Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14



No. NO.










This project entitled “Politics as an alternative lifestyle for criminals”

has been prepared for the fulfillment of the paper on English which forms
a part of the curriculum of the study in the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
National Law University.
We are very thankful, in particular to Mrs. Alka Singh without
whose kind co-operation the work would not have been completed.
We also acknowledge the kind co-operation of all our friends
L.L.B. 2nd Semester which was extended towards the completion of this

MADE BY: Vikramarth S. Chand

B.A.LL.B (Hons). 1st Year.


Politics is one aspect of human behaviour. But what characteristics

distinguish politics from other aspects of human behaviour such as
economics, romance, or sport? Although political scientists have not
entirely agreed in their answers to this question of what constitutes the
core subject matter of their discipline.

What is politics? On this question, as on many others, as important,

though not always entirely clear, place to start is Aristotle’s politics
(written ca. 335-332 B.C.). In the first book of the politics, Aristotle
argues against those who say that all kinds of authority are identical and
seeks to distinguish the authority of the political leader in a political
association, or polis, from other forms of authority, such as the master
over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the parents over the
Aristotle takes for granted, however, that at least one aspect of a
political association is the existence of authority or rule. Indeed, Aristotle
defines the polis, or political association, as the “most sovereign and
inclusive association” and a constitution, or polity, as the organization of
a polis, in respect of its offices generally, but especially in respect of that
particular office which is sovereign in all issues.” 1 One of Aristotle’s
criteria or classifying constitutions is the portion of the citizen body in
which final authority or rule is located.

Ernest Barker, ed., The Politics of Aristotle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), pp.1, 110.

Ever since Aristotle’s time, the notion has been widely shared that
politics and political relationships in some way involve authority, ruling,
influence, or power. For example, one of the most influential modern
social scientists, the German scholar Max Weber (1864-1920), postulated
that an association should be called political “if and in so far as the
enforcement of its order is carried out continually within a given
territorial area by the application and threat of physical force on the part
of the administrative staff.” Thus, although Weber emphasized the
territorial aspect of a political association, like Aristotle he specified that
a relationship of authority or rule was one of its essential characteristics.2

Following in the footsteps of both Aristotle and Weber, a leading

twentieth-century political scientist, Harold Lasswell, defined “political
science, as an empirical discipline, [as] the study of the shaping and
sharing of power,” and “a political act [as] one performed in power
perspectives.”3 While we shall distinguish influence from power in
chapter 5, for now it is sufficient to make clear that influence and power
are closely related phenomena (and, for some political scientists, virtually
identical phenomena). To substitute “influence” when Lasswell (and
Aristotle) say “power” does not distort the essential meaning of what they
have said.
The areas of agreement and disagreement in the positions held by
Aristotle, Weber, and Lasswell on the nature of politics are illustrated by
Figure 3-1. Aristotle, Weber, and Lasswell, and almost all other political
scientists, agree that political relationships are to be found somewhere
within circle A, the set of relationships involving power, influence rule of
authority. Lasswell calls everything in A political, by definition. Aristotle
Max Weber. The theory of social and economic organization, trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott
Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947), pp.145-154.
Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan; Power and Society (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1950),pp. xiv, 240.

and Weber, on the other hand, define the term “political” so as to require
one or more additional characteristics, indicated by circles B and C. For
example, to Weber the domain of the political would not be everything
inside A or everything inside B (territoriality) but everything in the area
of overlap, AB, involving both rule and territoriality. Although Aristotle is
lass clear than either Weber or Lasswell on this point, he would probably
limit the domain of the political even further—to relationships in
associations capable of self-sufficiency ( C ). Hence, to Aristotle,
“politics” would be found only in the area ABC.
Clearly, everything that Aristotle and Weber would call political,
Lasswell would too. But Lasswell would consider as political some things
that Weber and Aristotle might not: Activities in a business firm or a trade
union, for example, include, “political” aspects. Recognizing the great
contributions of Aristotle and Weber to the study of politics, our own
perspective on what politics is partially incorporates theirs. But, more
directly in the tradition of Lasswell and countless other contemporary
political scientists, we construe politics purely and simply in terms of
influence. For us, then politics is simply the exercise of influence.


Politics has in a way truly become the last resort for scoundrels.
History of Indian politics is filled with the politicians who have a grey
Much hue and cry had been raised over the issue of tainted
ministers lately. Thesis controversy rocked the Indian parliament. The
opposition was busy in putting the nooze over the ruling party and
disrupting the parliamentary proceedings many times. But the irony of the
situation is that the opposition is also filled with those tainted M.P.s.
Politics have become a escape way for criminals. The feel prowd
on being called a Mafia turned politician. The reason for the uprise of the
mafia turned politician is the rising influence of muscle power in politics.
Even the national level parties resort to muscle power to make
good in elections. History had many tainted ministers. These muscle men
and goons have become indispensable for political parties because they
are of great help in this era of coalition government as they pull M.L.A’s
and M.P.’s towards their party by threat and muscle power.
The rise of caste issue in India has also contributed to rising entry
of scoundrels in politics because people of their caste and community
vote for them and thus giving them entry in Assemblies and Parliament.


Most political and social thinkers have been concerned with the desirable
(and even necessary) goals of a political system or with the common and
competing ends that men actually desire, and then pragmatically
considered the means that are available to rulers and citizens. Even those
who have sought a single, general and decisive criterion of decision-
making have stated the ends and then been more concerned with the
consequences of social and political acts than with consistently applying
standards of intrinsic value. It has become almost a sacred dogma in our
age of apathy that politics, centered on power and conflict and the quest
for legitimacy and consensus, is essentially a study in expediency, a
tortuous discovery of practical expedients that could reconcile contrary
claims and secure a common if minimal goal or, at least, create the
conditions in which different ends could be freely or collectively persued.
Liberal thinkers have sought to show that it is possible for each individual
to be used as a means for another to achieve his ends without undue
coercion and to his own distinct advantage. This occurs not by conscious
cooperation or deliberately pursuing a common end but by each man
pursuing diverse ends in accordance with the “law” of the natural identity
of interests, a “law” that is justified it not guaranteed in terms of
metaphysical, economic or biological “truths.” Authoritarian thinkers, on
the other hand, justified coercion in the name of a predetermined common
end, the attainment of which cannot be left to the chaotic interplay of
innumerable wills. The end may simply be the preservation of a
traditional order, the recovery of a bygone age of a glory, or the ruthless
reconstruction of society from the top to secure some spectacular
consummation in the future.

It appears to be common to most schools of thought to accept a
sharp dichotomy between ends and means, a distinction that is deeply
embedded in our ethical, political and psychological vocabulary, rooted in
rigid European presuppositions regarding the very nature of human
action. Distinctions have been repeatedly made between immediate and
ultimate, short-term and long-term, diverse and common, individual and
social, essential and desirable ends, as also between attainable and
utopian goals. Discussion about means has not ignored questions about
their moral implications and propriety, or about the extent of their
theoretical and contingent compatibility with desired ends or widely
shared values. But despite all these reservations, the dangerous dogma
that the end entirely justifies the means is merely an extreme version of
the commonly uncriticized belief that moral considerations cannot apply
to the means except in relation to ends, or that the latter have a moral


In broad terms, political corruption is the misuse by government

officials of their governmental powers for illegitimate private gain.
Misuse of government power for other purposes, like repression of
political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political
corruption. Illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly
involved with the government are not considered political corruption

All forms of government are susceptible to political corruption.

Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism,
nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. While corruption may
facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering,
and trafficking, it is not restricted to these organized crime activities. In
some nations corruption is so common that it is expected when ordinary
businesses or citizens interact with government officials. The end-point of
political corruption is a kleptocracy, literally "rule by thieves".

What constitutes illegal corruption differs depending on the

country or jurisdiction. Certain political funding practices that are legal in
one place may be illegal in another. In some countries, government
officials have broad or not well defined powers, and the line between
what is legal and illegal can be difficult to draw.

Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political
realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even
subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative
bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in
policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law;
and corruption in public administration results in the unfair provision of
services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of
government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off,
and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption
undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as
trust and tolerance.

Corruption also undermines economic development by generating

considerable distortions and inefficiency. In the private sector, corruption
increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments
themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the
risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim
corruption reduces costs by cutting red tape, the availability of bribes can
also induce officials to contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing
costly and lengthy regulations are better than covertly allowing them to
be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of
business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with
connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.

Corruption also generates economic distortions in the public sector

by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes and
kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical
complexity of public sector projects to conceal or pave way for such

dealings, thus further distorting investment. Corruption also lowers
compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations,
reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and
increases budgetary pressures on government.

Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing

economic development in Africa and Asia is that in the former,
corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the
resulting financial capital moved overseas rather invested at home (hence
the stereotypical, but sadly often accurate, image of African dictators
having Swiss bank accounts). University of Massachusetts researchers
estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan
countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts. [3]
(The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been
modeled in theory by economist Mancur Olson.) In the case of Africa,
one of the factors for this behavior was political instability, and the fact
that new governments often confiscated previous government's corruptly-
obtained assets. This encouraged officials to stash their wealth abroad,
out of reach of any future expropriation. In contrast, corrupt
administrations in Asia like Suharto's have often taken a cut on
everything (requiring bribes), but otherwise provided more of the
conditions for development, through infrastructure investment, law and
order, etc.


Politics has rightly become one of the last resorts for scoundrels.
Politics gives those scoundrels a chance to show that they can be even
good but generally it doesn’t happen.

The mafias who become politician get extra power to commit their
wrong. They get immunity from arrests, probation and hand cuffing. They
get a security cover from government, increasing their fleet of goons.
They get a sort of legal power to suppress the down trodden people and
extract revenge from their enemies.

However, we need to realize that we elect these people as our

representative. If we stop voting for them or supporting them, they will
not be able to enter the corridors of power. We need to look beyond caste
and religion when we got to vote. Politics need to be cleansed and only
we can do it.


 www.wikipedia.com
 Max Weber. The theory of social and economic organization, trans. A.
M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1947)

 Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan; Power and Society (New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1950)