How is one to conduct adequate political-science investigation, presentation and evaluation of the history and present situation of political science in Croatia? The text focuses on a thorough inquiry into the subject of the science of politics – what is politics? – as the prerequisite for a scientifically adequate solution to the uncertainty regarding the professional profile of the Faculty and its attendants – political scientists. In this context, it ooks into the meaning of the definition of political science as “science of generality” and of the political scientist as “expert for generality”. The theoretical and contextual meaning of these definitions is explained (Prpić, 1969), and its assumptions, scope and limitations are valued. The dramatic uncertainty, both theoretical and practical, which Prpić confronted us with, is insurmountable within the historical context of the democratic state, given its characteristic epochal ambivalence. This goes to show that the dilemma between the plural and the singular does not make much sense: political science in the singular is a servant of political power, while political sciences are mere metascientific humanistic critique of the extant world. Consequently, the science of politics is no good either in the singular or the plural. When scientific and professional, it is a danger to political freedom. When humanistic and non-professional, it is impotent and superfluous. The political scientist, in turn, is either “an expert for particularity”, a servant of political power neutral with regard to ethics and values, or else a pretentious missionary. In order to break out of the vicious circle, the science of politics, in a fruitful and irreplaceable duality, must be methodically made to rely on a new principle of community constitution, which is immanent critique and overcoming of the modern democratic state and civil society. In addition, the perception of political science as “science of generality” is thus reinforced. The science of generality as science of the political is constituted in autonomy (but also complementarity) with regard to the science of “universality” (philosophy, ethics and law) and to the science of particularity (special sectors of the political and social being). The general is real only in relation to the universal, as a particularisation of the universal, and to the particular, as a universalisation of the particular. On the one hand, this precludes the danger of sham universality, i.e. of arrogant aspiration of universality to pass for generality, and, on the other hand, the danger of false generality, i.e. of futile aspiration of particularity to be hypostasized as political generality. As a first-rate expert, the political scientist must therefore, simultaneously and necessarily – being an “expert for generality” – be an expert for both “universality” and “particularity”.