Professor Dev Raj Dahal
Senior Political Analyst, Nepal
Begin text:
A critical appraisal about political science now is needed to update its tasks and save it from the crisis of irrelevance. New audience requires a new thinking to bridge the prevailing tension between empirically-oriented mainstream political scientists who stress on party, parliament, government, political system, state, comparative governments and international politics and normatively-oriented ones who focus on the life-enhancing values and institutions of citizens. Recovery from irrelevance requires political science to serve as social defense against powerlessness, denial, terrorism, ethnic resurgence, fundamentalism and foster livelihood, policy production to solve structural and institutional problems and prepare citizens for various possible futures. Political science as one of the oldest source of learning has to be active in several arenas— develop vision for the creation of good society, extend the frontiers of inquiry to resolve puzzles and problems through contextual policy discourse, enable citizens to adapt to technological evolution of society, foster civic culture and incorporate history, structure and agency embedded in the dynamics of relations between individuals, networks, associations, parties and social movements (p 16). Prof. Eisfeld argues that the present global economic crisis has mainly arisen out of pro-market state intervention, cut of state’s expenditure and supervision, suggests the need to reverse this course for the resolution of crisis of worthlessness and supports the intervention of political science in favor of democracy, not business interest.
To him, corporate globalization “radically eats into the capacity of legislature.” In such a context, representative structures of the state and society will suffer and erode the loyalty of citizens. Prof. Eisfeld illustrates weak status of political science in CentralEast European context despite the diversity of the region, poor institutional cooperation, research network, teaching and funding opportunities as he finds that there is total absence of critical theory.
Learning to live in the midst of enormous ethnic and cultural diversity is a precondition for the stabilization of democracy.
To him, in post-modern condition of turmoil ethnicity provides a safety and source of belonging but democracy 116 / Journal of Conflict, Peace and Development Studies (JOCPDS), Volume 2 also requires civil society and civic cultures, not identity-based fundamentalism, and continuously negotiated compromise for equality of condition and social justice. The key role of political science is to explore the pluralist interaction between economy, civil society and government (P.29), find the framework of the unity between society and polity through the societal participation in the shaping of public policies, and find their solution of the problems of all citizens.
He supports participatory democracy and favors active and enlightened citizens with resources to influence the government, not just elite accommodation with or without elections. What is required is pluralist democratization, social change in egalitarian direction and a culture of compromise (P. 41) whereby the state can improve the individual condition of existence and discover the inner requirement of pluralism in the socialist and capitalist polities, parties and societies.
Political science as an autonomous discipline was institutionalized in many postcommunist countries of Europe as a means to internalize democratic ideals. The hybridization of regime, however, blurred the distinction between scholars and ideologues. In this phase, the entry of the World Bank, UNDP, OECD, Open Society Institute and NGOs as transmission belt marked the beginning of knowledge transfer based on standard Western practices. They sought to convert old elites into new ideas and practices (P.85) of open society and fostered democracy, human rights, good governance, social, economic and legal reform, etc. Prof. Eisfeld refers the impact and evolution of political science discipline in various countries—Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine—offers their journals names and concludes that political science on the whole remains “amateurish and largely a-theoretical” (P. 93).
The denouement is: semi-democratic rulers trampled the constitutional rule of democracy and the mechanical application of democracy without proper conceptualization about the local realties produced defectively democratic and competitively autocratic regimes, which bode ill for the existence of independence of political science (P. 104). Prof. Eisfeld believes that in Germany, the authoritarian temptation often generated upheaval putting German political science at the crossroads during world wars. But, it also produced civic course for democratic training of leaders and citizens for their loyalty to nation, state, leadership, Pan-Germanism and Mittelleuropa above party politics along the German virtues of order, duty and community.
To him, these virtues are different from democratic leveling, atomistic capitalistic society and the French ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. Latter, German political science adopted pluralist / 117 approach to the “reasons of society”– equality, social justice, political participation, peaceful conflict resolution and the creation of a just world order to guard “public interest” endorsing the neutrality of state across interest groups in an anti-Hegelian spirit.
The concept of nationalism too shifted to enlightened dimension of constitutionalism and democracy assumed substantive social contents. Prof. Eisfeld also spotlights the evolution of American political science along realpolitik line of refusing to learn the moral landscape. He projects human mind to another world to bridge the gulf between mutual “incomprehension between the humanities and science” (p. 186) and detests the triumph of technology over nature.
The recipe is: reeducation of mankind in the Kantian spirit of “peace, liberty and human dignity” to avoid a situation of post-nuclear wasteland.
His two concluding essays relate political science to policy transfer referring the case study of Portugal’s transition to democracy and argue that foreign pressure upsets domestic politics’ natural evolution towards stability, which requires endogenous and autonomous process of socioeconomic modernization, inner-party democracy and avoidance of the politics of negation to support the affirmation of national project by all citizens. Participation of non-members confiscates the capacity of society to regenerate and become autonomous expression of national life. “Ideological export models would not be tolerated in Portugal,” said Willy Brandt. This message was widely acknowledged. The radical temptation of Prof.
Ranier Eisfeld is to link political science to the sovereignty of citizens and improve human condition. Future political scientists will admire his priorities on nature, pluralism, participation, justice, peace and transformation as they will be important factors for human progress and help recover political science from its loss of vision. The interdisciplinary insight makes the book rich in contents.
End text.
# Book Review Rainer Eisfeld, Radical Approaches to Political Science: Roads Less Travelled, Berlin: Barbara Budrich publishers, July 2012, pp.
267, Price $41.95.
# Published with the express permission from professor Dahal: Ed. Upadhyaya.
# Our contact email address: editor.telegraphnepal@gmail.com