Politics as service delivery (2)

Prevailing and dominant concepts of politics were born from the crave for the ‘scientific’ study of politics, to make the study of politics more empirical; to demonstrate what is, what people actually do in politics rather than what they ought to do.

As a pioneer advocate of political science that is truly science, that is, one concerned with ‘is’ not ‘ought’ questions, David Easton defined politics as “the authoritative allocation of values.”

In other words, Easton saw politics as the study of “the authoritative allocation of values in society.” Consequently, he did not regard other approaches to theory as political science in fixing upon the “authoritative allocation of values as the essence” of politics. As Dahl (1955) in a critique observed, Easton himself fell victim of normative ambiguity when he admitted that political science is not what he defined it to be as the authoritative allocation of values.

Furthermore, Dahl queried, what is “authoritative allocation?” Who sanctions it as such? The ‘whole’ society? ‘Some’ in society?

Another prevailing concept of politics is Harold Laswell’s “Who Gets What When How.” If I remember well, Emeritus Professor Adekanye extended this concept as “Who Gets What When How, How Much.” This very popular concept of politics as “Who Gets What When How” stresses influence and the influential.

From this concept comes the preoccupation with influence wielding by those who have power or have a link to power almost invariably for personal gain. A concept of politics that extols the reality of the struggle for power or resources is biased against the powerless who are usually in the majority in society. It has no normative value, being a description of reality without a purpose for the oppressed. It serves the interest of the powerful, silent on the conflict and destabilising consequences of the vicious contestations between the powerful, which they convert into hegemony whenever possible through their patron-client relations with the mass victims in society.

The Athenians conceived politics in terms of moral beliefs, as the pursuit of public interest. Some may see this concept as unscientific because of its normative emphasis – that public interest cannot be identified. But does public interest exist? Is there or can public interest be agreed upon or known? Better still, can public interest be operationalised? The answer is yes.

This is because we have evidence that the Greek city states operationalised public interest by debating matters until decisions/actions were taken to realise the common good. Public interest can be known or operationalised today by viewing it as a valuation “instrument created in action for the purposes of action and achieving consensus and improvement as a result of observation of the consequences of its use in action” (Long 1991:674).

The concept of politics as the pursuit of public interest was abandoned by contemporary political scientists because it was seen as too inclusive and perhaps not reflecting reality and consequently adjudged unscientific. I find convincing the argument of Bryan S. Turner (1993) that “one problem with a value-free science of politics is that whoever claims that questions of justice cannot play a part in causal explanation has already committed a value-judgement.” As Long similarly observed, the science of those in the fields of agriculture and medicine, which starts with the purpose of improving the human welfare or condition does not make their science less of science.

The destabilising effect of the dominance or predominance of the concepts of politics that emphasise power and influence in the mindset of powerful state and non-state actors is glaring for all to see.

On the other hand, the dominance or the predominance of the concept of politics that emphasises the pursuit of public interest in the mindset of powerful state and non-state actors results in political decisions and policies with very complementary and pleasant effects on the public and ordinary people. In the mind of these actors, public office or authority is not power but service, and in the context of this conference, service delivery.

It is this mindset that leads to the pursuit of service delivery in politics and helps power seekers and decision makers to avoid avarice, domination and oppression of others. If we cannot deny that the concept of politics as the pursuit of public interest has the two basic defining elements of politics, namely, the exercise of power and the making of binding public decisions, can we then, begin to embrace the concept of politics as service delivery in this part of the world?

Concluded.
Isumonah, Ph.D., is of the Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan. He delivered this address at the 3rd conference of the Nigerian Political Science Association, Southwest Zone in Ibadan recently. He can reached via:va.isumonah@ui.edu.ng