Intro To Political Analysis by Bello Okpanachi PDF

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
COURSE CODE: POL214
COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL

ANALYSIS
POL214 COURSE GUIDE
COURSE
GUIDE
POL214
INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL ANALYSIS
Course Team Eyene Okpanachi (Developer/Writer) - UI

Addulrahoof Bello(Coordinator) - NOUN
ii
POL214 COURSE GUIDE
iii
POL214 COURSE GUIDE
National Open University of Nigeria

Headquarters
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island
Lagos
Abuja Office
No. 5 Dar es Salaam Street
Off Aminu Kano Crescent
Wuse II, Abuja
Nigeria
e-mail: centralinfo@nou.edu.ng
URL: www.nou.edu.ng
Published By:
First Printed 2012
ISBN: 978-058-227-4
All Rights Reserved
iv
POL214 COURSE GUIDE
CONTENTS PAGE
Introduction………………………………………………..…….….. 1
Course Aims………………………………………………..…....….. 1
Course Objectives………………………………………..……….…. 1
Working through This Course………………………………………. 2
Course Materials……………………………………………..…….... 2
Study Units……………………………………………………....….. 2
Textbooks and References………………………………….………. 4
Assesment…………………………………………………..……….. 5
Tutor-Marked Assinment…………………………………………… 5
Final Examination and Grading ……………………….…………… 6
Course Marking Scheme……………………………….…………… 6
Course Overview/Presentation………………………….…………... 6
What You will Learn in This Course……………………..…………..7
What You Will Need for the Course ……………………………….. 8
Facilitators/Tutors and Tutorials…………………………………..... 8
Conclusion…………………………………………………………... 8
Summary……………………………………………………………. 8
v
Introduction
POL214 Introduction to Political Analysis which is a three credit unit

course offered for students of the undergraduate degree programme in
Political Science. There are 21 Study Units in this course. The
prerequisite for studying this course is POL111: Introduction to Political
Science. It has been developed with appropriate local and international
examples suitable for a student of politics.
This course guide is for distance learners enrolled in the B.Sc Political
Science programme of the National Open University of Nigeria. This
guide is one of the several resource tools available to help you
successfully complete this course and ultimately your programme.
In this guide you will find very useful information about the course aims
and objectives, what the course is about, what course materials you will
be using; available services to support your learning; information on
assignments and examination. It also offers you guidelines on how to
plan your time for study; the amount of time you are likely to spend on
each study unit; your tutor-marked assignment.
I strongly recommend that you go through this course guide and

complete the feedback form at the end before you begin your study of
the course. The feedback form must be submitted to your tutorial
facilitator along with your first assignment. This guide also provides
answers to several of your questions.
However, do not hesitate to contact your study centre if you have further
questions. I wish you all the best in your learning experience and
successful completion of this course.
Course Aim
The major purpose of this seminar is to provide a broad overview of the

nature of inquiry and explanation in political science The aim of this
course is to provide students with an introduction to some of the key
approaches and theories currently popular in the study of politics, and in
particular those approaches which form the foundation for political
analysis.
Course Objectives
There are objectives to be achieved in each study unit of the course. You
should read them before studying each unit. Generally, on completion of
this course you should be able to:
POL214 INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL ANALYSIS
 Explain the nature of politics

 Identify the approaches of political analysis
 Explain the history and development of political science
 Describe the scientific quest in political science
 Explain the nature of the political science discipline as an
intellectual enterprise
 Identify main activities and issues of a political system
 Evaluate the goals, methods, and problems of government and
politics, and become critically alert to bias and to simplified
panaceas.
 Identify political systems and structure of government
 Describe some of the key processes and activities in a political
system.
 Acquire competence and skills in analysing various political
systems and structure, and functions of modern government
 Identify the range of analytic procedures or approaches that can
be employed in the search for knowledge about politics.
 The course ends with a look at the special features of
contemporary politics at the international arena.
Working through This Course
I would advise you to carefully study each unit, beginning with this
Study Guide, especially since this course provides an opportunity for
you to understand the major approaches in political analysis. Also, make
a habit of noting down any questions you have for tutorials. In addition,
please try your hand at formulating or identifying theories relevant to,
and that can be applied to political inquiry.
Course Materials
1. Course Guide
2. Study Units
3. Textbooks
4. Assignment file
5. Presentation schedule.
Study Units
POL211: Introduction to Political Analysisn is a 200 level course for

undergarduate Political science studnets. Teher are four modules in this
course, each module is made up of five units, apart from the third
module which is made up of six unit. Thus, you will find twenty one
units in the whole text. Some units may be longer and/or more indepth
ii
POL214 MODULE 1
than othres, dependnung on the scope of the course that is in focus. The
four modules in the course are as follows:
Module 1 The Essence of Politics
Unit 1 Conceptions of Politics

Unit 2 The Importance and Nature of Political Analysis
Unit 3 The Language of Inquiry in Political Science Analysis
Unit 4 Is Political Science a Science?
Unit 5 The Evolution of Political Science as a Discipline
Module 2 Approaches to the Study of Politics
Unit 1 Traditional Approaches

Unit 2 The Behavioral Approach
Unit 3 Approaches to the Study of Political Systems: Systems
approach and Structural-Functionalist approach
Unit 4 Political Processes Approaches: Class Approach,
Pluralism (Groups Approach), and Elite Approach.
Unit 5 Rational Choice Institutionalism
Module 3 Political Systems, Political Process and Political Action.
Unit 1 Power, Authority and Legitimacy

Unit 2 Political Culture
Unit 3 Political Socialization
Unit 4 Political Participation
Unit 5 Political Representation
Unit 6 Political Parties and Interest Groups
Module 4 Typology of Political Systems
Unit 1 Form of Rule

Unit2 Political System and Organs of Government
Unit 3 Political Systems and Distribution of Power
Unit 4 The Federal System of Government in Nigeria
Unit 5 The International Political System and Globalization
Each module is preceded with a listing of the units contained in it, and a
table of contents, introduction, objectives and the main content in turn
precedes each unit, including Self-Assesment Exercises (SAEs). At the
end of each unit, you will find one or more Tutor-marked Assignment
(TMA) which you are expected to work on and submit for marking.
iii
Textbooks and References
At the end of each unit, you will find a list of relevant materials which
you may wish to consult as the need arises, even though I have made
efforts to provide you with the most important information you need to
pass this course. However, I would encourage you to cultivate the habit
of consulting as many relevant materials as you are able to within the
time available to you. In particular, be sure to consult whatever material
you are advised to consult before attempting any exercise.
Your course material is the main text for this course. However, you are
encouraged to consult other sources as provided for you in the list of
references and further reading below:
Annsell, C. (2006). “Network Institutionalism.” In Rhodes, Binder and

Rockman (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions.
Oxford. Oxford University Press. 23-38.
Boix, C. (2007). “The Emergence of Political Parties and Party

Systems.” In Boix and Stokes. Eds. The Oxford Handbook of
Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.499-
522.
Dubois, H. & Fattore, G. (2009). “Definitions and Typologies in Public

Administration Research: The Case of Decentralization” in
International Journal of Public Administration: (328): pp. 704-
727.
Farr, J. (2003). “Political Science.” In The Cambridge History of

Science: The Modern Social Sciences. (7th ed.). Porter , T. and
Ross, D. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
March, J. & Olsen, J. (2006) “Elaborating the “New Institutionalism” In

Rhodes, Binder and Rockman (eds). The Oxford Handbook of
Political Institutions. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 3-21.
Geddes, B. (2007). “What Cause Democratization?” In Boix and

Stokes. Eds. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 317-339.
Hagopian, F. (2007). Parties and Voters and Emerging Democracies.” In

Boix & Stokes. Eds. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative
Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 582-603.
iv
POL214 MODULE 1
Laitin, D. (2002). “Comparative Politics: The State of the Sub

discipline.” In Katsnelson & Milner, ed. Political Science: State
of the Discipline III . New York and London: W.W. Norton.
Munck, G. (2007). Rejoinder: Visions of Comparative Politics: A Reply

to Mahoney & Wibbels. Comparative Political Studies. 40(1) 45-
47.
Przeworski, A. (2007). “Is the Science of Comparative Politics

Possible?” In Boix & Stokes. Eds. The Oxford Handbook of
Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.147-
171.
Nettle, J. & Robertson. R. (1968). International Systems and the

Modernization of Societies. New York: Basic.
Rosenau J. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change

and Continuity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 5 – 13,
36,
Roskin, M.; Cord, R.; Medeiros, J. & Jones, W. (2006). Political

Science: An Introduction (9th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Sabetti, F. (2007). “Democracy and Civic Culture.” In Boix & Stokes.

Eds. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. pp. 340-362.
Salmon, G. (2002). The Tools of Government. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Assessment
Two types of assesmnet are used in the course: the self-assesmnet

exercises (SAEs), and the tutor-marked assesmnet (TMA). Your
answers to the SAEs are not meant to be submitted, but they are also
important since they give you an opportunity to assess your own
understanding of course content. TMAs on the other hand are to be
carefully answered and kept in your assignment file for submission and
marking. This will count for 30% of your total score in the course.
Tutor-Marked Assignment
At the end of every unit, you will find a tutor-marked assignment
(TMA) which you should answer as instructed and put in your
assignment file for submission. However, this Course Guide does not
v
contain any TMA question. The TMA questions are provided from Unit
1 of Module 1 to Unit 5 of Module 4.
Final Examination and Grading

The final examination for POL211 last for three hours and attracts 70%
of the total course grade. The examination questions will reflect the
SAEs and TMAs that you have already worked on. I advise you to spend
time between completion of the last unit and revising the entire course,
to prepare for your exams. You will certainly find it helpful also to
review both your SAEs and TMAs before the examination.
Course Marking Scheme

The following table shows how the actual course marking is broken
down:.
Assessment Marks
Four assignmnets (The best 4 of all 4 assignments, each carrying 10%,
assignments submitted for but highest scoring three selected,
marking). thus totalling 30%
Final Examination 70% of overall course score
Total 100% of course score
Course Overview Presentation Scheme

Study Plan
This table is a presentation of the course and how long it should take
you to complete each study unit and the accompanying assignments.
Units Title of Work Weeks/ Assignment

Activity (End-of-Unit)
Course Guide
Module 1 The Essensce and Nature of Politcs
1 Conceptions of Politics 1 Assignment
2 The Importance and Nature of Political 1 Assignment
Analysis
3 The Language of Inquiry in Political 2 Assignment
Science Analysis
4 Is Political Science a Science? 2 Assignment
5 The Evolution of Political Science as a 3 Assignment
Discipline
Module 2 Approaches to Politcal Analysis
1 Traditional Approaches 4 Assignment
2 Behavioural Approach 5 Assignment
3 Approaches to the Study of Political 6 Assignment
Systems: Systems Approach and
vi
POL214 MODULE 1
Structural-Functionalist Approach
4 Political Processes Approaches: Class 7 Assignment
Approach, Pluralism (Groups
Approach), and Elite Approach
5 Rational Choice Institutionalism 8 Assignment
Module 3 Politcal Systems, Political Processes and
Political Action
1 Power, Authority and Legitimacy 9 Assignment
2 Political Culture 9 Assignment
3 Political Socialisation 10 Assignment
4 Political Participation 10 Assignment
5 political Representation 11 Assignment
6 Political Parties and Interest Groups. 11 Assignment
Module 4 Typologies of Political Systems
1 Form of Rule or Political Regimes 12 Assignment
2 Political System and Organs of 12 Assignment
Government
3 Political Systems and Distribution of 13 Assignment
Power
4 The Federal System of Government in 14 Assignment
Nigeria
5 The International Political System and 15 Assignment
Globalization
Revision 16
Examination 17
Total 17 weeks
What You will Learn in This Course
Introduction to Political Analysis provides you with the opportunity to

gain a mastery and indepth understanding of approaches in political
inquiry. Module 1 introduces you to the topic of politics and the whole
essense of studying it. Module 2 examines the different approaches to
the study of politcs and the relationship between them. Module 3
examines some of the key processes and activites that take place in a
political system and the implications of these for regime legitimacy and
efficiency. Module 4 examines the typologies (or clasisifiaction) of
political systems according to the form of rule, organization of
government and distribution of power. It also examines the Nigeria
political system through the prism of the country’s federal system of
government. The module ends with an examination of the international
system and the concept of globalisation. Each study unit consists of one
week’s work and should take you about three hours to complete. It
includes specific objectives, guidance for study, reading material, and
vii
Self Assessment Exercises. Together with tutor-marked assignments,

these exercises will assist you in achieving the stated learning objectives
of the individual Study Units and of the course.
What You Will Need for the Course
First, it will be of immense help to you if you try to review what you
studied at 100 levels in the course Introduction to Political Science to
refresh your mind about what politics is about. Second, you may need to
purchase one or two recommended texts that are important for the
mastery of the course content. You need quality time in a study-friendly
environment every week. If you are computer-literate (which ideally you
should be), you should be prepared to visit recommended websites. You
should also cultivate the habit of visiting reputable physical Libraries
accessible to you.
Facilitators/Tutors and Tutorials
There are fifteen (15) hours of tutorials provided in support of the

course. You will be notified of the dates and locations of these tutorials,
together with the name and phone number of your tutor as soon as you
are allocated a tutorial group. Your tutor will mark and comment on
your assignments. You must also keep a close watch on your progress.
Be sure to send in your TMAs promptly, and feel free to contact your
tutor in case of any difficulty with your SAEs, TMAs or the grading of
an assignment. In any case, I advise you to attend tutorials regularly and
punctually. Always take a list of such prepared questions to the tutorials
and participate actively in the discussions.
Conclusion
This is a theory course but you will get the best out of it if you cultivate
the habit of relating to political issues in domestic and international
arenas.
Summary
This course guide has been designed to furnish the information you need
for a fruitful experience in the course. In the final analysis, how much
you get from the course depends on how much you put into it in terms
of time, efforts and planning.
I wish you success in POL214programme!
viii
POL214 MODULE 1
Course Code POL214

Course Title Introduction to Political Analysis
Course Team Eyene Okpanachi (Developer/Writer) - UI

Addulrahoof Bello (Coordinator) - NOUN

ix

Headquarters
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island
Lagos
Abuja Office
No. 5 Dar es Salaam Street
Off Aminu Kano Crescent
Wuse II, Abuja
Nigeria
e-mail: centralinfo@nou.edu.ng
URL: www.nou.edu.ng
Published By:
First Printed 2012
ISBN: 978-058-227-4
All Rights Reserved
x
POL214 MODULE 1
CONTENTS PAGE
Module 1 The Essence of Politics………………..……………... 1
Unit 1 Conceptions of Politics………………….………….... 1

Unit 2 The Importance and Nature of Political Analysis....... 14
Unit 3 The Language of Inquiry in Political Science
Analysis………………………………………….…... 26
Unit 4 Is Political Science a Science?.................................... 37
Unit 5 The Evolution of Political Science as a Discipline…. 47
Module 2 Approaches to the Study of Politics………………... 63
Unit 1 Traditional Approaches ……………………………... 63

Unit 2 The Behavioral Approach…………………………… 76
Unit 3 Approaches to the Study of Political Systems:
Systems Approach and Structural- Functionalist
Approach…………………………………………..… 86
Pluralism (Groups Approach), and Elite Approach...... 98
Unit 5 Rational Choice Institutionalism……………..…….. 115
Module 3 Political Systems, Political Process and Political

Action ……………………………………………….. 127
Unit 1 Power, Authority and Legitimacy ………………….. 127

Unit 2 Political Culture……………………………………… 139
Unit 3 Political Socialization……………………………….. 154
Unit 4 Political Participation……………………………….. 165
Unit 5 Political Representation…………………….……….. 178
Unit 6 Political Parties and Interest Groups……................... 187
Module 4 Typology of Political Systems……………….…….. 208
Unit 1 Form of Rule …………………………….................... 208

Unit 2 Political System and Organs of Government …….… 222
Unit 3 Political Systems and Distribution of Power …….… 237
Unit 4 The Federal System of Government in Nigeria ……. 247
Unit 5 The International Political System and Globalization 275
xi
POL214 MODULE 1
MODULE 1 THE NATURE AND ESSENCE OF

POLITICS
Unit 1 Conceptions of Politics

Unit 2 The Importance and Nature of Political Analysis
Unit 3 The Language of Inquiry in Political Science Analysis
Unit 4 Is Political Science a Science?
Unit 5 The Evolution of Political Science as a Discipline
UNIT 1 CONCEPTIONS OF POLITICS
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Politics as Collective Decision and Action
3.2 Politics as the Peaceful Resolution of Societal Struggle
and Conflict
3.3 Politics as the Conflicts among Classes
3.4 Politics as the Operation of the State
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
“Man is by nature a political animal.” This famous aphorism by the

Greek philosopher, Aristotle, implies that it is in the character of man to
associate with others and to live in society. We may also deduce from
this saying that man has engaged in politics and reflected on political
issues over a long period of time. The situation is not different today. In
fact in today’s world, politics seems to have grown in intensity. As
Deutsch (1970:3) pointed out, we live in an age of growing
politicization where the water we drink, the air we breathe, marriage and
divorce, the neigbourhood we live in the education of the young, the
cost of petrol, the care for the elderly and the aspirations and fears of
minority groups all fall within the purview of politics. But what exactly
is politics?
Political scientists hold on to different, sometimes conflicting,

conceptions of their subject and these conceptions shape the questions
researchers put to politics, as well as the assumptions on which they
make their inquiries. In fact, there are many definitions as there are
1
authors. For instance, Tom Donahue (2009) has identified what he calls
“46 ½ conceptions of politics” which he found in the scholarly literature.
These 46 ½ conceptions of politics comprise of 44 full conceptions, and
five “half conceptions” (half because they are conceptions not explicitly
stated by the authors to whom they are attributed, but to which the
authors are committed to.
Based on the above, the word politics is an elastic one that means
different things to different scholars. As Heywood (1994) comments:
Most academic study starts with a discussion of what the

subject matter itself is about, usually provoked by asking a
question such as ‘What is Physics?’, ‘What is History?’ or
‘What is Economics?’ Such discussions have the virtue of
letting students know what they are in for: what they are
about to study and what issues and topics are going to be
raised. Unfortunately for the student of politics, however,
the question ‘What is Politics?’ is more likely to generate
confusion than bring comfort or reassurance. The problem
with politics is that debate, controversies and
disagreements lie at its very heart, and the definition of
‘the political’ is no exception (Cf. Stoker, 1995: 4).
In this unit, you will be introduced to the meaning of politics. We shall

do this by examining the various conceptions of politics. While there
are many definitions of politics as noted above, attempt is made here to
synchronize the various definitions into major themes or classes based
on the kinds of activity or relations that the various authors take politics
to consist in. These different conceptions are: (i) politics as collective
decision and action; (ii) Politics as the peaceful resolution of societal
struggle and conflict (iii) Politics as the Relations and conflicts among
classes (IV) politics as the operation of the state. I will elaborate more
on these themes and point out there shortcomings.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
I expect that at the end of this unit, you will have a complete picture of
the numerous definitions of politics. Specifically, you should be able to
explain the conception of Politics as:
 the Collective Decision and Action

 the Peaceful Resolution of Societal Struggles and Conflicts
 the Conflicts among Classes
 the Operation of the State.
2
POL214 MODULE 1
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Politics as Collective Decision and Action
One of the conceptions of politics is that it is a matter of reaching

collective decisions and taking collective actions. The clearest example
of this conception-type is perhaps that given by Miller (2002) who stated
that “politics is the process whereby a group of people, whose opinions
or interests are initially divergent, reach collective decisions which are
generally regarded as binding on the group, and enforced as common
policy”. Also, Pitkin (1981) stated that “politics is the activity through
which relatively large and permanent groups of people determine what
they will collectively do, settle how they will live together, and decide
their future, to whatever extent that is within their power.” Another
conception of politics as collective decision and action is given by
Weale (2004) when he stated that “politics is the process whereby
groups of individual rational people try to make collective actions that
will, in some sense, be binding on the members of the group, and where
the choices are aimed at solving collective action problems”
There are two assumptions from this conception of politics as the

process by which groups representing divergent interests and values
make collective decisions. The first is that all societies must contain
diversity. The implication of this assumption is that people will always
have different interests and values, and therefore there will always be a
need for a mechanism whereby these different interests and values are
reconciled. The second assumption is that scarcity is also an inevitable
characteristic of all societies. Since the goods that people want are not
enough to go around, there needs to be some mechanism whereby these
goods can be distributed. Politics would seem, then, in the words of the
American political scientist Harold Lasswell (Laswell, 1951), to be
about ‘Who Gets What, When and How?’ Clearly, of great
importance here is the way in which economic goods are distributed, as
these are crucially important in determining the nature of society and the
well-being of those who live within it.
However, there are at least three unresolved questions about the

decisions that are taken if we adopt this view of politics. In the first
place, what values do and should the decisions made serve? Do they
serve, for instance, the values of justice or liberty and if so what do we
mean by justice and liberty? Is a just decision one that is made in the
interests of the few, the many, or all? Authors however differ on the
ends that politics serve. For instance, the earliest conception of politics
belonged to the Greeks who defined politics as the pursuit of the public
interest. The public realm was viewed by the Greeks to be morally
superior to the private realm, and was represented by the polis or “city-
3
state”. Plato and Aristotle, two famous Greek philosophers, were of the
opinion that the moral purposes that the decision makers ought to pursue
to realize the public or common good was to ensure happiness of all
men. This happiness was not however defined as the attainment of mere
pleasure, but as the conformity of ideas and actions with “perfect
goodness”. Thus, Aristotle (1953) wrote that “what the state men are
most anxious to produce is a moral character in his fellow citizens,
namely a disposition of virtue and the performance of virtuous action”.
Although profound changes have occurred 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 (1971) who has 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 births (Skott-King, 1969). Jeremy
Bentham was more explicit about the moral ends of the state when he
stated that politics exists for the “greatest happiness of the greater
number of people” (cf. Baradat, 1997).
However, other scholars have argued that the conception of politics as

serving the public interest is false because public interest is a myth
which is usually employed by political leaders to rationalize private
interest. This is the view held by Wolin (2004) when he argued that
“politics is the activity of seeking competitive advantage over other
groups, individuals, or societies, such that the seeking produces
consequences of such magnitude that they affect in a significant way the
whole society or a substantial part of it.” Perhaps, it is in recognition of
this double-edged role of politics (the fact that political decisions can be
in the public interest or benefiting a few) that Barber (2004) argues that:
Politics is those actions or omissions undertaken by a

public, intended to have public consequences, where the
public’s not taking an action will have serious
consequences, where the public takes such actions after
some deliberation leading to a public choice, where the
public tries to make the choice reasonable, where there is
some conflict over whether the action should be taken,
and where there is no wide consensus on whether the
reasons for which the action was taken are good reasons
that are worthy of acceptance.
The second likely question student of politics will ask with regard to the
conception of politics as collective action is ‘who makes and should
make the decisions taken?’ Is it one person who makes the decisions, or
a few, many, or all? Is there anything special about democratic form of
4
POL214 MODULE 1
government? These questions also have preoccupied the minds of

political philosophers and political scientists. For instance, according to
the famous Greek Political Philosopher Plato, the most qualified elders
must have the authority. Rulers must always act for the good of the
commonwealth. Plato believed the Athenian ideal of all citizens being
involved in politics was ineffective; he believed ruling was a craft
needing a group of trained rulers. Plato believed that wisdom in the state
is vital, and that wisdom comes from those who lead. Plato thought that
elders (Guardians) should have authority and do what is best for the
state, with younger men “auxiliaries” to enforce the rules of the elders.
Plato argued that because of their desire for wisdom, philosophers would
be the best choice to hold the positions as rulers. It is the belief that until
the philosophers are in power, neither states nor the individuals will be
acquitted of trouble. In this scenario, the imagined commonwealth will
never be acknowledged (cf. Curtis, 2009).
On the other hand, according to Thomas Hobbes, any valid explanation

of society and government must take account of the real nature of man.
He says that men in a state of nature, that is a state without civil
government, are in a war of all against all in which life is hardly worth
living and was “short, brutish, nasty and poor.” Man was motivated by
his appetites, desires, fear, and self-interest, seeking pleasure and
avoiding pain. Since the powers men had were essentially equal, there
was a natural strife as men sought to satisfy their desires. To escape this
intolerable situation, where every individual lived for him/herself, and to
obtain peace and order, men and women agreed to form a society. Men
and women surrendered their rights of self-assertion in order to set up a
power capable of enforcing its authority. They gave up their rights to
defend themselves, made a social contract and created a sovereign.
Order was secured by this sovereign. Thomas Hobbes supports
monarchical sovereignty because it keeps society stable (Sabine &
Thorson, 1973; Curtis (ed.), 2009).On the other hand; political
philosophers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that no government
was legitimate unless the people gave their consent to its authority
through a social contract. Rousseau’s social contract includes all citizens
in the initial agreement to the terms of the contract to participate in the
making of law, and so to participate in the decision making that defines
the appropriate boundaries of the law and the proper domain of the state
activities
The third main question that students of politics will ask is: why are
those taking decisions able to enforce them? In answering this question,
it is important to make a distinction between power and authority,
concepts which are central to politics. We could say that rulers are able
to enforce their decisions either because they have the power to do so or
because they have the authority to do so.The former implies some form
5
of coercion or sanction; that those with power are able to cause those
without power to behave in a way they would not otherwise have done.
Clearly, a regime that relies exclusively on the exercise of power, in the
sense described above, is likely to be inefficient and unstable. Such a
regime will only survive if it is able to impose coercion continually, a
time-consuming and difficult exercise. If a set of rulers has authority, on
the other hand, force may not be necessary especially as authority is
defined in terms of legitimacy. Authority, then, is defined here as
legitimate power in the sense that rulers can produce acceptance by the
ruled, not because they can exercise coercion but because the ruled
recognize the right of the rulers to exercise power. In effect, converting
power into authority, then, should be the goal of any set of rulers.
SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1
Examine the conception of politics as collective decision and action.
3.2 Politics as the Peaceful Resolution of Societal Struggles

and Conflicts
There are those who suggest that politics is the art of finding peaceful
resolutions to general societal conflicts through compromise and the
building of consensus. However, if this fails and military conflict or any
kind of violence erupts as a consequence, then politics can be said to
have been rejected or failed. Bernard Crick (1962; 2004) is perhaps the
best-known advocate of this position. For him, politics is ‘only one
possible solution to the problem of order’ (1962:18). It is, for Crick, the
preferable way in which conflicts can be resolved, a ‘great and civilizing
human activity’ associated with admirable values of toleration and
respect and fortitude (1962:5). In contrast to tyranny and oligarchy, both
of which are concerned with coercing those who disagree with the ruling
elite, politics is the activity by which differing interests within a given
unit of rule are given share in power in proportion to their importance to
the welfare and the survival of the whole community (Crick, 2004).
Crick argues that appeasement is most likely to occur when power is
widely spread in society so that no one small group can impose its will
on others. Politics is a form of rule whereby people act together through
institutionalized procedures to resolve differences, to make peace with
diverse interests and values and to make public policies in the pursuit of
common purposes. Unfortunately, as he recognizes, politics is a rare
activity that is too often rejected in favour of violence and suppression.
He therefore calls for its values to be promoted and persevered.
A similar argument as put forward by Gerry Stoker. Stoker (2006: 7)

argues that politics not only expresses the reality of disagreement and
conflict in society but is also ‘one of the ways we know of how to
6
POL214 MODULE 1
address and potentially patch up the disagreements that characterize our

societies without resource to illegitimate coercion or violence.’
It might be best to describe the arguments put forward by Crick and

Stoker as representing a particular kind of politics, rather than politics
per se. It is true that conflicts and differences are at the heart of politics,
but if we can only talk about politics when agreements are reached and
compromises made then it would seem to be a very limited activity. In
this sense, it is probably sensible to talk of the resort to force and
violence and military conflict as politics by another means, as in the
famous dictum by the nineteenth-century Prussian military strategist,
Carl von Clausewitz (Echevarria, 2007). As Stoker himself noted, ‘not
all politics results in compromise and consensus. Sometimes the conflict
is so sharp that violence, civil wars and revolution become political
instruments. This is in relation to the circumstances when the relatively
orderly pursuit of politics gives way to more chaotic and brutal forms. In
effect, therefore, when studying everyday politics, its latent potential to
take more violent and dramatic forms should not be forgotten (Stoker,
1995:6-7). Stoker further argues that much of the present discontent
about democratic politics is misplaced because our expectations are too
high. Thus, rather than judging it by exacting standards it should be
recognized that politics, by its very nature, is messy, muddled and, in a
very real sense, ‘designed to disappoint’ (Stoker, 2006: 10).
3.3 Politics as the Conflicts among Classes
For many, rather than being defined in terms of consensus-building and

cooperation, politics is all about conflict and it is the absence of politics
that leads to greater social cohesion based around agreement on core
values. This is the conception of politics which derive 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 who
constitute the class of oppressors, and the ‘have nots’ who belong to the
class of the oppressed. In other words, political activity centers on the
struggle between these two antagonistic classes for supremacy.
Karl Marx suggests that, since differences of interests in society centre

on the existence of competing social classes, the creation of a classless
(or socialist) society when the oppressed class ultimately becomes
victorious against their oppressors, offers the prospect of a society based
on consensus and cooperation. This in other words is one in which
politics and the state may not necessary. Politics, for Marx then, is seen
in negative terms. It is about class conflict, and political power. This
contention Marx and Engels insist in the Communist Manifesto (2002)
7
is ‘merely the organized power of one class oppressing another’. It

logically follows therefore from this that once conflict is ended through
the overthrow of capitalism, expectedly there will be no competing
classes and by implication no politics.
Important as it is, the Marxian conception of politics ignores the fact that
politics is also a process of cooperation and that most human
interactions are not always conflictual. This is in the sense that the
conception downplays other identities such as ethnicity, religion,
regionalism, which, in addition to class, influence political behaviour of
individuals and groups (Osaghae, 1988).
3.4 Politics as the Operation of the State
We have seen that politics is premised on the differences that human

beings have, and how these differences, in interests and values, can be
managed in a world where scarcity is inevitable. However, this
definition does not address the problem of the arena of politics let alone
the controversy surrounding politics especially as it relates to boundary
problems. To this end, it becomes pertinent to ask: Where does politics
take place? What is the boundary of political activities? Where does it
begin and end? For Leftwich (1984:10), this is the ‘single most
important factor involved in influencing the way people implicitly or
explicitly conceive of politics’.
For some, politics ought to be defined narrowly. According to this view,

politics is associated with the activities of the state and the public realm.
As a result, institutions other than the state, although important in their
own right, are beyond the scope of politics.
Politics has traditionally been associated with the activities of the state.
This narrow definition certainly helps to distinguish politics from other
social sciences such as sociology and economics. The state has
traditionally been the centre of much political analysis because it has
been regarded as the highest form of authority in a society. Put in
another way, in the words of the great German sociologist Max Weber,
the state has a ‘monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in
enforcing its order within a given territorial area’ (Gerth and Mills,
1946: 77–8). Such authority, according to Bodin (1955) is tantamount to
sovereignty.
The state is sovereign in the sense that it is the supreme law-making

body within a particular territory. The implication of the supremacy of
the state is that it has absolute and perpetual power in its domestic use of
power and authority over all persons and things within its territory. In
other words, sovereignty means that the state has a general power of
8
POL214 MODULE 1
lawmaking and of the enforcement of laws. The state operates through

the government machinery which consists of not just political offices but
also bureaucratic institutions such as the judiciary, military, police and
security services with which the authority of the state is exercised.
Without doubt, it is apparent that the activities of the state are necessary
in the study of politics. This is especially so as ‘politics encompasses the
entire sphere of collective social activity, formal (the legislative,
executive, and judicial functions) and informal (within the private realm,
especially the realm of the civil society which consists of those non-
governmental institutions-such as pressure groups, business
Organisations, and trade unions which provide linkages between the
individual and the state” (Hay: 2002: 3; Leftwich: 1984). Also, the
term governance often preferred now to government, reflects this reality
by drawing the boundaries of the governmental process much wider to
include not just the traditional institutions of government but also the
other inputs into decisions affecting society such as the workings of the
market and the role of interest groups. This indeed is in consonance with
everyday discourse about politics taking place in business Organisations,
town unions, universities, churches, entertainment industry, and even in
the family.
Secondly, the conception of politics includes the fundamental question

with regard to the degree to which politics now exists beyond the state at
a higher supranational or international level such as the African Union,
European Commission, etc. In fact more than ever before, the focus of
politics has begun to shift because in a practical sense we are living in a
world which is becoming increasingly interdependent, where the forces
of globalization is placing increasing constraints on what individual
‘sovereign’ states can do on their own.
Thirdly although the state/government is a key player in the use of

physical force however, cases abound where some states/government
does not have a monopoly of coercion as we see from a country such as
Somalia where various war lords are pitched against one another and
also against the state.
Flowing from the above, the distinctiveness of politics lies not in the
arena within which it takes place but in ‘the emphasis it places on the
political aspect (the ‘distribution, exercise and consequences of power)
of social relations’. In effect, politics is a phenomenon found in and
between all groups, institutions (formal and informal) and societies,
cutting across public and private life. It is involved in all the relations,
institutions and structures which are implicated in the activities of
production and reproduction in the life of societies . . . it is about power;
about the forces which influence and reflect its distribution and use; and
9
about the effect of this on resource use and distribution . . . it is not

about Government or government alone’ (Held and Leftwich; 1984).
In sum, the point needs to be made that although politics take place in
both public and private arenas, ‘the discipline of politics should give
special consideration to how that process is resolved in the act of
government – in particular how issues reach the governmental agenda
and how, within that arena, issues are discussed, contested and decided’
(Stoker, 1995: 6) which is the distinctive mark of the discipline of
political science.
Discuss how central the state is to the understanding of politics.
4.0 CONCLUSION
This unit has sought to discuss politics variously as well as some themes
current within the concept of politics. The difficulty of studying politics,
because of the lack of consensus on its meaning, has been an age-long
dilemma. However, it is suggested here that having an open mind to
what is ‘political’ prevents undue emphasis on watertight definition
which would miss much of what is important in the real world. While
the term politics can be an elusive one, at its core are issues about the
exercise of power and influence - who should have power in a society
and for what ends should power be used. Politics is a process that
involves conflict and co-operation and it takes place within the public
and private arenas or realms. As a process of conflict and co-operation
over the resources necessary to the production and reproduction of lives,
politics is an ubiquitous activity meaning that ‘politics is everywhere’.
However as Hay (2002: 75) cautions, ‘nothing is exhaustively political’.
In other words, people ‘experience many relationships other than power
and authority: love, respect, dedication, shared beliefs and so on’ (Dahl,
1991: 4). The political is just a key part of this human activity.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have examined four different conceptions of politics

which Political scientists employ in their efforts to understand political
phenomena. While the conceptions sometimes look conflicting however,
they overlap given that politics can be conceived as collective decision
and action, peaceful resolution of societal struggle, as conflict relations
and conflicts among classes, and as operation of the state. The unit also
examined core issues of politics such as the exercise of power and
influence i.e who should have power in a society and for what ends
should power be used. In sum, politics is a process that involves conflict
10
POL214 MODULE 1
and co-operation which takes place within the public and private realms
although the main emphasis of political scientists is the politics that
takes place in the public realm, especially the realms of the state. It
should be recalled that the emphasis is because the state is central to any
understanding of the concept of politics because it is a sovereign entity
seeking and exercising dominance and authority over a defined territory,
its people and institutions.
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
1. What is politics?
2. Is politics synonymous with the state?
3. In what way does politics constitute conflict among classes?
7.0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
Aristotle (1953). The Ethics Translated by Thomson, J.K. Hardmonds

Worth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Barber, B. R. (2004). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a

New Age. 20th Anniversary Edition. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Baradat, L. P. (1997). Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact (6th

Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bodin, J. (1976). Six Books Concerning the Republic. Oxford:

University Press.
Callinicos, A. (2004). “Marxism and Politics,” in What Is Politics?

Leftwich A. (ed). Oxford: Polity. 53-66.
Crick, B. (1962). In Defence of Politics. London: Weidenfeld &

Nicolson.
Crick, B. (2004). “Politics as a Form of Rule: Politics, Citizenship and

Democracy,” in What Is Politics? Leftwich A. (ed.). Oxford:
Polity. 67-85.
Curtis, M. (ed). (2009). Great Political Theories. Expanded edition.

Retrieved August 24, 2009 from www.http://fs.hutingdon.edu/
jlewis/syl/Anthos/CurtisStuudtoutsPage3.htm
Dahl, R. (1991). Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.
11
Danziger, J. N. (2000). Understanding the Political World. New York,

NY: Longman.
Deutsch, K.W. (1970). Politics and Government: How People Decide

their Fate. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Donahue, T. J. (2009) “Research Note: 46 ½ Conceptions of Politics.”

Retrieved September18, 2009 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=
1151265.
Echevarria, J. (2007). Clausewitz and Contemporary War. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Gerth, H. and Mills, W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, B. (2007). Using Political Ideas (5th ed.). Chichester, UK:

John Wiley & Sons.
Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Lasswell, H. (1951). Politics: Who Gets what, When and How. Free
Press: Glencoe, III.
Leftwich, A. (1984) What is Politics? The Activity and its Study.

Oxford: Blackwell.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (2002). The Communist Manifesto. (with

Introduction and Notes by Jones, G. S.). London: Penguin Books
Ltd.
Miller, D. (1987). “Politics,” in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of

Political Thought. Miller, D. (ed.) Oxford: Blackwell. 430-431.
Osaghae, E. (1988). Political Analysis (POS 211). Ibadan: University of

Ibadan External Studies Programme.
Pitkin, H. (1981). “Justice: On Relating Private and Public,” Political

Theory. 9: 437-432
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.
Roskin, M. G. (2000). Political Science: An Introduction. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12
POL214 MODULE 1
Sabine, G. and Thorson, T. (1973). A History of Political Theory (4th

Ed.). Hinsdale: Dryden Press.
Sargent, L. (1999). Contemporary Political Ideologies. Fort Worth, TX:

Harcourt, Brace College Publishers.
Scott-King, C. (1969). My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr. New York,
Holt, Rhine heart and Winston.
Stoker, G. (1995). “Introduction” in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G (eds).

Theory and Methods in Political Science. London: Macmillan
Pres.
Stoker, G. (2006). Why Politics Matter. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Weale, A. (2004). “Politics as Collective Choice,” in What Is Politics?

Leftwich, A. (ed.). Cambridge: Polity. pp. 86-99.
Weber, M. (1949). “Politics as a Vocation” in From Max Weber Gerth,

H.H. and Wright Mills, C. (eds.). New York: Oxford University
Press. pp. 77-78.
White, L.G. (1994). Political Analysis:Technique and Practice (3rd ed.).

Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Wolin, S. (1996). “Fugitive Democracy,” in Democracy and Difference,

Benhabib, S. (ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp.31-
45.
Wolin, S. (2004). Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in

Western Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
13
UNIT 2 THE IMPORTANCE AND TYPES OF

POLITICAL ANALYSIS
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Importance of Studying Political Science and Political
Analysis
3.2 Types of Political Analysis
3.3 Normative Analysis
3.4 The Quality of Normative Analysis
3.5 Empirical Analysis and it’s nature
3.6 Semantic Analysis
3.7 Policy Analysis
3.8 Relationship between the Types of Political Analysis
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Having introduced you to the various conceptions of politics in our first

unit, my purpose in this second unit is to provide a justification for the
entire course by drawing your attention to the importance and nature of
political analysis. In any case, if ideally as the previous unit has proved
that politics is indispensable and unavoidable, hence it becomes
pertinent that an understanding of it is necessary to enable us analyse
political problem as they arise, to advise governments on good policies,
and to suggest ways of making life better. To be able to do these, we
need certain basic skills in political analysis which this unit intends to
introduce to you.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
 develop the importance of studying political science and political

analysis
 identify the types of political analysis
 determine the relationship between the types of political analysis.
14
POL214 MODULE 1
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Importance of Studying Political Science and Political

Analysis
Studying political science has the following values:
1. studying political science may be of valued as an intellectual

activity in its own right and part of the growth of and
development of civilization;
2. studying political science may be of value in terms of changing
interpretations of society at a time of rapid and continual change;
3. Studying political science may have value as a socially applicable
area of study so as to aid in the achievement of desired outcomes.
Political analysis is the major task undertaken by Political Scientists.

According to Osaghae (1988) political analysis has three main goals:
1. To know what is important in politics, i.e. those things that

influence or determine the outcome of events.
2. To know what is valuable, i.e. the difference every political
outcome makes to our desires, both individually and collectively;
and
3. To know what is real or true by systematically subjecting our
guesses, impressions, popular belief, even rumors, to verification.
What values does the study of political science and political analysis
have for politics?
3.2 Types of Political Analysis
Normative Analysis
This type of political analysis asks questions of value and seeks to

identify what is good or better with a view to recommending what we
ought to value. It will ask, for instance, whether, when, and why we
ought to value freedom, or democracy or equality and why should we
obey the state. Many of the ‘founding fathers’ of political science,
ranging from Plato through Thomas Hobbes to a more recent major
work of political philosophy, John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (see
Rawls, 1971), have all sought to set out what constitutes the ‘good life’,
the kind of society and polity within which it would be desirable for us
to live.
15
According to Hurka (2009), “the course of normative ethics in the 20th

century was a roller-coaster ride, from a period of skilled and confident
theorising in the first third of the century, through a virtual
disappearance in the face of various forms of skepticism in the middle
third, to a partial revival, though shadowed by remnants of that
skepticism, in the final third.”
For much of the twentieth century therefore, normative analysis was

underutilised. In academia, a great deal of emphasis was placed upon
empirical political science and also upon ‘analytical’ political
philosophy, in which the meaning of concepts and the relation between
them was considered. This was known as the ‘behavioural’ revolution in
which quantification, particularly in relation to the study of electoral
behaviour, was the standard. In this climate, judgments on what kind of
society and polity we ought to have—the basis of normative analysis—
was regarded as, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, meaningless.
A variety of intellectual and practical political reasons have been put

forward to explain what Peter Lasslett (1956: vii) described as the ‘death
of political philosophy’, ranging from the growth of secularism (Dahl,
1991: 120), to the emergence, in the West at least, of consensus
politics—whereby there was widespread agreement on the fundamental
political principles. In the academic world, the decline of normative
analysis was partly a product of the rise in status of positivism, an
approach that seeks to apply the scientific methods of the natural
sciences to social phenomena (see language of politics in the preceding
unit)
Normative political analysis philosophy began to make a comeback in

the 1960s and 1970s, partly as a result of the decline in consensus
politics, and partly because of the emergence of new and innovative
works of political philosophers, most notably Rawls’s A Theory of
Justice. Despite this, however, it should be recognized that a great deal
of contemporary political analysis philosophy is much more cautious
and tentative than the grand narratives of the past. This is partly in
recognition that normative questions present problems of a peculiar
nature for the political philosopher. As we shall see below, empirical
facts can play a part in the resolution of normative questions. However,
for most scholars it still remains impossible to derive normative
statements merely from empirical facts. These scholars were all moral
realists, believing that moral judgments were objectively true or false.
More importantly, they were non-naturalist realists, believing, as anti-
realists also can, that moral judgments form a separate category of
judgments, neither reducible to nor derivable from other judgments. For
them the property of goodness is not identical to any physical or natural
property, and no “ought” can be derived from an “is.” They therefore
16
POL214 MODULE 1
accepted a realist version of the autonomy of ethics: which at the level

of fundamental principles made moral judgments independent of all
other judgments (Hurka, 2009).
What type of value questions values does Normative Analysis seek to

resolve?
3.3 The Quality of Normative Analysis
Here, we are interested in finding a criterion or set of criteria for

evaluating the quality of normative analysis in the same way that
predictability does for empirical analysis. Since normative analysis
entails what ought to be, we require standards of value, or criteria for
judging which course of action is good, best or right. According to
Osaghae (1988), the view points which provide the criteria for
evaluating the quality of normative analysis include:
Naturalism
This viewpoint holds that there are certain moral values or principles
which are true and useful criteria because they are descriptions of the
true property of man. Thus, for example, knowing that we will all seek
happiness, any decision which promotes happiness is necessarily good.
This viewpoint is highly useful because it closes the gap between value
judgments and factual judgments. As it were, anything that is good
(value judgment) is factual because it has been observed to be true. This
was the view of philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham who argued that
the reason for the existence of the state is for it (the state) to fulfill “the
greatest happiness of the greatest number” (cf. Baradat, 1997). The
greatest happiness principle supplies a standard, a touchstone with
which states action can be judged. It can be used to judge state actions
by the results they produce, by their fruitfulness in pleasure and the
extent to which this pleasure actually finds expression in the lives and
experience of the individual.
Intuition
According to this view, although the quality of goodness cannot be

perceived by the ordinary senses, every man is endowed with a special
capacity for knowing what is good. For some intuitionists like St.
Augustine, the knowledge of God leads to the discovery of moral truths
and goodness. For instance when one raises the question about why
obedience should be secured for the state or why must we obey the
state? An answer can be based on religious belief. Here, obedience is
17
secured because God has commanded it. For others like Plato and
Rousseau, goodness is not necessarily from God, but one that is
discoverable through knowledge of the structure of the universe. Then,
there is St. Thomas Aquinas who believes that moral truths can be
discovered through reasoning like mathematics and logic (Dahl, 1976,
cf. Osaghae, 1988). In the same vein, Immanuel Kant talked of a
“categorical imperative” which requires everyone to "act only according
to that maxim by which at the same time should become a universal
law" (cf. Richard, 1985).
Noncognitivism or subjectivism
According to this view, intrinsic values, unlike factual assertions, cannot

be shown to be true or false. Whatever, we say is true or good is an
assertion of our .belief: “They may reveal one’s orientations or
intentions toward the world and towards one's fellow creatures but
unlike factual judgments, they lack the cognitive status of objective
propositions: hence the name noncognitivism” (Dahl, 1976, cf. Osaghae,
1988).
Normative analysis is as important today as before. Do you agree? Give

reasons for your opinion.
3.4 Empirical Analysis
The second type of analysis common to politics is empirical. Empirical

analysis seeks to identify observable phenomena in the real world with a
view to establishing what is, rather than what ought to be. Empirical
analysis, of course, is the basis of the natural sciences, and many so-
called positivist political analysts seek to bring to bear what they see as
the impartial and value free methods of the natural sciences to the study
of political phenomena.
A key element of the empirical approach to the study of political

institutions and processes is the comparative method. When political
scientists seek to develop testable generalisations by examining political
phenomena across different political systems or historically within the
same political system, they are carrying out comparative analysis.
Comparative political analysis is also an aid in understanding and
identifying those characteristics which may be universal to the political
process, regardless of time or place. For instance, to attempt an answer
to the hypothesis that democracy requires the free market and private
ownership, it is necessary to engage in a comparative examination of
different regimes so that the relationship between political and economic
18
POL214 MODULE 1
variables can be better understood. Another example, is the proposition

that electoral systems, using a form of proportional representation
tending towards producing political and economic instability can be
tested by comparing their use with regimes using alternatives such as the
first-past-the-post system. By adopting the comparative approach, new
fields of research have been developed. Areas that have benefited from
comparative studies include comparative studies of political elites in two
countries or more, political violence, and political corruption; political
socialization, political culture, political parties and interest groups.
The quality of empirical analysis depends on its explanatory and

predictive force. For instance, because empirical analysis involves
making predictions, its quality will be determined by how true the
predictions proves to be. To this extent, “empirical analysis falls short of
what we want from it if it leads to expectations about the future that are
falsified by events” (Dahl, 1976 cf. Osaghae, 1988). However, we need
to recognise the unpredictable nature of man and society because often
times, predictions which will otherwise be correct may turn out to be
false because human conditions and dispositions have changed. Because
of this, much of the predictive knowledge used in making political
decisions are in the absence of total information, probabilistic statements
or at a low level of reliability. Nevertheless, the quality of empirical
analysis continues to be important because, as much as possible we seek
to capture the real world as it exists (Osaghae, 1988).
By nature the empirical analysis of politics is divided into deductive

reasoning and inductive reasoning. Both approaches effectively move
politics away from the formalistic and legalistic study of institution
particularly, constitutions.
Inductive approaches to politics start with empirical observation from

which explanatory generalizations are generated while for deductive
approaches, theory is first deduced from principles before being tested.
How true is the fact that empirical analysis seeks to identify observable
phenomena in the real world with a view to establishing what is, rather
than what ought to be?
3.5 Semantic Analysis
The third type of analysis commonly used in politics is that of

semantics. This is also called conceptual analysis. As its name suggests,
this form of analysis is concerned with clarifying the meaning of
concepts. This is an important function in political studies. So many of
19
the concepts used in politics like power, influence, democracy, freedom,

development, even politics itself, have no commonly accepted
definitions and, indeed, have been described as ‘essentially contested
concepts’ (Gallie 1956). In effect, defining what we mean by these terms
therefore is a crucial starting point in any political analysis.
According to Osaghae (1988), there are two ways of carrying out

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. This is
called nominal definition. Second, in the case of 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.
For instance, if 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 rights 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. In essence, either of the
two ways of semantic analysis one may choose would, of course, depend
on the nature of what one intends to analyze, be it what is already known
about or the particular elements you may wish to emphasise.
Explain how semantic/conceptual analysis can be carried out.
3.6 Policy Analysis
Policy analysis involves the search for policies or course 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 the
eradication of youth militancy in the Niger Delta in Nigeria, many
options are open to us. We may combat the menace with the use of
physical force of the military, we may create jobs for the youths, we
may accelerate and expand on development programmes in the region
etc. Each of these options has the potential to help us achieve our
desired goal. But the option or options we will 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
20
POL214 MODULE 1
on. For instance, if we perceive the issue mainly as a security problem,

we will choose the military option. If we consider it a developmental
problem, then accelerating the development of the region will be our
option to stemming the problem. If we adopt the military approach, we
will have to consider not just the benefit but the relative cost as well. For
example, we would want to know the cost with regard to civilian
casualties and displacement. We will also want to know whether the
economic cost of military action in relation to the disruption of oil and
gas exploration in the region will be more than the youth militancy that
we want to stem. In addition, the government will want to know the
damage a full scale military assault in the Niger Delta will do to the its
reputation, both domestically and internationally.
All policies involve decision making by public officials that authorize or

give direction and content to public policy actions. Decision-making
involves the choice of an alternative from a series of competing
alternatives. Some decisions which affect public policy actions are
fundamental while others are largely routine and are made by officials in
the day-to-day application of public policy.
Policy making is a complex activity involving a pattern of action,

extending over time and involving many decisions. A policy is not
synonymous with a single decision. As a course of action, it is useful to
conceive of policy making as a process activity involving a series of
distinct stages which has been referred to as the policy cycle (Sambo,
1999). The policy cycle corresponds to what in conventional usage is
referred to as the policy process. The policy process is characterized by
distinct stages which include agenda setting, formulation, adoption,
Implementation and evaluation. The policy agenda is the list of subjects
or problems to which governmental officials, and people outside of
government closely associated with those officials, are paying some
serious attention at any given time. Agenda setting refers to the stage in
the policy process when officials attempt to narrow the number of
subjects which come to their attention to the set which will actually
become the focus of their attention. The policy formulation stage is the
stage at which the alternatives for dealing with a public problem are
developed. The policy adoption stage is the stage when an authoritative
choice among specified alternatives is made by governmental officials.
At the implementation stage, administrators carry out policies that have
been adopted by formal political office-holders. Finally, during the
evaluation stage of the policy process, the concern is with the
estimation, assessment, or appraisal of policy, including its content,
implementation, and effects.
Policy outcomes complete the policy cycle. Policy outcomes are the
consequences for society,-intended or unintended, that flow from action
21
or inaction by government. Concern with policy outcomes directs our

attention to the impact of public policies, namely, whether policies meet
the original goals which led to their enactment.
The policy process is characterised by distinct stages which each

command. Elected officials and their appointees command a set of
institutional as well as Organisational resources with which they
dominate the public’s attention. Through these enormous resources,
these officials are well-positioned to set the policy agenda. Professional
staffers as well as academic researchers and consultants, on the other
hand, dominate the alternative specification stage by invoking their
reservoir of special skills (Sambo, 1999).
There is no unanimity in the role of the political scientist in policy

making. While some political scientists would want to use their skills to
contribute to the betterment of society through the policy process, Webb
(1995) has argued that the best that the academic can contribute is an
academic and not as a surrogate or pseudo decision maker. In other
words, although the social scientist does have a role in the policy
process, it is a role constrained by the nature of the academic profession
and is best performed from the political process of policy-making. The
world of practice and the world of scholarship are two different worlds,
and each will benefit from the other if they remain relatively disengaged
and loyal to their own roles.
Are policies solutions which expectedly should bring desired and

satisfactory results?
3.7 Relationship between the Four Types of Political

Analysis
In reality, the four forms of political analysis described above are not
used independently of each other. As Wolff (1996: 3) succinctly points
out, ‘studying how things are helps to explain how things can be, and
studying how they can be is indispensable for assessing how they ought
to be’. Studying how things ought to be in turn is important in their
actual applicability or implementation. Thus, in the first place,
normative claims are, at least partly, based on empirical knowledge. In
other words, normative analysis itself requires prior empirical
knowledge: to know what ought to be, we require knowing what is. In
the case of Hobbes, to give one example, the normative claim that we
ought to rely on an all-powerful sovereign to protect us derives from the
largely empirical assumption that human nature is so brutally
competitive that there is a great risk to our security without the
22
POL214 MODULE 1
protection of the so-called ‘Leviathan’ (see Curtis, 2009). Conversely, a

great deal of empirical analysis presupposes some normative
assumptions. This can be seen, in particular, in our choice of
investigation. Thus, students of politics choose, say, to investigate
conflict and violence because it is assumed that conflict and violence are
undesirable and therefore we should try to eliminate them. 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 assumptions provide us the criteria for
evaluating policies. However, underlying all analysis is, of course,
semantic analysis, without which few analyses can be made (Osaghae,
1988). In the example of tackling youth militancy in the Niger Delta
given above, the policy analysis could benefit from moral considerations
such as issues related to human rights and the general issue of human
security.
The different types of political analysis are not mutually exclusive.

Discuss.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The four types of political analysis such as semantic, normative,

empirical and policy analysis were extensively examined. While each of
these types of analysis can stand alone, they are but not mutually
exclusive. On one hand, normative analysis requires empirical
knowledge: to know what ought to be, we require knowing what is.
Conversely, a great deal of empirical analysis presupposes some
normative assumptions. On the other hand, 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 assumptions provide us the criteria for evaluating policies.
However, underlying all analysis is, of course, semantic analysis which
involves the clarification of the concepts we want to use in our analysis.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have learnt the purpose for the study of political science
and the reason why we should embark on political analysis. You have
also learnt the four different types of political analysis viz: semantic,
empirical, normative and policy analyses. You have also learnt that even
though the types of analysis are distinct, they are mutually reinforcing.
23
1. What is political analysis, and how is it related to political

science?
2. The different types of political analysis are not mutually
exclusive”. Discuss.
3. List and explain three (3) criteria for evaluating normative
analysis.
7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING
Curtis, M. (ed). (2009). Great Political Theories. Expanded edition.

Retrieved August 24, 2009 from www.http://fs.hutingdon.edu/
jlewis/syl/Anthos/CurtisStuudtoutsPage3.htm
Dahl, R. (1991). Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.
Gallie, W.B. "Essentially Contested Concepts", Proceedings of the

Aristotelian Society, Vol.56, (1956), pp.167-198.
Hurka, T. (2009). “Normative Ethics: Back to the Future.” Retrieved

September13, 2009 from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~thurka/
docs/futurefinal.pdf.
Kennington, R. (1985). The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Washington

DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). .The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Laslett, P. (1956). Introduction', in: Laslett, P. (ed.. Philosophy, Politics

and Society. vii-xv.

Quinn, W. (1989). “Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The

Doctrine of Doing and Allowing.” Philosophical Review: 98. pp.
287-312.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.
24
POL214 MODULE 1
Sambo, A. (1999). “What is Public Policy?” in Anifowose, R. &

Enemuo, F. (eds.) Elements of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse Press
Ltd. pp. 281-311.
Webb. K. (1995). An Introduction to the Problems in the Philosophy of

Social Sciences. London: Pinter.
Wolff, J. (1996). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
25
UNIT 3 THE LANGUAGE OF INQUIRY IN POLITICAL

SCIENCE
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Understanding Concept
3.2 Necessary Concepts for Political Analysis
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
According to Webb (1995: 48), language has always been a matter of

prime concern in social sciences and in recent years has become an even
more contested area. At one end of the spectrum is the school of thought
that believes that by precise definition and classification social science
can build rigorous and useful models and theories about the world. At
this end of the spectrum, there would tend to be a close identification of
social science with natural science. At the other end of the spectrum are
those who see language as infinite, flexible and precise meaning as
forever unobtainable. According to this view, any attempt to ‘capture’
the world theoretically is doomed to failure.
Definitions generally, are neither right nor wrong. There are various
types of definitions however, of all these definitions; the most important
is the one which gives a special meaning in order to increase the
precision of the use. All fields of discipline develop specific meanings,
whether we are talking about sport, business or academic disciplines.
Consequently, those desiring to join that specialist field will often have
to undergo a lengthy period of socialization in order to learn the range of
special meanings. Without such a vocabulary, the students would be
incapable of taking part in the disciplinary discourse (Webb, ibid: 51-
52).
In this unit, we are going to introduce you to the language; some would
say vocabulary, often used in political science inquiry. However, it
should be pointed out that some of these terms are social science terms
and they are heavily influenced by the general debate on the question of
whether a science of social reality is possible which we shall treat in the
next unit. Thus in concrete terms it means that this unit discusses the
terms and problems related to making knowledge claims about social
26
POL214 MODULE 1
and political phenomena. These terms are not restricted to political

science but are generally used in the debate about knowledge, research
and method in the social sciences. So you should not be surprised see
any of these concepts in your other lectures in the social sciences.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 explain the language/vocabulary often used in political science

inquiry
 describe the terms and problems related to making knowledge
claims about social and political phenomena.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Understanding Concepts
A concept is an abstraction or general notion that may serve as a unit of

a theory. Concepts are the generally accepted bundle of meanings or
characteristics associated with certain events, processes, conditions,
behavior (actions) and situations (Cooper & Schindler, 2001: 39 cf. Paki
& Inokoba, 2006: 94). Like any other field of scientific inquiry, Political
Science is replete with a lot of concepts that form part of the building
blocks of the discipline. Popular concepts in Political Science include
democracy, development, state, etc. Some concepts can be powerful
thinking tools even when they are not at all fully understood. Perhaps
most concepts are components of theories or explanations. At least they
seem (though not always correctly) to give fairly direct insight into the
nature of things.
As earlier stated in our discussion on the meaning of politics, there is a

lack of agreement among scholars on the basic concepts of Political
Science. Each scholar’s position on any given concept is largely
informed by his ideological orientation, academic tradition and the
context of experience. As such, concepts may be more or less clear, and
a major part of research is devoted to clarifying them. This can be
extremely difficult. In political analysis, concept clarity and concision
are important. To achieve such clarity and concision, political scientists
precisely define any terms or concepts that are important to the
arguments that they make. This precision often requires that they
“operationalize” key terms or concepts, which simply means that they
define them so that they can be measured or tested through scientific
investigation.
27
To give you an example of the kind of “rigor” and “objectivity” political

scientists aim for in their writing, let's examine how someone might
operationalise a concept. For example, we are all familiar with the
concept “democracy” If you were asked to define the term, you might
make a statement like the following: “Democracy is government by the
people.” You would, of course, be correct- democracy is government by
the people. But, in order to evaluate whether or not a particular
government is fully democratic or is more or less democratic when
compared with other governments, we would need to have more precise
criteria with which to measure or assess democracy. Most political
scientists agree that these criteria should include the following rights and
freedoms for citisens:
1. Freedom to form and join organisations

2. Freedom of expression
3. Right to vote
4. Eligibility for public office
5. Right of political leaders to compete for support
6. Right of political leaders to compete for votes
7. Alternative sources of information
8. Free and fair elections
9. Institutions for making government policies depend on votes and
other expressions of preference
By adopting these nine criteria, we now have a definition that will allow
us to measure democracy. Thus, if you want to determine whether or not
Nigeria is less democratic than the United States of America (USA), you
can evaluate each country in terms of the degree to which they fulfill the
above criteria.
How does operationalisation of concepts help measuring in political

Analysis?
3.2 Concepts Necessary in Political Analysis
Generalisation:
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. It is often argued that it is the business of social
science to be a generalizing activity, so that the propositions it makes
about people or political systems have relevance beyond a particular
system. Hence a generalisation such as ‘bi-cameral legislatures are
found under federalism’ would as a social scientific statement be held to
28
POL214 MODULE 1
be applicable in all federal countries whether we are talking of Nigeria

or Belgium. However, the point should be stated that in the social
sciences, it is difficult to have generalisations that are laws which give
no exceptions. Given that societies and events sufficiently differ in their
essentials across time and place (Webb, 1995), generalisation in the
social sciences can at best be probabilistic rather than law-like
statements.
Hypotheses
Hypotheses are tentative explanations, suppositions, or assertions that

are formulated to be tested and, when extensively tested and confirmed,
either take on the views of the world. Most political scientists adhere to
a simple model of scientific inquiry when building theories. The key to
building precise and persuasive theories is to develop and test
hypotheses. Hypotheses are statements that researchers construct for the
purpose of testing whether or not a certain relationship exists between
two phenomena. To see how political scientists use hypotheses, and to
imagine how you might use a hypothesis to develop a thesis for your
paper, consider the following example. Suppose that we want to know if
presidential elections are affected by economic conditions. We could
formulate this question into the following hypothesis: “When the
national unemployment rate is greater than 7 percent at the time of the
election, presidential incumbents are not reelected.”
Variables
A variable is a property that takes on different values or assumes

different characteristics. Take democracy for instance. Democracy can
mean free and fair elections, freedom of the press, or freedom of
association. There are two types of variables. First, there is the
dependent variable, which is what is to be explained by another variable.
Second, there is the independent variable, which is the variable which
explains the dependent variable. 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 other occurrences. This
means that “if A then B” is a more acceptable explanation than “If A, B,
C, D” (Osaghae, 1988).
However, the independent and dependent variables are not the only
variables present in many research. In some cases, extraneous variables
may also play a role. This type of variable is one that may have an
impact on the relationship between the independent and dependent
29
variables. In such cases, the researcher will note the values of these
extraneous variables so that impacts on the results can be controlled.
Theories
Theories are those explanations of uniformities that involve two or more

generalisations 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 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 (Osaghae, 1988).
Specifically, theories perform the following roles in political analysis.

First, theories are intended as descriptive models for understanding
political phenomena. Second, theories are also intensely prescriptive.
That is, they are normative specifications of what and how policies
ought to be.
The role of theory in political analysis is to give direction to inquiry.

Theories provide needed guidelines for focusing our effort in weaving
through and making sense of the mass of data political researchers
unearth and to try and identify and explain relationships between them.
Theories are useful in political analysis because they simplify and
clarify our thinking about politics and the political process; help us to
identify important aspects of policy problems; help us to communicate
with each other by focusing on essential features of political life; direct
our efforts to understanding political process better by suggesting what
is important and what is unimportant; and suggest explanations for
political process and actions and predict their consequences.
Generally, the theories we use in political science could be empirical

(based on what is) or normative (based on what ought to be). For
scientific purpose 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 (see unit 2 for
more on the normative, empirical and the other types of political
analysis).
Scientific Laws
Are statements of universal uniformity used as explanatory characters

and as predictive statements. A law talks of absolute properties which
have no exceptions. The unpredictable nature of human behaviours
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to develop laws in the social
sciences. For example, it is difficult, to say that “the fundamental cause
of violent conflict is poverty”, because we would certainly find countries
30
POL214 MODULE 1
or states where the rate of poverty is high but where violent conflict has
not taken place. At the same time, we will also find countries or states
where poverty is low but where violent conflict takes place often.
Classification
Classification may be considered as the activity of grouping objects with

perceived similarities or attributes into two or more named classes.
Classification rests basically on the recognition of similarities and
differences and the ability to group these into sets. Classification
involves definition and is itself an extended form of definition. Every
classification schema involves at least an implied definition of each
class within the schema plus a definition along which the classified
phenomena are ranged (Webb, 1995). For instance, we can classify
societies into developed, developing, and underdeveloped societies.
However, the dimensions of classifications and the nature of the classes
within a dimension have the ability to structure the way we see the
world, and changes in the nature of classes have the ability to restructure
our perceptions with effects that stretched far beyond a mere linguistic
change (Webb, 1995: 57).
Verifiability
A proposition is said to be verified when it has been checked or tested

by many specialists in the relevant field of study and when they all agree
that other scientists and the general public can believe it to be true.
However, there are no certainties in anything but probabilities. The
probability that some propositions will hold true, is so great that they
can be treated as certainties, but in the social sciences, this is not the
case. If scientific knowledge is to be verifiable, science must be
empirical, that is, scientific statements must be descriptive of the
empirical world. Similarly, if scientific knowledge is to be verifiable, the
desire for reliability and, ultimately, for verifiability has been the chief
factor leading to the adoption of quantitative methods.
Systematic
Knowledge is said to be systematic when it is organised into an

intelligible pattern, or structure, with significant relationships made
clear. To achieve a system, scientists seek out similarities and
differences of political events or phenomena. While looking for
similarities and differences, scientists also look for relationship, whether
correlational or causal relations. In effect, concern for systematic
knowledge means that scientists want to proceed from particular towards
general facts, from knowledge of isolated facts towards knowledge of
connections between facts.
31
Positivism
This refers to an approach that seeks to apply the scientific methodology

of the natural sciences to social phenomena. Positivism holds that
science must limit itself to those things that are observable, thereby
insisting upon a clear separation between fact and value. At the extreme,
positivism—in the form of the doctrine known as logical positivism—
holds that only those statements that can be investigated by observation,
and those that can be examined semantically, are worthwhile. Normative
questions are regarded as more or less meaningless. This approach was
associated in particular with the French social scientist Auguste Comte,
who argued that the scientific stage of history now upon us would
dominate (Webb, 1995).
An extreme version of positivism was a school of thought known as

logical positivism, centering on a group of philosophers known as the
‘Vienna Circle’ (see Ayer, 1971). For logical positivists, only statements
which are empirically verifiable and those which sought to say
something about the meaning of concepts and the relations between
them are legitimate. Normative statements, seeking to make claims of
value are regarded as meaningless.
Explanations
This is one of the major aims of the scientific method. Explanations may
in general be defined as ‘the reduction of the unfamiliar to the familiar’
(Webb, 1995). Scientific explanation involves an appeal to laws or
generalizations which specify relationship among variables, in addition
to the conditions present in the explanatory situation. In other words, we
can explain an event by deducing if from one or 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 justices the inference from A to B. The major
problem here is that in social science there are no ‘laws’ in the way that
there are in natural science, although there are generalizations.
Prediction
This is the other goal of science. 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
32
POL214 MODULE 1
types of events are likely to occur given certain conditions. For instance
in the case of violent conflict, we may predict that if the human needs of
American citizens are deprived, they are likely to resort to violence.
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 the human needs of American
citizens are deprived, there is a high probability that they will resort to
violence. Words like “most likely”’, “tend to” and “most probably”
convey the probabilistic nature of predictions in political science.
Falsification
The doctrine of falsification is a doctrine of science that claims that

there is no way we can know what is true among competing
explanations of the world. Rather we can know what is false. The
process of science, therefore, is the progressive elimination of what is
false, with what is left un-falsified representing that which is nearer the
truth (Popper, 1979). According to Karl Popper, one of the famous
proponents of this doctrine, this is an ‘evolutionary’ theory of
knowledge, which sees human knowledge as developing through trial
and error, conjecture and refutation, although the evolution may not be
perfect. Seen from this perspective, the essence of a scientific theory,
then, is its potential for falsification (Popper, 1974). A theory which is
not falsifiable may be a perfectly good theory, but it is not a scientific
theory.
Induction
This is the practice of inferring generalisations from past occurrences

which then shape expectations for the future. Induction has been defined
as “the process by which the scientist forms a theory to explain the
observed facts” (Kemeny, 1959. p. 53). It is an extrapolation from the
past to the future in the expectation that the future will continue to
behave in the same manner as in the past. Induction starts with empirical
observation from which explanatory generalisations are generated. A
classic version of induction is an approach known as behaviouralism.
The problem with deductive reasoning is that it tends to focus more on
gathering empirical data than it does on the generation of theory.
Another weakness of the inductive method is that the type of hypotheses
generated by inductive tends not to be explanatory—in the sense of
33
offering a casual link between generalisations. Rather, they tend to be

merely patterns of statistical correlation (Hay, 2002: 79). Finding
correlations between phenomena is not the same as the one explaining
the other. To give an example, the identification of a statistical
correlation between, say, social class and voting behaviour does not, by
itself, explain why this correlation exists.
Deduction
For deductive reasoning, theory is deduced first from principles before

being tested. The deductive reasoning is strong on theory but not so
much on empirical testing,
Paradigms
A paradigm is a concept for understanding the framing and structuring

of knowledge production in the natural sciences proposed by Thomas
Kuhn (1970) in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution.
According to Kuhn, a scientific discipline is characterized by agreement
on the fundamentals of that discipline. When such agreement pertains,
the discipline is enjoying a period of normal as opposed to extraordinary
or revolutionary science. The activity of the scientist is constrained to
work within the framework of the paradigm and to engage in the activity
of problem-solving; the paradigm is largely unquestioned and a research
failure is the consequence of a lack of creativity on the part of the
individual scientist. Through the process of developing (and amending)
the paradigms, increasing complexity occurs. As the paradigm is
developed into new areas and used to solve new problems, an increasing
number of ad hoc hypotheses become incorporated as measures to
‘save’ the paradigm. It thus becomes increasingly inevitable that an
alternative perspective, which is marked by greater simplicity, in the
sense that what were problems or anomalies in the old paradigm are
expectations within the new. A period of revolutionary science ensues,
where there is conflict between the adherents of the old and new. The
period of revolutionary science ends with the establishment of a new
paradigm as the unquestioned framework within which problem-solving
occurs.
However, others have argued that social science knowledge is ideally

better seen as tentative rather than as organised by one paradigm or
another in the strict sense of the term. As Schram (2003) argued, the
idea of paradigm has no relevance to social science except as its own
form of imitation. Definitive research is what natural scientists do.
Given the lack of consensus on concepts used in the social sciences, the
complexity of human behaviour (in contrast to the more predictable
nature of non-living things) ideally should not be seen as amenable to
34
POL214 MODULE 1
being organised as paradigms in any strict sense of the term. The

argument here is that given the subject matter, there ideally should be no
normal science in any one of the social sciences. Regardless of the fact
that both natural and social science are forms of learning in context that
produce value-laden facts, social life, as opposed to the objects of
natural scientific inquiry, involves multiple interpretive lenses offering a
cacophony of competing perspectives emanating from its origins in
conscious, thinking human beings. Under these conditions, no one form
of disciplined study of social life should be organized definitely to
exclude the consideration of multiple perspectives (Schram, 2003).
List and explain the various concepts in the social science necessary for
empirical research?
4.0 CONCLUSION
This unit examined the language or vocabulary for empirical research in

political science in particular and the social sciences in general. In
effect, a few of the issues and debates about what we can know about
the world and causal relations were also examined.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you considered some specific terms that are important to
political science analysis. You also learnt that some of these terms and
debates are raised within the broader issue of social science research and
the unending question with regards to whether or not the scientific study
of social phenomena is desirable.
1. What is a paradigm? At what stage does social science find itself

in the pattern of scientific progress envisioned by Thomas Kuhn
in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution?
2. Discuss the following itemised concept: (a) variables (b)
hypothesis (c) prediction.
3. In what way is the operationalisation of concepts important for
political and social scientific inquiry?
35
Ayer, A.J. (1971). Russell and Moore: The Analytical Heritage.

London: Macmillan.
Gehring, J. (2001). Social Science Methodology: A Criteria Framework.

New York: Cambridge.
Kemeny, J. (1959). A Philosopher Looks at Science. Princeton: Van

Nostrand.
King, G.; Keohane, R. & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edition).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Osaghae, E. (1988). Political Analysis (POS211). Ibadan: University of

Paki, F. & Inokoba, P. (2006). An Invitation to Political Science. Port

Harcourt: Kemuela Publications.
Popper, K. (1974). “Campbell on the Evolutionary Theory of

Knowledge” in Schilpp, P. (Ed.). The Philosophy of Karl Popper.
(Vol. II). LA Salle, Ill: Open Court Publishing Company. 1061-
1065.
Popper, K. (1979). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schram, S. (2003). “Review Essay: Return to Politics Perestroika and

Post-paradigmatic Political Science.” Political Theory
(December): 835-851.
Tilly, C. (1995). “To Explain Political Processes,” American Journal of

Sociology: 100, (6) (May). pp. 1594-1610.

36
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 4 IS POLITICAL SCIENCE A SCIENCE?
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Aims of the Scientific Method
3.2 Can Politics be a Science?
3.3 Is Political Science a Science? An Unending Debate
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, I want us to consider the question often posed about whether
political science is a ‘science’ or whether the scientific study of politics
is actually possible. You will recall that at the beginning of the last
lecture, most of the vocabularies used by political science are used to
describe the discipline as scientific. But it is often asked whether social
sciences, such as politics, can be, or ought to aim to be scientific.
The debate about whether or not political science is or can be a ‘science’

has been part of a broad dispute about methodology in social sciences.
According to Ryan (1981), ‘there is only one methodological question
about the social sciences, and that is whether they are sciences at all.’
For Political Science, this debate is a ‘complex, voluminous and multi-
faceted’ one (Hay, 2002: 75), and we can only touch upon its major
themes here.
The major aim in this unit therefore, is to present the two sides of the
arguments about a science of politics. I shall begin the unit by
highlighting the key aims of the scientific method. Thereafter, I shall
examine whether or not political science is a ‘science’ or whether or not
the scientific study of politics is actually possible.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 identify the aims of Scientific Method

 contribute to the question of whether Politics can be a Science
 contribute to the unending debate about whether political Science
is a ‘Science’.
37
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Aims of the Scientific Method
Pure science is concerned with obtaining accurate knowledge about the

structure and behaviour of the physical universe. It deals with rational
and systematic analysis of known facts. It is fact seeking as well as fact-
using. The ultimate goal of science is the classification of facts, and on
the basis of such classification, the formulation of a body of general
rules and logically consistent and universally valid statements about the
universe.
Scientific method entails vigorous procedures starting from selection of

problems to be solved or analysed, followed by formulation of
hypothesis, gathering of data and testing of hypothesis, and finally, the
use of findings to refute, modify or support existing theories. To
evaluate the findings of their own studies and of others, scientists
employ a number of knowledge, to be scientific it must be characterised
by verifiability; it must be systematic and must, have general
applicability. Scientific knowledge on any subject, designed to facilitate
explanation and prediction can be thought of as a pyramid rising from a
base of specific bits of data up through more general facts to
propositions, laws, and theories.
According to Hollis and Smith (1990: 50), the scientific investigation

aims ‘to detect the regularities in nature, propose a generalisation,
deduce what it implies for the next case and observe whether the
prediction succeeds. If it does, no consequent action is needed; if it does
not, then either discard the generalization or amend it and test the fresh
predictions (cf. Marsh and Furlong, 2002).
Although, some of the features and aims of science have been listed in
our preceding lecture however, it is pertinent to reiterate “in specific
terms the important goals which science aims at” (Osaghae, 1988).
These are:
1. Value-free Analysis: This refers to the quest for objectivity and

neutrality in political analysis. To be scientific, the analyst must
analyze facts (data) as they are rather than as they ought to be. As
much as possible, personal likes and dislike, interest or values
must be kept out of any analysis.
2. Empirical Analysis: This analysis is concerned with ‘what is’

rather than ‘what ought to be’. It focuses its emphasis on direct
observation to discover things as they really are as well as their
relationships with other things, and the regularisation of their
38
POL214 MODULE 1
occurrence. It is on these observed regularities that we base our

explanations and predictions.
3. Explanation: Scientific explanations appeal to generalizations

and theories in explaining specific occurrence. If these
generalisations and the particular conditions of the occurrence are
true, then the conclusion(s) must be true.
4. Prediction: This takes the same logical form as explanation, but

it is different because it is forward-looking, and involves
specifying conditions under which certain occurrences are likely
to take place. However, because of the unpredictability of man’s
actions and behaviour, predictions in political science cannot be
absolutely certain, no matter how adequate the explanations on
which such predictions are based may be. To this extent, in
political science, it is convenient and more realistic to talk of the
probabilities of events actually taking place. For example, we
may say that if human beings are deprived of the satisfaction of
their basic needs, there is a high probability that they will resort
to violence. Words like “most likely”, “tend to” and “most
probably” convey the probabilistic nature of predictions in
political science (Osaghae, 1988).
5. Theories: A scientific theory is a set of generalisations which

specify the direction of relationship among variable. Theories are
therefore the major ingredients of explanations. But for them to
be really helpful in this regard, they should be general and not
restrictive. Finally, a good theory should be open to further
empirical tests.
6. Laws: Are statement of universal uniformities which relate to all

the cases of a particular phenomenon. i.e they do not allow for
exceptions. They are useful for both explanations and predictions,
but do not possess as much explanatory power as theories do
though they have greater certainty.
Highlight some of the features and aims of science?
3.2 Can Politics Be a Science?
Having highlighted the key aim of science, we are now in a better

position to answer the question “Can Politics be a Science?” Or rather
“Is a science of politics possible?”
39
For some, there is and can be a science of politics. The argument here is
that political science like other social sciences has a scientific character
because of the scientific method and the scientific tools it employs in
examining phenomena. That is, it is a science to the extent that it
accumulates facts that are verifiable, links these facts together in causal
sequences (systematically) and from these, makes generalisations of
fundamental principles and formulate theories.
However, others believe that political science or the social science in

general cannot be a science because the material with which it deals is
incapable of being treated exactly the same way as physics or chemistry.
While physics and chemistry are natural or physical science, and deal
with matter; the social sciences which include political science,
sociology, economics, etc. deal with man in society. Man in society is
not only unpredictable but, also extremely cumbersome to observe
accurately because he/she is ever-changing, and his/her environment is
difficult to control. From these perspectives, the major reasons why
politics is not and can never be a science are given below (Appadorai,
1975).
Difficulty of Value-Free Analysis
Some political scientists believe that it is difficult, if not impossible, for

political analysis to be value-free. We impose our own assumptions and
norms on our work from the very start of a research project, the choice
of which is imbued with our own sense of its importance and values
(Webb, 1995). For instance, a student of politics 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’s analysis of the
same event differ, some times so markedly, that you find it difficult to
believe that they are analyzing the same thing.
The other problem is, is it desirable for the political analyst to be

objective for its own sake? After knowing things as they are (assuming
that he/she 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 and this responsibility involves values and norms. To attempt to
exclude them is to miss much of what is valuable in a study of the
political. As Webb (1995) has argued, “a social science that attempts to
exclude intention and purpose cannot meaningfully interpret human
behaviour since most human behaviour is purposive with respect to
40
POL214 MODULE 1
goals. It is the larger normative and metaphysical questions that give

meaning to social science and to attempt to exclude such questions in
favour of a purely factual social science would render that activity arid
and ultimately meaningless.”
Uncertainties and Unpredictability in human life
The other essential reason is that 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 about him.
Consequently, it is difficult to formulate universal or general theories,
much less ‘laws’ because there would always be exceptions to observed
regularities. As long as this cannot be overcome, explanations and
predictions in political science will remain incomplete and inadequate.
The argument here is that because of the uncertainties and

unpredictability in human life it is difficult to say why man behaves in a
particular way. In studying man therefore, political scientists mostly
depend on what he/she tells them 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
can not 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 quantitatively analyzed.
Examine the reasons given why political science is not a ‘science’.
3.3 Is Political Science a Science? An Unending Debate
The debate over whether a science of politics is possible or desirable is

not likely to be completely resolved. To a certain extent, the answer to
the question depends upon whether we adopt a loose or rigid definition
of science. A more rigid definition would involve applying the
methodology of the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry to
41
the political realm, as is attempted in the behavioural approach. Here, an

appropriate definition of science might be ‘the ability to generate
neutral, dispassionate and objective knowledge claims’ (Hay, 2002: 87).
The attractions of developing a value-free and objective account of
politics where we can identify the ‘truth’ about political phenomena are
obvious. However, the claims about a science of politics at this more
rigid level can be challenged on two main grounds. In the first place, one
can question whether the methods of natural science can be transferred
to a social science such as politics. At a second, more fundamental,
level, one can question whether the whole scientific enterprise, in both
natural and social settings, is a valid and useful exercise. I will elaborate
further.
At the first level, it is the social element of politics which is the key.
Human beings, as stated earlier, are unpredictable and are not amenable
to unbending scientific laws in the way that, say, the workings of
molecules are in the natural sciences. In other words, as Hay (2002: 50)
points out, what makes the social sciences qualitatively different from
the natural sciences is that the ‘former must deal with conscious and
reflexive subjects, capable of acting differently under the same stimuli,
whereas the units which comprise the latter can be assumed inanimate,
unreflexive and hence entirely predictable in response to external
stimuli’. The argument here is that there are obvious differences
between social and physical or natural phenomena that make social
‘science’ impossible. Stoker and March (2002) elaborates further:
First, social structures, unlike natural structures, do not

exist independently of the activities they shape. The
experiences of agents affect their understanding of the
social world and also helps change it. Second, and related,
social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist
independently of agents’ views of what they are doing in
the activity. People are reflexive; they reflect on what they
are doing and often change their actions in the light of that
reflection. This leads us to the third difference. Social
structures, unlike natural structures, change as a result of
the action of agents; in most cases the social world varies
across time and space.
Because political scientists deal with large numbers of people in an

uncontrolled setting where each individual has many behavioural
options open to him, it is near impossible to make generalisation on
observed facts. The unpredictability of human beings not only leads us
to question the application of the ‘scientific’ method to the field of social
studies, it also reminds us that social researchers often face ethical
dilemmas in their work. We cannot treat human subjects with the same
42
POL214 MODULE 1
detachment that natural sciences treat inanimate objects. Humans can

feel emotional and physical distress that researchers have to take into
account. The understanding we seek of human beings must appreciate
their individual uniqueness and freedom of will; understanding people is
based on our ability to see events from their point of view.
Moreover, the prescriptions that might emanate from social research, or

that might be derived from it by others, can have important ethical
dimensions. An example here would be the implications of social
research that led to claims being made about the importance of race, or
gender, in determining intelligence and therefore political worth.
Seen from the perspectives of the difficulty of achieving a value-free

analysis and also the uncertainties and unpredictability in human life,
many have argued that political science and the social sciences are not
‘science’, and become merely narrow and sterile if they attempt to copy
the methods and assumptions of the natural sciences.
At a more fundamental level however, the core assumption of the

scientific project itself has been challenged. The criticism here is that it
is unfair to criticize politics for not being a ‘science’ because there is no
true value-free science in the first place. We should therefore question
the claim that there can be a value-free exercise to which we can attach
the label ‘science’, rather than solely questioning the scientific merits of
politics. As Hay (2002: 87) remarks, the natural scientist, just like the
social scientist, is ‘socially and politically embedded within a complex
and densely structured institutional and cultural landscape which they
cannot simply escape by climbing the ivory tower of academe to look
down with scientific dispassion and disinterest on all they survey’.
Webb (1995) agrees with this view when he writes:
If one leaves aside religious belief and revelation, the only

thing which we are left with is human understandings that
will vary in time and space. There can be nothing else.
Often social science is contrasted with natural science in
that natural science is believed to have discovered natural
laws that are invariable in time and space. Natural science
however refers to how much humans can construct as any
other mental production and as such is subject to change
and revision. Similarly with social sciences, the theories
and models we use to understand and describe ‘reality’ are
human constructs and can only be evaluated according to
criteria that we know to be contentious and imperfect.
This idea that ‘scientific’ knowledge is in part at least socially

constructed is the basis of the contemporary, so-called, ‘interpretist’
43
approach which has emerged to challenge positivism (see Bevir and

Rhodes, 2002). Scholars writing from this view-point argue that the
adoption of science by the social scientists was naive in that it was based
on the supposition that there is a ‘thing’ called the scientifc method and
that in many ways, science is like social science. But science itself is not
like science in the way imagined by many social scientists; rather social
science is like science in the sense that it is marked by constant debate
and dispute over fact, theory, and method (Webb, 1995). The
consequence of this understanding is that science itself is not determined
by the absolute requirements of its discourse (the idea that the universe
is regular, law-governed, for instance), but is structured by the societies
in which it operates. Thus the natural science has no more claim to be a
science than the social science.
Seen from this perspective, political science has claim to the title
‘science’ not because the notion of explanation extant in the natural
science is a model (Webb, 1995) for it but because political science, just
like the natural science, is an example of a more general model of
explanation that “rests its claim on the tenet that all knowledge is public
and subject to challenge. There are no hidden truths and no purveyors of
truth that can never be wrong. Political science demands from its
practitioners that they produce arguments and evidence that will
convince others” (Stoker, 1995). In other words:
Political science demands logical coherence. This implies

precise and clear definitions of key concepts and justified
derivations. Arguments should be constructed in a way
that avoids inconsistencies and vagueness. Political
science also demands a commitment to assessing whether
the evidence assembled to support a proposition is
adequate to the task (Stoker, 1995).
It is unfair to criticise politics for not being a ‘science’ because there is

no true value-free science in the first place. Explain.
4.0 CONCLUSION
This unit brought to fore the fact that although political scientists are
prone to debates and disagreements, majority view the discipline as a
genuine science. As a result, political scientists generally strive to
emulate the objectivity as well as the conceptual and methodological
rigor typically associated with the so-called "hard" sciences (e.g.,
biology, chemistry, and physics) so as to be able to reveal the
relationships underlying political events and conditions. And in
44
POL214 MODULE 1
accordance to conforming to the rigor, objectivity, and logical

consistency of the sciences political scientists' try to be conceptually
precise, free from bias, and empirical in their attempt to construct
general principles about the way the world of politics works. In other
words, in contrast to scholars in such fields as literature, art history or
classics, political scientists avoid the use of impressionistic or
metaphorical language, or language which appeals primarily to our
senses, emotions, or moral beliefs political scientists persuade through
their command of the facts and their ability to relate those facts to
theories that can withstand the test of empirical investigation.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have examined the debate about whether a science of

politics is possible or desirable. We have seen that for some, there is and
can be a science of politics. For these scholars, political science like
other social sciences has a scientific character because of the scientific
method and the scientific tools it employs in examining phenomena. We
have also seen that for others, political science is not and cannot be, and
is not a science. Reasons adduced by the scholars who take this position
relate to the difficulty of value-free analysis uncertainties and
unpredictability in human life.
1. With the application of some of the features and aims of science,

will the science of politics be possible?
2. “A value-free politics is not achievable.” Discuss
3. The uncertainties and unpredictability in human life renders the
scientific quest of politics futile.
Appadorai, A. (1975). The Substance of Politics. Delhi: Oxford

University Press.
Bevir, M. & Rhodes, R. (2002). “ Interpretative Theory” in Marsh, D.

& Stoker, G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science (2nd
edition).Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bevir, M. (2006). Political Studies as Narrative and Science, 1880-

2000.” Political Studies 54. (October). pp. 583-606.
Gallie, W.B. (1956). “Art as an Essentially Contested Concept.” The

Philosophical Quaterly. 6 (23). April. pp. 97-114.
45
Macintyre, A. (1978). “Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible?”

in Paul Lewis et al., (eds.). The Practice of Comparative Politics
(2nd ed). New York: Longman: 266-84.
Marsh, D. & Furlong, P. (2002) “Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and

Epistemology in Political” in MARSH, D. & Stoker, G. (eds.)
Theory and Methods in Political Science (2nd ed.). Basingstoke
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ryan, A. (1981). ‘Is the Study of Society a Science?’ in Potter, D. et al.

Society and the Social Sciences. London: Routlegde.
Stoker, G. (1995). “Introduction” in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G (eds.)

Pres.
Stoker, G. & March, D. (2002) “Introduction” in Marsh, D. & Stoker,

G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science. 2nd
Ed.Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

46
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 5 EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AS A

DISCIPLINE
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Political science from Early Beginnings to Modern
Developments
3.2 The Behavioural Revolution or Behaviouralism
3.3 Contributing Factors to the emergence of the
Behaviouralism
3.4 The Main Features of the Behaviouralism
3.5 Criticisms of the Behaviouralism
3.6 The “Perestroika” Movement
3.7 The Evolution of Political Science Discipline: Continuity
in Changes
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
According to the eminent political scientist David Easton, "Political

Science in mid-twentieth century is a discipline in search of its identity.
Through the efforts to solve this identity crisis, it has begun to show
evidence of emerging as an autonomous and independent discipline with
a systematic structure of its own" (quoted in US History Encyclopedia,
2009). However, the search for identity in political science was not just
restricted to the mid-twentieth century. It has been a characteristic
feature of the discipline from the beginning.
This unit aims at providing an introduction to the evolution of the

political science discipline. It highlights the discipline’s initial attempt at
demarcating its intellectual boundaries and severing its organisational
ties from other academic fields, particularly history, and the subsequent
rapid advance of the discipline in the course of the second half of the
twentieth century as well as the challenges which it had to confront. It is
scarcely exaggerated to say that, before 1945, political science was still
in a rudimentary state, despite the fact that a number of the discipline’s
‘founding fathers' had, in the previous two to three thousand years,
shown the need to study political activity and had begun to do so in
what was, however, an elementary manner. Rather suddenly -and
especially as a result of the events of the 1930s and 1940s -a burgeoning
47
of ideas occurred after World War 2. This resulted into a ‘breakthrough’

on the theoretical, methodological and empirical planes giving political
science the basis from which it could be the recognized discipline which
it has become today (Boyer, 2001). Yet at the same time, right from the
beginning when the discipline has been characterized -and sometimes
sharply divided –over goals, methods, and appropriate subject matter as
political scientists tried to resolve the often conflicting objectives of its
four main scholarly traditions: (1) legalism, or constitutionalism; (2)
activism and reform; (3) philosophy, or the history of political ideas; and
(4) science (US History Encyclopedia, 2009).
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 trace the evolution of Political science from early beginnings to

modern developments
 explain what the Behavioural Revolution or Behaviouralism
means
 identify the Factors which contributed to the emergence of
Behaviouralism
 state the Main Features of the Behaviouralism
 state the Criticisms of the Behaviouralism
 explain what we mean by the “Perestroika” Movement.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Political Science from Early Beginnings to Modern

Developments
Political science is the study of government and political processes,

institutions, and behaviour. Government and politics have been studied
and commented on since the time of the ancient Greeks. However, it
was only with the general systematisation of the social sciences in the
last 100 years that political science has emerged as a an independent
discipline in higher education, previously being subsumed under other
disciplines such as law, philosophy, and history and other fields
concerned with normative determinations of what ought to be and with
deducing the characteristics and functions of the ideal state (Columbia
Encyclopedia, 2009).
The antecedent of Western politics can trace their roots back to Plato
(427–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC). For instance, Plato analyzed
political systems, abstracted their analysis from more literary- and
history- oriented studies and applied an approach we would understand
48
POL214 MODULE 1
as closer to philosophy. Similarly, Aristotle built upon Plato's analysis to

include historical empirical evidence in his analysis. Aristotle first used
the term politics to refer to the affairs of a Greek city-state as well as
observing that ‘man by nature is a political animal.’ By this he meant
that the essence of social existence is politics and that two or more men
interacting with one another are invariably involved in a political
relationship. It is from ‘polis’ that we derive our modern world politics.
Between the 16th and early 20th century’s, European political

philosophers established a narrower definition of politics. For example,
Jean Bodin (1430-1596), a French political philosopher, who first used
the term "political science" (science politique) was a lawyer. Because of
his legal training, Bodin focused on the characteristics of the state more
than any other aspect of the political process. He concentrated on
analysing the relationship between the organisation of the state and how
this relates to law.
Another French philosopher Montesquieu (1689-1755) argued that the

functions of government could be encompassed within the categories of
legislation, execution, and the adjudication of law. Montesquieu
categories found their way into the United States Constitution and other
Republican Constitutions with the assumption that liberty was best
assured by separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive
and the Judiciary. It was the work of these two philosophers that
imposed a restricted definition of politics on political scientists. Political
scientist for years concentrated almost exclusively on the Executive, the
Legislature and the Judiciary as major concern until recently.
In the mid 19th century, Darwin's theory of evolution and natural

selection began to exert a powerful influence upon political science. In
fact, Biology came to reinforce history in the study of political
institutions, which were seen as the product of historical change and,
apparently organic evolution. The development of sociology after the
19th century prompted political scientists to give more attention to the
impact on government of social forces not defined with reference to the
institutional outline of the state. The industrialisation of previously
agricultural societies and sharpening clash between the emergent
working classes and their employers (industrialists) compelled a closer
study of economic facts, forces and trends, as these produced political
problems and helped to shape political behaviour.
The first institution dedicated to the study of politics, the Free School of
Political Science, was founded in Paris in 1871 (Britannica Concise
Encyclopedia, 2009 britannica.com) The American Political Science
Association was founded in 1903 and its journal, American Political
Science Review, was founded in 1906 in an effort to distinguish the
49
study of politics from economics and other social phenomena. The

advent of political science as a university discipline was marked by the
creation of university departments and chairs with the title of political
science arising in the late 19th century, and the integration of political
studies of the past into a unified discipline.
The advent of World War II brought about a re-think by political

scientist that legislature, Executives, agencies, and the Courts did not
exist by themselves and that they did not operate independently of one
another or of the other political organisations in society. Political
scientists in America and Europe embarked on new fields of study by
examining the political parties, interest groups, trade unions, as well as
corporations and church organisations. This was the behavioural
revolution in the social sciences.
The antecedent of Western politics can trace their roots back to Plato
(427–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC). Explain.
3.2 The Behavioural Revolution or Behaviouralism
As noted above, the method of studying Political Science before the

World War II was largely unscientific and largely descriptive.
According to Truman, Political Science as a discipline before
behaviouralism was characterised by six features:
1. A lack of concern with political system as such, including the

American Political System which amounted in most cases to
taking their properties and requirements for granted.
2. The absence of an explicit conception of political change and
development that was blindly optimistic and unreflectively
reformist.
3. The almost total neglect of theory in any meaningful sense of the
term.
4. The consequent enthusiasm for a conception of science that rarely
went beyond raw empiricism.
5. A strongly parochial preoccupation with things American that
stunted the development of an effective comparative method, and
6. The establishment of a continuity commitment to concrete
description (Truman, 1951).
This was how most American Political Scientists viewed the method of
studying the subject before World War II. However, the events and the
consequence of World War II acted as a wakeup call that made
American Political Scientists more critical of political science
50
POL214 MODULE 1
methodology as their research methodology could not find answers to

most of the emerging problems thrown up by the War (Boyer, 2001).
According to Davies and Lewis (1971) there was a great dissatisfaction
with methods of investigation with the working of the political system;
characteristic mainly of British and European Political Scientist.
Particularly, there was little concern with what is now called the
political system but more with the study of the State. And the study of
the state meant analyses of the articles of constitutions, legislations
passed by Governments and the institutions to which the constitutions
made provision. The emphasis on the analysis of the State, law and
constitution relegated the study of the general social framework of the
state to the background.
One problem which is associated with the concentration of the study on

the state and its institutions is that such institutions may be outdated, but
the study may not reflect such changes. Furthermore, the emphasis on
the state and its institution may not provide an objective criterion for
comparing different states. The problems which necessitated the re-
orientation of the study of Political Science include according to Davies
and Lewis (1971):
1. The need to explain the failure of democracy and the emergence

of authoritarian political institutions in Germany and Italy before
and during the War.
2. The need to explain the political processes of the post-colonial
states in Africa and Asia.
3. The need to develop a theoretical analysis of politics which could
explain the development of different kinds of political
institutions.
4. The need to develop models which could be used in comparative
politics.
According to Somit & Tenehaus (1982), the problems with the

traditional approach in America were centred around five major issues:
1. The discovery that the talents and skills of political scientists

were not highly valued by government bureaucrat or officials.
2. The inability of traditional political science to account for the rise
of Fascism, National Socialism (Nazisism) and Communism.
3. A growing sensitivity to and unhappiness with the basically
descriptive nature of the discipline.
4. The knowledge of advances in other social sciences.
5. The fear that political science was lagging behind its sister
professions and disciplines.
51
Thus behaviourlism carried with it a critique of the manner in which

political science was then done; the established traditional, legalistic,
historical modes of analysis were criticised for their loose relationship
between facts and theory, the low level of generality achieved and the
low level of comparability. The traditional and the behavioural
approaches to the study of politics therefore came to be differentiated by
one placing emphasis on values as against the other emphasizing facts
(empirical) (Eulau, 1969). The behavioural methods advocates for the
utilization and development of most precise techniques for observation,
verification, quantification and measurement, and the “need to separate
political science from political philosophy, so that factual research will
not continue to be the step-child of normative reflections” (Hoffman,
1959, cf. Webb, 1995). Thus greater emphasis is placed on the use of
statistical and quantifiable formulation of data.
What were the features of political science during the pre-behavioural

period?
3.3 Factors Which Contributed to the Emergence of the

Behaviouralism in Political Science
According to Webb (1988), “it is often the case that the impetus for
change within a discipline is as much due to factors external to that
discipline as to factors within the discipline.” Robert Dahl has noted six-
interrelated factors, which influenced the rise of the behavioural
movement (Dahl, 1961). The first was the evolution of the University of
Chicago's Department of Political Science under the leadership of
Charles Meriam, who in 1921 in an article titled "The Present State of
the Study of Politics" in the American Political Science Review called
for "a new science of politics" characterized by the formulation of
testable hypotheses (provable by means of precise evidence) to
complement the dominant historical-comparative and legalistic
approaches) (cf. US History Encyclopedia, 2009). He later restated this
position in 1925 before the American Political Science Association
when he called for a science of political behaviour... or a science of
social behaviour which will do for political science what science has
done for the hard core sciences (Meriam, 1926). Merriam's work led to
the formation of the APSA's Committee on Political Research and to
three national conferences on the science of politics. Merriam was
joined in his effort by William B. Munro and G. E. G. Catlin—the three
being considered the era's leading proponents of the "new science"
movement. With Wesley C. Mitchell, Merriam was instrumental in
creating the Social Science Research Council in 1923. Other pioneering
personalities in the Chicago School included Harold Lasswell, V. O.
52
POL214 MODULE 1
Key Jr., David Truman, Herbert Simon and Gabriel Almond and others
(Boyer, 2001; US History Encyclopedia, 2009).
The second factor cited by Dahl was the influx of the European Scholars
into the United States. The policies pursued by the Nazi Government in
Germany made many German Scholars to migrate to the US during the
War. Scholars from other European Universities also moved to America
during and after the War. These scholars arrived in America with
intellectual techniques/methods, which helped behaviouralism to
develop as a methodology. These scholars whose backgrounds were in
the hard core sciences came to the US and occupied the chairs in most of
the political science departments in American Universities. As a result
of their background, these scholars encouraged the use "of sociological
and psychological theories for the understanding of politics" (Dahl,
1961).
The third factor was World War II. Dahl explained that the outbreak of
the war forced many American political scientists to deal with day to
day reality of social life and also reveal to them for the first time the
"inadequacies of the conventional approaches of political science for
describing reality much less for predicting in any given situation what is
likely to happen” (Dahl, ibid).
The fourth factor was the creation of the Social Science Research
Council (SSRC) and the subsequent creation of an adjunct committee on
political behaviour. The evolution of this special committee helped shift
the entire focus of the discipline to the behaviour of individuals as the
empirical unit of analysis.
The fifth factor that Dahl (1961) pointed out was the development of the
"survey" method as a tool in the study of politics especially at the
Survey Research Centre of the University of Michigan and the Bureau
of Applied Social Research at Columbia University.
The 16th factor included the influence of the philanthropic foundations

which provide funds for research such as the Ford, the Rockefeller and
the Carnegie Foundations. All the above factors combined created a
political culture that was committed to what Dahl referred to as
"pragmatism, fact minded-ness, confidences in sciences” (Dahl, 1961).
In addition to the above factors, Truman noted two other factors that
necessitated the change in the character of world politics such as: the
breakup of the colonial systems and the subsequent emergence of the
new nations. Both factors require a new and broad approach to the study
of political institutions (Truman, 1973). A further thrust towards a
scientific mode of analysis came through a fusion of the enlightenment
53
belief in progress and rationality together with the needs of the emerging
and centralising nation-state for instruments of coordination. The growth
and bureaucratization of the nation-state led to a massive growth of new
kinds of data which could not be dealt with by the traditional forms of
analysis.
Enumerate the factors that contributed to the emergence of

behaviouralism in political science.
3.4 The Main Features of the Behavioural Approach
We shall discuss the main features of the Behavioural approach in Unit

7 where focus on the approach will be extensive. For now however, the
following features are pertinent:
1. The emergence of the individual as the fundamental unit of

analysis; the individual was a fact and all else merely a
derivation.
2. Emphasis on the scientific to make the study of political science

scientific thus capable of explanations and predictions.
2. The focus of study on observable behaviour of actors in the

political process.
4. The use of quantitative method and statistical techniques such as

multivariate analysis, sample surveys, mathematical models and
simulation aimed at developing theories which could provide
acceptable explanation for political behaviour.
5. A focus on inter-disciplinarity, embracing other social sciences.
With the increasing use of the behavioural approach in Political Science,

major changes were noticed in the vocabulary of politics. Such words
includes boundary maintenance, bargaining, conceptual framework,
decision-making, functionalism, factor analysis, feedback, model, game
theory, input/output, political socialization, political culture, political
system, etc. This behaviouralism has made political science an
interdisciplinary subject and fully integrated it into other social sciences.
Discuss the main features of the Behavioural approach.
54
POL214 MODULE 1
3.5 Criticism of the Behaviouralism
The main contention of the critics of the Behaviouralism were that:
1. Political Science is not, nor is it ever likely to become a science

in any realistic sense of the term. Overt political behaviour tells
only part of the story. Different individuals may perform the
same act for quite different reasons. To understand what they do,
one must go beyond or behind observable behaviour. The anti-
behaviouralist holds that the larger part of political life lies
beneath the surface of human action and cannot be directly
apprehended. Because political behavior is not quantifiable
whatever the theoretical merits of quantification, it cannot make
political science scientific. At best, it has led to the proliferation
of concepts which cannot be operationalized. Significant political
issues involve moral and ethical issues.
2. Political Science has historically been, and must continue to be

more concerned with questions of right and wrong even if these
cannot be scientifically resolved.
3. There has been indiscriminate borrowing of concepts and

techniques which are simply inappropriate for political inquiry.
As for scientific objectivity, there is almost universal skepticism
among the anti-behaviouralist that it is attainable and
considerable doubt that it is inherently desirable (see Bay, 1965;
Kim, 1965; McCoy and Playford, 1967; Somit and Tanenhaus,
1982).
What are the main contentions of the critics of the behaviouralism?
3.6 The “Perestroika” Movement
The Perestroika Movement in political science is a “protest” movement

within political science that some political scientists signed on to
challenge the dominance of research that assumes that political behavior
can be predicted according to theories of rationality and that such
predictions underwrite cumulative explanations that constitute the
growth of political knowledge. The movement is against what it sees as
dominance for quantitative and mathematical methodology in political
science. Such dominance, according to the Movement, breeds academic
isolation and poor quality in scholarship (Schram and Caterino 2006).
The Perestroika Movement began in October 2000 with an anonymous
e-mail message sent by one “Mr. Perestroika” to the editors of the
55
American Political Science Review calling for "a dismantling of the

Orwellian system that we have in APSA" (Wikipedia, 2008). The
message went to seventeen recipients who quickly forwarded it to
others, and within weeks the Perestroika Movement became a force
calling for change in the American political science community (Monroe
2005). In the years that followed, the Perestroika Movement established
itself with its own literature, conferences, websites, and blogs.
The anger of the Perestroikans (as members of the ‘revolt’ are now
called) was initially directed at the American Political Science
Association and the American Political Science Review, the flagship
journal of the Association. An open letter signed by 222 persons claimed
a 1998 survey of APSA members “reportedly found that a very large
portion of APSA members, to say nothing of scholars who have given
up on APSA, were critical of the current condition of the APSR”
(Political Studies, 2000, 735). An accompanying letter from Gregory
Kasza, who emerged as a spokesperson for the “Perestroika ‘revolt’”
(Kaymak 2001), offered several ways to increase the “representativeness
of APSA and its journals” (Kasza 2000, 737). According to Kasza, “to
assure the representativeness of the APSA leadership, which is the real
issue behind the Perestroika protest, there should be competitive,
membership-wide elections to the top posts” (Kasza, ibid).
However, a substantive part of the grievances of the Perestroikans was

also focused on Political Science as a discipline. A loose collection of
political scientists, from graduate students to senior scholars,
Perestroikans do not always themselves agree on which features of the
dominant approach they want to critique—some focus on the overly
abstract nature of much of the research done today, some on the lack of
nuance in decontextualised, large sample empirical studies, others on the
inhumanness of thinking about social relations in causal terms, and still
others on the ways in which contemporary social science all too often
fails to produce the kind of knowledge that can meaningfully inform
social life. As a group, the Perestroika Movement, however, has
championed methodological pluralism, charging that exclusionary
practices have made graduate education less hospitable to historical and
field research, qualitative case studies, interpretive and critical analysis,
and a variety of context-sensitive approaches to the study of politics
(Schram, 2003).
At its best, the Perestroikan impulse creates the possibility to question

the idea that political science research exists as a unitary enterprise
dedicated to the accumulation of an expanding knowledge base of
universal, decontextualised generalisations about politics. In its place,
Perestroika would put a more pluralistic emphasis on allowing for the
blossoming of more contextual, contingent, and multiple political truths
56
POL214 MODULE 1
that involve a greater tie between theory and practice and a greater
connection between thought and action in specific settings. Perestroika
lays open the possibility that political science could actually be a very
different sort of discipline, one less obsessed with proving it is a
“science” and one more connected to providing delimited,
contextualised, even local knowledge that might serve people within
specific settings (Schram, ibid.).
According to its proponents, this alternative political science would also

be less preoccupied with perfecting method or pursuing research strictly
for knowledge’s sake. As Rogers Smith has underscored, “knowledge
does not have a sake; all knowledge is tied to serving particular values”
(cf. Schram, ibid.). Therefore, this new political science would not be
one that is dedicated to replacing one method with another. Instead, such
a discipline, if that word is still appropriate, would encourage scholars to
draw on a wide variety of methods from a diversity of theoretical
perspectives, combining theory and empirical work in different and
creative ways, all in dialogue with political actors in specific contexts.
Problem driven research would replace method-driven research.
The goal of the movement is to bring about “a political science that

forgoes the dream of a science of politics in order to dedicate itself to
enhancing the critical capacity of people to practice a politics” and to
“enhance the capacity to challenge power from below” (Schram, 2003).
Charges that political science is trivial, “out of touch with real-world

concerns” and has in fact, “become nothing more than statistical analysis
of volumes of data” are frequently made by Perestroikans. Critics such
as Mark Kremer (2001) and Therese Gunawardena-Vaughn (2000),
attribute political science’s disconnection from the “great political
issues” and the “real world” to researchers’ “fixation on quantitative
tools” while John J. Mearsheimer refers to it as “the mathematicisation
of political science" (Miller, 2001).
What kind of political science do the Perestroikans favor? According to

Kasza (2001), Perestroikans reject the attempt to achieve “hegemony” in
political science by the “hard sciences.” Kasza offers three reasons for
rejecting “the hegemonic project of hard science.” First, “hard science”
in political science “threatens academic freedom,” because “hard
scientists don’t realise the damage they do to young scholars.” Second,
“normal [i.e., hard] science makes for bad science in the study of
politics”. Third, “hard science” “is increasingly irrelevant to the
normative and practical problems of real politics”.
For a reform of political science, Perestroikan offers some proposals.

According to Kazah (2001, 598–99), these are:
57
1. The restoration of restore political philosophy to “a central place

in political studies so that the ends of political life once again
become our common focus.”
2. “Qualitative research methods” in graduate schools’ training.
3. The reorganisation of research “around the study of substantive
problems,”
4. The revision of the “decline of policy studies,”
5. The revamping of “our professional associations and journals to
emphasise political substance and Catholicism with respect to
methods and approaches.”
6. The renewal of the “commitment to study the politics of different
parts of the world” instead of most parochial of areas—American
politics” that currently dominates the study, and
7. Finally, the promotion of interdisciplinary research.
3.6.1 Evolution of Political Science Discipline: Continuity in

Changes
While the changes taking place in Political Science are different in time
and space, some similar trends run through them. For instance, some of
the behavioral movement’s founders used essentially the same claim that
the perestroikan movement now use to justify their “revolt” against
traditional political science (Dahl 1961; Easton 1953). Dissatisfaction
with the “state of the discipline,” and especially with the disconnection
between traditional political science and political “reality,” was a
primary factor in the behavioral movement’s emergence after World
War II (Somit and Tanenhaus 1982). It did not take long for the same
charge to be leveled against behavioralists by post-behaviouralists (Bay
1965; McCoy and Playford 1967; Storing 1962). In some ways, the
perestroikan movement has merely reinforced these criticisms against
behavioralists. On the other hand, some of the proposals of the
perestroikan movement are not new. For instance, the call for
methological pluralism within the social sciences was one goal of the
behavioral movement which ironically, the perestroikans claim has
distorted the discipline.
What all these point to is that political science is a discipline in a state of

a flux and that there will always be tension between “ancient” and
“modern” approaches in political science (see Eulau, 1969). It also
supports the fact that there is no one single approach to political
research. This is what Anckar and Berndtson (1987) meant when the
argued that political science ‘appears fragmented and directed towards a
great variety of objectives.”
Yet as it has been noted, it is this “disunity” through diversity and

debate ‘which gives strength” to the political science discipline (US
58
POL214 MODULE 1
History Encyclopedia, 2009). Indeed as Webb (1995) stated, this

disciplinary disunity is a distinctive hallmark of the social sciences:
In all the social sciences there are debates which are

sometimes referred to as theoretical disputes, sometimes
as paradigmatic differences, sometimes as competing
perspectives or research programmes. There is no social
science discipline that is not marked by divisions of this
kind. The legitimacy of challenge is a characteristic of the
discipline per se; to be a social scientist is to necessarily
engage in debate.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Political science continues to question its identity, and to reflect on

appropriate research methodology; methodological pluralism continues
to reign. The field's continued self-examination reflects two independent
axes. One embodies the extremes of considering either groups or
individuals as the key to analysis; and a third is represented by the belief
that a normative stance is unavoidable at one extreme, and by a firm
commitment to the possibility of objectivity at the other extreme. In the
midst of the variety of approaches and methods structuring political
science, we have concluded as did the US History Encyclopedia (2009)
that “it is no longer possible for a single individual to master the entire
field”
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have learnt that Political Science itself is a relatively

young academic discipline, but inquiry into the nature of political life
has being going on since the beginning of recorded history. This unit has
traced the history of political science from the early political thinkers
and the political principles implicit in their writings to the behaviouralist
revolution in the 1950s. The unit has also reviewed contemporary
development in the field since 2000 reflected in the ‘perestroika
movement’ that took place in the USA. What all these developments
point to is that political science is a discipline in a state of a flux and that
there will always be tension between “ancient” and “modern”
approaches in political science. It also supports the fact that there is no
one single approach to political research (as we shall discover in the
next five units on approaches to the study of politics).
59
1. Attempt a critique of the behavioural movement

2. What have been the major historical debates among political
scientists?
3. In recent years there has emerged a movement, dubbed the
Perestroika movement, which is critical of the current state of
political science. What are the primary arguments raised by the
Perestroikans
4. Is the Perestroika movement, in fact, old wine in new wineskins,
or is there something new in the issues raised by the
Perestroikans?
Almond, G. (1990). A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political

Science. Newburry Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Anckar, D. & Berndtson, E. (1987). “Introduction: Toward a study of

the Evolution of Political Science. International Political Science
Review. 8. (1). pp. 5-7.
Bay, C. (1965). “Politics and Pseudopolitics: A Critical Evaluation of

Some Behavioral Literature.” American Political Science Review.
59. pp. 39–5.
Bennett, S. (2002). “Perestroika” Lost: Why the Latest “Reform”

Movement in Political Science Should Fail” PS: Political Science
& Politics: 35 (2). pp 177-179
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (2009). “political science” Retrieved

on September 12, 2009 from http://www.answers.com/library/
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia-cid-63262
Columbia Encyclopedia (2009). “Political Science” Retrieved on

September 12, 2009 from http://www.answers.com/library/
Columbia+Encyclopedia-cid-63262
Crotty, W. (ed.) (1991). Political Science: Looking to the Future. 4 vols.

Evanson, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
Dahl, R. (1961). “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science:

Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest.” American
Political Science Review 55. pp. 763–72.
60
POL214 MODULE 1
Davies, R. & Lewis A. (1971). Modules of Political System. London:

Macmillan.
Easton, D. (1953). The Political System. An Inquiry into the State of

Political Science. New York: Knopf.
Eulau, H. (1969). “Tradition and Innovation: On the Tension between

Ancient and Modern Ways in the Study of Politics.” In Heinz
Eulau, E. (ed.). Behavioralism in Political Science. New York:
Atherton.
Farr, J. & Seidelman, R. (eds.). (1993). Discipline and History: Political

Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Finifter, A. W. (1993). Political Science: The State of the Discipline II.

Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.
Flyvbjerg, Bent (2007). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social

Inquiry Fails and How It can Succeed Again (2nd Ed.).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gunawardena-Vaughn, T. S. (2000). “Discipline Out of Touch with

Real-World Concerns.” PS: Political Science & Politics. 33. pp.
41-745.
Kasza, Gregory J. (2001). “Perestroika: For an Ecumenical Science of

Politics.” PS: Political Science & Politics 34. pp. 597–99.
Kaymak, E. (2001). “Defeat Narrow- Mindedness, Not ‘Hard Science.’”

PS: Political Science & Politics. 34.pp. 68–69.
Kim K. (1965). ‘The Limits of Behavioural Explanation in Politics.’

Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. 31. pp.
315-317.
Kremer, M. S. (2001). “Great Political Issues.” PS: Political Science &

Politics. 34:769.
McCoy, C. A. & Playford, J. (eds.). (1967). Apolitical Politics: A

Critique of Behavioralism. New York: Crowell.
Meriam, Charles (1926). “Progress in Political Sciences.” American

Political Science Review. xx: 1-13.
61
Miller, D. (2001). “Scholars Join Revolt against the Domination of

Mathematical Approaches to the Discipline.” The Chronicle of
Higher Education. September 21.
Monroe, K. (ed.). (2005). Perestroika!: The Raucous Rebellion in

Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schram, S. (2003). “Review Essay: Return to Politics Perestroika and

Postparadigmatic Political Science” Political Theory. December.
Pp. 835-851.
Schram, S. & Caterino, B. (Eds.). (2006). Making Political Science

Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research and Method. New York:
New York University Press.
Somit, A. & Tanenhaus, J. (1982). The Development of American

Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. New York:
Irvington Publishers. Enlarged ed.
Storing, H. (ed.). (1962). Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics. New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Toulmin, S. (2003). Return to Reason. Paperback edition. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.
Truman, D. (1973). “The Impact of Political Science on the Revolution

in Behavioural Science”. In Eulay, H. Behaviouralism in Political
Science. New York: Lieber-Atherton, pp. 38-67.
US History Encyclopedia “Political Science” (2009). Retrieved on

US+History+Encyclopedia-cid-63262

Wikipedia (2008). Perestroika Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Public_administration Retrieved 3 September, 2009.
62
POL214 MODULE 1
MODULE 2 APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF

POLITICS
Unit 1 Traditional Approaches

Unit 2 The Behavioral Approach
Unit 3 Approaches to the Study of Political Systems: Systems
Approach and Structural- Functionalist Approach
Pluralism (Groups Approach), and Elite Approach
Unit 5 Rational Choice Approach
UNIT 1 TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Normative Approach
3.2 The Institutional Approaches
3. 3 Features of the Classical Institutional Approach
3.4 Varieties of Institutionalism
3.5 Criticism of the Traditional Approaches
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
From the previous unit we learnt that political science as a discipline is

diverse. Its diversity is further buttressed by Gerry Stoker and David
Marsh (2002:3) who reiterated that there are ‘many distinct approaches
and ways of undertaking political science’. This is because political
scientists “display deep conflicts over appropriate assumptions, foci and
methods of analysis, and they offer hypotheses and theories that directly
contradict one another. They frequently describe the same phenomenon
but offer very different analyses of it. In other words they observe the
world in different ways (Zuckerman, 1991:13).
The next five lectures shall be devoted to the examination of the

approaches of studying politics. In this first lecture, we shall discuss the
traditional approach which encompasses the normative and institutional
approaches.
63
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 identify the Normative Approach to the Study of Politics

 identify the Institutional Approaches to the Study of Politics
state the Features of the Classical Institutional Approach
 identify the Varieties of Institutionalism or the Institutional
Approach
 state the Criticism of the Traditional Approaches.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Normative Approach
Normative Political approach is concerned with the discovery and

application of moral notions in the sphere of political relations and
practice (Stoker, 1995). It deals with the inquiry into the problems of
man and society. In the view of Leo Strauss, “it is the attempt to know
both the nature of political things and the right, or the good political
conduct... [through] critical and coherent analysis” (Straus, 1969). This
has been the preoccupation of early political philosophers such as Plato,
Aristotle and modern political philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mills.
The subject matter of the normative approach has principally remained

the state, its evolution, organisation and purpose. Accordingly,
normative political thinkers seek answers to questions such as these:
What is the state and who should preside over the affairs of the state?
What is political obligation and why should the state be obeyed? What
ends should the state serve and how can it be structured to achieve these
ends? What are the proper limits on state authority and when may
citizens refuse to obey it? How should the state relate to other
organisations in society? What is justice and how best can it be
guaranteed? What is the essence of liberty and equity? Where is
sovereignty to be located? What makes political power and its exercise
legitimate? What is political representation and who has the right to
present others? What is political participation and to what extent should
ordinary citizens be entitled to participate in the decision-making
processes of government?
Answers to these and similar questions are based on ethical and political
values that are regarded as essential for the good citizen and a just state
and not necessarily on empirical analysis. Consequently, normative
political approach is the least scientific sub-discipline of political
science.
64
POL214 MODULE 1
3.2 The Institutional Approach
The institutional approach to the study of political process is concerned

with the rules, procedures and formal organisations of the political
system and their impact on political practice (Stoker, 1995).
Historically, the strength of the institutional approach in political science
reflects the influence of law, philosophy and historical studies in its
development as an autonomous field of study. The study of political
institutions is central to the identity of the discipline of political science.
Eckstein (1963:10-11) points out that “political science emerged . . . as a
separate autonomous field of study divorced from philosophy, political
economy, and even sociology [which] may have created a tendency to
emphasise the study of formal-legal arrangements”. If there is any
subject matter at all that political scientists can claim exclusively for
their own, a subject matter that does not require acquisition of the
analytical tools of sister fields and that sustains their claim to
autonomous existence, it is, of course, formal-legal political structure.
3.3 Features of the Classical Institutional Approach
According to Stoker (1995: 43), the traditional or classical institutional

approach has the following features: descriptive –inductive, formal-
legal, historical-comparative, and political values. We shall discuss these
in turn.
3.3.1 Descriptive –Inductive
The hallmark of the descriptive-inductive approach is “hyperfactualism”

or “reverence for facts” (Easton, 1971). In other words, in carrying out
political analysis, “the fact stood paramount” (Landau, 1979, p. 133 cf.
Stoker 1995). The great virtue of institutions was that:
They appeared as real. They were concrete; they could be

pointed to, observed, touched. They could be examined
for their operations. . . And what could, be more logical,
more natural, than to turn to the concreteness of
institutions, the facts of their existence, the character of
their actions and the exercise of their power (Landau,
1979:181 cf. Stoker, 1995).
As we stated earlier in our lecture on the language of social science

research, induction is the practice of inferring generalizations from past
occurrences which then shape expectations for the future. Induction has
been defined as “the process by which the scientist forms a theory to
explain the observed facts” (Kemeny, 1959:53). It is an extrapolation
from the past to the future in the expectation that the future will continue
65
to behave in the same manner as in the past. Induction starts with

empirical observation from which explanatory generalisations are
generated.
The approach is inductive because we draw inferences from repeated

actions. The key points are that the study of political institutions
displays a preference for “letting the facts speak for themselves matched
by its distaste for theory, especially modern social and political, which
was seen as secondary - even dangerous” (Landau, 1979, cf. Stoker,
1995).
3.3.2 Formal-legal
According to Eckstein (1972), formal legal inquiry involves two phases.

“One is the study of public law: hence the term legal. The other involves
the study of formal governmental organs: hence formal. These phases
coalesce in the study of pubic laws that concerns formal governmental
organisations –in the study of constitutional structure” (Cf. Stoker,
1995: 44). We shall discuss these two aspects of the formal-legal inquiry
in turn.
A) The Study of Public Law
The study of public law is an essential ingredient in the analysis of

constitution and formal organisations (Stoker, 1995). It deals with the
following:
i) The Concept of Rule of Law
Underlying the study of public law is the concept of rule of law, which
refers to the supremacy of the law. According to Professor A.V. Dicey
in his book Introduction to the Law of the Constitution, “those entrusted
with administration of a country should rule or exercise their authority in
accordance with the established laws of the land; and such established
laws should be regarded as supreme” (Dicey,1885, cf. Fasuba, 1976).
Dicey ascribed three meanings to the idea. These are:
Absence of Arbitrary Power: The first of Dicey's three meanings of

the rule of law is "absence of arbitrary power." "It means in the first
place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as
opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence
of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority
on the part of the government."
This means that before a person can be punished, his/her offence must
first be ascertained and proved by the ordinary court of the land. This
66
POL214 MODULE 1
idea can be contrasted with a situation in which persons in authority

have wide and discretionary powers to deal with offences.
Equality before the Law: Dicey was of the opinion that the rule of law
"means, again, equality before the law or the equal subjection of all
classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law
courts." This postulates that no man should be above the law; that
government functionaries as, indeed, private citizens should obey the
same laws, that there should be no administrative courts which
adjudicate cases between private citizens and the state or its officials.
However, Dicey’s principle of rule of law which presses for equality
before the law needs to be thoroughly examined. In the modern system
of government some persons are totally or partially immune. This
implies that such people are wholly free or partially free from any
offence they might commit. For example the Crown - The Queen of
England - is wholly immune, except that by the Crown Proceeding Act
of 1947 a number of the Crown’s immunity has been removed. And at
the same time the ambassadors and foreign diplomat are immune from
court action. Furthermore, some government officials are immune from
persecution while in office. For instance, the 1999 constitution grants
immunity to the president and governors.
The Rights of Individuals: Dicey's third meaning of the rule of law is

that the rights of the individuals actually give meaning to the
constitution. This means that the constitution cannot be regarded as the
source of the rights of the individuals but that the constitution itself is
based on the rights of individual. In other words, legal rights of
individual citizen-his/her freedom of action and speech, are inherent and
not acquired by guaranteed rights proclaimed in formal codes-so that
anybody who tampered with the operation of these liberties will face the
ordinary remedies of private law available against those who unlawfully
interfere with the liberty of action whether they be officials or private
citizens. Accordingly to Dicey, the constitution is more than an ordinary
code. It is the result of the ordinary law of the land.
ii) Legal Protections of Rights
Political rights enjoyed by the people in a democratic country/society

and enshrined in the constitution are usually protected by certain legal
devices such as:
The Right to Fair Hearing (Audi alteram Parterm)

The Rule against Bias (Nemo judex in Causa Sua).
67
iii) Legal Remedies
It is inconceivable to think of legal rights without legal remedies. Thus,

if a person has a legal right and the right is violated, then such a person
should be entitled to some remedy. A remedy is therefore a
compensation for the violation of legal rights. Remedies reverse wrong
decisions and make appropriate decisions to correct legal injustices.
These remedies include:
a) The Order of Habeas Corpus

b) The Writ of Prohibitions
c) The Writ of Mandamus
d) The Writ of Injunctions
In addition to the Constitutional Law, there are other legal instruments

that influence the political process in a particular country. These include
laws made by the Legislative Assembly and the System of Courts. Every
state/country has its legal system which is made up of both the
substantive and procedural laws and judicial organisational structure.
For example, in Nigeria, we have the Criminal Code, the Penal Code,
the Civil Procedure Code, the Sharia Laws, the Customary Laws and
other enactment by the National Assembly. Also in Nigeria, we have
various grades of Courts - Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Federal
High Court, the State High Courts, Magistrate Courts and Customary
Courts.
Other features of the Nigeria legal system which are more or less
political in nature include the Public Complaint Commission, The Code
of Conduct Bureau, the Independent corrupt practices and other related
offences tribunal (ICPC), The Economic and Financial Crime
Commission (EFCC) and Public Tribunals, etc.
B) The Study of Constitutional Structure
The formal legal- approach covers the study of written constitutional

documents. A constitution is the body of basic laws, principles,
conventions, rules and regulations which govern a country. A
constitution shows the basic duties of the country’s leaders and citizens.
It specifies the types and characteristics of government, and the limits
of, as well as relationships between, various institutions and organs of
government. For example, in the 1999 Constitution, of Nigeria, the
following Political Institutions were created:
68
POL214 MODULE 1
Chapter 4 - The Legislature (National Assembly)

Chapter 5 - The Executive
Chapter 6 - The Judiciary
Political Rights also derive their source from the Constitution. For
instance, Chapters 33 to 42 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria guarantees the following Rights:
Chapter 33 - Right to life.

Chapter 34 - Right to dignity of human person.
Chapter 35 - Right to personal liberty
Chapter 36 - Right to fair hearing.
Chapter 37 - Right to private life
Chapter 38 - Right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion
Chapter 39 - Right to freedom of expression and press.
Chapter 40 - Right to peaceful assembly and association.
Chapter 41 - Right to freedom of movement
Chapter 42 - Right to freedom from discrimination.
The Constitutional structure seeks to ask the questions: How are

constitutions made? What type of constitution should a country adopt?
Should it be written or unwritten? Should it be federal, unitary, or
confederal? What is the procedure for the amendment of the
constitution? Should it be rigid or flexible? How are conflicts between
the various branches of government –Legislature, Executive, and
Judicial – resolved? What are the sources of the constitution? What
sources should be given preeminent consideration in framing the
constitution? How do constitutions affect the operation of government,
and how do the operations of government affect the development of the
constitution? What are the rights of citizens under the law?
Discuss the features of Rule of law.
3.3.3 Historical-Comparative
A key element of the institutional approach is the historical -

comparative method. Here, political analyst seeks to develop testable
generalizations by examining political phenomena across different
political systems or historically within the same political system. Thus
in carrying out comparative analysis, political scientists examine
history, especially the evolution of the institutions they are studying.
69
The origins of the comparative approach can be traced to Aristotle’s

classification of governments based on the governments of 158 Greek
city states. Aristotle distinguished governments by one, few and the
many. In each category rulers could govern in the common interest (the
genuine form) or their own interest (the perverted form).
Table 1: Aristotle’s Classificatory Scheme
RULE BY
One Few Many
FORM Genuine Kingship Aristocracy Polity
Perverted Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy
Aristotle’s scheme yields six types of government – kingship,

aristocracy, polity, tyranny, oligarchy, democracy. Building on this
scheme, Aristotle identified the social character of rulers in the four
types with more than one leader. Oligarchy is ruled by the rich, an
aristocracy by the virtuous, democracy is government by the poor.
Aristotle’s ideal form of government is broadly equated with middle-
class rule (Aristotle, 1962).
Comparative method has the following advantage. First, it enables us to

test hypotheses about politics, it enables us to make meaning of the
diversity or differences within political systems, it helps us to improve
our classifications of political processes and institutions, and it gives us
some potential for prediction (Almond, G., Powell, B., Strom, K. &
Dalton, R., 2007). For instance, to attempt an answer to the hypothesis
posed- that democracy requires the free market and private ownership-it
is necessary to engage in a comparative examination of different
regimes so that the relationship between political and economic
variables can be better understood. Furthermore, if we find that the
hypotheses to be true, we can then predict that wherever free market and
private ownership exists, democracy is likely to thrive.
3.3.4 Political value
Even though ‘hyperfactualism’ or ‘reverence for facts’ is paramount in

the study of political institutions, it also has a strong normative
emphasis. The normative elements, or values, most commonly espoused
by this approach are those of liberal democracy, especially the American
and British models of representative democracy. Consequently, the
study of political institutions was biased in favour of the institutions of
these countries including federalism, such as the USA.
70
POL214 MODULE 1
3.4 Varieties of Institutionalism
There are three varieties of institutionalism. These are:
3.4.1 Constitutional Studies
As stated above, earlier works on constitutional studies were devoted to

issues relating to the basic duties of the country’s leaders and citizens,
the types and characteristics of government, and the limits of, as well as
relationships between, various institutions and organs of government. In
recent times, Constitutional studies remain a prime example of formal
legal methods in the study of political institutions and its adoption in
emerging democracies or post conflict countries such as Iraq, and
reforms of existing defects in the constitution to enhance good
governance including the accountability of government, its effectiveness
and the status of citizenship. For example, in Nigeria there is an ongoing
attempt to reform the 1999 constitution which many believed was
bequeathed with defects by the departing military government. Aspects
of the constitution considered for reforms include, electoral reforms, the
reform of the federal system, and state creation.
3.4.2 Public Administration
Public administration is a major sub-field within political science.

Definitions invariably include such phrases as the study of the
institutional arrangements for the provision of public services or study
of public bureaucracies (cf. Stoker, 1995). It concentrated attention on
the authorities engaged in public administration, analyzed their history,
structure, powers and relationships. It enquired how they worked and the
degree of effectiveness they achieved.
Organisational theory is a firmly-established part of the intellectual

history of public administration and, from the 1950s onwards, it
developed many schools of thought. The classics include Max Weber
and the study of bureaucracy, and Frederick Taylor and scientific
management. However, this stress on structure was criticized strongly
by proponents of the human relations approach who emphasized the
importance of informal organisation especially group behaviour in the
workplace. After the Second World the emphasis shifted to the study of
organisational decision-making to organisations as systems interacting
with a larger environment.
During the 1960s there was great international optimism concerning the
future of organisation theory. There were competing voices, but the
rational-instrumental conception of formal organisations had a strong
position. organisations then were seen as instruments for making and
71
implementing rational decisions – a conception celebrating the will,

understanding and control of organisational actors, or rather, of
organisational leaders.
Formal organisations were portrayed as a special type of organized

context, different from other forms of social organisation, such as
families, neighborhoods, social groups and classes. More often than not,
‘organisation’ meant a Weberian bureaucracy and a key concern was to
improve the understanding of how organisational structures and
processes contributed to performance. Two ideas were of special
importance:
 ‘The formal structure of the organisation is the single most

important key to its functioning’ (Perrow 1986: 260).
 … formal organisations are malleable instruments for leaders,
‘consciously planned, deliberately constructed and restructured
(Etzioni 1964: 3).
The conception of leaders as (means-end) rational actors and formal

organisations as instruments generating purposeful, coherent, consistent,
and efficient action had much in common with the 1960s’ view of policy
making as a strategic activity and planning and social engineering as a
key process in improving society and building a welfare state. Both
planning theory and organisation theory embraced deliberate
organisational and institutional design and reform. Actors were assumed
to:
 know what they wanted. That is, actors were assumed to have
clear, consistent and stable objectives or normative criteria over
the time period studied. These criteria were supposed to define
tasks, performance failure, improvement, and progress.
 understand what it takes to achieve their objectives. That is,
organisational form was assumed to be a significant determinant
of performance and actors were assumed to know how alternative
organisational forms affect performance.
 have the authority, power and resources needed to achieve
desired results. Choices made by organisational/political actors
were assumed to be the most important determinants of
organisational form.
In spite of parallel agendas and shared assumptions organisation theory

and political theory have, nevertheless, been in a state of mutual
disregard for years, not seeing each other as particularly relevant,
interesting, or important. A standard complaint from political science
has been that generic models of formal organisation have not taken into
account the specific properties of governmental and political
72
POL214 MODULE 1
organisations and the specific influence of political-democratic

environments (Olsen 1991). Using standard handbooks of organisations
as an indicator, the two fields have also moved away from each other,
rather than coming closer since the 1960s (March 1965, Nystrom and
Starbuck 1981, Clegg, Hardy and Nord 1996).
It is beyond the scope of this lecture to summarise how different

elements and theories of public administration have developed and what
their main insights have been. However, different approaches make
different assumptions about human actors – their will, understanding
and capacity for social control - and about the nature of ‘living’
administrative-political institutions and how they function and evolve.
Today, organisation theory combines an interest in the preconditions and

consequences of different administrative forms and processes with an
interest in theories of democracy, assuming that an improved
understanding of public administration is essential to a comprehension
of political and societal life in general.
3.5 Criticism of the Traditional Approaches
The traditional approaches have been criticized as static and

oversimplified assumptions about today's reality of the political process.
Much of the work of traditional institutional studies has rightly been
subject to criticism for the weakness of its methods, the anti-theoretical,
descriptive nature of its product, and an underlying prescriptive
perspective based on an idealized conception of the virtues of liberal
democratic government.
Specifically, it has been argued that the traditional approach’s concern

for ‘hyperfactualism’ or ‘reference for facts’ meant that political
scientists suffered from ‘theoretical malnutrition’ (Easton, 1971). In the
process, they neglected ‘the general framework within which these facts
could acquire meaning (Easton, ibid, p. 89).
They have also been accused of formalism or focusing on rules and

procedures to the neglect of the actual political behaviour.
In spite of these criticisms, the traditional approaches still have their use
in political study.
Attempt a critique of the traditional approaches.
73
4.0 CONCLUSION
The traditional approach is one of the central pillars of the discipline of

political science. It focuses on the normative values and norms that
should underpin politics as well as the rules, procedures and forma
organisations of governments. Today, it remains a defining
characteristic of the discipline and it has found renewed vigour within
the new-institutionalism framework.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have learnt the key essence of the traditional approach
including its concern for values and the rules and organisation of
government. You have also learnt the various features of the institutional
approach (one of the two aspects of the traditional approach) including
its predilection for description, and the three key varieties including
constitutional studies, public administration and new institutionalism.
You have also learnt about the criticisms of the traditional approach.
1. State and explain the varieties of the institutional approach.

2. Discuss the attributes of the rule of law according to Professor
A.V. Dicey.
3. The formal legal- approach covers the study of written
constitutional documents.
4. Discuss the current debates with regard to the reform of the 1999
Nigerian Constitution.
Almond, G.; Powell, B.; Dalton, R. & Strom, K. (2007). Comparative

Politics Today (9th Ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Aristotle (1962). The Nicomachean Ethics. (With translation,

Introduction & Notes by Ostwald, M.). Englewood Cliffs: NJ
Prentice Hall.
Clegg, S.; Hardy, C. & Nord, W. (eds.) (1996). Handbook of

Organisational Studies. London: Sage.
Easton, D. (1971). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of

Political Science (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf.
74
POL214 MODULE 1
Eckstein, H. (1963). “A Perspective on Comparative Politics. Past and

Present.” in H. Eckstein and D. E. Apter (eds.). Comparative
Politics: A Reader. London: The Free Press of Glencoe. Pp. 3-32.
Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.:

Prentice-Hall.
Kemeny, J. (1959). A Philosopher Looks at Science. Princeton: Van

Nostrand.
March, J.G. (1965). Handbook of Organisations. Chicago: Rand

McNally.
Olsen, J.P. (1991). “Political Science and Organisation theory: Parallel

Agendas but Mutual Disregard.” In. Czada R.and Windhoff-
Héretier, A. (eds.). Political Choice: Institutions,Rules, and the
Limits of Rationality. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Pp. 87-119
Nystrom, P.C. & W.H. Starbuck (eds.). (1981). Handbook of

Organisational Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organisations (3rd Ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.
Stoker, G. (1995). “Introduction” in Marsh, D. and Stoker, G (eds.).

Press.
Stoker, G. & March, D. (2002). “Introduction” in Marsh, D. & Stoker,

G. (eds.). Theory and Methods in Political Science. 2nd Ed.
Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Strauss, L. (1969). “What is Political Philosophy?” in Gould, J. and

Thurby, V. (eds.). Contemporary Political Thought: Issues in
Scope, Value and Direction. New York: Holt, Rinehan and
Winston, Inc.
Zuckerman, A. (1991). Doing Political Science. Boulder, CO:

Westview.
75
UNIT 2 THE BEHAVIORAL APPROACH
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 ObjectiveS
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is the Behavioural Approach?
3.2 Features of the Behavioral Approach
3.3 Criticisms of the Behavioural Approach
3.4 Post-Behaviouralism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
7.0 Reference/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the last lecture, we examined the traditional approach to the study of

politics. In this unit, we shall examine the behavioural approach which
arose as a reaction to the presumed deficiencies in the traditional
approach. We have discussed part of the behavioural approach in the
unit that examined the evolution of political science. We shall further
elaborate on the approach here.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define the Behavioural Approach

 state the Features of the Behavioral Approach
 explain criticisms of the Behavioural Approach
 explain the meaning of Post-Behaviouralism.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is the Behavioural Approach?
The behavioural approach or behaviouralism as it is often called is best

viewed as a broad-based effort to impose standards of scientific rigor,
relying on empirical evidence, on theory building, in contrast to the
legalistic and formal approach of the 1940s and 1950s. Harold Lasswell,
Gabriel Almond, David Truman, Robert Dahl, Herbert Simon, and
David Easton, the movement's leading figures, each contributed their
unique views of how this goal could be achieved. The Political System
(1953) by Easton and Political Behavior (1956) by Heinz Eulau and
76
POL214 MODULE 1
others exemplified the movement's new approach to a theory-guided

empirical science of politics (US History Encyclopedia, 2009).
Behaviouralism represents a post-World War II revolution and

disaffection of Political Science over-reliance on the traditional
approaches which we discussed in the last lecture which were believed
to have little analytical strength. For instance, Leeds (1981:2), criticized
the “old institutionalism” for its preoccupation with the formal structures
of government and for having quite spectacularly failed “to anticipate
the collapse of inter-war German democracy and the emergence of
fascism.”
The behavioural approach is also a creature of the quantitatively

oriented political scientists who were opposed to or dissatisfied with the
tenets of traditional political scientists due to their emphasis on the
prescriptive nature of political science and lack of adherence to
scienticism. To achieve its scientific status, behaviouralism prescribes a
closer application and affiliation with theories, methods, findings and
outlooks in modern psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics
which in the words of Robert Dahl aims at improving:
... our understanding of politics by seeking to explain the

empirical aspects of political life by means of methods,
theories, and criteria of proof that are acceptable
according to the canon, conventions, and assumptions of
modern empirical science (Dahl, 1969).
How does the behavioural approach or behaviouralism contrast to the

legalistic and formal approach?
3.2 Features of the Behavioral Approach
The advocates of the Behaviouralism saw themselves as spokesmen for

a very broad and deep conviction that the political science discipline
should; (a) abandon certain traditional kinds of research; (b) execute a
more modern sort of inquiry instead, and (c) teach new truths based on
the findings of this new inquiry (Ricci 1984:140). The behaviouralists
contended that new methods could be developed to help political science
formulate empirical propositions and theories of a systematic sort,
vested by more direct and more rigorously controlled observations of
political events (Dahl 1969; Varma, 1975). And as Truman (1951) put it,
behavioural political science demands that research must be systematic
and must place primary emphasis on empirical methods (See also
Varma, 1975; 81). By combining several accounts, (Easton, 1953, 1965;
77
Somit and Tanenhaus, 1982), it is possible to identify eight main claims

made for behaviouralism:
Specifically, the main features of the behavioural approach are:
a) Methodological Individualism
The behavioural approach emphasises the centrality of the individual as

unit of analysis. In other words, the individual is a reality while groups
are merely a derivation.
b) Verification and Falsification
All generalisations made about the political process must in principle be

tested by reference to relevant behaviour or actual political context. This
process of empirical verification is the key criterion for assessing the
validity or utility of such generalisations.
c) Techniques
The acquisition and interpretation of data must be carried out via the use
of techniques (sample surveys, statistical measurement and
mathematical models) that has been rigorously examined, refined and
validated. In other word, systematic analysis and accuracy must be
developed for observing, recording and analysing empirical political
behaviour.
d) Quantification
Precision and accuracy of data and statement of findings require

measurement, quantification and mathematisation not for their own sake
but only possible relevant and meaningful in the light of other
objectives. This explains why David Truman (1951), posits that the
political scientist should perform his research in quantitative terms if he
can, and in qualitative terms if he must.
e) Value-Facts Dichotomy
Ethical evaluation and empirical explanations involve two different

kinds of propositions that for the sake of clarity should be kept
analytically distinct. However, a student of political behaviour is not
prohibited from asserting propositions of either kind whether separately
or in combination as long as he does not mistake one for the other. In
short, empirical political research must be distinguished from ethical or
moral philosophy.
78
POL214 MODULE 1
f) Systematisation
Empirical research ought to be systematic i.e research should be theory-

oriented and theory-directed. Indeed, theory and research should
develop as closely interconnected art of an orderly body of knowledge.
This explains why Easton (1967) posited that, “empirical research un-
tutored by theory may prove trivial and theory unsupported by empirical
data futile.” In effect, the major pattern of behaviouralist was to develop
a general theory/paradigm of political behaviour in which disparate
aspects/parts could be integrated.
g) Pure Science
According to behaviouralists, applied research is much an art of

scientific enterprise as theoretical understanding. However, the scientific
understanding of political behaviour logically proceeds and provides the
basis for effort to utilize political knowledge to the solution of urgent
practical problems of society. Greater importance should therefore be
attached to scientific understanding over policy formation of
problematic ventures. In essence, the pursuit of knowledge is an end in
itself. The student of political behaviour even if he/she were dubious
about the practical utilities of his/her work/findings would require not
more than the prospects of science to justify his/her findings.
h) Integration
The approach has as its goal the unity of the social science. It expresses
the hope that someday the walls that separate political science from the
other social sciences will crumble. According to them, because the
social sciences deal with the totality of human situation, political science
can ignore the findings of other social sciences only at the risk of
undermining the validity and generality of its results.
Explain how the features of the behavioural approach conform to

empirical research.
3.3 Criticisms of the Behavioural Approach
Generally, it is possible to identify four types of criticisms of

behaviouralism viz: fundamental or philosophical objections against the
behavioural approach, its methods, assumptions and techniques
especially the use of quantification or surveys. There are also
sociological criticisms about the allegedly conservative assumptions and
values of the behavioural approach. More elaborately, the following
79
criticisms of political behaviour have been particularly prominent (see

Bay, 1965; Kim, 1965; Somit and Tanenhaus, 1920):-
a) The rigorous scientific approach to the study of political

phenomena has been questioned. They argue that political
phenomena by their very nature are not amendable to rigorous
scientific enquiry. This is because there are far too many
uncontrollable factors, historical contingencies and unique and
changing variables to permit anything about very soft/trivial
statements of regularities. Furthermore, such generalizations
formulated can be falsified or invalidated by sheer human
volition and ingenuity. This is largely because, unlike in the
natural sciences where the observation of the investigator do not
mean anything to the molecules and atoms therein; in the social
world, the research of the behaviouralist has a specific meaning
for the individual or group living, acting and thinking therein.
Thus, the fact that the theorist would produce and the affairs that
are theorized about are related not only as subject and object but
also cause and effect ensures that even their most innocent ideas
of generalisations can contribute to their own verification or
falsification.
b) The behaviouralists’ over enthusiastic pursuit of quantitative and

scientific techniques has fostered a sterile methodism that has
impeded rather than advanced political knowledge.
Behaviouralists have tended to neglect and ignore vital areas of
political science which are not directly amendable to scientific
treatment and quantification. Instead, they have concentrated on
the more quantitative and empirically verifiable but trivial topics
of political life. This is largely because the phenomena which are
observed measured and occur with regularity are often the most
insignificant aspects of politics. In essence, the behaviouralists
have become prisoners of their own methodology since they fail
to address themselves to non-quantifiable questions of great
political significance to their students and the public at large such
as injustice, racism and imperialism. The result is that much of
their research is not only trivial but also narrow and apolitical.
c) The value-fact dichotomy or dualism in behaviouralist research is

untenable. The very selection of subjects for investigation is
shaped by values which are by no means scientific but reflect the
researcher’s personal or ideological biases and judgments. In
other words, the behavioural researcher is himself guided in his
work by a whole framework of value judgments and assumptions
which determine his research priorities and modalities but which
80
POL214 MODULE 1
cannot be isolated, analyzed or justified in scientific or

behavioural terms (Webb, 1995).
d) The commitment of the behaviouralists to a nebulous prejudice of

value neutrality has led to a political science that is morally
impotent and politically conservative. Critics of behaviouralism
have raised the question whether an empirical science which can
only study “what is” and not “what ought” must not be inherently
conservative. They argue that underlying the behaviouralist
aversion for ‘ought’ questions is a belief that what ought to be
already is, and that the traditional role of the intellectual as a
social critic is no longer possible. But Christian Bay (1965), has
argued that the study of politics is essentially normative and that
the purpose of politics is to satisfy human needs, and facilitate
human development. He contend that politics exist for the
purpose of progressively removing the most oppressive obstacles
to human development with priority to those individuals or
groups that are most severely oppressed and the least articulate
and likely to achieve redress by way of the ordinary political
process. The best hope for more scientific political research Bay
further argues is to study how the various functions of
government affect the satisfaction of basic needs and wants of the
people.
A more trenchant criticism of the behaviouralists promotion of

value-free political science was offered by Michael Parenti (1983,
cf. Parenti, 2006) who asserted that the behaviouralists did not
practice what they preach.
Although the behavioralists claimed a value-free scientific

posture, there were all sorts of value judgments hidden in their
research. For instance, their eagerness to place their science at the
service of government, military, and business rested on the
unexamined value assumption that the overall politico-economic
system was essentially a benign one.
d) The inadequacy of the behavioural approach in policy making

and forecasting has also been evident. Because the approach has
divorced itself from issues of 'good' and 'bad'; maintaining a
value neutral stand, it cannot contribute to the formulation and
elaboration of the value hierarchy or priority which characterize
the moral phase of policy making which involve the moral, the
empirical and the legislative. While the behaviouralist
contribution to policy making is acknowledged in the area of
empirical analysis of the likely implications of specific policy
options, the behaviouralist is inadequate in the legislative aspect
81
since this phase involves complex circumstances and

unpredictable situations which probably will be considerably
different from those laid down by pure behaviouralistic theorists.
Thus, contrary to the claim of behaviouralists, behaviouralism
cannot provide the basis for general forecast of the future as
distinct from tentative or probabilistic predictions. The
behaviouralist can therefore not make unconditional statement of
future possibility which is an important element of scientific
research.
e) The behaviouralists are limited in their ability to generalize their

findings. How accurate are aggregate individual political
behaviour reflective of group behaviour? The traditionalist have
therefore criticized the behaviouralist for allegedly being too
confident of the ability to generalize, to convert problematic
statements into causal propositions, and use these propositions to
predict behaviour in an area in which things are not predictable;
of attributing to abstract models a congruence with reality that
they do not have; of avoiding the substantive issues of politics
because in the zeal for scientific methods, the behaviouralist has
perhaps never mastered those issues in all their complexity of
succumbing to a 'fetish measurement" which ignores critically
important qualitative differences among the quantities being
measured (Bull 1966:361).
3.4 Post-Behaviouralism
As discussed above, numbers of political scientists began complaining

that important happenings were being ignored by the discipline. The
critics were labeled (sympathetically) by then-APSA president David
Easton as “post-behavioralists.” These post-behavioralists organized
themselves into the Caucus for a New Political Science under the
leadership of Christian Bay and Mark Roelofs. Among the political
scientists of note who proffered a critical post-behavioral viewpoint
were Charles McCoy, Peter Bachrach, James Petras, Sheldon Wolin, and
Michael Parenti (Parenti, 2006).
The aforementioned scholars not only complained that most of the

discipline’s scholarship was removed from the imperatives of political
life but inaccurate in its depiction of a benevolent democratic pluralism.
They also questioned the existence of rigorous determinist laws and the
possibility of scientific objectivity in the study of politics. They were
concerned with the propriety of the participation of behavioiural
political science in citizenship education and public affairs, endeavors
that made objectivity difficult. The behaviouralists responded by urging,
in principle, that research become more important than civic education.
82
POL214 MODULE 1
However, the Great Depression and World War II made it difficult to

contest the significance of civic responsibility. Thus, when the APSA
president William Anderson pronounced in 1943 that the preservation of
democracy and “direct service to government” were the foremost
obligations of political science, he was representing the prevailing view
of American political scientists (US History Encyclopedia, 2009).
As well, the social unrest over the war in Vietnam raised consciousness
among political scientists including some of the leading lights of the
behavioural revolution, that “behaviourism could be perceived as amoral
and irrelevant to the normative concerns governing human lives” (US
History Encyclopedia, ibid). For instance, in 1967, the caucus for a New
Political Science set up within American Political Science Association
(APSA) attacked the complacency, conservatism and lack of relevance
of American political science, rejecting the behaviouralist paradigm.
Research, according to the post-behaviouralist, was to be related to

urgent social problems and was to be purposive. It was the duty of the
political scientist to find out solutions to contemporary problems. His
objective could not be mere stability or the maintenance of the status
quo. Political science in its tools of research should no longer remain
subservient in the task laid down for its conservative politicians, for
instance in preserving the existing order...the political scientists must
play the leading role in acting for the desired social change (Verna,
1975:101).
4.0 CONCLUSION
This unit examined how the behaviouralist approach to the study of

politics is riddled with a lot of limitations as well as how the
behaviouralist attempt to separate value judgments from empirical
research was doomed to failure. This is was glaringly obvious in the
seeing of regularities and generalisations as the only proper objects of
scientific political inquiry as an unnecessary delimitation of discipline's
subject matter. In sum, it highlighted the fact that in spite of its
shortcoming, the tenets of behaviouralism probably enjoys the
acceptance by most political scientists who subscribe to the notion that
the study of politics should be theory-oriented and directed; that it
should be self-conscious about its methodology; and that it should be
interdisciplinary.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you learnt the origin of the behavioural approach, the key
tenets of the approach and its criticisms.
83
1. List and explain six (6) key features of the Behavioural

Approach.
2. Attempt a critique of the Behavioural Approach.
3. Based on the arguments against the Behavioural Approach do
you think it should still enjoy it’s acceptance by most political
scientists?
Almond, G. (1990). A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in

Political Science. Newburry Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Akindele, S. & Adebo, A. (2005). “A Revisitational Assessment of the

Rise of Behavioural Approach in Politics.” Journal of Social
Sciences.10 (1). pp. 61-64.
Bull, H. (1966). “International Theory: The Case for a Classical

Approach” World Politica. XVIII: April.
Crick, B. (1959). The American Science of Politics: Its Origins and

Conditions. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Crotty, W. (ed.) (1991). Political Science: Looking to the Future. 4

vols. Evarton, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.

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

Willey.
Easton, D. (1967). “Current Meaning of Behaviouralism.” in

CharlesWorth, J. (ed.) Contemporary Political Analysis New
York: The Free Press.
Eulay, H. (1967). “Segments of Political Science Most Susceptible to

Behavioural analysis” in CharlesWorth, J. (ed.) Contemporary
Political Analysis New York: The Free Press.
Eulau Heinz (1973). “The Behavioural Movement in Political Science:

A Personal Document.” Social Research. 24-25.
84
POL214 MODULE 1
Farr, J. & Seidelman, R. (eds). (1993). Discipline and History: Political

Science in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1993.
Finifter, A. (1993). Political Science: The State of the Discipline II.

Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.
Leeds, C. A. (1981) Political Studies (3rd ed.). London: Macdonald &

Evans Ltd.
Merkl, P. (1967). Political Continuity and Change. New York: Harper

and Row.
Parenti, M. (2006). “Patricians, Professionals, and Political Science”

American Political Science Review. 100 (4). November. pp. 498-
505.
Ricci, D. (1984). The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics,

Scholarship, and Democracy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press.
Seidelman, R. & Harpham, E. (1985). Disenchanted Realists: Political

Science and the American Crisis, 1884–1984. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Somit, A. & Tanenhaus, J. (1920) “The Behavioural-Traditional Debate

in Political Science". In Louis D. Hayes and Ronald D. Heldlund
(eds.). The Conduct of Political Inquiry. Eaglehood Cliff:
Prentice Hall. Pp. 45-55.
Somit, A. & Tanenhaus, J. (1982). The Development of American

Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. Enlarged (ed).
New York: Irvington Publishers.
Truman, D. (1973). “The Impact of Political Science on the Revolution

in BehaviouralScience.” in Heinz Eulay (ed.). Behaviouralism in
Political Science. New York: Lieber-Atherton.
Truman, D. (1951). “The Implications of Political Behavioural

Research” Items. December.
US History Encyclopedia “Political Science.” Retrieved on September

12, 2009 from www.answers.com/library/US+History+Encyclopedia-
cid-63262.
Varma, S.P (1975). Modern Political Theory. Ghaziabad UP: Vikas

Publishing House PVT Ltd.
85
UNIT 3 APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF

POLITICAL SYSTEMS: SYSTEMS APPROACH
AND STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALIST
APPROACH
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Systems Approach
3.2 Merits of the Systems Approach
3.3 Criticisms of the Systems Approach
3.4 Structural Functionalist Approach (SFA)
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
7. 0 References/Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, we examined the behavioural approach which we said

was a response to the shortcomings of the traditional approach. In this
unit, we shall consider two approaches or framework of analysis
developed for the study of political systems viz; systems approach and
structural-functionalist approach. These approaches developed at the
same time with the behavioural approach and some of its proponents
were the same advocates of the behavioural approach.
As you shall discover in our subsequent lectures, a political system

refers to any stable pattern of interactions which involves power and
authority (Dahl, 1976) including all the factors which influence
collective decisions, even if those factors are not formally part of the
government. In other words, politics is embedded within an overall
system whose parts directly or indirectly influences the nature of politics
(cf. Osaghae, 1988).Thus parties, voters, interest groups all form part of
the system of politics even though they are not part of government or the
state. Politics is a collective activity and it occurs throughout society:
from family groups to the state, and from the voluntary association to
the multinational corporation. Politics means planning and organizing
common projects, setting rules and standards that define the relations of
people to one another, and allocating resources among rival human
needs and purposes’ (cf. Stoker, 1995). The broadening of the definition
of politics from the study of government and public affairs (activities of
the state) to a focus on what Lefwitch (1984) calls ‘politics of everyday
life’ has brought a ‘large mass of what is, at first, unorganized data’ that
86
POL214 MODULE 1
made it very important for the analysis of the data in order to draw
relationship among them. While there are many political systems, we
shall restrict our meaning of the term to countries or states.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define and describe the Systems Approach

 state the merits of the Systems Approach
 explain some criticisms of the Systems Approach
 define and describe the Structural Functionalist Approach (SFA)
 state the merits of the Structural Functionalist Approach
 explain some criticisms of the Structural Functionalist Approach.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Systems Approach
System analysis is an attempt by David Easton, its originator, to apply

general systems theories to political science. In this pioneering effort,
Easton (1953) insisted that political system “is that system of
interactions in any society through which binding or authoritative
allocations are made.” Easton explained that from the environment
demands are made on the political system in the form of input (demands
and support). These demands are then processed into outputs, which are
authoritative decisions (Legislations or Acts). Through a feedback loop
changes brought about by those outcomes after conversion, are
channeled back into the system in form of increased, intensified or
modified demands and supports. Although the model is largely abstract,
it is useful as a general framework for political analysis.
Easton (1953) analyses political activity by employing the paradigm of

the biological system “whose life processes interact with each other and
with the environment to produce a changing but nonetheless stable
bodily state.” Viewed this way, therefore, politics is the response of the
political system to forces brought to bear on it from the environment.
According to Easton (1953), politics is as an output of the political

system. Certain key concepts are central to the understanding of public
policy from the systems theoretic framework. First, is the concept of
system which “implies an identifiable set of institutions and activities in
a society that functions to transform demands into authoritative
decisions requiring support of the whole society.” A crucial property of
a system is the interrelatedness of its parts or elements. Furthermore, it
is assumed that a system will respond to its environment and will seek to
87
preserve itself. Second, is the concept of inputs, which refer to the forces
generated in the environment that affect the political system. Inputs can
take the form of demand and support. Demands involve actions by
individuals and groups seeking authoritative allocations of values from
the authorities. Support comprises actions rendered in favour of
government such as obedience to the law and payment of taxes. Inputs
on the other hand, are generated from the environment defined by
Easton as “any condition or circumstance defined as external to the
boundaries of the...political system". lnputs are fed into the black box of
decision making, otherwise called the conversion box to produce
outputs. Outputs are the decisions and policies of the authorities. Within
the systems framework, allowance is made for feedback. This is the
mechanism through which the outputs of the political system influence
future inputs into the system. According to Anderson, (1975) “the
concept of feedback indicates that public policies (or outputs) may
subsequently alter the environment and the demands generated therein,
as well as the character of the political system itself.”
GATE KEEPERS
The
Demands, Political Authoritative
Supports System Decisions
FEEED BACK
Fig. 1: David Easton’s Input –Output Model

Source: Easton, D. (1965a).
According to Easton (1953, 1965a, 1965b), the political system consists

of all those institutions and processes involved in the authoritative
allocation of values for society. The political system takes inputs from
society. These consist of (a) demands for particular policies and (b)
expressions of support. Supports include: compliance with laws,
payment of taxes and diffuse support for the regime. The political
system converts these inputs into outputs –authoritative policies and
decisions. These outputs then feed back to society so as to affect the
next cycle of inputs. However, inputs are regulated by gatekeepers, such
as parties and interest groups, which bias the system in favor of certain
demands and against others.
88
POL214 MODULE 1
From the society come the inputs which consist of demands and
supports. Demands refer to actions people want those in authority to
undertake or reject. These demands may be articulated in a peaceful
way. The voting, writing to officials or lobbying them; or in violent
ways through riots, strikes, even civil war. The important demands are
those that are articulated (or expressed). However in this model,
demands are viewed as sources of societal stress which can largely be
managed or abated by supports given to those in authority. Supports
which consist of implicit or explicit agreement with government
policies, or encouragement to follow certain courses of action could be
given to the political system as a whole.
Generally, if supports is lacking, the political system cannot survive for

long. The inputs are transmitted to the decision-making centers where
they are processed and converted into authoritative-allocation of values
in the form of outputs. Basically outputs are the policies formulated by
the decision-makers namely, rule-making by the legislature, rule
application by the executive and rule-adjudication by the judiciary. The
feedback loop in essence represents the process by which the political
system informs itself about the consequences of its outputs. However,
the pertinent questions are: do the outputs meet the demands? Or create-
new problems? Most importantly, the extent to which the political
system is able to meet the demands made determines the level of
supports it is likely to get.
With the aim of a diagram, explain Easton’s input-output model using

Nigeria as your political system.
3.2 Merits of the Systems Approach
1. It provides a framework that helped to move political science

away from an exclusive concern with the nation state (and its
institutions such as the government) to the study of all groups and
institutions in social context.
2. Following from the above, it provides a standardised set of
concepts such as inputs and outputs to describe activities which
take place in all political systems, and hence providing the
framework for comparing political systems
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.
4. It enables us to selectively identify and organise what is political
when you look at the whole society. It also enables us to identify
89
the interrelationships of political phenomena -cabinet office,

political parties, ethnicity, and so on- 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.
List and explain the merits of the systems approach.
3.3 Criticisms of the Systems Approach
1. In drawing out its framework of analysis which focused attention

on all ‘those institutions and processes involved in the
authoritative allocation of values for society’, Easton reduced the
state to nothing more than a ‘black box’ that simply receives and
shuns out input and output indifferently. However, more than the
other institutions such as political parties and interest groups,
which Easton believes regulates inputs, the state, given the
particular form of extensive and compulsory authority embodied
within its activities, is central to the authoritative allocation of
values and its activities can create winners and losers in the
society. As Heywood (1994) comments:
The state is best thought of not just as a set of institutions

but a particular kind of political association, specifically one
that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined
territorial boundaries… the state commands supreme power
in that it stands above all other associations and groups in
society; its laws demand the compliance of all those who
live within the territory.
Thus the systems approach underestimates the complexity of

governance. For example, the impression that demands are
claims made on the political system by individuals and groups in
the environment of the political system neglects the view that
government through its own deliberate actions and inactions
instigates and generates demands which form the basis of policy
decisions.
2. The most popular criticism is that the approach is conservative

and ideologically oriented towards retaining the status quo. By
placing emphasis on equilibrium and system maintenance, the
approach places much value on the imperative of order and
predictability. The implication of this characterization is that
stability becomes a goal which is pursued at all cost even if it
90
POL214 MODULE 1
means suppressing legitimate demands. The utility of systems

theory is even more worrisome in situations where stability is a
problem and the policy making machinery is in dire need of
revolutionary changes. It is in this sense that 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 (Osaghae, 1988).
Explain the criticism that the system approach is conservative and

ideologically oriented towards retaining the status quo in relation to
other demerits.
3.4 Structural Functionalist Approach (SFA)
This approach is an offshoot of systems approach. It focuses largely on

explaining the functions a political system must perform to survive and
defines structures or Organisations which can most efficiently perform
the functions. The structures may be political parties, pressure groups or
formal government institutions performing system-maintenance
functions such as informing the electorate on important issues and
allowing for wider participation in the political system. Although the
approach cannot provide a general theory for all aspects of political
science, nevertheless, it provides standard categories for different
political system and therefore useful in comparative government/
politics.
The structural-functionalist approach (SFA) was pioneered by Gabriel

Almond. The SFA represented a vast improvement over the systems
approach of David Easton. Almond’s brilliant innovation was to outline
an approach to understanding political systems that took into account
not only its structural components — its institutions — but also their
functions within the system as a whole. Prior to structural functionalism,
scholars had no way of systematically comparing different political
systems beyond a rudimentary, and oftentimes inconclusive, analysis of
their institutions.
At its most basic level, the SFA, just like the systems approach,
proceeds from the understanding that a political system is made up of
institutions (structures), such as interest groups, political parties, the
executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and
bureaucratic machinery. However, unlike the systems approach, the SFA
believes that information is not sufficient to make a meaningful
comparison between two political systems. Two countries may share
91
many of the same political institutions, but what distinguishes the two
systems are the ways in which these institutions function.
Almond postulates that political systems have universal characteristics

and that these characteristics can be conceptualised into schematic
approach to the comparative study of politics. In effect, of the many
identified by him, four stand distinctly stand out. They are that: political
systems have political structures; the same functions are performed in all
political systems; all political structures... are multi-functional; and that
all political systems are mixed in the cultural sense.
Almond claims that his characteristics form the basis for the
comparative study of the developed and the less developed nation states.
He recognizes that similar structures are found from polity to polity. He
however suggests that in order to fully locate them, the correct
functional questions must be made since this is the only pragmatic way
to appreciate the dynamic process.
While borrowing from Easton's framework with particular reference to

the input, output, feedback functions within the political system, he
discusses his functional equivalents in a political system emphasizing
the context of input and output dimensions. Four sub-themes are
recognized amongst the input functions. They are: political
socialization, interest articulation, interest aggregation, and political
communication. For the output functions there are three sub-themes:
rule making, rule application and, rule adjudication. These functions are
performed in order to ensure the equilibrium of the system.
Table 2: Almond and Powell’s functions of political systems

Political recruitment People must be recruited to fill political roles
from voters to government leaders
Political socialisation Their attitudes to the political system must be
formed and sustained
Political Politically relevant information must be
communication transmitted
Interest articulation Demands for particular policies must be
expressed
Interest aggregation Demands must be selected and combined into a
manageable number of major alternatives
Policy-making Demands must be converted into authoritative
decisions and policies
Policy implementation These decisions must be put into effect
Source: Almond, G. and Powell, G. (1978). Comparative Politics.
Boston: Little, Brown. pgs.13-16.
Almond and Powell (1978). Provided the most important analysis of the
functions of political systems. Their list is shown in Table 2 above.
92
POL214 MODULE 1
Functionalists argued that a check-list of this kind provided an objective,

standardized and culture-free approach to comparative politics. Take the
function of political recruitment as an example. All political systems
have to persuade people to fill political roles, varying in scope from
chief executive to the voter. However, this function is performed by
different institutions in different countries. In some countries, elections
are the major recruiting agent. In some others such as Communist China,
the ruling party is the key vehicle in recruitment. Once the party had
approved a nomination for office, election (if it takes place) becomes a
mere formality. In some other countries such as Saudi Arabia, blood
relationship with the ruling dynasty is the key criterion to political
recruitment while in others such as Nigeria under military rule, coup
d’etat was the key way of acquiring the presidential rank. Today in a
democracy, money and connection to a godfather are sometimes more
significant in political recruitment. In all these examples, the institutions
vary but the underlying functions must be performed by every political
system if it must survive and operate effectively.
Thus for Almond and Powell, a fuller understanding emerges only when
one begins to examine how institutions act within the political process.
As he described it, interest groups serve to articulate political issues;
parties then aggregate and express them in a coherent and meaningful
way; government in turn enacts public policies to address them; and
bureaucracies finally regulate and adjudicate them.
While this model neatly accounts for what happens within a political
system, systems are never entirely self-contained. They exist in a
dynamic relationship to other political systems and must continuously
adapt to changing conditions in the larger socio-political context. For
this reason, all political systems require efficient feedback mechanisms.
Also, according to the structural functionalist approach, political culture
plays a crucial role in determining the unique characteristics of a
political system. These system functions include political socialisation,
recruitment, and communication. Without understanding these elements
of a society, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make an adequate
assessment and comparison between two political systems (Almond and
Gabriel, 1978).
By political socialization, Almond and Powell mean the process by

which a culture passes down civic values, beliefs, and habits of mind to
succeeding generations. It refers to the largely unconscious process by
which families, schools, communities, political parties and other agents
of socialisation inculcate the culture’s dominant political values.
Recruitment refers to the ways by which citizens become active
participants in the political system. And communication represents the
way a political system disseminates information essential to its proper
93
functioning. For example, the news media plays a vital role not only in
distributing public information to citizens upon which they then make
important political decisions, but also in shaping political attitudes and
values concerning the political process.
Explain the Structural Functionalist Approach in relation to system-

maintenance functions in political parties, pressure groups or formal
government institutions.
3.5.1 Merits of the Structural Functionalist Approach
1. The structural-functionalist approach facilitates comparison

among political systems. If political systems-whether village or
industrialized-require the basic functions to survive they can be
compared if these functions are identified, and the structures
which perform them are also 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 structures do rather than on what their
characteristics are. In other words, it wants to find out what the
behaviour is and why it is important. By so doing, we know that
some structures perform other functions apart from the manifest
ones.
3.5.2 Criticisms of the Structural Functionalist Approach
1. Like the systems approach, its emphasis on system-maintenance

makes it ideological opposed to revolutionary change. To be sure,
functionalists acknowledge that change is sometimes necessary to
correct social dysfunctions (the opposite of functions), but that it
must occur slowly so that people and institutions can adapt
without rapid disorder. Thus, it is by its very nature conservative:
it recognises that a political system’s first objective is to ensure
its own survival. For this reason, it is not especially responsive to
innovations and movements aimed at political change — that is,
beyond those that strengthen its adaptiveness and resilience.
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.
94
POL214 MODULE 1
3. By placing a lot of emphasis on functions and functional

behavior, the approach diverts attention away from the
institutions and structures themselves which perform these
functions. These structures and institutions are seen as merely
existing to perform certain functions. In other words, the laudable
abstract analysis of functions has not been matched by an equal
concern with or linkage to the concrete structures. For instance,
by insisting that societies must perform certain functions in order
to be societies and that these general categories can be used to
order the material reality, the approach creates a spurious
generalization. This is because while it may be true that all
societies have to perform these functions, the variability in the
manner in which they are performed is so great that it may be
difficult to consider them as the ‘same’ (Webb, 1995). For
example, an election in Nigeria would be the ‘same’ physical
event as an election in the United Kingdom, but its meaning may
be different. The Nigerian type of election which is often
characterized by thuggery and vote rigging will not have the
equivalent meaning in the UK, even though they refer to the
‘same’ physical event.
4. It also has a democratic and participatory bias insofar as it views

citizen input and involvement in the political process as the surest
route to political stability and responsiveness. Yet, in many
political systems, citizens input is nothing but mere window
dressing to legitimate decisions made by the ruling elites, as is
the case under military rule or dictatorial regimes.
Explain the merits and demerits of the structural functionalist approach.
4.0 CONCLUSION
In spite of their differences, the systems and structural functionalist

approaches have three major similar features. First, they are concerned
with how order is maintained. Second, they recognise that change is
inevitable as it is interested in how political stems are able to meet the
challenges posed by change. However, the approaches do not envisage
the revolutionary or violent change that characterises many political
systems of the world. Third, the approaches draw attention to the
importance of goal-realization as a central aspect of the political system
because they assume that no political system can survive for long
without articulating and pursuing identifiable goals.
95
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you learnt about the important contributions of the systems
approach and structural functionalist approach for political analysis. The
approaches draw attention to the fact that every political system is made
up of total environment, inputs, outputs, and feedback process; that parts
of a system are interdependent. The structural functionalist approach
draws our attention to the universal characteristics or functions of all
political systems, and is especially useful for comparing political
systems. However, you learnt that both approaches do not provide a
useful framework for analysing revolutionary changes.
1. List and explain four criticisms of the structural functionalist

approach.
2. Explain the input-output mechanism of a political system
3. Has the Structural Functionalist Approach been justified in the
functions in political parties, pressure groups or formal
government institutions.
7. 0 REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
Almond, G. & Powell, G. (1978). Comparative Politics. Boston: Little,

Brown. Pp. 13-16.

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

Wiley.
Easton, D. (1965b). A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Lipson, L. (1993). The Great Issues of Politics: An Introduction to

Political Science (9th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Levine, H. (1993). Political Issues Debated: An Introduction to Politics.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Osaghae, E. (1988). Political Analysis (POS211). Ibadan: University of

Roskin, M.; Cord, R.; Medeiros, J. & Jones, W. (2007). Political

Science: An Introduction (10th Ed.). New York: Pearson Prentice.
96
POL214 MODULE 1
Scott, G. & Garrison, St. (1995). The Political Science Student Writer’s
Manual. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.

97
UNIT 4 POLITICAL PROCESSES APPROACHES:

CLASS APPROACH, PLURALISM (GROUPS
APPROACH), AND ELITE APPROACH
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Class Analysis Approach or Marxism
3.2 Pluralism or Group approach
3.3 Elite Approach
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the last unit, the systems approach and Structural Functionalist
Approaches specifically designed for the study of political systems were
examined. In this unit, three different approaches that are particularly
relevant for the analysis of political processes viz: class approach or
Marxism, pluralist or groups approach, and elite approach will also be
examined.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define and describe the class analysis approach or marxism

 state the contributions of the class approach
 state the criticisms of the class approach and its modifications
 define and describe pluralism or group approach
 state the contributions of the pluralist Approach
 state the criticisms of the pluralist approach and its modification
define and describe the elite approach
 state the contributions of the elite approach
 state the criticisms of the elite approach and its modifications.
98
POL214 MODULE 1
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Class Analysis Approach or Marxism
Class approach is an important tool in political science which focuses on

division of society into classes and how this social stratification
determines social conflict and social change.
The class analysis approach is often referred to as Marxism because it

derives from the writings of Karl Marx and his associate, Friedrich
Engels. It is a critique of the capitalist system where Marx posits a
materialist interpretation of human history. By this, it assumes that the
mode of production of goods and services and the manner of exchange
of these goods and services constitute the bases of all social processes
and institutions. Marx insists that it is the economy that serves as the
foundation upon which the superstructure of culture, law, and
government is erected. It is those who own the means of production that
not only determines the economic fortunes of the society but politically
sets its social values.
According to Marx, every society is divided into classes on the basis of

ownership or non-ownership of the means of production. Those who
own property constitute a class and those who do not constitute another
class. He argues that it is the clash between classes that provides the
motive force of history. The class struggle is in turn, a reflection of the
contradiction between the forces of production, that is, the instrument of
labour and the people producing the material wealth on the one hand and
the relations of production, that is, the relations among people in the
process of production exchange, distribution and consumption of
material wealth on the other hand. Since the social relations develop at a
slower pace than the forces of production they soon constitute a
hindrance to the latter, thereby making social revolution inevitable.
Marx shows that the capitalist system is polarized into two classes -the
few capitalist bourgeoisies who own the means of production and the
proletariat, the workers. The relationship between these two classes is
characterized by antagonism because the bourgeoisie exploits and
subjugates the proletariat in an effort to maximize profit. People relate to
the mode of production either as owners or non-owners of the means of
production. In a capitalist society, Marxists argue, two classes exist,
namely the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie as owners of
means of production are not only economically dominant but also
politically superior because the bourgeoisie also controls the state and its
institutions. The state, in the Marxist thesis, is an instrument of
domination by the bourgeoisie, “a product and manifestation of the
irreconcilability of class antagonism” (Lenin, 1914). This view is
encapsulated in Marx's oft-quoted saying that “the executive of the
99
modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the
bourgeoisie” (cf. Avineri, 1970).
Far from being a neutral actor which some other approaches such as the
systems and structural-functionalist approaches promoted, the state, in
class approach, is viewed as partisan in favour of the interests of the
dominant class. Ralph Miliband has offered three reasons why the state
is an instrument of bourgeois domination in capitalist society. First is the
similarity in the social background of the bourgeoisie and the state
officials located in government, the civil service bureaucracy, the
military, judiciary etc. Second, is the power of the bourgeoisie to
pressurize for political action through a network of personal contacts
and associations with those ill business and industry, Third, is the
constraint placed on the state by the objective power of capital, that is to
say, the limits placed on the freedom of state officials by their need to
assist the process of capital accumulation, a need which stems from the
requirements of a strong economic based for political survival
(Miliband, 1989).
At the core of class analysis is the concept of dialectical materialism

which presumes the primacy of economic determinants in history.
Through dialectical materialism the fundamental Marxist premise that
the history of society is the inexorable “history of class struggle” was
developed. According to this premise, a specific class could rule only so
long as it best represented the economically productive forces of
society; when it became outmoded it would be destroyed and replaced.
From this continuing dynamic process a classless society would
eventually emerge. In modern capitalist society, the bourgeois
(capitalist) class had destroyed and replaced the unproductive feudal
nobility and had performed the economically creative task of
establishing the new industrial order. The stage was thus set for the
final struggle between the bourgeoisie, which had completed its historic
role, and the proletariat, composed of the industrial workers, or makers
of goods, which had become the true productive class (see Wood,
1981). Marx envisages that as the contradictions of the capitalist system
become more acute, a revolutionary situation will arise during which
the proletariat (the oppressed class) will overthrow the capitalists and
the dictatorship of the proletariat will be established.
The proletariat, after becoming the ruling class would “centralise all
instruments of production in the hands of the state” and to increase
productive forces at a rapid rate. Once the bourgeoisie had been
defeated, there would be no more class divisions, since the means of
production would not be owned by any group. The coercive state,
formerly a weapon of class oppression, would be replaced by a rational
structure of economic and social cooperation and integration. Such
100
POL214 MODULE 1
bourgeois institutions as the family and religion, which had served to

perpetuate bourgeois dominance, would vanish, and each individual
would find true fulfillment. The final aim of the revolution is to
establish communism, a classless society which would have no need for
the state and which would be organised on the principle of, “from each
according to his ability and to each according to his needs.” (see,
Carver, 1991).
In the class approach which focuses on division of society into classes

and how this social stratification determines social conflict and social
change Marx insists that it is those who own the means of production
that not only determines the economic fortunes of the society but
politically sets its social values. Explain.
3.2 Contributions of the Class Approach
1. The class approach provides a radically different approach to the

understanding of the political process, especially the role of the
state and the crucial role of the ruling class in determining what
the state does and what the state chooses not to do in the value
allocation process.
2. Contrary to the systems and structural-functionalist approaches

that favours orderly change; the class approach draws our
attention to the possibility of violent revolutionary changes in
political systems.
3.2.1 Criticisms of the Class Approach and its Subsequent

Modification
1. The class approach has been criticised for its economic

determinism. In other words, the approach gives a determining
significance to economic and property relations that other
institutions –political, legal, cultural and ideological – are merely
a reflection of them and merely explained by their dependence on
prevailing economic relations.
2. A major criticism of Class analysis is that even in communist

states where attempts were made to implement Marxism, the
states did not disappear as Karl Marx foretold, but rather, these
communists’ regimes led to the re-erection of huge, monolithic
state structures. Also, the recent demise of the Communist bloc in
Eastern Europe such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. and Central
101
Asia have tended to discredit Marx's dire and deterministic

economic predictions.
3. A related criticism of the class approach is Karl Marx’s failure to

comprehend the fact that the relationship between the ruling class
and the working class is not always antagonistic. Arguing from
this perspective, critics have pointed out that the evolution of
varied forms of welfare capitalism has improved condition of
workers in industrial societies rather than worsen as Marx
projected and that the proletarian revolution did not occur as he
anticipated. This point itself has been acknowledged by some
scholars within the class approach such as Miliband who has
argued that the room for autonomous action by the state in
capitalist society is not a remote possibility since the state
sometimes carries out reforms favourable to the underclass
(Miliband, 1989). Also in the light of the criticism, particularly
the failure of the workers revolution to occur, Marx’s successors
introduced important revisions to his theory. One of them V.I.
Lenin for instance, argues that there has been a new development
in capitalism, that is, imperialism which has resulted in the
acquisition of colonies. According to him, imperialism has
provided advanced capitalist countries with ready markets,
sources of cheap raw materials and labour and havens for
investing surplus profits and thereby eased the contradictions of
the system. The conditions of the proletariat have also been
improved but only through the exploitation of the international
working class (Lenin, 1914).
Attempt a review of the contributions and critique of the class approach.
3.3 Pluralism or Group Approach
Pluralism in its classical form believes that politics and decision making
is located mostly in the governmental framework, but many non-
governmental groups are using their resources to exert influence. The
central question for classical pluralism is how power is distributed in
western democracies. Groups of individuals try to maximise their
interests because lines of conflict are multiple and shifting. There may
be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out. Any
change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have
different interests and may act as “veto groups” to destroy legislation
that they do not agree with. The existence of diverse and competing
interests, represented by groups, is the basis for a democratic
equilibrium, and is crucial for the obtaining of goals by individuals. The
102
POL214 MODULE 1
job of political scientists with this kind of concern is the analyses of the
Organisation and behaviour of these groups. From the standpoint of
pluralist approach, a law passed by the legislature for instance, expresses
mainly the prevailing distribution of influence among competing groups,
each of them seeking to advance its own particular interest.
The pluralist approach to politics argues essentially that power in

western industrialized societies is widely distributed among different
groups. According to this approach, no group is without power to
influence decision-making and equally no group is dominant. It is a
major premise of pluralism that any group can ensure that its political
preferences and wishes are adopted and reflected in governmental action
with sufficient determination and the deployment of appropriate -
resources.
Pluralism is a theory of representation in a democracy. It gives a pride of

place to pressure groups and the representation of specific interests by
these groups as a hallmark of liberal democracy. In another sense, the
theory legitimises the role which these groups play in the conducting of
government business by emphasising the mutuality of obligation which
exists between these groups and government.
Pluralists emphasise that power is not a physical entity that individuals

either have or do not have, but flows from a variety of different sources.
Rather, people are powerful because they control various resources.
Resources are assets that can be used to force others to do what one
wants. Politicians become powerful because they command resources
that people want or fear or respect. The list of possibilities is virtually
endless: legal authority, money, prestige, skill, knowledge, charisma,
legitimacy, free time, experience, celebrity, and public support.
Pluralists also stress the differences between potential and actual power
as it stands. Actual power means the ability to compel someone to do
something; potential power refers to the possibility of turning resources
into actual power. Cash, one of many resources, is only a stack of bills
until it is put to work. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, was certainly
not a rich person. But by using resources such as his forceful
personality, organisational skills, and especially the legitimacy of his
cause, he had a greater impact on American politics than most wealthy
people. A particular resource like money cannot automatically be
equated with power because the resource can be used skillfully or
clumsily, fully or partially, or not at all.
The pluralist approach to the study of power states that nothing

categorical about power can be assumed in any community. The
question then is not who runs a community, but if any group in fact
103
does. To determine this, pluralists study specific outcomes. The reason

for this is that they believe human behaviour is governed in large part by
inaction.
That said, actual involvement in overt activity is a more valid marker of

leadership than simply a reputation. Pluralists also believe that there is
no one particular issue or point in time at which any group must assert
itself to stay true to its own expressed values, but rather that there are a
variety of issues and points at which this is possible. There are also costs
involved in taking action at all—not only losing, but expenditure of time
and effort. While the Marxist may argue that power distributions have a
rather permanent nature, pluralism says that power may in fact be tied to
issues, which vary widely in duration. Also, instead of focusing on
actors within a system; the emphasis is on the leadership roles itself. By
studying these, it can be determined to what extent there is a power
structure present in a society.
Three of the major tenets of the pluralist school are (1) resources and
hence potential power widely scattered throughout society; (2) at least
some resources are available to nearly everyone; and (3) at any time the
amount of potential power exceeds the amount of actual power.
Finally, and perhaps most important, no one is all-powerful. An

individual or group that is influential in one realm may be weak in
another. For instance, large military contractors certainly throw their
weight around on defense matters, but they may not have much say on
agricultural or health policies. A measure of power, therefore, is its
scope, or the range of areas where it is successfully applied. Pluralists
believe that with few exceptions power holders usually have a relatively
limited scope of influence. For all these reasons power cannot be taken
for granted. One has to observe it empirically in order to know who
really governs. The best way to do this, pluralists believe, is to examine
a wide range of specific decisions, noting who took which side and who
ultimately won and lost. Only by keeping score on a variety of
controversies can one begin to actual power holders.
Crucial to the pluralist approach is the concept of partisan mutual

adjustment. According to this concept, policy takes place in a crowded
arena, and no group or political factions is powerful enough to dominate
the others. Policy emerges as a compromise between the various interest
groups. This brings along a specific rationale: each group adjusts its
stance to take into consideration the others to promote stability, because
even if a group loses out this time, this means it still retains the ability to
fight another day.
104
POL214 MODULE 1
Given that crucial to the pluralist approach is the concept of partisan

mutual adjustment what then is the specific rationale of its compromise
between the various interest groups?
3.4 Contribution of the Pluralist Approach
Pluralism maintains that the political system is hierarchically structured.

This in other words means that a few are deciding for many. Despite this
fact, pluralism maintains democracy is possible because the many can
make the few responsive, accountable and accessible. The way this is
done is as follows:
1) No one group in society has a monopoly of power.

2) In order to make governmental policy, coalitions of groups have
to be formed and groups in society are pragmatic enough to work
out compromises.
3) There is a basic consensus within society that rules out violence
as a legitimate way to resolve group conflict.
4) This consensus also involves a widespread agreement on a
mechanism for making decisions;
5) This mechanism is considered legitimate i.e., the losers are
willing to comply with the decision of the winners.
6) Another requirement is that the winners permit the losers to
criticize and challenge the winners’ decision.
3.4.1 Criticism of pluralist approach and its modification
While pluralism as an approach gained its most footing during the 1950s
and 1960s in America, some scholars argued that the theory was too
simplistic (see Connolly (1969). However, Sambo (1999: 293) has
offered the following criticisms of the pluralist or group approach:
1. The obvious uni-causal explanation of politics and public policy

from the perspective of group struggle alone. This is an
exaggerated claim which overlooks the independent role of
individual actors in the policy process.
2. Is the empirical question whether, indeed, power is as widely

distributed in society as group theory claims and more important,
whether the voice of the least powerful is ever audible as to make
it significant in the decision making process.
3. That the market place paradigm on which the pluralist approach

is anchored raises the significant question about parity in the
105
process of competition since we are told that the sources of power

available to groups may not be equal. The advantage, which some
groups enjoy on account of superior resource endowment, might
be a factor in the dominance of their interests in public policy.
This is more so as they are able to deploy their advantaged
position to secure their interests through, for example, the
manipulation of the rules of competition.
4. The assumed neutrality of government in the clash of partisan

groups in the value allocation process is questionable if not
doubtful. The underlying assumption about government in
pluralism is that government is an impartial mediator of conflict
in society and by implication a preserver of the social order.
However, experience all over the world shows that sometimes,
government is not a neutral actor in policy making: government
is not necessarily a disinterested party in the conflict of interests
of partisan groups in society. Indeed, government sometimes
pursues its own preferences which may conflict with the interests
of other groups in the society.
What are the crucial features of the pluralist approach as well as its
criticisms?
3.5. Neo-Pluralism
Faced with the above criticism, attempts have been made to modify
pluralism. This attempt led to the formulation of neo-pluralism and
corporatism.
Essentially, although neo-pluralism sees multiple pressure groups

competing over political influence, the political agenda is biased
towards corporate power. Neo-Pluralism no longer sees the state as an
umpire mediating and adjudicating between the demands of different
interest groups, but as a relatively autonomous actor (with different
departments) that forges and looks after its own (sectional) interests.
Constitutional rules, which in pluralism are embedded in a supportive
political culture, should be seen in the context of a diverse, and not
necessarily supportive, political culture or a system of radically uneven
economic sources. This diverse culture exists because of an uneven
distribution of socioeconomic power. This creates possibilities for some
groups - while limiting others - in their political options. In the
international realm, order is distorted by powerful multinational interests
and dominant states, while in classical pluralism emphasis is put on
stability by a framework of pluralist rules and free market.
106
POL214 MODULE 1
3.5.1 Corporatism
Corporatism was an attempt to apply the Classical pluralism (which was

believed by many to be an American model) to Westminster-style
democracies or the European context. Corporatism is the idea that a few
select interest groups are actually (often formally) involved in the policy
formulation process, to the exclusion of the myriad of other 'interest
groups'. For example, trade unions and major sectoral business
associations are often consulted about (if not the drivers of) specific
policies.
These policies often concern tripartite relations between workers,

employers and the state, with a coordinating role for the latter. The state
constructs a framework in which it can address the political and
economic issues with these organised and centralised groups. In this
view, parliament and party politics lose influence in the policy forming
process. Other groups that some pluralists believe are more involved and
have disproportionate influence in the interest articulation function are
the business interests such as multinational companies.
Besides the objections to the classical model of pluralism and the

subsequent reformulations mentioned above, another criticism was that
groups need a high level of resources and the support of patrons to
contend for influence and the classical pluralist approach did not factor
this in their account. This observation formed the basis for elite
pluralism which is a modified pluralism account for elements of elite
theory.
What are the critical features that led to the modification of pluralism
into neo-pluralism and corporatism?
3.6 Elite Approach
According to Arslan (1995: 3), the concept of “elite” originally derived

from the Latin “eligre” which means select, shares a common basis with
“electa” that means elected or the best. However, it was not widely used
in social and political studies until the late nineteenth century (Cf.
Arslan, 2006).
Historical research has already established that the elite is not an

immutable entity, rather its formation is determined by the structural
composition of society and especially by the characteristics of the
political system. Hence there are different types of elites. These include
107
political elites, business elites, military elites, mass-media elites, trade

and labour unions elites, traditional elites, and academic elites.
Theoretically, elites can be defined as those people who hold

institutionalised power, control the social resources (include not only the
wealth, prestige and status but also the personal resources of charisma,
time, motivation and energy) and have a serious influence (either
actively or potentially) on the decision-making process. They can realise
their own will in spite of opposition.
The elite concept acquired world-wide popularity in social science as a

result of the writings of Gaetano Mosca (1939), Wright Mills’ (1956),
and especially Vilfredo Pareto (1968) who sougth to construct an
alternative vocabulary to the emphasis on Marxian “class” and class
conflict. With these works, the concept of elite became new theoretical
and methodological framework for researching the connections between
political and economic power in the society. Since then the concept has
achieved a wider acceptance within modern sociology, often being seen
as a useful way of describing certain systems of political power
complementary to the use of the world class to describe systems of
economic power.
Elite theory distrusts class analysis and the idea that class struggle
would entail the liberation of the working class, and thereby of society
as a whole. According to Pareto (1968), the most important of these are
the struggles between rising and falling elite groups, which he termed
the circulation of the elites. History is not history of class struggle as
maintained by Marx, but the struggles between elites over social
domination.
Classical elite theory also developed from a general distrust of

democracy (Mosca, 1939; Pareto, 1968), and of the possibility to
maintain democratic institutions (Michels, 1959). C. Wright Mills
(1956) supplemented the classical elite theory by conceiving public and
private elites as convergent into a single ruling group in society.
Elite approach developed as an alternative paradigm to pluralism. The

elite approach rejects the pluralist view concerning the distribution of
power in society. In the alternative, Elite theory points to the
concentration of political power in the hands of a minority group which,
according to Mosca, “performs all political functions, monopolises
power and enjoys the advantages that power brings...” (Mosca, 1939).
Elite approach investigates power and control and aims to analyse elite
and non-elite (mass, public) differentiation. Elite theorists are concerned
almost exclusively with inequalities based on power or lack thereof.
108
POL214 MODULE 1
This distinguishes elite theory from class theory. Power in turn, is based
on other resources (such as economic assets and organisational strength)
and for its part may give rise to control over other resources as well.
But, as Etzioni (1993:19) stressed, elite theory is concerned primarily
with the other resources which are related to it.
From the perspective of elite theory, public policy may be viewed as the
values and preferences of the governing elite. The assumptions of elite
theory are captured by Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigle (Cf. Sambo,
1999, p. 294) as follows:
 Society is divided into the few who have power and the others
who do not. Only a small number of persons allocate values for
society; the masses do not decide public policy. The few who
govern are not typical of the masses being governed. Elites are
drawn disproportionately from the upper socioeconomic strata of
society.
 The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and
continuous to maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-
elites who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be
admitted to governing circles.
 Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system
and the preservation of the system. Public policy does not reflect
demands of the masses but rather the prevailing values of the
elite. Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than
revolutionary.
 Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from
apathetic masses. Elite influence masses more than masses
influence elites.
3.6.1 Contributions of the Elite Approach
What is significant about the contribution of the elite approach is that it

draws attention to the fact that it is the elites who make public policies.
Consequently, when they do, they tend to reflect their values and
preferences and that it is only a matter of coincidence if the policy
decisions of the elite reflect the interests of the masses, as they
sometimes do.
3.6.2 Criticisms and Modifications of the Elite Approach
1. Elite approach assumes a conspiratorial character and is to that

extent a provocative theory of public policy and the political
process. It is conspiratorial because of the underlying premise
about elite consensus on fundamental norms of the social system
which limits the choice of policy alternatives to only those which
109
fall within the shared consensus. The theory is provocative

because of the characterization of the masses as passive, apathetic
and ill informed and the consequential relegation of their role in
policy making (Sambo, 1999). For instance, Pareto and Mosca
(Mosca, 1939; Pareto, 1968), drew a sharp distinction between
the elites and the masses and argued that the competence and
energy of the elites made it possible for them to rule the un-
enterprising masses. Marger (1983) also renders the masses
passive in their relationship with the elites when she stated that
the elites “are able to impose on society as a whole their
explanation and justification for the dominant political and
economic systems.” However, these views of the elites and the
masses are far from the reality. For instance, as Key reminded us
in his book The Responsible Electorate, there is a degree even if
relatively low of the correspondence between the voter’s policy
preferences and his reported presidential votes. He concludes that
the voter is not so irrational a fellow after all.
2. Also, the classical elite theories have been criticised for their
distrust for democracy and their insistence that (Mosca, 1939;
Pareto, 1968), and of the possibility to maintain democratic
institutions (Michels, 1959). However, the attractiveness of the
elite approach in this version faded during the second half of the
twentieth century as democracy, albeit in its imperfect versions
became the dominant mode of governance in most worlds.
Recent elite studies therefore interpret elites within the
democratic framework. Seen from these studies, elites and
democracy are not incompatible. In fact elite groups may even be
instrumental to the establishment of democracy as they have done
in the last three years (Burton and Higley, 1987; Bratton and van
de Walle, 1997; Dogan and Higley, 1998).
It is now becoming real that the replacement of autocratic forms of

government by democracy requires that various elite group see it in their
interest to relinquish immediate power and elaborate elite compromises.
Thus to be preserved in the long run, democracy depends simultaneously
on well- functioning elite network and popular support. As a
consequence, studies of modern elites are simultaneously studies of
social and political tensions between democratic ideals and top-down
decision making, between various sector of the elites as well as between
elites and citizens (Engelstad, 2007).
In other words, elites do not disappear in democracy, but they acquire a

new meaning. In more recent elite approach, Lijphart 1969; Putnam
1976; Higley and Burton 2006) elites are described as institutionally
distinct, socially disparate and politically diverse groups of national
110
POL214 MODULE 1
leaders. Mutual accommodation, compromises and consensus between

these elite groups are seen as preconditions for the continuance and
stability of democracies.
The significance of the elites in a democracy is that their ability to strike

stable compromises depends not only on their internal relationship, but
also on the relationship between elites and the population at large. If the
elites attempt to preserve or change the model independently of the
opinions of the citizens, it may create mass level reactions which may
curtail or abort the actions of the elites. Relatively open processes of
recruitment to the elites may bring the attitudes and opinions of the
elites more in line with those of the population.
Post-modern Liberalism in 1980s developed a view that a key to the

stability, survival and consolidation of democratic regimes is the
establishment of substantial consensus among elites concerning rules of
the democratic political game, the worth of democratic institutions, and
the consolidation of democracy.
Analytically, consolidated democracies can be thought of as

encompassing specific elite and mass features. First, all important elite
groups and factions share a consensus about rules and codes of political
conduct and the worth of political institutions, and they are unified
structurally by extensive formal and informal networks that enable them
to influence decision making and thereby defend and promote their
factional interests peacefully (Higley and Moor 1981).
Second, there is extensive mass participation in the elections and other

institutional processes that constitute procedural democracy. No
segment of the mass population are arbitrarily excluded or prevented
from mobilising to express discontents, and recourse to various corrupt
practices that distort mass participation is minimal. … these elite and
mass features of consolidated democracies make them stable and
resilient in the face of sometimes severe challenges, with good prospects
for long-term survival (Page & Shapiro, 1983).
Thus, the concept of consolidated democracies highlights consensus
among elites as the most important condition for the stability of the
political system.
Does the Critique of the Elite Approach really justify its

implementation?
111
4.0 CONCLUSION
Many political scientists that have used the class analysis approach, see
society in terms of material interests that are often irreconcilable. They
view society in terms of exploitation rather than accommodation
between competing interests. According to this approach, the state is not
pluralistic in the sense of being, a neutral arbiter, but is a set of
institutions existing independently of social forces and which at different
stages in history will be controlled in the interest of a dominant
economic class whether it be landed aristocracy in a feudal economy or
industrial bourgeoisie of early capitalism. On the other hand, the
pluralist approach plays down the significance of class divisions in
society. Liberal democratic and pluralist assumptions about society are
that it may be disaggregated along occupational, gender, ethnic, or
religious lines, but not into classes. Elite theory developed as an
alternative paradigm to pluralism. Elite theory rejects the pluralist view
concerning the distribution of power in society. In the alternative, elite
theory points to the concentration of political power in the hands of a
minority group.
In spite of their differences, however, all approaches emphasised the

struggle over power in society. Both pluralist and elite theories assigns
to government the role of a neutral umpire in the struggle among
societal groups to reflect their interests in public policy. Elite theory
favours government with the crucial role of carrying into effect, through
its officials and agencies, the values and preferences which the dominant
few want reflected in public policy. The underlying assumption about
government in these theories is that government is an impartial mediator
of conflict in society and by implication a preserver of the social order.
On the other hand, while just like the other two theories, class analysis
acknowledges the view of the state as a factor of cohesion where the
state is involved in regulating struggles between antagonistic classes and
using both repression and concession to moderate the conflict, the state
is not a neutral arbiter but a set of institutions existing independently of
social forces and which at different stages in history will be controlled in
the interest of a dominant economic class.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you learnt of three approaches with contrasting views of

politics and the role of the state. The shortcomings of the various
approaches have also been pointed out. The approaches, just like some
other approaches in political science, have come up with modified
versions of the classical ones in other to make up for their identified
shortcomings.
112
POL214 MODULE 1
1. Examine the major contribution of the elite approach in the

Nigerian Democracy.
2. Is the pluralist partisan mutual adjustment approach the specific
rationale of its compromise between the various interest groups?
3. Was there really a need to modify pluralism into neo-pluralism
and corporatism?
Arslan, D. (2006). “The Turkish Power Elite” International Journal of

Human Sciences. 3 (1).
Avineri, S. (1970). The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bratton, M. & Van de Walle, N. (1997). Democratic Experiments in

Africa : Regime Transitions in Comparative Perpspective.
Burton, M. & Higley, J. (1987). “Elite Settlements”. American

Sociological Review: 53, pp. 295-306.
Burton, M. & Higley, J. (eds) (1998). Elites, Crises, and the Origins of
Regimes. Boulder CO: Rowman and Littlefield.
Carver, T. (ed.). (1991). The Cambridge Companion to Marx.

Elster, J. (1985). Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Engelstad, F. (2007). Introduction: Social and Political Elites in Modern

Democracies” Comparative Social Research. 23: 1-9.
Higley, J. & Moore, G. (1981). Elite integration in stable democracies:

Reconsideration. European Sociological Review: 7(1).
Higley, J & Burton, M. (2006). Elite Foundation of Liberal Democracy.

Boulder, CO.: Rowman and Littlefield.
Lijphart, A. (1969). “Consociational Democracy.” World Politics

21(2):207-225.
113
Lenin, V. (1914). ‘Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch with an

Exposition of Marxism.” Retrieved on 25 September, 2009 from
http://wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/marx-o23.shtml.
Marger, M. (1981). Elites and Masses: An Introduction To Political

Sociology. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Michels, R. (1959). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the

Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracies. New York:
Dover Publications.
Miliband, R. (1989). Divided Societies: Class Struggle in Contemporary

Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mosca, G. (1939). The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw Hill.
Page B. and Shapiro R. (1983). What Moves Public Opinion? American

Political Science Review. 77(1).
Pareto, V. (1968). The Rise and Fall of the Elites. New Jersey: The
Bedminster.
Putman, R. (1976). The Comparative Study of Elites. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Sambo, A. (1999). “What is Public Policy?” in Anifowoshe, R. &

Enemuo, F. (eds.) Elements of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse Press
Ltd. Pp. 281-311.
Wood, A. (1981). Karl Marx. London: Routledge.
114
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 5 RATIONAL CHOICE INSTITUTIONALISM
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Rational Choice Approach
3.2 Barry Weingast and Rational Choice Approach
3.3 A Critique of the Rational Choice Approach
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In continuation of previous discussions on approaches to the study of

politics this unit will address the new institutional approach. You will
recall that in our first lecture on the normative approaches, we stated that
the earlier study of political science largely focused on institutions. The
new institutionalism is a variety of the broad institutional approach, but
emerged as a result of some deficiencies noticeable in the early
institutional approaches, and the behavioural approach that were
influential during the 1960s and 1970s. New institutionalism seeks to
elucidate the role that institutions play in the determination of social and
political outcomes.
The new institutionalism is a disparate set of ideas with diverse

disciplinary origins, analytic assumptions, and explanatory claims (Hall
& Taylor 1996; Koelble 1995). Institutions are generally seen as the
rules of the game or the humanly devised constraints that shape human
interactions (North 1990:3).Actors’ preferences and institutions are the
raw materials of institutionalism explanation (Van Hees, 1997).
According to March and Olsen (1984:734), the need for a refocus on

institutions became necessary because even though traditional political
institutions ‘have receded in importance from the position they held in
earlier theories of political science’ because they have been displaced by
contemporary political science, contemporary political analysis itself
cannot fully account for the complexity of political phenomena because,
for example, it is contextual, or socio-centric, emphasizing the social
context of political behavior and downgrading the importance of the
state as an independent cause; reductionist, explaining politics as the
outcome of individual actions ; and utilitarian, explaining individual
115
actions as motivated by rational self –interest (March and Olsen, 1984,

pp. 736-7).
In contrast, the new institutionalism ‘insists on a more autonomous role

for political institutions’. Thus “the bureaucratic agency, the legislative
committee, and the appellate court are arenas for contending social
forces, but they are also collections of standard operating procedures and
structures that define and defend interests, they are political actors in
their own right” (March and Olsen, 1984: 738).
In the broadest sense, institutions are simply rules. As such, they are the
foundation of all political behaviour. Some are formal (as in
constitutional rules) some are informal (as in cultural norms), but
without institutions there could be no organized politics. A world in
which there were no rules governing social or political behavior equates
a Hobbesian state of nature where there could be no political
organisation, indeed no social organisation at all (North 1990):
Institutions are the rules of the game in a society or more

formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape
human interaction. In consequence, they structure
incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or
economic. Institutional change shapes the way societies
evolve through time as well as being the key to
understanding historical change (North, 1990).
Institutions are the rules and norms resulting in formal or informal rights
and obligations which facilitate exchange by allowing people to form
stable and fairly reliable expectations about the actions of others (Hall, &
Taylor, 1996; Lane, 2000). Institutions structure politics because they:
1) Define who is able to participate in the particular political arena;

2) Shape the various actors’ political strategies, and (more
controversially)
3) Influence what these actors believe to be both possible and
desirable (i.e their preferences).
There are three contending research/theoretical approaches within

political science, which identify themselves as New Institutionalism
today: Historical Institutionalism, Rational Choice Institutionalism, and
Sociological Institutionalism (Hall and Taylor, 1996:936). The role
institutions play in these three analytic traditions overlap in many ways
(cf. Hall and Taylor 1996; Rothstein 1996; Thelen 1999). At the same
time, the theoretical, indeed epistemological, goals of scholars in these
three schools separate them in some rather fundamental ways.
Specifically, the three schools differ on the stance each adopts towards
116
POL214 MODULE 1
two issues fundamental to any institutional analysis, namely, how to

construe the relationship between institutions and behavior and how to
explain the process whereby institutions originate or change (Hall and
Taylor, 1996, p. 937).
In this unit, we shall consider one of the most widely used approach
within the new institutionalism framework and which has been
described as the approach having “an ascendant position across the
social sciences and in the spheres of business, law, and public policy”
(US History Encyclopedia, 2009).
However, because no theoretical leaning is self-sufficient and because

there is not a theory in search of evidence, a critique of the Rational
Choice Institutionalism will be done, and its weaknesses pointed out, by
using the strengths of the other two schools within the broad new
institutionalism framework: Historical and Sociological Institutionalism.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 highlight the key features of the rational choice Institutionalist

approach.
 describe the contributions of Barry Weingast, one of the key
contemporary scholars of this approach
 criticise the Rational Choice Approach.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Rational Choice Institutionalism
Rational choice approaches to politics have become an increasingly

important branch of the discipline. They focus on politics being a
response to the problem of collective action, which has applications both
in the study of political institutions and processes, and in the study of
international relations. In general, rational choice approaches start by
making certain fundamental assumptions about human behaviour
from which hypotheses or theories are deduced before being tested
against the facts in the real world. The assumptions made are that human
beings are essentially rational, utility maximisers who will follow the
path of action most likely to benefit them. This approach has been used
in so-called ‘game theory’ where individual behaviour is applied to
particular situations. These ‘games’ reveal how difficult it can be for
rational individuals to reach optimal outcomes because of the existence
of free-riders—actors who calculate that they can reap the benefits of
collective action without paying any of the costs. In political science, the
117
best-known applications can be found in the fields of voting and party

competition and in interest group politics.
For Rationalist scholars, the central goal is to uncover the laws of

political behavior and action. Scholars in this tradition generally believe
that once these laws are discovered, models can be constructed that will
help us understand and predict political behavior. In their deductive
model, Rational Choice scholars look to the real world to see if their
model is right (test the model) rather than look to the real world and then
search for plausible explanations for the phenomenon they observe.
Rational Choice Institutionalists apply a deductive model of science. In

Rational Choice Institutionalism general principles, logics are invoked
in terms of games (settlers, prisoner dilemma, tit-for-tat etc.), which may
(or may not) be then applied to particular historical events. These
scholars, in short, are interested in the game and its design: institutions
are simply the rules of the game(s). Rational Choice Institutionalists try
to understand what the game is and how it is played (Steinmo, 2001).
One of the features noted about institutions - no matter what the analytic
perspective - is that institutions do not change easily. Rational Choice
Institutionalists view institutional equilibrium as the norm. They argue
that the normal state of politics is one in which the rules of the game are
stable and actors maximize their utilities (usually self-interest) given
these rules.
In effect, as actors learn the rules, their strategies adjust and thus an
institutional equilibrium sets in. Consequent upon the above, although
not everyone is necessarily happy with the current institutional structure,
a significant coalition is - or else it would not, by definition, be stable.
Once stabilized, it becomes very difficult to change the rules because no
one can be certain what the outcomes of the new structure would be.
This is because institutions shape strategies; new institutional rules
imply new strategies throughout the system. Change thus implies
enormous uncertainty especially as it is very difficult to calculate the
effects of rule changes. In short, the amount of uncertainty implied by a
new institutional structure makes actors unwilling to change the
structure (Shepsle 1986). In other words, people are afraid of changing
the rules because it is difficult to know what will happen after the rules
are changed.
How true is the assertion by Rationalist Scholars that once laws are
discovered models can be constructed that will help in understanding
and predicting political behavior?
118
POL214 MODULE 1
3.2 Barry Weingast and Rational Choice Approach
One of the most dominant Rational Choice Institutionalists in recent

time is Barry Weingast.
In his article “Rational Choice Institutionalism’, Barry Weingast argues

that the Rational Choice Intuitionalism provides an analytical
framework for scholars to explore theoretical puzzles and conduct
empirical research on a wide range of issues in political science. To
Weingast, institutions are the ‘humanly created constraints on actions’.
In his own words:
Methodologically, this definition translates into studying

how institutions constrain the sequence of interaction
among actors, the choices available to particular actors,
the structure of information and beliefs of the actors, and
payoffs to individuals and groups (Weingast, 2002 p.
661).
The rational choice approach views institutions as formal and informal

rules of the game. Formal rules of the game are official laws and rules,
and informal institutions are the norms and conventions accepted by
particular groups (North, 1990).
In his study, Weingast presents two levels of analysis (exogenous and

endogenous) of the Rational Choice Institutionalism. The first level of
analysis explores the effects of institutions. It examines the cause and
effect mechanism of institutions, treating institutions as exogenous
explanatory variable/variables. He argues that institutions shape policy
process as well as outcomes in numerous ways. To buttress his
argument, he uses formal and schematic examples. One of the examples
show how various powers and institutional forms shape the legislative-
executive balance of power policy and choices, contrasting the
institutional constitutional constraint on the US President by the strong
US Congress which leads to credible commitments, and the absence of
such credible commitments in Latin America where the strong executive
branch is granted the “power to present the legislature with a take –it- or
-leave choice over policy”.
The second level of analysis deals with the “endogenous choice of

particular institutions”. It explores the genesis and endurance of
institutions. To shed light on the origins of institutions, Weingast argued
that society or a group cannot do without institutions because
“institutions exist to make cooperation sustainable” (Weingast, 2002 :
670). In the absence of institutions, individuals may end up in situations
where everyone is worse off. The main problem with any social
119
exchange is that the parties to the exchange run into the problem of
incentives where some individuals have short-term temptations not to
cooperate.
Analysing the limitation of the conventional repeated prisoner’s

dilemma, Weingast shows the need for institutions. The standard
argument of the repeated prisoner’s dilemma is that although all players
have a short run interests to cheat, they have long run incentives to
cooperate. However, dependence on repeated prisoner’s dilemma is not
wholesomely useful, as it cannot prevent ‘common breakdowns’ such as
wars, ethnic conflict, government and private opportunism, and other
systematic failures arising from the attempt by a group to capture gains
from cooperation (Weingast 2002, 672).
Weingast also states that the repeated prisoner’s dilemma simply

assumes that defection is observable. However, defection is not
observable in the real world situations. Thus, Weingast states, “if some
defections cannot be observed, opportunistic players can masquerade
their subterfuge qua defection in a plausible rationale that the other
defected”. Since defection is unobservable, repeat play alone cannot
sustain cooperation (Weingast, 2002, p. 674). It is in this regard that
institutions become necessary.
But even at that, credible commitments do not emerge simply because

institutions are in place to ensure cooperation rather it is only when
institutions become self - enforcing that they can sustain cooperation.
The democratic consolidation and rule of law example is illustrative.
Using a game-theory approach to the problem of political officials’
respect for political and economic rights of citizens, Weingast showed
that democratic stability depends on a self-enforcing equilibrium: which
must be in the interest of political officials to respect democracy’s limits
on their behaviour. Political officials will avoid violating the legitimate
boundaries of the state because doing so risks losing power as “citizens
hold these limits in high esteem that they are willing to defend them by
withdrawing support from the sovereign when he tries to violate these
limits” (Weingast, 1997, p.251). The sovereign’s self-interest leads him
to respect limits on his behaviour; that is, these limit are self-enforcing.
Arguing further, Weingast noted, “one of the central features of limited
government is the rule of law, a society of universalistic laws, not of
discretionary political power. Because law and political limits can be
disobeyed or ignored, something beyond laws is necessary to prevent
violations. To survive, the rule of law requires that limits on political
officials be self-enforcing….Self-enforcement of limits depends on the
other hand, on the complementary combinations of attitudes and
reactions of citizens as well as institutional restrictions” (Ibid, p. 262).
However, Weingast, (1997:246) argues that “self-enforcing limits on the
120
POL214 MODULE 1
state result when members of a society resolve their coordination

dilemmas about the appropriate limits on the state”.
Weingast (2002:681) discusses the importance of a focal solution to

resolve citizens’ coordination dilemma for democratic consolidation and
how a constitution can create a focal solution to such coordination
dilemma. According to him, “democracies with constitutions that place
constraint on government valued by citizens are more likely to survive
because they are less likely to threaten their citizens In this case, citizens
do not resort to extra-constitutional means to defend themselves
meaning that constitutional institutions moderate the stakes of politics
by creating self-enforcing limits on politics.
Given that the rational choice approach views institutions as formal and
informal rules of the game using Weingast’s exogenous and endogenous
levels of analysis examine the cause, effect mechanism of institutions as
well as the genesis of institutions.
3.3 A Critique of the Rational Choice Institutionalism
There are at least four major criticisms of the Rational Choice

Institutionalism (RCI). First, it has been argued that the approach
glosses over the impact of existing ‘state capacities’ and ‘policy
legacies’ on subsequent policy choices (David Collier and Ruth Collier,
1991). In other words, the approach gives little consideration to the fact
way in which political institutions had shaped or structured the political
process and ultimately the political outcomes (cf. Steinmo, Thelen et al.
1992).
Following from the above, a second criticism of the approach is that it

does not emphasise the way(s) in which past lines of policy condition
subsequent policy by encouraging societal forces to organize along some
lines rather than others, to adopt particular identities, or to develop
interests in policy that are costly to shift (Hall & Taylor, 1996). For
instance, in an analysis of the present development predicament of
African states, RCI may downplay the impact of historical exigencies in
shaping the development paths of these states. Yet as we have been
reminded by Peter Ekeh (1980) and Falola, (2005), an analysis of the
role of the enduring legacies of colonialism and its epochal
consequences is apt if we must properly grasp the present form and
depth of Africa’s development challenges. According to Ekeh,
colonialism is best understood as:
121
A social movement of epochal dimensions whose

enduring significance, beyond the life span of the colonial
situation, lies in the social formations of supra-individual
entities and constructs. These supra-individual formations
developed from the volcano-sized social changes
provoked into existence by the confrontations,
contradictions, and incompatibilities in the colonial
situation. Colonialism turned African societies upside
down and inside out, and marked a reinvention of social
formations that have endured in various ways till date
(Ekeh, 1980, p.5).
Indeed, despite the resilience and importance of certain pre-colonial and

indigenous social formations and ‘traditions’, which continue to
influence political relations, the character and nature of contemporary
African politics, especially the present crisis of identity, have also taken
root from and have been shaped by colonialism (Osaghae, 1990).
Similarly, Aleksi Ylönen (2005:36) has pointed out the colonial roots of
inequality and marginalization in contemporary Nigeria and Sudan.
Drawing copiously from historical evidence, he argues that in these
countries, “extractive colonial institutions were imposed and their legacy
endured to the period of independence. By creating poverty and
inequality as control mechanisms in favor of the coloniser, these
institutions led to political and socio-economic marginalisation of large
segments of the population and therefore also to weak, politically
unstable, and conflict torn post-colonial states” .
Seen from this perspective, institutions are not the only important
variables for understanding political outcomes. Quite the contrary,
institutions are intervening variables (or structuring variables) through
which battles over interest, ideas and power are fought. Institutions are
important both because they are the focal points of much political
activity and because they provide incentives and constraints for political
actors that structure activity. In other words, rather than being neutral
boxes in which political fights take place as the Rational Choice
Institutionalists are want us to believe, institutions actually structure the
political struggle itself. Institutions can thus also be seen as the points of
critical juncture in an historical path analysis because political battles
are fought inside institutions and over the design of future institutions.
Thirdly, the Rational Choice Institutionalism can be criticised for given

scant attention to informal rules of the game such as traditions, culture
and other informal ways of interaction which also constraint the
behavior of actors, especially where formal rules of the game are not
credible. By excessively focusing on formal rules, norms and
122
POL214 MODULE 1
procedures, the Rational Choice Institutionalism glosses over the fact

that institutions also include symbol systems, cognitive scripts, and
moral templates that provide the ‘frames of meaning’ guiding human
action and that both the concepts of ‘institutions’ and ‘culture’ are not
poles apart but rather intermesh and shade into each other (Scott, 1995).
Further, the Rational Choice Institutionalism discourse of institutional
reform is capable of great mystification and obscurantism. It can conceal
the values, interests and agenda that are being served. For instance, as
argued by Sam Amadi (2004), the current Nigerian economic reform
programme, christened NEEDS II, and Seven Point Agenda is not just
only a functional response of the Nigerian state to the exigencies of
economic renewal, but it is also taking place because the dominant
world view of globalisation promulgated by international regimes –
World Bank, IMF, WTO - made such policies seem appropriate and fait
accompli and others illegitimate in the eyes of national authorities.
Finally, the RCI has been criticized for choice approach has been
criticised for its over-reliance on statistical models, its “fixation on
quantitative tools” (Gunawardena-Vaughn, 2000,) and “the
mathematicisation of political science" (Miller, 2001) and that by doing
so, it has made political science trivial and disconnected it from “great
political issues” and the “real world” to researchers’ (see Kremer, 2001;
Gunawardena-Vaughn, 2000; Parenti, 2006).
In spite of all these weaknesses however, the Rational Choice

Institutionalism retains essential strength in its account of strategic
behavior by purposive agents under structural constraints, of the
aggregation of interests, of the distribution and exercise of power, and of
the social construction of political rationality – and its ability to combine
and recombine these elements and mobilize them into theoretically
sound causal explanations of a wide range of political phenomena
(Lieberman, 2002, p. 699).
4.0 CONCLUSION
The rational choice approach uses deductive models of human

interactions based on the assumption that individuals are self-interested
rational actors. From its humble origins, rational choice approach has
become the dominant approach in the study of politics and has
established itself as a disciplinary standard not just across the United
States, but also worldwide by 1990. Yet, in spite of its success and
attractions the approach has been criticised for glossing over the role of
state capacities, history, and culture in politics and political behavior;
and for its over-reliance on statistical models, and quantification.
123
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we discussed the rational choice institutionalist approach as

one of the important variants of the broader new institutional approach.
We have highlighted the contributions of Barry Weingast, one of the
prominent scholars within the rational choice approach. Finally, we have
also examined the criticisms of the rational choice theory using insights,
especially, from the two other variants of new institutionalism viz- the
historical Institutionalism and Sociological Institutionalism.
1. Discuss the contributions of Barry Weingast to rational choice

institutionalism.
2. Attempt a critique of the rational choice institutionalism
3. The greatest contribution of RCI is its emphasis on individuals as
self-interested rational actors. With examples from Nigeria’s
political history, evaluate the roles of political leaders in shaping
political and economic outcomes in Nigeria between 1999 and
2007

Amadi, S & Ogwo, F. (2004). Eds. Contextualizing NEEDS. Economic /
Political Reform in Nigeria: Report of Civil Society Policy
Dialogue on the National Economic Empowernment and
Development Strategy (NEEDS). Lagos: The Human Rights Law
Services (HURILAWS) and Center for Public Policy & Research
(CPPR).
Collier, D. & Colier, R. (1991). Shaping the Political Arena. Princeton

NJ: Princeton University Press.
Di Maggio, P. & Powell, W. (1991). “Introduction”, In W. Powell & P.

Di Maggio (Eds.), The new Institutionalism in Organisational
Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1-40.
Ekeh, P. (1975). ‘Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A

Theoretical Statement.’ Comparative Studies in Society and
History. 17 (1). pp. 91-112.
Ekeh, P. (1983). Colonialism and Social Structure: University of Ibadan

Inaugural Lecture 1980. Ibadan: University Press.
124
POL214 MODULE 1
Falola, T. (2005). ‘Great Wings Beating Still: Africa and the Colonial
Legacy’ in Toyin Falola (ed.) The Dark Webs: Perspectives on
Colonialism in Africa. Durham North Carolina: Carolina
Academic Press.
Fiorina, M. (1995). “Rational Choice and the New Institutionalism.”

Polity XXXVIII(1)(Fall)): 107-115.
Gunawardena-Vaughn, T. S. (2000). “Discipline Out of Touch with

Real-World Concerns.” PS: Political Science & Politics. 33
(741).
Hall, P. & Taylor, R. (1996). “Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms”. Political Studies. 44. pp. 936-957.
Koelble T. A. (1995). The New Institutionalism in Political Science and

Sociology. Comparative Politics. 27(2).
Kremer, M. S. (2001). “Great Political Issues.” PS: Political Science &

Politics. 34 (769)
Miller, D. (2001). “Scholars Join Revolt against the Domination of

Mathematical Approaches to the Discipline.” The Chronicle of
Higher Education. September 21.
North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic

Performance. Cambridge: University Press.
Lane, J. (2000). The Public Sector: Concepts, Models & Approaches. London:
Sage.
Parenti, M. (2006). “Patricians, Professionals, and Political Science”

American Political Science Review. 100 (4). November.pp. 498-
505.
Powell, W. (1991). “Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis” in

Powell, W. and P. Di Maggio, P. (Eds.) The New Institutionalism
in Organisational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. pp. 183-203.
Rothstein, B. (1996). “Political Institutions: An Overview” in A New

Handbook of Political Science. Oxford, Oxford University Press:
133-166.
125
Shepsle, K. A. (1986). Institutional Equilibrium and Equilibrium

Institutions. Political science: The Science of Politics. New York:
Agathon Press.
Steinmo, S.; Thelen, K. et al. (Eds). (1992). Structuring Politics:

Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. New York:
Steinmo, S. (2001). “New institutionalism”, in Clark, B., and

Foweraker, J. Eds. The Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought.
London: Rutledge. July.
Stoker, G. (1995). ‘Introduction’ in Marsh, D. & Stoker, G. Theory and

Methods in Political Science. London: Macmillan Press.
Thelen, K. (1999). “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.”

Annual Review of Political Science (2). Pp. 369-404.
US History Encyclopedia (2009). “Political Science” Retrieved on

US+History+Encyclopedia-cid-63262.
Van Hees, M. (1997). “Explaining Institutions: A Defense of

Reductionism.” European Journal of Political Research. 32(1).
Weingast, B. (1996). Political Institutions: Rational Choice

Perspectives. A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford:
Oxford University Press 167-190.
Weingast, B. (1997). “The Political Foundation of the Democracy and

Rule of Law” American Political Science Review. 91(2). June.
pp. 245-263.
Weingast, B. (2002). “Rational Choice Institutionalism.” in Political

Science: The State of the Discipline. In Katznelson, I and Milner,
H. (eds.) New York: W. W. Norton.
Ylönen, A. (2005). “Institutions and Instability in Africa: Nigeria,

Sudan, and Reflections from Mises’s Nation, State and
Economy.” New Perspectives on Political Economy. 1 (1). pp.
38 – 60.
126
POL214 MODULE 1
MODULE 3 POLITICAL SYSTEMS, POLITICAL

PROCESS AND POLITICAL ACTION
Unit 1 Political Systems’ Legitimacy: Power, Authority and

Ideology
Unit 2 Political Culture
Unit 3 Political Socialisation
Unit 4 Political Participation
Unit 5 Political Representation and Political Parties and Interest
Groups
UNIT 1 POLITICAL SYSTEMS’ LEGITIMACY:

POWER, AUTHORITY AND IDEOLOGY
CONTENT
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is Political Power?
3.2 Types of Power
3.3 Authority
3.4 Max Weber’s Typology of Authority
3.5 Ideology
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Regardless of the type of regime all political systems seek legitimacy.

Legitimacy is the tacit or explicit support of the regime by its people.
Usually it is an emotional identification with the regime. The regime is
legitimate when the people believe that institutional structures of the
government are the most appropriate for society (Kelly, 2008). In this
unit, we shall discuss some of the key issues related to legitimacy in
political systems.
127
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define the concept of political power

 identify the types of power
 differentiate between power and influence
 define the concept of authority
 differentiate between power and authority
 identify Max Weber’s typology of authority
 define ideology and identify its functions in a political system.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 The Concept of Political Power
3.1.1 What is Political Power?
According to Max Weber, “power is the possibility of imposing one’s

will upon the behaviour of other persons” (Gerth & Mills, 1946). Power,
for him, involves domination – a reciprocal relationship between the
rulers and the ruled in which the actual frequency of compliance is only
one aspect of the fact that the power of command exists. Lasswell and
Kaplan (1950) define power as a special case of the exercise of
influence. It is the process of affecting the policies of others with the
help of (actual or threatened) severe deprivations for non-conformity
with the policies intended. Herbert Simon considers power as an
asymmetrical relation between the behaviour of two persons (Simon,
1965). For Amitai Etzioni, power is a “capacity to overcome part or all
of the resistance to introduce changes in the face of opposition (and this
includes sustaining a course of action or preserving a status quo that
would otherwise be discontinued or altered)” (Etzioni, 1970). Robert
Dahl sees power as the product of human relationships. For instance, A
has power over B to the extent that he (A) can get B to do something
that he would not otherwise do. A person may be said to have power to
the extent he influences the behavior of others in accordance with his
intentions (Dahl, 1957; 1991).
The following definitions of power, explain the qualities of power as:

First, as being applicable in a social relation: power is exercised over
men and not over nature or things (Etzioni, 1970). The in other words
means that power is the ability to get things done, to make others do
what we want, even if they do not want to do it.
128
POL214 MODULE 1
Second, in any power situation there is always some feedback from the
influence to the influencer. This is what Carl Friedrich has described as
“the rule of anticipated reactions.” (Friedrich, 1963). This refers to a
situation in which “one actor, B, shapes his/her behaviour to conform to
what he believes are the desires of another actor, A, without having
received explicit messages about A's wants or intentions from A or A's
agents” (Friedrich, ibid.).
Third, a variety of means can be used to persuade people to do things,

but power always has as its base the ability to reward or punish. A
sanction is a reprisal for disobedience to a command. Its intent is
punitive. It may be either a deprivation of values already possessed or an
obstruction to the attainment of values which would have been realised
were it not for the punitive intervention of the power-holder. A sanction
may be either a physical loss [beating, confinement etc.) or a non-
physical loss (fining, confiscation, removal from office, ridicule, etc.)
(Goldhamer & Shills, 1965).
Fourth, power is also relative. The main problem is not to determine the
existence of power but to make comparisons. To say that the power of A
is greater than the power of B, there must be agreement as to the
operational definition of the term power and the operational means that
are to be used to determine the degree of its presence or absence in any
situation (Anifowose, 1999).
Fifth, the most powerful people in the community may be those who
remain behind the scenes and the issues which are raised, rather than
those who openly participate in settling issues raised.
Sixth, power is not something that only exists at a national level. It also
exists at the international level. Elements of state power at the
international level include their physical geography, demography,
resources (both human and material), technological prowess, military
factors, psychological-social factors, and quality of leadership.
How does the features of power justify a reciprocal relationship between

the rulers and the ruled is compliance that the power of command
exists?
3.2 Types of Power
Three major types of power may be distinguished in terms of the type of

influence .brought to bear on the subordinated individual. These are
force, domination and manipulation.
129
(a) Force - The power-holder exercises force when he/she influences

behaviour by a physical manipulation of the subordinated
individual (assault, confinement, etc.).
(b) Domination - For Max Weber, “domination” is identical with the
“authoritarian power of command” (Gerth & Mills, 1946).
However, for domination to be present there must be:
 An individual who rules or a group of rulers;

 An individual who is ruled or a group that is ruled;
 The will of the rulers to influence the conduct of the ruled and an
expression of the will (or a Command);
 Evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of the objective
degree of compliance with the command;
 Direct or indirect evidence of that influence in terms of the
objective acceptance with which the ruled obey the command
(Goldhamer and Shills, 1965).
(c) Manipulation – This is the third form of power and it obtains

when an actor influences the behaviour of others without making
explicit the behaviour which he/she wants them to perform.
Manipulation may be exercised by utilizing symbols of
performing acts while propaganda is a major form of
manipulation by symbols (Gerth & Mills, 1946).
Attempted domination may meet with obedience or disobedience. The

motivation for obedience and disobedience is instrumental to the extent
that it is based on an anticipation of losses and gains. In effect, if the
attempt of a person to exercise power fails, the power act may be
followed by a sanction (Goldhamer and Shills, op.cit).
Power and Influence
According to Robert Dahl (1957; 1991), influence is “a relation among

actors such that the wants, desires, preferences, or intentions of one or
more actors affect the actions, or predisposition to act, of one or more
other actors. There is often little practical difference between power and
influence. One person has influence over another within a given scope to
the extent that the first without resorting to either a tacit or an overt
threat of severe deprivations can cause the second to change his/her
course of action.
Power and influence are hence very difficult to measure because of the
presence of feed-back. This suggests that the power of every person is
limited in crucial ways. No one possesses unlimited power -even leaders
at the apex of power, including the likes of General Sani Abacha of
130
POL214 MODULE 1
Nigeria or Adolf Hitler of Germany, who in their respective countries

had maximum power. In sum, power and influence are alike in that each
has both rational and relational attributes. They differ, however, in that
the exercise of power depends upon potential sanctions, while the
exercise of influence does not (Anifowose, 1999).
Based on the rational and relational attributes of power and influence

explain the fact that the exercise of power depends upon potential
sanctions, while the exercise of influence does.
3.3 Authority
There are considerable disadvantages for a government which depends

mainly upon the use of force to maintain control. In the long run, it is
important for all people in positions of power to recognize the use of
their position as legitimate (rightful) by those over whom they have
power. Thus, according to Crick (1978):
probably, all governments require some capacity for or

potentiality of force or violence, but probably no
government can maintain itself through time as distinct
from defense and attack at specific moments, without
legitimatizing itself in some way, getting itself loved,
respected, even just accepted as inevitable, otherwise it
would need constant recourse to open violence which is
rarely the case.
Authority is the quality of being able to get people to do things because

they think the individual or group has the right to tell them what to do.
In effect, those in authority are followed because it is believed that they
fulfill a need within the community or political system. Authority, then,
is linked to respect, which creates legitimacy and therefore leads to
power.
Legitimate power or influence is generally called authority. It is power

clothed with legitimacy. It is the authentic form of power based on
consent, voluntary obedience and persuasion (Leslie, 1993). Legitimacy
is the belief in the rightness of an individual to make authoritative,
binding decisions. It is the belief in the right to give commands and the
right to be obeyed. All governments need authority for people to accept
their right to make decisions.
131
Difference between Power and Authority
What demarcates authority from power is that the former is

power/influence recognised as rightful while authority is government
that all accept as valid. Its exercise is therefore sanctioned by those who
approve the particular act or agent and is tolerated by those who
disapprove. Confronted with power, the citizens have a choice whether
to support or oppose. Confronted with authority, it is their duty to obey.
Resistance to power is lawful but resistance to authority is unlawful.
Power is naked; authority is power clothed in the garments of
legitimacy. It is founded on consent (Lipson, 1993).Those who oppose
the government may have to submit to the decisions of power, that is,
governmental decisions; but submission is different from acquiescence.
The imperatives of power may secure compliance; but this is not the
same as allegiance.
The mood of authority is distinctive because it expresses itself

imperatively in a categorical way. In other words, language of authority
is different from the language of power and influence. Individuals, who
are in an institutional position to use the language of authority to issue
commands, orders, directives etc., to their subordinates, can usually also
use the languages of power and influence. They can threaten a
subordinate or promise to recommend him for a promotion (Anifowose,
1999).
Thus, underlying their authority is both power and influence. However,

not all power is strictly coercive. If positive inducements are combined
with severe sanctions to bring about the action desired, the relationship
is one of power but not of coercion in the strict sense.
Most power holders claim legitimacy for their acts, i.e. they claim the
right to rule as they do. Equally important is the fact that the obedience
of the ruled is guided to some extent by the idea that the rulers and their
commands constitute a legitimate order of authority. This is what J. J.
Rousseau meant when he stated that “the strongest is never strong
enough to be always the master unless he transforms strength into right
and obedience into duty” (cf. Fasuba, 1978).
Explain how resistance to power is lawful but resistance to authority is

unlawful if authority is linked to respect, which creates legitimacy and
therefore leads to power.
132
POL214 MODULE 1
3.4 Max Weber’s Typology of Authority
According to the German political sociologist, Max Weber, there are

three (3) ideal types of authority. These are:
Traditional: The belief of this type is that legitimacy of an authority has

always existed. Hence people support the regime out of habit and
custom. Rulers exercising power of command are masters who enjoy
personal authority by virtue of their inherited status. Their command are
legitimate in the sense that they are in accord with custom or tradition
but they possess the prerogative of free personal decision, so that
conformity with custom and personal arbitrariness are both
characteristics of such rule. Those who obey are followers or subjects in
the literal sense. They obey out of personal loyalty to the master or a
pious regard for his/her time-honored status. Weber says that this is the
type of authority that is typical of simpler, pre-industrial societies.
Legal Rational: This type of authority is based on a system of rules

applied judicially and administratively. Rulers are superiors, appointed
or elected by legally sanctioned procedures oriented toward the
maintenance of the legal order. People support the regime and obey its
rule because the explicit rules and procedures of government make sense
to the people on rational grounds and not because of those implementing
the law. The governments of many countries have authority because
they were elected by a legal process and because they work within the
law of the land. They are constitutional governments. This type of
authority is typical of modern nations.
Charismatic: Here people support the regime because of an emotional

identification with the personality of the leader of the regime. The power
of command may be exercised by a leader –whether he/she is a prophet,
hero, or demagogue - who can prove that he/she possesses charisma by
virtue of magical power, revelations, heroism, or other extraordinary
gifts or personal attributes such as eloquence. The persons who obey
such a leader are disciples or followers who believe in his/her
extraordinary qualities rather than in stipulated rules or in the dignity of
a position sanctioned by tradition. Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Tito,
Mussolini, de Gaulle, Ghandi,Mandela, Awolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe,
Ahmadu Bello could be cited as examples of leaders who wielded
charismatic authority. Charisma is very rare and hence, societies with
charismatic leaders often have difficulties replacing them.
Each of Max Weber’s authority type leads to its own peculiar regime
legitimacy, and by implication, the type of regime legitimacy influences
political stability as depicted by Kelly (2008) below:
133
Table 4: Weber’s Typology of Different Political Regimes
Types of PROBLEM I PROBLEM II POLITICAL

Legitimacy STABILITY
Dealing with Dealing with the (Dealing with

Transfer of Phenomenon of Problems I & II)
Power Change
Charismatic Deals Poorly Deals Well Less Stable
(Regime accepted (Cannot Transfer (Can Muster
by the People Personality of Necessary Political
because of the Leader) will
personality of its
leader)
Traditional Deals Well (e.g., Deals Poorly Less Stable
(Regime accepted law of (Cannot break with
because it based on primogeniture) Tradition
tradition and
custom)
Rational – Legal Deals Well Deals Well Most Stable
(Regime accepted (Elections, explicit (Legislation,
because procedures line of succession) Amendments
are perceived and judicial
logical and review)
reasonable)
Source: Kelly, (2008).
These sources of authority are not necessarily exclusive but co-exist in

specific political communities in various combinations. They are pure
types of authority and are unlikely to exist in their extreme forms
(Swinburn & Renwick, 1981).
As we noted in our introduction, political regimes are founded on the

need that men have ordered cooperation that enables them to live freely
and well together. But if the regime is to achieve its ends, it must have
necessary organs. The chief of these is political authority – government
is made up of those members of the state who coordinate and direct the
energies of all the members as they pursue their ends together. Without
authority, a regime is not possible. Without adequate authority, a state is
subject to disorder and weakness. From its function of directing energies
in a coordinated way, the government derives its power to command,
and when it is necessary, to use force (naked power), to back up its
commands. And if a government has the right to guide and to command,
those who come under this command and benefit from the guidance, are
134
POL214 MODULE 1
also obliged to obey its just directives. In other words, political

obedience is a serious duty for citizens.
Without adequate authority, a state is subject to disorder and weakness

in accordance with the existing types of authority.
3.5 Ideology
Another legitimating quality in political systems is ideology. Ideology is

an explicit set of values that orients people in society in terms of what
they can expect from government and what government should do for
them and society. In other words, it not only speaks to human nature but
the role of government in society and the relationship of politics and
economics. Similarly, each ideology has its sacred documents and
programme of action for realizing its agenda for society. It has its beliefs
referring specifically to social and/or political structure; and demanding
high affective identification, loyalty, and commitment. While an
ideology may undergo slow changes in its tenets, it is resistant to
fundamental alterations in its world view (Webb, 1995).
The many other variations of ideologies which have existed or still

exist, for example fascism, Nazism, communism, populism, etc. can be
traced back to one or more of the three (3) main ideologies of politics
today which are conservatism, liberalism and socialism.
In societies where democracy has taken root and become firmly

consolidated, political parties are delineated by their ideologies. For
instance in the United States, the Democratic Party is known over the
years, indeed throughout its history, for its liberal platform. It
emphasises increased regulation, workers’ protection, increase social
spending, big tax, decreased spending on defense, liberal immigration
policies, big government, pro-choice policies towards abortion,
government control of health care, ban on death penalty etc. On the
other hand, its main opposition, the Republican party stands on a
seemingly contradictory premise- as it shows its conservative learning in
its encouragement of private participation, de-regulation, decrease social
spending, a cut in taxes to protect owners of capital, increase defense
spending, lean government, decrease minimum wage and maintenance
of death penalty etc. The same scenario replicates itself in U.K., France,
and Italy etc.
Regrettably, the situation is totally dissimilar in Nigeria. In Nigeria,

political parties are not delineated ideologically. Political parties are not
135
made up of people who share the same ideology. Rather it is made up of

strange bed fellows masquerading as political parties.
It can therefore be argued that what unites many politicians in Nigeria

today is not party ideology but self interests. This dearth of ideological
politics explains the frequent cross carpeting of Nigerian politicians in
the present political dispensation from May 1999.
Functions of Ideology
In line with the above summations, it is pertinent to note according to

Enemuo (1999) that ideology serves as a legitimating tool in a political
system in the following ways:
Legitimation of Leaders: The bane of this feature is that those who

occupy positions of authority often justify their positions and actions by
reference to certain-Ideological tenets. In other words, ideology provides
government with legitimacy and helps it obtain compliance from
citizens without constant resort to the threat or actual use of force.
Remarkably also, those who are opposed to the status quo and seek to
replace or reform the government justify their actions on the basis of an
ideology. For instance, the liberal democratic ideology was used by pro-
democracy organisations in Nigeria to challenge continued military rule.
Promotion of Social Coherence: Ideology promotes unity among

members of the society and organisations upon which it is founded. It
performs this role by specifying the collective goals and designating
appropriate mechanisms for actualising individual and group aspirations.
It stipulates rights and obligations and outlines the nature and limits of
power. Besides, it provides adherents a formula of ideas for perceiving
themselves and viewing and interpreting the universe.
Facilitates conflict management: This feature specifies that the

collective purpose and means of attaining ideology is by ensuring that
political struggles become contestations over principles and not
personalities.
Guide to policy choice and assessment of conduct: Ideology provides

the framework for making policy choices by the government and the
parameters for assessing the conduct of officials and the performance of
government.
Dynamic force in life: Every ideology provides an explanation of

reality to its adherents and seeks to motivate them to action.
136
POL214 MODULE 1
In what ways can ideology serve as a legitimating tool in a political

system that will orient people in society in terms of not only what to
expect from government but what government should do for them and
society.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The unit argued that all regimes seek legitimacy because it makes people
believe that institutional structures of the government are the most
appropriate for society. Also, it explained that authority is the quality of
being able to get people to do things because they think the individual or
group has the right to tell them what to do. On the other hand, power is
explained as involving domination – a reciprocal relationship between
the rulers and the ruled.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have examined the concept of political power; types of

power, the differentiating features between power, authority and
influence as well as the role ideology plays in a political system.
1. Explain how each of Max Weber’s authority type not only leads to its
own peculiar regime legitimacy but influences political stability as
depicted by Kelly (2008).
2. Describe how ideology legitimates a political system
3. Contrast ideology in party politics between the second Republic
(1979-1983) and the fourth Republic (1999-2010).
Anifowose, R. (1999). “Power, Influence and Authority” in Anifowose,

R. and Enemuo, F. (eds). Element of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse
Press Ltd. Pp. 103-123.
Ball, A. (1988). Modern Politics and Government. Hong Kong: ELBS

and Macmillan.
Crick, B. (1978). “Basic Concepts for Political Education” in Crick, B

and A. Porter, A. (eds.). Political Education and Political
Literacy. London: Longman.
137
Dahl, R. (1957). “The Concept of Power.” In Behavioural Science. Vol.

2. July. pp. 201-15.
Dahl, R. (1961). Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. (1991). Modern Political Analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Enemuo, F. (1999). “Political Ideas and Ideologies” in Anifowose, R.

and Enemuo, F. (eds). Element of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse
Press Ltd.
Etzioni, A. (1970). “Power as a Societal Force.” In Olsen, M. (ed.).

Power in Societies. London: The Macmillan Co. pp. 18-27.
Fasuba, A. (1978). Elements of Government. Ado-Ekiti: Omolayo

Standard Press and Bookshop Co. (Nig.) Ltd.
Friedrich, C. (1963). Man and His Government. New York: McGraw

Hill Book.
Golhamer, H. & Shills, E. (1965). “Types of Power and Status.” In

Ulmer, S. (ed.). Introductory Readings in Political Behaviour.
Chicago: Mcnally and Co. Pp. 334-342.
Lasswell, H. & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and Society. New Haven:

Yale University Press.
Lawson, K. (1997). The Human Polity: A Comparative Introduction to

Political Science (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mills, W. (1953). The Power Elite. New York: OUP.

Shively, W. (2005). Power & Choice: An Introduction to Political
Science. New York: McGraw Hill.
Simon, H. (1965). “Notes on the Observation and Measurement of
Political Power.” In Ulmer, S. Introductory Readings in Political
Behaviour. Chicago: McNally and Co. Pp. 303 -376.
Swinburn, I. & Renwick, A. (1981). Basic Political Concepts. London:
Hutchington.
Webb, K. (1995). An Introduction to Problems in the Philosophy of
138
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 2 POLITICAL CULTURE
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is Political Culture and Foundations of Political
Culture
3.2 The Objects of Political Orientation
3.3 Types of Political Culture and Gabriel Almond and
Sydney Verba’s Civic Culture
3.4 Arend Lijphart Classification of Political Culture and Neo-
Patrimonial Political Culture
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0. INTRODUCTION
In the last lecture, we looked at power, authority, and ideology as three

key activities which have important implications for any political
systems’ legitimacy. However, these political processes are not all that
matter in the understanding of a political system’s legitimacy. An
understanding of a society’s political culture is also important in our
understanding of political systems’ legitimacy.
But political culture is more than a system legitimating instrument. As

several scholars have noted, one political system can be distinguished
from another not only by its structures but also by the political culture in
which the structures are found (See Wiseman, 1966; Almond and Verba,
1963). In other words, the general working of the political system is
very much affected by the political culture in which such imported
institutions function. Political cultures create a framework for political
change and are unique to states, and other groups. But what exactly do
we mean by political culture? In the last unit, the importance of political
culture for regime legitimation was highlighted while this unit will
discuss elaborately the concept of political culture, its importance and
dynamics in the political system.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define political culture

 highlight the foundations of political culture
139
 identify the objects of political orientation

 identify and describe the different types of political culture viz:
(a) the civic culture, (b)Consociational culture and (c) the neo-
patrimonial culture.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is Political Culture?
The definitions of political culture are many and varied. Roy Macridis
(1961) defines it as the “commonly shared goals and commonly
accepted rules.’ Dennis Kavanagh defines it as a shorthand expression to
denote the set of values within which the political system operates
(Kavanagh, 1993). Lucian Pye describes it as “the sum of the
fundamental values, sentiments and knowledge that give form and
substance to political process”. Samuel Beer (1958) says it is one of the
four variables crucial to the analysis of political systems. According to
him, the components of the culture are values, beliefs and emotional
attitudes about how government ought to be conducted and also about
what it should do. Almond and Powell defined political culture as “the
pattern of individual attitudes and orientations toward politics among the
members of a political system,” (Almond and Powell, 1966). The basic
distinction developed is that between “secularised” and non-secularised
political cultures. The former are characterised by “pragmatic, empirical
orientations,” and a “movement from diffuseness to specificity” of
orientations. Individuals who are part of a secular political culture deal
with others in terms of universalistic criteria as against considerations
arising from diffuse societal relationships such as those of tribe caste or
family (Almond and Powell, ibid.) They are aware that institutions have
specific functions and orient themselves to institutions in these terms
(Almond and Powell, ibid). Further, secularised, i.e., modern, political
cultures are characterised by bargaining and accommodative patterns of
political action which are relatively open, in that values are subject to
change in the basis of new experience. Modern states in which “rigid”
ideological politics continue to play a substantial role are those in which,
for some reason, "the bargaining attitudes associated with full
secularisation" have failed to develop (Almond and Powell, ibid, 58-59).
Robert Dahl (1966, cf. Babawale, 1999) has singled out political culture
as a factor explaining different patterns of political opposition in a
political system. The salient elements of the culture for Dahl (cf.
Babawale, ibid.) are:
 Orientations of problem-solving; are they pragmatic or

rationalistic?
140
POL214 MODULE 1
 Orientation to collective action: are they cooperative or non-

cooperative?
 Orientation to the political system: are they allegiant or alienated?
 Orientations to other people: are they trustful or mistrustful?
Foundations of Political Culture
According to Babawale (1999), a political culture, whether diverse or

homogenous, is a product of many factors such as geography, historical
development and experiences (coups, civil war, revolutions), diversity of
a nation’s population (ethnicity, language and religion) pattern of
traditional norms and practices as well as varying levels of socio-
economic development and socialisation processes.
Sub-cultural variations may hinder the development of a national

political culture. In order to overcome the problem arising from this,
there is need for cultural transformation. This involves changes in the
values and attitudes of the people and the emergence of shared
orientations. A political culture is not static but will respond to new
ideas generated from within the political system, imported or imposed
from outside. Japan provides a good illustration of a state subject to such
internal and external pressures resulting in rapid changes in the political
culture of its people.
Among the facilitators of change in the political culture of a nation are

the processes of industrialisation, urbanisation, massive investment in
education, the mass media, mass political mobilisation (through political
parties and democratisation processes) as well as the creation of
symbolic elements such as national heroes and political leadership,
lingua franca, national flags and national anthems, national public events
and popular national constitutions. All these can foster the spirit of
emotional attachment and loyalty to the nation thereby engendering
national pride and unity.
Political culture then may be seen as the overall disposition of the

citizens’ orientations to political objects. Orientations are
predispositions to political action and are determined by such factors as
traditions, historical memories, motives, emotions and symbols. These
orientations may be broken down into three viz:
a) Cognitive orientation (i.e. knowledge of, awareness and beliefs

about the political system, its roles, its inputs and outputs);
b) Affective orientations (emotions and feelings about political

objects); and
141
c) Evaluative orientation (judgment about political objects). The

objects of these subjective orientations involve three objective
dimensions of political life viz: system, process and policies.
Political culture as a concept explains different patterns of political

opposition in a political system. Explain.
3.2 The Objects of Political Orientation
According to Almond and Verba (1956), the objects of political

orientation include:
 The general political system about which members may, for

example, feel either patriotism or alienation; that it is large, small,
strong, weak, democratic, autocratic, constitutional etc.
 The component parts of the political system – legislature,
executive, bureaucracy, judiciary, the political leaders, such as
monarchs, presidents, party leaders, public policies, etc.
 The -orientation towards the self as a political actor – For
instance, sense of obligation, competence, etc.
Types of Political Culture
Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba’s Civic Culture
In 1963, the “Civic Culture” project of Almond and Verba was

considered groundbreaking for social sciences. It was the first attempt to
systematically collect and codify variables measuring citizen
participation across five different states. Those variables, based on
cross-sectional surveys, measured the qualities used for assessing the
degree of political participation of citizens in the United States, Mexico,
Great Britain, Germany and Italy. Through their project, Almond and
Verba wanted to create a theory of civic culture - a political culture
explaining the political involvement of citizens or lack thereof in
democratic states.
In their work, the authors discussed the historical origins of the civic
culture and the functions of that culture in the process of social change.
They compared and contrasted the patterns of political attitudes in the
five countries and contended that, across states, a democratic system
required a political culture encouraging political participation.
The theory employed by Almond and Verba was based on Harold

Lasswell’s personality characteristics of a ‘democrat’ including the
142
POL214 MODULE 1
following features: “open ego” (a warm and inclusive attitude toward

other human beings; a capacity for sharing values with others; a multi-
valued rather than a single-valued orientation; trust and confidence in
the human environment; and relative freedom from anxiety. The authors
used a methodology of experimentation rather than inferring a theory
from the institutional systems prevalent in the discussed states in order
to make a valid contribution to the scientific theory of democracy.
In their research, Almond and Verba asked if there is such a thing as a

political culture: a pattern of political attitudes that fosters democratic
stability. They came to the conclusion that a civic culture is a mixed
political culture: individuals are not always perfectly active or passive.
Almond and Verba struggled with a discrepancy between the
participants’ actual behavior, their perceptions and political obligations.
They also questioned the socialisation of the citizenry into the civic
culture. They asserted that civic culture is not taught in school. Rather, it
is transmitted by a complex process that includes training in many social
institutions: family, peers, school, work, and the political system itself.
Socialisation occurs through the direct exposure to the civic culture
itself and to the democratic polity.
In order to preempt criticism, Almond and Verba stressed that their

research did not carry the explanatory power for creation of the civic
culture in the newly-created nations; this question was beyond the scope
of their research. However, they did not refrain from making an attempt
to speculate on this question based on the cases they studied: the civic
culture emerged in the West as a result of a gradual political
development (based on history and characteristics of the civic culture). It
developed as a fusion of new patterns of attitudes, merged with the old
ones. In their work, they distinguished three types of citizen’s
orientation. These are:
Parochial - political sleepwalker, not involved, no knowledge or interest

in the domestic political system. Here citizens are only remotely aware
of the presence of central government, and live their lives near enough
regardless of the decisions taken by the state. Distant and unaware of
political phenomena, citizens with a parochial political culture have
neither knowledge nor interest in politics. This type of political culture
is in general congruent with a traditional political structure.
Subject - Where citizens are aware of central government, and are

heavily subjected to its decisions with little scope for dissent. The
individual is aware of politics, its actors and institutions. It is affectively
oriented towards politics, yet he/she is on the "downward flow" side of
the politics. In general, this type of political culture is congruent with a
centralized authoritarian structure.
143
Participant - possessing a strong sense of influence, competence and

confidence in understanding the domestic political system. Here citizens
are able to influence the government in various ways and they are
affected by it. The individual is oriented toward the system as a whole,
to both the political and administrative structures and processes (to both
the input and output aspects). The participant political culture is in
general congruent with a democratic political structure.
As mentioned above, the Civic Culture compared and contrasted five

political cultures: Italy— an alienated political culture with low sense of
confidence and competence; Mexico—alienation and aspiration with
low but positive sense of confidence; Germany—political detachment
and subject competence with confidence about the administrative system
only; the US—participant civic culture with confident and competent
political actors choosing political leaders and administration; the UK—
a deferential civic culture.
Babawale (1999) advised that we should be cautious in taking the above

categorization of political culture as mutually exclusive or existing in
isolation. According to him, no political culture fits perfectly into any of
these three types. Rather, each is mixed, made up of different
proportions of parochial, subject and participant attitudes. The relative
prevalence of each type determines the kind of political culture which
exists in a nation.
In a developed democratic political-system, dominant values may

emphasise participation, the idea that common people are rational and
intelligent enough to participate, that they can trust other citizens, that
interest groups are legitimate .and that governors gain their privilege of
governing and decision making only from the consent of the governed.
These kind of values set limits to government and spell out relations
between the governed and the governors.
Also, there may be fragmentation in the political culture of a nation, that

is, political culture may not be the same throughout the entire
population. No nation has a homogeneous political culture. Even within
specific groups within a nation, there will be sub-culture alongside the
dominant political culture. In short, most nations' political cultures are
heterogeneous. Where differences between one group and others are
marked, there is said to exist a political sub-culture. In Nigeria, for
example, there is no predominant political culture. The various ethnic
groups inherently constitute different political sub-cultural groups. They
all exhibit cohesive political cultures of their own which are very
different from each other and which resist amalgamation into a Nigerian
whole (Babawale, 1999).
144
POL214 MODULE 1
Patterns of interaction between individuals and groups within a society

require norms which define the roles, duties, rights and claims of
interrelated or interaction of members of the society. In effect, a large
measure of common acceptance of such norms is a condition of social
integration and stability. The general acceptance of these structurally
crucial norms is connected with the value systems which underpin the
norms of the value system of society. The value system of a society is
the set of normative judgments held by the members of a society who
define with specific reference to their society, what to them is a good
society. Social integration depends on the acceptance of a common
system of values. No society can maintain itself if the consciences of
most of its citizens are out of tune with the norms. The every-day
operation of the system requires that there be a high degree of moral
consensus.
Explain the mix-up of different proportions of parochial, subject and

participant attitudes of political culture in the Nigerian Polity.
3.3 Arend Lijphart Classification of Political Culture
The conclusion of the civic culture has been criticised by some political
scientists, foremost among these is Arend Lijphart who analysed politics
in Netherlands and argued that the Netherlands’s political system is
more stable than the one in the USA.
According to Lijphart, there are different classifications of political

culture:
a) Political culture of masses

b) Political culture of the elite(s).
Lijphart also classified structure of the society into:
a) Homogenous
b) Heterogeneous.
Table 5 Lijphart Classification of Political Culture

Structure of society (right Homogeneous heterogeneous
Political culture of elites
(down)
Coalitional Depoliticized democracy consociative
democracy
Contradictive centripetal democracy centrifugal
democracy
Source: Wikipedia, (2009).

145
Based on his research, Lijphart classified the political culture of the elite
into coalitional and contradictive. The consociative or consociational
model was developed in Lijphart’s groundbreaking work: The Politics of
Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (1968)
and elaborated in his later works (1969, 1977, 1985, 1991, 1995, 1996).
The key element in Lijphart’s consociational model is elite cooperation.
The political stability of consociational democracies is explained by the
cooperation of elites from different groups which transcend cleavages at
the mass level (Lijphart 1977:16). Related to this element are four
important defining features of the consociational model. The first is
executive power-sharing where each of the main groups shares in
executive power in a grand coalition government. The other basic
elements of the consociational model are: (1) the application of
proportionality principle in office distribution and revenue allocation,
(2) autonomy or self-government for each group, particularly in matters
of cultural concern; and (3) veto rights that would enable each group to
prevent changes that adversely affect their vital interests (Lijphart
1977:25).
The consociational model explains democratic stability in such

“culturally fragmented” and “divided” European societies as the
Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, and Switzerland. Lijphart argued that
democratic stability in these countries is a product of the deliberate
efforts by the political elites to “counteract the immobilising and
unstabilising effects of cultural fragmentation” (Lijphart 1968:212).
However, scholars have contested the classification of some of the

European countries as consociational democracies. One of the most
systematic critiques was written by Brian Barry in 1975. He insists that
Switzerland, for example, is not an example of consociational
democracy because in the first place, the country was never a deeply
divided society since political parties cross-cut cleavages and facilitate
“consensus rather than highly structured conflict of goals” (Barry
1975:501). Again, he argues that the institutions of referendum and
popular initiative in Switzerland contradict the tenets of consociational
decision making (Barry 1975:486).
Neopatrimonial Political Culture
Many scholars have characterised developing countries such as Nigeria

as having a neo-patrimonial political culture. These scholars maintain
that the distinctive characteristic of the political culture which informs
the complexion of the political regimes in these countries is a hybrid of
the legal-rational and the concept of neo-patrimonialism. It is argued
that in these countries, neopatrimonial relationships play the key and
146
POL214 MODULE 1
structure-forming role both in the determination of the rules of “political

games” and in the operation of the political system as a whole.
Neopatrimonial systems are hybrid in that they share the features of both
of Weber’s (Weber, 1964 & 1978) rational-legal bureaucratic systems
and patrimonial systems (Theobald, 1982; Bratton and van de Walle,
1994; van de Walle, 2001). Erdmann and Engel (2007:104) reiterate this
argument as: “The term clearly is a post-Weberian invention and, as
such, creative mix of two Weberian types of domination: a traditional
subtype, patrimonial domination, and rational-legal bureaucratic
domination”. Erdmann and Engel went further to state that “under neo-
patrimonialism the distinction between the private and the public, at
least formally, exists and is accepted, and public reference can be made
to this distinction” (Erdmann and Engel, 2007:104). Thus the distinction
between what constitutes a public sphere and a private sphere exists in
theory. However this distinction is blurred in practice hence the
argument that neopatrimonial systems are characterized by the
privatization of public affairs (Médard, 1982) with corruption and patron
client relationships being endemic in these societies.
The concept neopatrimonial has become a widely accepted concept in

the African studies literature and many have argued that the concept
encapsulates the nature of political and administrative behavior in Africa
(Médard’s 1982; Bratton and van de Walle, 1994; Englebert, 2000; van
de Walle, 2001; Erdmann and Engel, 2007). Writers such as Englebert
(2000) and van de Walle (2001) have drawn on the concept to explain
why Africa has been saddled with economic and political crises with Le
Vine (1980) even suggesting that there is a distinct neopatrimonial
system in Africa called ‘Africa patrimonialism’. Boas (2001) attributed
conflicts in Africa especially the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone
to the persistency of neopatrimonial systems. Taylor and Williams
(2008:137) argue that in Sub- Saharan Africa “…the dominant political
culture can be characterized as neopatrimonial, that is, systems based on
personalized structures of authority where patron-client relationships
operate behind a façade of ostensibly rational state bureaucracy”.
According to its proponents, the neopatrimonial culture leads to a

particular kind of state in Africa. Chabal and Daloz offer the following
interpretation of the African state as arising from neopatrimonial
practices:
… in most African countries, the state is no more than a

décor, a pseudo-Western façade masking the realities of
deeply personalized political relations. … In Western
Europe the Hobbesian notion of the state led to the
progressive development of relatively autonomous centers
147
of power, invested with sole political legitimacy. In Black

Africa …such legitimacy is firmly embedded in the
patrimonial practices of patrons and their networks (1999:
16).
The neopatrimonial culture is characterised by among other things

patronage, clientelism, and corruption. Erdmann and Engel (2007) argue
that clientelism which involves the transfer of public goods and services
by the ‘big man’ (patron) to the ‘small man’ (client) for political favours
is based on personal relations.
Patronage on the other hand is “the politically motivated distribution of

favors not to individuals but essentially to groups, which in the African
context will be mainly ethnic or sub-ethnic groups” (Erdmann and
Engel, 2007:107). In states labeled neopatrimonial or hybrid, real power
and real decision-making lie outside formal institutions. Instead,
decisions about resources are made by ‘big men’ and their cronies, who
are linked by ‘informal’ (private and personal, patronage and clientelist)
networks that exist outside (before, beyond and despite) the state
structure, and who follow a logic of personal and particularistic interest
rather than national betterment. These networks reach from the very
connecting the big man, MPs, chiefs, party officials, and government
bureaucrats to villagers.
Accordingly, the foundation of neopatrimonial regimes is the patron-

client relationship in the neopatrimonial system, the individual national
leader controls the political and economic life of the country, and the
personal clientistic relationships with the leader play a crucial role in
amassing personal wealth or in the rise and decline of members of the
political elite.
Corruption is rampant because private and public funds are co-mingled

by those in power. Though there are differences between regimes, their
overarching logic is to gain and retain power at all costs. In such
circumstances, policy decisions about development and governance are
subordinated to that single, overriding goal. The idea of democracy –
acceptance of a ‘loyal opposition’, a tolerance of dissent, effective
checks and balances, a rotation of parties to power through fair
elections, a vocal and organised public – is anathema if these result in
the big man and his associates being ousted from office (see Chabal and
Daloz,. (1999); Bratton and van de Walle (1997).
However, the concept of neopatrimonialism has been criticized by some

scholars of the “radical political economy school” who have pointed the
uncritical use of the concept (Mustapha, 2002). Their criticism comes
down to the reproach that it is part of the “neo-liberal project” by
148
POL214 MODULE 1
Western scholars who use it as an ideology to affirm the superiority of

Western cultures above that of African’s and that at best, the thesis is as
much about the prejudices of the authors than the problem of culture
(Mustapha, 2002). Arguing in the same manner, Theobald has stated that
“rather than isolating a socio-political phenomenon, the concept of
neopatrimonialism tends to gloss over substantial differences … it has
become something of a catch-all concept, in danger of losing its
analytical utility” (Theobald 1982: 554, 555). Finally, as (Erdmann and
Engel, 2006) have argued, an understanding of politics in Africa which
depicts all official relations as privatized or the modus operandi as being
essentially informal does not reflect African realities.
In what way(s) can you describe the Nigerian political culture as neo-
patrimonial?
4.0. CONCLUSION
Political culture is the values, beliefs, attitudes and aspirations of the

people in society which orient them politically. In order for a regime to
be legitimate there has to be widespread agreement in society on certain
sets of values i.e., some sort of a consensus.
The key elements of what constitutes a nation's political culture include:

the degree of social trust or distrust which prevails in society; the degree
of consensus; the general attitude of tolerance and interpersonal
cooperation permeating political relations among people; attachment and
loyalty of citizens to the national political system people's attitude
towards authority -the degree of public recognition of what constitutes
the legitimate authority and; people’s sense of their rights, powers and
obligations.
Although, members of a political community never share exactly the

same orientations towards their government, yet it is important for the
stability of any system that certain basic common assumptions and
beliefs are shared, or in other words, that the political culture be
relatively homogeneous. Without such homogeneity or some level of
agreement on the basic nature of politics, the general role of government
in the society, and the legitimate goals of policy and participation,
governmental policies which are popular with some sections of the
citizenry, are likely to be extremely unpopular with others and this may
result into political strife and instability. A high level of agreement or
consensus on norms concerning the basic aspects of the political system
is necessary for the political system to endure without disruption by
violence, civil war, or revolution. The problem which leaders in such
149
fragmented cultures face is how does a relatively homogenous political

culture evolve from such divergent ones? This is a fundamental problem
of nation-building in many new nations.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we have examined the concept of political culture, the

foundations of political culture, the objects of political orientation, and
the types or classification of political culture.
1. How relevant is the concept of neopatrimonialism to the

understanding of Nigerian politics?
2. Describe the key features of Lijphart’s consociational model.
3. How does a relatively homogenous political culture evolve from
a divergent one?
Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture. Boston, MA: Little
Brown and Company.
Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1966). Comparative Politics: A

Developmental Approach. Boston MA: Little Brown and
Company.
Babawale T. (1999), “Political Culture and Political Socialization” in

Anifowose, R. and Enemuo, F. Elements of Politics. Lagos:
Malthouse Press Ltd. Pp. 200 -225.
Barry, B. (1975). “Political Accommodation and Consociational

Democracy” British Journal of Political Science, 5(4): 477-505.
Beer, M. & Ulam, A. (1958). Patterns of Government, New York, 1958.

p.40.
Boas, M. (2001). "Liberia and Sierra Leone: Dead Ringers? The Logic
of Neopatrimonial Rule". Third World Quarterly, 22(5) p.697 -
723.
Bratton, M. & Van de Walle, N. (1994). “Neopatrimonial regimes and

political transitions in Africa.” World Politics. 46(4), pp. 453–
489.
150
POL214 MODULE 1

Africa. Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective.
Chabal, P. & Daloz, Jean-Pascal (1999). Africa Works: Disorder as

Political Instrument. Oxford: James Currey and Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
Chabal, P. & Daloz, J.P. (2006). Culture Troubles: Politics and the
Interpretation of Meaning. London: C. Hurst and Co.
Dahl, R. (1966). Political Opposition in Western Democracies. New

Haven CT: Yale University Press.
Clapham, C. (1982). Clientelism and the state, in: C. Clapham (Ed.)

Private Patronage and Public Power. London: Frances Pinter.
pp. 1–35.
Clapham, C. (1985). Third World Politics. London: Helm.
Erdmann, G. & Engel, U. (2006). “Neopatrimonialism Revisited:

Beyond a Catch-All Concept”. GIGA Research Program:
Legitimacy and Efficiency of Political Systems. N° 16. February.
Retrieved on April 20 from www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers
Erdmann, G. & Engel, U. (2007). “Neopatrimonialism Reconsidered:

Critical Review and Elaboration of an Elusive Concept.”
Commonwealth & Comparative Politics,45(1). pp. 95 -119.
Greif, A. (1994). “Cultural Beliefs and the Organisation of society: a

historical and theoretical reflection on collectivist and
individualistic societies”. The journal of Political Economy. 102
(5): 912 -950.
Inglehart, R & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change and

Democracy. New York. Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, R. & Christian, W. (2007). “Mass Beliefs and Democratics

Insitutions.” In Boix and Stokes. (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of
Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 297-
316.
Kavanagh, D. (1993). Political Science and Political Behaviour.

Routledge.
151
Kertzer, D. (1996). Politics and Symbols. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.
Le Vine, V. (1980). “African Patrimonial Regimes in Comparative

Perspective.” Journal of Modern African Studies. 18(4), pp. 657–
673.
Lijphart, A. (1968). The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and

Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Lijphart, A. (1969). “Consociational Democracy.” World Politics.

21(2):207-225.
Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative

Exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1979). “Consociation and Federation: Conceptual and

Empirical Links” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 12(3),
pp. 499-515.
Lijphart, A. (1991). “Power-Sharing Approach”, in J.V. Montville (ed.)

Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. New York:
Lexington Books.
Lijphart, A. (1995). “Multiethnic Democracy”, in S. Lipset et al. (eds).

The Encyclopedia of Democracy. Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly.
Lijphart, A. (2002). “The Wave of Power-sharing Democracy”, in A.

Reynolds (ed.). The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional
Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Me´dard, J. (1982). “The Underdeveloped State in Africa: Political

Clientelism or Neopatrimonialism?, in Clapham, C. (Ed.). Private
Patronage and Public Power. pp. 162– 189.London: Frances
Pinter.
Macridis, R. (1961). “Interest Groups in Comparative Analysis.”

Journal of Politics. XXIII.
Mustapha, A. (2002). “States, Predation & Violence:

Reconceptualizing Political Action and Political Community
in Africa.” Paper at the 10th General Assembly of CODESRIA.
Kampala, Uganda, 8th -12th December. Retrieved on April 22,
152
POL214 MODULE 1
2009 from http://www.codesria.org/Archives/ga10/Abstracts%

20Ga%206-11/Politics_Mustapha.htm
Pye, L. (1962). Politics, Personality and Nation Building. New Haven

CT: Yale University Press.
Pye, L. & Verba, S. (eds.) (1965). Political Culture and Political

Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Roth, G. (1968). “Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism, and Empire-

Building in the New States. World Politics, 20(2), pp. 194–206.
Roth, G. (1978). “Introduction” in Max Weber: Economy and Society.

Roth, G. & Wittich, C. (eds.). New York: Bedminster Press. pp.
xxxiii–cx.
Taylor, I. & Williams, P. (2008). “Political Culture, State Elites and

Regional Security in West Africa”, Journal of Contemporary
African Studies. 26(2), p.137-149.
Theobold, R. (1982). “Patrimonialism: Research Note.” World Politics.

34(4), pp. 548– 559.
Van de Walle, N. (2001). African Economies and the Politics of

Permanent Crisis. 1979–1999.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Weber, M. (1964). The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation,

trans. by Henderson, A. M. & Parsons, T. New York: Free Press.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Roth, G. &. Wittich, C (eds.).

New York: Bedminster Press.
Werlin, H. (1988). “Political Culture and Political Change.” American

Political Science Review 84:1, pp. 249-59
Wilson, R. (2000). “The Many Voices of Political Culture: Assessing

Different Approaches.” in World Politics. 52: January: 246 -73.
153
UNIT 3 POLITICAL SOCIALISATION
CONTENT
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Political Socialization/Agents of Socialization
3.2 Process/Time Span
3.3 The Concept of Change/Methods of Political Socialization
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit, we examined political culture as a pattern of

attribute and orientations of citizens in a political system. This unit will
however, discuss how individuals acquire these basic attitudes and
orientations which accounts for their political behaviors. The stability of
a political system is underlined by the relative success or failure of the
assimilation of new attitudes into the existing value structure. This
change is made possible through political socialization which serves not
only as a means of effectively transmitting the political culture of a
nation from generation to generation but helps in creating or developing
new attitudes and values about the political system
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able:
 define political socialisation

 identify and describe the agents of political socialisation
 identify and describe the process of political socialisation
 identify and describe the time span of political socialisation
 describe the concept of change in political socialisation
 explain the methods of political socialisation.
154
POL214 MODULE 1
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Political Socialisation
Political scientists have offered various definitions of political

socialisation. There is a general agreement, however, that political
socialisation involves the transmission of the political culture of a group
or the society to successive members of that group or society. In order
words, political socialisation refers to the process by which the central
values of the political culture are transmitted from one generation to
another.
The following definition of political socialisation underscores the

popularity of the views that socialization is mainly concerned with the
inter-generational transmission of political culture. According to Verba
(1960), political socialisation is “the process by which the norms
associated with the performance of political roles as well as fundamental
political values and guiding standards of political behaviour are learnt.”
Robert Levine described the political socialisation process as entailing
“the acquisition by an individual of behavioural dispositions relevant to
political groups, political systems and political processes” (Levine,
1963). Harry Eckstein defines political socialization as a “process
through which operative social norms regarding politics are implanted,
political roles institutionalised and political consensus created either
effectively or ineffectively” (Eckstein, 1988).
Generally, analysis of the concept of socialization have attempted to

distinguish between different patterns of socialisation through the use of
four interrelated analytical categories viz, agencies, process, time span
and change.
Agents of Socialisation
Agents of socialisation refers to the persons through which and the

setting in which the process of political socialisation is accomplished. In
other words, a person's political orientation and behavior patterns are not
born with him. They are not instinctive. They are learned. Political
learning is a process of interaction between the learner and certain
elements of his human environment generally called “socialisation
agents”.
There are numerous socialising agents exercising different influences

and varying in the degree to which they reinforce or contradict each
other. Generally speaking, however, you may distinguish between the
primary and secondary agencies of political socialisation. The primary
agencies refer to the family, whether nuclear or extended. Secondary
155
agencies refer to schools, peer groups, occupation, the mass media,

political parties, etc.
A) The Family
The family is the most important agent of socialisation. Initial studies of

political socialisation focused almost exclusively on the family in the
belief that it is in the family that a citizen first become aware of power
and experienced authority, albeit in its non-political context. Most of
this learning is informal, unintentional and often subconscious. Families
initially provide everything necessary for a child to survive and grow
such as food, shelter, affection and social interaction. Because of this,
families influence basic personality development and have great
influence on the acquisition of not only non-political but politically
relevant values.
For instance, children's basic personality orientation such as capacity for

trust and cooperation is developed within the family (Kent and Tedin,
1974). Furthermore, children had been shown to inherit or share the
political outputs and party loyalties of their parents. Politically relevant
ideas and values, such as proper conduct or orientation to authority,
rules, and obedience also develop within the family.
Some studies have found that the family transmits political orientation to
the children. One of such studies, for example, discovered that there is
great intra-family correlation in party preference. According to West “a
man is born into his political party just as he is born into probable future
membership in the church of his parents” (cf. Babawale, 1999). Thus,
party attachment tends to be passed from parent to child and persists into
adult life. Different family structures may encourage different kinds of
expectations about the rest of the world. Thus families that encourage
child participation in family decisions seem to encourage these children
to participate in politics when they become adults; children of politically
active parents tend to be more - politically active as adults.
Children whose parents avoid political involvement or rarely discuss

political events have few parental examples and less encouragement to
participate themselves. Consequently, they tend as adults to be less
involved in politics.
However, while the family is extremely important in personality

development creation of politically relevant attitudes, and in some
countries party identification, it has much less impact on development of
particular issues, preferences or ideology.
156
POL214 MODULE 1
The family is a very powerful agent of political socialisation because it

is a major determinant in an individual’s formative years. An individual
learns what is expected of him/her as a child and how he/she should
behave and relate to others. This is why the family has a great influence
on an individual. For instance, an individual may identify with a
particular political party because the family supports it. The attitude of a
child to political leaders may be influenced by how the parents respond
to them. Thus, the family unit provides personal and emotional ties
which mould an individual's personality and affect his/her political
behaviour (Babawale, 1999). The family may be losing its power as an
agent of socialisation; however, as other institutions take over more
of child care and parents perform less of it.
B) The school
Schools pass on nation’s political values through the teaching of social

studies, government, citizenship education and history. The school
accomplishes political socialisation through its curriculum, classroom
rituals and values and attitudes unconsciously transmitted by the
teachers. The school's social climate, political and non-political
organisations and extracurricular activities also serve to instill political
values, such as participation, competitiveness, achievement, and
observing the rules of the game (Prewitt, 1968).
Children are introduced to elections and voting when they choose

class prefects, school prefects, and the more sophisticated elections
in high school and college teach the rudiments of campaigning.
Political facts are learned through courses in American history and
government, and schools, at their best, encourage students to
critically examine government institutions. Schools themselves are
involved in politics; issues such as curriculum reform, funding, and
government support for private schools often spark a debate that
involves students, teachers, parents, and the larger community.
Other socialising stimuli are presented by rituals observed in the

schools, such as the salute to the flag, singing of the national anthem,
celebration of national historical events and displays of historical
portraits or events on classroom walls. The teacher, through expression
of opinions and display of interest in political events, may have an
unconscious impact on the political orientations of students. The effects
of being educated about political affairs, also, a task of the school bear
on political socialisation.
The study of political attitudes in five countries by Almond and Verba

(1963) has shown that education above the primary level itself
157
represents a many-sided experience that can, in a large number of ways,

increase an individual's potentiality to participate.
Educational attainment has an important effect on political attitudes. The

uneducated man or the man with limited education is a different political
actor from the man who has achieved a higher level of education.
There are a number of reasons for this. For one thing, people do learn in
schools: they learn specific subjects as well as skills useful for political
participation. And they learn the norms of political participation as well.
Much of this learning may be through direct teaching; some of it may be
more indirect. Not only does education influence political perspectives,
it also places the individual in social situations where he/she meets
others of like educational attainment, and this tends to reinforce the
effect of his/her own education.
All governments find the schools a useful agent to instill some political
attitudes and behaviour patterns in their citizens. Formal education is
certainly powerful in developing children’s political selves. The best
evidence is the nearly universal tendency, as many studies have shown
that the most educated people have the strongest sense of political
efficacy, the most politically interested and take most active roles in
political affairs
The school contributes significantly in shaping an individual's political

behaviour. It is in the school that the most formal political socialisation
takes place because one is directly taught and trained to obey the rules of
the society.
Through well defined methods, the school formally inculcates political

beliefs into the individual. This is done by teaching subjects like civics
and government to educate students about the political system.
Individuals are taught how to be good citizens and obey constituted
authority. Patriotism is also emphasised. It is in the schools that
individuals are formally nursed or socialized for future leadership. So
the school stresses the moral values and ethics which will sustain and
strengthen the political system.
The school not only trains the individual to become a useful adult, it also
induces him to be political. Indeed, in the schools, you learn about
fundamental rights and obligations. An individual learns that it is an
obligation to participate in political activities like voting; expressing
ones opinion and keeping law and order. Thus the school is a key agent
of political socialisation.
158
POL214 MODULE 1
C) Peer groups
Peer groups are important in the socialisation process. A peer group

refers to a group of people sharing similar status and having intimate
ties. In schools, it is very common to find various peer groups. In other
words, every individual, as a child or an adult, belongs to a peer group.
Examples of peer groups are children playmates, small work groups, and
married couples; friendship cliques, etc.
As an important medium of social learning, peer groups can influence

the behaviour of its members. In situations where we have weak family
ties, an individual may turn to his/her peer group for guidance on
political or other social issues. Peer groups are also powerful agents of
political socialisation in the sense that in most cases, members seek for
approval, acceptance and friendship from them. As such, individuals
take to the views held by the peer groups they belong.
D) Mass Media
The usefulness of the mass media as a socializing agent cannot be over

emphasized. The newspaper, radio, television, magazines, etc. are very
educative. They do not only transmit information and messages, but also
provide visual pictures of 'government activities. The government and
other organisations use the mass media to communicate with the public.
For instance - television enables the public to see and hear the Head of
State when he/she is delivering a speech or transmit news on election
campaigns and voting. The mass media also publish and transmit news
on activities of other countries. They do not only teach the individual or
public the norms and values of the society, they also reinforce them. The
present campaign by the Federal Ministry of Information and
Communications to instill positive values in citizens through the
Rebranding Nigeria Project, for instance, is being actively publicized
and promoted by the mass media. The mass media are therefore a useful
instrument of socialization because they can through their transmission
influence the political beliefs and education of individuals.
Much of our political information comes from the mass media:

newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the Internet. In many
countries, the amount of time the average citizen spends watching
TV makes it the dominant information source, particularly with the
expansion of 24-hour all-news cable channels such as CNN, BBC, Al
Jazeera, Press TV, NTA and different sorts of movie stations such as
Mnet or Africa Magic. Not only does television help shape public
opinion by providing news and analysis, but its entertainment
programming addresses important contemporary issues that are in the
political arena, such as electoral violence, drug use, abortion, and
159
crime. Burgeoning Internet communication has not only created

avenues for the dissemination of news, but also facilitated the creation
of an online community, discussion forums, and blog that present a
broad range of political opinion, information, and analysis that
transcends countries and linking citizens in their home countries and
those in the Diaspora. Examples of blogs include Gamji, Sahara
Reporters, Nigerian Village Square, and Elendu Reporters.
Examine the roles of the various agents in political socialization.
3.2 Process
The socialization process may be latent or manifest. The latent or

unconscious aspects of socialization are usually associated with the
primary agencies while the manifest or consciously cognitive aspects of
socialization are often associated with the secondary agencies. Latent
political socialization entails the implicit or informal transmission of
political orientations through the essentially non-political agency of the
family. Manifest political socialization, on the other hand, entails the
intentional or explicit acquisition of orientation through such manifestly
political instructions as the mass media, political parties and trade
unions. The related conceptual distinction concerns the perspectives
from which the socialization process is viewed. Do we stress the role of
the socializing agent or the role of the learner? While initial studies of
socialization focused on the agent, usually the family is the key initiator
and factor in the socialization process. More recent studies conceive of
socialization as a cognitive and interactive process in which the learner
and not just the agency plays a key role.
Time Span
The time span of socialization refers to an individual’s formative or

mature years. Political socialization through the family is not only latent
and agency-dominated but also tends to occur in the individual’s
formative or childhood years. Socialization through the secondary
agencies on the other hand, tends to be manifest to depend on the
conscious actions of the learner and to occur during an individual’s
mature years. The bulk of socialization literature has concentrated on the
formative or childhood years on the assumption that this is the crucial
period of political learning and that what enters the mind first remains
there to provide lenses and categories for perceiving and comprehending
later experiences. In other words, adult opinions are seen as the end-
product of youthful socialization. However, more recent studies now see
160
POL214 MODULE 1
socialization as a continuous process going beyond childhood to cover

adolescence and adulthood.
The time span of socialization can also refer to the following:
A) Life-cycle Effect – how a person’s beliefs and behavior change

over time. For example, the political views prior to having a
family vs. the views after having a family.
B) Period Effect – refers to how one historical event impacts an

entire society. Example includes the impact of the current global
economic meltdown on the Nigerian economy; and the impact of
May 29th 1999 on the history of democratization in Nigeria.
C) Cohort Effect – refers to how one historical event impacts a

specific group of people. Examples include the impact of the
Biafran war on the orientation of the Igbos to other groups in the
country or to the country itself; and the impact of the annulment
of June 12th election on Yoruba’s in Nigeria.
The Concept of Change
This final analytical category on the study of socialization seeks to

illustrate the structural consequences of political socialization on the
polity. Political socialization may endanger systemic or non-systemic
change. Systemic change refers to fundamental alterations in the
structural foundation of power relations of a polity. Non-systemic or
intra-systemic change on the other hand, refers to incremental
adjustments within the framework of the existing political system.
Generally, however, socialization is often seen as a conservative
stabilizing or system maintaining rather than change producing process.
In other words, when secondary socialization agencies inculcate political
values different from those of the past or when children are raised with
political and social expectations different from those of their forebears,
the socialization process can be a vehicle for social and political change.
In effect, political socialization may serve to preserve traditional
political norms and institutions.
Explain the conception that Socialization is conceived as a cognitive and

interactive process in which the learner and not just the agency play a
key role.
161
3.3 Methods of Political Socialization
A) Direct Political Socialization
This is a formal method of political socialization in which the individual

consciously learns political behaviour. First, direct political socialization
can take place through one's imitation of the behaviour of others. That
is, copying their values and beliefs. Children are easily influenced so
they copy the behaviour skills and attitudes of adults. They are
influenced by what they see and hear.
A second way direct political socialization occurs is through the formal

training and education provided by parents, teachers and peer groups.
Parents teach their children good morals, skills and habit. In the schools,
individuals are deliberately taught by their teachers to be good citizens.
This is why subjects like civics are taught to mould the students to be
loyal disciplined and to give support to political institutions. Individuals
can also formally acquire their political attitudes directly from
membership of peer groups of other political associations like political
parties or churches.
A third type of direct political education occurs through the impact of

direct political experiences on the individual.For example experiences
with a policeman, legislator, government official, political campaign or
an appearance in court affect the individual's political orientations
toward the regime, political institutions, its incumbents or the political
community.
B) Indirect Political Socialization
This is an informal method of political socialization. It is indirect in the

sense that one is unconsciously learning roles, skills and attitudes
without being aware of it. Indirect socialization involves acquiring
values and orientations which are not political but which influence ones
political behaviour. It also entails the learning of non-political but
politically relevant aspect of behaviour while direct socialization
involves the appropriate formal teaching of political values.
One type of indirect political socialization is interpersonal transfer. This

is where attitudes towards authority are developed. It means that
orientations learned in other social bodies like the family, the church or
peer groups are transferred into political roles. For instance, if a child or
an individual is brought up under strict parental authority, he/she may
expect political leaders to operate under the same code of conduct.
162
POL214 MODULE 1
How does the direct and indirect method of political socialisation aid
political participation?
4.0 CONCLUSION
Political socialisation is the transmission of political culture from one

generation to another. It is indispensable in the survival of political
systems. It is also very important in systems changes.
5.0. SUMMARY
Political socialisation is carried out through interaction and association

with others. Through socialisation, the basic personality that each person
will exhibit throughout life is formed. Societal culture and skills are also
passed from generation to generation through the process of
socialisation. This process does not cease even when one becomes an
adult. It begins from the cradle and ends in the grave. People continue to
participate in new experiences that will further affect their personalities.
During an individual's life-time, he/she is exposed to a variety of
socialising agencies: The family, school, peer groups, secondary groups,
the mass media and varied experiences. It is therefore a life-long,
continuous, developmental process and as such not completely static. In
order to ensure a stable political system, the various agencies of political
socialisation should be sufficiently flexible and interdependent to
accommodate changes without violent disruptions.
6.0. TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
1. Examine how school as an agent of socialization has facilitated

political participation.
2. Describe how the types of socialization agencies have played a
role in the political participation process in Nigeria.
3. How true is it that indirect political participation entails the
learning of non-political but politically relevant aspect of
behavior.
163
7.0. REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture. Boston, MA: Little
Brown and Company.
Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1966). Comparative Politics: A Developmental

Approach. Boston. Little, Brown
Austin, R. (1996). Governing: An Introduction to Political Science (7th

ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Babawale T. (1999), “Political Culture and Political Socialisation” in

Malthouse Press Ltd. Pp. 200 -225.
Dalton, R. (2000). “Citizen Attitudes and Political Behavior.”

Comparative Political Studies. 33 (6-7), pp. 912-940.
Eckstein, H. (1988). “A Culturalist Theory of Political Change.”

American Political Science Review. 82 (3), pp.789-804.

Powell, L. (2003). Political Socialisation: The Development of Political

Attitudes. In Powell, L. Political Campaign Communication:
Inside and Out. Birmingham: University of Alabama.
Prewitt, K. (1968). Political Socialisation. Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Roberta, S. (1995). “New Directions for Political Socialisation Research

Thoughts and Suggestions.” Perspectives on Political Science.
Vol. 24.
Tedin, K. (1974). “The Influence of Parents on the Political Attitudes of

Adolescents” American Political Science Review. 68: Dec. pp.
79-92.
164
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 4 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
CONTENT
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is Political Participation?
3.2 Typologies of Political Participation/Lester Milbraith’s
Typology
3.3 Karl Deutsch's Typology and Robert Dahl's Typology
3.3 Elections and the Right to Vote (Suffrage)/The
Development of Suffrage
3.4 Models for Interpreting Electoral and Voting Behaviour
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Citizen participation in politics has always been a core issue in political

sociology (Pateman, 1970; Milbraith & Goel, 1977; Verba & Norman,
1972). In democratic polities, political power is achieved by persons and
groups through a process of participation which eventually leads to
various positions at the pinnacle of power. This is in sharp contrast to
what obtains in the traditional state, or in a dictatorship where positions
of political power can be attained by aristocratic birth-right or by force.
In modern democratic states, there can be no political power without

political participation, the latter being the only avenue to the former.
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 the small sizes, it was possible for every
adult to participate directly in the affairs 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 countries, the majority participate indirectly
through their representatives who they elect at regular intervals. While
majority participation remains a cardinal principle of democracy and
adult suffrage has become almost universal everywhere, numerous
studies reveal that the majority of the members of society, even in
countries like the USA, are not interested at all in politics. Many do not
vote; much less know a lot about the political process (Milbraith, 1965;
Darlton, 2000). In effect, it has been found, only a tiny proportion of
members of society participate in politics. Even among such
165
participants, only a few are very active. Against this background, this
unit shall discuss the complex process of political participation and the
actual participants in the political process. We shall also examine the
levels of political participation by looking at some of the typologies of
political participation that have been developed.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able:
 define political participation

 identify the typologies of political participation
 explain Lester Milbraith’s Typology
 explain Deutsch’s Typology
 explain Robert Dahl’s Typology
 describe the role of elections and suffrage as a key concept in
democratic participation
 trace the development of suffrage in Nigeria and USA
 explain the models for interpreting electoral and voting
behaviour.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is Political Participation?
Political participation encompasses the various activities that citizens

employ in their efforts to influence policy making and the selection of
leaders. According to Orum (1978) political participation refers simply
to the “variety of ways in which people try to exercise influence over the
political process.” In a similar vein, McClosky (1968), sees political
participation as “those voluntary activities by which members of a
society share in the selection of rulers and directly or indirectly in the
formation of public policy.” Lawson and Wasburn (1969) on the other
hand describes political participation as “the process by which
individuals acting singly or through group origination, attempt to
influence decision-making or alter the manner in which it may be
exercised in a particular society People participate in politics in many
ways “ranging from discussing political issues or events, taking part in a
demonstration or riots, voting, writing a letter to political parties and
seeking political offices” (Osaghae, 1988). In a federal system such as
Nigeria, people have many opportunities to participate in democracy on
national, state, and local levels. Some forms of participation are more
common than others and some citizens participate more than others.
166
POL214 MODULE 1
According to Agbaje (1999), in modem society, participation tends to

take either of three basic forms, viz:
● The form of elections or selections, when people seek to

participate in societal affairs through elected or selected
representatives;
● the form of routine individual or group involvement in the day to
day affairs of the society, and
● through the shaping of public opinion on issues, events and –
personalities of the day.
From the above, it is clear that political participation is not a preserve of

only democratic political systems. In other words, political participation
takes place in all political systems. Political systems however differ
with regard to the degree of citizens’ participation, type of participation,
and the level of their participation. For example, in a single party system
where elections are mere formalities, the degree of citizens’
participation in elections cannot be compared to a democracy where
competitive party elections take place periodically. Also, it should be
noted that political participation encompasses such acts as campaign and
voting during elections, riots against government policies, writing of
protest letters to one’s representatives, etc. However, because of the
emergence of liberal democracy or representative democracy as the
dominant model of democracy and the salience of election under this
system, there is a tendency to associate political participation with
elections, especially participation in campaigns and voting. The
literature on political participation is therefore so overwhelmingly
dominated by writings on elections and electoral behaviour that it will
be understandable for political participation to be identified exclusively
with the study of voting. Also, giving the status of the United States as a
prototypical liberal democratic country, most mainstream analyses and
models of political participation are developed in the U.S. context, a
unique case by any standard, suggesting that the dominant models are
strongly biased by domestic politics in the United States. In spite of its
shortcoming however, this dominant bias in extant literature on political
participation for elections and voting behaviour in the US context shall
underscore our discussion in this unit. However, wherever necessary, the
Nigerian example shall also be highlighted.
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 Deutsch
and Robert Dahl. For a summary of these typologies, we shall rely
exclusively on Osaghae (1988: 66-68).
167
Lester Milbraith’s Typology
According to Milbraith (1965), political participants can be classified on

the basis of their political activities. He said there are three such
activities, namely, spectator activities, transitional activities and
gladiatorial activities. Accordingly, we have spectator participants,
transitional participants, and gladiatorial participants.
a) Spectator participants: These are the participants 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 they 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.
b) 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.
c) 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.
Explain in details how Milbraith (1965) classified political participants.
3.2 Karl Deutsch's Typology
In this typology (Deutsch, 1974), 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.
168
POL214 MODULE 1
a) 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 decisions made. In democratic and non-
democratic political systems 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).
b) 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 occupy 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 core, 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, and military officers-belong
to the mid-elite group. The who's who elites are the 'notables' -
captains of industry, Permanent Secretaries, military Generals, in
short, the leaders or the various influential political, actors-
President, Ministers, Ambassadors, and Chief-Justice - who
actually make authoritative decisions. This top class of
participants usually constitutes between I and 5%of the total
population. Again, Deutsch's typology, like Mitbraith’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.
169
Robert Dahl's (Dahl, 1976) Typology
There are four categories in this typology. These are:
a) 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.
b) The Political Stratum: This is similar to Deutsch's politically

relevant strata. Participants in this category take part in basic
political activities like voting and discussing politics.
c) The Power Seekers: Are those who have become so highly

involved that they decide to seek power and influence by running
for political office.
d) The Powerful: They occupy the top political positions, and

control the greatest amount of political resources and have the
greatest political skills. These are the President, leaders of
political parties, heads of legislative assemblies and “the powers
behind the scene”, who are mostly the wealthiest members of
society.
Compare and contrast Karl Deutsch's and Robert Dahl’s Typology.
3.3 Elections and the Right to Vote (Suffrage or Franchise)
Election is at the heart of a modern participation in politics. A vote

sends a direct message to the government about how a citizen wants to
be governed. The right to vote is known as suffrage. The critical
question here is who has the right to vote? Usually, the qualified
electorate in most countries today is the adult citizen – both male and
female. This is known as universal adult suffrage. However, universal
adult suffrage is a product of the 20th century. Up till this period,
suffrage was based on religion, sex, property and qualification. The
adoption of universal suffrage is a product of a century-old bitter war of
many separate and hard-fought campaigns against the entrenched
oligarchy. Property, religion, race, education etc. requirements for
voting were eliminated one by one in the face of bitter opposition from
those who were eliminated by such requirements.
170
POL214 MODULE 1
The Development of suffrage
In many countries, voting rights were not originally extended to all the
citizens. In Nigeria, for instance, the right to vote has developed in the
colonial period during the Clifford Constitution of 1922 which
introduced the elective principle which allowed elections to the
Legislative Council. However, elections were restricted to Lagos and
Calabar (three members from Lagos and one from Calabar). These
elections were based on property, educational qualifications, gender and
social status of citizens. For instance, only adult males could vote under
the 1922 Constitution. Also, under the 1922 and 1946 Constitutions,
only men who earn 100 and 50 UK Pounds per annum respectively were
eligible to vote. Furthermore, while franchise was extended to women in
the southern part of the country, women in the north did not receive the
vote until 1976 (Pepple, 1992). In essence, while women were generally
denied the suffrage, women in the North were barred from exercising
the suffrage longer than those in the south. Increasingly, the base of the
franchise was broadened to accommodate all qualified adult citizens
irrespective of gender, class, and status. Presently, all Nigerian citizens
who are eighteen years and above can exercise the suffrage.
Similarly, in the United States of America for example, originally the

Constitution let individual states determine the qualifications for voting,
and states varied widely in their laws. The expansion of the right to
vote resulted from constitutional amendment, changing federal statutes,
and Supreme Court decisions. Changes in suffrage over American
history include:
a) Lifting of property restrictions: At first, all states required

voters to be property owners, with varying standards for how
much property a man had to own to merit the right to vote.
During the 1830s when Andrew Jackson was president, most
states loosened their property requirements to embrace universal
manhood suffrage, voting rights for all white males. By the end
of Jackson’s presidency, all states had lifted property restrictions
from their voting requirements.
b) Suffrage for Black Americans and former slaves - After the

Civil War three important amendments intended to protect civil
rights of the newly freed former slaves were added to the
Constitution. The last of the three was added in 1870 - the 15th
Amendment, which said that the right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude. Despite the amendment, many states passed Jim Crow
laws such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and the grandfather clause
171
that prevented many blacks from voting until well past the mid-
20th century. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and
60s, the Supreme Court declared various Jim Crow laws
unconstitutional. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and other
federal laws prohibited states from using discriminatory
practices, such as literacy tests.
c) Women’s Suffrage: In contrast to black Americans, women

were kept from the polls by law more than by intimidation. An
aggressive women’s suffrage movement began before the Civil
War, but it brought no national results until social attitudes
toward women changed during the Progressive Movement of the
early 20th century. The result was the passage of the 19th
Amendment, which extended the vote to women in 1920. The
19th Amendment doubled the size of the electorate.
d) Change of minimum voting age: A final major expansion of

voting rights occurred in 1971 when the 26th Amendment
changed the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. A few states
such as Georgia, Kentucky, Alaska, and Hawaii had allowed
younger people to vote before 1971. The increased political
activism of young people, particularly on college campuses
during the 1960s, almost certainly inspired this expansion of
voting rights.
Types of Voting Activities
Citizens voting activities differ. Generally, however the range of

political participation during the elections include watching the
campaign on television, voting in the election, influencing others on
how to vote, putting a car sticker or wearing a button of a candidate,
giving money to help a campaign, attending a political meeting, and
working for a party or candidate or the party as electoral agent, party
militia, etc.
Following the analogy so far, what features accords one the right to
vote?
3.4 Models for Interpreting Electoral and Voting Behaviour
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
mode and sets of factors that have been identified.
172
POL214 MODULE 1
According to Dennis Kavanagh on why people vote the way they do, it
is possible to identify at least five different theories or analytical models
for interpreting the voting decision (Kavanagh, 1993; 1995). These are:
a) Structural Theory/Model
This model sees the voting decision as being structured or determined by

a host of factors over which are external to individual voters and
therefore to a great extent outside of their immediate control. Rather
than placing political action, and hence the blame for inaction, on
individuals, the structural model draws attention to the powerful ways in
which political opportunities and the political process constrain
individual behavior. These factors include national history, the social
structure, and its associated cleavages or social class, religion, ethnicity
and urban-rural dichotomy, the party system, electoral regulations, etc.
The structural theory is the broadest of the analytical frameworks for
studying the voting decision and the least vulnerable to partial or trivial
explanations.
A key issue in the structural model is the political correlates of

participation such as action of the state, the nature of institutions, the
nature of a political system and in particular, of the ruling regime. In
military and dictatorial regimes for instance, 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.
As Verba, Nie and Kim (1978) showed in their study of political

participation in seven nations, a fuller explanation of political
participation requires us to look at how institutions enable and constrain
the activity of different groups in different contexts. Paying attention to
institutional factors also helps us to better understand the causal
mechanism that link attitudes to political activity. For example, a survey
data that compares the attitudes and political participation of Mexicans
living in Mexico, recent Mexican migrants to the U.S. and Americans
shows that attitudes can and do change very quickly and are not fixed
features of social or national groups. Camp reports that Mexican
Americans’ begin to adopt the American definition of democracy
(liberty over equality) after having resided in the United States for only
a year. (Camp 2003) This suggests that attitudes and values, even
apparently deeply held values about the meaning of democracy and
173
citizenship, can change very quickly if the political context changes (or
if individuals leave one context for another). But if such values change
quickly and easily they are not much use in explaining political
participation unless we can also explain how attitudes change and why
they change. Political institutions provide the answer. Camp’s analysis
makes it clear that most attitudes are wholly or in part artifacts of where
one lives and what kinds of experiences one has had with the political
process. It appears then that institutions affect political behavior directly
by affecting the incentives and constraints actors face for engaging in
different kinds of political activity, and indirectly by influencing
citizen’s political attitudes, values and sense of efficacy.
b) Sociological Theory
This model analyses the voting decision on the basis of such standard
and demographic variables as age, occupation, social status, education,
and sex. Generally, studies carried out within this analytical framework
tend to conclude that a voter’s political preferences are determined by
such social characteristics as his/her socio-economic status, education or
residence. This framework is however usually criticised for its
sociological determinism.
c) Ecological/Aggregate Statistical Model
This model relates aggregate votes to general features of an area, be it a

constituency, housing estate or region. The analytical model depends on
the availability of accurate or demographic data (census). This method is
useful for interpreting the political behaviour of groups that are heavily
concentrated in particular constituencies e.g. miners, immigrants or
students.
d) Socio-Psychological Theory
This analytical model interprets the voting decisions as the amount of

the voter’s psychological predispositions or attitudes. The most famous
concept associated with this is that of party identification. This concept
refers to the voter’s affective attachment or allegiance to a party. Once a
voter has acquired an allegiance to a party he is usually never again so
open to the possibility of change party identification has been an
essential tool for studying the nature of electoral behaviour in USA.
However, critics have argued that the concept is close psychologically to
the voting decision to be useful as an independent explanation for voting
behaviour. The concept has also been criticised for its psychological
determinism and reductionism.
174
POL214 MODULE 1
f) Rational Choice Model
This model which is borrowed from economics relies on a few

assumptions to make deduction about the instrumental and cost-effective
behaviour of a person whether or not to participate in politics.
According to this model, a rational person decides to participate or not
in politics based on his/her calculations of gains 'and losses, with a view
to maximizing "gains and minimising losses. The point then is that
individual who participates in politics does so because he/she 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/she cannot benefit or that the costs of participating are high
(money, time, convenience, etc.), he/she is not likely to participate in
politics. For instance, with regards to people’s participation in elections
either as voters, or campaigners, the individual will make certain
assumptions before he/she participates. These assumptions include a
voter’s calculations about the cost of voting, the probability that his/her
vote would affect electoral output and the difference between party
platform for policies. These calculations determines whether the rational
voter should vote at all and if so for which party or candidate? In
essence, rational choice theory portrays the voters as utility or benefit
maximizers and the parties and candidates as vote maximizers. Thus,
whereas the social psychological theory and its associated concept of
party identification stresses the affective ties between voters’ parties, the
economic rational choice model stresses the more instrumental aspects
of the interactions between electorates and parties. The criticisms of the
model is that it is economically deterministic and overlooks the fact that
many voters instead of being informed about parties or policies rely on
shortcuts like traditional ideology, ethnicity or party identification in
making decisions. In fact as Osaghae (1988) has noted, voting and
attending a rally do not necessarily follow a cost and benefit calculation.
Rather they may sometimes become so habitual that few people
calculate before they act. Probably because of this, many participants in
politics 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.
Using the different theories or analytical models for interpreting the

voting decision explain using Nigeria as an example why some people
participate in politics and others do not, and why, even among those
who participate, some are more active than others.
175
4.0 CONCLUSION
Political participation encompasses the various activities that citizens

employ in their efforts to influence policy making and the selection of
leaders. It takes place in both democratic and non-democratic states.
Accordingly, a key part of political participation in democratic states is
electoral behavior.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have learnt the meaning of political participation, the
typologies of political participation, meaning of suffrage, development
of suffrage, and the models of electoral behaviour.
1. List and explain four models for explaining electoral behaviour

2. Explain how Milbraith’s classifications of political participants
explain the Nigerian political scenario.
3. How true is the notion that majority participation remains a
cardinal principle of democracy?
4. What is suffrage? Trace the evolution of suffrage in Nigeria.
Agbaje, A. (1999). “Political Parties and Pressure Groups” in

Malthouse Press Ltd. Pp. 191-209.
Dalton, R. (2000). “Citizen Attitudes and Political Behavior”

Comparative Political Studies. 33:6-7, pp. 912-940.
Kavanagh, D. (1993). Political Science and Political Behaviour.

London: Routledge.
Kavanagh, D. (1995). Election Campaigning: The New Marketing of

Politics. London: Blackwell.
Lawson, C. & Wasburn, P. (1969). Power, Participation and Ideology.

New York. The Free Press.
McClosky, H. (1968). “Political Participation” in International

Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Collier-
Macmillan.
176
POL214 MODULE 1
Milbraith, L. ( 1965). Political Participation. Chicago: Rand Mcnally

and Co.
Milbraith, l. & Geol, M. (1977). Political Participation: How and Why

do People get involved in Politics? Chicago: Rand Mcnally and
Co.
Orum, A. (1978). Introduction to Political Sociology: The Social

Anatomy of the Body Politic. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-
Hall Inc.

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge:

Pepple, A. (1992). “Women in the Nigerian Legislature.” in Ayoade, J.,

Nwabuzor, E., and Sambo, A. (eds.). Women and Politics in
Nigeria. Abuja: Centre for Democratic Studies. Pp. 37-43.
Verba, S. & Norma, H. (1972). Participation in America: Political

Democracy and Social Inequality. New York: Harper and Row.
Verba, S.; Norman, H. & Kim, J. (1978). Participation and Political

Equity: a Seven-Nation Comparison. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
177
UNIT 5 POLITICAL REPRESENTATION
CONTENT
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is Political Representation?
3.2 Two Historical Conceptions of Political Representation:
Delegate vs. Trustee
3.3 Changing Political Realities and Changing Conception of
Political
Representation
3.4 Challenges to Political Representation
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The concept of political representation had its origin in England in 1215,

when the King was forced by nobles to sign the Magna Carta (Fasolt
1991).The works of several political philosophers such as Hobbes,
Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and other political scientists such as Dewey,
Dahl and Schmitt have focused on the concept of representation, with
this scholars giving multiple and competing evaluations and
recommendations of how it should be carried out.
Jean J. Rousseau for example was disapproving of ceding representative

functions completely to the parliament. To him, civil government was
established by a social contract in which men surrendered part of their
natural rights in return for a certain degree of influence on government
decisions. All citizens were therefore entitled to political representation.
Rousseau argued that in a truly free state, every man would give his/her
personal consent to the laws. Representative government was the best
thing, but sovereignty would remain with the people and could not be
properly claimed by parliament (Rousseau, 1978).
This unit will examine the concept of representation and its relevance in
the modern political system as well as some of the problems associated
with the usage of the concept and attempts made to resolve some of
these issues.
178
POL214 MODULE 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define political representation

 identify the two historical conceptions of political representation
 describe the impact of Changing Political Realities on the
Conception of Political
 Representation
 identify several challenges problems with the theory of political
representation.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is Political Representation?
According to Pitkin (1967; 1997), political representation involves, inter

alia, authorisation, accountability and the looking out for another’s
interests or rather the activity of making citizens' voices, opinions, and
perspectives “present” in the public policy making processes. Seen from
this perspective, political representation occurs when political actors
speak, advocate, and act on behalf of others in the political arena.
Political representation, on any account, will exhibit the following four
components: some party that is representing (the representative, an
organisation, movement, state agency, etc.); some party that is being
represented (the constituents, the clients, etc.); something that is being
represented (opinions, perspectives, interests etc.); and a setting within
which the activity of representation is taking place (the political context)
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006).
According to Agbaje (1999), representation is the process by which

people get chosen to act in the interest or on behalf of the community or
sections thereof, or the process by which an idea, issue, line of action or
programme is portrayed as the idea, issue, and line of action or
programme of the entire community or sections thereof. As in
participation, representation can occur through:
elections, selections and appointments into the formal

structures and bureaucracies of decision-making,
implementation and feedback; mobilizing and aggregating
through and within largely voluntary institutions,
organisations and associations such as trade unions,
religious bodies, civic and human rights bodies, cultural
organisations, political parties, cooperatives, professional
associations, farmers and artisan guilds. chambers of
commerce and industry, market women associations,
179
student unions and so on, and public opinion as expressed

in the media of mass communication (including the radio,
press and television) and as mediated by local opinion
leaders.
What is clear from the above definitions is the complex character of the
concept of political representation which Agbaje aptly noted when he
stated that “ordinarily, representation should provide a more orderly and
predictable platform for democratic and effective governance” but that
however, it is not in all instances that representation tends to enhance
democracy”. In fact “representation can equally work against democracy
when it deepens ethnic, religious, class or, as indicated above, racial
c1evages in society”. In addition, and as we shall see later, a more
nuanced conception of political representation must take into cognisance
the fact that political representation can take place within both
democratic and non-democratic frameworks and that we can, as Rehfeld
(2005) posited, explain political representation without necessarily
appealing to normative standards of democratic legitimacy.
3.2 Two Historical Conceptions of Political Representation:

Delegate vs. Trustee
Historically, the theoretical literature on political representation has

focused on whether representatives should act as delegates or as
trustees. Representatives who are delegates simply follow the expressed
preferences of their constituents. James Madison (1987) is one of the
leading historical figures who articulated a delegate conception of
representation. Trustees are representatives who follow their own
understanding of the best action to pursue. Edmund Burke is famous for
arguing that Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different
and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain, as an agent and
advocate, against other agents and advocates; but a deliberative
assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole… You
choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a
member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament (Burke, 1967:
115).
Both the delegate and the trustee conception of political representation

place competing and contradictory demands on the behavior of
representatives. Delegate conceptions of representation require
representatives to follow their constituent's preferences, while trustee
conceptions require representatives to follow their own judgment about
the proper course of action. Any adequate theory of representation must
grapple with these contradictory demands (Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 2006).
180
POL214 MODULE 1
Based on the fact that representatives should either act as delegates or as

trustees what then do you think is the adequate theory of political
representation?
3.3 Changing Political Realities and Changing Conception of

Political Representation
In today’s world system, increasing international and domestic political

transformations have made the standard notion of political
representation which has focused mainly on the formal procedures of
authorisation and accountability within nation states unsatisfactory.
With increasing international and domestic political transformations
transnational and non-governmental actors play an important role in
advancing public policies on behalf of democratic citizens—that is,
acting as representatives for those citizens. Such actors “speak for,” “act
for” and can even “stand for” individuals within a nation-state. It is no
longer desirable to limit one's understanding of political representation
to elected officials within the nation-state.
As the powers of nation-state have been diffused by international and

transnational actors, elected representatives are no longer responsible for
deciding or implementing the public policies that directly impact the
citizens who authorised them. Given the role that International Non-
Governmental organisations play in the international arena, the
representatives of dispossessed groups are no longer located in the
formal political arena of the nation-state. Given these changes, the
traditional focus of political representation, that is, on elections within
nation-states, is insufficient for understanding how public policies are
being made and implemented (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
2006). The complexity of modern issues and the multiple locations of
political power suggest that contemporary notions of accountability are
inadequate.
Domestic transformations also reveal the need to update contemporary

understandings of political representation. Associational life — social
movements, interest groups, and civic associations—is increasingly
recognised as important for the survival of representative democracies.
The extent to which interest groups write public policies or play a
central role in implementing and regulating policies is the extent to
which the division between formal and informal representation has been
blurred. The fluid relationship between the career paths of formal and
informal representatives also suggests that contemporary realities do not
justify focusing mainly on formal representatives.
181
3.4 Challenges to Political Representation
There are three challenges associated with political representation. The

first problem is the question over what is the proper institutional design
for representative institutions within democratic parties. The theoretical
literature on political representation has paid a lot of attention to the
institutional design of democracies. The specific challenges here are
which type of representation institutions are appropriate? For instance,
what type of electoral system should be adopted by a country?
However, with the growing number of democratic states, we are likely
to witness more variation among the different forms of political
representation. There is likely to be much debate about the advantages
and disadvantages of these different ways of representing democratic
citizens.
This leads to a second concern related to the ways in which democratic

citizens can be marginalised by representative institutions. This problem
is articulated most clearly by Young's discussion of the difficulties
arising from one person representing many. Young (2000) suggests that
representative institutions can include the opinions, perspectives and
interests of some citizens at the expense of marginalising the opinions,
perspectives and interests of others. Hence, a problem with institutional
reforms aimed at increasing the representation of historically
disadvantaged groups is that such reforms can and often do decrease the
responsiveness of representatives. For instance, the creation of the
federal character principle in Nigeria has blocked the chances of more
qualified citizens from other states.
A third and final problem involves the relationship between

representation and democracy. Historically, representation was
considered to be in opposition with democracy (see Dahl, 1989). When
compared to the direct forms of democracy found in the ancient city-
states, notably Athens, representative institutions appear to be poor
substitutes for the ways that citizens actively ruled themselves.
Today, while it is clear that representative institutions are vital

institutional components of democratic institutions, much more needs to
be said about the meaning of democratic representation. In particular, it
is important not to presume that all acts of representation are equally
democratic. After all, not all acts of representation within a
representative democracy are necessarily instances of democratic
representation. Similarly, it is unclear whether a representative who
actively seeks to dismantle democratic institutions is representing
democratically. Does democratic representation require representatives
to advance the preferences of democratic citizens or does it require a
commitment to democratic institutions? At this point, answers to such
182
POL214 MODULE 1
questions are unclear. What is certain is that democratic citizens are

likely to disagree about what constitutes democratic representation.
In fact by attaching representation to the conditions that render it
legitimate, the standard account is doing double duty: not only does it
tell us when a representative is legitimate or democratic, it also
purportedly tells us when a person is a political representative at all. By
simultaneously defining conditions by which someone becomes a
political representative and the conditions for her legitimacy we are
unable to explain how the cases of 'illegitimate' representation should be
described.
Yet Cases of illegitimate political representation are not mistakes of

classification or cases in which the representative simply fails to achieve
an ideal: political representation, say, in the early modern period in
England, was less about legitimizing practices as about a practical way
for the monarchy to extract taxes from the people(Fasolt
1991).Similarly, in many nations over the last 50 years, whether in
Africa, South America, Eastern Europe and the republics of the former
Soviet Union, we see nations filled with political representatives, but
whose elections, conduct and other criteria do not meet any plausible
account of legitimacy. NGO’s now sent their representatives who
purportedly “represent” non-state actors and causes on the world stage.
The question is, given the lack of any democratic structures by which
those represented can authorize and hold these actors to account, given
the fact that they may or may not actually be pursuing the interests of
those they purportedly represent, are these even cases of political
representation? As Rehfeld (2005) noted, this question is critical
because contemporary accounts of political representation explain why
one is or why one fails to be a representative at all by reference to
democratic norms: a representative is purportedly someone who looks
out for the substantive interests of those who elected them through free
and fair elections.
If political representation is explained by democratic norms and

institutions, then it would seem that the series of military government
Nigeria has had, for example, were not representatives of the country, a
result as strange as it is false, because while in government, these
military leaders and those they appointed carried out binding functions
of political representation or what Harold Laski would call ‘the
authoritative allocation of values’ such as rule making, rule execution
and symbolic government acts such as the signing of treaties and
bilateral agreements with other countries.
Given this complexity, Rehfeld (2005) has argued that we can explain
political representation without necessarily appealing to normative
183
standards of legitimacy or justice democratic legitimacy. Rather,

political representation results from an audience’s judgment that some
individual, rather than some other, is a representative of a particular
group. The audience uses a set of “rules of recognition” to judge
whether a claimant is a representative in any particular case. When
audiences use democratic rules to guide their judgment, the democratic,
but special, case arises. By referencing the rules of recognition that any
particular audience uses rather than any substantive evaluation about
those rules we can thus explain how political representation qua
representation arises. The standard, democratic account thus turns out to
be merely a special case of the more general phenomenon: political
representation arises simply by reference to a relevant audience
accepting a person as such.
Thus, political representation, per se, is not a particularly democratic

phenomenon at all. It also operates as a political phenomenon in
democratic, non-democratic, formal and informal contexts. What
matters in the evaluation of political representatives in both democratic
and non-democratic contexts is the more generally important rules of
recognition that different audiences use to judge whether this person, but
not that one, is a representative (Rehfeld, ibid).
Explain how the challenges associated with political representation

affect elections.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Besides participation, the only orderly manner by which people can get
involved in the modern day political system is through representation.
Ordinarily, representation should provide a more orderly and predictable
platform for democratic and effective governance. However, it is not in
all instances that representation tends to enhance democracy. For
instance it is possible for representation not to enhance participation and
democracy (as, for instance, in Nigeria under colonial, military rule and
even the present democratic rule where elections are characterised by
massive rigging and the distortion of the people’s will. Representation
can also in certain circumstances, generate as much alienation (anger)
and apathy (lack of enthusiasm) toward the political process as non-
representation. Such a situation can arise when representation does not
meaningfully enhance participation (for instance, when elections are
rigged or when an elected government degenerates into a sit-tight
oligarchy).
184
POL214 MODULE 1
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, we examined the concept of representation as a key activity

that takes place in the political system. We have also examined some of
the problems associated with the concept and attempts made to resolve
some of these issues. We have learnt that representation does not only
take place in democratic settings but also operates as a political
phenomenon in non-democratic, formal and informal contexts.
1. Discuss the idea that representation takes place in both

democratic and non-democratic political systems.
2. “Representation does not enhance the goals of democracy and
popular participation in Nigeria today.” Discuss this statement
with regards to the pattern of electoral politics in Nigeria from
1999 till date.
3. Examine the link between representation and accountability in
Nigeria’s democracy.
Burke, E. (1968). Reflections on the Revolution in France. London:

Penguin Books.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale

University.
Dalton, R. (2000). “Citizen Attitudes and Political Behavior”

Comparative Political Studies 33(6-7). pp. 912-940
Grant, R. & Keohane, R. (2005). “Accountability and Abuses of Power

in World Politics” American Political Science Review. (February)
99: 29-44.
Madison, J.; Hamilton, A & Jay, J. (1987). The Federalist Papers (Ed.).
Isaac Kramnick. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mansbridge, J. (2003). “Rethinking Representation.” American Political

Science Review 97: 515-528.
Mansbridge, J. (2004). “Representation Revisited: Introduction to the

Case Against Electoral Accountability.” Democracy and Society.
2 (I). pp. 1, 12-13.
185
Pitkin, H. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Los Angeles:

University of Press.
Rehfeld, A. (2005). “Towards a General Theory of Political

Representation towards a General Theory of Political
Representation.” Paper Prepared for Discussion at the Legal
Theory Workshop, Columbia University, September.
Rousseau, J. (1978). The Social Contract. Trans. Judith Masters and

Roger Masters. New York: St. Martins Press.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006). Political Representation.

Retrieved on April 2, 2009 from http://www.plato.stanford.edu/
entries/ political-representation./
Williams, M. (1998). Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups

and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University.
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
186
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 6 POLITICAL PARTIES AND INTEREST

GROUPS
CONTENT
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Political Parties
3.2 Interest Groups
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The political system consist of the regime i.e. the aggregate clusters of
interlocking institutions: both inputs institutions like political parties,
interest groups and mass media and output institutions like the
legislature, the executive, bureaucracies and the courts. The political
system also include specific incumbent of these institutions and the
nation at large. The political process refers, of course, to politics i.e. the
actions, conflicts, alliances and behavioural styles of parties, interest
groups, movements and individuals. The policies are the decisions or
outputs of the system.
Robert Fishman draws analytic distinctions between regimes,

governments, and states. Regimes are:
“the formal and informal organisation of the centre of

political power, and of its relations with the broader
society. A regime determines who has access to political
power, and how those in power deal with those who are
not… Regimes are more permanent forms of political
organisation than specific governments, but they are
typically less permanent than the state. The state by
contrast is a (normally) more permanent structure of
domination and coordination including a coercive
apparatus and the means to administer a society and
extract resources from it” (Fishman, 1990).
Political regimes therefore are sets of political procedures –sometimes

called the “rules of the political game” – that determine the distribution
of power. These rules prescribe who may engage in politics and how
(Braton and van de Walle, 1997). In this unit, I shall discuss the political
187
process and actions in political regime. I shall discuss the role played by
three (3) key factors in the political process and actions (ways in which
authorities make policy decisions) within the political regime viz: 1)
political parties and interest groups.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define Political parties

 state the Functions of Political Parties
 highlight the Structure of Political Parties
 evaluate the Strengths and Weaknesses of Political Parties
 define Interest Groups
 identify the Types of Interest Groups
 state the Functions of Interest Groups
 describe the Tactics of interest groups
 evaluate the Strengths and Weaknesses of interest groups.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Political Parties
Definition of a Political Party
A political party is an organised group of persons seeking to take control

of government though elections. According to Agbaje (1999), “a
political party is a group of persons bonded in policy and opinion in
support of a general political cause, which essentially is the pursuit,
capture and retention for as long as democratically feasible, of
government and its offices”.
Following from the above definition, a political party represents,

therefore, at least three things to its members and on-lookers:
1. It is a label in the minds of its members and the wider public,

especially the electorate.
2. It is an organisation that recruits and campaigns for candidates
seeking election and selection into public political office;
3. It is a set of leaders who try to organise and control the legislative
and executive branches of government (Wilson, 1992 cf. Agbaje,
1999).
188
POL214 MODULE 1
In democracies therefore, a political party is a more or less permanent

institution with the goal of aggregating interests, presenting candidates
for elections with the purpose of controlling governments, and
representing such interests in government. It is thus a major vehicle for
enhancing participation in governance (Foley and Edwards, 1996, cited
in Agbaje, 1999).
The Functions of Political Parties
Political parties provide the connection between politics and society. In

this sense they fulfill at least seven crucial functions:
a) Control of government: The implication of this function is that

parties are the main vehicles for recruiting and selecting people
for government and legislative office. In effect, although they are
often criticized for filling high level public positions with their
own (people considered political rather than technical), which
expectedly are what they are supposed to political parties provide
a responsible vehicle to achieve control of the government. In
essence, political parties bring people together, develop
policies favorable to their interests or the groups that support
them, and organize and persuade voters to elect their
candidates to office. But although political parties are very
much involved in the operation of government at all levels,
they are not the government itself.
b) Implementation of policies: The content side of responsibility of

political parties is to develop policies and programmes. It is
pertinent to note that there are different choices in the political
market place – not only in terms of candidates but also in terms
of ideas however, once in government, a party can start
implementing these ideas. In sum, the manifestos of political
parties serve as a ready source from which government policies
can be formulated.
c) Making policy: This feature implies that although political

parties are not policymaking organisations in themselves while
not in government however, they certainly take positions on
important policy questions, one of which especially is to
provide alternatives to the position of whichever party is in
power. The input into policy making is through legislation.
d) Representing Groups of interests: Irrespective of the party,

the elected officials that represent the people called
constituents make their concerns known to their
representatives. These elected officials however, must not only
189
reflect the concerns of their own political party but must also
try to attract support from people in their districts or states
who belong to the other party. They can attract this support by
supporting bipartisan issues (matters of concern that cross
party lines) and nonpartisan issues (matters that have nothing
to do with party allegiance).
Political parties represent groups as well as individuals. These

interest groups have special concerns. They may represent the
interests of ethnic minorities, of farm workers, small business
operators, particular industries, or teachers — any similar
individual who cooperate to express a specific agenda.
e) Simplifying the Policy Making Arena: With demands being

numerous and sometimes conflicting, political parties pick up
demands from society and bundle them into packages. In other
words, political parties are an important part of the political
process because they are able to discuss and evaluate these issues
and shape human needs into policy alternatives.
Political parties appeal to as many different groups as possible. They

do so by stating their goals in a general way so that voters are
attracted to a broad philosophy without necessarily focusing on every
specific issue. In many countries, political parties are known for
specific ideology. As we discussed in Unit 1 of Module 3, ideology
is the magnet and driving force that binds together members of the
same political party. Party members share the same views, principles
and ideas about the socio-economic and political organisation of the
society. Arising from the people’s understanding, emotional
identification with, and evaluation of reality, ideology acts as a
compass for the practice and interpretation of politics. In this respect,
it guides, supports restrains and rationalises political action. At the
same time it can act as a great mobilising energy to galvanise mass
political action.
In the USA for instance, Republicans are known for their support of
business, conservative positions on social issues, and concern about
the size of government; Democrats traditionally have supported labor
and minorities and believe that government can solve many of the
nation's problems. The alternative to using the general philosophies
of the political parties to sort out candidates is to vote for individuals
based on just their own one-or two-issue programs.
In Nigeria, the 1922 Clifford Constitution granted three legislative

council seats to Nigerians on the colonial legislative council
(Crowther, 1968). The three legislative seats were allocated to Lagos
190
POL214 MODULE 1
and Calabar. Consequent upon these developments, the Nigerian

National Democratic Party (NNDP) was established in 1923 by
Herbert Macauley and his fellow nationalist. Its stated aims included
the attainment of Municipal status and Local self government for
Lagos, the provision of facilities for higher education in Nigeria, the
introduction of compulsory education at the primary school level, the
encouragement of non-disciplinary private economic enterprise, and
the Africanisation of the civil service (Crowther, ibid.). In addition,
the party was committed to cooperate with, and support, the
programme of the National Congress of British West Africa. Their
aims represent the party ideology.
Later in 1944, the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroon’s

was inaugurated. At the time of its formation it was made up of the
most articulate and conscious nationalists. At the death of Herber
Macauley, Nnamdi Azikwe was elected the new leader of the NCNC.
In 1945, Chief Awolowo formed a Pan-Yoruba cultural organisation
called, Egbe Omo Oduduwa, with the sole aim of promoting the
interest of the Yorubas. However, by 1950, it metamorphosed into a
political party-the Action Group (AG). The objective of the party
was to seek control of the then western Nigeria regional government.
The ideology professed by the party was called by its leader,
Democratic Socialism (Crowther, 1978).
The Northern People’s Congress (NPC) was inaugurated in 1949, it

was formed from the merger of two political societies-the Northern
Elements Progressive Association and the Northern People’s
Congress. As a Cultural Organization, Jamiyyar Mutanen Arewa
(JMA), it was meant to serve as a rallying point for educated and
progressive Northerners. The northern people congress was
transformed into a political party in 1951, after the expulsion of
radicals who were considered to be members of the Northern
Elements Progressive Union (NEPU). The main objective of the NPC
was the protection of Northern elite interest in the politics of the
colonial society.
The political parties that contested the 1979 second republican

elections, aimed at achieving the ideals of national unity, peace,
solidarity, progress, egalitarianism, freedom of private enterprise,
socialism, justice, etc. at the same time the interest of the workers
and the employers, the nation as a whole and the multinationals, the
chiefs and the masses, women and youths, all regions, all tribes and
all ideologies were provided for. The registered parties in the fourth
Republic also shared a similar ideology or vision of society.
However, the NCP, PRP, DA and PSD (now labour party) profess, in
addition, a socialist vision.
191
It is instructive to observe that there is complete or near total lack of

ideology articulated by all the parties of the fourth Republic. As
Jerry Gana, former information minister, conceded in relation to the
death of cohesion and ideological orientation “In terms of cohesion
and formal ideological learning, there is a problem, but PDP will be
strengthened ideologically, PDP will be more organized, PDP will be
in power for 30 years.”
What is evident from the above statement is that rather than

ideology, political parties and politicians in Nigeria are merely
interested in capturing power, qua power. Most of the parties seem
united only in a predatory enterprise than in any love for the common
good. They generally lack any discipline and dealers angling to milk
the nation dry and reinforce the process of primitive accumulation.
There is almost nothing to choose between People’s Democratic

Party and other parties in terms of ideological learning. Parties like
the NCP, DA, and Party for Social Democracy (PSD) and Green
Party which have variants of leftist and radical tendencies are not
deep enough in terms of their link to the grass roots.
The lack of commitment to party’s ideology leads to political

opportunism and the view and perception of politics as an investment
from which one expects huge returns. Therefore, to be at the periphery
would be viewed as a huge political loss. Consequently, the struggle for
power becomes highly intense and a do-or-die affair. This creates crisis
in the party and political instability.
The lack of ideological commitment and opportunism has been a feature

common among politicians in Nigeria, even before independence. The
situation has however become worse in the fourth Republic. All the
political parties of the fourth Republic have no clear ideological
foundation or principles to strictly bind members together. Political
opportunism is consequence of jettisoning principles and waiving
political ideology.
Political leaders who have decamped in the fourth Republic include Imo
state governor, Ikedi Ohakim, from the Peoples Progressive Alliance
(PPA) to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP); Bauchi state governor,
Mallam Isa Yuguda, from the PDP to the All Nigerian Peoples Party
(ANPP), and then back to the PDP; and former Vice President, Atiku
Abubakar, from PDP to the Action Congress (AC), and from the AC
back to the PDP; The former Governor of Anambra State, Dr. Chinwoke
Mbadinuju, from the PDP to the Alliance for Democracy (AD); the
former governor of Borno state, Mala Kachalla, from the ANPP to AC;
the former governor of Sokoto state, Attahiru Bafarawa, from the ANPP
192
POL214 MODULE 1
to Democratic People’s Party (DPP); the former governor of Lagos state,

Bola Tinubu, from AD to AC; former governor of Abia state, Orji Uzor
Kalu, from the PDP to the PPA; and Tom Ikimi, from ANPP to PDP and
then to AC.
Thus, a major weakness of most parties in Nigerian is the lack of any

commitment to any ideological flavour making it impossible for
them to simplify the policy arena for national development. Its
consequences however are a lack of party cohesiveness and political
instability which pose threats to sustainable democracy.
f) Political Education
Political parties educate the electorate through campaigns and rallies

which stimulate their political awareness.
g) Systems maintenance
Political parties help to ensure political stability through the availability

of a pool of their members capable of running the government at any
time.
Does the function of political parties justify its goal of enhancing

participation in governance?
The Structure of Political Parties
Most parties are organised at the local, state, and national levels.
Party leaders and activists are involved in choosing people to run for
office, managing and financing campaigns, and developing positions
and policies that appeal to party constituents. The national party
organisations play key roles in presidential elections. The 1999
Nigerian Constitution stipulates that political parties must have
national spread and they must have offices that spread across the
whole of the country. This requirement is to prevent the emergence
of ethnic or sectional parties at the national level.
a) The Caucus
This refers to (the meeting of) a group of top party members (Party
caucuses) who often meet to plan strategies and take a common position
on a piece of legislation. It is members of the caucus that plan for
electoral success, and take important decisions on behalf of the party.
193
b) Branches
Parties are usually organised into branches spread across the country,
with a view to increasing their influence and membership. In Nigeria,
for example, party branches are organised at ward, local government and
state levels, with the national headquarters coordinating all the party's
activities.
c) The cell
A party cell consists of a small group of party members. These are

usually members who work in the same place. This party structure
makes it possible for secret decisions to be taken and implemented in the
party. It was the structure of former socialist and communist parties
which is not very popular in today's open world.
d) The Militia
This sort of structure obtained essentially with such dictators as Hitler

and Mussolini, who structured their parties like the army complete with
military hierarchy, discipline and training for party members (Human
Rights Watch, 2007; 2008). However, while the militia party structure
may no longer exists in its formal sense, in many developing
democracies such as Nigeria, party thugs, play vital roles in rigging
elections in favour of their party. They carry out most of the ‘dirty’
works of political parties including intimidation of opponents, snatching
of ballot boxes and the stuffing of same with fake ballot papers in their
party’s favour, and outright assassination of political opponents. In
many states of the federation, party thugs are the instruments, which the
so called godfathers use for their political influence and as instruments
of violence.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Political Parties
Political parties have unified groups of people and helped them seek
and achieve common goals. They have a tradition of participation
and encouraging citizens’ participation in democratic government.
They have also served to integrate people of differing ethnic, religious
and other interest groups under one political party, and hence serve as a
forum for national unity.
However, in many countries, besides the competition between

engenders unhealthy rivalry between political parties which may lead to
election rigging, clashes between members of opposing parties and
general political instability, political parties are also seen to be losing
touch with society and moreover evolving into semi-state agencies
194
POL214 MODULE 1
(Bartolini and Mair 2001; van Biezen 2004). Consequently, political

parties have been in decline for at least four decades and it seems
reasonable to conclude that the ‘golden age’ of mass parties is now part
of history (van Biezen ibid.).
The evidence demonstrates that patterns of extensive party membership

and partisanship, and party control of electoral politics evident during
the 1960s had largely disappeared by the nineties (Bartolini and Mair
2001). In addition, analyses have shown that parties have simultaneously
declined as channels for popular demands, thereby losing their
legitimacy as representative organisations (Katz, 2002).
Consequently, research on political parties in recent times have focused

on the extent to which political parties are democratic by particularly
looking at parties' organisational strengths/failures, such as structures
and functions of party decision-making and executing organs; primary
election processes; financing sources and regulatory mechanisms; and
women participation in decision-making processes within parties. The
following fundamental questions are being asked: Are party members
becoming more or less important? How successful are political parties in
giving the ordinary members a greater say? Have parties really become
more isolated from society?
In other words, in recent times, discussions of multiparty politics in

many countries are focusing not just on the impact of political party
deficiencies on democracy at the national level but also the internal
processes of political parties. The reason for this emphasis on the
internal processes of political parties is the realisation that political
parties cannot enhance democracy if they themselves lack democracy.
As the popular saying goes, ‘you cannot give what you do not have’.
Increasingly therefore, intra-party democracy is now being recognized
as a necessary aspect of a healthy democracy and thereby an important
area for discussion in particular for countries with political parties that
lack such democratic internal processes.
With regards to transitional democracies such as Nigeria, what has

tended to occur often is a political environment in which parties are ill
organized, insufficiently institutionalized and lack transparent and
accountable regulatory mechanisms coupled with non-democratic
leadership styles (see Adetula (ed.), 2008). The following internal-
party features bring to the fore the existing difficulties/challenges
parties experience in nurturing a democratic culture especially in
Nigeria: primary elections or candidate selection, internal party
organisational structures, political party financing, and policy
development (Adetula (ed.), ibid).
195
Unfortunately, political parties often fail to perform these roles

adequately or with sufficient credibility. While formally all political
parties have established democratic rules and regulations, “the biggest
challenge, however, is the gap between rhetoric and reality. In other
words, the problem is not the intention to do so as manifested in the
formal requirements that are easily fulfilled, but rather it is the actual
practice of walking the talk.” Most parties in the country today are
fundamentally weak and rely heavily on the personal appeal of party
godfathers and thugs to rig their ways into political offices. Hence,
political parties are not properly connected to society, but have rather
become distant from voters and their concern and needs (Ayoade, 2008).
Using the Nigerian political party as your guide, discuss the current
worries about political parties’ internal democracy.
3.2 Interest Groups
An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or

special interest group) is an organisation that seeks to influence political
decisions, typically through the use of financial contributions to
politicians to bias political opinion to create incentives for politicians to
receive further financial contributions. Public and private corporations
work with lobbyists to persuade public officials to act or vote according
to group members’ interests (Sullivan and Sheffrin, 2003).
In the course of representing the interest of their members these groups

are often active participants in the political process. They may have both
well defined political agendas and the financial resources necessary to
exert broad influence on the political and regulatory process; utilizing
direct lobbying, letter-writing campaigns, and voter turnout efforts
during elections. However, unlike political parties, pressure groups are
not interested in direct governance or in contesting elections. They may
however support particular candidates or parties they regard of
supportive of, or beneficial to their cause. An example of this is the
support given to the Action Congress (AC) in Lagos by the Lagos state
branch of Market Women Association, or the support given to the
Labour Party (LP) in Ondo state and the Action Congress in Edo state
by the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC).
196
POL214 MODULE 1
Types of Interest Groups
a) Promotional or single-issue groups
Some interest groups are formed to promote a particular cause which

may not directly benefit their members. Promotional or single issue
interest groups do not usually expect to profit directly from the
policy changes they seek. However, the activists who staff these
groups may gain financially by attracting donations from individuals
and foundations that support their activities. Also, these interest
groups enjoy an image of non-partisanship, even though some of
them engage, necessarily, in clearly political activities. Promotional
or single-issue groups (cause or attitude groups) seek to influence policy
in a particular area, such as the environment (Green Peace, or
Environmental Rights Action in Nigeria), gun laws (National Rifle
Association in the United States) the protection of birds (Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds in the USA), or animal rights (People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals in the USA), human rights groups, and
consumer protection (Nigerian Consumer Protection Council). These
groups tend to be aligned toward a political ideology or seek influence
in specific policy areas. While some promotional interest groups do
not generate their opposite, others do. For example, the issue of
abortion has generated interest groups for and against. In America
for example, while the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is
against abortion, the National Abortion Rights Action League
(NARAL) supports it.
b) Economic interest groups
These interest groups focus on the economic well-being of their

members. They include organisation that represents big business,
such as the Nigeria Association of Chambers of Commerce and
Industry (NACCIMA), and the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria
(NMA), as well as big labour- the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC).
c) Professional or Occupational Interest Groups
These are interest groups embracing workers of the same occupation

or profession who try to protect their work or work interest. The
Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), Nigerian Union of Teachers
(NTU), Academic Staff Union of Nigerian Universities (ASSU),
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the Nigerian Union of Road
Transport Workers, Nigerian Union of Textiles Workers and Barbers
Association.
197
d) Government Interest Groups
These are interest groups formed from within the governmental

framework. In Nigeria for example, there are organisations formed to
bring the issues of governance as it concerns specific interests before
the public opinion and the administration. Government interest
groups include the Governors’ Forum, South-South Governors’
Forum, Northern State Governors’ Forum, and the Association of
Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON).
e) Religious Interest Groups
These are interest groups of people that belong to the same religion
and wish to influence government decisions in favour of their belief
or members. Examples are Christian association of Nigeria (CAN),
Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (SCIA), supreme council for
Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN) and Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria
(PFN). These groups representing the two biggest religions in the
country –Islam and Christianity- have been in the forefront of
protesting government policies whenever they feel such policies are
not favourable to them. For instance, CAN have stringently protested
Nigeria’s membership of the organisation of Islamic Conference
(OIC) in the 1980s, and the implementation of Sharia (Islamic law)
since 1999 by 12 northern states. The Muslim groups on the other
hand have supported these developments. In some countries such as
USA, religious interest groups directly lobby to sway public policy
in their interests and in the process they become involved in politics,
to some degree. The Christian Coalition, which draws most of its
support from conservative Protestants, has an agenda that includes
support for school prayer, opposition to homosexual rights, and a
constitutional amendment banning abortion. It became an important
factor in American politics, particularly in the Republican Party, in
the early 1990s.
f) Ethnic Interest Groups
Ethnic interest groups, as the name implies, represent specific ethnic

groups either in their ethnic homeland, in foreign lands, or in the
Diaspora. In Nigeria these include Afenifere (Yoruba), Arewa People’s
Congress (Hausa), Ohaneze Ndigbo (Igbo). In many instances, these
groups have functioned as ‘shadow states’ for their members. However,
in pressing forth their demands and in contestations with other groups
for scarce government resources, the activities of these groups have been
characterised by violent rhetoric, confrontations, and even physical
clashes that have led to fractious controversy, bitter recriminations, and
loss of lives and properties.
198
POL214 MODULE 1
Functions of Interest Groups
The two principal functions of interest groups are representation and

education.
a) Representation
The representation function stems from the reason interest groups are
created in the first place: Collective action is the most effective way
of influencing policymaking and bringing issues to a large audience.
Interest groups also serve as a watchdog, monitoring the actions of
lawmakers, the courts, and the administration in the interest of their
constituents. This work can include keeping track of the voting
record of members of Congress and rating them on how well or how
poorly they do on a particular issue.
b) Education
Interest groups educate both their own constituency and the public.
Through their publications, or advocacy, the groups keep members
(and sometimes the general public) abreast of the latest developments
on the issues they care about. Because they have developed an
expertise in a particular policy area, interest groups are often in a
better position to initiate and contribute to debate on issues of
national importance such as legislation that has to do with Child
Rights, anti tobacco or same sex marriage in Nigeria.
Shaping opinion by educating the public on issues that are important to

the interest group is one of the central features of new-style lobbying.
The idea is to shape public opinion and elite opinion in such a way that
government officials will be favorably disposed to the views of the
interest group.
This attempt to shape public opinion and elite opinion comes in many
different forms. When an Organisation believes that it has research
results that will bolster its position, it may call a press conference to
present a summary and mail the research report to influential people in
government, the media, and education.
Interest groups may often conduct national and regional advertising

campaigns to impress their views on government policy. The smart and
well-heeled interest group will regularly prepare materials that are of use
to radio, television, newspapers, and magazines. Many produce opinion
pieces, magazine articles, television and radio spots, or even stage
events to be covered by the news. Examples here are the various TV and
radio adverts by NGOs in Nigeria on various issues including the Child
199
Rights Bill, achieving the Millennium Development Goals, etc. Groups

may also use targeted mailings to gain support on a particular issue. For
instance, business interest groups, particularly trade association,
publish data and reports on their sector of the economy that are
widely used and that draw attention of government and the public to
the growth and challenges facing their sector. For instance, press
statements by the Nigerian Manufacturers Association (NMA) on the
state of the manufacturing sector is, an indispensable source not only
on the sector but the economy in general. Also the Human Rights
Watch makes periodic reports available on human rights and its
broader ramifications including conflict and governance in different
countries. Interest groups were very also active in both supporting and
opposing the term debate in the last political dispensation. Finally,
groups without substantial resources or ready access to the offices of
government officials sometimes turn to the use of public demonstrations
to attract attention to their cause. These and other examples of interest
groups advocacy help to educate the public on a wider range of
issues.
Tactics of interest groups
a) Lobbying
Lobbying is one of the ways in which interest groups shape

legislation and bring the views of their constituents to the attention
of decision-makers. The term "lobbying" conjures up images of
favours, substantial honoraria paid for brief appearances, and other
unsavory exchanges verging on bribery. In the main, however, such
images do not help us fully understand the intricacies of the inside game.
This game does not always involve money or favors. It is mostly about
the politics of insiders. It is the politics of one-on-one persuasion, in
which the skilled lobbyist tries to persuade a strategically placed
decision- maker such as well-placed legislators, chairpersons of
important committees or subcommittees, or key members of
professional staffs - to understand and sympathise with the point of view
of the interest group.
Lobbying the executive branch is another way in which interest groups

attempt to have their views heard. Career civil servants and upper-level
appointees in the executive branch have a great deal of discretionary
authority because Congress often writes legislation broadly, leaving it to
bureaucratic agencies to fill in the details. Given the broad powers they
carry, it behooves interest groups to establish stable and friendly
relationships with those agencies of the executive branch that are most
relevant to their interests. As with Congress, the key to success in the
lobbying game with the executive branch is personal contact and long-
200
POL214 MODULE 1
term relationships. Once established, interest group representatives can

convey technical information, present the results of their research, help
public officials deflect criticism, and show how their group's goals are
compatible with good public policy and the political needs of the
officials.
Interest groups also lobby the courts but not in the same way in which
they lobby Congress and agencies in the executive branch. A group may
find that neither Congress nor the White House is favourably disposed
to its interests, and that the courts can serve as an alternative route to the
transformation of public policy.
Government officials are more likely to listen to a lobbyist if they are

convinced that a great many politically active people stand behind the
lobbyist. The outside game is a form of interest group activity in which
such support is identified, created, mobilised, and brought to bear on
policymakers in government.
For instance, when a bill that is relevant to the interest group comes
before the Legislature or a ruling or regulation comes before an agency
in the executive branch, the efforts of the group's lobbyist are greatly
enhanced if decision-makers know that their constituents back home and
around the nation care about the decision. Interest groups with a large
membership base will try to persuade their members to send letters and
make phone calls to the appropriate officials.
Governments also responds to interest groups based on their perception

of the damage a negative tactics of the group such as strike may cause
the regime or the nation. Thus accounts for why some groups’ demands
are quickly met or efforts are made to genuinely meet them, while others
often receive less than serious attention from the government.
b) Strikes and boycotts
Occupational pressure groups may employ strikes and boycotts to

achieve their aims where other means fail. In trying to avoid the great
loss that may arise from a long-term strike, the owners of an
organisation may agree to what the pressure group demands. If the strike
is directed at government, the government may negotiate with the
pressure group in order to ensure industrial peace and political stability.
c) Publicity campaigns
Pressure groups organize intensive campaigns through meetings, rallies,

house to house campaigns, posters, handbills, stickers and conferences
to attract public support and get their aims achieved.
201
d) Mass media
Pressure groups advertise and sponsor programmes on the radio,

television and in newspapers to convince the citizenry to embrace their
position as the most appropriate one for the whole society.
e) Letters and petitions
Pressure groups write letters of information or complaint to officials of

the legislative or executive arm of the government to try to convince
them of their viewpoint.
f) Electoral politics
Pressure groups go out to campaign and vote for candidates who will be
sympathetic to their cause. They on the other hand campaign against
candidates they believe are not in support of their cause.
In advanced democracies such as America, interest groups have become

key players in electoral politics. Many interest groups rate members of
Congress on their support for the interest group's position on a selection
of key legislative votes. These ratings are then distributed to members of
the interest group and other interested parties in hopes that it will
influence their voting behavior in upcoming elections.
g) Demonstrations
Pressure groups also use demonstrations which may be peaceful or

violent. In peaceful demonstrations, they march, carrying placards
stating their demands. If this fails, violence could be resorted to by
pressure groups to achieve their objectives. Examples are tertiary
students who abduct school administrators and burn vehicles.
h) Courts
Interest groups also go to court to challenge the constitutionality of

legislation or event. The case brought by the previously unknown group
by the name Association for Better Nigeria (ABN) to advance for the
stoppage of the conduct of the June 12 1993 presidential election, and
also for the annulment of the election is among of the queer but decisive
cases of interest groups use of the courts in Nigeria. The ABN courts not
only granted the two requests, but the court’s decision was a key reason
the military government of Ibrahim Babangida publicly adduced for
canceling the June 12th elections, widely acclaimed to be of good
standards and adjudged as one of the freest ad fairest in the country.
202
POL214 MODULE 1
Going to court, however, is a secondary strategy for most groups,

because they must have their standing. This means that the group must
be a party to the case and be able to demonstrate a direct injury. Going
to court, moreover, is very expensive and beyond the means of many
groups.
When interest groups get involved in court actions there are a number of
things that they can do. First, they can file amicus curiae (or friend of
the court) briefs in cases involving other parties. In this kind of brief, a
person or an organisation that is not a party to a lawsuit may file an
argument in support of one side or the other in hopes of swaying the
views of the court. Second, interest groups can become involved in court
actions through the process of appointment and approval of federal
judges.
i) Warfare
If other means seem ineffective, pressure groups could employ

(guerrilla) warfare means to achieve their goals. Examples are the Mau-
Mau struggle for independence in Kenya, the independence struggles in
Mozambique and Angola, and the ongoing struggles of MEND in
Nigeria’s Niger Delta.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Interest Groups
Interest groups are inimical to the democratic process. This is the view
offered by Lewis (1996) when he stated that Interest group fights
against democracy and takes away its authoritativeness, confuses
expectations about democratic institutions and corrupts democratic
government by treating all values as equivalent interests, renders
government impotent by multiplying the number of plans available, but
not addressing implementation, and demoralises government because it
can't achieve justice (because without a value-system, justice is not an
issue for discussion.
Interest groups have also been usually regarded as narrowly self-

interested, out for themselves, and without regard for the public good.
This theme of selfish interests recurs throughout Nigeria’s history. A
good example was the activities of youth groups especially the Youth
Earnestly Ask for Abacha (YEAA) who openly canvassed for the
transformation of General Sani Abacha into a civilian president.
It is also often argued that the politics of interest groups is usually not
the province of majorities, but of narrow, particularistic, and privileged
interests. This, it is argued, is problematic in two respects. First, it
undermines systems stability, which is vital for a functioning
203
democracy. Second, and relatedly, it makes it difficult for governments

to formulate broad and coherent national policies. Proponents of this
view for example will support their argument with the example of the
ASSU strike which has paralysed university education since June 2009
till date (October) and still ongoing. To many, especially government
functionaries, even though some of the issues raised by ASSU have been
addressed, ASSU is yet to call off its strike. ASSU therefore cannot be
said to be fighting for the ‘people’s interests. Rather, their action is
related to the narrowness and the particularism of interest group politics
and its undermining of both systems stability and political coherence.
To many, other examples depicting the ‘negative’ consequences of

interest groups actions include strikes by the Nigerian Medical
Association (NMA) or Nurses over pay rise while several patients
languish in pains in the hospitals, with some even losing their lives due
to lack of attention from the doctors; or activities of militant groups in
the Niger Delta, including attacks of oil facilities and oil companies,
which according to estimates have caused the nation loss of an estimated
$16 billion in export revenues due to shut-in oil production. Militant
attacks on oil infrastructure have also crippled Nigeria’s domestic
refining capabilities (Energy Information Administration, 2007).
These and other examples, for many, show how interest groups’ concern
for particularistic interest above the national interests can constrain the
smooth operation of the political process, lead to inertia in the political
system and hardship on the public.
However, for others including members of the interest groups and

political scientists who take a pluralist approach, interest groups do not
hurt democracy and the public interest but are an important instrument
to attain both. Pluralists believe that elections are essential to a
democracy, but they do not readily communicate what the people want
in terms of policy. This is better communicated to political leaders on a
day-to-day basis by the many groups and organisations to which people
belong.
Pluralists argue that the interest group system is democratic because

people are free to join or organise groups that reflect their interests.
Pluralists, therefore, do not see interest groups as a problem but as an
additional tool of democratic representation and for making political
elites act more responsible in the people’s interest.
In other words, those in favor of interest groups believe that the

activities of interest groups regarding various aspects of public policy
have made the policy process far more transparent than ever before. This
is the view offered by David Truman who argued that Pluralism due to
204
POL214 MODULE 1
interest groups representation is the 'balance wheel' in the U.S. political

system and that group politics is a perfect representation of democracy
in action (Truman, 1951).
Discuss the structures of a political party.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Interest groups are inevitable in a free society, in which people have

diverse interests ranging from those based on economic circumstances,
to property ownership. Consequently, factions are innately part of
interest groups. However, trying to eliminate factions would require
tyranny. The only way to control factions, it has been argued, is to
organise constitutional government in a way that moderates the bad
effects of factions and to have a society that would be so large that no
single faction could dominate public life.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this lecture, you have learnt about the role of political parties and
interest groups in a modern government. You have also learnt about
their strategies and characteristic features. Even though they are
indispensable to the functioning of the modern states, some of the
challenges or weaknesses facing these two groups have also been
highlighted.
1. With specific Nigerian examples, enumerate the functions of

political parties.
2. Examine the weaknesses of interest groups in Nigeria today.
3. What are the functions of interest groups?
4. List and discuss five tactics used by interest groups
Adetula, V. (ed.). (2008). Money and Politics in Nigeria. Abuja:

International Foundation for Electoral System.
Agbaje, A. (1999). “Political Parties and Pressure Groups” in

Anifowose, R. & Enemuo, F. Elements of Politics. Lagos:
Malthouse Press Ltd. Pp. 191-209.
205
Ayoade, J. (2008). “Godfather Politics in Nigeria.” in Adetula, V. (ed.).

Money and Politics in Nigeria. Abuja: International Foundation
for Electoral System. pp. 85-96.
Balz, D. & Brownstein, R. (1996). Storming the Gates: Protest Politics

and the Republican Revival. Little, Brown and Company.
Bartolini, S. & Mair, P. (2001). “Challenges to Contemporary Political

Parties.” in Larry Diamond and Richard Gunther (eds.), Political
Parties and Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, pp. 327-43.
Cigler, A. & Loomis, B. (1995) (eds.). “Interest Group Politics."

Congressional Quarterly. Washington, DC.
Clark, P. & Wilson, J. (1961). “Incentive Systems: A Theory of

Organisations” Administrative Science Quarterly. 6. p. 134-135.
Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2007). Country Analysis

Brief: Nigeria. Retrieved on April 2, 2009 from
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Nigeria/pdf.pdf
Fishmam, R. (1990). “Rethinking State and Regimes: Southern Europe’s

Transition to Democracy.” World Politics. April.42: 428.
Green, J. C. & Shea, D. M. (1999). The State of the Partiesi (3rd edition).
New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hamilton, A. Madison, J. & Jay, J. (1982). (1787-1788). The Federalist

Papers. New York: Bantam Books. Numbers 10 and 51.
Human Rights Watch (2007). Criminal Politics Violence, “Godfathers”

and Corruption in Nigeria. Volume 19, No. 16(A)
Human Rights Watch (2008). Politics as War. Retrieved on August 22,

2009 from http://www.hrw.org/en/node/62302/section/5.
Katz, R. (2002). ‘The Internal Life of Parties’, in Kurt Richard Luther

and Ferdinand Müller-Rommel (eds.). Political Challenges in the
New Europe: Political and Analytical Challenges. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. pp. 87-118.
Lewi, T. (1996). The End of Liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton.
Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard: Havard

University Press.
206
POL214 MODULE 1
Roskin, M. G. (2000). Political Science: An Introduction. Upper Saddle

River, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Salisbury, R. 1969). “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups.” Midwest

Journal of Political Science.13. p.1-32.
Sullivan, A. & Sheffrin, S. (2003). Economic Principles in Action.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Truman, D. (1951). The Governmental Process: Political Interests and

Public Opinion. New York: Knopf.
Van Biezen, I. (2004). “Political Parties as Public Utilities.” Party

Politics. 10 (6). pp. 701-22.
207
MODULE 4 TYPOLOGY OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS
Unit 1 Form of Rule

Unit 2 Political System and Organs of Government
Unit 3 Political Systems and Distribution of Power
Unit 4 The Federal System of Government in Nigeria
Unit 5 The International Political System and Globalization
UNIT 1 FORM OF RULE/GOVERNMENT
CONTENT
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Types of Political Systems: Monarchy and Theocracy
3.2 Military and Single Party
3.3 Transitional and Democracy
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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 (Osaghael 988).Typologies of
political systems are essential to boosting our understanding of politics
and governments. They also facilitate evaluation of political systems.
Attempts to classify political systems have been a fine art for many
years, perhaps as old as political science itself. However, the task of
classification is not an easy one for the political scientists. This is
because the political systems that arc present in our world, or which
have been present in the past, are widely varying. Worse, for the
political scientist, these systems are not governed by laws of nature that
are unchanging, but by humans who, by nature, change constantly.
Thus, the student of political systems grapples with a subject matter that
is today inconstant flux. He must deal not only with the major processes
of growth, decay, andbreakdown but also with a ceaseless ferment of
adaptation and adjustment. Themagnitude and variety of the changes
208
POL214 MODULE 1
that occurred in the world's political systemsbetween the second and

eighth decades of the 20" century suggest the dimensions ofthe problem.
These are the disintegration of Great empires; emergence and
briefflourishing of nation-states; world wars which twice transformed
the internationalsystem; new ideologies swept the world and shook
established groups from power; all but a few nations experienced at least
one revolution and many nations two or more; domestic politics in every
system were contorted by social strife and economic crisis; and
everywhere thc nature of political life was changed by novel forms of
political activity, new means of mass communication, the enlargement
of popular participation in politics, the rise of new political issues, the
extension of the scope of governmental activity, the threat of nuclear
war, and innumerable other social, economic, and technical
developments (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009).
In spite of these challenges, attempts have been made to classify

political systems. The most influential of such classifying schemes is
undoubtedly the attempt of Plato and Aristotle to define the basic forms
of government in terms of the number of power holders and their use or
abuse of power. Plato held that there was a natural succession of the
forms of government: an aristocracy (the ideal form of government by
the few) that abuses its power develops into a timocracy (in which the
rule of the best men, who value wisdom as the highest political good, is
succeeded by the rule of men who are primarily concerned with honour
and martial virtue), which through greed develops into an oligarchy (the
perverted form of government by the few), which in turn is succeeded
by a democracy (rule by the many); through excess, the democracy
becomes an anarchy (a lawless government), to which a tyrant is
inevitably the successor. Abuse of power in the Platonic typology is
defined by the rulers' neglect or rejection of the prevailing law or custom
(nomos); the ideal forms are thus nomos observing (ennomon), and the
perverted forms are nomos neglecting (paranomon) (Encyclopedia
Britannica. 2009).
Although disputing the character of this implacable succession of the

forms of government, Aristotle also based his classification scheme on
the criteria of rulership - of the relative number of citizens entitled to
rule, and whether the rulers rule in their own selfish interests or in the
common interest.
Aristotle six-fold typology consisted of the following: monarchy (rule

by one for good of whole), tyranny (rule by one for self interest),
aristocracy (rule by few for good of whole), oligarchy (rule by few for
own interest), polity (rule by many for good of whole), and democracy
(rule by many in their own interest). Aristotle did not think any rule in
the interest of a particular class (even the masses) was good. Hence,
209
tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy were bad; and monarchy, aristocracy,

and polity were good. Aristotle did not trust pure democracy. Instead, he
favored "polity" as the best representative form of government because
it gives a share in the regime to the many while also leaving a role for
the rich and virtuous. Oligarchies and democracies were second-best
after the ideal type (see Aristotle. 1962).
Another classic typology of political systems is that rooted in works of

Robert Dahlabout polyarchy. Dahl's classification is grounded on two
dimensions: 1) contestationand 2) participation. According to Dahl, a
contestation is the level of regime'sliberalization, and participation
indicates the level of democratization. As a matter offact it generalizes
the features of European and North American ways of
development,where sixteenth century democratization (e.g. working
class struggle for franchise andlabor rights) came in particular to
expansion of participation and happened, in most cases, after
nation-building and state-building (through liberalization/
bureaucratization first, followed by democratization). Based on this
classification. Dahl identified what he called -polyarch" as the best form
of government because it created multiple centers of political power.
Dahl believes that the U.S. is a classic type of polyarchy (see Dahl,
1971; Dahl, 1989).
From the above, it is clear that political scientists have attempted to

classify and categorize, to develop typologies and models, or in some
other way to bring analytic order to the bewildering variety of political
system. In the process many different typologies, some complex and
others simple, have been developed. however, since the purpose of this
unit is to educate students about contemporary world political systems.
we shall use as our guide the typology developed by DK Publishing
(2006) in the book How Governments Work: the Inside Guide to the
Politics of the World. It holds that there are six main types of
rule/government: monarchical, theocratic, military, democratic, single
party, and transitional. We shall examine each of these below.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the cnd of this unit, you should be able to discuss:
 monarchical political system;

 theocracy
 military rule
 single party rule
 transitional rule
 democracy.
210
POL214 MODULE 1
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Types of Political Systems
Monarchy - this is a system whereby one person rules for life as the
head-of-state and passes on power to their children or family (dynasty or
royalty) when they die. There are currently 31 true national monarchies
in the world today (O'Connor, 2009). Monarchy is often contrasted with
republic. A republic is a system of government which has officials that
are elected by the people.
Classic political theory distinguishes between two types of monarchies:
A. Absolute (true) Monarchy
An absolute monarch rules by whim and has unlimited powers, although

he may not be a tyrant or dictator (as is more common with military or
single party rule). An absolute monarchy may also have cabinet officials
or symbolic parliaments, but such institutions can be dissolved or altered
at will. It should however be emphasized that sometimes, a true monarch
may not be the real ruler, as state power might be wielded by ministers,
regents, or advisors, with policy determined more by palace intrigue
than anything else (O'Connor, 2009). Examples of former absolute
monarchs are late Emperor Haile Sel!aisle of Ethiopia and Nicholas II in
Tsarist Russia. In contemporary times, absolute monarchies are very
few. The most absolute monarchies are the Arab monarchies and
include: Morocco, where the -Alawite dynasty has ruled since the 17th
century and bases its claim to legitimacy on being a being a direct
descendant of the Prophet Muhammed" (Copnal. 2009); and Saudi
Arabia ,ruled by the House of Saad with over 25,000 family members
helping run the government (DK Publishing, 2006).
Others monarchies include Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Brunei, the United

Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Nepal, Cambodia and Bhutan. Africa's absolute
monarchy is Swatziland.
B. Constitutional Monarchy
In the form of monarchy, there are elected representatives who make

policy decisions, and a prime minister usually leads the government with
the King or Queen as a ceremonial head. The constitutional monarch has
limited powers which are derived from the constitution. Such a monarch
is just a ceremonial head of state and a symbol of the nation. The elected
representatives in the legislative and executive arms of government
exercise real power of governance. Britain is a good example of a
ceremonial monarchy. where the head of state is a figurehead. Other
211
examples include Holland, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark etc. In

Africa, Lesotho and Morocco are the constituional monarchy (Copal,
2009).
Some common justifications for monarchies include the need to keep the
aristocracy and clergy in line, as well as reduce the uncertainty which
would occur with continual changes in the head-of-state. It is sometimes
argued that monarchies are inexpensive to maintain (because they save
the cost of holding elections). However, as O'Connor (2009) has argued,
the fact of the matter is that monarchy -are very expensive systems. The
most common causes of monarchies are political necessity, tradition,
greed, and a desire for conquest and sovereignty. Monarchies arc usually
dissolved by revolution."
Table 3 Africa's Sovereign Monarchies
Country Monarch Regime since Type Succession

Morocco Mohammed VI 1999 Constitutional *Agnatic
Primogeniture
Lesotho Letsie III 1990 Constitutional **Elective
Swaziland Mswati III 1986 Absolute Elective
* Agnatic primogeniture inheritance act.ording to seniority of birth

among the sons of a monarch or head of family with sons
inheriting before brothers.
** Elective — a monarchy ruled by someone, usually from a royal
house, who is elected by a group.
Source: Wikipedia cf. Copnal (2009).
Theocracy - -Theocracy- is commonly understood as a political regime

in whichpower is wielded by some sort of priestly caste recruited on the
basis of the orthodoxyof its members with respect to a religious creed
(Brague, 2006). A theocracy is an oligarchy based on religion - the
group is ruled by the group's spiritual leaders- or more generally, where
there is a claim to divine mandates or divine powers that govern civil
affairs. Religion is a powerful human phenomenon, and religious leaders
can often exert great influence over the group's actions (0,Connor,
2009).0nly when temporal and spiritual affairs are combined is there a
true theocracy (Clarkson I 997).Contemporary theocracies include Iran
and the Vatican City (Wikipedia. 2010).
212
POL214 MODULE 1
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1
Distinguish between the absolute monarchical rule in Swaziland and

Iran's theocratic rule.
3.2 Military Rule
A system of rule by military strongman or junta (pronounced "hunta" or

"jen-ta" and coming from the Spanish word for committee). It typically
occurs as part of the evolution of single-party rule (the populism route)
or when some national emergency merits the declaration of martial law
and the leader in office happens to have (or assumes) some military
rank. A military dictatorship more correctly comes about via a
coup-d'etat
Almost every society in known history has or has had a military

structure. It is a constant in human history that societies will defend their
national interests including the territory and resources within the state.
This requires a trained class of persons - soldiers.
In some nations, the military is a dictatorship, and the head of

government is a military officer. This is in contrast to other dictatorships
where the military is completely subservient to the ruler. In I Iitler's
Germany, for example, the military was a strong tool of the Nazi Party,
but Germany was not run by the military. The same can be said for the
United States which, since World War II has maintained a very strong
military, but where the military has no actual power in the government.
Ancient Sparta is a good example of a nation where the military was a

distinct branch of government - in fact, Aristotle said that Sparta was an
unending generalship. The militaristic nature of Sparta is generally
overstated, though, as there were some democratic institutions in place.
However, most citizens were expected to be soldiers - only those too
weak to soldier were permitted to be civilians.
Militarism can co-exist with democracy, but most military rule is

non-democratic and further makes any transition to democracy difficult.
For example. some common characteristics of military rule include
sacking Parliament (suspending the legislature), controlling the judicial
branch (no appeals allowed on verdicts favorable to the military), and
proscriptions of political activities especially during the initial period of
military rule. Today, some typical countries under military rule include:
Myanmar. Niger and Guinea.
213
Reasons for Military Intervention in Politics
Cyril Obi (Obi, 1999) has offered the following reasons of military
intervention in politics:
1. Since the military are the traditional guards of the state, military
intervention has often been justified as a step to arrest political
instability, ensuring territorial integrity and eliminating any
threats to national security.
2. Given the nature and role of the military as the only public
institution that has the monopoly of the instruments of violence
(arms) it becomes very easy for the military to force its way into
power as an organized agency without much opposition.
3. Often, the military have justified their intervention as patriotic

acts based on the national interest. Adopting labels such as
"corrective", military regimes often pledge themselves to ending
what they consider to be civilian misrule-consisting of corruption,
abuse of powers, disregard of the constitution and of electoral
procedures, tribalism, nepotism and economic underdevelopment
etc.
4. Due to the pervasive politicization of social life in the developing

world, particularly in Africa. military intervention can be the
result of the politicization of the military institution itself. This is
especially brought about by civilians involving the military in
their scheming and struggles for power.
5. Military intervention can be cause by a military elite or officer

corps under the leadership or control of ambitious and powerful
individuals who seek to control government in order to pursue
defined interests: personal, sectional, class, ethnic, religious or
imperialistic.
6. Sometimes the military intervene to protect their defined

corporate interests. For instance, this may be to remove a
government that is seen to be hurting the military either through
reduced spending, irregular payment of salaries and the
embarrassment of the military as an institution.
7. Military interventions are the outcome of factional struggles for

power, especially in contexts where there is little faith in the
sanctity of the ballot box and where the stakes in the control of
power are very high. In this context of a zero-sum approach to
politics in which the winner takes all and the loser loses
214
POL214 MODULE 1
everything, the military is inevitably drawn in by the violent turn

of politics as war by other means.
8. Foreign powers often instigate and finance a coup d'etat in

another country, where the government of that country may be
pursuing policies they (the foreign powers) consider to be against
their own interests.
Features of Military Government
1. A military government usually suspends. abrogates or modifies

some or all Sections of the existing constitution.
2. A military government is highly centralized in structure.
3. It rules by decrees and edicts passed by the ruling council. (There
is usually a ruling council which goes by different names – from
country to country.)
4. The military head of state, in conjunction with the ruling council,
performs both executive and legislative functions of government.
5. There is absence of elections, and coercion is used for policy
implementation.
6. The military government is dictatorial, and tolerates no form of
opposition.
7. Under the military government, fundamental human rights are
often violated.
8. Some declare a state of emergency and begin to exercise arbitrary
powers.
9. Punitive and retroactive decrees are sometimes enacted in order
to punish perceived offenders.
10. The press is usually censored, and the judiciary kept under
surveillance.
Single Party - A single party is a system of rule -in which a single

political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted"
to present candidates for elections (Wikipedia, 2010). It is not to be
confused with a dominant party system where opposition parties are
simply too weak to win or the dominant party engages in dirty tricks like
gerrymandering, press bans, lawsuits, constitutional prohibitions of
opposition parties and/or outright voter fraud to keep the opposition
down (examples include Cambodia. Egypt, El Salvador, Ireland,
Malaysia, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Venezuela, and many African
nations) (O'Connor, 2009). Sometimes the term de facto single-party
state is used to describe a dominant-party system where laws or
practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power (Wikipedia,
2010). Currently, the following single party states exist in the world:
China (Communist), Cuba (Communist), Eritrea (Marxist), North Korea
215
(Workers Party), Laos (Communist), Libya (Socialist), Syria (Beath

Party), Turkmenistan (Democratic Party), and Vietnam (Communist).
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2
Examine the background to the Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu-led

coup in January 1966.
3.3 Transitional
A system of temporary or reconstructive rule while a nation is

undergoing some crisis from war, civil unrest, corruption, or disaster.
An example in this regard was the Ernest Shonekan Interim Government
instituted in Nigeria following the crisis that ensued after the military
government annulled the June 12th 1993 Presidential elections. A
transitional government can also function while a nation is forming or in
the process of drafting a constitution. Recovery from war often requires
a transitional government where military rule is imposed, and most
military rule of the kind here relies heavily upon martial law, which is
typically used to suspend civil liberties such as freedom of speech and
assembly and/or the carrying of firearms. I he doctrines of military
necessity and orderly administration of territory (upon which martial law
is based) also allows removal of officials, anti-corruption measures, and
the possibility for economic reform. However, martial law itself is
something of an oxymoron since it's not really any kind of law at all, but
the suspension of standing law. The only real alternative to martial law
occurs when the UN, the US. or an international coalition imposes a
temporary rule. Recent examples include Afghanistan, Bahrain.
I3urundi, Iraq, Liberia, Maldives, Rwanda. and Somalia (O'Connor,
2009).
Democracy -- a system of rule by the people in which supreme power is

vested in them and exercised directly by them or for them via their
elected agents under a free electoral system. This is the dictionary
definition, and it should be quickly noted that there is no accepted,
scholarly definition of democracy (Dahl 2000). There is sufficient
agreement however that a democracy is always a creative work in
progress that tries to institutionalize freedom, although the two terms -
freedom and democracy - are not synonymous.
Democracy has certain principles which have universal application.

First, is a competitive election. Second is the principle popular
consultation, which means that in a democracy decisions are taken after
the citizens have been widely consulted. Second, political sovereignty,
this implies that in a democracy power belongs to the people
(electorate). Third, legal and political equality. Legal equality refers to
216
POL214 MODULE 1
equality before the law while political equality implies one man one
vote, irrespective of social status, wealth, religion, etc. Fourth, majority
rule and minority rights this implies that, the majority will always have
their ways while the minority opinion must be respected. Fifth,
fundamental human right which includes the right to life, liberty and
property. Sixth, independent judiciary that guarantees the fundamental
human rights of citizens; and seventh separation of powers so that no
organ of government will be so strong to dominate the other.
It is correct to say that democracy as an experiment is built around

time-honored principles such as these essential elements. It is also
correct to distinguish a democracy by what it is not; which is to say that
it can be defined by its opposite -- an authoritarian or totalitarian regime.
Most democracies in the world today are called "republics" because
people power is represented indirectly via elected officials, a direct
democracy only being possible in small groups. This was the case in the
Greek City States of old, which were small enough in size and
population to enable all adult male citizens (minus slaves, children, and
women, who were then considered sub-human) to gather together in one
hall and direct]) participate in the taking and implementing of decisions
affecting the community.
Types of Democracy
In the modern day, the most prevalent form of democracy at the

nation-state level, given its sheer geographical size, population and
complexity, is what has come to be known as indirect or representative
democracy. By this is meant a democracy in which the people
participate in taking and implementing decisions on the common affairs
of the community indirectly through their representatives elected or
selected for that purpose. Countries that practice democracy are
themselves called democracies to distinguish them from those that do
not. Thus, According to Dahl, (2000) democracy exists where the
principal leaders of a political system are selected by competitive
elections in which the bulk, of the population has the opportunity to
participate.
There can be no meaningful democracy without a properly functioning

party and (pressure group) process. It is obvious, therefore that parties
and pressure groups constitute the heart of democracy -the more
vigorous and healthy they are the better assured is the health of the
democratic process itself. The quality of democracy also depends on
political participation (Agbaje, 1999).
The growth of modem liberal democracies dates back from the 1970s
and 1980s. The1970s saw quite number of West European States
217
moving towards democratic rule after many years of authoritarianism. In

the 1980s and 1990s, there was democraticmovement in parts of the
world, notably, in South America countries of Brazil andArgentina, in
Africa and South East Asia e.g. South Korea, Taiwan. After the collapse
of Soviet bloc in 1989, the Soviet satellite countries joined the clubs of
democratic States.
The world today has fully embraced liberal democracy. In Africa, the
movement for democratization has become the norm. According to
Bratton and Van de Walle (1997) by 1994, -not a single de jure
one-party state remained in Africa. In its place, governments adopted
new constitutional rules that formally guaranteed basic political liberties,
placed limits on tenure and power of chief political executives, and
allowed multiple panics to exist and compete in elections. Significant
transformation had taken place in Africa. For instance, a successful
democratic election was held in South Africa in 1994, in Nigeria in
1999, and most recently in Liberia, which marked the end of more than
two decades of civil war.
A. Majoritarian and Consensus Democracy
Perhaps the simplest typology is provided by Lijphart (1999) who

argues that there are two basic types of democracies: majoritarian and
consensus. A majoritarian system (also called the Westminster model)
has two-party elections, a one-party executive and cabinet, a unicameral
legislature, and a weak judiciary (e.g., England and its former colonies)
while a consensus system has a power-sharing, multiparty-coalition
executive, a consensus-oriented legislature, and strong judicial review
(e.g.. Switzerland and Germany).
B. Parliamentary and Presidential democracies
Common distinctions are also made between parliamentary democracies

andpresidential democracies. In a parliamentary democracy, like
England, the lowest house of Parliament is venerated or honored; i.e.,
the I louse of Commons. The upper house; i.e., the House of Lords, is
just for show and subordinate to the lower house. The House of
Commons has a "Question Time" every Wednesday when the Prime
Minister (as first among equals) must answer questions regarding the
activities of government. There is seating for the public and debates arc
broadcast live on the internet. There are parliamentary commissions
which look into public complaints about government maladministration.
Cabinet officials also must come from the Parliament.
The most distinguishing features of parliamentary democracies,

however, are the ongoing reviews, checks and balances by the
218
POL214 MODULE 1
legislative branch and a cabinet government of the Westminster type

which produces a fusion of executive/legislative power. Przeworski et al
(1996) have found that parliamentary democracies last longer, are easier
to govern, and are arguably -better" than other systems of political rule.
It is a fact that the presidentialist system first evolved in and became the
model of the United States, and is widely copied in Latin America but
less widely copied elsewhere (Mainwaring & Shugart 1997). Hence, it is
sometimes (but not often) called the American Model.
Presidential democracies usually exists in one of two forms: (1) a

presidential system(which strongly separates the executive from the
legislative branch by making the president perform combined or
multiple roles -- such as head of state and head of government as well as
commander-in-chief -- for a fixed term): and (2) a semi-presidential
system (where the president and prime minister, or ice-president, can
comc from different parties - called cohabitation -and the legislature can
force the President's cabinet to resign through votes of no confidence).
Presidential democraciesarc alien referred to as prcsidentialist regimes
so as not to confuse them with some parliamentary democracies which
happen to call their chief executive a president. Presidential democracies
are also sometimes referred to as congressional systems because there
almost always is an elected legislative body called a Congress which co-
exists with the president on the basis of the separation of powers
principle and also on a fixed term.
Discuss Nigeria's experience in practicing consensus democracy with

special emphasis on the current debate on zoning of the presidency in
the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
4.0 CONCLUSION
Confronted by the vast array of political forms, political scientists have

attempted to classify and categorize, to develop typologies and models,
or in some other way to bring analytic order to the bewildering variety
of data.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have examined six types of political systems, their main
features and examples.
219
1. Using the key features of democracy as your guide, examine the

practice of democracy in Nigeria since 1999.
2. Attempt an assessment of the regime of (Gen. Sani Abacha,
Nigeria's military ruler from 1993 to 1998.
3. Examine the issues that led to the institution of the Ernest
Shonekan Interim Government in Nigeria.
Agbaje, A. (1999). -Political Panics and Pressure Groups" in Anifowose,

R. and Enemuo, F. Elements of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse Press
Ltd. Pp. 191-209.
Almond, G.; Powell, 13.; Strom, K. & Dalton, R. (2004). Comparative

Politics: (4th ed.). A Theoretical Framework. New York: Pearson
Longman.
Almond, G. & Coleman, J. (1966). The Politics of Developing Areas.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perpspective.
Braguc, R. (2006). -Are Non-Theocratic Regimes Possible?" The

Intercollegiate Review. Spring.: 1-11.
Copnal. J. -Heaven Sent." BBC Focus on Africa. July-September 2009.

18-19.
Clarkson, F. (1997). Eternal hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy

and Democracy. Monroe, ME: Common Courage.
Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New I raven, CT: Yale
Univ. Press.
Dahl, R. (2000). On Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
DK, Publishers (2006). How Governments Work. NY: Dorling

Kindersley Inc.
220
POL214 MODULE 1
Encyclopmdia Britannica. 2009. -Political System."

<http://www.britannica.com/EBehecked/tooic/467746/political-s
vstem. Retrieved 3 October 2009.
Gause, G. (1984). Oil Monarchies: Security Challenges in the Arab Gulf

States. Washington DC: CFR Press.
Huntington, S. and Moore, C. (1970). "Conclusions: Authoritarianism,

Democracy and One - Party Politics- in Huntington, S. & Moore,
C. (eds.) Authoritarianism in Modern Society. New York: Basic
Books.
Lijphart. A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale

Univ. Press.
Mainwaring. S. & Shugart, M. (Eds.) (1997). Presidentialism and

Democracy in Latin America. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Obi. C. (1999). Political and Social Change.- In Anifowose, R. And

Enemuo, F. (eds.). Elements of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse Press
Ltd. Pp. 126-140.
O'Connor, T. (2009). The Structural-Functional Classification of

Political Systems.
htm://www.apsweduloconnort/4090/40901ect02alum. Retrieved
on 2 October, 2009.
Osaghae, E. (1988). Political Analysis (POS 211). lbadan: University of

Przeworski, A.; Alvarez, M.; Cheibub, J. & Limongi, F. (2000).

Democracy and Development. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Queenborough, L. & Miller, IL (1976). Occult Theocracy. Los Angeles:

Christian Book Club.
Rhodes, R. & Weller, P. (2005). -Westminster transplanted and

Westminster implanted.- In .1. Wanna & P. Weller (eds.)
Westminster Legacies. Sydney: University of New South Wales
Press.
Wiseman, H. (1966). Political Systems. Westport, Cl': Praeger.
Wikipedia (2010). List of Countries by System of

Government. http://en.wikiDedia.org/wiki/List of countries by
system of government. Retrieved on 27 August, 2010.
221
UNIT 2 POLITCAL SYSTEMS AND ORGANS OF

GOVERNMENT
CONTENT
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Executive
3.2 The Legislature
3.3 The Judiciary
3.4 The Theory of Separation of Powers
3.5 The, Doctrine of Checks and Balances
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Government can be described as a set of institutions performing

specified functions. A fundamental characteristic of government is that
it creates and allocates values. Indeed, it is a fundamental concept of
politics that any governmental action, be this the laws passed by
legislatures or the rules made and applied by administrators or decisions
made by the Courts, have the intent or the effect of creating and
“allocating values.” The point, of course, is that governmental actions
which seek to create or promote certain values also involve the
allocation of values among the diverse groups composing the society
and generally entail the unequal (although not necessarily unjust)
distribution of values. In addition, governmental actions also entail
uneven maximisation pattern among values. In other words,
governments discriminate as to what values to create or promote among
competing values; and which societal groups benefit from what values.
Significantly, the creation and allocation of values through
governmental action entails costs to some elements of society in that the
maximisation of a set of values invariably requires some costs in terms
of minimisation or deprivation of other values.
A related issue derives from the philosophical speculation concerning

the end of government. Government, it is generally believed, ought to
promote the public interest and all governments invariably justify their
actions as being in the public interest. A venerable notion of politics
held by political philosophers from Aristotle to the present is that it is a
public activity that involves public purposes, or public interests, or a
public good, or some distinctly 'public' aspect of human life. This
222
POL214 MODULE 1
concept of the public interest entails the ideas that governmental actions
ought to create and promote values that are for the good of the general
public and that are made with the welfare of most of society in mind.
Commenting along this line, Jeremy Bentham has argued that the task of
government is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number
(cf. Baradat, 1997).
Ascribing a public interest concern to governmental actions will no

doubt generate much controversy. In any case, such an understanding of
the purpose of government reflects poorly the popular perception of
government as the self-seeking and self-promoting activity of ambitious
politicians. Neither common experience nor systematic research would
seem to give much support to the postulation that government is
motivated by a concern for the public good. At best, the notion of public
interest could only have been a normative expectation of what ought to
be the end of government.
A key attribute of government is its authority, that is, its right to make,
administer and enforce legally binding policies and rules on its citizens.
The notion that governmental actions are under-guarded by authority
dates back to Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle argued against those who
say that all kinds of authority are identical and sought to distinguish the
authority of those who - occupy governmental roles from other forms of
authority such as the master over the slave. Government, by this
argument, functions with respect to society as a whole and its rules are
legally binding on all people within the government's legal jurisdiction.
Indeed, Aristotle defines the polis, or political association as the “most
sovereign and inclusive association” (Aristotle, 1962). The German
scholar, Max Weber has extended our understanding of the authoritative
basis of governmental action by postulating that an association should
be called political “if and in so far as the enforcement of its order is
carried out continually within a given territorial area by the application
and threat of physical force on the part of the administrative staff (Gerth
& Mills, 1946).
According to Encyclopædia Britannica (2009), the functions of the state

are self-preservation, supervision and resolution of conflicts, regulation
of the economy, protection of political and social rights, and the
provision of goods and services. The next question to be asked is, how
does the government performs its functions? What are the instruments
through which the business of government is executed? Regardless of
the type of political system used by any nation or society, there is a very
typical and well-used set of divisions in governments. Government is
divided into different segments, branches, or organs. These organs
which fulfill the general functions of government are made up mainly of
the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This unit will look at
223
each structure in a general sense, and the role performed by the

structure.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define and Describe the Executive branch of government, its

various types, functions and limitations to the powers of the
executive president
 define and Describe the Legislative arm of government, its
Functions and Powers, the types of Legislature, reasons for the
Declining Powers of the Legislature, Meaning of Bills and the
process of Bills passing by the legislature
 define and Describe the Judiciary, its functions and how to
maintain Judicial Independence
 define the Theory of Separation of Powers
 describe the Doctrine of Checks and Balances.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 The Executive
Generally speaking, the executive branch of government executes the

laws created by the legislative branch, though this general rule is
modified in some political systems. For example, in a totalitarian
dictatorship, there may be no legislature, and hence the executive also
makes laws.
The executive branch is sometimes divided into two parts, a head-of-

state and a chief executive. The head-of-state is the person, or group,
that represents the nation to other nations. The chief executive is
responsible for all those roles of the executive that are not handled by
the head-of-state. The power held by these two positions is not
consistent. In Britain, for example, the head-of-state is the monarch,
who has little actual power over the executive branch. The Prime
Minister is the chief executive and holds a great deal of power. In
France, the President is the head-of-state and has a great deal of power
over the executive. The Prime Minister has been likened to a junior
partner in the executive.
The Israeli President is elected by the Knesset and is largely ceremonial,

much like Britain's monarch. The Prime Minister holds the bulk of the
power. In Russia, the roles are again reversed, with the President
holding the bulk of the power and the Prime Minister being a junior
partner. In the United States, the President is both the head-of-state and
224
POL214 MODULE 1
the chief executive. While the head-of-state is almost always a single

person, the chief executive has sometimes been a group, or committee,
or people.
The method for choosing the executive varies greatly. In some cases,
such as in Britain, the head-of-state is a hereditary monarch and the
chief executive is the Prime Minister chosen from the Parliament. The
people, then, have no choice in the head-of-state and only a small
segment of the population have a choice of the Prime Minister (the
Prime Minister is chosen from all the Members of Parliament (MP) from
the majority party - each MP is elected in a local election). In Israel, the
President is chosen by the Knesset and the Prime Minister is a Member
of the Knesset. In the United States, the President is elected, indirectly
through the Electoral College, by the people.
The terms spent by the executive in office also varies. Monarchs

generally hold life terms. Members of parliaments hold maximum terms,
though votes of no confidence in parliament can force new elections
sooner. Other executives hold their positions for a fixed term, such as
four years in the United States and Nigeria. In dictatorial systems, terms
are for life.
3.1.2 Types of Executive
A. Parliamentary Executive
The parliamentary executive refers essentially to the prime minister in a

cabinet system of government. He emerges as prime minister by virtue
of his leadership of the majority party in government. Real executive
powers are vested in the cabinet, consisting of the prime minister and a
number of ministers. Hence the executive is the head of government but
he/she is equal to other ministers. It is in this sense that the executive in
a parliament system is referred to as first among equals. The executive
holds office as long as he commands majority in the parliament. A vote
of no confidence by parliament forces the prime minister and his cabinet
(ministers) to resign enbloc. The classical example of a parliamentary
executive is Britain.
B. Presidential Executive
A presidential executive is one who is both the head of state and head of
government. He is elected by a majority of eligible voters across the
country. Such an executive holds office for a fixed term, and can only be
removed from office through a process of impeachment. Nigeria has a
presidential
225
3.1.3 Functions of the Executive
1. Policy formulation: The executive formulates policies that guide

the general administration of the state.
2. Implementation of policies: The executive also executes or

implements the laws made in the legislature or policies made by
it (the executive) and ensure obedience to them.
3. Giving Assent to Bills: The head of the executive arm signs or

gives assent to bills before they can become laws. However, the
president can veto any bill brought before him for signature
which he does not support.
4. Initiation of Bills to the Legislature: The executive sometimes

initiates and submits bills to the legislature to pass into law for
good governance of the country.
5. Military Functions: It controls the armed forces and declares

war against any external or internal aggressors. (The head of the
executive arm of government is the commander-in-chief of the
armed forces).
6. Maintenance of Law and Order: The executive uses the police

to maintain law and order in a country through the enforcement
of law and order.
7. Provision of Welfare Services: It is the executive that performs

the main function of the government which is provision of
welfare services to the citizens.
8. Maintenance of External Relations: The executive maintains

external relations, signs treaties, etc, with other countries
especially friendly ones. In carrying out this duty, the executive
normally visits other countries, attends world conferences and
meetings such as that of the United Nations and also receives
visiting heads of state or representatives of other countries such
as ambassadors to his/her own country.
9. Making of Budgets: It is the executive that prepares the total

proposed financial expenditure.
10. Pardoning of Convicts: The executive, through the powers

granted to it by the constitution, may reduce the sentence passed
against a convict, or delay the execution of the sentence.
226
POL214 MODULE 1
11. Granting of amnesty: The executive may, from time to time,

grant an amnesty to certain categories of state offenders. This
applies especially to political offences.
12. Inaugurating and Dissolution and of the Parliament: The

executive has power, in some countries such as Britain and
Nigeria, to summon and dissolve parliament.
13. Appointment of Judicial Officials. The executive appoints the

Chief Justice of the state, judges of the Supreme Court, and other
high ranking officials of the judiciary.
14. Delegated Legislation: While the legislature makes the major

laws, the executive is delegated the power to make minor laws
like statutory orders, edicts, etc. in turn, the executive, in
exercise of delegated power, issues statutory orders and rules for
the governance of the country.
15. General Administration: The executive carries out general

administrative functions like recruitment of civil servants and
exercising disciplinary control over them, creation of
employment opportunities for the citizens, provision of food,
shelter and rendering of other essential services to the people of
the country, etc.
3.1.4 Limitations to the Powers of the Executive President
1. In a presidential system, the president can be impeached by the

legislature if he violates or abuses the provisions of the
constitution.
2. He must present the list of his ministers, judges and ambassadors

to the legislature for approval.
3. The term of the president is fixed by the constitution for a limited

period.
4. The constitutional review power of the Supreme Court can

declare null and void any unconstitutional action of the president.
5. As sometimes happens, the control of the legislature by another

party other than that of the president, acts as a strong check on
the powers of the president.
227
List and explain seven functions of the Executive.
3.2 The Legislature
Generally speaking, the legislative branch makes the laws. Legislatures

usually consist of many members chosen by the people of the country.
Under a parliamentary system, the legislature remains in power for a
fixed term or until a vote of no confidence is taken and the majority
loses the vote.
In a presidential system like that of the United States and Nigeria,

members of the legislature hold their office for a certain fixed term.
After elections, a majority party is determined, but there is no such thing
as a vote of no confidence. Though parties play a major role in the
selection of legislative leaders, individual members of the legislature are
free to vote however they wish without fear of bringing down the
government as in a parliamentary system.
Another common system involves a legislature composed of one party.

Such systems are common in single party systems such as China's
National People's Congress. Though dissent is generally allowed in such
a system, the decisions of the party are rubber-stamped by the
legislature.
3.2.1 Functions and Powers of the Legislature
1. Lawmaking: One of the main functions of the legislature is

making of laws that guide and direct the affairs of a country. The
legislature considers and, where necessary, passes into law bills
brought before it by its members, and by the executive. The
legislature can repeal, amend or add to existing laws.
2. Constitution making and amendment: It is the legislature that

draws up the constitution, and it plays a major role in the
procedures for amending the constitution.
3. Approval of executive appointments: The legislature has

power to consider and, where necessary, approve appointments
made by the executive.
4. Power to remove the executive: In a presidential system of

government, the president can be impeached by the legislature if
he fails to abide by the tenets of the constitution; while in a
parliamentary system, the prime minister and his cabinet can be
228
POL214 MODULE 1
removed through a vote of no confidence by parliament. The

legislature can also remove or recommend to be removed, any
judicial officer found wanting in his duties.
5. Budget approval: The legislature considers and approves the

national budget, prepared by the executive. In this way, the
legislature controls the running of the economy.
6. Training of future leaders: Membership of the legislature

affords one the opportunity of having requisite knowledge and
experience to use in running the country at the highest level, in
the future.
7. Approval of treaties: International treaties negotiated by the

executive must be approved by the legislature before they are
ratified by the executive.
8. Judicial functions: The legislature in some countries serves as

the highest judicial authority or the last appeal court. In Britain,
for instance, the House of Lords serves this purpose.
9. Political education: Through its debates and committee

hearings, the legislature helps to educate the people on the
political situation in the country. Legislatures maintain ties with
their constituencies through newspapers, radio and television.
10. Representation and expression of the people's interests: The

legislature is a platform through which members of the public,
through their elected representatives, express their opinion.
Individual members of the public and groups make – known their
needs as well as their views on various national issues through
their representatives in the legislature.
11. Ratification of international treaties: The legislature approves

treaties entered into with other countries by the president or
prime minister.
12. Investigation of citizens' complaints: In many countries, the

legislature is responsible for establishing and/or supervising the
'public complaints' agency-- popularly known as the ombudsman.
This department investigates complaints of members of the
public against government departments, agencies and institutions.
229
3.2.2 Types of Legislature.
The legislature can be classified into two: The unicameral and the
bicameral.
Unicameral Legislature
This refers to a situation in a country in which there is only one

legislative house or chamber. Examples of countries operating the
unicameral legislative system are Kenya, Greece, Israel and Gambia.
Bicameral Legislature
This is the type of legislature with two (legislative) houses or bodies.

Usually one of the houses is identified as the lower house, while the
other is the upper house. The lower house or chamber is often made up
of members directly elected on the basis of universal, equal and secret
suffrage while the upper house consists of more experienced men and
women, some of whom are sometimes appointed to the house. Nigeria
and the USA has a bicameral legislature.
3.2.3 Declining Powers of the Legislature
In most countries the power of the legislature has declined over the
years, while the powers of the executive continue to wax stronger.
Reasons for the decline in legislative powers include:
1. Limitations are imposed on the powers of the legislature by

pressure groups, public opinion and political parties.
2. Most legislative houses lack technical experts; and since most

bills are technical in nature, many members of the legislature do
not understand the content of such bills.
3. The need for the exercise of emergency powers by the executive

is another reason for the decline in legislative powers.
3.2.4 Bills
A bill is a proposed law to be discussed in parliament in order to become

law. For a bill to be turned into law, the head of state or president must
sign or assent to the bill.
230
POL214 MODULE 1
A) Types of bills
1. Appropriation bill. An appropriation bill deals with the total

estimated revenue and expenditure of government in a financial
year. This bill originates from the executive arm of government.
2. Private member's bill. This is a bill brought to parliament by a

member of the legislature (the parliament).
3. Public bill. The bill comes from the executive arm of

government, and deals with matters or problems affecting the
whole segments of a country.
4. Money bill. It has to do with specific projects involving

expenditure, emanating from the executive.
B) Stages of passing a Bill into law in Parliament
1. First reading. This is the stage at which the draft of a bill is

presented to the clerk of the house, a minister or member of
parliament-depending on the type of bill. The clerk of the house
normally notifies members of parliament about the presence of
the bill; and the title is read out before them. It is printed (in
leaflets), and circulated to all members for study before the
second reading at a future date.
2. Second reading. At this stage, the purpose of the bill is explained

to the house by the person who brought it.
3. Committee stage. The bill at this stage is referred to a committee

which can be a committee of the whole house, or a standing
committee-depending on the importance of the bill.
A committee of the whole house comprises all members, presided

over by the speaker of the house or president of the senate. The
bill is considered section by section, and amendments proposed
and voted for less important bills are referred to standing
committees of members of parliament.
4. Report stage. All the findings of the various standing

committees are reported to the house (or the bill placed before the
house), after all necessary amendments have been made. The
chairman then reads the bill in its amended form to the house.
231
5. Third reading. This is the final stage, at which a thorough look

is taken at the bill to correct any errors connected with the
drafting or amendment. After this, vote is taken on the bill before
it is taken to the president for his signature. Once the president
has signed, the bill automatically becomes law.
SELF -ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2
Describe the states of passing a Bill into law in the Parliament.
3.3 The Judiciary
Generally, the judicial branch interprets the laws of the nation. The
structure of the judiciary varies greatly from one nation to another,
based on the legal tradition. The most familiar may be that of the United
States, where there is a Supreme Court that is the final court of appeals
in the nation. Below the Supreme Court are a series of inferior courts,
starting with the federal court where most cases are heard, and several
levels of appeals courts. Britain has a similar set up, but the House of
Lords is the court of final appeal.
Israel has several judicial systems - the secular system is divided into
general law courts and tribunals. The general court has a Supreme Court,
district courts, and magistrates. Personal matters, such as marriage and
divorce disputes, are handled by religious courts. There are four systems
of religious court; Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Druze.
In Nigeria, the judiciary is made up of magistrates, judges and chief

judges-who preside over such courts as the Customary courts, Sharia
Courts as exists in 12 states in northern Nigeria today, Magistrate and
High Courts, as well as Appeal and Supreme Courts. They also preside
over tribunals, and administrative courts.
Selection of judges is another point of comparison. Generally, the

selection process is divided between appointed and elected. Appointed
judges are thought to be free from political pressure, and thus are able to
best represent the people and the law. Elected judges are thought to best
represent the will of the people. Terms vary from life to several years, in
both systems of selection.
232
POL214 MODULE 1
3.3.1 Functions of the Judiciary
1. Interpretation of Laws: this is the primary and revenue of the

government in every new function of the judiciary in a country.
2. Dispute Adjudication: The judiciary adjudicates in disputes

between the executive and the legislature, between other
government departments, between individual citizens, between
citizens and governments, and between organisations/groups and
themselves or government.
3. Punishment of Law Breakers: As the watchdog of the law, the

judiciary makes sure that laws are obeyed and those who refuse
to obey the laws are severely punished.
4. Guardian of the Constitution: The judiciary interprets the

constitution, and protects it against violation. It can declare any
action of government unconstitutional, and therefore null and
void.
5. Determination of Election Petitions: The judiciary performs the

function of hearing and determining election petitions in order to
ascertain true winners. For examples, the final outcome of the
three presidential elections in Nigeria in 1999, 2003, and 2007
were decided by the Supreme Court.
6. Protection of Citizens' Rights and Liberties: It is the function

of the judiciary to protect the citizens’ fundamental rights as
enshrined in the constitution. It is as a result of this function,
performed by the judiciary that has made it to be described as the
last hope and defender of the oppressed or the hope of the
common man.
7. Lawmaking Function: Judicial officers advise on matters

relating to constitutional preparation and amendment.
3.3.2 How to Maintain Judicial Independence
The independence of the judiciary essentially refers to the insulation of

the judiciary from the control of the executive, the legislature and/ or
any other body. This means that judges should have full powers to try
cases brought before them without fear or favour. The independence of
the judiciary can be enhanced through the following means:
1. Judges should be appointed from proven members of the bar.

This should be based on the advice of a body of knowledgeable
233
persons. In Nigeria, such a body is the Judiciary Advisory

Commission.
2. Judges and magistrates should have some level of immunity, as

obtains in almost every country, from prosecution for anything
they say in the performance of their duties.
3. Judicial officers should enjoy security of tenure, and may only be

removed on grounds of ill-health or gross misbehaviour.
4. Judicial officers should be well paid, and their remuneration

should not be subject to executive or legislative manipulation.
Also, funding for the judiciary should not come from the
executive but from an independent source guaranteed by the
constitution.
5. Judges must not belong to any political party in order not to be

influenced by political considerations in the discharge of their
duties.
6. Judicial officers must be seen to be persons of high moral

standard. In this way, they will gain the confidence of the people.
7. Judges must be provided with adequate security for their personal

safety.
8. The principle of separation of powers-with its in-built checks and

balances should apply especially regarding the judiciary.
How can the independence of the Judiciary be guaranteed?
3.4 The Theory of Separation of Powers
Separation of powers may be defined as the division of governmental

political powers that exist in any given state into the three organs of
government. What this principle is saying is that all the amount of
governmental political that exists in a given state should not be rested or
consolidated in one person or one organ. That if these powers are
divided into the three of government – the Legislature, executive, and
judiciary, that the chances of dictatorship or tyranny will be reduced.
Political philosophers like Locke, Bodin, Rousseau, Aristotle, and Plato

had earlier expressed their views on the principle of separation of
powers. However, it was the French political thinker and jurist Baron de
234
POL214 MODULE 1
Montesquieu who developed and popularised the principle of separation

of powers in his book entitled “Espirit des Lois” which means the spirit
of the laws published in 1748. According to Monstequieu, if rights,
liberty and freedom of citizens are to be maintained and guaranteed,
then the three organs of government must be separated and entrusted to
different people to administer. That there will be chaos, dictatorship,
tyranny and oppression if there is no separation of powers. In other
words, the governmental function of law making, execution and
adjudication should be handled by different organs of government
without interference.
3.5 The Doctrine of Checks and Balances
According to the principles of checks and balances, separation of powers

alone cannot prevent abuse of power, constitutional violation and naked
use of power as the different organs of government can each decide to
misbehave in its own sphere of influence and powers. Also important,
according to the advocates of checks and balances, is the need to use one
organ of government to check the activities of the other organs, this is
where the powers of one organ are used to check the powers of other
organs. The doctrine of checks and balances does not advocate fusion of
the three organs of government in the performance of their constitutional
functions. Rather, it insists that in-as-much as these organs will be
mutually independent; they should act as watchdog of each other to
avoid the misuse of power and to avoid the immobilism that will arise in
the performance of governmental functions if each of them decides to
work on its own without recourse to the others.
The doctrine of checks and balances applies in both parliamentary and

presidential systems of government. For instance, the executive can veto
the legislature’s bills, it can also dissolve parliament, as well as make
judicial appointment and promotions. On the other hand, the legislature
can check the executive’s power to appoint ministers and declare war
using the military, it can set up committees to investigate activities of
executives and has the power to impeach the president for gross
misconduct. In like manner, the judiciary has the power to review both
the executive and judicial actions. It has the power to declare the
activities of either executive or the legislature null and void and without
effect (Addison-Wesley Publishers, 1986).
4.0 CONCLUSION
Regardless of the type of political system used by any nation or society,

there is a very typical and well-used set of divisions in governments.
Government is usually divided into different segments, branches, or
235
organs. The main organs of government in any modern political system

are the executive, legislature and judiciary.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this lecture, you have learnt about the three main organs of
government, their features and processes. You have also learnt that even
though these organs have separated powers and hence function
independently, they do not function in isolation from one another: they
are related by the system of checks and balances.
1. “The judiciary is indispensable in any modern government”.

Discuss
2. Examine the principle of checks and balances.
3. “The executive is key in modern day government”. Discuss this
in the relation to the roles of the executive in Nigeria.
Addison-Wesley Publishers (1986). United States History. California:

Addison-Wesley Publishers Company.
Aristotle (1962). The Nicomachean Ethics. (Translated with an

Introduction & Notes By Martin Ostwald): Prentice Hall.
Baradat, L. (1997). Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact. 6th

ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Dahl, R. (1991). Modern Political Analysis (5th ed.) Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Gerth, H. H. & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in

Sociology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Encyclopedia Britannica. (2009). "Political System." Retrieved on

October 3, 2009 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/
467746/political-system.
Scott, G. & Garrison, S. (1995). The Political Science Student Writer’s

Manual. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Scott, G. (1997). Political Science: Foundations for a Fifth Millennium.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
236
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 3 POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND DISTRIBUTION

OF POWER
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Unitary System of Government
3.1.1 Features or Characteristics of a Unitary
Government
3.1.2 Merits or Benefits of a Unitary System of
Government
3.1.3 Demerits of a Unitary System of Government
3.2 Federal System of Government or Federalism
3.2.1 Characteristics of Federalism
3.2.2 Merits of Federalism
3.2.3 Demerits of a Federal System of Government
3.2.4 Quasi-Federal System of government
3.3 Confederation
3.3.1 Characteristics of a Confederation
3.3.2 Merits of a Confederation
3.3.3 Demerits of Confederation
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
There are a few other notable differences between political systems that
should be mentioned, and which can be used to characterise a country’s
government. A key issue is the distribution of power. Using feature of,
we can classify political systems into unitary, federal, and confederal
states. In this unit, we shall elaborate and discuss the key features of
these government types.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define and describe the Unitary system of government, its

Features, Merits and Demerits
 define and describe the Federal system of government or
federalism, its Characteristics, Merits and Demerits, and the
237
difference between a Federal system and a Quasi-federal system

of government
 define and describe a Confederation, its Characteristics, and its
Merits.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Unitary System of Government
A unitary system of government is one in which there is a single central

government that does not share power with any other body. It may only
delegate power to other subordinate bodies. A unitary government
adopts a unitary constitution. It is desirable in a small state with low
population. This is not to say that it is restricted to these states.
Examples of countries with a unitary system of government are Britain,
France, Ghana, Italy, Sweden and Gambia.
3.1.1 Features or Characteristics of a Unitary Government
1. Power emanates only from the central government.
2. There is no constitutional division of powers between the central

government and lower units.
3. The constitution may not be supreme, for the central government

may modify it with its powers. As a result, the constitution need
not be rigid.
4. National administrations is usually organized at two levels-

central and local. The local authorities are subordinate to the
central government.
5. An important feature of the unitary system of government is

parliamentary supremacy.
6. Conflicts between the central government and the subordinate

bodies are almost non-existent in a unitary system.
7. The citizens often owe allegiance only to the central authority.
8. There is usually no 'final authority' to decide on conflicts of

jurisdiction between the centre and the local units.
9. A unitary government adopts a unitary constitution.
238
POL214 MODULE 1
3.1.2 Merits or Benefits of a Unitary System of Government
1. There is only one source of authority, thereby making it easy for

the citizens to identify with the supreme power in a state.
2. Owing to the absence of competing centres of constitutional

powers, conflicts of jurisdiction are eliminated.
3. A unitary system of government is usually strong and stable.
4. The loyalty of the citizens in a unitary system of government is

shown only to the central authority.
5. Multiplicity of offices and services in a unitary system is reduced.

This also reduces administrative costs.
6. The decisions of government are quick, thereby saving time.
7. The constitution of a unitary system of government can easily be

amended to suit political, social and economic changes in a
country.
3.1.3 Demerits of a Unitary System of Government
1. A unitary system of government may promote dictatorship

because of the concentration of powers in a single central
authority.
2. In a unitary system of government, the power of the local

authorities is drastically reduced.
3. The central authority in a unitary system is overburdened with

power and responsibility.
4. Minorities are often dominated by the majority group in a unitary

system of government.
5. It lowers local initiative as a result of relative lack of autonomy.
6. The unitary system of government tends to make government

appear very far from the people, especially those in the remote
parts of the country.
7. As a result of the centralization of political administration,

unitarism does not provide sufficient training ground for wider
political participation.
239
Highlight the key features of a unitary government.
3.2 Federal System of Government or Federalism
A federal system of government is one in which powers are

constitutionally shared between the central government (that represents
the whole country) and the component units of government variously
called regions, local authorities, states, provinces and cantons-which are
constitutionally recognized and largely autonomous. Conditions for the
adoption of federalism include cultural and ethnic differences, fears of
the domination, economic factors, the size of the country nearness of
government to the people, preservation of local authority, and security
reasons. We shall discuss these factors in our discussion of the Nigerian
federation unit.
3.2.1 Characteristics of Federalism
According to Wheare (1964), the desire and capacity for federalism

entails a number of prerequisites involving among others ‘geographic
proximity, hope for economic advantage, wishes for independence,
earlier political ties and insecurity and similarities of traditional values’.
Following on the classical model popularized by K. C. Wheare, Ronald

Watts has drawn up a list of structural characteristics distinctive to
federations:
1. Two orders of government, each in direct contact with its

citizens;
2. An official, constitutional sharing of legislative and executive
powers, and a sharing of revenue sources between the two orders
of government, to ensure that each has certain sectors of true
autonomy;
3. Designated representation of distinct regional opinions within
federal decision-making institutions, usually guaranteed by the
specific structure of the federal Second Chamber;
4. A supreme written constitution that is not unilaterally modifiable
but requires the consent of a large proportion of federation
members;
5. An arbitration mechanism (in the form of courts or a referendum)
to resolve intergovernmental disputes;
6. Procedures and institutions designed to facilitate
intergovernmental collaboration in cases of shared domains or
inevitable overlapping of responsibilities (Watts, 2001, p.8).
240
POL214 MODULE 1
Ideally, nations decide to federate due to one or a combination of the

following three factors—socio-economic, political, or security
considerations. In terms of socio-economic factors, it is assumed that
some of the following factors are pertinent, namely the presence of
shared values, access to a larger domestic market, access to a seaport,
access to higher standards of living and the enhancement of welfare
policies. Politically, the considerations include the strengthening of
existing relations with the co-federating units and bringing about a
stronger voice internationally. Security wise, it is for the unit in question
to be able to protect itself from real or imagined threats to its survival as
an entity.
3.2.2 Merits of Federalism
1. The division of power among the component units fosters rapid

development in a federal system of government.
2. Federalism brings together people of different political, religious,

historical, geographical and social backgrounds-thereby
promoting unity among them.
3. Smaller units enjoy their autonomy in a federal system.
4. Federalism discourages concentration of power in a single

authority, thereby preventing the emergence of a dictator.
5. Federalism helps to bring government nearer to the people as a

result of the division of the country into relatively smaller
administrative units.
6. It encourages local political participation.
7. Federalism encourages the expansion of the local market for

enhanced economic development.
8. Duplication of offices in a federal system fosters the creation of

more employment opportunities.
3.2.3 Demerits of a Federal System of Government
1. Federalism leads to unnecessary duplication of organs and levels

of government. This makes the running of government very
expensive.
241
2. Federalism results in a considerable waste of time, as a result of

the consultations among the various levels of government before
important decisions could be taken.
3. Federalism makes the coordination of state activities difficult,

because of the many component units of government.
4. Despite the fact that powers in a federal system are divided

between the central and component units, the fear of some groups
dominating the others still exists in many federal states. This fear
sometimes results in threats of secession.
5. Sharing of wealth between the component units, and among the

component units themselves, often give rise to conflicts in a
federal state. In Nigeria, for instance, the problem of revenue
allocation is a very serious one.
6. There is usually tension in the exercise of constitutional powers

between the central authority and the component units.
7. Federalism tends to lead to dual loyalty-people are sometimes

first loyal to their component units before showing allegiance to
the central authority.
3.2.4 Quasi-Federal System of Government
The term quasi-federal is used to describe the system of government that

is somewhat between the federal and unitary systems. It is an incomplete
federal system of government. An example is the system introduced by
the Macpherson Constitution of 1951 in Nigeria. Many scholars have
also described a system that has all the trappings of federalism, or that
calls itself as a federal state, but which in essence do not fully practice
the tenets of federalism as a quasi federal system of government. In
essence therefore, a federal system can be described as ‘quasi’ when
power is not well defined, nor fully shared between the various levels of
government, and when the federal or central government can override
regional powers. Its sole advantage is that it may succeed in keeping
together the different peoples that make it up thereby permitting them to
reap some of the benefits of actual federalism. Nigeria under military
rule was described as such because the military did not usually abide by
the tenets of federalism for example power sharing between the federal
and state governments or the supremacy of constitutional provisions.
Even now under a democracy, some people prefer to call Nigeria a quasi
federal state because they feel dissatisfied about the way federalism is
practiced, especially when compared with ‘ideal’ federal countries like
the USA. However, while there are shortcomings in Nigeria’s practice
242
POL214 MODULE 1
of federal governance, the point need to be stated that there is no perfect

federal system, and that federal institutional arrangement, as Livingstone
(1952) reminds us, must be structured to reflect the society it represents.
Thus, besides the problem of its actual practice, some of the problems in
Nigerian federalism do not stem from federalism per se, but from the
challenges of unity and diversity which the federal system was designed
to address in the first place.
To what extent is Nigeria a quasi-federal state?
3.3 Confederation
Confederation is the type of government in which sovereign states come

together as autonomous bodies to form a loose political union, in which
the central government is subordinate to the component governments.
Each autonomous state is sovereign, and has the constitutional right to
secede from the confederation. An example was the former
Confederation of Senegambia-made up of sovereign Senegal and
Gambia.
3.3.1 Characteristics of a Confederation
1. The component sovereign states are more powerful than the

central government.
2. Actual powers of government lie with the component units-

making it difficult for the central authority to enforce its
decisions on the autonomous states.
3. Since the union is a loose one, the component states have

constitutional powers to secede.
4. The allegiance of the citizens is usually more to the component

sovereign states, than to the centre.
5. The component states have the constitutional right to have their

own army and police.
6. A confederal state usually possesses little political stability.
7. The component states retain their sovereignty and identity in a

confederation.
243
3.3.2 Merits of a Confederation

1. A confederation enables the component states to retain their
individual identities.
2. It makes it possible for a union to be forged among people of
different cultural backgrounds.
3. It brings weak component states together to form a strong nation
able to defend themselves as one against any external aggression.
4. A confederation reduces the fear of domination of one state by
the other because each autonomous state retains its identity.
5. Members in a confederal state cannot be compelled to remain in
the union because of their constitutional right to secession.
6. A confederation is economically beneficial to the autonomous
states that have come together, as a result of possible economic
projects jointly implemented for the benefit of members of the
union.
7. It enables many otherwise sovereign states to speak with one
voice on issues relating to foreign policy.
3.3.3 Demerits of Confederation
1. The component units' right to secede is a source of serious

instability in a confederal system.
2. Since the component units retain more power than the centre, the
authority of the central government to speak and act for the
nation, is undermined.
3. The citizens of a confederal state pay more allegiance to their

own governments than to the central government. This further
reduces the power and authority which the state ought to
command over its citizens.
4 It does not encourage political unity, which is vital to the security

and development of the nation.
5. A confederal system does not encourage even development of the

country.
6. The power of regional governments to retain their own police and

armed forces fosters the potential of an outbreak of civil
hostilities.
244
POL214 MODULE 1
4.0 CONCLUSION
Political systems can be classified according to the distribution of power

into unitary, federal and confederal. A unitary system of government is
one in which there is a single central government that does not share
power with any other body. A federal system of government is one in
which powers are constitutionally shared between the central
government (that represents the whole country) and the component units
of government variously called regions, local authorities, states,
provinces and cantons-which are constitutionally recognized and largely
autonomous. Confederation is the type of government in which
sovereign states come together as autonomous bodies to form a loose
political union, in which the central government is subordinate to the
component governments.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have examined the unitary, federal and confederal
systems of government, their features, merits and demerits. We have
learnt that Nigeria is a federal state, even though there is a predilection
by some scholars to describe it as quasi-federal because power is not
fully shared between the various levels of government, and because the
federal system of government has not been able to satisfactorily meet the
needs of the society. Finally, you have learnt that while there are
shortcomings in Nigeria’s practice of federal governance, there is no
perfect federal system, and federal institutional arrangements are
structured to reflect the society they represents, and they must always
adapt to meet the needs of the federal society.
1. What is a unitary system of government? What are its key

features?
2. Outline the main features of a federal system
3. What reasons can you adduce for the unattractiveness of the
confederal system of government?

Levine, H. (1993). Political Issues Debated: An Introduction to Politics.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
245
Livingston, D. (1952).“A Note on the Nature of Federalism.” Political

Science Quarterly. Vol. 57.
Ranney, A. (1996). Governing: An Introduction to Political Science (7th

ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Watts, R. (2001). The International Evolution of Federal Systems in the

Twentieth Century. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations:
Queen’s University – Kingston.
Wheare, K. C. (1964). Federal Government, London: Oxford University

Press.
Zeigler, H. (1990). The Political Community: A Comparative

Introduction to Political Systems and Society. London: Longman.
246
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 4 THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

IN NIGERIA
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Origin of Federalism in Nigeria
3.2 Major Constitutional Conferences towards Federalism in
Nigeria
3.3 Factors that Necessitated the Adoption of Federalism
3.4 Structure of Nigerian Federalism
3.5 Features of Nigerian Federalism
3.6 The Practical Relevance of the Federal Idea to Nigeria
3.7 Problems of Nigerian Federalism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Nigeria is a Federal Republic with a US-style presidential system. The

Nigerian federalism has been described as “life-blood” of Nigeria’s
survival as a multi-ethnic political entity (Onwudiwe and Suberu, 2005).
The bicameral National Assembly comprises a 109-member Senate and
a 360-member House of Representatives. Each of the 36 states has an
elected state governor and a state legislature. In this unit, we will
examine elaborately the federal system of government in Nigeria, in
order to get knowledge of the actual distribution of power in a political
system as discussed in the preceding unit. Also, given its importance in
the political life of the country, a focus on the federal system will give
us a good grasp of the politics and government in Nigeria.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 trace the Origin of Federalism in Nigeria

 highlight the Major constitutional conferences towards federalism
in Nigeria
 list the factors that necessitated the adoption of federalism
 describe the structure of Nigerian federalism
 describe the features of Nigerian federalism
247
 explain practical Relevance of the Federal Idea to Nigeria

 identify the problems of Nigerian Federalism.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Origin of Federalism in Nigeria
Nigerian federalism started-during her colonial experience with the

British. The colonial administration since the amalgamation of Northern
and Southern protectorates in 1914, under a governor-general, Frederick
Lugard till the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, treated Nigeria a unitary
country. Bernard Bourdillon as governor of Nigeria had in 1939, divided
Nigeria into three-the Western, Eastern and Northern provinces. These
provinces became regions under Governor Richards whose constitution
(1947) created a council for each region. The succeeding Macpherson
Constitution (1951) further created the position of a lieutenant governor
as well as an executive council 'in the regions. In all these, however,
ultimate power still resided in the central government and the regional
councils-Legislative and Executive-still remained largely mere advisory
bodies to the central administration.
It was the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, which fully introduced a

federal system into the administration of Nigeria by devolving
considerable power on the regional administrations who could formulate
policies and execute programmes of their own. The central government
then focused on an exclusive list of nationally important matters like
defence, external affairs, customs and currency.
The Independence Constitution of 1960 worked on this federal structure

with more powers to the regional governments. The military government
under General Yakubu Gowon, in 1967 created twelve states shifting the
focus on divisions from regions to states. This continued under the 1979
Constitution with 19 states, and the 1989 Constitution with thirty states
which gave greater autonomy and prominence to local governments.
Today, Nigeria has thirty six states.
3.2 Major Constitutional Conferences towards Federalism in

Nigeria
A) The idea of constitutional conferences started from the time of Sir

John Macpherson as governor of Nigeria in 1948. In order to
review the 1946 Constitution, a committee was appointed.
Members were all unofficial members of the legislative council,
three chief commissioners, the attorney-general, financial
secretary and the chief secretary as the chairman of the
committee.
248
POL214 MODULE 1
The terms of reference of the committee were to gather public opinion at

all levels in order to find solutions to complex issues. From 10 to 21
October 1949, the drafting committee met and recommended that:
1. A federal system should be adopted in the country.
2. A regional legislature with legislative powers on subjects like

local government, health, education; forestry, fishing, agriculture,
town and regional planning, should replace the purely advisory
legislative council.
3. A central legislature to be called the House of Representatives

and a central executive to be called the council of state should be
set up.
4. The central legislature should be empowered to review, refer or

even reject regional legislations which interfered with the general
interest of Nigeria as a whole.
5. The inter-regional boundaries between the provinces of Ilorin,

Oyo and Ondo; Kabba, Ondo and Benin; and Benin and Onitsha
should be referred to a commission of enquiry which would make
recommendations to the governor.
6. A council of state with the governor as president, six official
members, and twelve unofficial members appointed from the
House of Representatives should be constituted to formulate
policy and direct executive actions.
7. The elected unofficial members of the House of Representatives
should be made official members, each responsible for one or
more subjects, and not departments.
B) 1950 Central Conference in Ibadan
Between 9th and 28th January 1950, the conference met in Ibadan to
review the constitution. There were 50 members with 25 as unofficial
members from the legislative council, and the remaining half drawn
from the three regions and the colony of Lagos. The recommendations
of the drafting committee which were adopted by the committee of the
delegates were that:
1. The regional governments should be given more autonomy
within a united Nigeria.
2. Nigerians should be given ministerial responsibilities.

3. There should be the creation of larger and more representative
regional legislatures with real legislative power.
249
The Northern delegates added the following:
1. That if the experts' investigation showed that a region had not

been given its due in the past, such region should be given a
block grant to make up part of what it had previously lost.
2. That the recommendations of the experts' commission and the

constitution should take effect simultaneously.
C) London Constitutional Conference of 1953
The defects of the Macpherson Constitution of 1951 necessitated the

1953 London constitutional conference. It was made up of 19 delegates
made up of 6 representatives from each region and one from Cameroon.
Decisions of the Conference
The Conference met between 30 July and 22 August 1953, and reached
the following agreements:
1. That a federal government should be established with the

functions of the federal government and the residual powers of
the regional governments spelt out.
2. That Lagos should be carved out of the Western Region as a

neutral federal capital territory.
3. That regional lieutenants should be called governors whilst the

governor of Nigeria should be referred to as governor-general.
4. That legislative powers should be shared between the central and

regional governments.
5. That subject to the approval by the conference to be held in

Lagos the following year, a separate regional administration
should be set up in the Southern Cameroons if the inhabitants so
desired in a referendum.
6. That Her Royal Majesty should in 1956 grant self-rule to the

regions which desired it.
D) Lagos Conference of 1954
The purpose of the conference was to consider the unresolved political

problems arising from the 1953 London conference and to consider the
advice of the fiscal commission appointed by the secretary general at the
250
POL214 MODULE 1
1953 conference. It met on 15 January 1954 presided over by the

secretary of state for the colonies. The conference:
1 Accepted the proposal of the fiscal commissioner, Sir Louis

Chick's allocation of resources to the regional and federal
governments.
2. Recommended the judiciary to be regionalized.
3. Recommended that the whole public service be regionalized.
4. Advised granting of autonomy to Southern Cameroons.
E) London Constitutional Conference of 1957
A major decision taken at this conference which held from May 23 to 26

June 1957 was the setting up of a minority’s commission, under Sir
Henry Willink, to look into the fears of the minority ethnic groups who
agitated for the creation of new Regions out of the existing three
Regions of the Federation of Nigeria. Other decisions taken include
1. Establishment of full regional self-government for the East and

West regions in 1957 and for the North in 1969.
2. That the office of prime minister of Nigeria should be

established.
3. The federal legislature would comprise of two houses, the senate

and house of representatives.
4. Southern Cameroons would become a region, with its own

premier and house representatives.
5. That the house of chiefs should be established in the Eastern

Region in addition to the house of assembly, in uniform with the
other two regions with bicameral legislatures.
6. That the police should remain under federal control.
7. That while adult male suffrage would be used in the north,

universal adult suffrage should be used in the East, West, Lagos
and Southern Cameroons to elect members of the federal and
regional legislatures.
8. That the leader of the part who commanded a majority in the

regional legislature should be appointed premier.
251
F) Constitutional Conference of 1958
This conference was held between 29 September and 27 October 1958.

Various political parties attended the conference to consider the
following issues:
1. Reports of the Minorities Commission
2. Reports of the Fiscal Commission
3. Other outstanding issues
The following decisions were reached at the conference:
1. The Northern Region should become self-governing in March

1959.
2. Procedures for amending the constitution and altering regional

boundaries should be entrenched in the constitution.
3. Fundamental human rights were to be entrenched in the

constitution.
4. If a resolution was passed by the new federal parliament early in

1960 asking for independence, Her Majesty's government would
introduce a bill to enable the federation to become independent
on 1 October 1960.
Enumerate the decisions of the London Conference of 1957
3.3 Factors that Necessitated the Adoption of Federalism
1. Cultural Differences: The country was made up of people of

different ethnic groups, religions, customs, traditions and
languages. The peoples thus opted for federalism to retain as
much as possible of their identity. Similarly, these diversities
created problems for the running of a unitary system.
2. The Size of Nigeria: Nigeria with a territory covering 373,000

square miles and with a population today of about 140 million,
(according to the 2006 census) is so large that a centralized
system of power and administration will inevitably be very far
from a large number of the citizens and hence effective
administration will be impaired particularly when Nigeria has not
252
POL214 MODULE 1
developed modern effective transport and communication

systems to make communication easy from a centre. As a result
governmental powers need to, be decentralized for effective
administration. Federalism thus became an administrative
convenience.
3. Economic Factor: In Nigeria, natural resources are scattered

among contiguous states, the units were encouraged to unite to
form a federation in order to pool these resources for greater
economic development.
4. Fear of Domination: when Nigeria was about to attain her

independence, each major ethnic group felt the notion that by
having a Unitary form of government, the strongest ethnic group
might politically, dominate the others. There was also the fear
that such domination by the strongest ethnic group might
continue for a long time to the extent that the disadvantaged ethic
group will continue to suffer from both political and economic
marginalization. This fear, for instance, contributed to the
assassination in 1966 of then Head of State Major General J.T.V.
Aguiyi lronsi, soon after his government promulgated decree
number 34 which (temporarily) changed Nigeria’s federalism to a
unitary system. Federalism was therefore chosen so that each
group would have some economic and political freedom that will
act as safeguard against domination.
5. The Desire of the British: Scholars have generally accepted the

centrality of British colonial administrators in creating the federal
structure. According to a report of the roundtable on
“Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in the Nigerian
Federation”, the Nigerian federation “neither emerged through a
contract between states nor was it a voluntary union of a number
of originally independent states. It emerged through a process of
conquest and charters granted to British Companies from the
middle of the 19th century, when nationalities, which later
composed the federation of Nigeria, lost their sovereignty to the
British Colonial authority” (Forum of Federations and IACFS,
2003). In the words of Uma Eleazu, “the roots of federalism in
Nigeria must be sought partly in the process by which the country
came into being, partly in the administrative structure of
colonialism that was set up and partly in the varying responses of
the Nigerians to both the process and structure (cf. Akindele,
1996). From the scattered origin that heralded the country now
called Nigeria which has been severally denounced by journalists,
politicians, and even some of the ‘nationalists’ as a ‘mere
geographical expression’, (Awolowo, 1947), a 'historical
253
accident’ (Ostheimer, 1973), or a ‘colonial error’ (Williams

2000), it was obvious that all Britain succeed in doing was to
amalgamate, rather loosely, a large mixture of diverse, conflicting
and otherwise distinct groups into a homogenous political
assemblage to ease administrative governance for the purpose of
economic and strategic exploitation. Although essentially
beneficial to the British, this ‘experiment in political cloning for
Nigeria and Nigerians meant a forced brotherhood and sisterhood
which has been the subject of continual tinkering, panel beating
and even attempted dissolution’ (Ayoade, 1998).
6. Security: The need for internal security and protection

necessitated the coming together of the component units together
as a federation would be stronger and more units.
3.4 Structure of Nigerian Federalism
The foundation of federalism was laid in Nigeria by the amalgamation

of Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914. Northern and Southern
Nigeria were recognised as near autonomous entities with some
differences in the administration of each. However, it was the Lyttleton
Constitution which came into effect on 1 October 1956 that introduced
real federalism in Nigeria. The constitution shared powers between the
central and regional governments, giving out details on issues which
were exclusive to only one level and those on which both could
legislate. Regional premiers were also provided for in the constitution.
The Independence Constitution of 1960 followed the federal structure

introduced by the Lyttleton Constitution with minor modifications. The
prime minister was the head of government under the Independence
Constitution, with a ceremonial president as head of state. The
Republican Constitution of 1963 created the Mid-Western Region
thereby increasing the regions from three to four. However, the problem
of unequal size of regions remained, with the Northern Region larger
than the three Southern Regions combined.
On 27 May 1967 under the administration of General Gowon, the four

existing regions were sub-divided into twelve states, with powers and
functions similar to those of the regions. The four regions were
restructured into 12 states, with the former Northern Region having six,
the Eastern Region three, the Mid-West, one, the Western Region, one;
and the old Lagos Colony with some part of Western Region making up
a state. A military governor headed each state with the exception of the
East Central State with a civilian administrator. This was an attempt to
weaken the administration of Odumegwu Ojukwu, the then governor of
Eastern Nigeria from seceding from the federation with the whole
254
POL214 MODULE 1
region. On 30 May 1967, three days after the creation of states, Ojukwu
still proclaimed the former Eastern Region, Republic of Biafraan action
which eventually resulted in a three-year civil war.
The General Murtala Muhammad regime created seven new states on 3

February 1976, with the states bringing the number of states to nineteen.
In 1987, the Babangida Administration created two more states-Akwa
Ibom and Katsina. In 1991 under the same administration, nine more
states were created, bringing the number of states to thirty, excluding
Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory. The Abacha regime created
additional six states on 1 October 1996 to bring the total number of
states to thirty six.
Nigeria is a federal system made up of 36 states presently. Trace the

evolution of the structure of Nigerian federation from its foundation till
today.
3.5 Features of Nigerian Federalism
1. The constitutions of Nigeria, from the Lyttleton Constitution of

1954 to the 1999 Republican Constitution, have been written and
rigid constitutions-the amendment procedures of which would be
complicated and rigorous.
2. The constitutions have been dividing powers between the federal

government and the component units, formerly called regions,
and new states and local governments. Specifically, political
power is usually shared between the central and regional (state)
governments as follows:
ai. Federal exclusive list. Currency, foreign affairs, defence,

immigration and emigration, and customs.
b. State exclusive list. State civil service commission, state council

of chiefs, state judicial service commission, and local government
service commission.
c. Concurrent list. This lists the powers shared jointly by the

central authority and regional or state governments. Matters on
the concurrent list usually include education, health, roads,
housing and agriculture.
d. Residual list. This list is made up of powers not listed in either

the exclusive or concurrent list. Residual powers are both
255
exercised by the central authority and the state or regional

governments. Matters on this list include markets, local
governments and chieftaincy.
3. In all the constitutions, the central government has been supreme

with exclusive powers on many subjects, and final authority on
some others.
4. There has been the existence of a multi-party system, except the

1989 constitution that stipulated a two-party system.
5. There has been a bicameral legislature of one form or another.
6. There has been the supremacy of the constitution, from which all
the various levels of government derive their power.
7. The Supreme Court gives judicial interpretation of the

constitution.
8. Constitutional conferences usually take place to consult the

people, towards modifying the constitution.
9. Secession by any section of the federation is constitutionally

forbidden.
3.6 The Practical Relevance of the Federal Idea to Nigeria
In spite of its shaky foundations, many travails and entire shortcoming

in the tortuous journey towards nation building, Nigeria has achieved
remarkable success in managing its complex ethnic and national
diversity. Federalism has helped to achieve this amazing feat achieved.
To reiterate, the federalist foundations were laid by the 1946 constitution
which created three regions (East, North and West); the 1951 which
combined quasi-federal and confederal features; and the 1954
constitution which introduced a federal constitution into the country.
During this colonial period and over the course of four-and-half decades
of independent nationhood, including almost 30 years of military rule,
Federalism has at once provided for the country the “constitutional
technology employed to accommodate the heterogeneous but
territorially structured and demarcated diversities” as well as the “device
for facilitating and strengthening the integrative desire and impulse of
the country’s multiethnic communities seeking unity in diversity”
(Elaigwu & Akindele, 1996). This genius of Nigerian federalism is
poignantly reflected in the instrumentalities it has presented for ‘curbing
ethnic domination, dispersing or decentralising sectional conflicts,
promoting inter-regional revenue redistribution, fostering inter-ethnic
256
POL214 MODULE 1
integration, and generally defusing and subduing the combustible

pressures inherent in the country’s ethno-linguistic, regional and
religious fragmentation’ such that the country is saved from the tragedy
of state collapse or large scale internal insurgency that has recently
convulsed other African states like the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Somalia, Sudan, Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire
(Suberu, 2005).
It has achieved this enviable feat through the innovative

instrumentalities of state creation, strengthening of local government
and its elevation to the third tier of federal government, the federal
character principle and adaptive revenue allocation systems, which have
all enhanced the accommodative genius of the federal solution in the
country (Osaghae, 2005). By exploiting the integrative and
accommodative opportunities inherent in Nigeria’s complex ethnic
diversity itself, the multi-state framework has functioned relatively well
to:
 Provide opportunities for some measure of self-governance to a

variety of territorial communities;
 Contain some conflicts within the federation’s respective

subunits;
 Fragment and dilute the ethnocentrism of the three major groups;
 Alleviate ethnic minority insecurity or fears of inter-group

domination;
 Generate potentially crosscutting state-based identities; and
 Decentralise and redistribute economic resources (Suberu,

2004a).
“Federalism is as relevant for Nigeria today as it is when it was first

adopted in 1951”. Discuss
3.7 Problems of Nigerian federalism
A) Conflicts over Revenue Allocation Formula
The issue of revenue allocation is one of the most fundamental problems

facing Nigeria. It is the method and procedure for sharing the revenue
generated by the federation between the federal government and the
257
component units. The need for revenue allocation arises mainly because
of inequalities. It attempts to bridge the gap of inequalities in financial
resources between the relatively rich units and the relatively poor units.
The need for an acceptable formula for revenue allocation has been the
occupation of succeeding governments in Nigeria, which have
established various revenue allocation commissions and made other
laws/decrees. All these commissions recommended some criteria for
revenue allocation and many suggested percentage divisions between
the federal and other units of government. The summary of these
commissions' reports and decrees on revenue allocation is as follows:
1. Phillipson Commission (1946). Recommended the use of

derivation and even development as criteria for distribution of
revenue. By derivation, the commission means each unit of
government would receive from the central purse the same
proportion it has contributed to the purse.
2. Hicks Phillipson Commission(1951). Criteria: derivation,

independent revenue or fiscal autonomy, need and national
interest.
3. Chicks Commission (1953). Criterion: derivation.
4. Raisman Commission (1957). Criteria: need, balanced

development and minimum responsibility. Percentage division:
40% to the North, 31% to the East, 24% to the West and 5% to
Southern Cameroons.
5. Binn Commission (1964). Rejected the principles of need and

derivation. Criterion: regional financial comparability. Percentage
division: 42% to the North, 30% to the East, 20% to the West and
8% to the Mid-West.
6. Dina Commission (1969). Criteria: national minimum standards,

balanced development in the allocation of the States' Joint
Account, and basic need.
7. Aboyade Technical Committee (1977). Criteria: national

minimum standard for national integration (22%), equality of
access to development opportunities (25%), absorptive capacity
(20%), fiscal efficiency (15%) and independent revenue effort
(18%). Other criteria: 57% to Federal Government, 30% to state
governments, 10% to local governments and 3% to a special
fund.
258
POL214 MODULE 1
8. Okigbo Presidential Commission (1980). Percentages on

principles: population (40%), equality (40%), social development
(15%) and internal revenue effort (5%). Percentages for
governments: Federal (53%), States (30%), Local Governments
(10%), special fund (7%).
9. Danjuma Commission (1988). Percentages: Federal (50%), States

(30%), Local Governments (15%), special fund (5%).
10. Other laws and decrees on revenue allocation:
(a) Decree 15 of 1967

(b) Decree 13 of 1970
(c) Decree 9 of 1971
(d) Decree 6 of 1975
(e) Decree 7 of 1975
(f) Allocation of Revenue (Federation Account) Act, 1981
Under the current revenue allocation arrangement, states and local

governments spend about half of total government revenues, almost
equal to that of the federal government. The federal government is
allocated 52.68% percent of Federation Account revenues (including
4.8% of the Account originally earmarked for “special projects” like the
development of the FCT Abuja, development of natural resources, and
the amelioration of national ecological emergencies), while the states
and the local governments get 26.72% and 20.60%, respectively,
bringing the total share of sub-national governments’ revenues from the
Federation Account to 47.32% (Babalola, 2008). There is also a
constitutional provision for the allocation of 13% as derivation fund to
the oil-producing states.
The various Commissions, laws and decrees on revenue allocation had

arisen because of the continuous disagreement of sections of the country
with the way the national resources were divided. Thus whatever criteria
were used at any time would seem favourable to some and unfavorable
to others. For example, derivation was highly favoured by agriculturally
buoyant areas, producing cash crops at a time when that was the major
resource of the nation. When oil now became the nation's ‘gold’, such
agricultural areas would prefer population, need, national interest, land
mass and others as bases for revenue allocation, while the oil producing
areas would prefer derivation. For as long as the component units of the
country cannot contribute equally to the national purse, so would there
be conflicts on allocation formula and every constitutional review would
still need to address the unending problem.
259
In recent years, conflicts over revenue allocation are poignantly

reflected in the violent conflict in the Niger Delta, the main oil-
producing region. The complain of the ethnic minorities of the Niger
Delta is that while derivation- the revenue sharing principle that requires
that a certain percentage of revenue from natural resources be returned
directly to the states from which the revenue was produced- was as high
as 50 per cent under the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions when it benefited
the majority ethnic groups, it has been persistently reduced with the
discovery and exploitation of oil in the Niger Delta populated by ethnic
minorities. As Suberu observed, “the proportion of oil revenues
allocated on a derivation basis declined from 50% of mining rents and
loyalties in 1969, through 2% of the Federation Account in 1981, to only
1% of mineral revenues in the account during the period from 1989 to
1999” (Suberu, 2001). Many in the Niger Delta consider this concession
far too little and agitations for a greater share from the oil wealth or
outright control of the oil resources have dovetailed into youth militancy
and also criminality (such as oil bunkering, and kidnapping of oil and
even non-oil workers).This has not only threatened the peace of the
region but also caused disruption in oil supply.
B) Minorities Issue
Nigeria is a plural society made up of 354 ethnic groups (Otite, 1990)

including three major ethnic groups-Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo in
addition to other minority groups. Each of the three major ethnic groups
dominated one of the three regions that existed before independence,
while they had many other groups with them in the same region. This
development according to Crawford Young (1976: 275) “created
cultural anxieties for the minority groups whose interests and aspirations
were suppressed by the ‘big three’ groups who were the dominant actors
in political and economic relations in the region. In the prevalent
atmosphere of ethnic consciousness and the struggle for political
ascendancy by the major region dominant groups, the minority groups
began to agitate for constitutional arrangements which would give them
some autonomy or at least ensure the protection of their rights and
interest against what Eghosa Osaghae calls “majoritarian nationalism”
and the ‘exclusive control of the regions’ by the core ethnic groups
(Osaghae, 1999). Thus, the Bornu Youth Movement demanded a
separate union, the non-Igbo in the East demanded for the autonomy of
Cross -: Rivers, Ogoja and Rivers while the non-Hausa group in the
North through the Middle Belt Congress demanded for a separate
Middle Belt State. In the West, the non- Yoruba speaking people of
Asaba, Warri and Benin demanded for a separate Mid-Western Region.
To allay the fears of the minorities, the Sir Henry Willink Commission
was set up in 1957 to look into the grievances of minority groups and
260
POL214 MODULE 1
their agitations for separate states, and make recommendations. The

Willink Commission was constituted on 23 November 1957. It met
between 23 November 1957 and 12 June 1958. It received memoranda
from individuals and minority groups, deliberated on them and
presented a report containing, among others, the following points:
1. Problems cannot be solved by creating more or new states.
2. Fundamental Human Rights should be entrenched in the

constitution to safeguard the interest of the minority.
3. The police should be under federal control.
4. Minority areas should have special councils.
5. There should be special development boards for Niger Delta

areas.
6. A plebiscite for Northern minorities should be conducted.
However the Willink Commission did not recommend the creation of

more states as the minorities had expected. Consequently the demand for
the creation of more states continued and became more complex and this
raised an ethnic political storm, which kept ethnicity alive as a salient
political issue (Suberu, 1996; Osaghae, 1998a).
C) Inter-Ethnic Rivalry and Conflict
Rivalry among the various ethnic groups in Nigeria evolved from the
disparity in social, economic and political development of the
component units of the federation. For instance, the early contact of the
Yoruba with European missionaries and traders put them in an
advantageous position in Nigerian commerce and senior positions in the
federal civil service. The southern Igbo and Yoruba are also advanced in
western education unlike the northern Hausa-Fulani, which led to the
fear of domination of the north. The large size of the northern region and
its unity as a single force which made it a domineering force in politics
also threatened the southern elites. As Mustapha has noted, the
combination of these systemic educational, economic and political
inequalities have engendered the fear of discrimination and domination
and a resultant conflict-ridden political system (Mustapha, 2009). High
levels of ethno-regional confrontation and conflict over unequal
distribution of bureaucratic and political offices up to 1966 contributed
in no small measure to the eventual collapse of the First Republic in
January 1966, military intervention in politics, the Civil War in 1967,
and the failed attempts at democratization.
261
D) Threat of Secession
Threat of secession has been a feature of the politics of Nigerian

federalism. Inter-ethnic rivalry in Nigeria delayed the attainment of
independence. Chief Anthony Enahoro, an Action Group member of the
central legislature had tabled a motion calling on the House to accept as
a primary political objective the attainment of self government for
Nigeria in 1956. The motion generated tribal rivalry and a lot of
controversy. The AG and NCNC had agreed to support the motion but
the NPC, the majority party was against it. So, as a delay tactic, a
member of the NPC called for adjournment which made the AG and
NCNC members stage a walkout. On leaving the house later, the
Northern members met with a hostile Lagos crowd that greatly insulted
and jeered at them. Back to the North, the representatives informed their
people of the insult which made the joint Northern House of Assembly
and House of Chiefs pass an eight-point programme which, if
implemented would have eventually resulted in the North's secession.
The points included that there should no longer be a central legislative
or executive body for the whole of Nigeria, that the North should have
absolute legislative and executive autonomy, that all revenue should be
collected by the regional governments, and that each region should have
a separate public service.
Since this period, the threat of secession has been a recurring feature of
Nigerian federation. However, the only secession threat that has been
carried out in Nigeria since independence was that of the Eastern Region
in May 1967 which led to the declaration of the Republic of Biafra, a
development which eventually crystalised into the thirty month civil
war, between 1967 and 1970. It is believed that over a million people,
mainly civilians, died during this bitter secessionist warfare.
E) Citizenship Question
The citizenship question in Nigeria borders especially on the

differentiation of citizens of the country into indigenes and non-
indigenes with differing opportunities and privileges. This practice is
partly legitimated by the ethno-distributive principles of federal
character under the federal constitution, that discriminate against so
called non-indigenes, that is Nigerians living in states which they have
no direct ethno-biological roots. As spelt out in the 1999 constitution,
one is a citizen of Nigeria provided such a person:
 Was born in Nigeria before the date of independence either of

whose parents or any of grandparents belong or belonged to a
community indigenous to Nigeria. Provided a person shall not
262
POL214 MODULE 1
become a citizen of Nigeria by virtue of this section if neither of

his parents nor any of his grandparents was born in Nigeria
 Was born in Nigeria after the date of independence either of

whose parents or any of grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria
 Was born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a citizen of

Nigeria (Chapter 3, section 1).
Thus, Nigerians who have their ethnic genealogy elsewhere, even

if they were born in a particular state or lived all their lives there,
are regarded as “settlers” (Ibrahim 2006). A settler is regarded as
a stranger, a sojourner who may have been born in a location but
is regarded as a bird of passage who would ultimately go “home”
(Alubo, 2009). In many states of the federation, this “Son-of-the-
soil” syndrome not only inhibits citizen’s inter-jurisdictional
mobility or exit and entry rights, it has also been the source of
widespread discriminatory practices (Suberu, 2005; Horowitz,
2008). For instance, Nigerians from Ebonyi state, some of whom
were born and have lived all their lives in Sokoto state do not
have the same rights as Nigerians of Sokoto state origin. Rather
they are described as non-indegenes or settlers and discriminated
against in accessing entitlements and opportunities. According to
Alubo (2009), the more common forms of discrimination against
settlers include the following:
 Employment—available jobs are often reserved for indigenes and

where non-natives are employed at all, they are placed on
contract appointment. This form of employment has no provision
for pension benefits. Sometimes, advertisements for employment
are run with the proviso that “only indigenes need apply”.
 Since the return of civil rule, all non-indigenes who were

employed have been dismissed from many state civil services,
obviously to replace them with indigenes. Increasingly, settlers
are perceived as snatching food from the mouths of indigenes, a
perception which becomes more telling because of the uneven
development. Only few centers (such as the former regional
capitals, oil producing areas and state and federal capitals) have
thriving organisations and easier opportunities for employment.
 Admissions to secondary and higher institutions—these too are

reserved for indigenes and only few non-indigenes are offered
places. The issue here goes beyond quota and catchment
considerations; there is a clear sense of who receives or is denied
priority opportunities.
263
 Scholarships –this is exclusive to indigenes; non-indigenes are

required to “go home”, even where they may not have another
home.
 Higher schedule of fees for the non-indigenes in educational

institutions such as Polytechnics and Universities. This is
enforced without distinction to who may have lived for decades
and paid all taxes in the state.
 Standing elections—while non-indigenes can vote, they are

frequently not allowed to stand elections. Married women also
suffer similar discrimination.
It suffice to say that the “exclusions and denials of rights and

opportunities on the basis of indigeneity have also resulted in many
cases of violence, especially since the return of civil rule in 1999 in
different parts of the country” (Alubo, 2009). In Plateau State, for
example, recurrent clashes since 2001 between “indigene” and “settler”
communities competing over political appointments and government
services have left thousands dead and many more thousands displaced
(Human Rights Watch, 2001; Human Rights Watch 2006; International
Crisis Group, 2006).
F) Economic Underdevelopment
The structure of Nigerian federalism has actively aggravated the

country’s economic failure by institutionalizing a regime of guaranteed
transfers of oil resources, which systematically prioritises distribution
and patronage politics over considerations of development and wealth
creation. In other words, the system violates a cardinal condition for
accountability and efficiency in fiscal federalism, namely that the
government which enjoys the pleasure of spending money must first
experience the pain of extracting the money from taxpayers. By
breaking this critical nexus between expenditure authority and revenue
raising responsibility, the Nigerian federal system has fuelled truly
monumental levels of corruption, waste and mismanagement at the three
tiers of government (Suberu, 2004b).
Compounding the travails of Nigeria’s federalism was the entrenched

structure of a monolithic resource flow based on oil as the nation’s
economic mainstay. Oil accounted for over 90% of foreign exchange
earnings (Program on Ethnic and Federal Studies. 2005). Nigeria, as the
Economist aptly puts it, “produces almost nothing but crude oil.” (The
Economist (London), August 3, 2002). This warped practice of putting
all national fates on oil has proved problematic for the country.
264
POL214 MODULE 1
Apart from the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, it has a weak
linkage to the local economy, and is dependent on the ever-fluctuating
world market prices. More importantly, heavy dependence on oil has
stifled the robust practice of fiscal federalism and the creative initiative
of the federating states for wealth creation, fostered conflicts,
environmental destruction, gross economic injustice in the oil-
producing region and created a repugnant culture of laziness and
corruption among the political class. Beyond this however, over-
concentration on oil has also sidetracked the pursuit of growth in the real
and productive sectors of the economy.
Indeed, the consequences of the over-dependence on a rentier oil

economic system have been disastrous for economic and political
development. First, the state was preoccupied with distributive politics
rather than a systematic programme of wealth creation and hence did not
really take seriously the issue of providing an enabling environment for
industrialization. Second, with oil rents from the state providing the
quickest means of acquiring stupendous wealth, most of the elite who
could have become the hub of the entrepreneurial class were diverted
into rent-seeking in government rather than seeking risky investment
opportunities in the private sector. For example, besides the huge
bureaucracy and large number of political appointees to service
government machinery, the Federal Government appointed about 5,000
board members to run the largely comatose public enterprises. Most of
these are people who should have channeled their talents into productive
activity in the private sector. Third, given the federal nature of the
country, and the dependence of state revenues on statutory allocations
from the oil dominated “Federation Account” (more than 95 percent for
most states), the incentive to creatively pursue wealth creation through
industrialization at the regional-state levels was dampened (Ikpeze,
Soludo and Elekwa, 2004). Paradoxically too, oil producing states in the
federation have benefited the least from oil wealth. Devastated by the
ecological costs of oil spillage and the highest gas flare in the world, the
Niger Delta, Nigeria’s oil producing region, has remained a political
tinderbox. Obi (2005: 201) succinctly summarizes the challenge of oil
for Nigeria’s federalism:
The problems that lie at the heart of the oil-federal nexus

exist within the contradictions spawned by the political
economy of oil and Nigeria’s total dependence on oil. It
also lies within the strong streak of centralization inherent
in post-war Nigerian federalism, its structural inequities,
and the zero-sum politics of the highly divided,
opportunistic, and unproductive hegemonic elite in
Nigeria.
265
In the context of ethnic heterogeneity and elite fractionalization as in the

case in Nigeria, the struggles over oil merge with the struggles for power
to fuel intense, and sometimes violent, inter- and intra-ethnic
competition in the Nigerian federation. Further, it has engendered a
ruinous type of state politics which encourages predatory behavior or
“indiscriminate and opportunistic power-seeking …for its own sake” on
the part of the elite (Shridaran, 2004 cf. Osaghae, 2005.
With regards to economic reform through the privatization of state

owned enterprises, the monetization of fringe benefits of public servants
and poverty eradication programmes through the National Poverty
Eradication Programme (NAPEP) and National Economic
Empowerment Development Strategy (NEEDS), and the Seven Point
Agenda have yet to yield the desired results. Although the government is
said to have raised money from the privatisation process and saved on
costs through the monetisation policy, Nigerians keep asking questions
about the use to which such proceeds have been put. This is against the
background of the fact that today close to 70 per cent of Nigerians live
below the poverty line, with many living in absolute poverty. Yet, as
Elaigwu reminded us “one must not forget that democratic culture and
stability cannot thrive in a society where there is abject poverty”
(Elaigwu, 2007).
Estimates have shown that Nigeria would need about 7–8 per cent
annual growth rate in its gross domestic product (GDP) if it wants to
halve the number of people in poverty by 2015. The government has
been boasting that the GDP currently grows at seven per cent per
annum. However, there is a large question mark as to the authenticity of
this claim, because the much-orchestrated growth has not been
accompanied by any significant improvement in the living conditions of
the average Nigerian. This may not be unconnected with the lopsided
system of distribution in favour of the rich, leading to wider inequality
in society (Okonjo- Iweala, Soludo & Muhtar, 2003). Yet the
privatisation process, having coincided with democratisation, has been
predicated on a system of political patronage and opportunism, making
it difficult for the emergence of a vibrant private sector that is
autonomous of vested interests. It has also been done in a way that
excludes the majority of Nigerians, particularly the workers. This
anarchic form of globalisation therefore serves to ignite more crises and
contradictions in Nigeria’s political economy (Amadi & Ogwo, 2004).
G) Problem of Democratization
According to KC Wheare, federalism thrives on open government

associated with democracy (1964). However, Nigeria’s democratic
experience has been tortuous. While Nigerians have found the federal
266
POL214 MODULE 1
grid a conducive mechanism for managing conflicts arising from their

heterogeneity, the record of democratic regimes is poor. Out of its forty-
nine years of independent existence, thirty of those years were under
military rule. Over the years, there have been frictions between the
federal grid and Nigeria’s democratic soil. Often the Nigerian
‘federation’ had to operate without any democratic underlay (Elaigwu,
2007).
Upon Nigeria’s attainment of political independence on 1 October 1960,

international attention shifted to it as a country that would possibly
make steady progress along the paths of sustainable peace, democracy
and development in Africa. Such hopes were not misplaced, given the
abundance of human and natural resources endowing the country.
Contrary to expectations, however, it did not take long before these
hopes were dashed (Osaghae, 1998b). Nigeria’s ignominious transition
from hope to despair began with the failure of the managers of the
immediate post-independence Nigeria to fundamentally redress the
crises and contradictions bequeathed to the country by the departing
colonialists. The opportunity presented by independence to redress the
roots of these problems was wasted by the new elite who took over.
They saw independence as an opportunity to further their selfish and
parochial interests through the manipulation of the forces of identity,
particularly ethnicity and religion, within the country.
Against these historical antecedents of structural incongruities, the

socio-political future of Nigeria was laid on a very shaky foundation -
the enumerated problems (including some of the problems of federalism
in the country) became intrinsic sources of agitation and violence and
eventually added to hasten the collapse of the first Republic / the
emergence of the military on the scene of Nigerian politics in 1966, and
other debilitating events that have characterized the progression of the
Nigerian federation including ethnic conflict and “brinkmanship”
(Agbaje, 2003), a bitter secessionist warfare between 1967 and 1970 in
which over a million people, mainly civilians, died; unstable civilian
rule and democratic breakdown; and of course, a long spell of
devastating military rule (almost 30 out of the nearly 39 years of
political independence as at 1999 when the fourth republic was ushered
in).
With respect to political reforms, the democratization processes have so

far been carried out in a manner detrimental to the fundamental ideals of
democracy. This is what Ake (1996) refer to as violence against
democracy, which he describes as the reversal or retrogression of
democratic gains, occasioned largely by the negligence, perversion and
inefficiency of those structures, institutions and actors saddled with the
promotion and protection of democracy. To begin with, the main
267
political actors, by their actions and utterances, have demonstrated that

they are not democrats. Democrats have democratic mindsets, which are
pivotal to the promotion of a democratic political culture and good
citizenship (Jega, 2003). The actual political behavior of Nigeria’s
present power elite, especially during the period under review, was a
drift towards megalomania, a situation whereby new mediums of
personalizing power and of creating the appearance of popularity were
constructed in such a way that elected officials engage in clearly
undemocratic practices and forms of power intrinsic to autocracy, while
seeking, at least rhetorically, to cast the presentation of power as a
departure from its military predecessors (Ochonu, 2004).
Political parties, for example, have no clear political ideology, lack

internal party democracy and have been hijacked by the ‘godfathers’, all
of which have seriously undermined their important roles in the
democratization and nation-building projects (Ibrahim, 2009). Civil
society organisations are also hamstrung by the all-powerful state,
segmented and urban biased, with a low degree of social embeddedness.
There is also a low level of political participation and competition, as
well as electoral corruption and violence that amount to a state culture,
all with negative implications for the consolidation of the fledgling
democracy (Agbaje, 2006).
Today, of the political dimensions of the contradiction in Nigeria’s

democratic federation, the issue of electoral maladministration through
electoral fraud and violence stands out as the most devastating, and
deserves elaboration. While elections in Nigeria, as in most other parts
of Africa, have been problematic, appearing merely as the ‘fading
shadows of democracy’ (Adejumobi, 2000), the 2007 general elections
will go down in history as possibly the most flawed in the country’s
history.
From the beginning, the Independent National Electoral Commission

(INEC) had, through its poor preparation and interference in purely
internal party affairs, demonstrated that it might not be capable of acting
as an independent, impartial and efficient electoral umpire. A typical
example was the insistence of Professor Maurice Iwu, INEC’s chairman,
on disqualifying some aspirants of the most notable opposition parties,
particularly Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the
Action Congress. All entreaties to make INEC understand that it did not
have the power to disqualify candidates fell on deaf ears, and it went
ahead and disqualified Atiku on an alleged corruption indictment by an
administrative panel set up by President Obasanjo to investigate
corruption charges against Atiku. It took a landmark judgment by the
Supreme Court five days before the presidential election to annul
INEC’s disqualification of Atiku. By implication, therefore, the playing
268
POL214 MODULE 1
field was not level for all contestants. The actual conduct of the election
was equally flawed. Through bad administration, which manifested in
the form of late arrival of voting materials; non-delivery of materials;
under-age voting; ballot paper and ballot box stuffing; falsifications of
results; and intimidation of opposition candidates, agents and parties by
party thugs and security agents, with the active connivance and
involvement of INEC officers, the 2007 elections were certainly not a
reflection of the wishes of Nigerians (Ibrahim, 2007).
Societal disapproval was clear from post-election violence such as

widespread thuggery, looting, killings and arson that accompanied the
announcement of the results. The reports of domestic and international
election observers, including Democratic Republican Institute, National
Democratic Institute, European Union and Commonwealth monitoring
teams; the ECOWAS monitoring group; and the TMG, all came to the
conclusion that the elections were massively rigged in favour of the
ruling party, the People’s Democratic Party (Suberu, 2007). More
importantly, the gale of reversal of election outcome by the judiciary in
states such as Edo, Ondo, Rivers, Ekiti, Adamawa and Kogi states has
lent credence to the reports of the election monitoring groups. This has
put the democratization process on the line, the survival of which will
largely depend on how post-election issues such as protests are
managed, as well as how the winners and losers manage their successes
and failures, respectively. The preference for due process by the
opposition in pursuing their grievances over the elections remains a
good response. The president’s call for a government of national unity
and the inauguration of the electoral reform panel also gives hopes for
democratic continuity. However, these efforts have been confronted
with contradiction and crisis.
The cumulative effects of the foregoing on the democracy project in

Nigeria are obvious. Firstly, the economic foundation that is so germane
to democratic rebirth, nurturing and consolidation is suspect in Nigeria.
The pervasiveness of poverty has become a worrisome dimension in the
democratization process. Rather than the economic and political realms
reinforcing each other, the reverse seems to be the case. This
development lies at the very heart of the unprecedented degree of ethno-
religious and communal clashes all over the country since 1999 at the
expense of appreciable ‘democracy dividends’ generally for the people
(Olurode, 2005).
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Nigerian federalism is the “life-wire” of Nigeria’s survival as a

multi-ethnic political entity. However, in spite of its real achievement in
averting national disintegration, and in promoting a relatively benign
269
accommodation of competition amongst ethnic constituencies, the

Nigerian multi-state federalism remained in serious jeopardy and has
been implicated in the country’s underdevelopment. Given its failure to
meet the conditions of institutionally formalized, durable and guaranteed
decentralization or non centralization, and hence satisfy the needs of the
federal society, the Nigerian federalism has been variously described
paradoxically as “embattled federalism”, (Adebayo, 1993) “sham-
federalism” (Mcgarry, 2004), and “pseudo-federalism” (Suberu, 2004b).
5.0 SUMMARY
This unit has examined government and politics in Nigeria through the
prism of the country’s federal system. The Unit has traced the evolution
of the federal system, the structure and features of the federal system,
the practical relevance of the federal system and some of the problems
and challenges facing the federal system today.
1. List and explain 3 problems or challenges facing the Nigerian

federal system.
2. With copious examples, describe the challenge of
democratization in Nigeria’s federal system.
3. In what way does the militancy in the Niger Delta represents a
problem of and for Nigeria’s federalism?
Adebayo, A. (1993). Embattled Federalism: History of Revenue

Allocation in Nigeria, 1946–1990. New York: Peter Lang.
Adejumobi, S. (2000). ‘Elections in Africa: A Fading Shadow of

Democracy.’ International Political Science Review, 21(1), 59–
73.
Agbaje, A. (2003). “The Historical Antecedent of the Phenomenon of

Ethnic Militia in Nigeria” in Babawale, T. Ed. Urban Violence,
Ethnic Militia and the Challenge of Consolidation in Nigeria.
Lagos: Malthouse Press Ltd.
Agbaje. A. (2006). “The Future as Past Perfected?” The Guardian

(Lagos) February 17. p 8.
Ake, C. (1996). Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington

DC.: The Brookings Institute.
270
POL214 MODULE 1
Akindele, R. (1996). “Nigeria in the Global Market of Experiments in

Federalism.” in Elaigwu, I &. Akindele, R. (eds), Foundations of
Nigerian Federalism: 1960 -1995. Abuja: National Council on
Intergovernmental Relations. Pp. 1-39.
Alubo, O. (2009). “Citizenship and Identity Politics in Nigeria”

Proceedings of the Conference on Citizenship and Identity
Politics in Nigeria. Lagos: CLEEN Foundation. Retrieved on
January 22, 2010 from
http://www.cleen.org/Citizenship%20and%20Identity%20Crisis%20in
%20Nigeria.pdf
Amadi, S & Ogwo, F. (2004). Eds. Contextualizing NEEDS. Economic /

Political Reform in Nigeria: Report of Civil Society Policy
Dialogue on the National Economic Empowerment and
Development Strategy (NEEDS). Lagos: The Human Rights Law
Services (HURILAWS) and Center for Public Policy & Research
(CPPR
Ayoade, J. (1998). “Federal Character and the Search for National

Integration” in Kunle Amuwo, Rotimi Suberu et. al. (eds.)
Federalism and Political Restructuring in Nigeria. Ibadan: IFRA;
Spectrum Books Ltd.
Awolowo, O. (1947). Paths to Nigerian Freedom. London: Faber and

Faber.
Dudley, B J. (1982). An Introduction to Nigerian Government and

Politics. London: Macmillan.
Elaigwu, I & Akindele, R. (1996). “Foreword” in J. Isawa Elaigwu & R. A.

Akindele (eds), Foundations of Nigerian Federalism: 1960 -1995.
Abuja: National Council on Intergovernmental Relations.
Elaigwu, I. (2007). “Nigeria: The Current State of the Federation: Some

Basic Challenges”. Paper Presented at the International
Conference on Federalism in Honour of Professor Ronald Watts.
Organized by the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations,
Queens University, Kingston, Canada, October 18-21.
Forum of Federations & IACFS (2003). A Global Dialogue on

Federalism in the 21st Century. Report of a one-day Roundtable
on “Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in the Nigerian
Federation”, held at the Ali Mazrui Conference Room, Institute
of Governance and Social Research, Jos on September 15.
271
Horowitz, D. (2008). The Many Uses of Federalism. Duke Law School

Legal Studies. Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 193.
Human Rights Watch (2001). Jos: A City Torn Apart. September 18.
Human Rights Watch (2006). “They Do Not Own This Place”

Government Discrimination Against “Non-Indigenes” in Nigeria.
April 25.
Ibrahim, J. (2006). “Expanding the Human Rights Regime in Africa:

Citizens, Indigenes and Exclusion in Nigeria” in Wohlgemath,
L. and Sall, E. (ed.) Human Rights, Regionalism and the
Dilemmas of Democracy in Africa. Dakar: CODESRIA.P 97-111.
Ibrahim, J. (2007). “Nigeria’s 2007 Elections: The Fitful Path to

Democratic Citizenry”. Special Report. Washington D.C.: United
States Institute of Peace (USIP).
Ibrahim, J. (2007). “Nigeria’s 2007 Elections: The Fitful Path to

Democratic Citizenry”. Special Report. Washington D.C.: United
States Institute of Peace (USIP).
Ibrahim, J. (2009). “Political Parties and Gangsterism.” Next (Lagos).

March 28.
http://www.234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Opinion/Columns/5
393255-148/story.csp
Ikpeze, N.; Soludo, C.C. & Elekwa, N. (2004). “Nigeria: The Political
Economy of the Policy Process, Policy Choice and
Implementation.” http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-71263-201-1-DO_TOPIC.
International Crisis Group (2006). Nigeria’s Faltering Federal

Experiment. Africa Report No.119. 25 October.
Jega, A. M. (2003). ‘Democracy, Economic Crisis and Conflicts: A

Review of the Nigerian Situation’. NPSA Newsletter, 1(1), 1–24.
Jinadu, A. (2002). Ethnic Conflict and Federalism in Nigeria. Bonn:

ZEF- Discussion Papers on Development Policy: September.
Mustapha, A. (2009). “Institutionalising Ethnic Representation: How

Effective is Affirmative Action in Nigeria.” Journal of
International Development. 21. pp. 561-576.
272
POL214 MODULE 1
Obi, C. (2005). “Oil and Federalism in Nigeria.” in Onwudiwe, E. &

Suberu, R. (eds.). Nigerian Federalism in Crisis: Critical
Perspectives and Political Options. Ibadan: PEFS.
Ochonu, M. (2004). “Democracy and the Performance of Power:

Observation from Nigeria.” Codesria Bulletin. Nos. 3 & 4. pp.
26-29.
Okonjo-Iweala, N.; Soludo, C. C. & Muhtar, M. (eds). (2003). The Debt

Trap in Nigeria: Towards a Sustainable Debt Strategy. Trenton:
Africa World Press.
Olurode, L. (2005). “Social Policy, Social Services and Public Welfare

in Nigeria: An Asessment of Obasanjo’s Regime (1999-2003).”
in Aaron, G. & Omelle, Y. Eds. Democratic Rebirth in Nigeria,
1999-2003. Abuja: Afrigov: pp. 115-132.
Osaghae, E. (1998). “Managing Multiple Minority Problems in a

Divided Society: the Nigerian Experience”. The Journal of
Modern African Studies. Vol. 86 No. 1. pp 17-18.
Osaghae, E E. (1998). Crippled Giant: Nigeria since Independence.

London: Hurst.
Osaghae, E. E. (1999). ‘Democratization in sub-Saharan Africa:

Faltering Prospects, New Hopes’. Journal of Contemporary
African Studies, 17(1), 4–25.
Osaghae, E. (2005). “Foreword: Nigerian Federalism – A Project in

Crisis.” in Onwudiwe, E. and Suberu, R. (eds). Nigerian
Federalism in Crisis: Critical Perspectives and Political Options.
Ibadan: PEFS.
Ostheimer, J. (1987). Nigerian Politics. New York: Harper and Row

Publishers.
Otite, O. (1990). Ethnic Pluralism and Ethnicity in Nigeria. Ibadan:

Shancson.
Program on Ethnic & Federal Studies. (2005). Constitutional Reforms

Dialogues: The South-South Agenda for Constitutional Reform.
Ibadan: PEFS.
Suberu, R. (2001). Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Nigeria.

Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
273
Suberu, R. (2004).“ Nigeria: Dilemmas of Federalism”, in Amoretti, U.

& Bermeo, N. Eds. Federalism and Territorial Cleavages.
Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. Pp.
327 –354.
Suberu, R. (2004).“Pseudo-Federalism and the Political Crisis of

Revenue Allocation.” in Agbaje A., Diamond., L & Onwudiwe,
E. Eds. Nigeria’s Struggle for Democracy and Good
Governance: A Festschrift for Oyeleye Oyediran. Ibadan: Ibadan
University Press. pp. 29- 46.
Suberu. R. (2005). “Renovating the Architecture of Federalism in

Nigeria: The Option of Non-Constitutional Renewal”. Retrieved
on 3 January, 2007 from http://www.northwestern.edu/african-
studies/Pdfs/May/2005/suberu.pdf.
Suberu, R. T. (2007). ‘Nigeria’s Muddled Elections’. Journal of

Democracy. 18(2), 95–110.
The Economist (London). (2002, August 3).
Young, C. (1976). The Politics of Cultural Pluralism. London: The

University of Wisconsin Press Ltd.
Wheare, K. C. (1964). Federal Government. London: Oxford

University Press.
Williams, A. (2000). “First the Closure, then the New Beginning.” in

Africa Today. October pp. 12-23.
274
POL214 MODULE 1
UNIT 5 INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL SYSTEM AND

GLOBALISATION
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The International Political System
3.2 Globalisation
3.3 Meaning of Globalisation
3.4 Forces Propelling Rapid Globalisation
3.5 Actors of Globalisation
3.6 Approaches to Globalisation
3.7 The Role of the State in a Globalised Economy
3.8 Impact of Globalisation on Developing Countries
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
States and regimes are not isolated entities. They exist in an

international system that undergirds them and exposes them to change.
Most social scientists take the nation-state as the prime unit of
comparative analysis. But they frequently discover that explanations of
domestic political dynamics require reference to influences emanating
from outside environment.
In the preceding lecture, you learnt about the major characteristics of the
contemporary Nigerian political system, especially its federal system
(including its evolution from colonial to military rule and the recent
transition to democratic rule). However, this transition did not take place
in isolation. Nigeria also relates with other countries and non-state actors
in the international political system. If a political system is defined as
any stable pattern of interactions which involves power and authority,
then a political system cannot be narrowed down to countries alone. A
comprehensive understanding of national political systems therefore
requires an understanding of politics at the international arena or in the
international political system. This is the focus of this unit, which is the
concluding part of this lecture.
275
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 define and Describe the nature of the International Political

System
 explain what Globalization is
 identify the Forces Propelling Rapid Globalization
 identify the key Actors shaping Globalization
 explain the Approaches to globalization
 evaluate the Role of the State in a Globalized Economy
 examine the Impact of Globalization on Developing Countries.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 The International Political System
According to Waltz (1979), the international system is a social system

that has structure and function. He believes that the international system
contains patterns of action and interaction between collectivities and
between individuals acting on their behalf. Roseau (2006) argues that
the international system is made up of a disturbance input, a regulator
which undergoes change arising from disturbance influences and
environmental constraints. This transforms the state of the disturbance
and the state of the regulator into stable or unstable outcomes.
The international political system is a replication of the cooperative,

collaborative and conflictual process of social interactions within the
state at the international level between and amongst different state
systems, and other non-state actors that have bearing on the possibilities
or otherwise of what happens in terms of who gets what, when and how.
Central therefore to the understanding of the international system, is the
issue of power, its uses and control between and amongst states and non
state actors.
International relations theory: This attempts to provide a conceptual

model upon which politics in the international political system can be
analysed. Each theory relies on different sets of assumptions
respectively. As Ole Holsti describes them, international relations
theories act as a pair of coloured sunglasses, allowing the wearer to see
only the salient events relevant to the theory (Holsti, 1987).
International relations theories can be divided into many conflicting

approaches. However, the prevalent broad approaches are realism and
liberalism.
276
POL214 MODULE 1
Realism makes several key assumptions. It assumes that nation-states

are unitary, geographically-based actors in an anarchic international
system with no authority above capable of regulating interactions
between states as no true authoritative world government exists.
Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states, rather than International
Governmental Organisations (IGOs), Non-governmental Organisations
(NGOs), or Multinational Corporations (MNCs), are the primary actors
in international affairs. Thus, states, as the highest order, are in
competition with one another. As such, a state acts as a rational
autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self interest with a primary goal
to maintain and ensure its own security—and thus its sovereignty and
survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will
attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are
determined by their relative levels of power. That level of power is in
turn determined by the state's military and economic capabilities.
Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are
the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike realism where the
state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state
actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on
factors such as culture, economic system or government type.
Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the
political/security (“high politics”), but also economic/cultural (“low
politics”) whether through commercial firms, organisations or
individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are
plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power.
Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through co-
operation and interdependence - thus peace can be achieved.
What is clear from these perspectives is that both states and non state
actors exercise influence in the international political system. It should
be emphasised that the relations between states and non-state actors at
the international political system is not static and it has undergone major
shifts and changes which have coincided more or less with major shifts
in the global order. Perhaps, the most important of these changes is the
unprecedented impact of globalisation. According to Palan and Abbott,
(1999), if ‘globalisation’ has had one simple effect on development
studies and international political economy, it is this — it is now
extremely difficult to analyse a national unit in isolation from some
concept of global structure and process, even if one wishes to make an
argument for the persistence of the nation-state. But what exactly do we
mean by the term globalisation? The remaining part of this unit will
introduce you to the concepts of and globalisation and its complex
dynamics.
277
The Concept of Globalisation: Meaning, Forces, Actors, and

Approaches
3.2 Meaning of Globalisation
Globalisation ‘has become the most ubiquitous in the language of

international relations’ (Ostry, 2001 cf. Kegley and Wittkopt, 2004).
Yet globalisation is a contentious process. Ever since the term was first
used to make sense of large-scale changes, scholars have debated its
meaning and use. As the term became a globally popular catchphrase, it
served to crystallize disagreements about the direction of change in the
world at large. By the end of the twentieth century, the meaning and
merits of globalisation were contested in the media and in the streets.
Intellectual debate blended with political conflict. In recent years,
debates and conflicts surrounding globalisation has increasingly taken
place during summits by leaders of the developed countries and
opposition to these summits by protesting ‘anti-globalisation’ groups
who denounce globalisation as evil and a force promoting global
inequality (Clark, 2003).
The contention in the process of globalisation is reflected in the

disagreement about its meaning. According to one popular view,
globalisation is the “inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and
technologies to a degree never witnessed before-in a way that is
enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach round the
world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before” (see
Friedman, 1999). By contrast, some groups of scholars and activists
view globalisation not as an inexorable process but as a deliberate,
ideological project of economic liberalisation that subjects states and
individuals to more intense market forces (see, McMichael, 2000; Hirst
and Thompson, 1996).
What do you understand by the concept of globalisation?
3.3 Forces Propelling Rapid Globalisation
There are several forces driving much of the globalisation process today
and these include international trade, investment, finance and
production. Perhaps by far of these influences is information technology
(Kegley and Wittkopt, 2004). All the changes brought about by
globalisation - economic, political and cultural - are maintained through
the activities of the information technology and mass media, both in
terms of its structure and its audiences. The pervasive nature of the
communication technology is obvious when one looks at its size and
278
POL214 MODULE 1
impact. For instance, information contained in 1000 books can travel

across the globe each second. One aspect of information technology is
the mass media. It has become an integral part of everyday life. In the
contemporary world, Hollywood and CNN, for instance, are more
influential than some religious and traditional leaders or the public
relations rhetoric of political figure. They play a pervasive role as agent
of socialisation. As agents of socialisation, the communication
technologies represent a channel for the distribution of social knowledge
and hence a powerful instrument of social control. Much of our
knowledge of the world is gained directly through the media especially,
about people, places, event, and how to make sense of the world. The
impact of information technology revolution goes beyond information
and pervades all the different aspects of globalisation. The power of
computer communication technology (the Internet) has changed the
nature of finances and trade, putting an end to geography, creating a
borderless world.
According to Pickering (2001), developments in communication and

transportation technologies have given rise to new forms of cultural
production, consumption and exchange. Similarly, Giddens (1999) has
claimed the invisible overthrow of old pattern of living through the
expansion of communications systems around the world: “This is the
first time at which you can have instantaneous communication across
the world. That simply changes the nature of people’s lives. When the
image of Nelson Mandela is more familiar to you than the image of your
next-door neighbour there’s something different in the world”. As the
UNDP comments:
Communications technology set this era of globalisation

from any other. The Internet, mobile phones, and satellite
networks have shrunk space and time. Bringing together
computers and communications unleashed an
unprecedented explosion of ways to communicate at the
start of the 1990s. Since then tremendous productivity
gains, ever-falling costs and rapidly growing networks of
computers have transformed the computing and
communications sector. If the automobile industry had the
same productivity growth, a car would cost $3 (UNDP,
1999 cf. Kegley, and Wittkoft, 2004).
To be sure, the information revolution has increasingly translated into a

digital divide with most countries in the developing countries not
catching fully on the gains. However, there is also progress made even
in these countries. Take Nigeria for instance. It has been reported that
the country has in the last ten years been experiencing sustained double
digit growth in excess of 20% per annum in the telecommunications
279
sector. With teledensity of 48 phones per 100 people, the country has
attained 67 million active phone subscribers base composed of 59, 194,
972 mobile phones, 7233089 CMDA, and 1, 435, 279 fixed
wire/wireless network (Daily Trust, September 11, 2009: 35).
“The forces propelling globalization are diverse and complex”. Discuss
3.4 Actors of Globalisation
Globalisation entails multiplicity of agents or actors (Helvacioglu,

2000), actors and agents that are instrumental or are direct players in the
process. These include the state and non-state actors. Traditionally, the
essential purpose of international relations is the investigation and study
of patterns of actions and reactions among sovereign states as
represented by their governing elites (Buzan and Little, 1994). Today
however, besides the traditional role of the state in the international
system, other non-sovereign or non-state entities actors are also
exercising significant economic, political, or social power and influence
at a national, and in some cases international level.
According to the USA National Intelligence Council (2007), “a

globalisation-fueled diffusion of finance and technology has enabled
nonstate actors to encroach upon functions traditionally performed by
nation-states, facilitating their evolution into forms unheard of even a
few years ago.” The NIC however cautioned that estimates of the
impacts of non-states actors should be made cautiously, “for few
nonstate actors are completely independent of nation-states, and they do
not have uniform freedom of movement”. For instance, although non-
state actors have a great deal of latitude in both weak and post-industrial
states, modernising states such as China and Russia—home to the bulk
of the world’s population—have been highly effective in suppressing
them and in creating their own substitutes, some of which have
demonstrated their power to counter US objectives and even to
challenge global rules of engagement.
While these influential nonstate actors are not a new phenomenon, what
differentiates and shapes contemporary non-state actors, is an
unprecedented operating environment. The end of the Cold War meant
that military and security issues no longer automatically dominated the
economic and social ones that are the benign non-state actors’ stock-in-
trade; globalisation has made financial, political, and technical resources
more widely available (and constrained the developed world's ability to
make the rules); and technology and the growth of a global popular
280
POL214 MODULE 1
culture provide new opportunities for rallying support and getting

messages across (US National Intelligence Council, 2007).
The burgeoning scholarly literature on globalisation has noted the virtual

explosion in the numbers and types of non-state actors populating the
international system, many of which are operating on the fringes of state
control or under the auspices of states that lack adequate nationally
administered control regimes (Reimann, 2006). Multinational
corporations, nongovernmental and quasi-governmental organisations,
and transnational social movements all represent examples of a growing
number of organisational structures that operate across borders on a
global scale. International nongovernmental organisations (defined as
operating in more than three countries) engaged in advocacy or direct
action have grown from an estimated 985 in 1956 to more than 21,000
in 2003 (Russesl, 2006). According to the Global Policy Forum (2000),
nongovernmental organisations of all types numbered above 37,000 by
the year 2000, representing a nearly 20-percent growth over the previous
10 years. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Disarmament
(2004) estimated in 2004 that there were a total of 61,000 transnational
corporations with as many as 900,000 foreign affiliates around the
world.
Non-state actors operating in contemporary international system can be

roughly categorized into the following:
International Organisations: International organisations are

transnational organisations created by two or more sovereign states (
Akindele, 2003) while some international Organisations are universal,
others are regional, and pursue strictly the political, and socio-economic
interests of the member states. Examples of universal intenational
organisations with universal or near universal membership include the
United Nations, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF),
World Trade Organisation (WTO). Examples of regional multilateral
organisations include European Union, African Union, New Partnership
for African Development (NEPAD), Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development
Commission (SADC). Suffice it to say that in some international
organisations, common interests constitute the basis of the associational
life of members and hence the rule of geographical contiguity does not
hold. This is the case, for instance, with OPEC which is an oil cartel
with membership from Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Another example is the Group of Eight (G8) which comprises of
governments of the eight richest countries in the world industrialised
countries of United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy,
Japan, Canada, and Russia.
281
Multinational Corporations: these are enterprises that manage

production or deliver services in at least two countries. The traditional
multinational is a private company headquartered in one country and
with subsidiaries in others, all operating in accordance with a
coordinated global strategy to win market share and achieve cost
efficiencies. The popular multinationals include those linked to America
and Eurpean countries such as Shell, Chevron, Agip. However, in recent
times, multinationals from China, India, Russia and other emerging-
market states are offering some developing countries an alternative
source of investment. For example, Indian energy firms are investing in
Burma and Cuba, and have growing ties with Venezuela, while Chinese
state-owned enterprises are investing in Iran, Sudan, Burma, and
Zimbabwe.
Nongovernmental Organisations: these are organisations that are

private, self-governing, voluntary, non-profit, and task- or interest-
oriented advocacy organisations. Within those broad parameters there is
a huge degree of diversity in terms of unifying principles; independence
from government, big-business, and other outside influences; operating
procedures; sources of funding; international reach; and size. They can
implement projects, provide services, defend or promote specific causes,
or seek to influence policy. NGOs have prospered from both the
growing (but primarily Western) emphasis on human rights,
environmental protection, security —which raises the stock of the social
and humanitarian issues in which many NGOs have unique expertise—
and the involvement by billionaires in social issues.
Since 2001, advocacy NGOs that work on transnational issues such as

the environment, public health, migration and displacement, and social
and economic justice have received greater visibility and influence
thanks to increased public demands for action in such areas. With
national governments frequently ceding the handling of these issues to
NGOs, they have been allowed to encroach upon areas that had
traditionally belonged to states. Traditional NGO networking,
information exchange, and initiation of global campaigns has been
exponentially enhanced by use of the Internet. Examples of NGOs
include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Doctors Without
Borders, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Action
Aid, and many others.
A key variety of NGOS acting as non state actors is the philanthropic

foundations or charities. Philanthropic foundations are unique actors,
guided by a very strong culture of independence, innovation and risk-
taking. In their insightful study on American philanthropic foundations,
Chervalier and Zimet (2006) revealed the following finding:
282
POL214 MODULE 1
(a) American philanthropic foundations devote a growing portion of

their financing to international cooperation for development
activities. Although the number of philanthropic foundations in
the United States has doubled in ten years, their international
contributions have been increasing at a constant rate since the end
of the 90’s. American philanthropic foundations have become
influential actors at the international level, especially in the area
of providing Aid for developing countries.
(b) The number of philanthropic foundations in the United States

doubled between 1995 and 2005, growing from 38, 807
foundations to 75, 953. The global volume of financing allocated
each year by foundations in the United States and abroad has
logically reflected this net increase, rising from 11.3 billion
dollars in 1994 to 32.4 billion dollars in 2004. For instance Since
its creation in 1998, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has
donated some ten billion dollars, including 5.8 billion for the
Global Health Program. (Chervalier and Zimet, 2006).
(c) International activity by American foundations is mainly

undertaken by a group of 12 major foundations, which are very
active in the area of international cooperation. These are Ford,
Hewlett, Packard, Rockefeller, Gates, Mellon, Kellogg, Mott
Foundations, Open Society Institute, Rockefeller Brothers Fund,
Carnegie Corporation of New York, MacArthur.
Super-Empowered Individuals—these are persons who have

overcome constraints, conventions, and rules to wield unique political,
economic, intellectual, or cultural influence over the course of human
events—generated the most wide-ranging discussion. “Archetypes”
include industrialists, criminals, financiers, media moguls, celebrity
activists, religious leaders, and terrorists. The ways in which they exert
their influence (money, moral authority, expertise) are as varied as their
fields of endeavor. This category excludes political office holders
(although some super-empowered individuals eventually attain political
office), those with hereditary power, or the merely rich or famous. For
instance, Koffi Annan, the former UN Secretary General, played a
mediating role in the post- election conflict in Kenya in 2005. Also three
former Nigeria leaders have played some mediatory roles in different
African states. Abdusalami Abubakar has played a role in peace-
building and democratization in post-conflict Liberia; Olusegun
Obasanjo has been playing a mediating role under the auspices of the
United Nations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in the
DRC; and Ibrahim Babangida was appointed by Nigeria to mediate in
the Guinea military coup d’etat. Other examples include United Nations
(UN) Goodwill Ambassadors such as Kanu Nwankwo (United Nations
283
Fund (UNICEF) Goodwill Ambassador); Emannuel Adebayor (United

Nations Educational, Scientifc and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
Goodwill Ambassador; and Nelson Mandela (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Goodwill
Ambassador).
Globalised media have allowed entertainers to replace artists and

intellectuals as leaders in shaping global public opinion. A good
example of this is the rock star Bono, who has raised global
consciousness about the plight of Africa, while Mia Farrow has been
instrumental in pressuring China over its relations with Sudan by
drawing linkages between Darfur and the 2008 Beijing Olympics (US
National Intelligence Council, 2007).
Terrorists and Organised Crime Syndicates: This is the group that

Pollard (2002) describes as “illegitimate nostate actors” as a result of
their propensity to carry out covert operations and operate outside
International Law or norms of etiquette in international relations. While
the phenomenon of terrorists is not new, the ability to transmit
information via the internet and other global media has exponentially
increased the speed with which terrorists work in the contemporary
modern. Technological advances also have put ever more powerful
weapons into the hands of individuals and small groups (US National
Intelligence Council, 2007).
Transnational criminal organisations supports illicit markets in nuclear

and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) materials due to
perceived value of the assets. Perception that WMD materials have
intrinsic value stimulates this demand.
Who are super-empowered individuals and how important are they as

forces of globalisation?
3.5 Approaches to Globalisation
There are different approaches to globalisation. Economics is the

dominant approach. Rajaee (2000:24) notes that the economists
approach globalisation “in terms of increased economic interdependence
and the integration of all national economies into one global economy
within the framework of a capitalist market”. Similarly Bairoch
(2000:197) refers to globalisation as a “situation wherein industrial and
commercial companies as well as financial institutions increasingly
operate trans-nationally, in other words, beyond national borders”. What
are the features of the global economy? Helvacioglu (2000) provides us
284
POL214 MODULE 1
with some of its characteristics. According to him, the globalisation of

the economy can be characterized by first, the growing structural power
and mobility of capital in production and financial markets, articulated
with neo-liberal policies of privatisation, deregulation and structural
changes in national governments, welfare programme and public
services. Second, the liberalisation of trade and monetary policies, the
growth of trans-national networks of investment, finance, advertising
and consumption markets and third, the changes in the foundations and
structures of the world economy.
The most important aspect of the change, argues Rajaee (2000), is the
shift in commodities and mode of production from capital to knowledge,
and from industry to information technology respectively. Production
becomes decentralized and scattered across the globe through the
process of production sharing with little control from nation- states. For
instance, production sharing based on the principle of comparative
advantage has made Singapore the biggest producer of computer
hardware and Bangladesh the biggest producer of clothing.
Globalisation of the economy involves such issues as flexible and fluid
global labour, global production and capital, global market, and of
competition etc (Mcmichael, 1996 and Bilton, 1997).
Despite the dominance of economics in the globalisation discourse,

there are quite a number of scholars (Bilton, 1997 and McMicheal,
1996) who warn us about the danger of putting too much faith on the
market and other economic forces. More importantly, economic is not
the only prime mover of the globalisation process.
Globalisation of culture is another area of discourse. It is argued that one

of the consequences of globalization is the end of cultural diversity, and
the triumph of exclusively Western interests and control, especially the
imperialism of the United States which leads to the global spread of
American symbols and popular culture (cf. H. Schiller, 1969; Hamelink,
1994). Hence the world drinks Coca-Cola, watches American movies
and eats tinned food, whilst traditional cultural values and practices
decline in importance. The implication of this is not only in terms of its
consequences on the economy, but equally important is that such global
commodities imply the emergence of global culture. The issue here is
not just the sale of global goods, but also the ideas and statements that
imply modernity, which means westernization.
The discussion about the cultural undertone of globalisation normally

takes moral and religious tone. Mr Wolfgang Thierse, the President of
the German Bundestag, writes in the April/ May of 2002 issue of the
periodical, Deutschland that “what we refer to today as globalization is a
Western- dominated form of economic power which is breaking and
285
entering into all the world’s cultures, and which endeavors to reduce
people to their economic functions as consumers and producers…. If
people believe that their own cultures are being marginalised, their
religion disdained, their ties and bonds undermined, and then their
reactions are predictable.”
One can easily establish the linkages; global production led to global
market, which in turn led to global consumption and global ideas and
ideology. Thus, globalisation is seen as a new form of cultural
imperialism.
The counter-argument to this stresses new heterogeneity that results

from globalisation: interaction is likely to lead to new mixtures of
cultures and integration is likely to provoke a defense of tradition; global
norms or practices are necessarily interpreted differently according to
local tradition, and one such norm stresses the value of cultural
difference itself; cultural flows now originate in many places; and
America has no hegemonic grasp on a world that must passively accept
whatever it has to sell. In other words, as Rajaee (2000) notes,
globalisation is not harmonisation of community. The diverse identities
may not allow that. Nobody can make claim to globalization- it is
complex and vast- beyond the control of anybody or nation.
3.6 The Role of the State in a Globalised International

System
Another dimension to the globalisation debate is the political. Those that

adopt political approach tend to emphasize the near impotence of the
state in the era of globalisation. According to one line of argument,
globalisation constrains states: free trade limits the ability of states to set
policy and protect domestic companies; capital mobility makes generous
welfare states less competitive; global problems exceed the grasp of any
individual state; and global norms and institutions become more
powerful. States, agues this perspective, are increasingly losing their
capacity to govern, and to regulate in an increasingly borderless world.
Increasingly, the government’s activities are defined by international
frameworks, such as World Trade Organisations (WTO), the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the OECD, as
well as influenced by regional blocks like the European Union, African
Union. No longer bound by the artificial limitations of territoriality,
many public issues are seen as requiring the collective actions of
numerous stakeholders, in order to protect or advance the interests of
individual nations.
Furthermore, the universalisation of western form of democracy has

increasingly become the final form of government across the globe. In
286
POL214 MODULE 1
addition and related to the above, is that the rise in importance of such
supranational bodies as World Bank, IMF, UN, and AU introduces new
agents into decision-making processes of which the nation- states have
to negotiate and contend with. As such the locus of political power is no
longer the national government. Consequently, diverse forces and
agencies at national and international levels share power. Thus, the
incursions of international organisations upon national sovereignty and
the effects of large-scale migration on social cohesion are restricting the
ability of the state to uphold its own fundamental values and determine
its collective identity.
While the central argument so far presented is the continued decline in

the role of the state, there are some who question such view (Therborn,
2000, Held, 2000, Rajaee, 2000, and Pickering, 2001). Pickering (2001)
argues that to see these changes in the function of the state as signs of
the inevitable death of the nation-state and national identity is
misguided. The complex interdependencies between international trade
and international organisations on the one hand, and the nation-state on
the other, suggest that global processes may change the role of the
nation-state, but they are not making it irrelevant. In fact, globalization
may lead to the revival of the nation-state. In a more integrated world,
nation-states may even become more important: they have a special role
in creating conditions for growth and compensating for the effects of
economic competition; they are key players in organisations and treaties
that address global problems; and they are themselves global models
charged with great authority by global norms. As Griffin argued:
Globalisation will affect the way governments intervene

and in some cases, the effectiveness of their interventions,
but it would be wrong to claim that an inevitable
consequence of globalisation is a small and weak state.
Territorial states will continue to be responsible for the
creation and extinction of property rights within their
boundaries and the distribution of productive assets. They
will continue to be responsible for public investment and
expenditure on education, health and welfare services; for
occupational health and safety; for the creation of
employment and improvements in the distribution of
income. The state will continue to have responsibility for
local and national environmental issues and, more
generally, for regulating markets (Griffin, 2004).
3.7 Impact of Globalisation on Developing Countries

Debate on the participation of developing countries in the globalisation
process has given rise to two positions leading to what are now pro-
287
globalisation and anti-globalisation groups. The first position calls for

critical and positive engagement with the forces of globalisation to
harness the opportunities they provide and minimise their consequences.
This position rejects the description of globalisation as westernization.
Rajaee (2000) was arguing along this line when he stated that
globalisation is not a project manipulated by a specific group or state.
No player can establish monopoly on information. No imposition of
will, views, interests as indicated in the revolt of the masses against
globalisation. In other words, globalisation is rooted in an expanding
consciousness of living together on one planet, a consciousness that
takes the concrete form of models for global interaction and institutional
development that constrain the interests of even powerful players and
relate any particular place to a larger global whole (R. Robertson, 1992;
Meyer et al., 1997). According to an extreme view of this position, all
countries are essentially the same, so that even if they appear to be very
different (in size, sectoral profile, resource endowment etc.), they are not
different in any sense that they might not benefit from liberalisation (cf.
Harrison, In other words, their difference does not make a difference. In
a nutshell, ‘global economic integration will lift all boats’ (Nederveen
Pieterse, 2002: 1027).What is needed, according to this view, to steer
globalisation to positive ends is a more democratic architecture of global
public authority (Griffin, 2003). This is what is now referred to as both
the Washington (WC) and Post Washington Consensus (PWC):
liberalisation is socially progressive (WC); liberalisation is only socially
progressive when institutional factors are taken into account (PWC)
(Fine et al., 2001). The foundations of this thinking are a
characterisation of politics as rational; a faith in the ability of
unencumbered markets to deliver social optimality; a conviction that
democratic politics will improve the performance of public authorities; a
general ontology of the positive-sum in both the political and economic
spheres.
The second position tends to be critical about the consequences of the

globalisation process and dismisses it as another phase of imperialism,
the end result of which the rich get richer and the poor poorer. Many
authors attribute the dynamics of globalisation to the pursuit of material
interests by dominant states and multinational companies that exploit
new technologies to shape a world in which they can flourish according
to rules they set (Frank, 2004).
Other proponents of this view have argued that the idea of globalisation
as happiness for all people and countries in the world takes too much for
granted, as it leaves out the issues of power relations in international
politics. For example, there is the fact that African countries joined the
present international system as peripheral states and junior partner, a fact
that has since placed them in a disadvantageous position with the world
288
POL214 MODULE 1
powers. According to this position, the argument that globalisation will

‘make everybody happy’ is untenable as the global economy is still
highly unequal in its spatial patterning, whether one looks at trade or
investment (Dicken, 2001: Harrison, 2004), and that this historically-
constituted or constructed structures of inequality within and between
economies make liberalisation advantageous for some, acceptable to
others, and damaging to the rest (Kaplinsky, 2001). But not only are
some developing countries, especially African countries, disadvantaged
from the beginning in the international political system as a result of
their forceful insertion into the global capitalist system through
colonialism, their peripheral location within the system, and “the
unequal exchange that characterises its relations with the dominant
centres of that systems (the industrialised or developed countries who
belong to the twenty-nine member Organisation of Economic Co-
operation and Development, and the G-8)” (Osaghae, 1999); they also
experience routine and pervasive economic and political intervention
from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (the
Bank), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), UN Organisations, and
Western official aid departments. They also suffer from trade rules that
are rigged in favour of the developed countries (Oxfam, 2003). Seen
from this perspective, globalization has produced ‘uneven development’
throughout the world (Colas, 2003) and hence it is nothing but
dependent development (Munck, 2003).
Whatever the direction of the debate, it is evident that participation in

the globalisation process by the developing countries in general and
Nigeria in particular is a must. It is unavoidable as was noted by
Giddens (1999). He argues that “European, North or South American,
African or Asian - wherever we live, whatever our upbringing, we are
all children of a revolution. It's not been a bloody uprising, nor an
entirely peaceful, 'velvet' revolution, such revolution is globalisation.
Thus for countries all over the world, the fundamental issue is not to
oppose globalization or accept it but rather, how to manage globalisation
so that its positive aspects can be maximized and the negative ones
minimized. If the reality thus far is that nations have no choice but to
participate in the globalisation process and are indeed participating, then
the key challenge, besides democratisation of global governance to
‘steer globalisation towards greater human security, social equality and
democracy’ (Scholte, 2005: 383), is the crucial question of what
individual nations should do to take up the opportunities provided by
globalisation and harness them with their local capabilities as well as
have programmes that would cushion the negative effect of the
globalisation.
289
SELF- ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 7
“The impact of globalisation on developing countries is mixed. On one

hand, globalisation empowers these countries; while on the other hand,
it disempowers them.” Discuss.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Globalisation has affected social, political, economic and cultural

relations. Particularly, several important conclusions about the nature of
the changes caused by globalisation are: the commodification of services
has increased significantly, and the organisation of capitalism has
changed with the increasing integration of production and services
through value chains; new forms of governance and regulation have
emerged, including the establishment of multiple levels of authority and
the rise of private sector governance; identity formation has obtained a
pluralistic character, with the rise in importance of sub-state and macro-
regional identities, along with non-territorial identities related to
religion, gender and race; and the growth of supraterritorial relations has
spurred changes in the way people understand and value the world.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have learnt that globalization process is inevitable. You
have also learnt that while globalisation can be a negative force
engendering inequality and underdevelopment at both the national and
global levels, the fact that globalisation has some negative impact should
not imply a wholesale rejection of all signs of globalisation.
1. What are the Approaches to the understanding of Globalisation?

2. Evaluate the Impact of globalisation on Developing Countries.
3. In what ways does globalisation erodes states sovereignty?
Akindele, A. (2003). “International Relations and Organisations” in

Oyediran, O. (ed.). Introduction to Political Science. Ibadan:
Oyediran Consults International. pp. 103-113.
Appadurai, A. (1990). “Disjunctures and Difference in the Global

Cultural Economy.” In Featherstone, M. (Ed.), Global Culture:
Nationalism, Globalisation and Modernity. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications, pp. 295-310.
290
POL214 MODULE 1
Bairoch, P. (2000). “The Constitute Economic Principles of

Globalisation in Historical Perspective: Myths and Realities”, in
International Sociology, Journal of the International
Sociological Association.15 (2).
Bartelson, J. (2000). “Three Concepts of Globalisation” in International

Sociology, Journal of the International Sociological Association,
Sage, Vol. 15. No. 2.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalisation: The Human Consequences. New

York: Columbia University Press.
Bilton, T. et. al. (1997). Introductory Sociology. London: Macmillan.
Buzan, B. & Little, R. (1994). ‘‘The Idea of “International System.”

International Political Science Review. 15(3): 231-255.
Chervalier, B. & Zimet, J. (2006). American Philanthropic Foundations:

Emerging Actors of Globalization and Pillars of the
Transatlantic Dialogue. Agency Francais de Development.
Working paper No. 22. July. Retrieved on Septmeber 20, 2009
from
http://www.afd.fr/jahia/webdav/site/afd/users/administrateur/public/p
ublications/documents-de-travail/ddt22-en.pdf.
Clark, I. (1999). Globalisation and International Relations Theory.

London: Oxford.
Clark, J. (2003). Globalising Civic Engagement: Civil Society and

Transnational Action. London: Earthscan.
Colas, A. (2003). ‘Exploitation and Solidarity: Putting the Political Back

into IPE’, in M. Te´ treault, R. Denemark, K. Thomas and K.
Burch (eds). Rethinking the Global Political Economy. London:
Routledge. pp. 195–211.
Deutschland Magazine. (2002). April/May.
Diawara, M. (2000). “Globalisation, Development Politics and Local

Knowledge” in International Sociology, Journal of the
International Sociological Association. 15 (2).
Dicken, P. (2001). Global Shift. Transforming the World Economy.

London: Paul Chapman.
291
Esteva, G. & Prakash, M. (2001). “From Global Thinking to Local

Thinking” in The Post-Development- Reader, by Rahnema, M.,
and Bawtree, V. (eds.). London: Zed Books.
Fine, B.; Lapvitsas, C. & Pincus, J. (eds.). (2001). Development Policy

in the Twenty-first Century: Beyond the Post-Washington
Consensus. London: Routledge.
Frank, A. G. (1978). Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment.

London: Macmillan.
Frank, A. G. (2004) ‘Globalising ‘‘Might is Right’’: Spaghetti Western

Law of the West is No Solution.’ Development and Change.
35(3): 607–12.
Friedman, T. (1999). The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding

Globalisation. London: Harper Collins.
Giddens, A. (1999). Globalisation. BBC Reith Lectures. Retrieved on

September 19, 2009 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/week1/week1.h
tm
Global Policy Forum (2002). www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/role/intro/

growth2000.htm_.
Griffin, K. (2003). ‘Economic Globalization and Institutions of Global

Governance.’ Development and Change. 34(5): 789–807.
Griffin, K. (2004). “Globalisation and Global Governance: A Reply to

the Debate.” Development and Change. 35(5): 1081–1091.
Guillén, M. (2001). “Is Globalisation Civilising, Destructive or Feeble?

A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science
Literature”. Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 235-260.
Harrison, G. (2004). Why Economic Globalisation is Not Enough

Development and Change 35(5): 1037–1047.
Helvacioglu, B. (2000). “Globalisation in the Neighborhood: From the

Nation-State to Bilkent Centre” in International Sociology-
Journal of the International Sociological Association.15 (2).
Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996). Globalisation in Question: The

International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
292
POL214 MODULE 1
Holsti K. J, (1987). The Dividing Discipline. Boston, MA: Allen and

Unwin.
Kaplinski, R. (2001). ‘Is Globalisation All It’s Cracked up To Be?’

Review of International Political Economy. 8(1): 45–65.
Kegley, C. & Wittkoft E. (2004). World Politics: Trends and

Transformation (9th ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning Inc.
McMichael, P. (2000). Development and Social Change: A Global

Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Meyer, M.; et al. (1997). World Society and the Nation-State"

American Journal of Sociology. 86 (4). pp. 144-81.
Mohammed, H. (2009). “Subscribers’ Base Hit 67 Million’. Daily Trust.

p. 35.
Munck, R. (2003). Contemporary Latin America. Basingstoke and New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nabudere, D. (2000). “The African Renaissance in the Age of

Globalisation”, Paper Presented to the Southern Africa Regional
Institute for Policy Studies (SARIPS) Annual Colloquium.
Harare.
Nederveen, P. (2002). ‘Global Inequality: Bringing Politics Back In.’

Third World Quarterly 23(6): 1023–47.
Osaghae, E. (1999). “The Post-Colonial African State and its Problems”

in Philip Nel and Patrick J. McGowan (eds.) Power, Wealth and
Global order: An International Relations Textbook for Africa.
Capetown: University of Capetown Press. Pp. 182-195.
Oxfam (2003). The Trade Report: Rigged Rules and Double Standards.
Oxford: Oxfam Publications.
Palan, R. & Abbott, J. (1999). State Strategies in the Global Political

Economy. London: Pinter.
Pickering, J. (2001). “Globalisation: A Threat to Australian Culture?”

Retrieved on May 22, 2004 from http://www.jape.org/jape48_3.pdf
293
Pollard, N. (2002). “Globalisation’s Bastards: Illegitimate Non-State

Actors in Internnational Law.” Low Intensity Conflict & Law
Enforcement. 11(2), pp. 210 – 238.
Rajaee, F. (2000). Globalisation on Trial: The Human Condition and

Information Civilization. International Development Research
Centre: Kumarian Press.
Reimann, K. (2006). ‘‘A View from the Top: International Politics,

Norms and the Worldwide Growth of NGOs.’’ International
Studies Quarterly. 50. pp. 45-67.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalisation: Social Theory and Global

Culture. London: Sage Publications.
Robinson, W. (2002). ‘Remapping Development in Light of

Globalisation: From a Territorial to a Social Cartography.’ Third
World Quarterly. 23(6): 1047–73.
Rodrik, D. (1999). The New Global Economy and Developing

Countries: Making Openness Work. Policy Essay No. 24.
Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council.
Rosenau, J. (2006). The Study of World Politics: Theoretical and

Methological Challenge. New York: Routledge.
Russell, J. (2006). “Peering Into the Abyss.” Nonproliferation

Review.13(3). November.
Scholte, J. (2005). Globalisation: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed.).

Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor, L. (ed.) (2001). External Liberalization, Economic Performance

and Social Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teeple, G. (1995). Globalisation and the Decline of Social Reform.

New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Therborn, G. (2000). “Globalisation: Dimensions, Historical Waves,

Regional Effects, Normative Governance”, in International
Sociology, Journal of the International Sociological Association.
Vol.15, No. 2.
294
POL214 MODULE 1
United States National Intelligence Council ( 2007). Nonstate Actors:

Impact on International Relations and Implications for the
United States. Conference Report. Retrieved on September 19,
2009 from http://www.dni.gov/nic/confreports_nonstate_actors.html
United Nations Conference on Trade and Disarmament (2004). World

Investment Report 2004: The Shift towards Services. Geneva
and New York: UN. Retrived on August 23, 2009
fromwww.unctad.org/Templates/WebFlyer.asp?intItemID_3235&lan
g_1_
Waltz, K.N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.
Waters, M. (1995). Globalisation. New York: Routledge.
295

Intro To Political Analysis by Bello Okpanachi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intro To Political Analysis by Bello Okpanachi PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intro To Political Analysis by Bello Okpanachi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

COURSE CODE: POL214

COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL

Course Team Eyene Okpanachi (Developer/Writer) - UI

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

National Open University of Nigeria

First Printed 2012

All Rights Reserved

POL214 Introduction to Political Analysis which is a three credit unit

I strongly recommend that you go through this course guide and

The major purpose of this seminar is to provide a broad overview of the

 Explain the nature of politics

Working through This Course

POL211: Introduction to Political Analysisn is a 200 level course for

Module 1 The Essence of Politics

Unit 1 Conceptions of Politics

Module 2 Approaches to the Study of Politics

Unit 1 Traditional Approaches

Module 3 Political Systems, Political Process and Political Action.

Unit 1 Power, Authority and Legitimacy

Module 4 Typology of Political Systems

Unit 1 Form of Rule

Textbooks and References

Annsell, C. (2006). “Network Institutionalism.” In Rhodes, Binder and

Boix, C. (2007). “The Emergence of Political Parties and Party

Dubois, H. & Fattore, G. (2009). “Definitions and Typologies in Public

Farr, J. (2003). “Political Science.” In The Cambridge History of

March, J. & Olsen, J. (2006) “Elaborating the “New Institutionalism” In

Geddes, B. (2007). “What Cause Democratization?” In Boix and

Hagopian, F. (2007). Parties and Voters and Emerging Democracies.” In

Laitin, D. (2002). “Comparative Politics: The State of the Sub

Munck, G. (2007). Rejoinder: Visions of Comparative Politics: A Reply

Przeworski, A. (2007). “Is the Science of Comparative Politics

Nettle, J. & Robertson. R. (1968). International Systems and the

Rosenau J. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change

Roskin, M.; Cord, R.; Medeiros, J. & Jones, W. (2006). Political

Sabetti, F. (2007). “Democracy and Civic Culture.” In Boix & Stokes.

Salmon, G. (2002). The Tools of Government. Oxford: Oxford

Two types of assesmnet are used in the course: the self-assesmnet

Final Examination and Grading

Course Marking Scheme

Course Overview Presentation Scheme

Units Title of Work Weeks/ Assignment

What You will Learn in This Course

Introduction to Political Analysis provides you with the opportunity to

Self Assessment Exercises. Together with tutor-marked assignments,

What You Will Need for the Course

Facilitators/Tutors and Tutorials

There are fifteen (15) hours of tutorials provided in support of the

I wish you success in POL214programme!

Course Code POL214

Course Team Eyene Okpanachi (Developer/Writer) - UI

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

National Open University of Nigeria

First Printed 2012

All Rights Reserved

Module 1 The Essence of Politics………………..……………... 1

Unit 1 Conceptions of Politics………………….………….... 1