Political science is science or not

1. Political science is science or
not science
Political science is science or not science
Aristotle,the father of political science considered political Science as the master of
all sciences. Writers like
Laski, Burke and Maitland used the title politics instead of political science.
Social sciences like history, sociology, political science, and
economics also follow the scientific method while studying social
phenomena. Laboratory tests are not possible in social sciences.
The basic difference lies in the fact that physical sciences study
about matter whereas social sciences study about human beings.
Hence the results obtained in physical sciences are precise,
perfect and exact at all times. That is not possible in social
sciences. This does not mean that political science claim to be a
science can be denied.
It is true that political science cannot be an exact science, since its
laws and conclusions cannot be expressed in precise terms and it
cannot predict political events accurately. Besides social and
political relationships are constantly changing and what may be
true of them today may not be true in the future. Hence political
science can be called both a science and an art.
Relationship of political science with history and sociology
Political science and history:
There is closed and intimate relationship between political science and history. The
relationship between political science and history is beautifully explained by.
John Seeley.“History without political science has no fruit and political science
without history has no root”. To quote the same author again,
“Politics is vulgar when not liberalized by history and history
fades into mere literature when it loses sight of its relation to
politics”.

2. Freeman. “History is past politics and politics is present history “. They are
complementary to each other.
Montesquieu and Brycemade use of historical materials to study political science.
Lord Bryceclaims that, political science stands midway between history and politics,
between the past and the present. It has drawn its materials from the one; it has to
apply them to the other.
History deals with past events, movements revolutions, national
struggles etc. and gives information about the origin and
development of political institutions and thought. When various
issues, concepts and terms, ideologies, are discussed in political
science, their historical development is also taken into
consideration.
Political science and sociology:
Sociology is the root of all social sciences.
Auguste Comte is the father of sociology. Sociology is the study of Society. Political
science and sociology are inter-related political scientists and sociologists contribute
mutually for the benefit of whole society. For example, the institution of marriage and
related problems after that, namely divorce are within the domain of sociology. How
to solve these problems in a harmonious way for better standard of life is within the
competence of political science.
What was once a sub-field of sociology has now takes the form
of “political sociology” which is now a legitimate subfield of
political science.
Historical method of political science
The present is the gift of the past. This is the reason why we seek help of history,
when we study the origin, development and the present nature of such political
institution as the State and the Government. The historical method supplements the
experimental method. Montesquieu, Saving, Seeley, Maine Freeman and Laski are
some of the eminent exponents of historical method. Sabine and other traditional
writers attached great importance historical approach. “A political theory” according
to Sabine is always advanced in reference to a pretty specific situation”. It is therefore
essential to understand “the time, place and circumstances in which it was
produced”.
Historical approach: When international political order is studied with reference to
its past, it is known as historical approach. The historical approach to the study of
international political order emphasizes the following:
1. Domestic and international political order is not static but
dynamic in nature.

3. 2. Historical background of every nation is important in
analyzing the present international political order.
Institutional approach
This chapter is about the international political components that one has to understand
from both historical and institutional perspectives. For a better understanding, the
chapter is divided into two major parts.
The first part explains the term international political order from
both historical and institutional framework.
In the second part, international and regional organizations are
explained in detail to illustrate how far they were successful in
maintaining international political order.
Students of political science must remember that international
political order is not a static one but dynamic in nature. In the
context of present globalized economic order and
communication revolutions we live in a different world of
political order.
The history of international political order is written in terms of
continuity and change in domestic and international political
relations. As a step in the direction of understanding such
continuity and change, this chapter explores some ideas drawn
from an institutional perspective. An institutional perspective is
characterized in terms of organized and formalized efforts in
order to bring the desired political order at regional and
international level. Students of political science try to
understand how and when international political order are
created, maintained, changed, and abandoned.
Many of the key questions belong to a wider class of difficult
questions about the dynamics of social order and development.
How can order develop out of anarchy? What stabilizes an
order? When and how does a stables order fall apart? How does
peaceful change occur? Why do peaceful relations sometimes
find themselves drawn into less peaceful confrontations? How is

4. the search for order among collectivities linked to the search for
order within them?
This chapter explains such questions. It considers a few
distinctive ways of thinking about the history and existing
international and regional political organizations and elaborates
some of them as an example, the League of Nations, UNO,
NAM and SAARC, which could be called an institutional
approach to such thinking.