Understanding the Relationship between Political Science and Politics

 

 

Prof. Dr. Firuz Demir Yasamis

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

This paper critically examines the conceptual relationship between political science and politics, two often conflated but analytically distinct domains. Political science is defined as the systematic and empirical study of political institutions, behavior, and theory, whereas politics encompasses the practical activities of governance, decision-making, and power negotiation. Drawing on classical and contemporary theoretical frameworks—including Easton’s systems theory, Lasswell’s definition of politics, and the behavioral and post-behavioral movements—this study highlights the evolution of thought concerning the interplay between political theory and practice. The paper argues that maintaining a clear distinction between political science and politics is essential for preserving academic rigor, ensuring objective analysis, and fostering democratic accountability. Furthermore, the mutual interdependence of these fields enriches both scholarly inquiry and practical governance. This conceptual clarity supports the development of informed citizenship and effective policymaking, thereby contributing to the sustainability of democratic systems.

Keywords: Political Science, Politics, Governance, Political Theory, Public Policy, Democratic Accountability, Political Practice, Political Inquiry, Academic Rigor, Political Behavior

INTRODUCTION

The concepts of political science and politics are often used interchangeably in everyday discourse, yet they refer to distinct but interconnected domains. Political science is an academic discipline within the social sciences that systematically studies political institutions, processes, behavior, and theory. Politics, in contrast, encompasses the practical activities associated with governance, policy-making, and power relations in society. Understanding the distinction and interdependence between these concepts is essential for developing a nuanced comprehension of modern governance, political participation, and scholarly inquiry. This paper examines traditional and contemporary views on political science and politics, analyzes their differences and overlaps, and evaluates the significance of maintaining conceptual clarity in both academic and civic contexts.

Aim and Objectives

Aim: This paper aims to critically examine the conceptual and practical relationship between political science and politics, highlighting their distinctions, interconnections, and relevance in contemporary governance and academic discourse.

Objectives:

To define and clarify the core concepts of political science and politics from both traditional and modern perspectives.

To analyze the evolution of thought regarding the distinction between theoretical inquiry and political practice.

To compare the key characteristics, actors, methods, and purposes of political science and politics.

To explore the interdependence between academic political studies and real-world political activities.

To emphasize the importance of conceptual clarity in political discourse, civic education, and democratic participation.

Research Questions

What are the fundamental conceptual differences between political science and politics?

How have traditional and modern scholars approached the relationship between theory (political science) and practice (politics)?

In what ways do political science and politics intersect and influence one another?

What are the key roles of political scientists versus political practitioners in the context of governance and public policy?

Why is maintaining a distinction between political science and politics important for academic rigor and democratic functioning?

METHODOLOGY

This study employs a qualitative, theoretical-analytical approach to examine the conceptual distinctions and intersections between political science and politics. It conducts a comprehensive literature review of classical and contemporary political theory, drawing on foundational texts by scholars such as David Easton, Harold Lasswell, Robert Dahl, and Giovanni Sartori, as well as relevant paradigms including behavioralism, post-behavioralism, and critical theory. The methodology emphasizes a comparative and historical analysis, tracing the evolution of scholarly thought regarding the relationship between political science and practical politics. This approach allows for a nuanced understanding of the theoretical frameworks that underpin the discipline and the implications of maintaining conceptual clarity. The study integrates normative and empirical perspectives to evaluate how the interaction between political science and politics influences democratic governance and academic rigor.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study is grounded in foundational theories and paradigms of political science that provide conceptual tools for distinguishing between political science as an academic discipline and politics as a practical activity.

David Easton’s Systems Theory: Easton conceptualized politics as a system of inputs (demands and supports) and outputs (policies and decisions), emphasizing the dynamic nature of political life. His model situates political science as a tool to understand the structures and functions within this system, distinguishing between descriptive analysis (science) and normative action (politics).

Harold Lasswell’s Definition of Politics: Lasswell famously defined politics as “who gets what, when, and how,” highlighting the distribution of power and resources. This view underscores politics as a field of action and competition, while political science attempts to analyze and explain these distributions through empirical investigation.

Empiricism vs. Normativism: The divide between empirical political science (grounded in observation, data, and positivism) and normative political theory (concerned with values, justice, and ideal governance) frames much of the distinction between political science and politics. Scholars such as Robert Dahl and Giovanni Sartori have emphasized the importance of maintaining academic objectivity while acknowledging normative commitments.

Behavioralism and Post-Behavioralism: The behavioral revolution in political science (1950s–60s) emphasized quantitative methods and the study of actual political behavior rather than abstract institutions. Post-behavioralism, as a reaction, reintroduced normative concerns, aligning political science closer to political realities. These movements show how theory evolves in response to politics, reinforcing the necessity of studying both in tandem yet as distinct entities.

Praxis in Critical Theory: From a critical theory perspective (e.g., Habermas), political knowledge is not only descriptive but also emancipatory. This lens offers a critique of the neutral stance of traditional political science and argues for engagement with politics to address power asymmetries. This challenges the rigid separation of science and practice but still affirms the need for conceptual clarity.

Together, these theoretical contributions form a framework that supports the central claim of this study: while political science and politics are interdependent, they serve distinct purposes, involve different actors, and require different methods of analysis. Political science provides the conceptual and methodological tools for understanding politics, while politics offers the empirical content that informs and tests political science theories.

DEFINING POLITICAL SCIENCE AND POLITICS

Political Science is the systematic and empirical study of political systems, public institutions, governance structures, political behavior, and theoretical frameworks. As a discipline, it includes subfields such as political theory, comparative politics, international relations, public administration, and public law. Political scientists employ various research methods, including qualitative analysis, case studies, and quantitative techniques, to explain political phenomena and to propose normative and analytical models.

Politics, derived from the Greek word Politika (affairs of the city), refers to the practice of governing a community or nation. It includes activities related to decision-making, power negotiation, policy development, and political contestation among individuals, parties, and interest groups. Politics manifests in election campaigns, legislative processes, public debates, lobbying efforts, and the daily administration of government institutions. It is inherently dynamic, influenced by cultural, economic, and historical contexts.

Traditional and Modern Views

In traditional scholarship, political science was often seen as a theoretical and normative field focused on the ideal state, legal principles, and the nature of sovereignty. Politics, by contrast, was associated with the practical, and sometimes unsavory, business of acquiring and exercising power. Scholars like Sir Frederick Pollock distinguished between theoretical politics (academic study) and applied politics (governance in action).

Modern perspectives increasingly reject this dichotomy. Contemporary political science embraces both empirical research and theoretical inquiry, recognizing that understanding politics requires engagement with real-world practices. The shift toward behaviorism, institutionalism, and rational choice theory has expanded the scope of political science to include analysis of voter behavior, political communication, public policy, and global governance.

Comparative Analysis

Category	Political Science	Politics
Nature	Academic discipline; theoretical and empirical	Practical activity involving governance and power
Objective	Understand, explain, and theorize political systems and actors	Govern, implement policies, and influence public affairs
Key Actors	Scholars, academics, researchers	Politicians, administrators, lobbyists, citizens
Methods	Scientific analysis, theory-building, empirical studies	Decision-making, negotiation, campaigning, administration
Scope	Broad: includes theory, law, IR, public policy, etc.	Context-specific and shaped by time, culture, and society

Interconnections and Overlaps

While political science and politics differ in scope and purpose, they are inherently interconnected. Politics provides the empirical content that political science investigates. Political scientists study political actors and institutions to formulate theories and predict outcomes. Conversely, political practitioners often rely on academic findings to inform their strategies and policies. For instance, public opinion research, a subfield of political science, plays a crucial role in shaping electoral campaigns and legislative priorities.

Furthermore, political science contributes to democratic accountability and civic education by offering frameworks to analyze governance and by promoting informed citizen participation. Theoretical paradigms developed by political scientists—such as liberalism, realism, or institutionalism—help contextualize political developments and evaluate the effectiveness of government actions.

The Importance of Conceptual Clarity

Differentiating between political science and politics is vital for several reasons. It helps delineate the role of scholars as analysts and observers, rather than participants in political power struggles. It fosters academic objectivity and rigor in evaluating political phenomena. Moreover, conceptual clarity enhances public discourse by equipping citizens with the analytical tools necessary to critically assess political claims and institutions.

In educational contexts, understanding the distinction enables students to grasp the theoretical foundations of governance and to relate them to current events and policy debates. In the realm of governance, it encourages evidence-based decision-making grounded in academic research.

ANALYSIS

What are the fundamental conceptual differences between political science and politics?

Nature and Definition: Political Science is an academic discipline within the social sciences that studies political systems, behavior, institutions, and theories. It is systematic, theoretical, and analytical. Politics refers to the practical activity of governing, decision-making, and power struggle within a society. It is dynamic, real-world, and action-oriented.

Purpose: Political Science aims to understand, explain, and evaluate political phenomena. Its goal is to build conceptual frameworks and generalizable theories. Politics aims to gain, maintain, and exercise power and to make decisions that affect public life. It seeks to achieve concrete outcomes, such as passing laws, forming governments, or resolving conflicts.

Scope: Political science encompasses subfields like: Political theory, comparative politics, international relations, public administration and public law.  Whereas, politics covers practical areas such as elections and party competition, law-making and policy implementation, political negotiations and coalitions, civic activism and protest movements.

Actors: Political Science is practiced by scholars, academics and researchers. Politics is carried out by politicians, administrators, lobbyists and political activists.

Methods: Political Science uses empirical research, theoretical modeling, quantitative and qualitative methods. Politics uses rhetoric and persuasion, coalition-building, public communication and strategic decision-making.

Objectivity vs. Engagement: Political science strives for objectivity and analytical detachment. Politics is inherently partisan and interest-driven, often involving subjective value judgments.

Time Orientation: Political Science analyzes political trends in a long-term, historical, or predictive context. Politics often responds to immediate concerns, crises, or public opinion.

Summary
Aspect	Political Science	Politics
Nature	Academic, theoretical	Practical, action-oriented
Purpose	Understanding and explaining politics	Gaining and using power
Scope	Broad and comparative	Contextual and time-bound
Main Actors	Scholars, researchers	Politicians, officials, interest groups
Methodology	Scientific (empirical/theoretical)	Strategic and persuasive
Orientation	Objective and analytical	Partisan and goal-directed

 

Traditional vs. Modern Approaches to the Relationship between Political Science and Politics

Traditional Approach: A Sharp Separation

Early political thinkers and classical scholars generally maintained a clear distinction between theory (political science) and practice (politics). This view emphasized:

Normative Focus: Political science was seen as a philosophical and normative inquiry into what ought to be—examining the ideal state, justice, rights, and authority.

Practical Disengagement: Politics was regarded as an arena of contingency, conflict, and power, often viewed as too impure or unpredictable for scientific analysis.

Scholarly Examples:

Aristotle laid early foundations but distinguished between theoretical knowledge (episteme) and practical wisdom (phronesis).

Sir Frederick Pollock and other 19th-century scholars emphasized political science as a pure science of the state, separate from day-to-day political activities.

Woodrow Wilson, though later associated with practical politics, initially wrote about the “study of administration” as separate from political interference.

Modern Approach: A Bridging of the Divide

By the mid-20th century, political science evolved into a more empirical and behavior-oriented discipline, challenging the strict separation between theory and practice:

Behavioral Revolution (1950s–60s):

Scholars like David Easton and Gabriel Almond called for a more scientific approach to political phenomena. Emphasis shifted to observable behavior, voter studies, party dynamics, and public opinion—bringing political science closer to real-world politics. Politics was no longer just a subject of abstract theorizing but became a field of measurable phenomena.

Post-behavioralism (1970s onward):

Reacting to the perceived detachment of behavioralism, scholars like David Easton (again) and Dwight Waldo called for relevance, values, and engagement. Political science should not only explain politics but also serve society, bridging theory with practice. Critical theorists (e.g., Jürgen Habermas) pushed further, asserting that theory must inform and shape political action.

Contemporary View: Mutual Interdependence

In the 21st century, the relationship is seen as fluid and reciprocal. Theoretical frameworks (e.g., rational choice, institutionalism, feminism, post-structuralism) are used to interpret and influence political action. Political scientists often act as policy advisors, analysts, and commentators, contributing to real-world decisions. Governments and political actors use academic research to design campaigns, frame legislation, and assess public sentiment.

Summary
Era	Key Traits of the Relationship	Scholars/Theorists
Traditional	Clear divide between theory and practice	Aristotle, Pollock, early constitutionalists
Behavioral	Closer integration through empirical, scientific methods	Easton, Almond, Lasswell
Post-behavioral	Reassertion of values and relevance; theory informs action	Easton, Waldo, Habermas
Contemporary	Interdependent: theory shapes practice and vice versa	March & Olsen, Skocpol, Foucault, Habermas

 

This evolution reflects a growing recognition that political science cannot remain detached from political realities, and politics benefits from the insights of systematic political analysis.

Intersections and Mutual Influence between Political Science and Politics

Although political science and politics are conceptually distinct, they are deeply interwoven in both theory and practice. Their interaction takes place across several domains—intellectual, institutional, and functional—and contributes to both the development of political knowledge and the effectiveness of governance.

Politics as the Subject Matter of Political Science: Political science relies on real-world political phenomena as its empirical foundation. Elections, party systems, public policy debates, legislative behavior, and international conflicts are all political events that provide data and context for political analysis. Without the practical realities of politics, political science would lack the substance necessary for theory-building, hypothesis testing, and comparative research.

Political Science as a Tool for Political Practice: Politicians, administrators, and policy-makers increasingly draw on political science research to:

Design electoral strategies (using public opinion polling, voter behavior models)

Draft evidence-based policies (informed by policy studies, comparative analyses)

Improve governance (drawing on insights from public administration and institutional theory)

Academic institutions and think tanks often bridge theory and practice by translating scholarly research into actionable recommendations.

Shaping Public Discourse and Political Culture: Political scientists contribute to public debate, helping interpret political events through newspaper articles, media interviews, books, and public lectures. Their work shapes how citizens understand democracy, justice, representation, and power. Political science can thus influence political socialization, civic education, and critical thinking among the public.

Institutional Interactions and Policy Advising: Governments and international organizations often consult political scientists when designing electoral systems, constitutions, governance reforms, or diplomatic strategies. In turn, politics may influence research agendas, especially in areas like security, migration, populism, or democratic backsliding. Political events—such as wars, revolutions, crises—often reshape theoretical priorities, pushing scholars to reinterpret existing models.

Reflexivity and Co-Evolution: The relationship is reflexive: just as political science interprets and critiques politics, politics reacts to academic critique. For example, studies on authoritarianism, political corruption, or democratic erosion can lead to public pressure and reform, while also sparking political backlash or co-optation.

In this sense, both fields co-evolve—the theory constantly adapts to new political realities, while politics may shift based on scholarly input.

Summary
Interaction Area	Political Science Contributes by…	Politics Influences by…
Empirical Data	Observing political behavior, institutions	Providing real-world material for analysis
Policy and Governance	Recommending frameworks and evaluating effectiveness	Shaping research agendas through current challenges
Public Discourse	Interpreting events and educating citizens	Engaging scholars in public debate
Institutional Design	Offering comparative models and normative critique	Demanding consultative expertise
Theoretical Development	Producing evolving concepts (e.g., populism, legitimacy)	Prompting reevaluation through political change

 

The Roles of Political Scientists and Political Practitioners in Governance and Public Policy

Political scientists and political practitioners fulfill distinct but interrelated functions within the broader sphere of governance and public policy. While both engage with political phenomena, their roles differ fundamentally in terms of objectives, methods, and scope. Political scientists primarily engage in the systematic study and theoretical analysis of political systems, institutions, behavior, and policy processes. Their work is grounded in empirical research and normative inquiry aimed at understanding political dynamics and governance structures. Utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods, political scientists develop conceptual frameworks and generate generalizable knowledge about political phenomena (Easton, 1965; Almond & Powell, 1978). This analytical perspective is largely detached from the immediate exigencies of political action and is characterized by its pursuit of objectivity and methodological rigor (Lasswell, 1951). Political scientists contribute to governance by providing critical assessments of policy outcomes, institutional performance, and democratic processes, thereby informing public debate and potentially guiding policy reform (King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994).

Conversely, political practitioners are actors who operate within the political and administrative arenas to formulate, negotiate, and implement public policy. Their engagement is inherently pragmatic, oriented toward achieving tangible political goals within the constraints of institutional structures, public opinion, and competing interests (Lasswell, 1951; Easton, 1965). Practitioners—such as elected officials, bureaucrats, and political advisors—must navigate the complex interplay of power, coalition-building, and electoral considerations to effectuate governance objectives (Peters, 2010). Their decision-making processes often involve balancing ideological commitments with practical realities, including political feasibility and stakeholder demands (Lindblom, 1959). Political practitioners operationalize policy ideas, some of which may be informed by scholarly research, by enacting legislation, managing public administration, and engaging with constituents.

The interaction between political science and political practice is dialectical. Political scientists provide theoretical insights and empirical evidence that can enhance the effectiveness, transparency, and legitimacy of governance (King et al., 1994), while practitioners’ experiences and challenges can inform and enrich academic inquiry, ensuring its relevance to real-world politics (Sartori, 1970). For example, the work of political scientists on institutional design has influenced constitutional reforms in various countries (North, 1990), while practitioners’ feedback has led to refinements in theories of policy implementation (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973).

In conclusion, political scientists and political practitioners occupy distinct yet mutually reinforcing roles: the former advances systematic knowledge and normative critique, while the latter engages in the applied, strategic exercise of political authority. Together, their collaboration is essential for the development of effective, democratic, and responsive governance.

The Importance of Maintaining a Distinction Between Political Science and Politics for Academic Rigor and Democratic Functioning

Maintaining a clear distinction between political science and politics is essential for preserving the intellectual integrity of the discipline and for supporting the effective functioning of democratic governance. This demarcation serves multiple critical purposes in the academic and practical realms. From the perspective of academic rigor, political science must adhere to systematic methodologies, empirical validation, and theoretical clarity to generate objective and reliable knowledge about political phenomena (King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994). Conflating political science with the practice of politics risks introducing partisan biases, ideological preferences, and normative commitments that may compromise analytical neutrality and scholarly detachment (Easton, 1965). Such bias undermines the ability of political science to provide valid generalizations and to serve as a critical check on political power. By maintaining a separation, political science can function as a disciplined inquiry that critiques and evaluates political institutions and policies based on evidence rather than partisan interests, thereby contributing to intellectual honesty and scientific advancement (Sartori, 1970).

In terms of democratic functioning, the distinction safeguards the normative and procedural foundations that underpin democracy. Political science offers frameworks and empirical insights essential for understanding democratic principles such as accountability, rule of law, representation, and participation (Dahl, 1971). By remaining analytically independent from political actors, political science can objectively assess the health of democratic institutions and public policies, identify democratic deficits, and recommend reforms without being co-opted by political agendas (Diamond, 1999). Conversely, politics as a practice involves negotiation, power struggles, and the pursuit of collective decisions within a pluralistic society (Lasswell, 1951). If political science were indistinguishable from partisan politics, its capacity to function as an independent source of critique and knowledge would be diminished, potentially enabling authoritarian tendencies or populist distortions to go unchecked. Furthermore, this distinction fosters a productive dialogue between scholars and practitioners, where political science informs politics with empirical evidence and normative evaluation, and politics provides real-world complexities that refine academic theories (Peters, 2010). Such an exchange is vital for enhancing the quality of governance and sustaining democratic legitimacy.

In sum, the clear demarcation between political science and politics preserves the objectivity, credibility, and critical function of the academic discipline, while simultaneously reinforcing democratic accountability and informed policy-making. This boundary ensures that political science remains a robust field of inquiry capable of contributing constructively to the understanding and improvement of political life.

OVERALL EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study has critically examined the conceptual and practical distinctions and interrelations between political science and politics. The analysis reveals that, despite frequent conflation in popular discourse, political science and politics constitute two analytically distinct yet mutually interdependent domains. Political science, as an academic discipline, pursues systematic and empirical inquiry into political phenomena with the goal of generating objective knowledge, developing theoretical frameworks, and providing normative evaluations. Politics, by contrast, involves the pragmatic exercise of power, governance, and policy-making within the dynamic realities of social, economic, and cultural contexts.

The theoretical framework employed in this study—drawing on foundational scholars such as Easton, Lasswell, Dahl, and Sartori—underscores the importance of maintaining conceptual clarity to preserve both academic rigor and democratic functioning. The evolution from classical normative conceptions to behavioral and post-behavioral paradigms demonstrates an increasing recognition of the interplay between theory and practice, yet the necessity of keeping their analytical boundaries intact remains paramount.

Empirical investigation, normative reflection, and practical engagement constitute distinct modes of political inquiry and action that together sustain the vitality of democratic governance. Political science’s methodological rigor and detached analysis enable it to serve as a critical check on political power and to inform evidence-based policy-making. Meanwhile, political practitioners operationalize such knowledge within the constraints and contingencies of real-world politics, negotiating competing interests to achieve governance objectives.

The mutual influence and dialogue between political science and politics enrich both fields. Academic insights contribute to more informed and effective governance, while political realities challenge scholars to refine theories and remain relevant. However, blurring the distinction between the two risks undermining the objectivity of scholarship and the accountability of political institutions, potentially fostering bias, partisanship, or authoritarian tendencies.

In conclusion, the distinction between political science and politics is not merely semantic but foundational to the integrity of academic inquiry and the health of democratic systems. Recognizing and respecting this boundary allows political science to fulfill its critical and constructive role while enabling politics to remain responsive, pragmatic, and legitimate. Future research and pedagogy should continue to emphasize this balance, promoting an informed citizenry and accountable governance in increasingly complex political landscapes.

KEY FINDINGS

Political science and politics, while interrelated, are conceptually distinct domains; political science functions as a systematic, empirical, and normative discipline, whereas politics involves the practical exercise of power and governance.

Classical and modern theoretical frameworks demonstrate an evolving recognition of the interdependence between political theory and political practice, though a clear analytical boundary remains crucial.

Maintaining this distinction safeguards academic objectivity, prevents partisan bias, and enables political science to serve as an effective critical instrument for democratic accountability and policy evaluation.

Political practitioners benefit from the insights of political science, applying scholarly knowledge to real-world governance, while political realities challenge and refine academic theories.

Blurring the line between political science and politics risks undermining both the credibility of academic inquiry and the legitimacy of democratic institutions.

Conceptual clarity enhances informed citizenship, supports evidence-based policymaking, and contributes to the resilience of democratic systems.

 

REFERENCES

Almond, G. A., & Powell, G. B. (1978). Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Little, Brown.

Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Yale University Press.

Diamond, L. (1999). Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.

Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Wiley.

King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The Policy Orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The Policy Sciences. Stanford University Press.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.

Peters, B. G. (2010). The Politics of Bureaucracy: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration. Routledge.

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. University of California Press.

Sartori, G. (1970). Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053.