Introduction

The study of politics is inseparable from the debate on what constitutes the realm of the ‘political’. One may take the position that whatever goes into deciding the share of each human being out of everything human society as a whole owns, produces and possesses—both in terms of the material and the moral—relates to the realm of the political. If that is so, then should such sharing be on the basis of authoritative allocation by public decisions or through self-regulating private initiative? To decide this, we must understand the principle of distribution of resources: what should belong to each, and how this share should be organized. This, in turn, calls for an engagement with the principles of justice, rights, political and public obligations, and the arrangements that ensure decision making towards this end. Sabine opines that ‘the institutions in a society that we would be likely to designate as political represent an arrangement of power and authority’.¹

This leads us to treat the political as encompassing the realms of both intellectual enquiry and practical activity. While in the first sense it means exploring the principles, values and objectives upon which a society can be organized, in the second it means analysing the processes of political activity and the arrangement of power and authority. In short, the former explores the ideal and the latter involves the practical. Various approaches to political enquiry highlight one or the other meaning. However, it may also be the case that the ideal and the practical are not always treated separately. The dichotomy between what it is and what it should be is not maintained and a holistic political enquiry is envisaged. Leo Strauss, a twentieth century political philosopher, rejects the differentiation between political science and political philosophy, and maintains that values should not be dissociated from political enquiry.