By Dev Raj Dahal, Head, FES-Nepal
Book Review
 |
| Dev Raj Dahal |
Rainer Eisfeld, Radical
Approaches to Political Science: Roads Less Travelled, Berlin: Barbara Budrich
publishers, July 2012, pp.267, Price $41.95.
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 Central-East 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 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) and 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 post-communist 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 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.
Courtesy: The Reporter Weekly,
August 12, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment