If history is the narrative of past events, a systematic record of what happened, then it is also the story of how political institutions came into being, how they evolved, what principles went into organizing them and how they changed over time. The historical approach attempts to present a historical account of political thought and theory. Sabine, for example, in his A History of Political Theory seeks to present the history of political theory as a ‘disciplined investigation of political problems’. These political problems are problems of ‘group life and organization. He discusses the major themes that have appeared in the writings of thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bodin, Althusius, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill, Green, Hegel, Marx, and others. Ivor Jennings traces the growth of the office of the Prime Minister in Britain and the institution of political parties by using the historical method. In a limited sense, the historical approach can help:
- To study the emergence of ideas, institutions and values.
- Analyse the relevance of ideas, institutions and values for the contemporary period and seek guidance for the future.
- Make comparisons in the context of historical backgrounds; according to Garner, ‘It is almost a commonplace to-day to affirm the necessity of historical study as a basis for the scientific investigation of political institutions which have a historical background.’17
- Draw inferences or tentative conclusions with respect to some aspects of contemporary political activities with the help of the historical–descriptive technique.18
The historical approach applies ‘historical and inductive methods of enquiry to draw conclusions by observing one or more sets of events and historical activities.’19 In yet another sense, the historical approach has served as a method of analysing historical events by way of tracing historical laws, i.e., history is viewed as a process determined by its own inherent necessity beyond the control of human initiative. Hegel’s historical dialectical method and Marx’s historical materialism are examples of this approach. Hegel seeks to present history as the history of the ‘spirit’ and its journey to realize perfect freedom. The State for him is the culmination of this journey. For Marx, history is understood in terms of the replacement of one mode of production or economic relationship with another, to establish a classless society. Critics have expressed apprehension with respect to the historical approach both as a historical–descriptive analysis and as a way to discover historical laws. According to R. H. S. Crossman and Karl Popper, the historical approach is suitable only to study particular phases of ideas and institutions, without being relevant to the study of contemporary institutions and values. It is in this sense that Fredrick Pollock remarks: ‘The historical method seeks explanation of what institutions are and are tending to be, more in the knowledge of what they have been and how they come to be what they are, than in the analysis of them as they stand.’ David Easton ruefully opines that contemporary theorists, instead of formulating a new value theory, are engaged in historicism, i.e., simply relating information about the historical development of contemporary and past values. This, in turn, has hindered the formulation of a value theory suited to contemporary requirements. In fact, the historical approach has been responsible for the decline of political theory.
Further, in seeking comparisons on a historical basis, there could be danger of superficial resemblances and historical parallels, against which James Bryce warns. By applying the inductive method of reaching inferences through observations, the historical approach can provide empirical bases but there could also be problem of confusing what Seeley calls, ‘what ought to be with what is’.20 The investigator’s own biases and locational (social, cultural and geographical) conditioning may also affect historical analysis. By seeking value in historical events and activities, this approach may lead to conservatism and, at times, retrograde formulations.
Popper also criticizes the historicism of Hegel and Marx. According to Popper, having established what is inevitable, historicism results in advocating the means to achieve it that may also be authoritarian. He declares them to be the ‘enemy of open society’ and inimical to ‘social engineering’, the means of social change for a liberal society.
Leave a Reply