POS 363: Introduction to Political Behaviour

Harold Lasswell defines politics as “who gets what, when and how?” This definition
reveals what is really at the centre of the politics: People! After all, they are right
there in the very first word (“who”). Political behaviour investigates this
fundamental unit of politics in the aim of better understanding the institutional,
social, and psychological influences on how people think and act when it comes to
politics.
Political behaviour is the study of the way people think, feel, and act with regard to
politics. It describes people’s actions and inactions, opinions, and interest in the
political process that establishes links between the public and political leaders. This
is evident in activities such as voting, aspiring for political offices, petitions,
protests, forming political parties, spending time or money on political campaigns,
choices around which aspirants or political parties to vote for during elections, and
choices concerning positions to take, how to participate in politics to communicate
views to policymakers in order to influence policy decisions, and so on.
Political behaviour is one of the significant contributions of electorates to
democracies and other political structures in making choices and resolutions about
political issues. One thing you need to note, however, is that people do not have to
participate in politics in order to behave in a political manner. Political inaction and
even apathy are particular manifestations of political behaviour
Political behaviour or behavioural approach to the study of politics identifies the
behaviour of individuals or group of individuals as the primary unit of analysis. For
instance, Graham Wallace, in his seminal work, argued that “the study of politics is
nothing without the study of man for man’s personality and behaviour dominates
the arena of politics and the development of political action”. Another scholar,
Arthur Bentley went further to argue that the group an important factor in the
political process. According to him, “when the group is adequately stated,
everything is stated; because the society is nothing other than the complex of
groups that compose it”.
Political behaviour, therefore, seeks to examine the behaviour, actions and acts of
individuals and groups, rather than characteristics of institutions such as legislature,
executive and judiciary.

The Origin of the Behavioural Approach to Political Science

The behavioural revolution developed essentially in opposition to older approaches
to the study of politics and our understanding of behaviouralism will be enhanced
by a brief review of these older approaches. Basically, these approaches can be
divided into two; namely, the Normative-Philosophical Approach and the Descriptive
Institutional Approach. The two approaches dominated the study of politics up to
the period before 1900. Let us now examine them in turn.
The Normative-Philosophical Approach
The Normative-Philosophical Approach is the oldest and least scientific approach to
the study of politics and it has been overshadowed, but not completely displaced,
by newer or more contemporary approaches. Traditionally, the study of politics was
dominated by philosophical reflections on those universal political values that were

1
regarded as essential to the just state and the good citizen. Unlike the empirical
approach that is concerned about ‘what happened and why’ the normative
approach emphasises ‘what should have happened’ or ‘what ought to be’. Among
the questions which dominated the reflections of such great traditional political
philosophers as Plato, Aristotle, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes. John Locke
and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were: What is justice? What makes the exercise of
political power legitimate? What should be the proper role of the state in the
generation distribution or regulation of wealth in society? What reciprocal
obligations exist between the state and the citizens? What importance should be
given to political values such as justice, natural rights, freedom, obedience and
liberty?
Contemporary students of the Normative Philosophical Approach have not only
attempted to provide fresh answers to the questions raised by the traditional
philosophers, but also sought to empirically investigate the extent to which such
political values as justice, freedom and equality have actually been accepted in
particular societies.
In essence, the Normative-Philosophical Approach is concerned with questions of
justice, morality, and the ideal organization of society. This approach draws heavily
from political philosophy and ethical theory to evaluate political phenomena and
prescribe normative principles for political action.
Key Features of the Normative-Philosophical Approach:
1. Ethical Evaluation: At its core, the Normative-Philosophical Approach
involves the ethical evaluation of political behaviour, institutions, and
systems. Political philosophers examine whether political actions and
decisions are morally justified according to ethical principles such as justice,
fairness, and equality.
2. Moral and Political Values: Normative political theorists analyze the
underlying moral and political values that inform political systems and
practices. They explore concepts such as freedom, democracy, rights, and
citizenship to assess their significance and implications for political life.
3. Political Ideals and Utopias: Normative political philosophy often involves
the exploration of political ideals and utopian visions of society. Philosophers
speculate about the nature of an ideal political system and the conditions
necessary for its realization, challenging existing arrangements and
proposing alternative models of governance.
4. Justification of Political Authority: A central concern of the Normative-
Philosophical Approach is the justification of political authority. Political
theorists examine the legitimacy of governments and institutions, addressing
questions such as the source of political authority, the limits of state power,
and the rights of individuals.
5. Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Decision-Making: Normative political
philosophy deals with moral dilemmas and ethical decision-making in politics.
Philosophers analyze difficult choices political actors face and assess the
ethical implications of different courses of action, drawing on ethical theories
such as utilitarianism (Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right
from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.

2
 Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce
the greatest good for the greatest number), deontology (Deontology is an
ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. Deontology is
often associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that
ethical actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don't lie. Don't steal.
Don't cheat”), and virtue ethics.
6. Social Justice and Distributive Fairness: Issues of social justice and
distributive fairness are central to the Normative-Philosophical Approach.
Political philosophers explore theories of distributive justice, examining how
resources, opportunities, and benefits should be allocated within society to
achieve a fair and equitable distribution.
7. Critique of Existing Political Systems: Normative political theorists often
engage in a critical analysis of existing political systems and practices. They
identify injustices, inequalities, and moral shortcomings within political
institutions and propose reforms or alternatives based on normative
principles.
Examples of Normative-Philosophical Analysis:
 John Rawls' Theory of Justice: Rawls' influential theory of justice explores
the principles of fairness and equality that should govern the distribution of
goods and opportunities in society. Rawls argues for a conception of justice
based on the principles of equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity,
and the difference principle, which requires that social and economic
inequalities be arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society.
(Equal basic rights and opportunities for all).
 Aristotle's Ethics and Politics: Aristotle's ethical and political works
examine the nature of virtue, the good life, and the ideal state. Aristotle
argues that the purpose of politics is to promote human flourishing and that
the best form of government is one that cultivates virtuous citizens and
promotes the common good.
 Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition: Arendt's philosophical
exploration of the human condition addresses issues of freedom, action, and
plurality in politics. Arendt critiques the rise of bureaucracy and
totalitarianism in the modern era, emphasizing the importance of active
citizenship and public participation in maintaining democratic societies.
In summary, the Normative-Philosophical Approach in political science involves the
ethical evaluation of political phenomena, institutions, and decisions, drawing on
principles of justice, morality, and political ideals to assess the normative
dimensions of politics. This approach complements empirical analyses by providing
a framework for evaluating the ethical implications of political behaviour and
guiding the pursuit of a more just and equitable society.
The Descriptive -Institutional Approach
The Descriptive-Institutional Approach focuses on understanding political
phenomena through the analysis of institutions, their structures, functions, and
behaviours. Unlike normative approaches that evaluate political systems based on
ethical principles, the emphasis is on facts rather than values. The Descriptive-
Institutional Approach aims to describe and analyze the formal and informal

3
institutions that shape political life. Thus, the Descriptive-Institutional Approach
seeks to provide factual and historical answers to such questions as: What are the
historical sources of parliamentary supremacy? What in fact, is the procedure
followed when a bill becomes a law? By what electoral arrangements are rulers or
representatives chosen? What are the relative merits and demerits of rigid or
flexible constitutions?
Key Features of the Descriptive-Institutional Approach:
1. Emphasis on Institutions: At the core of the Descriptive-Institutional
Approach is a focus on institutions, which are formal organizations, rules,
norms, and procedures that structure political behaviour and decision-
making. Political scientists using this approach examine the design,
operation, and impact of institutions within political systems.
2. Structural Analysis: The Descriptive-Institutional Approach involves a
structural analysis of political institutions, examining their organizational
arrangements, distribution of power, and mechanisms of governance.
Scholars analyze how institutions shape political behaviour, constrain action,
and mediate conflicts within society.
3. Historical and Comparative Perspective: Scholars employing the
Descriptive-Institutional Approach often adopt a historical and comparative
perspective to understand the origins, evolution, and variation of political
institutions across different contexts. Comparative analysis allows
researchers to identify patterns, similarities, and differences in institutional
design and performance.
4. Functionalist Perspective: The Descriptive-Institutional Approach is often
informed by a functionalist perspective, which emphasizes the role of
institutions in maintaining social order, stability, and continuity. Scholars
explore how institutions fulfil specific functions within political systems, such
as providing governance, resolving conflicts, and allocating resources.
5. Institutional Change and Adaptation: The Descriptive-Institutional
Approach examines processes of institutional change, adaptation, and reform
over time. Scholars explore how political institutions respond to internal and
external pressures, such as social movements, technological advancements,
and changes in the global environment.
6. Policy Implications: By studying political institutions, the Descriptive-
Institutional Approach provides insights into the functioning of government
and the implementation of public policies. Scholars analyze how institutional
structures influence policy outcomes, decision-making processes, and the
effectiveness of governance.
Examples of Descriptive-Institutional Analysis:
 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems: Political scientists using the
Descriptive-Institutional Approach might conduct comparative studies of
electoral systems to understand how different institutional designs, such as
proportional representation or first-past-the-post systems, affect political
representation, party competition, and government formation.

4
  Study of Bureaucratic Institutions: Researchers using the Descriptive-
Institutional Approach might investigate the organization and behaviour of
bureaucratic institutions within government agencies. They would examine
bureaucratic structures, administrative procedures, and decision-making
processes to understand how bureaucracies function and influence public
policy implementation.
In summary, the Descriptive-Institutional Approach in political science focuses on
analyzing political phenomena through the lens of institutions, their structures,
functions, and behaviors. By examining the design, operation, and impact of
institutions within political systems, this approach provides valuable insights into
the functioning of government, the dynamics of governance, and the
implementation of public policies.
Although the Descriptive - Institutional Approach is fairly old, present-day political
scientists still devote substantial attention to the examination of major political
institutions like the executive, the judiciary, the civil service, the legislature and
local government. From this inquiry, valuable knowledge about the organisation of
political institutions can be acquired, proposals for their reform recommended and
general conclusions offered.
These two approaches dominated the study of politics. Socio-political values were
studied based on individual’s subjectivity and perspectives, and then institutions of
politics were described from historical antecedents and values emanating from
philosophers’ thoughts. In these two approaches, however, stands a gap: the
individual or group that is the operators of political institutions and interpreters of
political values are amiss! What about them? How do we understand the output of
institutions and values without first understanding the people who man them, their
values, attitudes, orientations, socializations and other things? All these determine,
to a great extent, what they do in their political environments. The point at which
political scientists began to ask these questions was the outset of the behavioural
approach.

Behaviouralism
Behaviouralism is one of the most significant modern approaches to the study of
political science. Behaviouralism is an approach in political science which seeks to
provide an objective, quantified approach to explaining and predicting political
behaviour. Its emergence in politics coincides with the rise of the behavioural social
sciences that were given shape after the natural sciences. Behaviouralism is mainly
concerned to examine the behaviour, actions, and acts of individuals rather than
the characteristics of institutions such as legislatures, executives, and judiciaries.
Behaviouralism underscores the systematic inquiry of all exclusive expression of
political behaviour. Some scholars insist that behaviouralism implies the application
of meticulous scientific and statistical methods in order to standardise means of
investigation. It is also an exercise in ensuring a value-free study of the discipline of
politics. It is usually argued that by the adherents of behavioural approach that
political science should be studied in manner similar to the study of natural
sciences. In this context, the supporters of behavioural approach insist that the
main role of a political scientist is to collect and analyse factual data in an objective
manner. The major point of criticism against the traditional approaches has been

5
that they have been deficient in applying scientific methods to the study of politics
that has rendered its very claim to be a science at all. Therefore, the behaviouralists
recommended the application of exacting methodology and empirical studies to
make the discipline of political science a true social science. The behavioural
approach has without doubt given a totally ground-breaking purpose to the study of
politics by taking it towards an inquiry based on research-supported verifiable data.
The behaviouralists have challenged the older approaches by labelling them
traditional as they fail to substantiate their conclusion with verifiable facts. In order
to understand political behaviour of individual the supporters of behavioural
approach prescribe the methods like sampling, interviewing, scoring, scaling and
statistical analysis. The behavioural approach came to be exceedingly favoured in
the study of political science after the World War II. Nonetheless, it originated with
the publication in 1908 of the works of two political scientists, Graham Wallas
(Human Nature in Politics) and Arthur Bentley (The Process of Government). Both of
these political scientists preferred to underscore the informal political processes and
diminished the significance of the study of political institutions in isolation.
Wallas, moved by the new findings of modern psychology, strived to introduce
similar realism in the study of political science. The major breakthrough provided by
modern psychology was that an individual, after all, was not that much a rational
being as the traditional political scientists and classical economists had tried to
make him out. Consequently, he emphasised that, more often than not, an
individual’s political action were not given direction by rationality and self-interest.
Wallas pointed out that human nature was a complex phenomenon and for an
objective understanding of human nature suggested gathering and analysis of
factual data of human behaviour.
The other political scientist, Bentley was credited for inventing ‘group approach’ in
the study of politics. He also prescribed that there should be a shift from description
of political activity to the application of new tools of investigation. Bentley had
sought greater inspiration from modern sociology that made him emphasise the
role of the informal groups such as pressure groups, elections and political opinion
in political processes.
Another significant political scientist who made valuable contribution to behavioural
approach was Charles E Merriam, known as the founder of Chicago School. His
objection to the traditional approaches to politics was the usual one i.e. they suffer
from the absence of thorough scientific inquiry. He was also critical of the works of
those historians who did not take into account the role of psychological, sociological
and economic aspects of human existence. He vociferously advocated an inter-
disciplinary approach to the study of political science, which would endow the
discipline with a true scientific character. He favoured the use of quantitative
techniques in the study of politics and encouraged political scientists to treat
political behaviour as the cardinal issue in the studies. Since he was a resolute
admirer of democracy, he strived to employ science to disseminate the message of
democracy. He did not see any inconsistency to advance the cause of a specific
form of government through an approach to politics.
It was William B Munro, another supporter of modern approach who made it plain
that it was improper for political science to encourage the spread of any specific
form of government, democracy or otherwise. One more proponent of behavioural
approach, G E G Catlin spoke of making politics a value-free social science in his

6
notable work, Science and Method of Politics, published in 1927. For Catlin, the
essence of politics is to be located in ‘power’ and in this respect he cautioned that
in the analysis of power, no particular value-system should be taken into account.
Catlin’s idea that politics was essentially the study of power was later turned into a
comprehensive study by Harold D Lasswell in the renowned work Politics: Who Gets
What, When, How that came out in 1936. It is considered as one of the most
meticulous studies of power.
These were the most important attempts to transform politics into a scientific
discipline prior to World War II. In the post-War period quite a few American political
scientists such as David B Truman, Robert Dahl, Evron M Kirkpatrich, Heinz Eulau
made outstanding contributions to behaviouralism that elaborated and expanded
the extent of behavioural approach beyond the analysis of political behaviour.
Therefore, it is pertinent to quote here the contemporary definition of behavioural
approach as provided by Geoffrey K Roberts in A Dictionary of Political Analysis,
published in 1971: “Political behaviour, as an area of study within political science,
is concerned with those aspects of human behaviour that take place within a state
or other political community, for political purposes or with political motivation. Its
focus is the individual person- as voter, leader, revolutionary, party member,
opinion leader etc. rather than the group or the political system, but it necessarily
takes account of the influences of the group on the individual’s behaviour, the
constraints of the system on the individual’s opportunities for action, and the effects
of the political culture on his attitude and political habits.”
In view of this definition, the political scientists who subscribe to the behavioural
approach investigate the psychological and sociological bearings on the behaviour
of the individual in a political situation. Such an approach makes it imperative to
make an investigation of certain processes and political aspects such as political
socialisation, political ideologies, political culture, political participation, political
communication, leadership, decision making and also political violence. It goes
without saying that the study of most of these processes demands an
interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary approach. Thus, in the post-War scenario, the
behavioural approach went beyond the confines of the research of individual-centric
political behaviour. In the contemporary sense, it is identified with an array of points
of reference, procedures and methods of analysis.
REFERENCES:
Gauba, O.P. (2010), An Introduction to Political Theory, Macmillan Publishers, Delhi
http://www.kkhsou.in/main/polscience/approaches_polscience.html