Behavioural Political Science and the End of Sovereignty

Powers, not sovereignty, is the basis of politics and State: The concept of sovereignty, which has played so great a role in modem political thought for more than four centuries, has been totally discarded by the political scientists of the behavioural school of Political Science, which came into prominence since 1950 in the USA. According to these politi scientists, what distinguishes politics and government is not sovereignty ‘ power. They regard the concept of sovereignty as unscientific, because cannot be empirically tested and operationally verified by the methods a techniques of scientific analysis.

Power is an authoritative decision-maki relation between two persons or groups, and can be found in various kin of associations or social units. What distinguishes government (or State) its monopoly of legitimate power or coercive authority. But it is sovereignty or supreme, absolute, illimitable power, because it is sh checked and counterbalanced by another power. For instance, in traditional societies, it is shared with the family, clan or caste, religl bodies or some other groups, while in the modem States it is exercised monopoly of legitimate physical coercion.

In all political systems (societies, States, governments), power is exercised for allocating goods, values and resources among various individuals, groups and classes, as desired and willed by them. When their desires, demands or wills change, a new power arises to satisfy them after a conflict or not with earlier powers. It means that, in all its manifestations of consent, share or conflict, power is a relation between persons, groups and classes for allocative purposes. Hence the more the allocative resources of a political system the greater its power and vice versa would be. But as power relations are structured in more or less permanent forms, they give rise to various kinds of classes, elites, both persons and groups. In traditional societies, these classes and groups are more long-lasting than in the modern societies. What is more, power is a quantifiable phenomenon.

It has scope or extent, and amount or magnitude. By scope is meant the extent to which power is exercised, or the number of individuals and groups who are ruled or controlled. By magnitude or amount is meant the degree of effectiveness of or compliance with the allocative decisions of the government. It means how much its decision or policy can command the obedience or compliance of the people. Thus it is mathematically or statistically possible to measure the scope and magnitude of power. Furthermore, this analysis provides the political scientists with such concepts as “the centre of power”, “the ruling group” or “the prime movers”. For instance, the prime movers are those who stand at the centre of power, while the ruling groups constitute the political elites in a political system.

With the concept of “prime movers”, the behavioural political scientists came nearest to the concept of sovereignty. However, they never line this term. The prime movers are the top-men in a hierarchical political ».vstcm or government. But their power is not and cannot be equated with sovereignty, because their power is not supreme, absolute or illimitable, which are the attributes of sovereignty. Robert A. Dahl, a behavioural political scientist, writes, “According to democratic theory, in democracies llir people are the prime_ movers; but few political analysts would regard HiIn as a satisfactory description” of the actual political system of any miiion-State. Indeed, in systems that are not strictly hierarchical, but operate liiNlrad with many mutual controls, there is no reason to suppose that ultimate prime movers exist.”40 In other words, the search for sovereignty in ii political system is an exercise in futility.

 

  • Add Your Comment

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.