SOME REMARKS ON METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN POLITICAL THEORY

SOME REMARKS ON METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN POLITICAL THEORY




BY



M.M. YUSIF
JUNE, 1985





Department of Political Science
Bayero University, Kano


On Political Philosophy
The writing of this piece was conceived after the first two essay papers for discussion in a political theory class which formed part of the post-graduate programme of the Department of Political Science, Bayero University, Kano. The issue also came to my mind when I was to present an essay for discussion on ‘Khomeini’s State’. I initially attached this as part of the said essay, not because it directly relate with the theme of the paper but hoping that will provide my colleagues with fundamental theoretical background of grasping my propositions on Iran. The main contention of this brief paper is however to make some comments on our conception of political philosophy.

Political theory which is usually inter-changeable with political philosophy, albeit with some differences is theoretically trapped into some laid down norms which not only cause confusion and chaos in contemporary political theorising, but also make it virtually impossible for us to comprehend the nature and content of the problems facing us. What may account to this state of affairs in this discipline may be ideological in the sense that most earlier writers on the subject are methodologically buried in the philosophical tradition of Western Bourgeoisie society.

My central thrust on this issue is that political philosophy, like every other social science discipline is a historical and class phenomenon. Thus with emergence and disintegration of classes, the nature and character of philosophy also changes. Stalin has competently demonstrated this when he stated that “there are old ideas and theories which have outlived their day and which serve the interests of the moribund forces of society. Then there are advanced ideas and theories which serve the interests of the advanced forces of society”. Bourgeoisie philosophers suggested that the mainspring of Plato’s Republic is his aversion to contemporary capitalism and his desire to substitute a new scheme of socialism. This indicated how Plato’s philosophy is approached without putting him into the context of the history of his society and the class he is philosophising for. Our view is that a correct scientific theory should see Plato as a philosopher whose idealism was used as a weapon of class struggle. His theory of justice was merely part of the ideology of the aristocrats at a particular state of Greek society when the growth of trade and agriculture revolutionised the aristocrat landed property and political power. This development of productive forces culminated in democratic movements and revolutions which undermined the slave society. Plato’s interests against these reforms makes him reactionary and ideologue of aristocratic class who wanted to retain political power. In other words, whatever ‘abstract reality’ contained in Plato’s philosophical discourse was to defend slave society. Also whatever survived of Aristotle’s rational philosophy was to suit the dawn of feudal order, at a time when slave society was disintegrating.

The ascendancy of bourgeoisie into politics which is created by the development of productive forces was also a revolution in political philosophy. The moral philosophy of Plato and even Aristotle’s ‘rationality’ became old ideas. While feudalism sustained itself ideologically through religion, capitalism needed a secular environment in order to advance. Natural Philosophy, therefore became a new dimension, in place of theology. Both Locke, Montesquieu, Rouoseau and others came to provide philosophical ground for emerging bourgeoisie.

The maturity of capitalism opens road for progress, not only in regard to the development of productive forces, but also for ideas. As industry made great studies, the proletariat began to consolidate and socialist ideas began to be felt. Hence a new open struggle between the ideologues and philosophers of the bourgeoisie and those of the working class. The German and French socialist philosophers roughed their ideas in utopian and metaphysical tendencies. Marxism, the only correct philosophical formulation of the working-class transcended the historicism of the German and French philosophers by advancing ahistorical and dialectical materialism which together with political economy became the new methodological approach of the oppressed people. Positivism in philosophy simultaneously cropped up by ideologues of the bourgeoisie to neutralise the metaphysics of the French and German philosophers and revolutionary ideas of Marxism by positing that philosophy could neutralise facts and values.