What is Politics: Theorizing the Political

Introduction: 

At its most basic, politics refers to the way people negotiate for coexistence: who makes decisions, who benefits, how differences are resolved, and what principles the general public accepts. But behind this everyday understanding lie many deeper questions—about power, identity, conflict, legitimacy, publicness, and the actions that make collective life possible. “Political theory” means asking what makes something political in the first place: what kinds of relationships, behaviors, and experiences are considered political; how are these embedded in institutions and language; and what ethical and practical frameworks should guide our decisions about collective decisions.  

Defining Politics: 

At its core, politics can be understood as the process through which groups of people make collective decisions. These decisions are often about how resources are distributed, how power is exercised, and how conflicts are resolved within society. The famous political theorist, Harold Lasswell, succinctly defines politics as “who gets what, when, and how”. This definition highlights the distributional aspect of politics, focusing on the allocation of resources and the mechanisms of power.

However, politics is not just about material resources; it also involves distributing values, rights, and responsibilities. It includes how societies organize themselves, establish rules and norms, and address issues of justice, equality, and freedom.

Politics and the State: 

One of the central aspects of political theory is the relationship between politics and the state. The state is often seen as the primary institution through which political power is exercised. Max Weber, a leading figure in political theory, defined the state as an entity that holds a “monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force” in a given territory. This means that the state is the ultimate authority in enforcing the law and maintaining order.

In this context, politics is about the processes and institutions through which state power is organized and exercised. It includes the study of government structures, political parties, elections, and the various ways citizens engage with the state.

Politics Beyond the State: 

While the state is the central focus of political theory, politics extends beyond the formal institutions of government. Politics can be found in all areas of social life, from workplaces to families and from international relations to grassroots movements. Political theory encourages us to look at how power operates in a variety of contexts, not just within the state.

For example, feminist political theory has highlighted how power dynamics in the family and society can be political. It challenges the traditional view that politics is confined to the public sphere, arguing that the personal is political. This approach extends our understanding of politics to include issues such as gender relations, identity, and social justice.

1. Historical Approach: Classical Origins and Modern Framework 

Classical thinkers (such as Aristotle) conceived of political life as the distinctive activity of human beings living together in a polis; politics was a way of shared action and deliberation about the good life. Over time, modern thinkers redefined this subject in terms of interest, power, contract, or governance. For example, the contemporary/modern concept of the state and the problem of legitimate authority—who can legitimately make binding decisions and when—became central to modern accounts of politics. Max Weber famously characterized a modern fundamental characteristic: the contemporary/modern state’s claim to a monopoly of legitimate physical force in a given territory, and politics as a struggle for influence over that form of organized power. This perspective on politics connects the study of political institutions to issues of leadership, legitimacy, coercion, and power allocation. 

2. The Importance of Political Theory 

The study of political theory is essential for understanding and evaluating the complex realities of human governance and collective life. Rather than being an abstract exercise, it provides frameworks that guide behavior, decision-making, and moral evaluation. Its importance can be seen in several ways: 

(a) Clarification of Core Concepts 

Political theory helps us define and refine concepts such as freedom, equality, justice, rights, sovereignty, and democracy. Without theoretical clarity, these terms can be misused or misunderstood. For example, freedom may mean the absence of interference for some people, but also the ability to realize their potential for others. Political theory clarifies these differences. 

(b) Guiding Policy and Practice 

Governments and institutions face constant dilemmas: Should taxation be progressive? Should welfare be universal or targeted? Political theory provides philosophical and ethical arguments to assess such questions. Utilitarian, liberal, socialist, and feminist ideologies have taken different approaches to policy issues. 

(c) Connecting Norms to Reality 

Theory connects ideals to practical realities. Even if people desire justice, theory questions what justice actually is—the allocation of resources, the recognition of identity, or the protection of individual liberty. By exploring such debates, political theory prevents blind obedience to slogans and instead calls for reasoned reflection. 

(d) Maintaining a Critical Distance 

Once established, institutions can become oppressive. Political theory provides tools for critique by asking: Is power legitimate? Are rights adequately protected? Is participation inclusive? Instead of normalizing injustice, this critical approach ensures that societies continually evaluate themselves. 

(e) Cultivating Active Citizens 

In democracies, political literacy is crucial. Political theory promotes informed citizenship by teaching individuals to question, deliberate, and address collective problems beyond narrow self-interest. It nurtures the civic imagination necessary for participation. 

Thus, political theory is not isolated speculation; it is the intellectual foundation of responsible governance, ethical citizenship, and meaningful public debate. 

3. Key Characteristics of Politics 

Politics has certain distinctive characteristics that distinguish it from other spheres of human life. These characteristics illustrate its scope and complexity: 

(a) Collective Decision-Making 

At the core of politics is the process of making decisions that affect groups rather than individuals. From local councils to parliaments, political processes establish rules binding on all members of a community. 

(b) Power and Authority 

Politics revolves around power—the ability to influence decisions and behavior. However, pure power is insufficient on its own; it often needs to be institutionalized in the form of legitimate authority. A dictator rules by force, but a democratically elected leader rules by recognized authority. 

(c) Conflict and Consensus 

Politics always involves differences in values, interests, and perspectives. It is both an arena of conflict and a mechanism for achieving consensus or compromise. Elections, debates, negotiations, and sometimes protests are ways of expressing this dual nature. 

(d) Distribution of Resources 

Politics decides who gets what, when, and how. Political mechanisms, such as social programs, taxes, or affirmative action, are used to divide scarce resources such as wealth, employment, opportunity, and recognition. 

(e) Publicness 

What distinguishes political matters from private matters is their public character. While family disputes are private, debates over education, healthcare, or freedom of expression are political because they affect the broader community. 

(f) Norms and Values 

Politics is not just about power and resources, but also about ideals: justice, equality, freedom, and dignity. Political debates often revolve around conflicting visions of the good life and the moral direction of society. 

(g) Institutions and Rules 

Political life is organized through institutions—parliaments, courts, bureaucracies—that structure behavior and provide consistency. Without institutions, politics would devolve into chaos. 

All these characteristics demonstrate that politics is inevitable in any collective environment. It is the process through which humans organize their coexistence under conditions of diversity and limited resources. 

4. Theorizing Politics 

Although “politics” refers to everyday activities—elections, laws, policies—the phrase “politics” points to a deeper level: the conditions that make politics possible, the fundamental nature of conflict and identity in collective life. Theorizing politics requires examining what the political is and why it matters. 

(a) The Difference Between Politics and the Political 

• Politics: Day-to-day struggles over policies, laws, elections, and governance. 

• The Political: The underlying structure of power, conflict, and identity that makes politics possible. It is about boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, definitions of community, and the recognition of differences. 

(b) Schmitt’s Friend/Enemy Theory 

Carl Schmitt argued that the distinction between friend and enemy defines politics. For them, political communities are formed by identifying existential threats and drawing clear boundaries. Although criticized for its authoritarian implications, this approach highlights the seriousness of political conflict—it is not simply a matter of life and death, but rather a matter of debate. 

(c) Conflict Theory 

Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau reinterpreted politics as inherently conflictual, but not necessarily destructive. Instead of eliminating enemies, opponents can become adversaries engaged in conflict. This transforms conflict into a productive struggle that strengthens democracy by recognizing pluralism. 

(d) Arendt’s Public Sphere 

Hannah Arendt considered politics to be the realm of action and speech where human plurality is expressed. For her, politics means creating spaces where individuals are present to others, deliberate, and act freely. Thus, politics is linked to human dignity and freedom. 

(e) Foucault’s Dispersed Power 

Michel Foucault argued that politics pervades not only the state, but also institutions, discourses, and practices. Schools, prisons, hospitals, and bureaucracies produce “truths” and “normalities” that subtly control people. Politics is embedded in everyday life. 

(f) Why theorizing politics is important 

• It helps distinguish technical or moral disputes from genuine political ones. 

• It alerts us to the possibility of conflict becoming existential. 

• It reminds us that politics is about both material distribution and symbolic recognition. 

• It guides the design of institutions that can handle conflict without violence. 

5. Revisiting Politics Through Integrated Approaches 

Theorizing politics allows us to integrate multiple perspectives: 

• From Schmitt, we learn to recognize the gravity of conflict. 

• From Mouffe, we gain a democratic ethics of agonism. 

• From Arendt, we rediscover the value of public action and speech. 

• With Foucault, we become aware of the hidden operations of power. 

• From the deliberative model (Habermas), we see the importance of reasoned communication. 

Each approach reveals different dimensions of politics—existential, agonistic, discursive, institutional, and normative. When combined, they demonstrate that politics is not limited to a single role but a multifaceted practice of human coexistence. 

6. Politics as a Distinctive Analysis: Friend/Enemy, Conflict, and Opposition 

An important step in modern theory has been to separate everyday “politics” (policies, elections, administration) from the deeper phenomena that scholars call the political—the dimension of social life where collective identities, existential choices, and potential conflicts crystallize. 

Carl Schmitt (Friend-Enemy):  

One of the most influential (and controversial) formulations is that of Carl Schmitt, who argued that the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy: the ability of one group to recognize another as existentially incompatible, making confrontation—even violent confrontation—possible. For Schmitt, this existential opposition explains why politics can never be reduced to morality, economics, or simply administration: it has its own logic, rooted in collective identity and existence. (Schmitt’s ideas are deeply rooted in their historical and political context and remain controversial precisely because of their authoritarian potential.) 

Conflictual Alternatives (Mouffe and Laclau):  

In direct response to Schmitt’s friend/enemy argument, later theorists such as Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe redefined conflict in more democratic and counterintuitive terms. They argued that modern politics is constituted by social antagonisms—real conflicts of interests and identities—but that a democratic ethos can transform existential hostility into conflict: a rivalrous competition between opponents who acknowledge each other’s right to rival. Mouffe, in particular, emphasizes that pluralism and conflict are inevitable; the task of democratic institutions is not to eliminate conflict, but to direct it so that opponents remain adversaries (with competing aims) rather than enemies (seeking destruction). This conflictual turn shifts the focus from single binary systems to the construction of practices, hegemony, and collective will. 

7. Rethinking Power: From Sovereign Domination to Dispersed Technologies 

Traditional approaches often view power as something held by an individual or institution and exercised from the top down. However, this question was redefined by twentieth-century theorists, especially Michel Foucault, who argued that power is not only a repressive force but also creative and develops through discourses, institutions, social relations, and knowledge-producing activities. Foucault demonstrated how modern “disciplinary” technologies (schools, prisons, hospitals) construct subjects and normalize behavior; power operates by shaping the very categories through which people think about themselves and others. This approach positions politics as a field of micro-actions—arrangements of truth, expertise, surveillance, and governance—where everyday practices and institutional routines have political impact. It also highlights the interplay between knowledge and governance: what counts as truth or expertise shapes political possibilities. 

8. Action, the Public Sphere, and Civic Plurality (Arendt) 

Hannah Arendt presents a contrasting and complementary picture by outlining politics as collective action and speech in the public sphere. For Arendt, politics is the realm of appearances where plurality—the fact that humans are different yet equal—is manifested through words and deeds. Politics is not simply power or administration; it is the public display of freedom, initiative, and decision. Arendt’s emphasis on action, speech, and publicness reminds us that theorizing politics must reclaim the qualities that make collective life meaningful: the capacity to initiate, promise, forgive, and deliberate collectively. 

9. Competing Models of Democratic Behavior 

Different theories imply different democratic behaviors: 

• Deliberative Model (Habermas and his successors): Emphasizes reasoned public discussion, communicative rationality, and the public sphere as a place where legitimacy is generated through argumentation. To form public opinion and reach valid collective decisions, it is ideal for citizens to participate in free, thoughtful discussions. Inclusive, informed dialogue is fostered by institutional frameworks established through deliberative processes. 
• Pluralist Model: Emphasizes interest-group competition and bargaining as the engine of politics. Pluralists view politics as an ongoing dialogue between organized groups, with democratic health measured by the openness of the field and the balance of competing powers. 
• Agonistic Model (Mouffe): They view conflict as inevitable and unavoidable; their democratic goal is to develop institutions and norms that prevent conflict from escalating into violent hostility and allow opponents to engage within acceptable boundaries. 
• Power-Centric Model (Foucault-Inspired): Focuses on the micro-practices, institutional knowledge, and cultural codes that enable dominance. Here, democratic reform appears to involve changing the infrastructure of expertise, transparency, and oversight.  

Each model diagnoses a different pathology (consensus mania, elite seizure, normalization of power, erosion of public voice) and therefore suggests different remedies. 

10. Why “political” matters for analysis and action 

• It clarifies where the existential stakes lie. Distinguishing ordinary disagreements from political protests helps us understand when disputes threaten group identity or the basic conditions of coexistence and thus require special institutional safeguards. 
• It sheds light on the purposes of power. Political theorizing reveals that power is exercised not only through laws and armies, but also through categories, institutions, symbolic boundaries, and everyday routines. 
• It refines the democratic ambition. Assumes that politics is always a mix of cooperation and conflict. In that case, building resilient democracies requires institutions that foster both voice and moderation—spaces for contestation that do not become spaces of exclusion or violence. 
• This opens up normative reflection. Asking what politics should be—conflictual, deliberative, pluralistic, or something else—forces us to justify the ethical compromises inherent in institutional choices. 

11. Practical Outcomes: How Theory Reshapes Practice 

• Institutional Design: A deliberative model would prioritize citizen assemblies, transparent deliberation, and argumentation; a conflictual model would design for competitive party systems, the protection of dissent, and symbolic politics; a Foucaultian approach would demand an examination of expert systems, data governance, and the disciplinary mechanisms embedded in schools, hospitals, and bureaucracies. 

• Political Education: If Arendt is right about action and speech, then fostering political literacy and spaces for public performance are as important as legal reforms. 

• Conflict Management: Schmitt’s observation about existential conflict serves as a warning: democracies need to implement conflict-resolution strategies that avoid escalation into situations where identity politics degenerates into friend/enemy thinking. 

12. Toward an Integrated Approach 

No single theoretical approach exhausts the political. A concrete analysis includes sensitivity to identity and conflict (to recognize when disputes become existential), attention to institutional structure and legitimacy (to control and stabilize contestation), and a micro-level analysis of power and discourse (to see how everyday norms and expert practices shape political possibilities). Practically, this means: 

• Protecting the public sphere and deliberative forums for collective reasoning (Habermas/Arendt). 

• Designing institutions that transform conflict into non-destructive contestation (Mouffe). 

• Monitoring and reforming the infrastructures of power—surveillance, expertise, disciplinary regimes—that silently shape civic life (Foucault). 

• Being vigilant against the growing friend/enemy thinking that could undermine democratic pluralism (a lesson that positions Schmitt’s diagnosis as a warning rather than an endorsement). 

13. Further Reading (Selected) 

• Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political – for friend/enemy theory and its debates. 

• Chantal Mouffe, On the Political, and Laclau and Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy – for contested democracy and hegemony. 

• Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation – for the modern state and the monopoly of legitimate force. 

• Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, and his essays on power/knowledge – for diffuse, productive conceptions of power. 

• Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition – for its emphasis on action, speech, and the public sphere. 

• Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (and later works)—for a deliberate emphasis on communicative legitimacy. 

The Role of Ideology in Politics: 

Ideology plays an important role in shaping political beliefs and actions. An ideology is a set of ideas and values ​​that provide a framework for understanding and interpreting the political world. Political ideologies such as liberalism, conservatism, socialism, and feminism offer different visions of what a just and fair society should look like, and they guide political behavior and policy-making.

Political theory examines how these ideologies influence political decisions and how they are contested in the public sphere. Understanding the role of ideology helps us engage critically in political debates and recognize the underlying assumptions that shape political discourse.

Conclusion: 

Theorizing politics is an exercise in pluralistic diagnosis: it questions what kinds of relations and practices make something political, what forms of conflict are structural versus pathological, and what institutional frameworks best preserve freedom, equality, and peaceful coexistence. Whether you view politics as existential conflict, contested struggle, diffuse power, or public action, the aim is the same: to understand how humans organize their shared lives, to recognize the structural forces shaping those arrangements, and to imagine institutions and practices that can sustain pluralism without descending into violence or indifference. 

FAQs: