MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL STUDIES
MARAWI CITY

Subject: POS101 (Fundamentals of Political Science) Semester: First Semester, A.Y. 2023-2024
Instructor: Mr. Federico Boyles Filipino

Nota Bene: This handout is for classroom purposes only. Take note that this is just an introductory reading
material for this course. Additional materials will be given to you in the succeeding weeks.

Everyday Life and Political Analysis

When people learned that you are a political science major, or a political science teacher, they
expect you to have an understanding of events in politics better than their own. They expect you to be able
to explain these events, whether to clarify what happened, to reveal the motivations behind the actuations
of the persons or groups involved, or to provide a prognosis for what can be expected to happen next. How
does a political scientist satisfy these expectations? What does the political scientist possess that an ordinary
person lacks, to be able to provide these explanations? What does the political scientist add to an ordinary
person’s cognition of event? And beyond these expectations of other people, what do political scientists
aim to accomplish when they engage in political science? In what way is a political scientist’s account of
Gerry Mandring the politics of events different, and-----it is hope -----better?
Concepts and theories constitute the basic elements of political science; as indeed they do for other
sciences. It is important for a beginner student of political science to become aware of this underlying
structure of the discipline. Any political science knowledge---in the form of explanations or analyses of
political events----uses a vocabulary of concepts, in a language that is informed by theories that have been
offered by political scientists. To learn to be a political scientist means that one must learn the vocabulary
and the language; more importantly, it means to lean thoroughly that the vocabulary is one of concepts,
and that the language is that of theory. building blocks of political studies
All Social Scientists---political scientist included---are engaged in the study, understanding, and
explanation of humans in society. Humans in society appear or are seen first of all, in what we call
“everyday life” ---the multitude of activities and events that happen in the daily existence of people. In
everyday life, people meet and talk to each other, interact, transact business, and tell stories of their
everyday experiences.
Social sciences—including political science---begin from these stories, narratives, accounts,
exchanges of everyday life, using these as raw materials for social science, but then go beyond the everyday
life accounts. As the name social science/political science suggests, the ultimate objective for social science
is to build a science---a body of knowledge that is deemed to be reliable for being correct and useful as
explanation of why and how it is that events occur the way they do. This is not deliberately not a technical
definition of “science”, but it is meant to indicate its essential features: first, that it consists of knowledge;
second, that it involves a “body” of knowledge and is not limited to a single piece of knowledge; third, that
it is correct; fourth, that it can be relied upon as source or basis for explaining events.
In “The Republic, Plato differentiates “knowledge” from “opinion” and “belief”. We can
acknowledge that according to our definition, those who are engaged in “science” regard themselves as
engaged in the pursuit of “knowledge” not mere opinion and beliefs, these latter deemed susceptible to error
and/or unsubstantiated or unsupported claiming. Social scientists aim at producing knowledge that based
on perception of “reality”, rather than opinion, or belief, which are based on perception of “appearance”.
For Plato, the essential difference is rooted in what is accepted as “real” and therefore “knowable”; for
Plato, the object of knowledge is the real itself, not an image projected, or shadow cast by it.
We should know the knowable
epoch- suspend your judgement
Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
 The society is the laboratory of a political scientist

In the everyday life location, the accounts that people tell are stories about specific people, things
and events; in the social sciences location, the accounts that social scientists tell are analyses of classes of
people, things and events and how these are linked in highly probable ways that go beyond coincidence or
chance. The social science statements now use names that subsume or include the specific actual events,
and predicate links between classes of events. The actuality of “groups massed around banners” is
subsumed in the term “civil society” and this is predicated to be a significant factor in the mobilization that
led to the removal from office of President Erap Estrada. The many stories of individual heroes of disasters
like flash floods, typhoons and earthquakes are subsumed in the name “social capital”. Civil society and
social capital are social science words.
The process of generating the larger name is called “generalization”. At its simplest,
generalization involves or entails the identification or specification of features (or features) found in
common across all given specific names, such that particulars taken together from a class (or in
mathematics, a set of things. For example, Maria, Ms. Santos, and Mrs. Reyes are subsumed in the name
“female” or “woman”. This activity of naming or giving a name to a generalization is called
Process-> “conceptualization” or “conceptualizing”, the forming of a concept. Concepts are named ideas or mental
constructs, and these are the basic building blocks of analysis.
elitism/ cycle of elites/ political dynasty- 1 family controls eveything
ex. Sindangan
What is Political Science?
to know the state; the study of state
The word “political” is derived from the Greek word “polis”, meaning a city, or what
today would be the equivalent of a sovereign state. In ancient Greece, the basic unit of political
organization was the city-state. The foundations of political thinking were laid by the great Greek
philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Plato was the author of the book “The Republic”.
Aristotle the father of political science, firstly used the term 'politics' and converted the subject
into an academic discipline. He published his book 'Politics' as a first systematic study of politics.

The word “science” comes from the Latin word “scire,” to know. Politics refers to the subject
matter of our study while science denotes the methodology or the way of studying the process of
politics. The first term seeks to answer the question "what is studied" and the second term refers
to "how is it studied". Therefore, the political phenomenon which should be studied in accordance
with a definite plan or system is called political science.

Traditional Way (as the study of state, government, and national institutions)

Traditionally Political science is a science of state. Political thinkers like R.G. Gettel, J.W.
Garner, Bluntschli and many others were of the view that political science is the study of the state.
ü R.G. Gettel defines “Political Science as a study of state in the past, present and
future and of Political institutions and Political theories”.
ü J.W. Garner states, “Political Science begins and ends with the state”
ü Paul Janet writes “Political Science is concerned with the foundations of the state
and principles of government.
ü George Catlin states “Politics means either the activities of political life or the
study of these activities. And these activities are generally treated as activities of
the various organs of government.”
ü Oxford English Dictionary defines Political Science as “the study of the state and
systems of government.”

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 ü Bridal expressed the view that “Political Science is, above all, descriptive study
which brings together the description of national political institutions, their history,
their ideological principles, their working, the forces that direct them, the influence
they undergo, the results they obtain and their effect on the life of the country and
its relations with neighboring states.

The concept of Political Science as a study of State, Government and national Institution
is not considered adequate today. This aspect of above definitions emphasizes the legal structure
only. They do not pay attention to what is happening within the State. Political Science must
include the study of informal structures, facts and reality of Politics. Hence, modern Political
thinkers defined Political Science differently and have taken the modern approach.

Modern Approach (as the study of power) Anong nangyare may imposition of power; in terms of oppression
Modern Political thinkers like Lasswell and Robert Dahl defined politics in terms of power,
influence, and authority. According to these thinkers Power has acquired prominent position in
political thought. "Dynamics"
ü Harold Lasswell considers, “Politics as the study of shaping and sharing Political
powers”. It suggests that struggle for power is the subject matter of the study of
politics. Since this struggle takes place at all levels-domestic, local, regional,
national and international –politics becomes a universal activity.
ü Robert A. Dahl defined that, “A Political system is any persistent pattern of human
relationship that involves, to a significant extent power, rule or authority.”
According to the view of these thinkers, the entire political activity is directed towards
capturing and maintaining power. “Power” is the central idea in Politics.
ü Kay Lawson Political Science is the study of politics.

Analysis and Conclusion

The several definitions of the term Political Science reflect the changing understanding of
the discipline. From above definitions we may say that there are mainly two approaches of looking
at Political-Science. 1) Traditional approach and the 2) Modern approach. The Traditional
Approach suggests that Political-Science is the study of State, Government and National
Institutions. It studies the formal, legal structures and theoretical part. The Modern Approach
emphasizes “What is actually happening in the state”. It stressed on reality and actual facts of
politics. Thus, it studies various forces, processes and informal structures making it dynamic.

However, it can be said that political - Science is a systematic study of the State,
Government, Political institutions, Power, influence and authority, Political processes and Political
forces.

What analyze/study Politics?

We cannot escape politics though we may try to ignore it. Whether a person likes it or not,
virtually no one is completely beyond the reach of some kind of political system. A citizen
encounters politics in the government of a country, town, school, church, business firm, trade
unions, club, political party, civic association, and a host of other organizations. Politics is an
unavoidable fact of human existence. Everyone is involved in some fashion at some time kind a
to understand current issues and provide solutions
make people conscious of their rights

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 justice is due to some one who deserves so

political system. If politics is inescapable, so are the consequences of politics (Robert Dahl).
Politics is part and parcel of nearly all human interactions. Political decisions govern almost
everything we do, and everything done to us. We are in short, a most political species (Kay
Lawson).
Prevents misuse of the government
idiotes- people who are not
What is Politics? we are social animals (where we interact with other people) interested in public affairs in
conflict= exerting power= we are exercising politics the old time
People commonly use the term politics in a negative or pejorative sense, as in “There’s
only one explanation for her being appointed to be the new ambassador—politics”; or,
simply, “It’s back to politics as usual.” The idea behind this casual use of the term implies
that a decision is “political” if influence or power is involved in making it. The negative
connotation that often surrounds “politics” derives from the belief that decisions
should be made objectively, on the basis of merit, quality, achievement, or some other
humans are not legitimate standard. When we find that influence and power has had an effect on an
self sufficing important decision in government or in large organizations, most people develop a
very cynical attitude, accepting the idea that “politics” is synonymous with cheating or
underhanded dealing (Ethridge and Handelan, 2010).
But you need not like the thing you study. Biologists may
behold a disease-causing bacterium under a microscope. They do not “like” the
bacterium but are interested in how it grows, how it does its damage, and how it
may be eradicated. Neither do they get angry at the bacterium and smash the glass
slide with a hammer. Biologists first understand the forces of nature and then work
with them to improve humankind’s existence. Political scientists try to do the same
with politics.
Apolitical- people who are not interested
in political affairs
Approaches to defining Politics
1. Politics as the art of government
‘Politics is not a science … but an art’, Chancellor Bismarck is reputed to have
told the German Reichstag. The art Bismarck had in mind was the art of government, the
exercise of control within society through the making and enforcement of collective
decisions. This is perhaps the classical definition of politics, developed from the original
meaning of the term in Ancient Greece.
In this light, politics can be understood to refer to the affairs of the polis – in effect,
‘what concerns the polis’. The modern form of this definition is therefore ‘what concerns
the state’. This view of politics is clearly evident in the everyday use of the term: people
are said to be ‘in politics’ when they hold public office, or to be ‘entering politics’ when
they seek to do so. It is also a definition that academic political science has helped to
perpetuate.
In many ways, the notion that politics amounts to ‘what concerns the state’ is the
traditional view of the discipline, reflected in the tendency for academic study to focus on
the personnel and machinery of government. To study politics is, in essence, to study
government, or, more broadly, to study the exercise of authority. This view is advanced in
the writings of the influential US political scientist David Easton (1979, 1981), who defined
politics as the ‘authoritative allocation of values’. By this, he meant that politics
encompasses the various processes through which government responds to pressures from

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 the larger society, in particular by allocating benefits, rewards or penalties. ‘Authoritative
values’ are therefore those that are widely accepted in society, and are considered binding
by the mass of citizens. In this view, politics is associated with ‘policy’: that is, with formal
or authoritative decisions that establish a plan of action for the community.
However, what is striking about this definition is that it offers a highly restricted
polity- state view of politics. Politics is what takes place within a polity, a system of social organization
centred on the machinery of government. Politics is therefore practised in cabinet rooms,
legislative chambers, government departments and the like; and it is engaged in by a limited
and specific group of people, notably politicians, civil servants and lobbyists. This means
that most people, most institutions and most social activities can be regarded as being
‘outside’ politics. Businesses, schools and other educational institutions, community
groups, families and so on are in this sense ‘non-political’, because they are not engaged
in ‘running the country’. By the same token, to portray politics as an essentially state bound
activity is to ignore the increasingly important international or global influences on modern
life.
The link between politics and the affairs of the state also helps to explain why
negative or pejorative images have so often been attached to politics. This is because, in
the popular mind, politics is closely associated with the activities of politicians. Put
brutally, politicians are often seen as power-seeking hypocrites who conceal personal
ambition behind the rhetoric of public service and ideological conviction. Indeed, this
perception has become more common in the modern period as intensified media exposure
has more effectively brought to light examples of corruption and dishonesty, giving rise to
the phenomenon of anti-politics. This rejection of the personnel and machinery of
conventional political life is rooted in a view of politics as a self-serving, two-faced and
unprincipled activity, clearly evident in the use of derogatory phrases such as ‘office
politics’ and ‘politicking’. Such an image of politics is sometimes traced back to the
writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, who, in The Prince ([1532] 1961), developed a strictly
realistic account of politics that drew attention to the use by political leaders of cunning,
cruelty and manipulation.

2. Politics as Public Affairs

A second and broader conception of politics moves it beyond the narrow realm of
government to what is thought of as ‘public life’ or ‘public affairs’. In other words, the
distinction between ‘the political’ and ‘the non-political’ coincides with the division
between an essentially public sphere of life and what can be thought of as a private sphere.
Such a view of politics is often traced back to the work of the famous Greek philosopher
Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle declared that ‘man is by nature a political animal’, by which
he meant that it is only within a political community that human beings can live the ‘good
life’. From this viewpoint, then, politics is an ethical activity concerned with creating a
‘just society’; it is what Aristotle called the ‘master science’.
However, where should the line between ‘public’ life and ‘private’ life be drawn?
The traditional distinction between the public realm and the private realm conforms to the
division between the state and civil society. The institutions of the state (the apparatus of
government, the courts, the police, the army, the social security system, and so forth) can
be regarded as ‘public’ in the sense that they are responsible for the collective organization
of community life. Moreover, they are funded at the public’s expense, out of taxation. In

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 contrast, civil society consists of what Edmund Burke called the ‘little platoons’,
institutions such as the family and kinship groups, private businesses, trade unions, clubs,
community groups and so on, that are ‘private’ in the sense that they are set up and funded
by individual citizens to satisfy their own interests, rather than those of the larger society.
On the basis of this ‘public/private’ division, politics is restricted to the activities of the
state itself and the responsibilities that are properly exercised by public bodies. Those areas
of life that individuals can and do manage for themselves (the economic, social, domestic,
personal, cultural and artistic spheres, and so on) are therefore clearly ‘non-political’.

3. Politics as compromise and consensus

The third conception of politics relates not to the arena within which politics is
conducted but to the way in which decisions are made. Specifically, politics is seen as a
particular means of resolving conflict: that is, by compromise, conciliation and negotiation,
rather than through force and naked power. This is what is implied when politics is portrayed
as ‘the art of the possible’. Such a definition is inherent in the everyday use of the term. For
instance, the description of a solution to a problem as a ‘political’ solution implies peaceful
debate and arbitration, as opposed to what is often called a ‘military’ solution. Once again, this
view of politics has been traced back to the writings of Aristotle and, in particular, to his belief
that what he called ‘polity’ is the ideal system of government, as it is ‘mixed’, in the sense that
it combines both aristocratic and democratic features. One of the leading modern exponents of
this view is Bernard Crick. In his classic study In Defence of Politics, Crick offered
the following definition:
Politics [is] the activity by which differing interests within a given unit of rule are
conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare
and the survival of the whole community. (Crick, [1962] 2000)
In this view, the key to politics is therefore a wide dispersal of power. Accepting
that conflict is inevitable, Crick argued that when social groups and interests possess power
they must be conciliated; they cannot merely be crushed. This is why he portrayed politics
as ‘that solution to the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence
and coercion’. Such a view of politics reflects a deep commitment to liberal– rationalist
principles. It is based on resolute faith in the efficacy of debate and discussion, as well as
on the belief that society is characterized by consensus, rather than by irreconcilable
conflict. In other words, the disagreements that exist can be resolved without resort to
intimidation and violence. Critics, however, point out that Crick’s conception of politics is
heavily biased towards the form of politics that takes place in Western pluralist
democracies: in effect, he equated politics with electoral choice and party competition. As
a result, his model has little to tell us about, say, one-party states or military regimes.
This view of politics has an unmistakably positive character. Politics is certainly no
utopian solution (compromise means that concessions are made by all sides, leaving no
one perfectly satisfied), but it is undoubtedly preferable to the alternatives: bloodshed and
brutality. In this sense, politics can be seen as a civilized and civilizing force. People should
be encouraged to respect politics as an activity, and should be prepared to engage in the
political life of their own community. Nevertheless, a failure to understand that politics as
a process of compromise and reconciliation is necessarily frustrating and difficult (in part,

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 because it involves listening carefully to the opinions of others) may have contributed to a
growing popular disenchantment with democratic politics across much of the developed
world. This has been expressed in the rise of populism and in the emergence of a style of
politics that disdains compromise and consensus and places much more emphasis on
conflict. The election of Donald Trump as US president has often been said to illustrate
this trend.

4. Politics as Power
The fourth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather
than confining politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the ‘public’
realm), this view sees politics at work in all social activities and in every corner of human
existence. As Adrian Leftwich proclaimed in What is Politics? The Activity and Its Study
(2004), ‘politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public
and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies’. In this sense, politics takes
place at every level of social interaction; it can be found within families and amongst small
groups of friends just as much as amongst nations and on the global stage. However, what
is it that is distinctive about political activity? What marks off politics from any other form
of social behaviour?
At its broadest, politics concerns the production, distribution, and use of resources
in the course of social existence. Politics is, in essence, power: the ability to achieve a
desired outcome, through whatever means. This notion was neatly summed up in the title
of Harold Lasswell’s book Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (1936). From this
perspective, politics is about diversity and conflict, but the essential ingredient is the
existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while human needs and desires are infinite, the
resources available to satisfy them are always limited. Politics can therefore be seen as a
struggle over scarce resources, and power can be seen as the means through which this
struggle is conducted. Advocates of the view of politics as power include feminists and
Marxists. The rise of the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s and 1970s, bringing
with it a growing interest in feminism, stimulated more radical thinking about the nature
of ‘the political’. Not only have modern feminists sought to expand the arenas in which
politics can be seen to take place, a notion most boldly asserted through the radical feminist
slogan ‘the personal is the political’, but they have also tended to view politics as a process,
specifically one related to the exercise of power over others. This view was summed by
Kate Millett in Sexual Politics (1970), in which she defined politics as ‘power-structured
relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another’.
Marxists, for their part, have used the term ‘politics’ in two senses. On one level,
Marx used ‘politics’ in a conventional sense to refer to the apparatus of the state. In the
Communist Manifesto ([1848] 1967), he (and Engels) thus referred to political power as
‘merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another’. For Marx, politics,
together with law and culture, are part of a ‘superstructure’ that is distinct from the
economic ‘base’ that is the real foundation of social life. However, he did not see the
economic ‘base’ and the legal and political ‘superstructure’ as entirely separate. He
believed that the ‘superstructure’ arose out of, and reflected, the economic ‘base’. At a
deeper level, political power, in this view, is therefore rooted in the class system; as Lenin
put it, ‘politics is the most concentrated form of economics’. As opposed to believing that

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 politics can be confined to the state and a narrow public sphere, Marxists can be said to
believe that ‘the economic is political’. From this perspective, civil society, characterized
as Marxists believe it to be by class struggle, is the very heart of politics.
Views such as these portray politics in largely negative terms. Politics is, quite
simply, about oppression and subjugation. Radical feminists hold that society is patriarchal,
in that women are systematically subordinated and subjected to male power. Marxists
traditionally argued that politics in a capitalist society is characterized by the exploitation
of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, these negative implications are
balanced against the fact that politics is also seen as an emancipating force, a means through
which injustice and domination can be challenged. Marx, for instance, predicted that class
exploitation would be overthrown by a proletarian revolution, and radical feminists
proclaim the need for gender relations to be reordered through a sexual revolution.
However, it is also clear that when politics is portrayed as power and domination it need
not be seen as an inevitable feature of social existence. Feminists look to an end of ‘sexual
politics’ achieved through the construction of a non-sexist society, in which people will be
valued according to personal worth, rather than on the basis of gender. Marxists believe
that ‘class politics’ will end with the establishment of a classless communist society. This,
in turn, will eventually lead to the ‘withering away’ of the state, also bringing politics in
the conventional sense to an end.

Here are some definitions:

ü Politics means seeking and using the power of the state to make allocations of scarce
resources throughout a given polity (Kay Lawson).

ü It is the process of making government policies. The process by which policy makers
choose which actions they will and will not take is, according to our definition, politics
(Austin Ranney).

ü Politics is defined as involving questions as to “who gets what, when, and how? Politics is
concerned with determination, by official governmental decision making and action as to
(who) in the political society receives the (what) benefits, rewards, and advantages, (when)
they were able to obtain those benefits and the method by which they are obtain (how).
Conversely, it also determines as to who in the society is denied with those benefits, when
and how long are they denied and the method by which they are subjected to such
deprivation (Harold Lasswell).

ü Politics is concerned with the authoritative allocation of values throughout the society. By
“values”, we refer to anything in this world that is sought-after (David Easton).

ü Politics means a struggle for power, control and influence (Ricardo S. Lazo).

Nature of Political Science

Very often, a question is raised whether the discipline of Politics can be regarded as a
science? There is no unanimity among Political thinkers whether the subject is a Science. Political

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 science is still growing and developing subject. What is a Science? “Science is a systematic body
of knowledge, the facts of which have been accurately and impartially collected, arranged and
classified through the use of various scientific methods of observation, comparison and
experimentation”.
Various arguments are forwarded for and against the discipline being a science.

Arguments that it is not a science.

Political Scientists like Maitland, Burke, Gettel do not think that Politics is really a Science.
Their arguments are as follows:

(1) Disagreement in Definition, Terminology and Methods: There is no general

agreement among Political thinkers regarding definition, scope, terminology etc. There is no
exactness or precision in the political science, as a result, they cannot be accepted and applied
universally. This does not happen in case of natural sciences like physics and chemistry.
(2) Lack of Precision: Principles of Political Science are not precise, clear and they lead
to many controversies. Whereas a formula in physics or chemistry is clear and universally
accepted. eg. The laws of gravity or the principles of arithmetic i.e. Two plus two equals four
everywhere. However Political Science like pure and natural sciences such as physics and
Mathematics does not possess any such universally principles.
(3) Human Beings: Politics deals with human beings whose minds are unpredictable.
Political scientists have to deal with man (human beings) who are not under their control. Human
behavior is unpredictable and not always logical. Whereas physics and chemistry deal with matter
or inanimate objects (non-living objects). Natural scientist work in laboratories and the objects are
perfectly under their control. Hence their rules and laws are absolute, and universal.
(4) Limited Experimentation: Experimentation in laboratory or in an isolated
environment is not possible in Politics like natural sciences.
(5) Lack of Objectivity: Political Science lacks objectivity but subjective element is very
strong. Political-science is subjective and relative because political scientist has to deal with human
beings in relation to society, State, Government etc.
(6) Difficult to Predict Future: Political phenomena do not follow proper sequence like
exact science. At times, the effects are contrary and therefore the results cannot be predicted.

Arguments that it is a Science:

The subject is regarded as a science because:
(1) Political Science is not a pure science but a social Science – Politics is a systematized
body of knowledge. Its facts are collected and organized through proper observation, comparison
and experimentation, etc. eg. Studies on election. Science is a systematic and formulated
knowledge of a specified subject. In that sense Political Science is certainly a science.
(2) Political Experiments are not completely ruled out. The government itself is a
continuous experiment. The application of Marxist principles in the USSR was one such
experiment.
(3) Broad Conclusions can be drawn in Political Science eg. Independent impartial
judiciary, free press is essential for democracy.
(4) Empirical studies are based on careful observation and classification: Political Science
puts hypothesis to empirical verification. Theories are not built on speculation. Political Scientists
today employ survey methods, graphs, charts etc. to arrive at their research conclusions.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 The reality is that, a social science is different from natural science or a physical science.
Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world
through observation, evidence and experiment. It is the body of true knowledge acquired through
scientific process. But in social science we cannot expect so much accuracy and precision as we
see in science subjects. Hundred percentage prediction is hard in social science because it deals
with the behavior of man and his political institutions.
ü Aristotle, regarded as the father of Political Science, called Political Science as the
“Master Science”. Master Science because Politics determines the environment within
which every person will organize his life. No one can claim that he has nothing to do with
Politics. No one can escape from the parameters set by politics. The ancient Greeks never
made any distinction between man’s personal life and political life. According to them
Politics is the total study of man, Society, State, Morality etc.

Is Politics an Art?
The term `Art‟ refers to the practical application of knowledge. Political Science applies
the knowledge about political events for creating a good social and political order. Hence it is an
art. Robert Dahl states that “Political Science is both – Science and Art. Whenever students of
Political Science test their theories against the data of experience by observation, the political
analysis can be regarded as scientific. When this political analysis is applied for the working of
political institution it is an art”.

What are the Main Approaches to the Study of Politics?

The study of Political Science can be approached in different ways from different angles
and perspectives. The origin of the study of political science can be traced to the Greek Period.
Through the ages, there was much theorization on affairs of the state and government and by large
the approach was normative. The post first world war period witnessed behavioral revolution.
More emphasis was given to the study of political processes and political forces. Thus, in the study
of Political Science transition happened from traditional Political theory (structure) to modern
political analysis (political processes).
According to Van Dyke, the word "approach” denotes the criteria employed in selecting
the questions to ask and the data to consider in political inquiry." In political science different
scholars and students employ different criteria in order to analyze the data and find out the answers
of the questions. These criteria have been designated as approach.

(1) NORMATIVE APPROACH

Normative approach to the study of Politics is known as traditional approach. The works
in Political Science from Plato to Karl Marx can be regarded as Traditional Political Science.
These thinkers emphasized the study of state and government. They kept in mind certain norms
and values. The method was to begin with cause and reach to the effect. The important features
of this approach are as follows.
(a) Idealistic and Prescriptive:
The emphasis in this approach is on norms and ideals. It does not concern
itself with things as they are. It does not adopt a realistic view of political actions,
and institutions. Through the ages Political thinkers have focused their ideas and

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 theories on what they perceive to be the ideal for the state. They prescribe certain
forms of conduct rather than describe events or facts. This approach was inclined
to ignore “What is” and gave more importance to “What should be”. Therefore,
it is prescriptive. Plato, Hegel and Green are some of the idealist thinkers.

(b) Value Oriented approach:

Normative thinkers emphasized ethical and moral values such as good bad,
just, unjust etc. It is a value loaded approach. It was more concerned with setting
standards for organizations and governance of society.

(c) Optimistic and utopian:

Normative theories are based on the assumptions. It believes that a better
system is possible. Accordingly, normative thinkers suggest the ways and means to
achieve this better system. In that sense this approach is optimistic. Eg. Plato’s
concept of Ideal State.

(d) Institutional formal and Legal approach:

Normative approach suggests that political – Science is the study of State
and government. It studies the formal, Legal Structures of Political system. e. g.,
Study of the origin of the State, functions of the State, Structure of the government,
provisions about the rights etc.

(e) Dominated by Philosophy and History:

From Plato, Aristotle (ancient Greek thinkers) to Rousseau used
Philosophical deductive method in adopting the normative approach to make
political enquiry.

Critics of normative theories have pointed the following drawbacks in the said
approach:
(1) Ideas, Theories formulated by philosophers cannot be verified. Most of the
theories are based on assumptions. Some has no historical evidence.
(2) Too much theoretical: Political Philosophers more emphasized on philosophical
principles than reality of Politics. Hence there is a gap between the normative theorists
ideal world and real world.
(3) Philosophers have not even reached a universally acceptable definition of the
term philosophy.

Some advantages listed by the Advocates of the normative approach:

(1) Normative principles are a source of guidance for empirical researchers, and
provide their studies with a purpose.
(2) Normative theories remind us to seek the good in life such as justice, morals
etc.

(2) EMPIRICAL APPROACH

The Industrial revolution and other social problems pressed Political Scientists for solution.
In the 20th century Political Scientists were unable to find solutions to real life Political problems.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 At this stage the interest in philosophical speculation declined. In the beginning, the empirical
approach was viewed as a supplement to the normative approach. But after 1940s the empirical
approach monopolized the study of Politics. Graham Wallas, Arthur Bentley, Charles Merriam are
some empirical thinkers. Graham Wallas in his book “Human Nature in Politics” introduced
greater realism and psychological dimension in political studies. Arthur Bentley in his book
introduced sociological dimension in politics.
Descriptive or empirical tradition can be traced back to the earliest days of political
thought. It can be seen in Aristotle’s attempt to classify constitutions, in Machiavelli’s
realistic account of statecraft, and in Montesquieu’s sociological theory of government and
law. In many ways, such writings constitute the basis of what is now called ‘comparative
government’, and they gave rise to an essentially institutional approach to the discipline.
In the USA and the UK, in particular, this developed into the dominant tradition of analysis.
The empirical approach to political analysis is characterized by the attempt to offer a
dispassionate and impartial account of political reality. The approach is ‘descriptive’, in
that it seeks to analyse and explain, whereas the normative approach is ‘prescriptive’, in
the sense that it makes judgements and offers recommendations.
Descriptive political analysis acquired its philosophical underpinning from the
doctrine of empiricism, which spread from the seventeenth century onwards through the
work of theorists such as John Locke and David Hume. The doctrine of empiricism
advanced the belief that experience is the only basis of knowledge and that, therefore, all
hypotheses and theories should be tested by a process of observation. By the nineteenth
century, such ideas had developed into what became known as ‘positivism’, an intellectual
movement particularly associated with the writings of Auguste Comte (1798–1857). This
doctrine proclaimed that the social sciences, and, for that matter, all forms of philosophical
enquiry, should adhere strictly to the methods of the natural sciences. Once science was
perceived to be the only reliable means of disclosing truth, the pressure to develop a science
of politics became irresistible.

The important Features of this approach are as follows:

(a) Modern approach: Empirical approach emerged in the 20th Century. But empirical
tradition can be traced back to the earliest days of Political thought. It can be seen in
Aristole’s (384-22 BC) attempt to classify constitutions, in Machiavelli’s (1469-1527)
realistic account of statecraft and in Montesquieu’s theory of government and law. In
20th century it monopolized the study of Politics. In that sense it is modern.
(b) Stresses Scientific Method: Empiricists Studied Political Processes using scientific
techniques such as survey, research, observation, experiment, measurement etc. e.g. A
normative approach to electoral studies may philosophize on why people should vote.
Whereas empirical approach would conduct surveys and interview of voters to find out
the actual voting process. The goal of empiricists is to develop a science of Political
behavior.

(c) Value free: The empirical approach does not bother with morals, ethics and values. It
is a rational approach. It restricts itself to what is and was rather than what ought to be.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 Empiricist draw a line of difference between fact and value. They take value neutral
attitude.

(d) Inter-disciplinary: While studying the Political issues, empiricists welcome social
Sciences like sociology, Psychology and economics. It believes that political behavior
of man is only one aspect of his total behavior and so the inter disciplinary study would
help Political analysis. Eg. To study voting behavior of the people we should study
one’s loyalties to caste, religion, political party, and economic condition.

(e) Descriptive: It is descriptive. It means it seeks to analyze and explain where the
normative approach is `prescriptive‟ in the sense that it makes judgments and offers
recommendations.

(f) Emphasis on informal processes of Politics: In the modern approach, greater

emphasis has been put on informal processes of Politics and less on Political institutions in
isolation.

(g) Realistic: Empirical theories are realistic. These theories are not based on assumptions
but on facts. Eg. A normative philosopher may believe that an ideal state is one where the Capital
Punishment (death penalty) is banned. On the other hand, an empirical thinker may produce
statistical evidence to prove that countries that practice capital punishment show lower instances
of killings than countries where the death penalty is not practiced. The death penalty saves several
innocent lives by taking the life of a hardened criminal.

Criticisms on the Empirical Approach:

(a) Critics say that an entirely value free approach is not desirable because civilization
would stagnate if political science divorced itself from morality.
(b) Although in the initial years the empirical approach generated a lot of excitement
amongst Political academics. But now several of these academics are becoming disillusioned with
the empirical approach. The main reason for this is that the approach appears to have failed to
deliver on its biggest promise to find a solution to world problems.

Advantages of the Empirical approach:

(1) Broadening of Frontiers of Politics: New Political terms and Phenomena found a
place in the study of Politics. Eg. Power, influence, authority, Political behavior, Political culture
etc.
(2) Given Scientific Orientation to Politics: It has made research in Political Science
more realistic. Subjects like voting pattern, elections can be more reliably analyzed with the help
of case analysis, interviewing, observation etc.

(3) Made Politics more Dynamic: The empirical approach has enabled political scientists to
take their theories beyond Political institutions. Today Political Scientists focus a lot of
attention on the political behavior of individuals and groups.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 (4) Fulfils the short comings of the old approaches: It does not neglect the institutional
element but tries to approach the institutions in their fullness as they work. Eg. The
normative theories gave us the ideal of democracy. Resolving questions such as: Is a
presidential or parliamentary system more conducive to democracy in the Philippine
conditions? What percentage of Indians are casting their vote and how many are doing so
freely? This can be achieved only after fact finding by employing empirical techniques.

(3) BEHAVIOULARISM
Since the mid-nineteenth century, mainstream political analysis has been
dominated by the ‘scientific’ tradition, reflecting the growing impact of positivism. In the
1870s, ‘political science’ courses were introduced in the universities of Oxford, Paris and
Columbia, and by 1906 the American Political Science Review was being published.
However, enthusiasm for a science of politics peaked in the 1950s and 1960s with the
emergence, most strongly in the USA, of a form of political analysis that drew heavily on
behaviouralism. For the first time, this gave politics reliably scientific credentials, because
it provided what had previously been lacking:objective and quantifiable data against which
hypotheses could be tested.
Political analysts such as David Easton (1979, 1981) proclaimed that politics could
adopt the methodology of the natural sciences, and this gave rise to a proliferation of studies
in areas best suited to the use of quantitative research methods, such as voting behaviour,
the behaviour of legislators, and the behaviour of municipal politicians and lobbyists.
Attempts were also made to apply behaviouralism to international relations (IR), in the
hope of developing objective ‘laws’ of international relations.
Behaviouralism, however, came under growing pressure from the 1960s onwards.
In the first place, it was claimed that behaviouralism had significantly constrained the scope
of political analysis, preventing it from going beyond what was directly observable.
Although behavioural analysis undoubtedly produced, and continues to produce,
invaluable insights in fields such as voting studies, a narrow obsession with quantifiable
data threatens to reduce the discipline of politics to little else. More worryingly, it inclined
a generation of political scientists to turn their backs on the entire tradition of normative
political thought. Concepts such as ‘liberty’, ‘equality’, ‘justice’ and ‘rights’ were
sometimes discarded as being meaningless because they were not empirically verifiable
entities. Dissatisfaction with behaviouralism has grown as interest in normative questions
has revived since the 1970s, as reflected in the writings of theorists such as John Rawls and
Robert Nozick.

(4) RATIONAL-CHOICE THEORY

Amongst recent theoretical approaches to politics is what is called ‘formal political
theory’, variously known as ‘rational-choice theory’, ‘public choice theory’ and ‘political
economy’. This approach to analysis draws heavily on the example of economic theory in
building up models based on procedural rules, usually about the rationally self-interested
behaviour of the individuals involved. Most firmly established in the USA, and associated
in particular with the so-called Virginia School, formal political theory provides at least a
useful analytical device, which may provide insights into the actions of voters, lobbyists,
bureaucrats and politicians, as well as into the behaviour of states within the international

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 system. This approach has had its broadest impact on political analysis in the form of what
is called ‘institutional public-choice theory’. The approach has also been applied in the
form of game theory, which has been developed more from the field of mathematics than
from economics. It entails the use of first principles to analyse puzzles about individual
behaviour. The best-known example in game theory is the ‘prisoners’ dilemma’. Game
theory has been used by IR theorists to explain why states find it difficult to prevent, for
instance, the overfishing of the seas, or the sale of arms to undesirable regimes.
By no means, however, has the rational-choice approach to political analysis been
universally accepted. While its supporters claim that it introduces greater rigour into the
discussion of political phenomena, critics have questioned its basic assumptions. It may,
for instance, overestimate human rationality in that it ignores the fact that people seldom
possess a clear set of preferred goals and rarely make decisions in the light of full and
accurate knowledge. Furthermore, in proceeding from an abstract model of the individual,
rational-choice theory pays insufficient attention to social and historical factors, failing to
recognize, amongst other things, that human self-interestedness may be socially
conditioned, and not merely innate.

(5) NEW INSTITUTIONALISM

Until the 1950s, the study of politics had largely involved the study of institutions.
This ‘traditional’ or ‘old’ institutionalism focused on the rules, procedures and formal
organization of government, and employed methods akin to those used in the study of law
and history. The advent of the ‘behavioural revolution’, combined with growing concerns
about its unreflective and essentially descriptive methods (which sometimes threatened to
reduce politics to a collection of organizational rules and structures), led to institutionalism
being marginalized during the 1960s and1970s. However, interest in it was revived from
the 1980s onwards by the emergence of what was called ‘new institutionalism’. While
remaining faithful to the core institutionalist belief that ‘institutions matter’, in the sense
that political structures are thought to shape political behaviour, new institutionalism has
revised our understanding of what constitutes an ‘institution’ in a number of respects.
Political institutions are no longer equated with political organizations; they are
thought of not as ‘things’ but as sets of ‘rules’, which guide or constrain the behaviour of
individual actors. These rules, moreover, are as likely to be informal as formal, policy-
making processes sometimes being shaped more by unwritten conventions or
understandings than by formal arrangements. Apart from anything else, this can help to
explain why institutions are often difficult to reform, transform or replace. Finally, rather
than viewing institutions as independent entities, in which case they exist almost outside
of time and space, new institutionalists emphasize that institutions are ‘embedded’ in a
particular normative and historical context. Thus, just as actors within an institutional
setting are socialized to accept key rules and procedures, the institution itself operates
within a larger and more fundamental body of assumptions and practices. Nevertheless,
despite these shifts, institutionalism has continued to attract criticism. For example, it is
sometimes accused of subscribing to a structuralist logic in which, to a greater or lesser
extent, political actors areviewed as ‘prisoners’ of the institutional contexts in which they
operate.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 (6) CRITICAL APPROACHES
Modern political analysis has become both richer and more diverse as a result of
the emergence of new critical perspectives, notable examples including feminism (see pp.
47–8), critical theory, green ideology (see pp. 49–50), constructivism, poststructuralism
and postcolonialism (see p. 181). What do these new critical voices have in common, and
in what sense are they ‘critical’? Critical approaches exemplify two broad, and sometimes
linked, characteristics. The first is that they are ‘critical’ in that, in their different ways,
they seek to contest the political status quo, by (usually) aligning themselves with the
interests of marginalized or oppressed groups. Each of them, thus, seeks to uncover
inequalities and asymmetries that mainstream approaches tend to ignore. Feminism, for
example, has drawn attention to systematic and pervasive structures of gender inequality
that characterize politics in all its forms and at every level. Critical theory, which is rooted
in the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School, has extended the notion of critique to all social
practices, drawing on a wide range of influences. Green ideology, or ecologism, has
challenged the anthropocentric (human-centred) emphasis of established political and
social theory, and championed holistic approaches to political and social understanding.
Postcolonialism emphasizes the cultural dimension of colonial rule, showing how Western
cultural and political hegemony over the rest of the world has been preserved despite the
achievement of formal political independence across almost the entire developing world.
The second characteristic of critical approaches to politics is that, albeit in different
ways and to different degrees, they have tried to go beyond the positivism of mainstream
political science, emphasizing instead the role of consciousness in shaping social conduct
and, therefore, the political world. These so-called post-positivist approaches (sometimes
called ‘interpretivism’ or ‘anti-foundationalism’) are therefore ‘critical’, in that they not
only take issue with the conclusions of mainstream approaches, but also subject these
approaches themselves to critical scrutiny, exposing biases that operate within them and
examining their implications. This can be seen, in particular, in relation to constructivism
and poststructuralism. Constructivism has had a significantly greater impact on IR than it
has had on political science, with many now treating constructivism as a mainstream
international relations theory. However, constructivism is not so much a substantive theory
as an analytical tool. In arguing that people, in effect, ‘construct’ the world in which they
live, suggesting that the world operates through a kind of ‘inter-subjective’ awareness,
constructivists have thrown mainstream political analysis’s claim to objectivity into
question. For example, as subjective entities, political actors have no fixed or objective
interests or identities; rather, these are fashioned (and can be re-fashioned) through the
traditions, values and sentiments that prevail at any time.
Poststructuralism emerged alongside postmodernism, the two terms sometimes
being used interchangeably. Poststructuralism emphasizes that all ideas and concepts are
expressed in language which itself is enmeshed in complex relations of power. Influenced
particularly by the writings of the French philosopher and radical intellectual Michel
Foucault (1926–84), poststructuralists have drawn attention to the link between power and
systems of thought using the idea of discourse, or ‘discourses of power’. In crude terms,
this implies that knowledge is power. However, in the absence of a universal frame of
reference or overarching perspective, there exists only a series of competing perspectives,
each of which represents a particular discourse of power. Although poststructuralism and
postmodernism reject the idea of absolute and universal truth (foundationalism),

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 poststructuralists argue that it is possible to expose hidden meanings in particular concepts,
theories and interpretations through a process of deconstruction.

Scope of Political Science

The scope of Political-Science means the subject matter or content of Political Science.

1. Political Theory
Political theory involves the study of philosophical thought about politics from
ancient Greece to the present. Political theory is concerned with the fundamental questions
of public life. It addresses such issues as the nature of political authority, the relationship
of the state to the individual, and citizens' obligations and responsibilities to one another.
Political theory seeks to interpret abstract concepts such as liberty, justice, human rights,
and power, and in so doing it draws upon classics in the field—by, for example, Plato,
Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
and John Stuart Mill. Many scholars use these classics to help them fully understand
present-day issues such as terrorism, civil rights and liberties, and domestic and foreign
policy.
Political scientists formulate various political concepts and establish theories.
According to Gettle, “political science is concerned with the historical survey of origin,
development of political theories and ideals, the analysis of the fundamental nature of the
state, its organization, relation to the individuals that compose it and its relation to other
states ". Over the centuries, Political scientists have concerned themselves with
formulating political theories and political ideas. These theories enable us to organize their
observations and offer a foundation on which future observations and analysis can be
based.

2. Political Dynamics
Political dynamics examines the current forces which exert influence on the
government and politics. Along with the change of habits also are bound to occur of
men, social system also change. This explains why the city states of ancient times are
replaced by the nation states in the present century. The search for the cause of this
kind of changes in the character of the state and government is the study of political
dynamics. It covers a wide range and includes the study of political parties, public
opinion pressure groups, lobbies, etc. The study of these political dynamics helps to
explain the political behavior of individuals and different groups.
3. International Relations (International Politics, International Law, International Organizations,
International Humanitarian Law)
4. Comparative Government and Politics
5. Public Administration
6. Public Law

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 Key Concepts Associated with Politics:

(1) POWER

ü Power means getting others to comply “by creating the prospect of severe sanctions for
noncompliance (Robert Dahl). Thus defined, power involves two parties and two steps. In
the first step, Party A threatens unpleasant consequences if Party B acts or does not act thus
and so. In the second step, Party B acts as Party A wishes because Party A has made the
specified threat.
ü Power can be said to be exercised whenever A gets B to do something that B would not
otherwise have done.

Examples showing the exercised of power:

1. When Adolf Hitler forced significant changes in the foreign policy of the British Prime
Minister, Neville Chamberlain, by making clear the devastation he was prepared to wreak.
2. When Iran threatened to prevent French diplomats from leaving the French Embassy in
Teheran unless the French liberated an Iranian diplomat whom the French police, strongly
suspecting his complicity in acts of terrorism committed in Paris.

Faces of Power
1. Power as decision-making: This face of power consists of conscious actions that in
some way influence the content of decisions. The classic account of this form of power
is found in Robert Dahl’s Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City
(1961), which made judgements about who had power by analysing decisions in the
light of the known preferences of the actors involved. Such decisions can nevertheless
be influenced in a variety of ways. In Three Faces of Power (1989), Keith Boulding
distinguished between the use of force or intimidation (the stick), productive exchanges
involving mutual gain (the deal), and the creation of obligations, loyalty and
commitment (the kiss).
2. Power as agenda setting: The second face of power, as suggested by Bachrach and
Baratz (1962), is the ability to prevent decisions being made: that is, in effect, ‘non-
decision making’. This involves the ability to set or control the political agenda, thereby
preventing issues or proposals from being aired in the first place. For instance, private
businesses may exert power both by campaigning to defeat proposed consumer-
protection legislation (first face), and by lobbying parties and politicians to prevent the
question of consumer rights being publicly discussed (second face).
3. Power as thought control: The third face of power is the ability to influence another
by shaping what he or she thinks, wants or needs. This is power expressed as
ideological indoctrination or psychological control. This is what Lukes (2004) called
the ‘radical’ view of power, and it overlaps with the notion of ‘soft’ power. An example
of this would be the ability of advertising to shape consumer tastes, often by cultivating
associations with a ‘brand’. In political life, the exercise of this form of power is seen
in the use of propaganda and, more generally, in the impact of ideology.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 (2) INFLUENCE

ü Influence is the “relations among actors such that the wants, desires, preferences or
opinions of one actor affect the actions or predispositions of others to act (Robert Dahl).
Influence can take place without the threat of sanctions, as well as without the promise of
personal rewards (Lawson).
Examples showing the exercised of influence:
1. The neoconservative economists whose arguments lend scholarly credence to the
policies of Britain’s Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.
2. The articulate witness who persuades a committee of the U.S Congress to support a
proposed bill authorizing the increase of arms export in Latin America.

(3) AUTHORITY

ü Authority is the right to exercise the power and influence of a particular position that comes
from having been placed in that position according to regular, known, and widely accepted
procedures (Kay Lawson). In a democratic system, accepted means are normally either
election or appointment by elected officials.
ü Authority can most simply be defined as ‘legitimate power’. Whereas power is the ability
to influence the behaviour of others, authority is the right to do so. Authority is therefore
based on an acknowledged duty to obey rather than on any form of coercion or
manipulation. In this sense, authority is power cloaked in legitimacy or rightfulness.

Note: Power is a latent force. Force is a manifest power. Authority is institutionalized

power.

What are the three Classifications of authority according to Max Weber?

Weber distinguished between three kinds of authority, based on the different grounds on
which obedience can be established:

• (1) Traditional Authority- is based on customs and the established ways of doing
things. Obedience is demanded as part of natural order. Monarchs rule because they
always have done so, to demand any further justification would itself challenge
traditional legitimacy (Ricardo S. Lazo).

• (2) Charismatic Authority - stems from personality and thus breeds obedience
among the people. They obey leaders because they inspire their followers.
Examples include Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Adolf
Hitler (Ricardo S. Lazo).

• (3) Legal-Rational Authority – is based on the acceptance of the people to the

appropriateness of the system of rules by which a leader obtained his position.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 (4) LEGITIMACY

ü Legitimacy is the condition of being considered to be correctly placed in a particular role

and to be carrying out the functions of that role correctly. Political legitimacy means having
widespread approval for the way one exercises political power (Kay Lawson).

-If President Duterte fails to take adequate steps to resolve an economic crisis in the
Philippines, he may lose his legitimacy without losing authority.

David Easton distinguished three types of legitimacy:

(1) Ideological legitimacy is based on the moral convictions about the

validity of the regime and incumbents of authority. When the source of legitimacy is the ideology
prevailing in the society, it is called ideological legitimacy.
(2) Structural legitimacy is based on an independent belief in the validity of the
structure and norms and incumbents of the authority.
(3) Personal legitimacy the belief in the validity of authorities is based on their
personal qualities.

(5) PERSUASION

ü Persuasion is the act of convincing others through communication. When one actor tells
the truthful aspect of the information, this is called rational persuasion; but when the
information relayed is deceptive or distorted, this is referred to as manipulative persuasion.

(6) INDUCEMENT

ü Inducement means giving rewards to make them stick to his/her interest. It means giving
more attraction to something you want to stick to.

(7) COERCION

ü Coercion is an act of threat. It is exercised when an individual creates two undesirable

alternatives, as in the case of hold-upping. The culprit would say: which will you give, your
life or your money? We know that life and money are both precious assets to man.

(8) PHYSICAL FORCE

ü Physical Force is the actual application of coercion or threat such as killing, raping,
torturing, and the like. The actual employment of physical force, then, usually signifies that
a policy based on threat of force has failed.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 (9) GOVERNANCE

ü Governance has been defined by the United Nations Development Program to mean
institutional structures, policy and decision-making processes and rules (formal or
informal) related to issues of public concern which determine how power is exercised, how
decisions are taken and how citizens have their say. In other words, it focuses on the
political processes particularly on the operation of various governmental structures to
authoritative or controlling decisions which bind the society. These may come in the form
of government policies or programs designed to address public interests, concerns, needs
or wants.

What is State?

In 4th century B.C. Aristotle, who is regarded as `Father of Political Science‟ had defined
state. According to him, state is a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and
self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honorable life.

ü State is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite

portion of territory, having a government of their own to which the great body of
inhabitants render obedience, and enjoying freedom from external control (Legal
Definition taken from the book of Cruz).

ü State is a structure that has a legal right to make rules that are binding over a given
population within a given territory (Lawson).

If we analyze the two definitions, we can identify four elements which are essential to make a
State. These are (i) Population (ii) territory (iii) government and (iv) Sovereignty.

Elements of State? People

Territory
Government
(1) PEOPLE

ü People refer simply to the inhabitants of the state.

Is there is a specific number of people who should occupy a state before one could be
considered a state?

There is no legal requirement as to their number but it is generally agreed that they
must be numerous enough to be self-sufficing and to defend themselves and small enough
to be easily administered and sustained. Obviously, the people must come from both sexes
to be able to perpetuate themselves (Isagani Cruz).

(2) TERRITORY

ü Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the state.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 How big should a territory be in order that it can be considered as an element of the
state?
As a practical requirement, it must be neither too big to be difficult to administer
and defend nor too small as to be unable to provide for the needs of the population (Isagani
Cruz).

What are the components of Territory?

1. Terrestrial Domain- refers the land mass.
2. Fluvial and Maritime Domain- refers to the internal and external waters.
3. Aerial Domain- refers to the airspace above the land and waters.
What are the three Geographical Types of States?
1. Continental States – are those whose terrestrial domains are completely
surrounded by land, like Pakistan, Bhutan, Bolivia, Paraguay, and others.
2. Peninsular States – are those surrounded by land and water, such as China,
Chile, Argentina, Morocco, etc.
3. Archipelagic States- are those which are completely surrounded by waters such
as Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, and a lot more.

What are the modes of Acquiring territory?

1. Discovery and Occupation. Territory not belonging to any State, or terra nulius,
is placed under the sovereignty of the claiming State. “Discovery”, alone, merely creates
an inchoate right; it must be followed within a reasonable time by effective occupation and
administration.

2. Conquest. Conquest is the acquisition of territory by force of arms. This mode

of acquisition is no longer recognized, inasmuch as the UN Charter prohibits resort to threat
or use of force against the territorial Integrity or political independence of any State. Thus,
the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq was declared null and void by the UN Security Council
in Resolution No. 662. Even before the UN Charter, under the Stimson Doctrine, which
forbade recognition of any government set up through external aggression, conquest was
not considered a valid mode of acquiring territory, e.g., the Japanese conquest of
Manchuria (China).

3. Prescription. Territory may also be acquired through continuous and

uninterrupted possession over a long period of time, just like in civil law. In international
law, however, there is no rule of thumb as to the length of time needed for acquisition of
territory through prescription. However, majority of writers would agree that 50 years is
sufficient enough. Tagal na ginagamit; may nagmamay ari
alam ng may ari na ginagamit mo

4. Cession (by treaty). Cession is a bilateral agreement whereby one state transfers
sovereignty over a definite portion of its territory to another state. Cession may be
voluntary, through a treaty of sale, e.g., the sale of Alaska by Russia to the U.S., or through
a treaty of donation, e.g., the donation of Sabah by Borneo to the Sultan of Sulu.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 5. Accretion. The increase in the land area of the State, either through natural
means, or artificially, through human labor. It is based on the legal maxim accession cedat
principali, that is the accessory follows the principal.

(3) GOVERNMENT To guard the rights of the people

ü Government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the state is
formulated, expressed and realized (Isagani Cruz). Government is the agency which steers
the ship of the State. Government is the implementing arm of the state and its form does
not matter. Government is the system through which state expresses its will. The
government makes law, punishes law breakers, promotes welfare of people. One of the
important tasks of the government is to act for the state as parens patriae, or the guardian
of the rights of the people.

What are the two functions of the government?

1. Constituent Function – constitute the very bonds of society and are therefore
compulsory. Among the constituent functions are the following:
(a) the keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from
violence and robbery;
(b) the fixing of the legal relations between husband and wife and between parents and
children; (c) the regulations of the holding, transmission and interchange of property, and
the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime;
(d) the determination of contractual rights between individuals;
(e) the definition and punishment of crimes;
(f) the administration of justice in civil cases;
(g) the administration of political duties, privileges and relations of citizens;
(h) and the dealings of the state with foreign powers; the preservation of the state from
external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests.

2. Ministrant Functions – are those undertaken to advance the general interest of society, such as
public works, public charity, and regulation of trade and industry (Isagani Cruz). Development

How government differs from other social organizations?

1. Comprehensive Authority – rules made by any social organization other than government apply,
and are intended to apply, only to members of that organization. On the other hand, the rules of
the government apply, and are intended to apply to all members of the society.

2. Involuntary Membership – membership in most social organizations other than government is

voluntary; that is, people become members of such organization and place themselves under its
rules only by conscious choice. Membership in a nation, however, is largely involuntary; that is
most people initially become citizens of a nation and subject to its rules without any deliberate
choice or conscious act.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 3. Authoritative Rules - rules of government are considered authoritative; that is, they are
generally considered be more binding upon all members of society than the rules of other
organizations. Government laws should prevail over rules of private organizations.

4. Highest Stakes – the government deals on issues that of highest stakes or importance.

5. Legitimate Monopoly of the use of overwhelming force- the government has the exclusive
regulation of the legitimate use of physical force in enforcing its rules within a given territorial
area.

Forms of Government

Government can be classified in several ways. It can be classified based on the number of
(1) persons exercising sovereign powers, (2) as to the extent of powers exercised by the central or
national government, (3) as to the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of
the government, as to the (4) scope or limit of political power, as to the (5) status of the power
holder, and (6) as to their legitimacy.

1. As to the Number of Persons Exercising Sovereign Power

Aristotle, the father of Political Science developed the Six-fold Classification of
Governments using two criteria: the number of ruler and the goals of rulers. For the first sub-
criterion, a government may be ruled by one person, a few, or the many. For the second
sub0criterion, our concern is how the power is exercised, whether for the interests of the rulers
themselves or for the benefit of the public. The former goal belongs the bad type of government
while the latter belongs the good form of government.

ARISTOTLE’S SIX-FOLD CLASSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT

First Sub-criterion: First Sub-criterion:

NUMBER OF RULER RULERS RULE IN THE INTERESTS of:

GOOD TYPE OF GOVERNMENT BAD TYPE OF GOVERNMENT

ALL (PUBLIC) THEMESELVES (PERSONAL)

One Monarchy Tyranny

Few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Many Democracy Mobocracy

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 A. Rule of One

Monarchy– it is a form of government in which the supreme and final authority is in the
hands of one person without regard to the source of his election and the nature or duration of his
tenure (De Leon, 2011). Its ruler is a monarch who comes from a royal family. As such he enjoys
the following royal titles: king, queen, emperor, empress, prince, princess, sultan, emir, and the
like.

Two Types of Monarchy:

1. Absolute Monarchy – the ruler governs his subjects based on divine rights and thus, he
is regarded as “above the law”. Monarchy is absolute when the exercise of political power is
uncontrolled by law and the ruler governs according to his will. This kind is prevalent during the
oriental eras of Japan’s emperorships of 1880s. Ruler is ABOVE the law

2. Limited Monarchy – the ruler exercised political power in accordance with established
laws, such as the German and Austro-Hungarian government before 1918, whereby each emperor
was flanked by an elected parliament which exercised the power of lawmaking while the emperor
retained his executive power. In limited monarchy, the ruler is considered “under the law”.

Tyranny - it is a form of government in which the supreme and final authority is in the
hands of one person without regard to the source of his election and the nature or duration of his
tenure. Tyranny is the pervert of monarchy. Tyranny became apparent under the rule of absolute
kings of Europe and dictatorial emperors of Asia during the earlier history.

Theoretical differences between Monarchy and Tyranny:

1. Ideally a monarch rules for the general welfare while tyrant rules for self-interest.
2. The power of the monarch may be limited or unlimited while a tyrant has always an absolute
and unlimited power.

3. Monarch acquired his office by inheritance or election while a tyrant acquires his office through
violence, fraud, and force, or by means of appointment, inheritance, or, a combination of any two
or more of these.

B. Rule of Few

Aristocracy – may be defined as ‘the government by the best citizens who were
presumably men of highest intelligence or integrity, or suggest such qualities as honor, devotion
to public service, distinguished ancestry, and enjoyment of traditional differences and respect
accorded by the people’. The term aristocracy came from the two words “aristo” (meaning best

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 or intelligent) and “kratos” (meaning to rule). Thus aristocracy can be briefly defined as the
government of the best and intelligent citizens. Its rulers are called aristocrats who are believed to
be the best and intelligent people. Strictly speaking, there were very few of such kind of
government in history and practically, none at present.

Oligarchy - defined as the government of the wealthy or rich people. Its rulers are called
“oligarchs” who rose to power because of their wealth. There is oligarchy if this group of untitled
few promotes their selfish interest through indirect or irresponsible exercise of the government’s
power such as controlling government machineries to serve their personal interests

Theoretical differences between Aristocracy and Oligarchy:

ARISTOCRACY OLIGARCHY

CAPACITY is the basis of leadership WEALTH is the basis of leadership

Government of BEST or INTELLIGENT Government of RICH or WEALTHY
Aristocrats are believed to be TITLED few Oligarchs are regarded as the UNTITLED few

C. Rule of the Many

Democracy – is defined by Robert Dahl as a “political system in which the opportunity to

participate in decision is widely shared among adult citizens.” It comes from the two Latin words
demos which mean “people” and kratos meaning “to rule” For the Americans, democracy is
defined as government of the people, for the people, by the people, with the people.

Democracy may be classified as:

1. Pure or Direct Democracy – one in which the people directly participate in decision
making process. This is ideal for societies with only small population.
2. Representative or Indirect Democracy - one in which the people choose a body of
persons who will act as their representatives in the expression of their will as well as in the
formulation of government policies. This is ideal for societies with large population.

Some principles for a working definition of democracy:

(1) Popular Sovereignty - requires that the ultimate power to make political decisions is vested
in all the people rather than in some of them or one of them.

(2) Political Equality - requires that each adult citizen has same opportunity as every adult citizen
to participate in decision-making process. This principle clearly means “one person, one vote”. As

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 long as each adult citizen has a genuinely equal opportunity to participate to the degree that he or
she wishes, the requirements of political equality are satisfied.

(3) Popular Consultation – According to Austin Ranney, there are two requirements for this
principle to operate: (1) The polity should have institutional machinery through which public
officials learned what public policies the people wish to be adopted and enforced and (2) Having
ascertained the people’s preferences, public officials must then put those preferences in effect
whether they approve it or not.

When office holders do what they, rather than the people, wish and do so without any accounting
or danger of losing office, they, and not the people, are sovereign. The claim of a particular policy
to the title “democratic” is determined by how it is made, rather than by what it contains.

(4) Majority Rule – requires that when the people disagree on an issue, the government should
act according to the wishes of the majority rather than minority.

Aside from these there are still other indicators of democracy such as the presence of honest
and credible elections, presence of civil society, the observance of the rule of law and the principle
of public accountability, and some will include the promotion of a good quality life as an important
indicator of democracy.

Mobocracy – a kind of government ruled by the mob. It is a tyranny of the majority who
ruled only for their self-interest ignoring the minority.
Mob – the lower classes of the community

2. As to the Extent of Powers Exercised by the Central or National Government

Another way to classify government is by looking into how the national and local units of
the government relate to each other. Adopting this criterion as the basis, a government may be
classified as unitary or federal.

Unitary Government - one in which the control of national and local affairs is
1 constitution; 1 state
exercised by the central or national government. Local governments are merely administrative
creatures of the central government, which may make policy as well as implement it with the
authority granted or expressed by the central power. The central government may create local
government units (LGU’s) and clothed them with some governmental powers but the latter still
follows what the central government may order. All affairs of the LGUs are dictated and controlled
by the national unit. Some of the features of a unitary government are the presence of only (1) one
government and (2) one constitution. On the other hand, there is only one constitution that governs
both the central government and the local government units.

Among the identified advantages of a unitary system are the following:

1. There is a uniformity of laws and administration
2. It is easy to locate who are responsible for government anomalies
3. It is also easy to avoid duplicity of work

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 UNITARY SYSTEM

National Government

(Central)

Province Province Province

Municipality Municipality Municipality

Barangay Barangay Barangay

Federal Government - one in which the powers of the government are divided between
two sets of organs, one for national affairs and the other for local affairs, each organ being supreme
within its own sphere. Since the national and the local organs are now equal, their relationship
with each other became horizontal. Under the federal form, the functions of the central government
are already transferred to the component parts known as: states, cantons, republics, emirates,
countries or districts.
Some of the features of a federal form of government are the presence of two governments
(central and the state government) and two constitutions (federal constitution and the state
constitutions). The federal constitution governs the affairs and activities of the whole union,
especially the relationship of the states with each other. The state constitution governs only the
local affairs of a certain state.
2 constitution, 2 government

Both are supreme in their own sphere

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 Three categories of governmental powers in federal structure:
1. Exclusive Power – being exercised solely or entirely by one level of government, usually the
federal government, like the functions of Foreign Service and national defense.
2. Broad Power – inherently exercised and possessed by the state government.
3. Concurrent Powers – are those exercised by both the federal government and the state
government like eminent domain or taxation of corporate and personal income.

Some identified advantages of Federal Government:

1. There can be an experimentation of laws and policies in some components of government

units
2. The government can easily have fast growth
3. The enjoyment of maximum autonomy among the component units

A federal state such as the United States, the state governments are given considerable
amount of autonomy to decide on matters that falls within their jurisdiction. This includes peace
and order, sanitation, control of vices, traffic rules and other local matters. The federal government
on the hand takes in charge of those matters that are national in character such as the currency to
be used by the country, foreign policy, defense and external security etc.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 FEDERAL SYSTEM

Federal Government

(Central)

States/Republics/Emirates/ State State

Cantons/Counties/commu
nes

County County County

Municipality Municipality Municipality

Town Town Town

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 3. As to the Relationship Between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Government:

Presidential Government – one in which the state makes the executive constitutionally
independent of the legislature as regards his tenure and to a large extent as regards his policies and
acts, and furnishes him with sufficient powers to prevent the legislature from trenching upon the
sphere marked out by the constitution as executive independence and prerogative.

Basic Characteristics of Presidential Government:

1. There is a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial departments
2. The chief executive (i.e. the President) is directly chosen by the people and not by the legislature
3. The heads of executive agencies and administrative departments are normally members of the
president’s party
4. The chief executive holds office for a particular and limited period of time which is fixed by the
constitution.

EXECUTIVE LEGISLATIVE JUDICIARY

Parliamentary Government – one which the state confers upon the legislature the power
to terminate the tenure of office of the real executive. Under this system, the cabinet or ministry is
immediately and legally responsible to the legislature and immediately or politically responsible
to the electorate, while the titular, symbolic, ceremonial, or nominal executive-the chief of state
(Monarch or President)-occupies a position of irresponsibility.

Basic Features of Parliamentary Government

1. There is a union or fusion between the executive and legislative departments.

2. The Chief Executive is the Prime Minister who selects the ministers of government to constitute
the cabinet.
3. The Prime Minister is not only the head of government but also the leader of his party and,
consequently, the leader of the parliamentary majority.
4. The citizens do not vote for the Chief Executive but vote only for the legislative representatives.
5. The Cabinet system separates the ceremonial executive from the real working executive.

In Parliamentary government, the legislature and the executive are fused together forming
the so called “Parliament” or “National Assembly”. This chamber is composed of Members of
Parliament (MPs), which include the Prime Minister, Ministers of different ministries, and the
elected assemblymen. By practice, these MPs are the makers and implementers of laws because
parliamentary governments adopt a collegial type of executive whose chief is the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are responsible to the legislature and they remain in office as
long as they have the support and confidence of the parliamentary majority. As compared to the
presidential government, the citizens in the parliamentary do not have direct participation in the

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 choice of their Chief Assemblymen. These elected assemblymen will decide and choose from
among themselves who is going to be Prime Minister who in turn shall appoint his Cabinet
members popularly known as Ministers.

The most distinguishable feature of parliamentary government is the separation of head of

government and head of state, which are all exercised by the President in presidential government.
In all parliamentary states, the head of government function is always given to the Prime Minister.
However, the head of state function may be a President (if a country is adopting parliamentary
government which has no nationally recognized royal family), or Monarch (if there is a nationally
respected royal family). In either case, their functions are only recommendatory, advisory and
consultative and therefore, do not affect the affairs of the government.

The following figures illustrated the differences between Presidential and Parliamentary states.

Figure 1:

Presidential Parliamentary
No fixed tenure depende kung i re-elect sya

Daily affairs Ceremonial

limited tenure (6 yrs)
President
Prime Minister Monarch
House of Lords President
Ministers

House of Commons

Philippine
Congress

People/Citizens/
Electorates

MPs = PM + Ministers + Assemblymen + Lords

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 Figure 2:

PRESIDENTIAL PARLIAMENTARY

Prime
Head of Government Minister

President

Monarch
Head of State Or

President

Figure 3:

PRESIDENTIAL PARLIAMENTARY

Separated: Separated:
Law Making and Implementing Bodies Head of State & Government

Combined: Combined:
Head of State & Government Law Making and Implementing Bodies

Summary of Presidential and Parliamentary

Presidential Parliamentary
Chief Executive or Head of President Prime Minister
Government:
Law-making body: Congress Parliament or National
Assembly
Law-implementing body: President Parliament or National
Assembly
Legislators: Senators and Congressmen Members of Parliament
Legislative Representatives: Senators and Congressmen Assemblymen
Cabinet Members: Secretaries Ministers
Government Agencies Departments Ministries
Head of State President Monarch or President

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 4. As to the Scope or Limit of Political Power

This classification specified what aspects of people’s lives are affected by the powers of
the state, whether their thoughts, words, or deeds only, or all of them. In this regard, any
government may be categorized as constitutional, authoritarian, or totalitarian.

Constitutional Government - is one which the powers of those who rule are defined and
limited in their exercise by a constitution so as to protect individual rights and shield them against
the assumption of arbitrary powers. This entails that under constitutional regime, powers of the
government are limited by the laws in order to protect people’s rights against possible abuse by
the rulers. Hence, constitutional societies are popularly referred to as under the rule of law.

Authoritarian Government – is one whose ruling authority imposes its vital values and
policies on society regardless of the people’s wishes. In essence, the authoritarian (an individual
or small group) dictates the behavior and actions of the citizens because decisions come from the
rulers and imposed to the people. In short, decision making is from “top to bottom” because rulers
are perceived as masters of the people, instead of their servants as in the case of democratic system.

Totalitarian Government – connotes total control on the lives of the people both the
private and public actions and thoughts of the citizens. According to Austin Ranney, the essence
of totalitarian regime is the government’s effort to control all aspects of citizens’ lives so that they
will become the kind of people the nation needs (hard workers, fierce fighters, fertile and
uncomplaining mothers, and totally committed, fanatical patriots). In other words, under this
regime, all actions, behaviors, and thoughts of the people are totally controlled by the state.
Political Scientist branded it as government under the “rule of men”. your life is controlled (entirely)

Authoritarian Government vs. Totalitarian Government

-
Authoritarian and Totalitarian government differ each other in two major aspects. First,
while both of them talk about dictation, dictation in authoritarian is partially done because only
the people’s words and deeds are dictated. In totalitarian, however, dictation is directed in
thoughts, in words, and in deeds. Second, in Authoritarian system, the authority may be one person,
such as Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini in Fascist Italy, Fidel Castro of Cuba,
and Saddam Hussein in Iraq; or small ruling clique, such as Politburo in the Soviet Union and
Military Juntas in various Latin American nations. However, in totalitarian societies, the authority
is only one person who is the ultimate source of political, economic, social and even spiritual
powers.

The following are the summary of the differences among constitutional, authoritarian, and
totalitarian governments.

Figure 4:

DICTATION CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITARIAN TOTALITARIAN

Thoughts *
Words * *
Deeds * * *

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 The figure above shows that in constitutional government, only deeds are regulated by the
state, which means there is freedom in thoughts and words. For the authoritarian government, the
scope of political power covers both the people’s words and deeds, which in effect entails freedom
only in thoughts. Lastly, in totalitarian government, there is total control by the state to the citizens
in thoughts, in words, and in deeds.

5. As to the Status of the Power Holder

Civilian Government – a government is said to be civilian if the civilian authority is at all

times above the military authority, or if the military authority is made subject to the civilian
authority. In other words, it is ruled by a civilian.

Military Government - is one that is ruled by an active military man. This may exist in
two situations. First, the government has been established by belligerent group (i.e., secessionists,
rebel movements) in the territory of the enemy (the perceived colonizing power) in their attempt
to establish a self-managed and independent government. And second, a military rule is organized
by a military junta that captured the reign of government after a successful coup d’ etat initiated
against former civilian government. In some countries, this type of regime is popularly called
“military dictatorship”.
Antonio trillanes- nag attempt ng rebellion; if naging successful yun, magiging military government Under the martial law, the law still
operates

6. As to their Legitimacy

De Jure Government - a de jure government has rightful title but no power or control,
either because this has been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into the
exercise thereof.

De Facto Government - is a government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or

control but without legal title.

Three the kinds of de facto governments:

A. A government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of
the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the later,
such as the government of England under the Commonwealth, first by Parliament and later
by Cromwell as Protector.

B. That established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise

in insurrection against the parent state, such as the government of the Southern
Confederacy in revolt against the Union during the war of secession in the United States.

C. That which is established and maintained by invading military forces who invade and
occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated as a

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 government of paramount force, such as the cases of Castine in Maine, which was reduced
to a British possession in the war of 1812, and of Tampico, Mexico, occupied during the
war with Mexico by the troops of the United States. The second republic of the Philippines
was a de facto government of paramount force, having been established by the Japanese
belligerent during the occupation of the Philippines in World War II. In contrast, the
Supreme Court held in Lawyer’s League for a Better for a Better Philippines vs. Corazon
C. Aquino that “the people have made the judgement; they have accepted the government
of President Corazon C Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it
is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover,
the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government.”

(4) SOVEREIGNTY - It is the supreme and uncontrollable power by which that State is governed.

Aspects of Sovereignty:
Bodin developed concept of internal sovereignty (as supreme power of the sovereign over
citizens and subjects) Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), the Dutch writer, developed the concept of
external sovereignty. He propounded the theory of equality of the sovereign states in their
relations and independence of external control or dominations.

(1) Internal Sovereignty – the power of the state to control and direct the internal affairs
of the country without intervention from other states, such as the authority to enact, execute and
apply laws. (e.g. alter its system of government)

(2) External Sovereignty or Independence – the power of the state to direct its external
affairs such as the power to wage war, to enter into treaties, and to receive and send diplomatic
missions without dictation and interference from outside forces.

Kinds of Sovereignty:

(1) Legal Sovereignty – the authority which has the power to issue final commands. In the
Philippines, Congress is the legal sovereign. free to make laws

(2) Political Sovereignty – is the power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum of the influences
that operate upon it. In a narrower sense, the electorate constitutes the political sovereign, and in
a broader sense, the whole mass of population.

Subsequently Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) of England argued that the sovereignty of the
state had no legal limits in principle, and no need for justifying any power outside itself. The state
could not only administer traditional laws but could create new laws. He denied the claims of the
Church to share political power. He advocated that there has to be a single center of authority,
Hobbes, thus developed the concept of legal sovereignty. Concept of sovereignty was further
developed by Bentham, Austin, Rousseau, Hegel and Bosanquet. The jurists viewed the state
as legally supreme with final and absolute authority. Limiting the Sovereign power: As stated
above, while a group of writers advocated absolute power for the sovereign, another group of
thinkers led by John Locke, Montesquieu, Spinoza and Kant, raised the question of the limits

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 of the sovereign power. They developed doctrine of separation of power, limited and
constitutional government and theory of natural rights.

Essential Characteristics of Sovereignty:

Sovereignty is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, inalienable, imprescriptible and unified.

(1) PERMANENCE

The sovereignty of the state continues without interruption so long as the state itself exists.
It does not cease with the death or temporary dispossession of a particular bearer, or the
reorganization of the state. (Suarez, citing Garner, Political Science and Government, p. 170).

(2) EXCLUSIVENESS

There can be but one supreme power in the state, legally entitled to the obedience of the
inhabitants. To hold otherwise would be to deny the principle of “unity of state” (Suarez, citing
Garner, Political Science and Government, p. 170).

It means the state and the state alone possesses sovereign power over its citizen and
associations within its territory. In other word there cannot be more than one center of power within
the territorial boundaries of the state. To have more than one center of power means to divide
sovereignty, which juridically would mean denial of the absoluteness of the sovereignty.

(3) ALL-COMPREHENSIVENESS

The sovereign power extends over all persons, associations and things within such
territorial limits except those which the state has voluntarily consented to waive the exercise of its
jurisdiction (Suarez, citing Garner, Political Science and Government, p. 170).

(4) INALIENABILITY

The state can cede away any of its essential elements without self-destruction (Suarez,
citing Garner, Political Science and Government, p. 171).

(5) IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY

It is the principle exclusively of private law which can never run against the rights of the
people and could in no case be invoked in support of an argument that the people had lost their
sovereignty through the operation of such principle (Suarez, citing Garner, Political Science and
Government, p. 172). Sovereignty, being an indispensable element of the state, it cannot be
alienated from the state. Alienation of the sovereignty would amount to the state's suicide. When
there is change of power the sovereignty shifts to new bearer.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 (6) UNITY

Sovereignty cannot be divided without producing several wills, which is inconsistent with
the notion of sovereignty (Suarez, citing Garner, Political Science and Government, p. 173).

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE AND GOVERNMENT

First, the state is an ideal person while government is the instrumentality of this political
unity. Second, state possesses a quality of permanence while government may come and go or
change at any time {a government may change (e.g. in form) but the state will continue to exist as
it is for as long as the four elements are present}. Third, there is no state if there is no government
but there can be government even without there being a state.

STATE GOVERNEMENT

Principal Concept Agent

Permanent Changeable

Dependent to government Independent from state

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the state is
formulated, expressed and realized. Administration is the group of persons in whose hands the
reins of government are for the time being. The administration runs the government, as machinist
operates his machine. Thus, we speak of Duterte’s administration as directing the affairs of the
government of the Philippines for a given time, after which another administration may be called
upon by the people to take over.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE AND NATION

The following are some of the differences of the two concepts:

First, state is a legal and political concept while nation is a racial, ethnical and therefore a
cultural concept. Second, there can be a nation even without a state; but where there is state, there
is at least one nation. Third, state presupposes a government and a definite territory while these
are not necessary in the existence of nation. In addition, it is possible for a state to be composed of
different nations like in the case of Malaysia and United States. Conversely, a single nation may
also be composed of different states like the Arab Nation which is consisting of the following
states: Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and others.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF STATE

There are many theories explaining the emergence of the state. The following are the most popular
one:

(1) Divine Right Theory – this holds that the state is of divine creation and the ruler is ordained
by God to govern the people. The divine rulers such as Pope and King were ordained by Him to
govern the people. Ancient civilization uses this theory in order to legitimize their ruling. The ruler
or the king is of divine descent on which questioning him is very hard because it would mean
questioning the words of God. GOD MADE

(2) Necessity or Force Theory (“Might Makes Right” Theory) – this holds that states must have
been created through force, by some strong warriors who imposed their will upon the weak. Hence,
those who are possessed of powers were considered as rightful leaders and the state was then
regarded as superior organization among all forms of human associations.

(3) Paternalistic Theory – the state is a product of evolution starting from Adam and Eve and
then forms into family until it expanded into a state.

Family Clan Tribe Nation State

(4) Social Contract Theory – the state has been formed through a voluntary compact among men
living in the state of nature (condition where men lived together without a super-body to establish
peace and order and settle conflicts) to form a government in order to have a common good.

The first society is in a “state of nature”, a hypothetical setting wherein no rules are
followed and no authority exists to regulate the actions of other individuals. The only law that
exists in this setting is the “Law of the Jungle”-survival of the fittest and the elimination of the
unfit. This means that only those rich and strong individuals have the capacity to survive since
they have means to provide their security and protection. In contrast, all those weak and poor shall
be eliminated being unable to protect themselves against the attacks of others.

Because of the fear that they will perish inside the “state of nature”, the people decided to
form a compact to form a society and government for their common good.

Social Contract Theory has three versions as proposed by three social contract
philosophers: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Thomas Hobbes– in his observation, men in the state of nature are nasty, brutish,
despicable, selfish, and insatiable. In short, men are bad or evil. Being bad or evil, it was very
difficult for the weak and poor to live together for these rich who were powerful can easily harm
them. In order to escape from the chaotic state of nature, the people made a compact to surrender
and submit their will to the LEVIATHAN (“sea monster” or “mortal God”) who will act as the

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 ruler. To sum up, Hobbes was proposing the principle of the “rule of one”. This version may come
in the form of monarchy or tyranny, the two forms of government ruled by one.

John Locke – for Locke, the people in a state of nature are not necessarily bad, some of them
are rational and good. But because of fear of war, the people formed a contract to entrust the peace
and security to a group of representatives who will compose the government (these trustees are
obliged to provide protection and security asked by the people otherwise the people will revolt
against them for breaking the contract). In other words, as a matter of obligation, protection is the
duty of the government towards the people while support is the obligation of the people towards
the government.

Furthermore, the right category of people to constitute the party of the government is the elite,
be in political, economic, social, or military. Therefore, Locke was proposing the idea of “rule of
the few” that may appear in the form of aristocracy or oligarchy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau – the same with John Locke, according to him the people in a state
of nature are not necessarily bad, some of them are rational and good. However, out of the fear for
war and conflict the people decided to form a government. This government according to Rousseau
should be a government by which the people are the ones directly managing the day to day affairs
of the society. Under this type, the people convene in a meeting place and talks about the problems
of the state and gather opinions and solutions from each other. According to Rousseau, the
government should promote the “general will” which is defined by him as civic impulses of
citizens seeking to pursue the common good within their community. In the formulation of that
general will, everyone is obliged to share, donate, contribute, and give something from him. In
other words, all are enjoined to participate because Rousseau believed that sovereignty resides in
the hands of the people, and not from the leviathan nor from the elite. To synthesize his idea,
Rousseau was revealing the doctrine of “rule of the many”. This version may exist may exist in
the form of democracy or mobocracy.

IDEOLOGY
The term ideology was coined by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy in 1795. Literally,
ideology means the science of ideas.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'ideology' as "The system of ideas at the basis of an
economic or political theory”.
Anderson and Christol define ideology as- "a system of ideas characterizing the nature of
state and describing the relationship between the government and the citizens of this state. Such
an ideology embraces a set of political, economic, social, cultural values".
According to Carl J. Friendrich " A political ideology is a reasonably coherent body of ideas
concerning practical means of how to change, reform or maintain a political order."
For David Easton "ideologies are articulated sets of ideals, ends and purposes which help
members of the system to interpret the past, explain the present and offer a vision for the future".

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 The term ideology implies the following.

1) A set of ideas - An ideology usually comprises a body of ideas, not a single idea. For
instance, the ideology of capitalism comprises the ideas of free market economy, non-interference
of the state in economic affairs, liberalization, privatization etc.

2) A way of thinking – A style of thinking or perspective that permeates the everyday life
of citizens to such an extent that directly or indirectly influences their polity, economy and society.

3) Encompasses all aspects of a nation – An ideology seeks to affect all aspects of the
state. For instance, the ideology of Gandhism, it seeks to establish a polity of self-government at
the village level, an economy wherein every village will be self-sufficient, education on the basis
of craft and experience etc.

4) Ideas of a group of people or of an individual person – An ideology need not

necessary be one that is propounded by a group of people. A body of ideas propounded by a single
individual can also be termed an ideology.

5) A political ideology stands for a particular political order society and a strategy for
its establishment.

6) An action oriented thought - Every ideology is an action oriented thought. They are
capable of inspiring men to action.

What is Political System?

Political system is any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves, to a significant
extent, control, influence, power, or authority (Robert Dahl). Indeed, it means that many associations that
most people ordinarily do not regard as “political system” possess political systems: private clubs, business
firms, labor unions, religious organizations, civic groups, primitive tribes, clans, perhaps even families.

ENVIRONMENT

I O

N Demands Decisions U
A POLITICAL SYSTEM
P Support T

U Or Policies P

T U

S T
FEEDBACK S

S ENVIRONMENT

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 Q: What is Public Opinion?
According to V.O Key, public opinion consists of those opinions held by private persons
which governments find it prudent to heed. For Henessy, it is the “complex of preferences
expressed by a significant number of persons on an issue of general importance.” With these
definitions, we can say that public opinion presupposes the presence of ‘a contemporary situation
with a likelihood of disagreement’ called issue. In other words, public opinion includes body of
ideas in one single issue (not all issues) held by the majority (not all) the members of the
community known as the public.

Q: What are the dimensions of Public Opinion?

(1) Preference Dimension - measures ‘the property of being for or against some party,
candidate, or public policy.
(2) Intensity Dimension - measures how strongly people feel about their preferences.

Q: What is Political Party?

It is a group of individuals having the same principles and platforms on how to run the
affairs of government. They seek to control government powers for public interests and also for
their interests. From this definition, we can say that political party possesses three basic elements:
(1) it is an organization of men united on common political platforms and principles; (2) it
nominates or puts up candidates to stand for election; and, (3) it must have party platforms and
program of government.

Q: What are the functions of political party?

(1) Leadership Recruitment- political party is a structure that identifies potential leaders
by bringing them into public attention thereby securing them the supports necessary for taking
public office.
(2) Interest Aggregation - political party serves as mediator for a wide range of politicized
demands. The most effective way for parties to attract a wide base of support is to set up internal
party procedures that permit different points of view-different interests-to be presented, discussed,
compromised, and aggregated.
(3) Policy Formulation – the party which is successful in placing their parties in the
government must listen to the demands of the people and aggregate these interests into policies. A
major role of parties is making and carrying out of policies.
(4) Campaigning - political parties help their candidates campaign for office. Even in
today’s mass media, the parties still play a part in ensuring that voters are registered, that they
know the differences among the candidates, and that they know when and where to vote on election
day.
(5) Governing – parties are sometimes expected to run the government. Party Government
means government that is organized by the parties. In its purest sense, it means that the leader of
the party winning the most votes takes the top leadership role (be it president or prime minister),
together with his own party members or that of other parties. They see to it that their party’s
programs and policies are supported by their party members and allies in the legislature and
eventually translated into laws.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 Q: What are the types of Political Parties?
I. According to the nature of internal power relationships among leaders, activists, and
followers (Maurice Duverger):
1. Mass Parties – with large, dues-paying memberships, centralized, bureaucratic
leadership, and strong communication links running throughout the organization.
2. Cadre Parties - with small, loosely affiliated memberships, a co-opted elite leadership
with limited control over the base, and weak communication links.

II. According to aggregation of interests (Almond and Coleman):

1. Pragmatic-Bargaining Party – aggregates interests through negotiations, which reach
unconcernedly across conflicting values.
2. Ideological Party - is a party of true believers who gradually rally others to their cause,
such parties do not aggregate interests so much as pursue a single set of values.
3. Particularistic Party - also minimizes interests aggregation, it is a party that identifies
completely with the interests of a particular social group.
4. Catchall Party – the party that makes concrete, pragmatic short-range promises to fulfill
the immediate interests of as many voters as possible
5. Participatory Party – aid their members to participate directly in policy making process
as when the elected representatives manage to turn the interests of their supporters in policies.
6. Policy-Responsive Parties – work to ensure that policy is made in the interests of their
supporters but are not directly guided by their own members.
7. Clientelistic Parties – make sure their followers receive certain material benefits for
their support but do not encourage them to express opinions on matters of policy.
8. Directive Parties – link voters to government by helping the government maintain
coercive control over its subordinates.

Q: What are the types of political party systems?

1. Single Party System – political system in which only one political power (party) is
allowed reasoning that a single party permits true democracy, by providing a structure that allows
all interested and able participants to take part in government. All those trained in the skills of
leadership must be put to work, not divided into the active “victors” and the inactive and
contentious “losers”. In this case, political party is not used for leadership recruitment but as an
instrument of a totalitarian dictator to eliminate opposition thereby having the monopoly of
government powers. In some instances, one-party system may also exist in societies having many
parties but only one party has the capability to establish a nation-wide support. Examples of one-
party systems are: Communist Party of China, Fascist Party of Mussolini in Italy, Nazist Party of
Hitler in Germany, Kilusang Bagong Lipunan Party of Marcos in the Philippines.

2. Two-party System - exists when there are two parties in the state with nearly equal
membership and political strengths, which lead to the polarization of electorates. There are also
third and minor parties under this system but they cannot establish a nation-wide base of party
strength. Among the basic characteristics of two-party system include: (1) there are only two major
parties alternate in power in control of government, and (2) whichever is in power, it controls the

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 government only temporary. Examples include United States of America, Britain, Canada, and
New Zealand. It has also been claimed that this system allows opposition to be stronger and hence
it could act as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power by the incumbent party.
3. Multi-Party System - is a ‘scheme of party alignment in which there are several parties
in the state, each with its own membership, ideology, programs and policies.’ This is ‘characterized
by bargaining and compromise between party blocs and leaders.’ This is a system in which no
party is able to obtain the majority in the legislature to enable it to form a government. Some
political scientists are with the view that multi-party system is found advantageous for (1) it offers
a widest possible choice of the voters, and (2) it generates bigger turn-outs of votes. However, it
was also considered defective in that under this party arrangement no one among the parties is able
to win the majority votes of the people. Further, it makes people confused in the selection of
candidates due to bigger number of choices. Examples include Netherlands, Sweden, and
Philippines.

Q: What is Propaganda?
Propaganda, in the most neutral sense, means to disseminate or promote particular ideas.
In Latin, it means ―to propagate or ―to sow. For Harold Lasswell, propaganda is any technique,
be it in writing, speech, music, film or other means; any association, plan, activity etc. for the
spread of principles and opinions especially to effect change, reform, or that attempts to influence
public opinion or encourage mass action as in popular support of a policy or program.
Q: What are different Propaganda Techniques?
1. Named Calling- links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol like commie, fascist,
yuppie.
2. Glittering Generalities – use of virtue words; the opposite of name calling, i.e., links a
person, or idea, to a positive symbol like democracy, patriotism, family.
3. Transfer – a device by which the propagandist links the authority or prestige of
something well respected and revered, such as church or nation, to something he would have us
accept like a political activist closes her speech with a prayer.
4. Testimonial – a public figure or a celebrity promotes or endorses a product, a policy, or
a political candidate. Examples include an athlete appears on the Wheaties box; an actor speaks at
a political rally.
5. Plain Folks – attempt to convince the audience that a prominent person and his ideas
are ―of the people. Politicians attempt to present themselves as just ordinary citizens. Example:
man actress is photographed shopping for groceries.
6. Bandwagon – makes the appeal that ―everyone else is doing it, and so should you.ǁ
Example is: an ad states that ―everyone is rushing down to their Ford dealer.
7. Fear – plays on deep-seated fears; warns the audience that disaster will result if they do
not follow a particular course of action. Examples include: an insurance company pamphlet
includes pictures of houses destroyed floods, followed up by details about home-owners‘ insurance
.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 8. Bad Logic – an illogical message is not necessarily propagandistic; it can be just a
logical mistake; it is propaganda if logic is manipulated deliberately to promote a cause. Example:
Senator X wants to regulate the power industry. All Communist governments regulate their power
industries. Senator X is a Communist.
9. Unwarranted Extrapolation – making huge predictions about the future on the basis
of a few small facts.
10. Selection – propagandists usually present selected facts required to prove
predetermined objectives.

Q: What is interest group and what is its difference from pressure group and political party?
An interest groups are those private organizations of individuals whose purpose to protect
and promote the common interests of their members. They are called interest groups because their
members have something in common – interests. From this assumption, we can say that all private
organizations, such as cooperatives, fraternities, unions or societies, are interest groups because
their members have shared a common interest in joining their own group.
However, the moment these groups have already exerted pressures to the government
authorities they already become pressure groups. Authorities in political dynamics defined
pressure group as any organization whose main purpose is to influence or affect the operation of
the government by persuading some key persons in authority to act in accordance with the groups’
interests. In other words, all pressure groups are interest groups, but not all interest groups are
pressure groups.
Political parties put forth candidates to run in elections. Pressure groups do not compete in
national elections for political power. Political parties deal with national issues while interest
groups are concerned with sectional interests.

Q: What are some identified benefits of joining an interest group?

1. Material Benefits - which refer to the goods and services to be made available to
group members. Members joined the group to improve the supply of these benefits directly or
indirectly.
2. Solidary Benefits - these refer to the sense of belongingness, security, prestige. Some
people affiliated themselves to a group that would give them the chance to socialize with other
people, or an opportunity to improve their social status in the community.
3. Purposive Benefits. Some groups offer their members another kind of “good feeling”
reward. Working on behalf of a value or cause they believe in can give some members so much
satisfaction that they need seek no personal rewards.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 Q: What are the Tactics of Interest Groups?
1. Pressure Methods - refer to different activities and programs conducted by pressure
groups in order to get the attention of the government. They may administer rallies, lobbies,
strikes, noise-barrage, street picketing and many more.
2. Pressure Points - refer to government agencies or authorities to whom these pressures
are intended or directed to, like the congress, president or local executives.
Q: What is International Relations?
- a branch of Political Science that studies interactions across national borders,
usually expressed in foreign policies among states and nonstate actors (Miriam Defensor
Santiago)
- the study of who gets what, when, and how in matters external to states or in
matters crossing boundary lines (Henderson).
-refers to all forms of interactions between the members of separate societies,
whether government sponsored or not (K.J Holsti).
-focuses upon relations between officially constituted decision makers and as well
as those that are unofficial at transnational level (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff).

Q: What is International Politics?

-it is both a struggle for power and a process of resolving international issue (William
Coplin)
-it is not concerned about all types of relationships or phenomena except: (1) where they
impinge upon government official objectives, or (2) where they are employed by governments as
instruments of inducement to achieve military or political objectives(K.J Holsti (e.g. the concern
of I.R is International Trade, however, in IP, our concern is how the government employ economic
threats, rewards, or punishments for political purposes.
- Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff defined International Politics as an attempt of a state or other
international actor to wield influence to the other actors in some way.

Illustration:
State A----------------------influences State B to do X
Note: Government and Nongovernment sponsored – IR
Government sponsored- IP

Q: What is International Law?

-the law which deals “with the conduct of states and of international organizations and with
their relations inter se, as well as some of their relations with persons, whether natural or
juridical (Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States).
-this lays emphasis on the moral and practical fields or foundation and prescribes the
conduct and guidelines among nations (what ought

Q: What is International Humanitarian Law?

International humanitarian law, also known as the law or armed conflict or the law of war,
is the body of rules which, in wartime, protects persons who are not or are no longer participating
in hostilities. It limits the methods and means of warfare. Its central purpose is to limit and prevent

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 human suffering in times of armed conflict. The rules are to be observed not only by governments
and their armed forces, but also by armed opposition groups and any other parties to a conflict.
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Applies in situations of armed conflict Protects individuals at all times
No derogations are permitted because it was Some HR treaties permit governments to
conceived for emergency situations derogate from certain rights in situations of
public emergency
Aims to protect people who do not or no Applies to everyone during peacetime;
longer taking part in hostilities protects individuals from arbitrary behavior
of their own governments.
Obliges states to take practical and legal States are bound by HR law to accord
measures, such enacting penal legislation and national law with international obligations
disseminating IHL
Provides for several specific mechanisms that HR implementing mechanisms are complex
helps its implementation; ICRC is given a key and include regional systems
role in ensuring respect for the humanitarian
rules.

Q: What the Principles of International Humanitarian Law?

(1) Principle of Military Necessity

Combatants may employ any amount and kind of force to compel the complete submission
of the enemy with the least possible loss of lives, time and money.
(2) Principle of Humanity
The use of any force that is not absolutely necessary for the purposes of the war is
prohibited.
(3) Principle of Chivalry
Combatants are required to give proper warning before launching a bombardment or
prohibit the use of perfidy in the conduct of hostilities.
(4) Principle of Distinction
This imposes an obligation on all parties to the war to draw a strict line between combatants
and non-combatants.
(5) The Principle of Proportionality
This aims at striking a balance between the military necessity and the requirements of
humanity.
(6) The Superfluous Injury Or Unnecessary Suffering (SIrUS) Principle
Weapons which cause suffering that are not essential to attain the military objectives are
forbidden.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY

 (7) The Principle of Restraint
This imposes sound judgment on the part of military commanders to suspend or
abort any attack where military objectives and civilians/objects are not properly distinguished, or
may cause more civilian damage than the military target.
(8) The Dictates of Public Conscience or the Martens Clause
“In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and
combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived
from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public
conscience.”

Sources:
Dahl, Robert A. Modern Political [Link] Delhi: Prentice Hall of India (Private) Ltd.

Heywood, Andrew. 2019. Politics. UK: Red Globe Press.

De Leon, Hector S. 2011. Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, 2011 Edition. Manila: Rex Book Store
Inc.

Casambre, Athena Lydia. The Discipline of Political Science: From Everyday Narratives to Analysis. Anvil
Publishing, Inc.: Mandaluyong City, Philippines. 2018.

Lawson, Kay. [Link] Human Polity. U.S.A.: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ranney, Austin. [Link]: An Introduction to Political Science. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Suarez, Rolando A. Political Law Reviewer. Manila: Rex Book Store Inc.

Lazo, Ricardo S. Introduction to Political Science. Manila: Rex Book Store Inc.

Cruz, Isagani. Philippine Political Law. Manila: Rex Book Store Inc.

Nachura, Antonio. Outline Reviewer in Political Law.

Political Science 2/4 Handout of Mr. Alinor Datumanong. MSU, Political Science Department.
Political Science 2/4 Handout of Dr. Zainal D. Kulidtod. MSU, Political Science Department.

Prepared by: Mr. Federico B. Filipino | MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY