Political Science is an observational science. When observation and comparison are undertaken regarding things of the past, it becomes the Historical Method. It supplements the experiment method, because history is but an experiment made in die past. Thus Historical Method combines die advantages of three methods, namely, those of observation, comparison and experimentation or experience. Prof Gilchrist aptly remarks, “The source of experiments of Political Science is history; they rest on observations and experience. Every change in the form of government, every law, every war in the past is an experiment in Political Science.”
Historical Method seeks to study States and political institutions with reference to their origin, their growth and development. They are not made, but grow. They are the products of history. To know them what they are today, we must first know what they were in the past and what forces shaped them. Further, what we have learnt from the past history of one institution can be verified by a similar historical study of other organisations and institutions.
Thus our conclusions and generalisations will become more correct and valid. On the basis of these conclusions we can formulate laws and principles about the future evolution and development of these institutions and guide the process of their evolution. It is rightly said that the present is built on the past, and runs into the future. Consequently, our knowledge of the past politics makes us understand the present one and be wise for the future. It is only by knowing the past ancf the present that we can plan for the ideal institutions of tomorrow.
The great writers who used this method were Montesquieu in France, Savigny in Germany, and Sir Henry Maine in England in the past while Seeley, Freeman and J.H. Laski are it’s modem exponents.
Criticism. — Historical Method is exposed to certain defects and drawbacks. Lord Bryce, who used the identical method of comparison, warns us that we must not be misled by superficial resemblance of the so- called ’historical parallels’, which are usually interesting, sometimes illuminating but often misleading. It is a very common fallacy that what was good in the past would be good for our age because of some apparent resemblance between the two ages. It is based on such reasoning: “Because such a law, such a form of institution or government, such a measure or line of policy was suitable in ancient Greece or early Arabia of the Caliphs, therefore it should be suitable here and now.” It is commonly believed that history repeats itself.
But the fact is that history never repeats itself in exactly the same way. “You can cross a river only once.” Everything, political or social, occurs under more or less changed circumstances. There may be some resemblance with the past occurrence, but not total identity. That is why the historical method serves no useful purpose in solving our present and future needs, for it refers only to the experience of what the political institutions have been in the past. Every age has its own problems and every problem requires its own solution relative to the time in which it occurs.
Another defect is dial historical method is based on a mere narration of facts. It is not concerned with their ethical evolution, i.e., with the good of the political institutions and events. It enables us to discover things as they have been in the past, but does not inform us what they should be now. Lastly, historical method needs a sharp judgement and an impartial mind. In the study of history we are often subject to emotional influences of bias and prejudice. We look into the past not as it actually was, but as we wish it to be. Our interpretation of historical past is often our presuppositions about it. In using this method, therefore, we must take care in the selection and analysis of material and should avoid bias and prejudice.