Micro and macro theories in political science focus

INTRODUCTION Countries exist to move with former(a) farmings and enjoins in the multinational arna. Thus, no inelegant or nation is an island unto itself. As a leave alone of this, isolation from international activities sprains very impossible. In the course of funda custodytal interaction countries tries to gain advantage over early(a) countries, and this has been the theme of conflict and disagreement. Sometimes, if this is non justly hand guide it will widen to fight.Scholars from antithetical pedantic delays have posited homophiley causes of con ex be. Thus, the great disceptation over why struggle go bys has been approached from disagreeent dimension. For the historians, scholars want A.J. P. Taylor famously described struggles as world like traffic accidents. nonwithstanding this approach has been criticized in the view that few pick outers of assures make conscious finality in embarking in fight and this is not accidental. For the Psychologi st, hu part beings, especi solelyy men be inherently violent.This violence displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against separate ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies (Wikibooks 2005). Other psychologists plead that the mental unbalanced country of men who rule and control a nation, commingle with their hu part temperament has been the hindquarters of the natural event of strugglefare. This prepare argues leaders that confabulatek state of war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin were mentally atypical screening process, such as election, could restrain these types from coming to author, war would end. (ibid.).The Anthropologists name the occurrence of war as a fundamentally cultural, learnt by nurture or else than temperament. The Sociologists have Plethora of perspective in seeing the occurrence of war. Some see war as the product of national causalitys, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities. Others that differ from the traditional approach argue that it is the last of commonwealthsmen and the geo policy-making situation that leads to war. The Economist argues war clear the bounce be seen as an outset of economic competition in a chaotic and competitive international system.Having looked at the diverse and divergent viewpoint from which these scholars from antithetical discipline has posited as the cause of war, this hold open up go to look at the policy-making aspect of why war occurs. As a turn up of this, various theories in the political science sports stadium would be applied to enumerate the agreement behind the occurrence of war.DEFINITION OF TERMS policy-making science has been described as a hospitable umbrella for mevery disciplines all connected somehow with the operations of presidential term or people acting in relation to brass.According to Alfred Cobban, as quoted in Oyediran (19983), political Science is a devise invented by univ ersity t for each oneers for avoiding that dangerous subject political relation without achieving Sciences.Thus, political science is that social science discipline that prove to study government and how politics that has to do with the use of power, rule and billet in any human affinity is being conducted.The study of political science, the prescriptive and the positive approach is watched mend scholars, such as Plato and Aristotle sought to send the characteristics of politics, their causes and effects, leaving aside moral judgements slightly their goodness or badness. Therefore, it is seen that dashrn political scientists adopt a positive speculation to issues that pertain to the field of study, hence, what ought to be. (Robert pigeon-pea plant cited by Gerring, 20052).THEORY Theory is defined as abstraction from the real world in order to own explanation to phenomenon. Thus, theories go forth explanation to the relationship that exists amidst variables. Theories are tested hypotheses that are generally authentic it is used through known events to give an explanation to the unknown.WAR warfare can be defined as conflict that arises from disagreement, which result into military fleck and the end results which is death of lives and properties.War can be course of actionified into obliging wars and foreign wars. Civil wars, are those wars that occur within a nation or a assure as a result of the ontogeny of religious orders that are firm to an identified group. A typical exercise of complaisant war in contemporary time is the civil war in Liberia in the 1990s, surrounded by late Samuel Deo combination and Charles Taylor faction. Another typical example of civil war is the 1967 to 1970 civil war in Nigeria, between the Federal troop and the Biafra faction that seek to secede from the Nigeria Federation.Foreign war is war that involves fleck between or among autonomous nation or states. Example of this is being War 1 and humanness War II.In recent times the war between Iraq and Kuwait, and the US Allied military units in the 1990s.Another fluctuation of war in contemporary political world is the frigorific war that had existed after(prenominal) the world war associated with the bipolar axis vertebra i.e. the eastern bloc and the western bloc. This cold war is unlike the real combat war where physical and military combat is carried out, but it has to do with war in international arena, that pertains to foreign policies and international pacts and agreement, that tend to be contended forThis cold war has do many countries to support either of the dickens factions. But, some countries, like in Africa adopt a different stand, the Non Aligned front man is pursued as the foreign policies in these black nation. The cold war curtly collapse in 1989, this brought an end to the bipolar structure of the international system.POLITICAL THEORIES ON THE particular OF WAR political theories on the issuing of stat e can be utilised to explain the occurrence of war. Here, the Hobbessian theory of state and the lodge theory are quickly applicable to why nation wage in war.The Hobbissian theory postulated by doubting doubting Thomas Hobbes, explain the human state of populace in what he cal conduct the state of personality. According to him, nature has made man so equal in faculties of the tree trunk and mind and though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another is not considerable as that one man can claim to himself any make headway to which another may not possess as well as he (Hobbes, 1946).The equality of man here heart and soul they tend to nurse the like aspirations and trusts, ends and the same hope. But the uniformity of aspiration tend to be evoke problem since the resources e.g. power, political influence, is a remarkable resource that can not go round all(prenominal) body. Thus, it become problematic when two persons des ire the same thing, which they cannot both obtain, they are apt(predicate) to become enemies and always will seek to destroy one another.In applying this scenario to independent states, the scarce resources that each state seeks to obtain for itself, this brings nigh competition and invariably lead to the emergence of war, if such competition gets to the extreme and the aim of tolerance becomes unbearable. According to Ighadola (2000 12), human combat for status symbols are always characterized by fighting where this happens remote the preview of any settled and civilized state, the picture of the state of nature comes to the fore boldly.The state of nature as stipulated by Thomas Hobbes, is the time when men lived without a greenness power to keep them in yellow journalism i.e. every man is a government and law unto himself, there is no dress contract to the establishment of state and government. In state of nature, war of every man against every man was the perceptual con dition of human relations. Thus, man is brutal and exhibited a hostile tendency towards those around him. It is similarly argued that, War, as Hobbes used the concept, did not of necessity denote actual fighting, rather it meant the disposal to fight (ibid)Man in the state of nature did not engage in continuous warfare, he was only perpetually abandoned to fight to acquire what he coveted and to protect what he already possessed. The angle of inclination in man to be strong-growing in competition and fight is moderated by the fear of death. Thus, the disposition to fight to is gain ground heightened by the absence of exchangeise authority. In the international political arena in the beginning the emergence of international organization like the United Nation, the broke out of founding War I and the emergence of World War II, is as a result of absence of a strong centralized International authority. The League of Nations collapsed as a result of the Second World War. This led to the emergence of the United Nations that is acting as a centralized authority in the international arena, in preventing the outbreak of conflicts among nations or states.Another angle of the Hobbessains theory sees Mans selfishness and self- seeking nature ensures, without a topnotch restraining aim, the condition of the state of nature that would anticipate permanent. This results in a threat to the condusive recognition of human potentials and insecurity. In applying this to the emergence of wars among nations, it is seen that the selfishness and expedience nature of some nation has prompted them into pass on into the rightful possession of other nation. In order to defend their possession, these other nation would recourse to protect itself by spicy in war. Most times, this has been the base of war among nations.Thus, Hobbes has proffered a centralized authority that is enforce in one individual as a solution to avert this state of nature, so as to prevent the beast ly and aggressive nature in man, and thus, step-down the outbreak of war.Critics have pointed out that Hobbes advocacy of coercive power puts a tidy sum in his argument. The central authority or sovereign should operate the law made, jolly and equitably among the people not absolute authority in one man. Thus, central power is advocated that is democratic, in place of the sovereign ruler of Hobbes. This is because the sovereign ruler is interpreted from federation and has its own selfish desire, which could lead to autocratic rule, i.e., he cannot be outside society and therefore cannot be earlier(prenominal) the law. (ibid15).Another political theory that can be use to advocate for the emergence of war is the Marxist theory. Karl Marx theory concentrates both on political and economic perspective of the state. In his view, the society is divided into two important air divisiones, i.e. the bourgeoisie and the proletariats, and this has always been the driving force behind conflict in society and its attendant social change.Marxist theory of war argues that all war grows out of the class war. It sees wars as imperial ventures to enhance the power of the ruling class and divide the proletariat of the world by pitting them against each other for contrived ideals such as nationalism or religion. ( Wikibooks, 2005).Marx and Engels posited in The German ideology that with all the mischiefs contradictions and crisis inherent in the capitalist mode of production, the proletariat bears the entire burden without enjoying its advantages, they become isolated from society. Having been driven to the wall, they are squeeze into the most decided antagonism to the other class because an alienated man is a revolutionary man. (Marx, et al, 1977).Hence, Karl Marx see wars as a natural outgro9wth of the free market and class system, and will not disappear until a world revolution occurs. According to Ighodalo (200020), the candidate of Marx is that the destruction of the capitalist system would lead to the end of class antagonism, since the basis of it property ownership would have been eliminated thereby creating a classless society where all give agree to his/ her ability and receive according to his/ her needs.Another theory of the evolution of state that can be applied to the reason out why war occurs is the Force theory. This school of thought holds that the state is a foot of conquest and coercion of the weak by the strong. The state was seen as evil because it was a way of oppressing the poor. However, German writers of the 19th century, contended that force was an essential attribute of a state. (Oyediran, 199819). The Force theory can really be adduce as a basis why war emerge between nation.Countries that are strong and have right on military force had in the preceding(a) annexed weak countries to themselves. They succeeded in doing this by embarking on war with them. In 1939, Finlands conclusion to resist the onslaughts and an nexation aggression of Soviet led to the Winter War. Though cases of invasion and annexations that did not lead to a war abound such as the U.S. led invasion of Haiti in 1994, the Nazi invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia preceding the Second World War, and the annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union in 1940.CONCLUSION The different policy-making Theorist has enjoin their argument on the reason why war occurs, even though not in the same tone and direction, the fact that the selfish interest and self- seeking nature of man and government, has been identified as a major reason why war has been a recurrent factor in the international arena. Even internally, where civil war occurs within the boundary of a country this has retained the same causal factor. The fact is traceable down line aged of historical war among nations.Furthermore, the scarce resource, such as power has been a basis for the eruption of conflicts among nations, since these resource cannot go round, it tend to be conflictual.REFERENCESAkhakpe, Ighodalo, (2000), Leading Issues in policy-making Thought. Lagos A- Triad Associates Publishers & Printers.Gerring, John (2005), A Normative Turn in semipolitical Science? Boston University Department of Political Science.Hobbes, Thomas (1946), Leviathan Oxford Basil Blackwill Ltd.Oyediran, Oyeleye (1998), Introduction to Political Science. Lagos&8212&8212-??Wikibooks (2005), International relations The Causes of War https//en.wikibooks.org/wiki/International_RelationsThe_Causes_of_war. (3rd August, 2005)