Is the discipline of political science a specific by-product of democratic regimes? Can it develop and have an impact only where democracy itself is flourishing? Or is it possible to forge such a discipline in authoritarian and transitional regimes? These are the central questions of Regime and Discipline: Democracy and the Development of Political Science.

The contributors to this volume approach the problem from methodological and substantive perspectives. The methodological debate is presented in terms of whether the goal of objectivity and neutrality in disciplinary history is desirable and attainable, or whether all such histories are inherently "whiggish" or "pessimistic," and mere ex post facto justifications of a particular disciplinary perspective.

The volume then explores the relationship between democracy and the development of political science in a variety of national settings and political regimes, including older Western democracies (such as the United States, Britain, France, and Germany), newer democracies (Japan and other Asian countries), and current transitional regimes (such as Argentina, Hungary, and Poland).

The contributions reflect both consensus and disagreement about the nature of the interactive relationship between political science and democracy. Indeed, a fundamental debate centers on the very terms democracy and political science. Nevertheless, with one or two exceptions, the participants do acknowledge that some kind of relationship does in fact exist between democracy and political science, be it interactive and correlational or causal.