Political Theory and Political Science: Meaning and Nature

Historically, political scientists maintained a long-standing belief that political theory did not constitute a significant concern for the broader field of political science.
Consequently, for a significant period, there was a minimal emphasis placed on the development and study of political theory.
In recent times, this perspective has shifted significantly; it is now recognized beyond any doubt that political theory and political science are "part and parcel of each other."
The proper development of political science as a subject is considered impossible without the inclusion of political theory.
Modern political theory is described as essentially heading towards specific goals that must be actively searched for and disclosed by scholars.
There is a growing consensus among almost all political thinkers regarding the inherent utility and usefulness of political theory in the modern academic landscape.

Political theory is characterized by three distinct but interconnected roles:
- It serves as a theory of politics.
- It serves as the science of politics.
- It serves as the philosophy of politics.
Bluchen's Definition: Bluchen opined that political theory stands for an "abstract model of political order" and acts as a "guide to the systematic collection and analysis of political data."
Andrew Hacker’s Elaborated Framework: Andrew Hacker categorized political theory into three functional definitions:
- As Theory: In ideal terms, it is "dispassionate and disinterested."
- As Science: It describes political reality without attempting to pass judgment on the depictions, whether those judgments are implicit or explicit.
- As Philosophy: It describes the specific rules of conduct intended to secure a "good life for all of society."

The necessity of political theory has been a subject of intense and sharp debate for a long duration.
The most frequent argument leveled against political theory is centered on its abstract nature, with critics claiming it is a "waste of time" that lacks practical utility.
Current academic trends suggest this critical view is undergoing a "remarkable change."
Catlin’s Defense: Catlin argued that the maturity and advancement of any discipline are directly correlated to the soundness and the level of abstraction found within that subject.

David Easton is identified as an "important instrument" in redirecting the attention of political scientists toward political theory.
Easton’s Principles for Discipline Advancement:
- A subject can only advance when its theory and research are pursued regularly and in tandem.
- Changes and evolutions in theory assist in the analytical discussion and the overall study of the subject.
- The creation and development of sub-disciplines within a larger realm are impossible in the absence of a "good and sound theory."
Easton maintains that achieving an "independent status" for political science can never become a reality without the foundational support of political theory.

Robert Dahl’s Critique: Robert Dahl unhesitatingly proclaimed that the present state of political science is "not satisfactory."
Role in Fact Production: Political theory is instrumental in producing and highlighting facts.
The Interplay of Values: Facts do not emerge on their own; they require the context of certain values. Without attacking or engaging with values, facts remain hidden.
Current Scientific Limitations: The text notes that, as of yet, no scientific theory based on the "solid ground of datas" (data) has been successfully propounded in the field of political science.
The field remains "uncomfortable" or incomplete in the absence of such a data-driven, scientific theory.