifying the subject matter in which we are interested. It
is an analytical construct which seeks to present a simplified view of actual situations. In
other words, typologies present ways of simplifying complex political situations by
presenting abstract standards by which they can be composed. For example, we can classify
political systems based on the criteria of how many actually rule, the types of authority
prevalent, as well as the degree of popular participation.
Advantages of Classification Scheme/Typology
Advantages of Classification Scheme/Typology
The need for or use of a classification scheme or typology includes:
a. It helps to simplify our data and organize it because of the outburst of data in political
science. In essence, there is need to classify in view of too much data to confront with or to
be controlled.
b. Classification scheme by sorting any given universe into comparable cases provide a
framework for meaningful comparative analysis to begin.
c. By preparing ground for meaningful comparison, it makes a general problem of prediction
and explanation more manageable.
d. It helps a lot in developing theory.
You need to know that the basic logic that guides classification is either / or that is an item or
case must be either here or there.
Criteria for Classification/Typology
Carl Hempel’s logical requirement of classification is useful here. Any classification scheme
or typology according to him must meet these necessary criteria.
i. Mutual or Joint Exhaustiveness: Classification scheme must exhaust all classification
properties of that phenomenon under consideration. The categories should be exhaustive.
They should embrace or be capable of embracing all known political systems. It must be able
to accommodate all the variations.

ii. Mutual or Joint Exclusiveness: The categories must be mutually exclusive. In other words
they must be independent and must exclude elements in other categories. An element of a
category must not belong to two or more categories (it is either / or). For example to say that
a country is more or less democratic is a bad classificatory strategy, since a country must be
either democratic or non-democratic. In short, the categories should be independent and

67
mutually exclusive. There should be no overlaps, and no political system should fall into
more than one category.
iii. Relevance: The criteria used for classification must be relevant to the particular subject
under examination. In other words, its categories (or types) should be appropriate for the
purpose of the research in which they are used. This is because how we classify political
systems depends very much on what we are interested in analyzing. A typology based on the
criterion of geography will not be useful if you are interested in studying party systems. This
involves collection of relevant data.
iv. Uniformity: The criteria used must be uniformed. These criteria must be consistently used.
If it is a political issue, you must use political criteria and so on. This implies that the criteria
of classification must be applied consistently for all categories in the typology.
v. Parsimony: Categories must be economical or parsimonious. In other words, a three
categories classification scheme is preferred to a six categories classification scheme.
Examples of Typologies of Political System
The formulation of typologies of political systems is almost as old as political science itself,
as political scientists have always been interested in classi-system. However, since the
information explosion came about, there has been what Dahl calls a “flood of typologies”.
One of the earliest but still popular classificatory schemes was that developed by Aristotle.
Based on the two criteria of rulership-of the relative number of citizens entitled to rule, and
whether the ruler in their own selfish interests or in the common interest, he formulated a six-
fold classification as shown in Fig. 9.1., which has remained highly influential over the years.

One ALL THEMSELVES

One Monarch (Kingship) Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy

Fig 9.1: Aristotle’s Classificatory Scheme

The classificatory scheme presented above is self-explanatory. Where only one citizen rules
in the interest of all citizens in the political systems, the system is a monarchy. Examples can
be found in the various African Kingdoms, empires and emirates, and contemporary
examples exist in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Swaziland. If the king rules for his selfish
interest, the system of rule is tyrannical, as was the case in self-styled Emperor Bedel
Bokassa’s Central African Empire. Next, where only few citizens rule in the interest of all,

68
there is aristocracy. If they rule for themselves, there is oligarchy. In a sense, most political
systems are oligarchical because only a few people actually rule. This is the claim of Robert
Michael’s famous ‘lron law of oligarchy’ which states that wherever there is organization,
there is oligarchy. Finally, if many citizens rule, as is said to have been the case in the Greek
city-states, there is a polity, if they rule in the interest of all and democracy if they rule for
themselves. I am sure you are familiar with the commonplace definition of democracy as
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Another popular classificatory scheme is that of Max Weber. Weber’s typology is however
restricted to political systems in which power is legitimate. His criterion of classification is
the ground on which leaders claim legitimacy for their rule, and the governed accept their
claims. These grounds are presented as three “ideal” types of authority. They are called ideal
types because they are pure abstractions and because, in reality, more than one type of
authority may exist. The three ideal types are:
1. Traditional Authority: Here, legitimacy rests “on an established belief in the sanctity of
immemorial traditions”. A s such, members of the political system obey the rulers because
their forbearers have always done so. Several examples of this type of authority exist in our
society where we have traditional rulers, many of who claim their legitimacy from legendary
fathers and kings.
2. Charismatic Authority: This is authority derived from exceptional personal qualities of
the leader (s). Charisma is the Greek word for “gift of grace”. People accept the leadership of
heroes, truly exceptional and exemplary persons, and those they see as ‘God sent or messiahs.
Jesus Christ and the Holy Prophet Mohammed are two of the best known charismatic leaders.
We can also regard Julius Nyerere, Obafemi Awolowo, and Nnamdi Azikiwe as Charismatic
leaders in varying degrees. It is however possible for charismatic authority to be transformed
into traditional authority. This happens where leaders, especially off-springs of the
charismatic leaders, justify their rule by posing as successors to the charismatic leader.
3. Legal-Rational Authority: In this case, legitimacy is derived from the constitution or other
legal instruments, and is accepted as binding because authority exercised in the name of the
sources is legal. One important element in this type of authority is that it is impersonal, i.e. it
is not based on the personal qualities of the person who exercises authority, but on the legal
authority of the office that he occupies or the role that he plays. This is why we respect
policemen. For classifying political systems, and the criteria that you use depends on the
aspects of politics in which you are interested. A demographer might classify political
systems according to their populations, a constitutional lawyer according to their

69
constitutional forms, a political scientist according to their party systems and so on. However,
although it is difficult to say there is one best typology, there are criteria for evaluating
typologies. For a typology to be considered good, it has to meet the requirements discussed
above.
As I have indicated, these categories of authority are ideal types, and they could all be present
in the same political system. In Nigeria for example, we have all three types of authority. Try
to think of examples of these types.
Numerous other typologies have formulated, based on different criteria. Political System, for
example, has classified political systems into and Totalitarian. The problem with Almond’s
classificatory scheme is obvious; he uses more than one criterion. We can recognise the geo-
political criterion (Anglo-Saxon, Continental European), technological (Pre- industrial or
partially industrial), and ideological (totalitarian). On the ground of inconsistency, Almond’s
typology is faulty because it uses different criteria for different categories.
Other typologies include that of Charles Andrain, who classifies political systems into
democracy, totalitarian and traditional systems. There is yet another by S.N. Eisenstadt,
whose categories are primitive political systems, patrimonial empires, nomadic or conquest
empire, city-states, feudal systems, centralized historical bureaucracies, and modern societies
(democratic, autocratic, totalitarian and “underdeveloped”).
Is there a best Typology?
The question that l am sure you will want to ask now is, is there one best typology? The
answer is no, simply because we have thousands of criteria.
Summary
1. Every political analyst requires a classificatory scheme for organizing his study, given the
information explosion on political systems.
2. Numerous classificatory schemes or typologies have been formulated using different
criteria.
3. Two of the most popular of such typologies are those by Aristotle and Max Weber.
4. There is no best typology because the typology that any researcher uses depends on the
aspect of the political system he wants to study.
5. There are four criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of a typology.

Key Concepts To Remember

Typology, Classification, Classification, Schemes, categories, Traditional authority,

70
charismatic authority, legal- rational authority, monarch, pouty, democracy, Aristocracy,
tyranny, oligarchy.

References
Ernest B. (ed.) (1952). The Politics of Aristole, Oxford:
OxfordUniversity Press, Book 3, Chapter 6 and 8.
G.H. Sabine and T.L. Thorson, A History of political Theory, pp. 95-109;
Rober Michels, (1951). Political Parties, New York: Collier Books, 1962. P 342
Max Weber, (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, translated
by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, , p.
328.
Gabriel Almond, (1956) “Comparative Political Syste ms”, Journal of Politics,
Vol. 18, August, pp. 22-38
Charles F. Andrain, (1975) Political life and social change: An Introduction to
political Science, 2nd ed. Belmont, California: Duxbury Press Part llls.
Bernard Crick, (1968). “The Elementary Types of Gov ernment,” Government and
Opposition, Vol 3, pp 411-417.
Eisentad, S. N. (1963) The political Systems of Empires, New York:
Free Press, pp. 10-12

LECTURE TEN
Similarities in Political System
Introduction
My main task in this lecture is to provide you with another framework for classifying
political systems. This consists of identifying the similarities among them.
Objective

71
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to discuss the ways political systems are similar.
This will enable you to develop another form of classification.
Pre Test
1. Why do we have uneven control of political resources in political system?
2. Are all political systems equally influenced by others in the international system?
3. Why do leaders seek legitimacy?
4. What is ideology? How is it used in political system?
5. When does government come in to resolve conflicts?
CONTENT
Similarities in Political System
No matter how different political systems may be (I shall consider this in the next lecture),
there are those who believe that they share similar characteristics. Identifying those
characteristics provides one way of classifying political system. You should however note
that these similarities do not define a political system. They are regularities which occur in
virtually all of them.
The similarities we are going to be considering are those that have been identified by Robert
Dah1. These are:
1. Uneven Control of Political resource: This underlines the general notion of inequality in
every political system- as control of political resources is distributed unevenly, so it is
difficult to have equality. The elite theorists-Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto, and Gaetano
Mosca highlighted the inequality between the few elites and the mass of the people in every
society. Why is there uneven control over political resources? There are four main reasons to
explain the uneven control of political resources
First, as there is specialization of roles or functions in society, so there are those whose roles
give them greater control over political resources than others. Second, individuals have
unequal inheritance and endowments especially from their family backgrounds. Some are
from wealthy and influential families, others from humble families. Such inheritance gives a
start in life. Third, there are inequalities in biological (especially intelligence) and social
inheritance (some people come from privileged ethnic groups; as well as life experiences, all
of which produce differences in incentives and goals among individuals. Depending on our
inheritance and experiences, we are not all equally motivated to participate in politics, to seek
power and control over political resources, and so on. Finally, society itself encourages
individuals to have different goals and incentives, to be able to perform essential functions.

72
Notwithstanding these factors, we shall find out in the next lecture that political systems still
differ in the degree of uneven control.
2. The Quest for Influence: In all political systems, not everyone seeks to gain influence
over policies and government decisions. There are, however, those who seek influence not
necessarily for the sake of merely becoming influential, but as a way of furthering their goals.
In some cases, such influence is sought by organized groups, especially trade unions and
professional associations which continually seek to bend government machinery to favour
their members.
3. Uneven Distribution of Political Influence: Because members of the political system do
not seek political influence equally, and, more so, because control of political resources is
unevenly distributed, political influence is also unevenly distributed in political systems
4. The Pursuit and Resolution of Conflicting Interests: In lecture 2, I told you that one of the
conceptions of politics is that politics is the pursuit of conflicting interest which have to be
resolved by the political authority (government). This seems to be the central political activity
in political systems though, while some political scientists place emphasis on the pursuit of
conflicting interest, others emphasize their resolution. Everyone agrees however that, for
members of the political system to continue to live together, their conflicts should be
resolved. Even so, we know that government does not have to resolve all kinds of conflicts.
There are association and groups to which individuals belong (family private club, church)
which habitually resolve conflicts. It is usually at high points of conflict, when coercion
becomes necessary, as, for example, when people protest, government interaction may be
called for.
5. The Acquisition of Legitimacy: According to Dahl, “Leaders in a political system try to
ensure that whenever governmental means are used to deal with conflicts, the decisions
arrived at are widely accepted not solely from fear of violence, punishment, or coercion but
also from a belief that it is morally right and proper to do so”. I told you before that no
government can survive for long if it relies on its monopoly of the instrument of coercion or
if it rules society by force. This is why leaders try to get the support of the people. The
supports given to the leaders or, their acceptance system seek legitimacy.

6. Development of an Ideology: To justify their claims to leadership, leaders in virtually all

political systems espouse a set of more or less coherent, persistent doctrines. This is called
political ideology, or what Mosca calls “political formula”. In many African St ates, rulers
espouse the doctrine of African Socialism which is to the effect that Africans accept only one

73
centre of power as there are no class conflicts in Africa. This doctrine justifies their one party
rolling system. An ideology serves the purpose of legitimacy only.
Political ideologies are not always espoused for the sake of legitimacy only. Some go further
to justify the political system itself, to provide a ‘world view” or ‘cognitive map” for
organizing society to achieve desired ends and goals. Such ideologies are usually state or
official ideologies. Such ideologies provide the framework within which the organization,
policies and leaders of the system are evaluated, and set out the goals of society. A good
example of this is socialism which aims at the equality of all men.
7. The Impact of Other Political Systems: Today, the political systems in the world are
integral parts of one international system which possesses all the characters of a system. As
we discussed in lecture 6, every political system is more or less influenced by the behaviour
of others. Of course, as is to be expected, all political systems are not influenced by others the
same way. “Exposed” and underdeveloped countries li ke those in Africa, Asia and Latin
America which are economically and technologically dependent on the capitalist centres of
the world in Western European and USA are more influenced than the “advanced” capital ist
countries. In fact, in some underdeveloped countries, those who rule and how they rule are
“remotely” controlled by the leaders in th e more powerful countries. It is therefore in order
to say that all political systems are more or less affected or influenced by others in the
international political system.
8. The Inevitability of Change: Change is a constant factor in life. The same applies to
political systems, all of which undergo inevitable change. Some changes are routine (like
yearly budgets), others profound (like new policies which depart completely from past
policies), and others are total capable of adapting itself to it, otherwise, it collapses. Systems
however differ in their capacities to adapt to changes, as we shall find out in the next lecture.
Summarily, these eight characteristics summarize the similarities that can be found in
political systems. The forms they take however differ from one political system to another as
will be reflected in our next lecture.

Summary
1. There are similar characteristics present in all political systems.
2. Knowing these similarities provides us with a means for
organizing political data.
3. The similarities are eight, as listed by Robert Dahl uneven control

74
 of political resources, the quest for political influence,
Uneven distribution of political influence, the pursuit and
resolution of conflicting aims, the acquisition of legitimacy,
development of an ideology, the impact of other political systems,
and the inevitability of change.
These similar characteristics may however take different forms in political systems.

Key Concepts
Similarities, political resources, inequality, inheritance, endowment role specialization,
influence, conflicts, government, leaders, legitimacy, ideology, international political system,
change, powerful.
Post Test
1. Mention at least similarities shared by most political systems in the world.
2. Why do we have uneven control of political resources in political systems?
3. Are all political systems equally influenced by others in the international system?
4. Why do leaders seek legitimacy?
5. What is ideology? How is it used in political system?
6. When does government come in to resolve conflicts?
References
Robert Michels, (1915). Political Parties. New York: Collier
Books.
Caetano Mosca, ed (1939). Ruling Class. New York: Mc Graw -Hill.
Vilfredo Parato (1916). The Mind and Society. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

LECTURE ELEVEN
Differences in Political Systems
Introduction

75
In the last lecture, you were told that political systems are both similar and different. This
lecture is about the differences which should be seen against the background of the
similarities discussed earlier on.
Objectives
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to classify political systems according to their
differences.
Pre-Test
1. What is suffrage?
2. Why do political conflicts differ in political systems?
3. What does degree to modernity’ mean?
4. Is it true that conflicts fluctuate in severity?
5. What factors determine differences in political skills?
CONTENT
Differences in Political Systems
Robert Dahl has identified six characteristics by which political systems differ. These are (1)
paths to the present; (2) the degree of modernity; (3) the distribution of political resources
and skills; (4) bases of cleavage and cohesion; (5) the severity of conflicts and (6) institutions
for sharing power. Let us consider these characteristics one by one.
1. Paths to the Present: Political systems have had different historical experiences or ‘paths”
to the present. In a sense, the path of every political system, its experience and inheritance
from the past, are unique to it. These differences account for the different paths political
systems continue to follow today, and are most likely to follow in the future. Certainly, a
people who have been under a tyrannical regime for centuries would not be expected to
become democratic in a few days. This is not however to suggest that revolutions, when they
take place, do not result in complete departures from the past. The point is that the heritage of
any political system will have a bearing on its present and future development.
2. Degree of Modernity: Quite often, we refer to one country as developed and another as
developing or backward. When we use terms, we are in effect saying that political systems
have different levels of development or modernization. However, the concept of development
or modernization has generated a lot of controversy among political scientists, many of who
argue that it has a parochial connotation when used by Western scholars. This
notwithstanding, there are some ‘objective’ indices according to which the modernity of any
system can be gauged. These include the level of technology, urbanities, newspaper and
magazine circulation, etc. These indices tend to be high on all others. Cumulatively then, we

76
can rank political systems according to their levels of attainment on these indices. Those that
have high levels can be modernized or developed, those with low levels, undeveloped, and
those in-between, more or less modernized, depending on which end of the continuum they
fall.
3. Distribution of Political Resources and Skills: In the last lecture, we learnt that political
resources and skills are unevenly distributed in all political systems. The degree of
unevenness however varies from one political system to another. Let us take wealth which is
a basic political resource and knowledge through literacy, which largely determines the
political skills individuals have. These resources are unevenly distributed. But whereas in
some countries like Niger and Mauritania, the level of literacy is quite low (as low as 100%
of the total population aged 15 and above), in the USSR, and USA, it is quite high (about 755
of the total population aged 15 and above). In terms of wealth, it is known that only a few
members of society are really wealthy. But if we consider opportunities to wealth offered by
free market forces, we find that while only a few members of the royal family are wealthy in
Saudi Arabia, many more are in the USA.
The other factors which determine how much political resources an individual has or political
skills he has are family background, socio-economic group, popularity, control of mass
media, and income-tend to be closely interrelated. Thus, a wealthy man would most likely
have greater control of the mass media, have greater popularity, and generally be more
influential than other members of society. Although the increasing industrialization of
societies, extension of suffrage to lower classes and expansion of educational opportunities,
amongst others, have a way of reducing disparities in the distribution of political resources
and skills, political systems continue to differ in their degrees of inequality in the distribution
of these resources.
4. Cleavage and Cohesion: Political systems differ in the patterns of political disagreement,
conflict and compromise. It should be noted that political conflicts do not result from single
factors like ethnicity, religion or class. Rather, they result from a multiplicity of factors which
include differences in income, wealth, economic, class occupation, education, ideology,
religion, ethnicity, and region. These factors combine to produce different patterns of
political cleavage and cohesion in political systems. Three other factors influence the
character of these patterns. One, historical inheritance of cleavages of cohesiveness:
Ethnicity, religion and regionalism have historically been crucial in Nigeria, while in
Switzerland, Canada and Belgium, it has been languages and regionalism. Second, history
has left varying memories of the past treatment of these differences. The Nigerian state was

77
built on the inequality of ethnic groups and regions, while the Swiss nation was built on the
equality of language groups. Third different stages of development tend to generate different
forces of cleavages and cohesion. It is believed for example that the more modernized a
country is, the less ethnic cleavages would be the major basis of conflicts; socio-economic
class will take over. This is not entirely true, but it sheds some light on why cleavage and
conflicts patterns differ.
5. Severity of Conflict: While it is true that there are conflicts in all political systems; the
severity of these conflicts vary over time within political system and among them. Within
every political system, the severity of cortical system; the severity of these conflicts varies
over time within political systems and among them. Within every political system, the
severity of conflicts varies. At a time. America went through a civil war, at another time, but,
most times, its president was assassinated but, most times, conflicts resulting from elections
are minimal. In Nigeria, there has been a civil war, no less than six coup d’états, violent
elections and so on, but conflicts tend to be more severe under civilian regimes than they are
under military regimes. Most times however, political systems experience peace though,
difference in cleavage however, political systems experience peace though, through
differences in cleavages and conflict patterns may make some systems more prone to
conflicts than others.
Authors like Pitirim Sorokin and Ted Gurr have studied the severity of conflicts in Political
system. Their conclusion include the fact that virtually all countries experience major social
disturbances on the average of once every five years, that these disturbances are usually
violent, and that they vary from civil wars and extensive mass violence in countries like
Congo, Indonesia and South Vietnam to total absence of any record of civil conflict.
6. Institutions for sharing and Exercising Power: Political systems differ both in their
institutions for sharing and exercising power and in their distribution to one, few, or many
(see lecture 9). With regards to institutions for sharing and exercising power, political
systems differ in two major respects. First, there is the suffrage, i.e. the right to vote.
Although in most political systems today, every adult citizen is entitled to vote, there are still
a few, like Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to vote. Even with this universal
suffrage, voting turn-outs are higher in some countries than others.

Second, political systems differ in the extent to which those who are closest to actual
decision-making (President, Prime Minister) must compete for the mandate of voters in free
and fair election in which those in opposition can complete one equal terms. Thus, we can

78
compare political systems according to how much freedom of association of expression,
access to alternative sources of information, free and fair elections, the emphasis on the
mandate of the electorate, and other expressions of preference exist. On these criteria, Dahi
has classified political systems into two (1) closed hegemonies that deny suffrage and
suppress all forms of opposition to government; and (2) Inclusive polyarchies that grant
universal suffrage and permit the existence of opposition.
Summary
1. Even as political systems are similar, they are different.
2. The characteristics on which political systems differ are paths to the present, degree of
modernity, distribution of political resources and skills, the basis of cleavage and cohesion,
severity of conflict, and institutions for sharing and exerting political power.

Key Concepts
Path, modernity development, political skills, political resources, cleavages, cohesion,
conflict, social disturbances, civil war, violence, suffrage, universal mandate, electorate, vote,
closed Hegemonies
Post-Test
1. What is suffrage?
2. Why do political conflicts differ in political systems?
3. What does degree of modernity mean
4. I its true that conflicts fluctuate in severity?
5. What factors determine differences in political skills?
Reference
P. Sorokin, (1937), Social and Cultural Dynamics, Vol. 3 New York: American Book Coy.
Chapter 14
R.T. Gurr. “A Comparative Study of Civil Strife in H.D Garham and R.T Gurr, (1969). The
History of violence in America New York: Bantam Books.

79
 LECTURE TWELVE
Who are the Participants in Politics?
Introduction
In this lecture, I want to discuss political participation and the actual participants in the
political process. All along, we have talked as if everyone participates in politics. But, is this
true? This is what this lecture is about.
Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to classify the participants in the political
process according to their levels of participation.
Pre-Test
1. What is democracy?
2. What is political participation?
3. Define spectator activities, transitional activities and gladiatorial activities.
4. Discuss Karl Deutsch’s typology of political participation.
5. Which of the typologies do you like most? Why?
CONTENT
Democracy and the Significance of Participation
You would be partly right if you define democracy as government of the people, by the
people, and for the people. Actually, the classical liberal notion of democracy relates it to
majority participation in the political system. This notion dates back to the Greek city-states
in which, because of their small sizes, it was possible for every adult to participate directly in
the affairs of the state. However, with the phenomenal expansion of the modern nation-state
which has a complex form of government and bureaucracy; direct participation by all is no
longer possible. In most of them, the majority participate indirectly through their
representative who they elect at regular intervals. While majority participation remains a
cardinal principle of democracy and adult suffrage has become almost universal everywhere,
numerous recent studies reveal that the majority of the members of society, even in countries
like the USA, are not interested at all in politics 2. Many do not vote, much less know a lot
about the political process. In effect, it has been found that, only a tiny proportion of
members of society participate in politics. Even amongst such participants, only a few are
very active. Against this background, we shall examine the levels of political participation
that have been developed. I shall reserve the reasons for unequal participation till the next
lecture.

80
What is Political Participation?
There are many definitions of political participation. I shall however give a wide-ranging
definition which captures the essence of political participation in most political systems. It
refers to involvement in politics and this includes all forms of political activity ranging from
discussing political issues or events, taking part in a demonstration or riot, voting, writing a
letter to political leaders, to belonging to political parties and seeking political office. This
definition should however mislead you to thinking that everyone participates in politics. You
will soon see why.
Typologies of Political Participation
I shall discuss three typologies of political participation which show the levels of
participation. They are those of Lester Milbraith, Karl Dutsch and Robert Dahl. Lester
Milbraith’s Typology:According to Milbraith, political participants can be classified on the
basis of their political activities. He said that there are three of such activities, namely,
spectator activities, transitional activities and gladiatorial activities. Accordingly, we have
spectator participants, transitional participants, and gladiatorial participants.

Fig. 12.1(a)
12.1 (a) Lester Milbraith’s Typology

Gladiatorial
Participants

Political Efficacy

Transitional Participants

Belonging to
Political Parties

Spectator

Exposed to Political Stimuli Participants

81
Spectator Participants: are those who expose themselves to political stimuli
mainly information, initiate and partake in political discussions,
attempt to influence others into voting for a party, and who
themselves vote. Spectator participants, in effect take part in the basic
political activities required of all full members of the society, but they
do not become actively involved , but prefer to remain ‘spectators’
who enjoy seeing active participants.

Transitional Participants: are midway between spectator and gladiatorial

participants. Participants in this category typically have begun to take
a keener interest than the spectators in politics. The activities they
engage in include attending a political meeting or rally, belonging and
making a monetary contribution to a political party or association,
and contacting a public officer or political leader over issues.

Gladiatorial Participants: These are the most active participants who typically
have the highest level of political efficacy. Gladiatorial activities
include caucus or strategic meeting, soliciting party funds, seeking
political office and influence, and actually holding public and party
office. Gladiatorial participants then, are the top political leaders, and
they often constitute a tiny minority (between 5-100%) of the total
adult population.

What you should not about Milbraith’s typology is that it does not include those
who are note about interested in politics or do not participate at all.

KARL DEUTSCH’S TYPOLOGY: In this typology there are two broad categories
of political participants, namely, the politically relevant strata and the
elite strata. Each of these categories is further subdivided into
narrower categories of participants, based on the position method and
the level of participation.

82
Fig. 12.1 (b) Deutsch’s Typology

Top Elite

Who’s who Elite Elite Strata

Mid Elite

Marginal Elites

Active Participants

Politically Relevant Strata

The Politically Relevant Strata: Comprise those members of the political system
who count or matter, and must be taken into consideration by decision-makers.
Students, teachers, market women, the “common man”, all count because they are
those to be affected by the decision made. In democratic and non-democratic
political system alike, where voting is a primary political activity, the politically
relevant strata would include all those who are eligible to vote. In this sense, most
adults belong to the politically relevant strata.
Within the politically relevant strata, a further distinction can be made between
those who are active (those who actually participate, by for example voting or
demanding or opposing a particular policy) and non-activists (those who are
relevant, but fail to actually participate by not voting or discussing politics).
The Elite strata: Comprise those who are not only politically relevant, but most actively
participate in the political process, seeking influence and power, and actually occupying the
most important political positions. The elites are the most educated and influential members
of society, and they constitute the “attentive public” which moulds public opinion and
provide leadership and direction for society.
The elite strata are further subdivided into the marginal elites, the mid-elite, the
who’s who elite, and the top elite, based on the position method. This method uses
the positions or roles of elites to classify them. Members of the lower middle-class,
Clerks, small-scale business men and intermediate staffers-belong to the marginal elite
class. Those in the upper middle-class, academicians, senior civil servants, military
officers-belong to the mid-elite group. The who’s who elite are the ‘notable’ captains
of industry, Permanent Secretaries, military Generals, in short, the leaders of the

83
various influential political actors-President, Ministers, Ambassadors, Chief-Justice
who usually constitutes between 1 and 5% of the total population. Again, Deutsch’s
typology, like Milbraith’s does not include those who are not interested at all in
politics, though it talks of non-active members of the politically relevant strata.
Robert Dahl’s Typology: There are four categories in this typology:
The Apolitical Stratum: This is the category of those who are apathetic and not
interested in politics. People in this category would not even vote. However, they
sometimes take part in politics in unsystematic ways, like violently rioting or
participating in a civil war.

12. 1 (c) Dahl’s Typology

The Powerful

The Power Seekers

The Political Stratum

Apolitical Stratum

Any of the typologies presented above could be used and is good because as you can
see, their categories are similar. If you however wish to formulate your own typology,
you should remember the credits for good typologies we discussed in lecture nine.

84
Summary
1. Democracy entails majority participation in the political process.
2. Political participation generally involves participation in politics.
3. Everyone does not participate in politics the same way. There are varying levels of
participation.
4. Lester Milbraith has classified political participation into spectator participants,
transitional participants and gladiatorial participants.
5. Karl Deutsch’s typology has two major categories the politically relevant strata
and the elite strata.
6. Robert Dahl’s typology consists of the apolitical stratum, political stratum, the
power-seekers and the powerful.
7. Any of these typologies is useful because the categories used in all are similar.

Key Concepts
Democracy, political participation, majority, political involvement, political activities,
spectators, transitional participants, gladiatorial participants, political relevant strata, position
methods, elite, marginal elite. Mid-elite core, who’s who elite, top elite, apolitical stratum.

Post-Test
1. What is democracy?
2. What is political participation?
3. Define spectator activities, transitional activities and gladiatorial activities.
4. Discuss Karl Deutsch’s typology of political participation.
5. Which of the typologies do you like most? Why
References
Robert Dowse and John Hughes, (1983). Political Sociology, Chichester: John
Wiley, p. 289.
H. Mcclosky, (1968) “Political Participation”, International Encyclopaedia of the
Social Sciences New York: Coller Macmillan.
G. Almond and S. Verba, (1965). The Civil, Culture, Boston: Little, Brown & Coy.
Lester Milbraith, (1965). Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally, p. 18 ff.
Karl Deutsch, (1974). Politics and Government, 2nd ed. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, pp. 48-59.
Robert Dahl, Modern Political Analysis, pp. 100-127.

85
 LECTURE THIRTEEN
Why Levels of Political Participation Differ
Introduction
Having seen that there are varying levels of political participation among members
of a political system, I want us to examine together the factors that account for the
differing levels of participation in this lecture.
Objective
At the end of this lecture, you should be able to explain why individuals have
different levels of political participation.
Pre-Test
1. Is every political participant rational? Why or why not?
2. How is personality traits acquired?
3. What are the important socio-economic correlates of participation?
4. Is mobilization necessary for political participation?
5. Can a single factor explain participation? Why or Why not?
CONTENT
Why do Individuals Participate in Politics Unequally?
There are many reasons why some people participate in politics and others do not,
and why, even among those who participate, some are more active than others. We
shall consider these reasons according to models and sets of factors that have been
identified.
The Economic Man Model: According to this model, a rational person decides to
participate or not participate in politics based on his calculations of gains and
losses, with a view to maximizing gains and minimizing losses. The point then, is
that the individual who participates in politics does so because he gains immensely
from doing so. Such gains are not necessarily monetary there is prestige,
psychological satisfaction, and so on. If the individual finds that he cannot benefit
or that the costs of participating are high (money, time, convenience, etc.) he is not
likely to participate in Politics.
The economic man model has however been criticized because most of those who
take part in politics do not rationally calculate their costs and benefits. In fact,
voting, and attending a rally sometimes becomes so habitual that few people
calculate before they act. Probably because of this, many participants in politics

86
behave non-rationally. For example, some voters vote for candidates because they
are handsome or because they speak well, rather than on calculations of what they
stand to gain.
Socio-Economic Correlates of Participation: Individuals have different levels of
participation because of certain social and economic inequalities. The most
important correlates which have been established from numerous studies will be
presented as hypotheses (i.e. tentative statements of relationships between
variables which can be tested empirically):
1. Those with higher education are more likely to participate in politics;
2. Those who belong to high income brackets have greater access to control of
political resources and, consequently, participate more in politics than those in
lower income brackets;
3. Those in urban centers are more likely to become active in politics than rural
dwellers;
4. Members of trade unions, professional associations and other organized interest
groups are more likely to take an interest in politics, to have a stronger stand on
issues and to vote than are those who do not belong to organized interest groups;
5. The longer a person resides in a community, the more likely he is to participate
in politics;
6. As people grow older their level of participation increases but after 50 or 60, it
begins to decline; and
7. Men are more likely to participate in politics than women.
As you can see, the factors associated with political participation-high levels of
education, urban residence, membership of organized interest groups, high socio-
economic (especially income) status, and so on – represent advantageous locations
in the political system for receiving political information and controlling political
resources, having a better leverage with politics, a greater contact with political
life, and so on. The only problem however remains that of organizing the
information in the context of a general theory of participation. Worse still, these
correlates do not explain the spontaneous involvement of those in the lower
(apathetic) groups of society in such things like riots, demonstrations and other
forms of civil disturbance.

87
Political Correlates of Participation: The nature of a political system and in
particular, of the ruling regime, certainly determines the rate and level of political
participation. In military and dictatorial regimes, the scope of political participation
is narrow and although trade unions and other interest groups may exist,
government often tends to suppress opposition and potential opposition fronts. By
contrast, in countries where political parties compete at periodic intervals during
elections there is ample room for participation, especially at election times. Even
so, as between a one-party and a two or more party state, one expects a higher level
of political participation in the two or more party state than in the one-party state
where opposition is usually suppressed.
The importance or centrality of elections also determines the level of participation.
If political parties are differentiated on ethnic, regional or religious lines,
involvement is likely to be high for all voters in elections. Again, there are certain
elections which are said to be “critical” for both parties and voter-like the 1959
elections held to decide which party would control Nigeria at independence and the
1979 elections to inaugurate the Second Republic. Such critical elections record
high voter turn-outs and high political involvement. Where elections are not
considered critical, or are irregular, or believed to be massively rigged, many
people are likely to become disenchanted. The result is low participation and
apathy.
A final political correlate of political participation that we shall consider is the
level of mobilization in the political system. Mobilization as used here, refers to
the process by which the government deliberately encourages (sometimes coerces)
the citizenry to become actively involved in politics, to be loyal and patriotic. This
is an important factor of participation in socialist and one-party states where most
citizens belong to the only ruling party, and in most third world countries which
are bogged down by ethnic, religious and regional divisions.
Perhaps the only problem with most of the political correlates that have been
identified is that they emphasize voluntary participation in the so-called democratic
states, to the detriment of the often involuntary participation in the so-called non-
democratic states.
Psychological Correlates of Participation: Some people participate in politics to
meet certain psychological needs and not merely for other calculable benefits.
Some seek political influence or other reallocations of income, status and prestige

88
because they symbolize to the actor that people were wrong to consider him a
failure, that can be loved and respected by those who support him, and that he is
powerful.
Personality traits resulting from social learning are also associated with
participation. Some basic personality traits like rigidity, guilt in-tolerance of
ambiguity, manic depression and manifest anxiety are not strongly associated with
political participation. By contrast, learned traits like sense of efficacy (i.e.
importance of the self in influencing outcomes), sense of civic responsibility,
sociability, sense of authoritarianism and alienation are more strongly associated
with participation. Those who have a feeling of from society (i.e. a feeling of
estrangement, of alienation not belonging to society) do not become actively
involved in politics, except in rebellious ways. On the other hand, those with high
sense of efficacy, of civil responsibility and sociability participate more actively
than those with lower, sense of these correlates.
These traits, as I said, result from social learning. But they are also influenced by
the variables of education (those with greater education are more likely to have
high senses of efficacy and civil responsibility), socio economic group (those in
higher groups tend to have higher sense of efficacy than those in lower groups and
occupation (manual workers tend to be more alienated than non-manual workers),
to mention but a few.
Notwithstanding the importance of psychological variables in explaining political
participation, there are two fundamental problems in discussing them. First, they
tend to confuse cause and effect: are people more psychological actively involved,
politically because of psychological needs or are they psychologically involved
because of satisfactions derived from political activity? Second, how do we
measure psychological traits other than by directly interviewing people? This
opens up many problems; the people could lie, our questions may be inappropriate,
and most importantly, inferring what people have in mind from what they say.
Finally, there are a variety of economic, psychological, political and socio-
economic factors, which explain why individuals have varying levels of political
participation. None of these factors however, singly or in isolation explains the
whole process of participation, which is very complex. In explaining political
participation then, we should consider these factors in relevant combinations.

89
Summary
1. The economic man model of political participation assumes that every
participant in politics is rational, and would therefore participate if his
calculation of gains is more than those of losses.
2. The socio-economic correlates of participation relate to variables like
education, income, sex, location, membership of interest groups and so on
to varying levels of political participation.
3. Important political variables of participation include regime type, the
level of mobilization of the citizenry, and the importance of elections.
4. Psychological traits like sense of efficacy, sense of civil responsibility,
alienation, guilt, intolerance and sociability which are socially learned are
useful in explaining differences in levels of participation.
5. No single factor however explains participation. Rather, combinations of
factors are used in explanation because participation is a complex process.

Key concepts
Political participation, economic man, rationality, costs, benefits, correlates,
educations, location, sex, age, elections, regime, party systems, personality,
alienation, efficacy, civil responsibility, anxiety, sociability, intolerance,
rigidity, guilt.

Post-Test

1. Is every political participant rational? Why or Why not?

2. How is personality traits acquired?

3. What are the important socio-economic correlates of participation?

4. Is mobilization necessary for political participation?

5. Can a single factor explain participation? Why or Why not?

90
References

Dowins, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New

York: Harper and Row.
Almong and Verba, (1963). The Civil Culture: A Campbell, P. Converse W. Miller and D.
Stokes, The American Voter. New York: John Wiley
Lipset, S. (1960). Political Man. London: Heinemann, etc. M. Clinard (ed.) (1964). Anomie
and Deviant Behaviour, New York: Free Press
Templeton, F. (1966). “Alienation and Political Participation,” Public Opinion Quarterly,
Vol. 30, pp. 249-261.
Dowse and Hughes, Political Sociology, pp. 291-291 and 305-311.
Dowse, R.F. and J. A. Hughes, Political Sociology, pp. 292-305.

91
 Bibliography
Almond G. and Powell, B. Jr. (1966) Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach,
Boston: Little, Brown.

Almond, G. (1956) “Comparative systems”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 18

Almond, G. and Verba, S. (1972).The Civil Culture, Princeton, New Jersey:

Andrain, C.F. (1975).Political Life and Social Change: An Introduction to

Political Science, 2nd ed. Belmont: Duxbury Press,

Apter, D.F. (1971). Choice and the Politics of Allocation, New Haven, Connectient: Yale
University Press.

Aristotle, (1953). The Ethics, Translated by J.A.K. Thomson Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin
Books.

Aristotle, (1962). The Politics, translated by J.A. Sinclair Harmondsworth,

Bandix, R. (1962).Max Weber:An Intellectual Portrait, New

York: Doubleday.

Banfield, E.C., (1967). The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, New York: Free Press.

Bell. D., (1962). The End of Ideology, New York: Collier Books.

Charlesworth, J.C. ed. (1997). Contemporary Political Analysis, New York: Free Press.

Dahl, R. (1976). Modern Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Dowse, R.E and Hughes, J.A., (1983). Political Sociology, Chechester: John Willey.

Easton D, A (1965). Framework for Political Analysis New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Easton, D, A (1965). Systems Analysis of Political Life, New York: John Willey,

Easton, D. (1957). “An Approach to the Analysis of Political System”, World Politics, Vol. 9

Easton, D. ed. (1971). The political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science 2nd New
York: Alfred Knopf.

Eckstein, H. (ed.) Comparative Politics: A Reader, New York: Free Press Hall.

Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioural Science, San
Francisco: Chandler.

Lane, R.E. (1962) Political Ideology. New York: Free Press.

Lasswell, H.D. (1958).Politics, Who Gets What, When, How Cleveland: World.

92
Lasswell, H.D. (1963). The Future of political Science. New York, Atherton.

Lipset, S.M. (1960). Political Man, New York: Doubleday.

Lipset, S.M. (ed.) (1969). Politics and Social Sciences, New York: Oxford

Pye, L.W. and Verba, S. eds. (1965). Political Culture and Political Development, Princeton:
PrincetonUniversity Press.

Rodee C.C., Anderson, I.J., Climistol, C.O and Greene, T.H (1976). Introduction of Political
Science, Tokyo; McGraw-Hill.

Sabine, G.H. and Thorson, T.L., A (1973). History of Political Theory, 4th ed. Billnois: Druden
Press.

Schqartz, D.C. and Schwartz, S.K. (ed.) (1975). New Directions in Political Socialization, New
York: Fress Press.

Spiro, H.J. (1959). Government by Constitution: The Political System of Democracy New
York: Randon House.

Storing, H.J. (ed). (1962). Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.

Varrna, S.P. (1975). Modern Political Theory, New Dahl: Vikas Publishing House.

Vernon Van Dyke, (1960). Political Science: A Philosophical

Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

93
Webber. M. (1947). Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Translated by A.M. Handerson and T.
Parsons New York: Oxford University Press.

Weber, M. From Max Webber (1946). Essay in Sociology, Translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills
New York: Oxford University Press.

Welsh, W.A (1973). Studying Politics, London: Thomas Nelson

Winter, H.R. and Bellows, T.J. (1981). People and Politics: An Introduction to Political Sciences, 2nd ed.
New York: John Wiley,

Wolin, S.S., (1960). Politics and Vision, Boston: Little, Brown.

94