Political System Approaches

1.4 Political Science -1

Submitted by
Nishant Hazare
Section ‘B’
2017-2018

Maharashtra National Law University

INTRODUCTION

Politics can be approached as a system, that is, as a political system. It is an analogical

approach which means that political systems are like those found in biology, physics,
astronomy, as for example like the nervous system in human body or like the solar system in
die universe around us. By a system we mean a grouping of separate but interdependent parts
which form a working whole to achieve some objective.
Every system is a part of a larger system, while it has also sub-systems within it The larger
system is the environment of a system, from which it receives some things, called inputs, and
also gives out some other things, called outputs. Some of the outputs are again recycled into
the system, called feedback.
Thus every system has equilibrium i.e., a stable system of inputs and outputs. If its outputs
are greater than its inputs, the system becomes unstable unless a system is “closed”, i.e.,
totally self-contained, it depends on links with the external environment on which it depends
for its survival. Hence it should adapt itself to its environment, which means to the larger
system of which it is a sub-system.
As we said above, the systems theory is an analogy, which political scientists, like David
Easton, or Almond, applied to the study of politics. According to them, the whole human
society is a social system, of which government is a political subsystem. But the government,
as a political system, consists of several sub-systems, such as legislature, executive
departments, judicial system, etc.
Every system is a system of roles which are supported by norms and values of appropriate
behaviour and relationships, and of shared values, symbols and beliefs, which provide the
basis for the people to act together to achieve some objectives or goals. We shall say more
about the political system and its input-output mechanisms in the next chapter.
Since 1945, many political scientists, at first mostly Americana, have adopted the systems
approach to the study of politics. Among them. two are most prominent, namely David
Easton, who “was, in fact, the first to do so, and Gabriel A. Almond, who further elaborated it
We shall first discuss David Easton’s analysis of the political system, and afterwards that of
Gabriel A. Almond’s.
Systems theory in political science is a highly abstract, partly holistic view of politics,
influenced by cybernetics. The adaptation of system theory to political science was first
conceived by David Easton in 1953. Political system approach is part of the behaviourist
movement in political science and as a reaction to traditional approach.
According to Van Dyke, the word “‘approach’ is defined to denote the criteria employed in
selecting the questions to ask and the data to consider in political inquiry.” In Political
Science, different scholars and students employ different criteria I order to analyses the data
and find answers to the questions. These criteria have been designated as ‘approach’. As the
discipline evolved, each approach or methods conveyed a specific thrust and has a particular
way of studying or understanding the subject. They are not to be seen as exclusive rather
complimentary to each other.
Easton defines a political system as “that system of interactions in any society through which
binding or authoritative allocations are made and implemented. Authoritative allocations
relate to the values or objects or resources of human needs and desires. They can be roughly
translated as laws or acts of policy.
The study of politics is concerned with understanding how authoritative decisions are made
and executed for a society.

Life by viewing each of its aspects piecemeal. We can examine the operation of such
institutions as political parties, interest groups, government, and voting; we can study the
nature and consequences of such political practices as manipulation, propaganda, and
violence; we can seek to reveal the structure within which this practice occur. By combining
the results, we can obtain a rough picture of what happens in self-contained political unit.

In combining these results, however, there is already implicit the notion that each part of the
larger political canvas does not stand alone but is related to each other part; or, to put it
positively, that the operation of no one part can be fully understood without reference to way
in which the whole itself operates. David Easton have suggested in my book, the political
system that is valuable to adopt this implicit assumption as an articulate premise for research
and to view political life as a system of interrelated activities. These activates derive their
relatedness or systematic ties from the facts that they all more or less influence the way in
which authority decisions are formulated and executed for a society.
Once we begin to speak about political life as a system of activity, certain consequences
follow for the way in which we can undertake to analyse the working of a system. The very
idea of a system suggests that we can separate political life from the rest of social activity, at
least for analytical purposes, and examine it as though for a moment it were a self-contained
entity surrounded by, but clearly distinguishable from, the environment or setting in which it
operates. In much the same way astronomers consider the solar system a complex of events
isolated for certain purposes from the rest of the universe.
is approach belonging to the category of modern approach. This approach makes an attempt
to explain the relationship of political life with other aspects of social life. The idea of a
system was originally borrowed from biology by Talcott Parsons who first popularized the
concept of social system. Later on, David Easton further developed the concept of a political
system. According to this approach, a political system operates within the social
environment. Accordingly, it is not possible to analyse political events in isolation from other
aspects of the society. In other words, influences from the society, be it economic, religious
or otherwise, do shape the political process.
The systems approach as developed by David Eason can be analysed with the help of a
diagram as follows:
The political system operates within an environment. The environment generates demands
from different sections of the society such as demand for reservation in the matter of
employment for certain groups, demand for better working conditions or minimum wages,
demand for better transportation facilities, demand for better health facilities, etc. Different
demands have different levels of support. Both ‘demands’ and ‘supports’ constitute what
Easton calls ‘inputs.’ The political system receives theses inputs from the environment. After
taking various factors into consideration, the government decides to take action on some of
these demands while others are not acted upon. Through the conversion process, the inputs
are converted into ‘outputs’ by the decision makers in the form of policies, decisions, rules,
regulations and laws. The ‘outputs’ flow back into the environment through a ‘feedback’
mechanism, giving rise to fresh ‘demands.’ Accordingly, it is a cyclical process.
David Easton was the first to think to analysing politics from the point of view of system
analysis in his work Political System (1953). According to Easton, political system is an
interaction in any society through which authoritative and binding allocations of values are
made and implemented. He selected political system as a unit of analysis and concentrated on
intra system behaviour. He holds that all political systems are both open and adaptive. He
studied the nature of exchanges and transactions that takes place in a closed circuit but is
made because of the demands from the society or environment. Because of the supports from
the environment they become authoritative.
David Easton has the distinction of having developed an original and unique systemic
approach for the purpose of political analysis. He was the first to apply the General System
theory to the study of Political Science. Easton’s publication, “A Framework for Political
Analysis” and later “A systems Analysis of Political Life”, has engaged the attention of social
scientist for providing explanation of the political phenomenon in a new way.
AIMS & OBJECTIVES

The main objective to study The System Political Approaches is to gain knowledge and learn
about various approaches of political sciences and work of David Easton and Gabriel A.
Almond on approaches of political science.
The advantage of the systems approach is the heuristic help it provides to the political
scientist. It also enables them to study where a political system is under strain, that is, where
the inputs are not sufficient to balance the outputs. For example, a government may not
receive enough taxes to meet its expenditure.
Thus, a student of a political system can foretell or predict where or at what point or points it
is under strain or stress and what remedies can be adopted to restore its balance or
equilibrium. It is, therefore, claimed that the systems approach makes Political Science a
scientific study, in which prediction is accurately possible.
HYPOTHESIS

The System Theory, thus, provides a theoretical equipment for looking at political
phenomenon and analyses at macro level and setting at micro level. Easton’s concept of
political life is that of a system of behaviour embedded in an environment to the influence of
which the political system itself is exposed and in turn reacts. This means that he takes the
political system itself as the basic unit of analyses. It, thus, implies that outside and beyond
the political system, there are other systems – physical, biological, social, psychological to
which the system is exposed and influenced by. Being exposed to the influence derived from
other system in which it is embedded, the political system is constantly receiving from them,
a stream of events and influences that shape the conditions under which its member must act.
Easton, thus, treat all the conditions under which its members must act. Easton, thus, treat all
political systems as an open and adaptive system, and concentrates mainly on the study of the
nature of the exchanges and transactions that take place between a political system and its
environment. As such, it has to have the capacity to respond to disturbance and thereby, adapt
itself to the conditions under which it has to function. The emphasis is, thus, on the adaptive
characteristics of the system, rather than just reacting passively. Easton further points out that
the political system accumulates large repertoire of mechanism by which they try to cope
with their environment, and also regulate their own behaviour by transforming their internal
structure and ever re-mould their fundamental goals.
David Easton, a Canadian political scientist and a distinguished research professor in the
department of political science at the university of California, provided the disciplines most
widely used definition of politics and is renowned for his application of system theory to the
study of political science Easton wishes to construct an empirically oriented general theory of
politics and to that end, he seeks to define the kinds of functions and characteristics of any
political system through a systematic frame work for political analysis.
According to Easton Political System is “A system of behaviour embedded in an environment
to the influence of which the political system itself is exposed and in turn react.”
According to David Easton the term of “political system” is being used increasingly in the
study of comparative politics. Different political scientists have a variety of views upon the
definition of political system. David Easton says that “Political system is authoritative
allocation of values but before going into the elaborated definition of the political system, one
must know about “political and system.” The word political in its literal meanings is that any
phenomenon pertains to the study of politics. So, politics in its simplest meaning is, “Practice
of government and managing of public affairs.” The word system, “implies the
interdependence of parts and a boundary of some kind between it and its environment”
further he says, “By interdependence we mean that when the properties of one components in
a system change all the other components and the system as a whole is affected.” The
boundary of the political system means that every political system has its circumscribed
frame work in which it performs. In this way, it has become easier to understand the meaning
of a political system.
Easton’s theory is called the General theory of politics for two reasons:
He rejects the idea of constructing different kinds of theories to deal with national and
international politics. He attempts to build a unified theory of politics for explaining
behaviours of national and international political systems and also for comparing them;
According to Easton, the primarily task of Political Science is to analyse the general problem
common to all political systems.
According to Easton, the main function of the Political System is to make authoritative
decisions and it allocates advantages and disadvantages for the entire system. Therefore,
decision-making is the essence of the political system. He, thus, identified three components
of the political system;

Political Community – The political community comprises of all persons and they are
bound together by political division of labour;
The Regimes: The political regimes make the constitutional structure, political processes,
institutional norms, etc.
Political Authority: The political authority comprises of individuals exercise power, as the
agents of the state.
Easton’s main aim is the source of stress (essential variables without which a political system
cannot exist, and critical range within which the variables can fluctuate) and modes and
process of regulating stress. So, the central problem of investigation is:
(a) The developments that may threatens to drive the essential variables beyond their
critical range; and
(b) The various regulatory responses to these developments which a system can make.

This brings the question of relationship between the political and the social systems. The
political system receives challenges as well as support from the society, and is expected to
deal with challenges as well as support from the society, and is expected to deal with the
challenges in such a way as to maintain itself with the help of the support it receives or the
way it can manipulate the challenges. The demand and support the political system receives
from environment is in the form of inputs which go through the conversion process within the
system and takes the form of outputs. This is followed by what is described as a feedback
mechanism through which the consequence and effects of the output are put back into system
as inputs.
Environment: According to Easton, political life is “a system of behaviour embedded in an
environment to the influence of which the political system itself is exposed and in turn
reacts”. The environment, within which the political system exists, comprises all the social,
economic, cultural, religious, ideological and other conditions, without which a political
system cannot’ exist In more concrete terms, it means the natural and human resources of the
economy, ecological conditions, and all other material and non-material variables.
They also include the international resources, influences and conditions for instance, both
Soviet Union and U.S.A. are international resources for Bharat, while for Pakistan. America
is the only resource. Both the internal and external variables are not a pan of the political
system. According to Easton, “In the environment we have such systems as the ecology,
economy, culture, personality, social structure and demography”.
The limits or lines, which separate the environment from the political system, constitute its
boundary. Within die boundary lies the political system, which is defined by the possibility of
the exorcise of legitimate force of its binding decisions. But the boundary is constantly
changing, because the conditions in the environment are also constantly changing and the
political system has to cope with these changes or variables.
They constitute the external variables of the political system. They are the forces which shape
and change the inputs some of them come from within the system itself. It may be further
noted that Eastern’s model is based on behavioural approach to politics. As he himself said in
a later article, “We have been interpreting political life as a system of behaviour set in an
environment and open to the influences stemming from that environment, as well as from
internal sources.”
The Inputs: Political process begins with the inputs. They are, broadly speaking, of three
kinds: demands, supports and apathy or opposition. The government receives the demands
and the supports from the domestic and foreign interests, that is, from the environment
around the political system. Demands provide the raw material or information, which the
system must process and the energy which the system needs. They lead to political activity.
They are the signs that the people or the groups want action. They arise either in the
environment (external) or within the system itself (internal).
The external or environmental sources of the demands are the major portion of the demands,
shaping the variables from outside the political system. They can be expressed in all manner
of ways, such as public opinion, polis, political parties, pressure groups, letters written to the
governmental system, and also by means of riots, public demonstrations, and protest marches,
etc. But the demands may arise internally from within the governmental system itself. They
arise from such aspects and influences as the representation system, the nature of the
constitution itself and the norms and procedures of the governmental system; they also arise
from the values of the political culture of a political system.
In short, they are the significant parts of die material on which the system operates. They are
also the one important source of change in the political system. Roughly speaking, out of
about one lakh needs, desires, expectations, plans and projects of the people, including social
groups and political parties, about one thousand become their demands. Out of about one
thousand demands about one hundred become challenges or issues which influence the
government decision makers Out of one hundred issues about ten are actually converted into
outputs, i.e., become laws and acts of policy.
In a democratic polity, out of the ten outputs, nine have originated from the people or
political parties and groups, while one has come from the government itself. But in an
undemocratic polity, such as a dictatorship or an autocracy, the ratio is reversed: one effective
demand comes from the people, while the nine come from the government Demands are of
several kinds. They depend on the type of the political system. Some of them are as follows-
Economic demands include the desire for higher living standards, better employment
opportunities or welfare or social security benefits. Regulatory demands mean the demands
few specific legislation, laws for maintaining peace and order, improving Community
relations, protecting human rights, etc. In Islamic countries like Iran, Pakistan, or Saudi
Arabia, religious demands may be more important than economic or cultural demands.
 David Easton was the first political scientist who analysed the political system in a unique
way and presented a model in which he mentioned that in a political system there were two
types of inputs and outputs demand and support. Demands always arise from the very nature
of human personality and society. Demands are aspirations of the people. They want to
satisfy their demands so political system is asked to cater the demands of the people.
There are generally three sources from where demands originate.
(a)   Society (b) Political elite (c) International environment
The sources denote that inputs are not only originated at domestic level but also at
international level. The political system is supposed to cater the demands successfully either
inwardly or outwardly. There are four types of demands as David Easton.
Demands for goods and services
These demands focus on wages and hour laws, educational opportunities, recreational
facilities, roads and transportation.
Demands for the regulation of behaviours
The demands intend to regulate the behaviours of the people such as the provision of public
safety, control over markets and labour relations and behaviours pertaining to marriages and
family laws.
Demands for participation in the political system
Such demands focus on right to vote, to hold office in the legislative assemblies, right to have
freedom of association and organizing a political party etc.
Demands for communication and information
Those types of demands remade for the display of majority and power of the political system
in the period of chaos or stability. Such inputs demand for affirmation of norms. In the
pretext of above mentioned categories of demands.
Inputs have also further sub divisions and undoubtedly, without support inputs demands are
never fulfilled by a political system. It means supports inputs are a coercive force behind the
demands input. Supports inputs are sine Gannon for the demands input.

There are many approaches of Political Science are as follows:

Normative Approach:
The term normative is derived from the Latin word norma, meaning precept rule, carpenter’s
square. The word norm means usual, typical or standard thing. Normative relates to norm or
standard. The central idea of normative approach is—the subject is viewed and analysed
normatively that is there are certain standards, rules and precepts which must find their
application in political science.
Again, political science means in its operative aspects. When the state starts its operation, its
primary objective would be to achieve the above-noted norms, standards and precepts. The
success and failure will determine the nature, credibility, acceptability of the state or
government.
Hence norms are several principles which an authority cannot deny. The accountability of the
authority is also based on these norms and principles. Norm or normativeness is explained in
terms of “should” and “ought”. It means that the authority should do it or adopt such and such
policy or decision. Or it ought to do it.
Therefore, normativeness talks about preference. The word preference is not different from
should and ought. To sum up, the objectives and functions of state are judged in the
background of preference, should and ought.

Historical Approach:
The historical approach to the study of politics is one of the traditional approaches. History
means the records of past incidents and facts. These took place at different periods. It also
means what people have thought or imagined. “History as a record consists of documentary
and other primary evidences” which occurred in the past. So far as historical approach is
concerned we shall concentrate our attention on historical events recorded in documentary
evidences.
The characteristic feature of historical approach is that history as a written or recorded subject
focuses on the past events. From history, we come to know how man was in the past and
what he is now. History is the store-house of events. From the biographies, autobiographies,
descriptions by authors and journalists we come to know what event took place in the past.

Philosophical Approach:
Philosophical approach is another traditional or classical approach of studying politics. There
are many definitions of philosophy and one such definition is, philosophy “is the study or
science of truths or principles underlying all knowledge and being.” It means that philosophy
or philosophical approach attempts to find the truth of political incidents or events. It
explores the objective of political writings or the purpose of political writer.
The purpose of philosophical approach is to analyse the consequences of incidents in a
logical and scientific manner. According to Van Dyke “philosophy denotes thought about
thought. Somewhat more broadly it denotes general conceptions of ends and means, purposes
and methods.” The purpose of philosophical approach is to clarify the words and terms used
by the political philosophers. The enquiry started by the philosophical approach removes
confusion about the assumptions.
The important plus point of philosophical approach is it enters into the depth of every aspect
of political phenomena and scans them without any partiality Its interpretation of political
activities evokes interest in the minds of students of politics Words and phrases used by
philosophers throw light on the subject. Philosophical approach, it is claimed, enhances
linguistic clarity. That is why it is said that this approach aims at thought about thought.

Marxism:
Marxism is a form of socioeconomic analysis that analyses class relations and societal
conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of
social transformation. It originates from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German
philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Political Marxism (PM) is a strand of Marxist theory that places history at the centre of its
analysis. PM was developed as a reaction against ahistorical models of Marxist analysis in
the debate on the origins of capitalism. The PM critique brought social agency and class
conflict to the centre of Marxism.
Without defining ideology, Marx used the term to denote the production of images of social
reality; according to Engels, "ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker
consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness.
Marxist philosophy or Marxist theory are works in philosophy that are strongly influenced by
Karl Marx's materialist approach to theory, or works written by Marxists. ... The key
characteristics of Marxism in philosophy are its materialism and its commitment to political
practice as the end goal of all thought.
The doctrines developed from the political, economies, and social theories of Karl Marx,
Friedrich Engels, and their followers: dialectical materialism, a labour-based theory of
wealth, an economy class struggle leading to revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat,
and the eventual development of a classless
The doctrines of Karl Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels on economics, politics, and
society. They include the notion of economic determinism — that political and social
structures are determined by the economic conditions of people.

Economic Approach:
Economics and politics are two important disciplines of social science and in several respects
they are intimately related. In the curriculum of universities of India and many other
countries a few decades ago economics and political science constituted a single subject
which implies the close relationship between the two. This denotes that in the study of
politics the help of economics is essential.
The policy formulations -of economic nature and determination of the principles of planning
which has recently become a part of the governmental activity are done by the government.
In most of the countries of the world public issues are economic issues and here the main—,
and sometimes the only—actors are the personnel of the government such as the prime
minister, president and other ministers. This obvious relationship between the two subjects
has placed the economic approach in a convenient position.
Policy regarding production and distribution, though within the jurisdiction of economics, is
always taken up by the government. It is to be pointed out here that the impact of success and
failure of the economic policies fall upon the government. So, we cannot discuss politics
without discussing economics.

Sociological Approach:
Political science and sociology both are social sciences and in several places, they overlap.
The areas of sociological studies are human behaviour including the political behaviour,
group behaviour and attitude of group, culture, society. Needless to say, that all these fall
within the study area of political science. “Culture refers to the totality of what is learned by
individuals as members of society, it is a way of life a mode of thinking, acting and feeling.”
Culture in various ways influences the political behaviour of individuals which is again
studied by political scientists.
Readers of politics are quite well-known with political culture which is composed of the
attitudes beliefs emotions and values of society that relate to the political system and its
political issues. We, therefore, find that so far as culture is concerned, it is the subject matter
of both sociology and political science.
Society is another important topic of sociology and the sociologists devote a considerable
part of their analysis to the exploration of various aspects of society Students of politics also
treat society with considerable emphasis. Society is composed of human beings who form
intimate relationship among themselves.

Psychological Approach:
Politics and psychology have close relation. Psychologists normally study the political
behaviour of individuals and factors leading to such behaviour. They also study why certain
individuals behave in a certain way. Recently, a new subject has gained popularity—it is
psychology.
This studies the behaviour, attitude etc. of the voter and the researchers after studying various
aspects draw conclusions which very often serve the purpose of political leaders. It is not an
exaggeration to hold that the foundation of behaviourism is psychology of the individuals.
Political scientists of today’s world are extremely curious to know how motives and emotions
work in the field of political activity. Sometimes the psychologists focus their attention upon
the group behaviour.
We can collect dozens of instances from the pages of the history of political thought as to
how psychology and politics are related. According to Aristotle, man is by nature a social
animal and his sociability is the prime reason of the emergence of political organisation
which is called state. Psychology of man is that man wants to live with others.
Hobbes has said that every individual wants security and for that he desires to accumulate
power. Because he thinks that power only can provide security. Hobbes’ political philosophy
is based, to a considerable extent, upon psychological factors. He has depicted the nature of
men who lived in the state of nature. Men of the state of nature were power hungry,
quarrelsome and envied each other.

SCOPE & LIMITATIONS

The theory is discussed about various aspects of approaches of Political System but though
there are some philosophers who critized this approach-
Some philosophers criticised this theory of political approach according to Van Dyke, “The
principal weakness of the power approach is its lack of precision.” On earlier occasions, we
have defined power. But one drawback of this definition is it does not contain all the
meanings of the term ‘power’. Different authors have defined it in their own ways. The
manifestations of power are many. Different holders use it for various purposes and the
techniques are not uniform. It is very difficult to measure power as well as its impact. If
power cannot be quantitatively measured how can we make estimate about its impact?
The political actors do not always struggle for power alone, they pursue their interests. The
states, main actors of power politics, try to enhance their image. There is also ideological
struggle. The advocates of the power approach fail to convince us about the exact amount of
power a state requires and this drawback has blunted the sharpness of the power approach.
There is no end of power, but there is an end of struggle. Power approach to the study of
politics is biased. Various actors struggle for power, but they also cooperate among
themselves to reach an amicable settlement.
Power approach is also an incomplete notion. We are talking about political power. In liberal
system, corporate bodies or business organisations are engaged in power struggle and that
very often influences political authority. But it is beyond the consideration of power
approach.
CONCLUSION

In this system of political system, we studied about the David Easton’s and Almond theory of
political approaches. Here we discussed a lot of different types of approaches, for example-
legal approach, Marxist approach, etc.
While debate has approached and also as to the methodology to be adopted to study and
analyse political phenomena continues, it has been accepted that political science and theory
need to probe that deeper foundation values on which the society rests, there is disagreement
over the fundamental values which the society rest there is disagreement over the
fundamental values on which the society rests, there is disagreement over the fundamental
values which are not rationally resolvable. The political debate continues to be plagued with
appeals to different values. Unlike the traditional appeal to equality (socialism) and liberty
(capitalism), political theory now appeals to the ultimate value of ‘contractual agreement’
(Rawls), ‘the common good’, ‘utility’, ‘identity’, or ‘androgyny’. Thus, the call for an
ultimate value or the idea of developing a single comprehensive theory poses the question as
to why an adequate political theory should be based on just one of them. Any adequate
approach needs to give up the idea of a monistic theory, which may be fanatical, while
adopting a pluralist approach to the analysis of political theory or Political Science. This calls
for alternative ways of thinking, understanding, explaining and analysing political
phenomena. Such debates and approaches will be dealt in the Module.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Political Science-1 by William Nunes, Aruna Kumar Malik, Ravi Saxena

 An approach to the analysis of political system – DAVID EASTON
World Politics, Vol. 9, No. 3, (April, 1957), pp. 383-400