Distinguish between Politics and Political Science in terms of nature,scope

and definition?
Sometime past Laymen,scholars and political scientists often use the words
politics and political science to denote the same thing by using the two terms
interchangeably. It is believed that the term politics is derived from the word
'Polis' the exact meaning of which is city-state.the Greeks first introduced the idea of
the polismeaning city-state. It is from polis that we derive our modern word ' politics'. Aristotle
(384-322 BC) in his book POLITICS first used the term politics to refer to the affairs of a
Greek city-state. Aristotle observed 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.Aristotle observed that

whenever men seek to define their position in society or attempt to achieve personal
security from available resources and as they try to influence others to accept their points
of view, they find themselves engaged in politicsmaking every one a politician.
In ancient Greece, polis or the city state was the most popular and general
form of political organisation. Every polis or city- state had its own form of
government, administration, management etc and all these did not depend
upon the size of the polis or city-state. Thus politics means the political affairs
or administration of polis. Thus politics is understood to denote something
about polis or city-state.

We cannot separate the term politics from the affairs of state and these
affairs are linked with the administration and decision making issues of state.
Politics in this way has been connected with state as it was in ancient Greece
with the polis. Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which
people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live.
Although politics is also an academic subject (sometimes indicated by the use
of Politics with a capital P),which is clearly the study of this activity. Politics
is thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation.
In contrast Political science is not only the study of government and state but
also it is the application of empirical theory and scientific methods to the
analysis of political matters. After the Second World War (193-9-1945) some
political scientists of United States applied a number of scientific methods for
the investigation and analysis of political matters incidents and issues and
thereafter they built models and concepts and all these have constituted the
body of political science.

We earlier defined one meaning of the term politics but there are other
meanings,politics is the activities aimed at improving someones status within
an organisation. Here it means a type of instrument or channel to achieve
definite purpose.This purpose may be of a particular person or group of
persons which may be good or bad. Moreso, politics acts as an instrument
that carries with it pejorative sense(s) or connotation(s). Politics therefore is
has an academic features which is associated with the administration or
management of state and the other is non-academic which is generally
pejorative.
It is the former meaning which has introduced a difference between politics
and political science. A general and numerously accepted definition of
political science is: The study of state, government and politics and this study
must be based on scientific principles and reasons. Political science is an
academic discipline but politics is fully not.

In the past,some academicians has conceded to the concept that: Political

science is not only the study of government and state but also it is the
application of empirical theory and scientific methods to the analysis of
political matters. After the Second World War (1939-1945) a very good
number of political scientists of United States applied number of scientific
methods for the investigation and analysis of political matters incidents and
issues and after that they framed models and concepts and all these have
finally constituted body of political science.

It is therefore observed that while in non-academic function the politics is

used pejoratively, political science is blessed with academic and broader
meaning. A large section of common men is familiar to using the nonacademic connotation of the term politics. We generally say that abaft these
activities there is politics.

The meaning of which is that persons concerned use their official position or
other means to achieve perculiar objectives to which they are not legally and
commonly entitled. Politics in this function is irrational in itself. Therefore, the
non-academic meaning of politics has nothing to do with rationality. In both
national and international politics this meaning of politics has gained front.

In international politics big powers use politics as a weapon to establish their

authority in international system and to reinforce their image and influence.

But political science is quite satisfied with academic meanings. Some

conclude that political science is purely an academic concept and a discipline
while politics when used un-academically cannot be treated as a discipline.
Scholars are coming together to redefinethese concepts. A critic observes
The discipline of politics (or political science or government) does little, if
anything, to dispel this image of politics and politicians. It is a devout desire
of all rational persons that politics as a master science be granted its
fullest academic sense and if it is achieved politics and political science in
academic sense will lose their difference.

David Held has viewed politics (or political science) in a different way. In his
opinion politics is a practical activity about the discourse and struggle over
organisation of human possibilities and in this sense political science can be
treated as a study of power. The concept of power relates to the capacity of
social agents and institutions.
According to Held's definition there are three components of political science.
Political science relates to political activity, to power, to capacity of various
agents and organisations. Hence any definition of political science must have
all these components.

An important aspect of this definition is political science has been treated as

a practical activity. As such political science does not hover in imagination or
a solitary place. It is a down-to-earth phenomenon connected with the affairs
and activities of groups, institutions and various agents.

Another definition of politics isit is a study of activities of cooperation,

negotiation and struggle over the use, production and distribution of
resources. This definition highlights another very vital aspect of political
science. There are various types of resources available in any society. The
production and distribution of these resources are to be preceded by definite
policy on the part of the government or authority, cooperation among various
agents involved in the production and distribution of resources.

It may require negotiation of one agent with another. In the case of conflict
between outlook and objective struggle may occur. But for greater and better
interests of society the conflict ought to be settled. The point to add here is
that in all these situations the involvement of state or government appears to

be an inevitability. This definition of politics views the subject from the angle
of cooperation, negotiation and conflict.

Why the question of cooperation, conflict and negotiation? It is no secret that

in any society there are persons and groups who hold different opinions on
the same issues and in a democratic society none can impose his own
views/decision upon other. Naturally conflict of opinion is the chief
characteristic of such a society and in order to arrive at a decision the
settlement of the conflict is a must.

The practical situation teaches that no society can survive and thrive which
has made itself a cauldron of animosity. Cooperation and negotiation take
place under the stewardship of political organisations or government
nominated agencies. A definition of politics includes all these because
political science is not simply an academic subject but also a potential and
necessary provider of guidelines for policy makers and researchers.

This aspect of political science can be overlooked only at the detriment of the
importance of subject. We, therefore, conclude that political science as a
study of cooperation, negotiation and conflict holds good for any liberal or
pluralist society.

Harold Lasswell has defined political science in the following words. He calls
political science an empirical science, as an empirical displine, as the study of
the shaping and sharing of power, and a political act as one performed in
power perspectives.

The central idea of this definition is Lasswell calls political science an

empirical science. If so according to Lasswell the subject is chiefly concerned
with the shaping and sharing of power. This definition of Lasswell reminds us
about an aspect of the definition. Political science as a social science deals
with cooperation and conflict and the latter also means that whenever there
arises a conflict the authority takes steps for its settlement and no settlement
of any conflict is possible without power.

Hence we can define political science as an empirical discipline dealing with

shaping and sharing of power. Lasswell believes that political science is the
study of power exercised by the state or agencies authorised by state.

In any modern civilised society individuals do not live alone, they live in
groups and behave as members of group. Naturally the behavior of individual
is considerably influenced by the members of the group to which he belongs.

Viewed in this light Raphael defines politics in the following manner:

Politics deals with the behaviour of groups and individuals in matters that are
likely to affect the course of government. Raphael has clarified his stand. He
says that the functions and policies, voting behaviour of persons, relation
between the government and the people etc. are generally the subject
matters of political science.

The interesting fact is that in strictest sense there is no difference between

Lasswells definition and Raphaels definition. Political science is primarily an
empirical science and in that sense it comes to be associated with sharing
and application of power and this power is applied by the government.

Like Lasswell, W. J. M. Mackenzie has defined politics in the light of power. Let
us quote some relevant portions from Machenzies noted work Politics and
Social Science (1967). He says: Politics is about power. about
legitimate authority. about the reconciliation of interests. Politics is also
concerned with the legitimate use of violence and also the monopoly
authority over the power and the use of violence.

Today a large number of thinkers have started to view the subject specifically
in the light of power, violence and their use: What Mackenzie has added to
this definition is- he has emphasised on legitimate used of power and
violence. This does not of course mean that illegitimate use of power and
violence is totally banished from the arena of politics.

Our practical experience teaches us that power illegitimately used also finds

a place in political science. But politics does not deal with this properly. Such
type of incident is regarded as aberration in the whole gamut of political
science. The emphasis on power has been occasioned by the advent of
empirical treatment of the subject.

I think it would be very much helpful to refer another definition given by

Almond, Powell, Strom and Dalton (Comparative Politics Today). They have
said: By politics we thus refer to the activities associated with the control of
public decisions among a given people and in a given territory, where twin
control may be backed by authoritative and coercive means. Politics deals
with who uses this authoritative and coercive means and for what purpose
this is used.

A proper definition of politics can, for academic purposes, be divided into two
partsthe authoritative and coercive use of power or means or methods and
the other part is for what purpose this power is used. If the use of power is
not legitimate or authoritative and the purposes of the use of power are not
clearly stated that technique or way cannot be the subject matter of political
science.

The application of coercive method is also related to human decisions. For the
general welfare and management of society the persons holding and
exercising power are to take certain decisions and mere adoption of decisions
is not all. Their application, strictly speaking, constitutes the vital aspect of
political science.

For this reason Almond etc have said Politics has to do with human decisions
and political science is the study of such decisions. Are all sorts of decisions
included into the subject of political science? Our answer is: Not all decisions
are political. Political science brings under its purview only political
decisions.

Eastons Definition:

We have analysed a number of definitions of political science and we shall

now turn to David Eastons famous definition which he has given in his noted

work The Political System (1971). He says: Political Science is described as

the study of the authoritative allocation of values for a society.

The point to note is that this particular definition is quite different from all
other definitions. The meanings of the three concepts are to be enquired and
they are: policy, authority and society. Only the authority allocates or can
allocate values and for that purpose it adopts policy: Values are allocated for
society.

Defining policy Easton says:

A policy whether for a society, for a narrow association or for any other
group, consists of a web of decisions and actions that allocates values. By
adopting a policy authority deprives someone of anything and allows others
to have it.

Now we come to the concept of authority or authoritative. Mere adoption of

policy is not all. The policy is required to be implemented and for that
purpose the authority will take steps for enactment of law. Finally a complex
administrative structure is to be built up for the implementation of the law
and policy.

Only the authority can do all these tasks. If there is no support or role of
authority behind a policy people may be reluctant to show credence to the
policy and may refuse to obey it. So it has been observed by Easton that a
policy must be authoritative otherwise people will not obey it. If the policy is
authoritative refusal to obey it will be followed by punishment.

Defining society Easton has said that a society consists of persons or large
number of people who are continually interacting among themselves and
maintain a stable relationship among them. Certain minimum conditions
must be maintained so that the inhabitants of the society can live peacefully
and comfortably and for that purpose it is essential that goods and services
must be provided for all the members of the society.

In any society there are a number of groups of individuals whose objectives,

mode of living and requirements may not be similar. But it is an important
duty of the authority to provide goods and services to all of them and without
the authoritative allocation of values that objective cannot be achieved. That
is why Easton observes: authoritative allocation of values is a minimum
prerequisite of any society.

At this level we return to one of our earlier points. Politics is concerned with
conflict and cooperation. When an authority allocates values for society it
practically becomes authoritative and the decision of the authority is binding
on all.

Finally Easton says:

Authoritative allocation requires the existence of a well defined organisation

called government. In the opinion of Easton the subject which deals with the
authoritative allocation of values can conveniently be called political science.
The study includes policy, authority, society and government. These concepts
enunciated by Easton are so linked that they cannot be separated from each
other.

Almond (Politics of the Developing Areas: Introduction) says:

The difficulty with this definition is that authoritativeness as defined by

Easton does not differentiate political system from church or business firms
and the like. But his combination of comprehensiveness of application plus
authoritativeness comes close to the kind of tool we need in this work of
comparing political systems of differing scales and degrees of differentiation.
We may sharpen Eastons definition by turning his conception of authority
into legitimate physical compulsion. What Almond emphasises is that mere
authoritativeness cannot make any policy or decision binding and if it is not
binding the policy or decision will be a hollow one.

Naturally, if required, the policy must be accompanied with compulsive

measures and this compulsion must be legitimate. Almond suggests that if
these two words are added to the definition of Easton it will be a complete

and widely accepted one. Almonds suggestion, it is claimed, is based on the

empirical studies of political systems of different parts of the globe.

Noted German sociologist Max Weber (18641920) also thought that without
legitimate physical compulsion it would be impossible for the government/
authority to implement any policy/decision. We find Almond to observe that
legitimate physical force is the most crucial aspect of any political system
and if any political system is deprived of it, it will be away from the proper
platform of political system and political science.

Concept, Model and Theory:

In the second half of the twentieth century analysis of political science passed
through sea changes so far as method of analysis, preparing of modes and
building up of theory are concerned and the changes have been occasioned
by the inability of the traditional political science to meet the challenge of the
new situation and the determination of a number of political scientists of both
the hemispheres to inject new thought and line of analysis into the subject.

As a result of this venture and new outlook certain terms which were
generally used by other sciences and are being increasingly used by them
have conveniently found their places in politics. For proper understanding of
political science it is necessary to throw light on these terms because without
it a clear understanding of the subject will never be achieved.

First of all we shall deal with Concept. According to Heywood concept is a

general idea about something usually expressed in a single word or short
phrase. There is a difference between idea and thing. Thing is a proper noun
and it discusses various aspects of the particular article or thing or animal.

But concept does not deal with these aspect. It gives certain idea about a
thing. When we talk of a bird we deal with biological characteristics of the
bird. This does not constitute the basis of concept. It does not go into the
details. It gives simple idea about a thing. For example, the concept of liberty
gives the idea about it. The liberty is an ideal and we discuss its various
aspects with a lot of enthusiasm and seriousness.

Concept is a very important part of todays political analysis because with the
help of concept we analyse different general principles of political science.
With the help of concept we generally impose an idea upon something or a
principle of politics.

A concept generally highlights the ideal or principle of political science and

this enables the reader to grasp knowledge about the subject. When we say
that equality or justice is an ideal or principle we first of all build up a
preliminary conception about it and after that we try to enter into the depth
of the concept. Heywood says: Concepts are general. They are building
blocks of human knowledge.

In recent years it has been found that political scientist and researchers are
increasingly resorting to concepts because they are more inclined to using it
for analysis of the subject. Political scientists and researchers are involved in
controversies and it is due to the fact that while one political scientist views
the concept in one way another political scientist focuses light on other
aspect.

But this controversy does not inflict any harm upon concept. Indeed almost
all the important issues of political science are treated in the term of
concepts. Political science, now-a-days, is explained by building up concepts
and this approach, it is claimed, has considerably enhanced the scope and
importance of the subject. In the second half of the twentieth century
behaviouralism has successfully introduced a number of concepts into
political science such as feedback, input, output etc.

Models:

Model is another form through which ideas of political science are expressed.
It can be defined as a representation of some idea or view in smaller scale or
form. Let us quote Heywood in support of our view. A model is usually
thought of as a representation of something usually on a smaller scale.
Hence model resembles something which is quite big or large. In the
preparation of the model the original thing is faithfully remembered.

But in political science the model has different connotation. The model does
not always carry with it the smaller form of original thing. In this subject
model is used to mean an analytical tool. That is when a political scientist
or researcher proceeds to discuss something in a particular way or form he
uses model.

As for example we very often talk of models of democracy, Westminster

model of parliamentary form of government. Today different political
scientists have prepared models of political systems and David Eastons
model is one of them. With the development of the application of higher and
sophisticated techniques to the analysis of political science, the importance
and role of model have considerably increased.

Particularly in the empirical study of politics the idea of model has earned
special significance. The empiricists are prone to use models. Generally facts
and data are collected from various sources, they are meticulously analysed
and then models are prepared. So we can say that model building and
empirical analysis are both closely related.

Theory:

A theory is a supposition of a system of ideas intended to explain something.

This is the definition of C.O.D. Political Scientists and researchers collect data
and facts from numerous sources and then analyse them. After the analysis
has been done they prepare proposition and this finally constitutes a theory.
So we can say that there are number of components of a theory. One is data
or fact. Second is analysis of the data.

Third is preparation of proposition. Building up of theory is also a great part of

empirical analysis of political science. The important aspects of theory arefacts are systematically explained and after that proposition are made. In
both situations facts are explained with all seriousness and alertness of mind.
While a researcher builds up a theory he honestly follows what data and facts
reveal. In fact, there is no place of value judgment or normative evaluation. It
is claimed that in the preparation of theory the researcher strictly follows

what the facts reveal.

There is a minor difference between model and theory. While model is representative of something theory is a proposition. Again model is an explanatory
device and theory is not of this category. Inspite of this difference both theory
and model are used interchangeably. In our day to day conversation and
analysis we do not strictly follow this difference.

But there is a close link between models and theories. Though both are
constructed on the basis of empirical data and facts, value judgments enter
in the analysis imperceptibly. Political scientists cannot rule out the possibility
of the intrusion of value judgment and normative biasness. A recent view that
has gained currency is that value should not be ignored.

Political Theory and Political Philosophy:

We quite often use the terms political theory and political philosophy. I think
that these two terms need to be clarified because of the fact that there are
few subtle differences between the two. According to Concise Dictionary of
Politics, Political theory is critical systematic reflection about power in its
public and private forms particularly about the claims of government to
possess legitimacy and authority and more generally such reflection about
the place of politics in social-life.

In this definition we find that political theory deals with the following issues.
Both public and private power and, this power must be related to government
which possesses legitimacy and authority. Political theory also includes
politics which has been explained in our earlier analysis.

Van Dyke has drawn our attention to two aspects of political theory. He says
that political theory is concerned with political belief systems. These belief
systems are general and comprehensive in nature. Political beliefs are related
with moral and ethical questions of the political activities and principles which
are performed and followed by government, agencies, institutions and
individuals.

According to Van Dyke political theory also includes suggestion,

recommendations and advices given by political scientists. We thus see that
political theory can never flourish and spread its manifold aspects in vacuum;
it has not fallen from heaven. Political theory is generally based on the
conclusions analyses, opinions, propositions made by the philosophers and
political scientists.

We have briefly discussed political theory. We shall now focus our attention to
political philosophy. Stated briefly it means the systematic elaboration of the
consequences for politics of suggested resolutions of philosophical
dilemmas.

In political philosophy politics and philosophy are both combined. Political

issues and affairs related to politics are explained elaborately and
philosophically. Even in a limited way political philosophy endeavours to
explore various political implications of political matters, issues and disputes.

One important feature of political philosophy is while it analyses political

issues and matters, it not only goes into the depth of the subject but also it
tries to analyse in the light of what is? and what ought to be? This is
purely a normative procedure to analyse politics. Since ought has a special
place in political philosophy we can easily find out a close relation between
political philosophy and moral philosophy. Value judgment cannot be
separated from political theory.

In fact what we call today political theory or political science it was in earlier
centuries political philosophy because the general principles of political
theory issued from the brain and pen of renowned philosophers such as Plato,
Aristotle, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx etc. Today we make serious attempts to
divorce political theory from political philosophy but the task is not so easy.

If we go through the various stages of the development of political theory we

shall find that political theory has sometimes been overshadowed by political
philosophy. The subject matters of earlier political theory were description,
explanation and evaluation and the latter opened the way of normative

character of political theory.

All these, however, were elaborately analysed by great philosophers and

naturally it was very difficult for political theory to free itself from the
shackles of philosophy. Earlier political theory was not only normative and
evaluative it was also prescriptive. Political philosophers generally prescribed
what ought to be followed. The political philosophers did not give any
importance to scientific models and application of scientific techniques to the
study of political science.

Before Machiavelli (1469-1527) politics was largely dominated by theology

and in most of the cases politics struggled hard to establish its special and
separate identity. Particularly in the middle Ages the indomitable influence of
religion blurred the distinction between religion and politics. Most of the
thinkers and philosophers cherished clear biasness for religion and were
reluctant to make distinction between the two.

They treated politics in the light of religion. Even church and Christianity
claimed highest authority to utter the last word about politics and its
numerous manifestations. The result was that politics or any general principle
of political science came to be vital parts of theology and philosophy. Politics
was neither autonomous nor primus inter pares though politics enjoys
autonomous status today.

So far as methodology of political science is concerned we see that different

aspects of the subject were explained and interpreted by the rules of formal
logic and theories of knowledge and all these are parts of philosophy. These
ideas stood on the way of independent status and spontaneous development
of politics. In earlier time philosophy played an important part in the analysis
of political science.

For all these reasons politics and political philosophy were almost treated
identically. Whenever any learned person began to think about politics he did
it in the background of philosophy. Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Marx all were great
philosophers. Particularly Plato, Aristotle and Hegel were primarily concerned
with the analysis of philosophical problems and issues and while doing so
they either made passing remarks about politics or treated politics as

subsidiary part of philosophy.

This made political science as subservient to philosophy. David Easton in his

The Political System has drawn our attention to this ignoble position of
political science in general and political theory in particular. The application of
scientific methods to the analysis of political science, the emergence of
behaviouralism and emergence of empiricism have been able at least
partially, to free political science from the clutches of philosophy, logic and
theory of knowledge.

Nature of Politics:

If we study the various definitions given above we shall come across several
features or various aspects of the nature of politics and some are stated
below:

One, the definition or idea of politics is flexible or changing. To the traditional

thinkers politics was the study of state and government. Today the definition
is not confined within a limited sphere or few notions.

The subject is variously defined and includes many notions. The idea of
politics encompasses numerous aspects of political behaviour of individuals,
groups, associations, agents etc. Even the elements of international relation
have found their place in the definition or analysis of politics. To sum up,
politics is a broad concept and changes its contents with the change of time.

Two, Controversy is a very important element of politics. Let us elaborate it.

Politics means the existence of issues and again it means the existence of
controversy. It is argued that where there are issues (and, politics cannot be
thought of sans issues) there must be controversy.

Issues are never homogeneous and the heterogeneity of issues creates an

atmosphere of debate and in this way politics cannot be separated from
controversy. Let us quote Wasby, Where no controversy exists, where no

issues are being debated, politics does not exist. The controversy pervades
to all sections of society as well as to all sorts of groups, institutions,
individuals, organisations etc.

Three, J. D. B. Miller, emphasies the disagreement nature of politics in his The

Nature of Politics. It is true that the controversial nature of politics indicates
the disagreement among opinions issues and explanations. When there is
disagreement among individuals, organisations, institutions, groups,
controversy or debate is bound to crop up. The point to note is that according
to Miller, the disagreement is the true nature of politics.

It is very difficult to think of politics which does not envisage any type of
disagreement. Because of this disagreement, it is observed, there arise
struggles among the actors of politics. Vernon Van Dyke (Political Science: A
Philosophical Analysis) believes in these times. Miller also says that if there
were no disagreement among individuals, groups or organisations, political
action or activity could not get any scope to emerge.

Four, It will be a misconception if we think that controversy or disagreement

is the exclusive feature of politics and in the arena of politics there is no place
of agreement or consensus. Persons, organisations and groups debate among
them on any political issues but at the same time they arrive at agreed terms
or solutions.

In the absence of agreement the functioning of society or the existence of

social life would have been an impossibility. To sum up, politics is
characterised by both agreement and conflict. It also deals with resolution.

Five, a number of modern political scientists (Lasswell and Robert Dahl are
prominent among them) believe that politics involves power and influence. In
an analysis of politics an important question is raisedWho gets, What, When
and How? Politics is said to be the provider of the answer to this question.
That is only through the exercise of power and influence an individual or
organisation can get what he it wants.

Politics also provides the way of getting the desired objective. It is the

contention of Lasswell, Dahl and many others that if this question is ignored
in the study of politics, its central idea will lose importance. For this reason
power and influence can never be kept out of politics. Rather they form the
central part of politics. Many political scientists even try to call power as the
summun bonum of politics. This, of course, is highly political. Many do not
agree.

Six, one important feature of politics is its pervasiveness. In all forms of state
and society (primitive, tribal, modern, developed, developing and
underdeveloped) there always exists politics. Even in past in all types of
society/state there existed politics. The form and nature of politics have
changed no doubt.

This is due to the fact that in every state or society there is management or
administration and for this politics is essential. However, the nature or politics
has assumed new forms and dimensions in different ages but politics still
exists. Today, we call national politics, international politics, local politics,
party politics etc. Politics is everywhere.

Seven, conflict is not the exclusive feature of politics. There are also
institutional arrangements for the settlement of conflicts.

Finally we turn to an interesting feature of politics pointed out by the author

of the essay, Politics published in Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics.
According to this view politics, in fact, is the manifestation of civilised and
ordered society. In such a society, people are endowed with reason and
because of that quality there arises disagreement and there are also
procedures for the resolution of this conflict or disagreement.

Now these two (disagreement and the resolution of it) generate an

atmosphere of politics. Guided by reason individuals do not want to continue
the disagreement and they start to find out ways of settlement. It is generally
regarded as politics.

The state of nature was neither a political society nor a civilised one. Muscle
power and physical force were the ways were freely used by this members of

the state of nature for the settlement of disputes. The state of nature was a
state of war. Some people wanted to do things and by dint of muscle power
they did it.

Hardly there is any place of politics in monolithic society because such a

society is characterised by complete agreement among the members of
society on various issues which crop up from time to time. Viewed from this
angle one can conclude that the three great contractualists (Hobbe, Locke
and Rousseau) may be called the introducers of the concept of politics
because all these three thinkers started their political analysis with the state
of nature. This view, however, is contested by many.

Is Political Science a Science?

The controversy whether political science is science or not is as old as the

subject itself. Even today the controversy has not died down. There are a
large number of people, many of whom are prominent in their own fields, who
believe that to call political science a science is simply a travesty of the word
science.

The central idea of science is the experimentation and after that correct
prediction and it is unfortunate that these two have hardly any scope in
political science and because of this political science cannot be placed in the
same rank of physics or chemistry.

But the opponents of this view forcefully argue that physics and chemistry
are science no doubt but they are not only sciences, there are others types of
science. Physics and chemistry are physical science but there are also social
sciences and political science is a prominent branch of social science. When
we call political science a branch of social science, we invariably use the word
science in a broad sense.

In this sense the word science means systematic study of any subject in a
very methodical way and to arrive at certain conclusion based on information,
facts collected and analysed in a scientific way. Thus in political science there
is certain amount of scope of prediction and generalisation which are based

on scientific study and investigations.

One points more. When one calls political science a science one need not use
the word science in a conservative and literal sense, but in a broad and
unorthodox sense. For example, in the eighteenth century the Glasgow
University set up a chair of Physics in the name of Natural Philosophy. The
Moral Sciences Tripos of Cambridge University taught philosophy. In 1895
London School of Economics and Political Science was established.

It is interesting to note that the persons associated with its formations used
the word science. Webb couple and many other dignitaries were associated
with this institution and they preferred the word science. Till today a very
large number of people like the word science. Politics and political science
both are interchangeably used.

A few decades back there was great hesitation regarding the use of the word
science. But today the subject has reached such a stage of development that
there is no sign of hesitation.

W. J. M. Mackenzie in his small and illuminating work Politics and Social

Science makes the following observation which is pertinent in more than one
respects. So far as I can judge, political science is still the name which
carries meaning to the general public. The word science here indicates,
simply that there exists an academic tradition of the study of politics a
discipline communicated from teacher to pupil, by speech and writing for
some 2500 years now. It does not mean that this discipline claims to be a
material science or that it could be improved by copying the methods of
Physics and Chemistry more exactly. The argument of Mackenzie is
unassailable.

Greek philosopher Aristotle called politics a master science that is a science

subject with great importance. In 1741 Hume published his essay Politics
may be reduced to a science. Humes main objective was to show that
some constitutions necessarily worked better than others and that politics
was not just a question of personalities (Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Politics).

Today attempts are being made to make the subject scientific and for this
purpose researchers, students and scholars are trying hard to make the
subject objective as well as value-free. They are also endeavouring to explain
and analyse the events systematically. Behavouralism is an example.

In support of the contention that political science can reasonably be called

science Mackenzie has drawn our attention to some of the recent
developments. He says, Techniques of data collection and data processing
have developed enormously. More emphasis is being given to the training in
the subject and it is gradually intensified.

Mackenzie also points out that a large number of natural scientists are taking
more and more interests in political science. For example, physical scientists
are interested in war and peace as well as disarmament treaties. Because the
decisions of politicians and statesmen considerably influence the research in
physics and allied subjects. Today the political science is treated as a system
which means that it is a part of bigger environment.

The various units of environment influence each other. The tangible result is
political science influences other branches of social and physical science and
at the same time it is also influenced by other sciences. Hence biology,
botany and other disciplines come to be related with political science. Political
science borrows methods of analysis from these disciplines. In this way
political science is gradually improving itself and this has raised its status as
a science.

Political scientists are now borrowing materials and methods from games
theory, and cybernetics. New methods of scientific analyses are being applied
to political science. Of all these methods the most important is statistical or
mathematical method. The empirical approach to the study of politics uses
the statistical method.

In past there were gulf of differences between political science and physical
science. In fact, there was a Chinese wall between the two. But today the
barriers are wearing thin. A young political scientist is well versed with the

terms and concepts of mathematics, physics and other branches of pure

science.

Not only is this, the interchange between political science and other branches
of social science gradually increasing. Mackenzie says that todays political
science is not what it was several decades ago. It is not simply political
science it is Meta-politics. If this is the position there is no reason to refuse
to call it a science subject. The methods of analysing political science are
gradually refined and perfected and this process will continue in future. So we
conclude that political science is a science though a science of different
category.

Political Science is a Social Science:

In the last section of our analysis we mentioned that though political science
is not pure science like physics and chemistry it is undoubtedly a prominent
branch of social science. This observation is laconic in nature and therefore
requires elaboration. We have already noted Morgenthaus definition of
political science.

For the sake of relevance we quote him again, Political science grew not by
virtue of an intellectual principle germane to the field, but in response to
pressures from the outside. What could not be defined in terms of traditional
academic disciplines was defined as political science. Wasby says that this
definition of political science is true with respect to both content and method
of political science.

From the above observation we again conclude that what we declare as the
content of political science is, in fact, derived from many other subjects which
are known as branches of social science. Hence there is hardly anything like
pure political science, various aspects and matters of political science are
derived from a number of social sciences. Even political science borrows its
method of analysis from other subjects.

With the passing away of time and the development of mans knowledge and
interest the dependence of political science upon other social sciences is

increasing. It is also to be noted here that this dependence is never a one

way traffic. Other disciplines of social science are in one way or other
dependent on political science. To sum up, political science and other
disciplines of social science are interdependent.

It is to be noted here that no science physical or social can claim purity and it
is due to the interdependence of subjects. Today we are acquainted with the
terms such as bio-physics, bio-chemistry, ethical economics, welfare politics
etc.

Political Science is Dependent on Society:

The materials which build up the structure of political science, it is asserted,

are derived from society. Bernard Crick, a prominent English political scientist
has specifically given stress on this aspect of political science. He says that
the political and related issues and events of society considerably influence
political science.

When a political scientist starts to analyse any aspect of political science his
thoughts and views are circumscribed by the prevailing situation and
happenings of the society in which he lives. Beginning from Plato down to
Marx not a single political scientist or philosopher could deny the influence
and pressure of the prevailing time and situation. Even the political scientists
of the present epoch cannot evade the influence of incidents and
circumstances around them.

The degrading condition of democracy and devaluation of values, morality,

ideals etc influenced Plato and Aristotle to declare their opinion against
democracy and to devise an ambitious plan for an ideal state. The near
anarchical condition of Britain led Hobbes to think that only an absolute
sovereign power could restore peace and tranquility in society.

When Locke began to write his treatise liberal thought was about to flourish
and because of that he strongly advocated for liberalism. The miserable
conditions of workers of Britain pained Marx and Engels so much that they
devoted their entire life to the way of emancipation of the working class.

Bernard Crick says that whenever a society is plagued by crises, the impact
falls upon the society and it is reflected on political science. Hence the study
of politics is everywhere, a response to a belief that there is a crisis. Political
science studies the crisis and after that prescribes ways how to get rid of the
crisis. Crises are of numerous types and political science studies them.

The Great Depression of the thirties of the last century and various civil wars
may be cited as examples. To combat the Depression the American president
took drastic measures which intervened with the freedom of private
entrepreneurs of America. The civil war among the various units in Italy and
the prevalence of anarchical condition compelled Machiavelli to think of the
Unification of Italy and consolidation of power of the prince.

He also believed that the mixture of politics with religion and ethics as well as
morality was one of the main reasons of anarchy from which Italy was
suffering the palliative suggested by Machiavelli (14691527) was the
complete separation of politics from religion, morality and ethics. This
sufficiency laid the foundation of secularisation of politics. All these
illustrations undoubtedly demonstrate that political science cannot keep itself
aloof from society which is the root of other social sciences.

Political Science and General Theory:

The relationship between political science and other social sciences has been
stressed in a larger degree. The main purpose is to broaden the scope and
other aspects of the subject. As a result of it political science in collaboration
with other social sciences has been able to build up a scheme of general
theory.

The relation between the two has been specifically mentioned by a recent
critic. Political science is now less parochial than before the war, but this
exercise in togetherness has demonstrated all too clearly that there is little
difference between the social science disciplines, save only as they are
shaped by their influential history, the vested interests of the departments.

The author of these significant lines wants to point out that in ultimate
analysis all the branches of social science are very closely related. The
various disciplines of social science draw their sustenance from the society,
they deal with the problems of society and they invest their energy and
intellect to the solution of manifold problems from which the society suffers.
But there are differences in approaches. Again the elements or subject
matters of the social sciences are not similar. These differences help establish
separate identity.

Attempts are being made to build up a general theory which will embrace all
the branches of all social sciences. This attempt has emanated from the idea
that since all the disciplines are interrelated particularly the various branches
of social science and all contribute to the formation of a social theory it would
be better if they are combined together.

But it is to be noted here that the contributions of all disciplines are not equal
or identical. That is each discipline of social science contributes in its own
way, according to its own ability and approach. Naturally the differences in
contribution of various branches of social science are bound to crop up. In
spite of these differences the contribution of each discipline cannot be
minimised whatever small that contribution be.

Here we shall quote the pertinent observation of Wasby. For those who feel
that our goal should be a general theory of all behaviour, each component of
social sciences is valuable to the extent that it contributes to such a general
theory, and findings true in only one area of human behaviour are less
valuable than findings duplicated with respect to other aspects of life. Thus
one component of social sciences that can contribute, or has contributed
more to such general theory qualifies as the master social science.

It is very difficult to say beforehand that there is a particular discipline in

social science which can be said as master or the most important social
science, the contribution of the discipline is crucial for our analysis.

Associated with this is our desire to use the subject and also our goal. To put
it in other words, how and for what purpose we want to utilise the subject
that will decide the contribution. It is however, a fact that tendency is

gradually becoming more and more active in favour of a general theory which
will embrace all the disciplines of social science.

There are several reasons behind this tendency and one such reason is the
complexity of social and political system. All modern political systems are
highly complicated and embrace economic, sociological, geographical,
political issues. Naturally if any researcher proceeds to build up a general
view about society he must study seriously all the disciplines of social
science.

Moreover, any political scientist or researcher of social problem does not take
rest by analysing the issues or problems He prescribes certain
recommendations. On experience it has been found that the study and the
recommendations are spread over all the branches of social science.
Naturally any segregation of one discipline from another cannot help either
the political scientist or the policy maker.

An in depth analysis of social problems and various issues reveals that the
whole society can be treated as a system and each unit of the system in one
way or other influenced by another unit and this unit again influences other
units. In other words no unit of any social system is an isolated one.

This notion gathered additional importance in the fifties of the last century
when a number of political scientists from both sides of the Atlantic
channelised their energy and intellect to the development of general systems
theory. Hence the tendency of formulating a general theory is quite rational.

Comparative Study of Different Disciplines:

A comparative study of the contributions of different disciplines of social

science will strengthen the concept of relationship among the disciplines.
Today economics is regarded as the most important branch of social science.
Some call it master social science because in one way or other economics
dominates all other disciplines.

The policy makers of the-state are heavily preoccupied with the economic
problems and finding out their solutions. Planning, industrialisation
liberalisation, globalisation all are involved with economic problems. The
governments of both developed and developing countries are profoundly
pressed by the problems created by these No administration in any part of
the world can ignore economic issues. Economists always play the crucial role
in state administration.

But the importance of economics does not mean that the role of political
scientist is in a negligible position or political science has nothing or very little
to do. The economists offer their suggestions while the policy makers may or
may not accept that. In fact the state, which belongs to political science, is
the final determiner of various political decisions and policies and all these
are implemented by the state officials. Both political science and economics
are involved in investigative analyses and studies of problems with which the
state and society are confronted.

The conclusions of these studies are integrated and the state authority
incorporates them into the policy and administration. Thus politics and
economics are combined. No modem state can be effectively administered
without economics and political science.

Sociology is a very important branch of social science group. Sociology in

general terms is called the study of society so also economics and political
science. For balanced and overall progress of society a thorough and
penetrating study of society is essential. But any study launched by a
sociologist will not be a complete one without any help from or reference to
economics and politics. Sociology as the study of society necessarily
integrates more specialised studies such as economics and political science.

There is a new subject called political sociology which is a combination of

sociology and politics. Sociology is also connected with economics and other
disciplines. Sociologist cannot arrive at acceptable and creditable conclusions
without any analysis of economic aspects of society. In this way sociology
combines economics and political science.

Normally geography is not a branch of social science but its contribution to

social science in general and preparing a general theory in particular cannot

be overlooked There are several branches of geography such as economic
geography, cultural geography, human geography etc.

These separate branches of geography guide and control human behaviour

and are also concerned with social progress. Political science also is not
completely unrelated with geography. The authority of the state adopts
various schemes to utilise geography for the development of human
resources.

There are also other disciplines of social science and all are directly related
with human behaviour and general theory and by virtue of that they are also
connected with political science. For example, history is an important branch
of social science and its relation with political science is as old as political
theory.

A major part of the materials used in political science is derived from history.
Political science, on the other hand, also helps in various ways the study of
history. Again both are the study of society and also mould the progress of
society.

In the light of the above analysis we can observe that alt the disciplines of
social science help in accordance with their own ability to the study of society
and contribute to the formation of general theory. But the extent of this
contribution cannot be assessed in a definite way. What we can say, at best,
is the contribution of a particular discipline is greater than that of the other.

But this should not lead one to jump upon the conclusion that because of this
difference in contribution a particular discipline can be called a master social
science. Wasby writes Regardless of the relative virtues of particular
disciplines many scholars would reject the idea that any one field could be
the master social science individual disciplines would be reduced in
importance, although each could contribute to general social theory in
varying degrees, as well as to each other.

Exact Position of Political Science:

In the background of above analysis one can reasonably ask what is the exact
position of political science in the whole gamut of social science? We are of
opinion that the role or contribution of politics or its position cannot be
assertively stated. It is mainly because political science deals with social
issues and problems which are volatile.

Notwithstanding this primary difficulty one can say that the importance of
political science as a guide to social policy and in the field of decision-making
is increasing day after day. Even a few decades back political scientists were
neglected.

But today on numerous crucial issues their advice is sought. This happens
both in developed and developing political systems. This no doubt posits a
challenge to political scientists and from the events it is clear they are
performing their responsibility with a lot of success and have earned eulogy
from various corners.

Does the above analysis mean that political science is going to be rated as
master social science? The answer may be both positive and negative and
because of this controversy we refrain ourselves from taking any side.
However, political science can be treated separately because of its position
among all the branches of social science.

Keeping this in mind Wasby saysSome do consider that political science is

primus inter pares in the social science, both because Aristotle called politics,
the master art and because modern social scientists have felt that the polity
performs the goal-attainment function for the society as a whole.

We have already noted that political science is a social science and this
status of the subject is not all about it. There are a good number of social
sciences and a pertinent question may arise in this regard. Whether political
science is at par with other social sciences and in this respect political
scientists have confidently said that this subject is first among the equals or
in Latin phrase primus inter pares.

Political science of the second half of the twentieth century or even at the
beginning of the twenty first century is remarkably different from what it was
at the beginning of the twentieth century. The large scale application of
scientific methods and sophisticated tools has brought about sea change in
the study of the subject.

Wasby says, Now an increasing number of political scientists are borrowers.

Perhaps one important factor in this change was the war time experience of
many political scientists as government employees working on in the midst of
manifold complicated problems. They recognised that they needed to be a
combination of political economist, political geographer and political
psychologist because as administrators they did not find problems neatly
divided into political science, economics, sociology et at, the problems, had to
be handled in their totality.

Scope of Political Science:

Political science is the most important branch of social science and its chief
concern is with the political behaviour of individuals, groups of individuals,
agencies, institutions, organisation et al. Since all these are subject to change
and they are changing continuously the subject matter of political science is
bound to change, so also the scope of Political Science.

Now the interesting fact is that various scholars and political scientists have
made sincere attempts to view its scope from their respective angles and
perspective resulting in wide variations in the treatment of scope.

A renowned author has analysed the scope of Political Science from four
different angles and these are: Politics as the art of government, politics as
public affairs, politics as compromise and consensus, politics as power and
distribution of resources. But this categorization of scope of political science
cannot be treated as final because the emergence of new phenomena and
situation will Impact the decision making process of government, government
and governed relation, attitude of people towards politics and government,
peoples ideas about the functions of state etc.

No serious thinker can neglect all these issue whilst analysing politics. Two
or three decades ago even a well-versed political scientist paid little thought
and attention to globalization and neo-liberalism. But today these two
concepts have covered a significant portion of the subject while analysing the
scope, we must note it.

Politics as the Art of Government:

A large number of people are unwilling to call politics as a science, (since it is

controversial we abandon it for the purpose of present analysis.) The general
opinion is that politics is an art and the art is closely related with the
management of government.

According to Aristotle a polity is a type of social organisation (and also a

political organisation) where political authority was exercised by large
number of people whose main concern was to achieve general welfare.
Researchers have found that in ancient Greek polity politics took place and in
those days politics meant management and administration of Polity.

It is also said that though in Greek city states there was direct democracy but
in all affairs people were not found to be directly involved in the functioning
of the state. Politics was practised among small number of men and in the
process of final decisions only few and experts participated. Scholars have
come to know this from the history of Western political thought. Politics
meant adoption of decision, enactment of laws, their implementation,
administration of justice etc.

The participants were politicians, government servants and some other

people who were interested in political affairs. Their acts were combinedly
called politics. This Greek tradition passed through ages and in this way
politics has come to be known as art of government.

In recent decades politics as an art of government has undergone

considerable changes because of the fact that in the management and
administration of society government alone is not the only player. Numerous
social, political organisations also play crucial part and this has been

necessitated by the growing complex character of society. Naturally the

scope of politics as an art of government has to a considerable extent
enhanced. Not only this, into the scope of politics is included certain negative
aspects of society.

For example in many parts of the world particularly in the states of Third
World the criminalization of politics, is assuming alarming dimension and in
this arena no government can sit idly. A government worthy of its name must
devise means to tackle this development and ultimately this comes to be a
part of art of government.

It may be noted that Italian philosopher Machiavelli lamented that corruption,

degradation of politics and internecine war among the different provinces of
Italy were the chief factors of the backwardness of Italy and failure of Italy to
be influenced by renaissance which had overwhelmingly influenced other
parts of Europe.

So his advice to the prince ultimately came to be a part of politics and as an

art of government. His advice to the prince has produced a plethora of
questions and created an atmosphere of heated controversy. But the fact still
remains that Machiavellis opinion can logically be treated as politics in an art
of government.

Politics as Public Affairs:

The scope of politics as an art of government is very narrow. In modern time

the politics is treated with a very broader outlook and it is seen primarily as
public affairs. Its chief concern is to meet the demands of public affairs. The
advocates of this conception prefer to divide the affairs of the society into
two broad categories public and private.

The business of politics is to maintain various types of public affairs and for
that purpose it enacts laws, implements them and when necessary applies
physical force. This conception leads us to make a distinction in the social
affairs between public and private. The state, as the highest political
organisation, is concerned with the public affairs.

But this does not mean that it does not see any interest in the private affairs.
It must see that the private affairs and their management do not affect the
general interest of the community.

The association or politics of political organisation of state was first brought

to light by famous Greek philosopher Aristotle (BC 384-BC-322). He believed
that the purpose of politics is to ensure good life and set up a just society.
This is purely an ethical standpoint and Aristotle viewed politics in that light.

The failure of politics to achieve this will degrade its position and status. That
is why he always insisted that politics must always try to make its citizens
good and virtuous. This function of politics is noble and for this reason he
called politics a master science.

It is necessary to draw a line between public and private affairs. Public affairs
generally mean the affairs of various governmental organs such as the three
arms of governmentthe police, the army and numerous public security
arrangements. If we closely look at politics we shall find that the state or
government is quite busy with all these departments or agencies.

Any fruitful study of politics cannot ignore all the above noted aspects. There
is no doubt that the functions and behaviour of all the above noted organs
are changing with the change of time and attitude of men. But the fact
remains that the involvement of state or political organisation with them has
not gone out of sight.

Now we shall see why politics is regarded as the management of public

affairs. Besides public affairs there are number of affairs which may be called
private and these are activities of various social, political and cultural groups,
business organisations, clubs, pressure groups etc.

All these private organisations constitute what we call Civil Society. Edmund
Burke (1729-1797) called civil society as little platoons within the entire and
huge structure of political organisation. The activities of the state are

restricted to politics, commerce, security and foreign affairs. Whereas the

functions of civil society relate to family and different private affairs.

The division between political organisation which is called state and civil
society is never water tight. For the sake of general interest and greater
welfare of the community the authority of the state very often interferes with
the functions and management of civil society.

This has come to be an important aspect that falls within the jurisdictions of
state. Thus politics deals with matters of civil society. Marx and his followers
have specifically dealt with the relation between civil society and state. It is
found in Marxist literature that capitalist ruler of state always tries to control
the agencies of civil society by means of influencing art, literature, history,
law and other things which generally belong to civil society. Thus in Marxist
conception politics is a much broader idea.

Neo-liberals of the eighties of the last century have strongly argued in favour
of the curtailment of the functions and powers of state and enhance the same
of civil society with the sole purpose of giving more freedom to individuals.
Viewed from this angle it may be observed that according to neo-liberals
politics comes to be a restricted conception.

Politics as Compromise and Consensus:

This particular aspect of politics is seen as very important because in any

state there inhabit different individuals. Within the geographical area of the
state there are many institutions, agencies and organisations. Sometimes the
purposes of these run counter to those of these state and this gives rise to
conflict. In every state there are organisations whose functions is to resolve
any conflict.

Apparently it should not be the concern of state but in ultimate analysis

settlement of all sorts of disputes forms crucial part of political science
because for this purpose the state is to frame laws, it takes steps for their
implementation. Any political analysis effectively deals with the conflicts and
their resolution. In this way the state plays the role of a compromiser.

Disputes and their settlement do not form the core of any political analysis
because to view politics as simply the manifestation of conflicts is wrong. It is
also the bounden duty of any authority to see that cooperation among
individuals and institution comes to be a salient feature. To arrive at it the
political organisation must create a congenial atmosphere.

This is no doubt an uphill task but the state cannot deny its responsibility.
However, when the state adopts its scheme ensures an atmosphere of
cooperation that becomes a part of political science. Cooperation among the
citizens may create a peaceful situation and conflict may not be frequent.
Even after that disputes may exist and it is the duty of state authority to find
out compromise formula or to help the parties to the dispute to arrive at
consensus.

Politics Embraces all Social Activities:

One very interesting feature of modern day politics is two quite opposite
forces have engulfed the study of this subject. One group believes that state
is the true custodian of its citizens interests and welfare and hence the state
should perform those activities which will ensure the above objective.

The opinion of the other group is the role of the state should be minimal.
Performing the essential services the state should leave all other activities to
the responsibility of the individuals. Adrian Leftwich in his What Is Politics?
The Activity and Its study (1984) has said that if we scrutinise various
political activities and the role of the state we shall find that everywhere the
positive and even crucial role of political organisation will be found.

In other words state is at the centre of all activities which are termed political.
These activities may be private or public, formal or informal. All these
categories do not matter at all. What matters most is the state is present
everywhere. He says, Politics is at the heart of all collective social activities.

Today if we took at all the aspects of state we shall come across the fact that

state is present everywhere. The opposite picture is neo-liberals want to

restrict the state activity to minimum function. However, such an attitude has
not been universally acclaimed and as a result state practically embraces all
sorts of social activities.

Politics is Viewed in Terms of Power:

Power is always at the heart of whatever the state performs. We have earlier
noted that the importance lies in ensuring cooperation among man,
institutions, organisations etc. It also settles disputes and tries to arrive at
consensus. Needless to say that power remains at the very centre of all these
activities.

There are number of exponents of this concept and most renowned of them
are Harold Lasswell and Kaplan. Both of them viewed politics in term of
power. Lasswells famous book: Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (1936)
once created ripples in the academic world of political science. Without
power, decision and policy cannot be properly implemented.

The resources of any society are scarce and for their proper distribution it is
essential that the distributing authority must have power. However, to have
power does not mean that it will be used indiscriminately. It may be used
judiciously and rationally. Politics encompasses both these aspects of the use
of power.

Indiscriminate and ruthless use of power lies at the centre of dictatorial form
of government and rational application characterises a government as
democratic. Marxists however see power as the main idea of bourgeois
politics. Though this Marxist view has been contested by many there is no
doubt that in capitalist state power runs through all stages gleefully.

This is called the power approach to politics. It means that power is the
central part of politics and state is unable to do even the minimum and
normal functions without power. Not only this if the state wants to play the
role of a compromiser or instrument of public affairs or a weapon for the
settlement of disputes the application of power is essential. So we may, for

the sake of debate, disagree with Lasswell or Kaplan, but we cannot deny the
importance of power.