Rational choice theorists claim to understand human behavior in decision-making processes. According to the theorists, people have an inherently logical approach to the solution of problems such as political elections (Hindmoor & Taylor, 2017). The primary assumption of the theory is that humans are always guided by an inclination to pursue only self-interested goals and values (Hindmoor & Taylor, 2017). However, rational choice theory analyzes political actions and processes superficially because it examines only economic and rational incentives and ignores personal impulses and ideas.
The rational theory assumes that all humans are undeniably rational. However, people often make decisions that do not benefit their interests in the long run (Hindmoor & Taylor, 2017). The amount of information that entails each choice can vastly surpass the cognitive capabilities of humans. On the other hand, people may find only limited and speculative data that supports the benefits of each option and therefore arrive at irrational conclusions (Hindmoor & Taylor, 2017). The theory does not reflect the actual process of reasoning because humans often possess insufficient information and are not able to achieve a flawlessly rational judgment.
Another argument proposed by the theory is that people have only egotistical ambitions. For example, politicians often betray and expose their opponents to achieve higher status and position (Hindmoor & Taylor, 2017). Critics of the self-interested goals propose that politics differs from other domains because the primary value generated by the state and parties is public service (Hindmoor & Taylor, 2017). In addition, politicians often make decisions according to the values of other people. For example, during election campaigns, party members analyze the tendencies and needs of the public and incorporate them into their programs and manifests. The rational theory would suggest that such political actions are motivated entirely by politicians’ personal interests. However, even if this claim is theoretically correct, such projects still benefit communities and address the issues of many people. As a result, a solely egoistical approach does not give a realistic description of human motivations because individuals also seek to benefit others in the course of their actions.
One of the core issues of rational choice theory is the lack of appreciation of unique ideas. According to the argument, people lack diversity in their reasoning, are generally predictable, and share the same values and conceptions as the organizations to which they belong. (Hindmoor & Taylor, 2017). For example, groups behave as a single entity and make consistent, coherent, and sensible judgments. Thus, members of political parties should also have coordinated actions and identical opinions. However, people often have contrastive empirical and normative views, which define what behavior is appropriate and what options benefit their own goals (Hindmoor & Taylor, 2017). For instance, some politicians may view using poster advertisements before elections as normal; others may find that utilizing such methods is inappropriate for a political party. By not recognizing individual ideas and goals, the rational theory does not provide a reliable explanation of group behavior.
The theory of rational choices provides only a limited account of political processes and actions. The idea that people consider only rational and self-interested options does not represent the actual analytical process or political agenda. Other significant aspects of human behavior, such as individual thoughts and ambitions as well as illogical conclusions, are equally crucial in understanding the choices. In conclusion, the explanation of political actions that the theory provides is insufficient and requires the inclusion of other aspects of human reasoning.
Reference
Hindmoor, A., & Taylor, B. (2017). Theory and methods in political science. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.