Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

SHUBHRA RANJAN IAS STUDY

PSIR TEST 4 MODEL ANSWERS


1. The concept of Democracy can be seen as conceptual cluster of various interests. Explain
with example. Why it is said that there can be different ways of being democratic?

Answer:

Democracy has been described as one of the “Characteristic Institutions of Modernity” and was the
result of and a complex and intertwined processes of ideological, social and political economic change.
However, with these changes, several other interlinked concepts emerged that marked the distinction
between ancient and medieval society on one hand and modern societies on the other.

Thus, democracy is seen as a part of a conceptual cluster or a family of concepts, in which the
concepts of rights, freedom and equality are most central. The common theme connecting these
concepts is the principle of individualism and individual autonomy.

In classical liberal political theory, right, freedom and equality form the cornerstone of the liberal theory
of democracy. The principle of autonomy and freedom suggests the importance of popular government.
According to John Locke, government must guarantee the rights and personal liberty of the individual
from being undermined by other individuals and the state alike.

On the question of relationship between equality and democracy, democratic theorists regard citizens a
“self originating source of claims”. In this context, democratic theorists make a distinction between
“prospective and retrospective equality.

Prospective equality obtains when in a democracy, every citizen starts off with an equal chance of
influencing the outcome of the democratic process. On the other hand, retrospective equality is
achieved if, in a decision that has already been taken, it can be claimed that everyone equally
determined that decision. According to theorists, decision by majority is the only procedure that
satisfies the test of democracy and encompasses both prospective and retrospective equality.

However, although freedom and equality form the cornerstone of liberal theory of democracy, a greater
emphasis on one or the other takes democracy to a situation of dilemmas. On the basis of principle of
freedom of individuals, it can be argued that state should play a limited and minimal role in the society.
This freedom centric view of democracy is in opposition to the idea of welfare state that seeks to tax its
wealthy citizens to provide free or subsidized public services for poor citizens.

In spite of being a central concept in the political theory, the democratic tradition does not advance a
single and unanimous ideal of popular rule. On a contrary, there is a number of theories or models of
democracy, each offering its own version of popular rule.
• Representative Democracy: Since direct democracy is not possible in large and complex modern
societies, the mechanism through which people take part indirectly in government is through
elected representatives to carry out their political will.
• Participatory Democracy: The classical theory of participatory democracy is found in the
Rousseau’s “General Will” and J S Mill’s writings. For Mill as well as for Rousseau, participation
has an educative function for citizens. Participation is important not only for decision making,
but also as a way of protecting common good and ensuring good government.
• Deliberative Democracy: It values open and public deliberations and discussions on issues of
common concern. It is based on the assumption of individuals as antonymous and the social
relationship as relation of mutual influence through reasoned arguments and persuasion.
• Social Democracy: It is a form of democracy based on a strong commitment to equality. Thus,
social democrats support the idea of the welfare state based on the redistribution. They argued
that all the individuals should get an equitable share of society’s resources in order to enjoy
their democratic rights to the same extent.
• Cosmopolitan Democracy: In the context of the globalization and supranational organization,
the idea of cosmopolitan democracy is based on the idea of global civil society and cosmopolitan
citizenship. The environmental movements and women movements are two notable examples
of it.

2. Discuss the debate between Democracy and Development. Examine the suitability of
democracy for Asian Societies. What is intrinsic and instrumental value of democracy.
Explain.

Answer:

The debate on the complex relationship between democracy and development has been a
matter of concern for academics and policy makers alike. The debate is based on the question
of democracy as a process and development as an outcome.

According to “Lee Thesis” development requires a strong, centralized, highly autonomous


government or even a dictatorship, which can lead a country towards economic growth. In this
context, democracy is seen as an important to development and so suspension of democratic
rights or political freedom is desirable.

Much of the empirical evidence suggesting the thesis that authoritarian regimes are more
effective than democracy in promoting rapid development comes from the East Asian regimes
such as Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.

Fareed Zakaria, in his book, “The Future of Freedom” has supported “liberal autocracies” on
the ground that the authoritarian regimes have superior developmental records and finding
that democracies seem to become stable only after surpassing a certain level of economic
development.
On the other hand, Scholars like Amartya Sen suggests that Democracy has both an
instrumental and constructive role to play in promoting development. According to Sen,
institutional features of democratic regimes such as political freedoms, accountability
mechanisms, checks and balances provisions allows citizens to had the government
accountable for its actions and thus play an instrumental role in promoting the economic needs
of the people. Additionally, according to Sen, democratic arrangements play a constructive role
in the sense that they allow the conceptualization of what constitutes the economic needs
through open debate, discussion and dissenting opinions.

Thus, according to Sen, there is a positive relationship between democracy and development
which is evident in the fact that major famines have never occurred in democratic countries. He
argued that absence of an effective “democratic forum” was central to the Asian economic
crises of 1990s.

However, the debate seeking to identify the casual relationship between democracy and
development remains inconclusive, suggesting the complex and non-linear links between the
two concepts. It suggests that different political regimes may be capable of implementing
similar policies. Thus, it is more desirable to look at the kinds of institutional arrangements (eg:
two party, multi-party systems, etc.) and government development strategies, rather than at
the kinds of political regimes.

Intrinsic and Instrumental Value of Democracy: Based upon different conceptions of


democracy, there are two broad types of justification for it.

• Intrinsic Value of Democracy: The notion of intrinsic value of democracy is based on the
idea that democracy is good in itself, rather than means to some other higher ends or
goods. It is considered to be the fairest way of giving expression to equality among
citizens.
• Instrumental Value of Democracy: Democracy can also be valued instrumentally or as
means to some other ends. In this context, democracy is valued as good because it is
instrumental in achieving some other goods.
➢ It fosters competition among political leaders and, thus, provides better choice
of leadership
➢ It makes everyone feel that they were a part of the decision making process
➢ It minimizes the power abuses
➢ Social contract theorists see democracy as a way in which individual could check
government power. For Example: John Locke envisages state to protect
individual’s natural right to life, liberty and property.
3. What do you mean by Rights differentiate Right from Power claims and entitlements.
Explain the theory of Natural Rights and its limitations.

Answer:

The relationship between individual and the state has been an important question of interest of
political theory. Among others, three most important concepts in this context are citizenship,
rights and duties.

In this modern sense, rights are considered as entitlements to act or to be treated in a


particular way. Rights are product of individual’s social nature and emanates from their
membership of the society. According to Bosanquet, rights are claimed recognized by society
and enforced by the state. T H Green defines rights as power necessary for the fulfillment for
man’s vocation as a moral being.

A working definition of rights should involve certain aspects:

• Social Claim: Rights emanates from society and had not existed before the emergence
of society. Rights are those claims that are recognized as such by the society.
• Development of Personality: Rights belongs to the individual and are important
ingredients which promotes one’s personality. According to Laski, Rights are those
conditions of social life without which no man can seek to be himself at his best.

Rights vis a vis power, claims and entitlements

• Rights are social claims given to the individuals as members of the society. But not every
claim is the right because claims become rights only when they are recognized by
society and are maintained and enforced by the state claims which are not recognized
or enforced are empty and powerless claims.
• Rights and powers are distinguished in the sense that power is one-dimensional and
rights are not one dimensional because rights are our claims on the others as are others
claims on us. On the other hand, power as domination is granted to some and denied to
others. Also, as an individual, one possesses power but one has rights as a social being
and not as an isolated individual.
• Rights are social claims necessary for the development of human personality. They are
not entitlements a person is possessed with. Rights are our claims on others as are
others claims on us. On the other hand, entitlements are privileges granted to some and
denied to others. Rights are universal in the sense that they are assured to all whereas
entitlements are not universal.

Theory of Natural Right


Rights are not only for different kinds but there are various theories on the nature, origin and
meanings of rights.

• The theory of natural rights has been advocated mainly by Hobbes (Leviathan), Locke
(Two Treatise on Government) and Rousseau (The Social Contract). These social
constructivists hold the view that there were natural rights possessed by men in the
state of nature (condition of human life in the absence of organized political authority) .
• These rights possessed in the state of nature are called as natural because they don’t
owe their origin to social existence and are present in pre social stage.
• According to Locke, in the state of nature, men are in perfect freedom and have a
natural right to life and property within the bounds of law of nature, provided that he
doesn’t interfere with any other men’s enjoyment of the some conditions. He envisages
state for the protection of their natural life to life, liberty and property.

However, the theory of natural rights has been criticized on the following grounds:

• Rights cannot be natural simply because they were the possession of men in the state of
nature. There can never be rights before the emergence of society. Thus, the notion of
pre society natural rights is contradictory.
• Rights pre suppose the existence of some authority to enforce and pr otect them. It is in
contradiction with idea of natural rights in the state of nature as there is no authority.
• The idea that natural rights existed in the state of nature is wrong in the sense that it
makes them absolute and unrestricted.
• The theorists of natural rights treat individuals as the end and the state as the means to
protect the natural right to life, liberty and property. In this way, the natural rights
theory attacks the political sanctity attached to the institution of state.
• Utilitarians like Bentham criticize the doctrine of natural rights as a “rhetorical non-
sense upon stills”.

4. How is it possible for the idea of human rights to encompass both the values of cultural
diversity and the imposition of universal standards?

Answer:

Human rights may be defined as universal rights of moral and political significance that belongs
to all human beings by virtue of their humanity. It is nonnegotiable ingredients of human rights
that they apply to human beings universally, irrespective of their race, culture, religion or their
nationality. This is known as the universal doctrine of human rights.
While the universal human rights doctrine aims to protect all human beings without any form
of discrimination, cultural relativism emphasizes on cultural diversity as the element of
importance. The individualism of human rights present a host of complexities in non
individualistic cultural context. As such, cultural relativists, who support each culture’s right to
variation, poses a challenge to universal application of human rights. The idea of cultural
diversity and relativism leads to the idea of moral relativism in the sense that what may be a
violation of morality in one culture may not be considered as violation of human rights in other
cultural context. This point of difference between cultural relativism and universalism of human
rights is apparent in efforts to introduce gender based equality to traditional societies that
practice sharia law.

Although the idea of human rights is based on the universality of non discrimination on specific
grounds, the notion of human rights also encompasses the values of diversity and differences.
Many human rights are conditional in the sense that they apply to these human beings who are
in a particular situation, such as those accused of community crimes etc.

Similarly, the human rights of children differ from those of adults, and states have special
human rights related duties for the protection of children’s special interests. Also, some
important human rights arise from differences, not similarities between human beings. Thus,
some gender rights are based on the distinctive characteristics of women or minority rights
belong only to member of a minority group. In addition to it, certain cultural particulars, such as
acceptance of homosexuality abortion, gender equality etc are seen as cultural preferences
rather than as universal truths.

Thus, although views regarding differences between human beings, which are required to
protect human rights, vary from culture to culture, practices such as slavery, sexism, child
labour, infanticide, among other human rights violations are held up as universal standards of
human rights protection.

5. Show how the principle of Equality concedes the rational grounds of discrimina tion. In this
connection examine the debate on reverse discrimination.

Answer:

Equality is a relative concept. The demand for equality has always been against the prevailing
inequalities in the society. Inequality is a universal feature of all societies and its opposition has
been fundamental to all social relations.
If equality does not imply liberal equality in distribution of rights and advantages, it is bound to
accept discrimination on certain grounds. It is in the line with the argument that there is no
greater inequality them the equal treatment with unequal. According to Aristotle, injustice
arises when equals are treated unequally and also when unequal are treated equally.

There are broadly two national grounds of discrimination or making special provisions:

• Special provision in the case of need – This may apply both to allocation of liabilities
and concessions. A progressive taxation system to cater the needs of the poor,
provisions of social services, scholarships is all certain special provisions in the case of
need.
• Special Reward for Excellence: Special provision for excellence is itself a basic tenet of
the principle of equality. It comes into play when basic needs have been largely met,
and special talents and efforts are to be given special rewards, provided they are
beneficial to society. The principle of excellence postulates that special talents and
efforts become the most important criteria of distinction and special reward, which is
conducive to society. (E.g.: Awards and Honours given to citizens).

Debate on reverse Discrimination:

If the principle of equality is interpreted to concede discrimination of favour of some deprived


sections of the society so that favoured treatment is accorded to them, it is known as the
“Reverse Discrimination of Affirmative Action”

Reverse discrimination is based on the principle of redress to rectify the compensate for
hitherto prevailing inequalities or discriminations. Proponents of affirmative action consider it
as a part of society’s efforts to address continuing problems of discrimination so as to
compensate for the deprivation of adequate opportunities for their development in the past.

However, the opponents argue that if equality aims at removal of discrimination, there is no
justification for turning the existing discriminatory practices in the reverse direction. In other
words, discrimination in the favour of deprived sections results in discrimination against the
non deprived sections. In addition to it, the principle of reverse discrimination has been
opposed on the following grounds:

• Merit Argument: The meritorian principle dictates that social goods should be allotted on basis
of one’s merit or ability. It assures best justice as it allocates the rewards or goods on the basis
of an objective criterion and not on personal characteristics of an individual. It also provides
incentives for hard work and development of personal capacities.
• Rights Arguments: This argument is based on the idea that in an attempt to com pensate for
deprivation of a group, individual rights are violated which one possess by the virtue of a human
being and not as a member of any group. The principle of reverse discrimination violates
individual rights simply because he is labeled as a member of an advanced or non deprived
section.
• Efficiency Argument: It is implicit in the idea of reverse discrimination that a less meritorious
individual is preferred over the more meritorious if he belongs to a deprived section. This
undermine the efficiency of public institutions.
• Social Fragmentation Argument: As reverse discrimination is based on distinction between
deprived and non-deprived sections, it enhances social fragmentation and identity based on
class or caste lines is underlined.

6. Differentiate between Formal and Substantive equality. Is the capability approaches


preferable to equality of resources?

Answer:

The concept of equality lies at the heart of the normative political theory. Unlike traditional
societies which considered hierarchy or inequality as natural, modern societies are
characterized by equality among human beings as a value system. However, equality is a highly
complex concept in the sense that there are many ways in which conditions of human existence
are compared.

Formal equality or fundamental equality suggest that all people, by virtue of humanity, are
entitled to be treated equally by the rules of social practices. The idea that all human beings are
possessors of equal rights is the basis of formal equality. The most obvious manifestation of the
formal equality is the principle of legal equality or “equality before law” which holds that law
should treat each person equally, with no regard to their social background, religion, race, etc.
Thus, principle of formal equality is essentially negative in the sense that it eradicates special
privileges and thus discrimination based on it.

Substantive equality, on the other hand, is based on the idea that formal equality is necessary
but not sufficient to realize the principle of equality. Certain differences among people to be
taken into account for this purpose. It looks at the roots of inequality and identifies them, even
if it involves removing the barriers that disadvantages people. It recognizes that it is necessary
to treat people differently in order to ensure that they can enjoy equal rights. The principle of
substantive equality is evident in principle of affirmative actions.

Equality is resources approach, expressed by scholars like Dworkin & Rawls, is the resources
view of equality or “resource egalitarianism”. It lays emphasis on the state’s responsibility
towards remedying unequal circumstances among people.
Ronald Dworkin has suggested two stage processes to achieve equality of resources:

• Ambition Sensitive Auction: It involves “auction” or distribution of resources subjected


to the “envy” test. The test implies that no division of resources is equal if anyone would
prefer someone else resources to his own resource.
• Insurance Scheme: It involves a distributional plan that offset the brute luck of the
disadvantaged before the distribution of resources.
➢ A rough parallel of this approach is the practice of “progressive taxation” to
secure the welfare of the disadvantaged.
➢ However, even with equal distribution of resources, Individuals can differ greatly
in their abilities to convert the same resources into valuable functioning. Thus,
such approach that focuses only on means, without considering people’s
different capabilities, is insufficient.
➢ Amartya Sen’s capability approach, based upon analytical distinction between
means and end, evaluates policies according to its impact o people’s capabilities
as well as their functioning. According to Sen, capability is the ability to achieve a
certain set of function. (For example: literacy is a capability while reading is a
function.)
➢ The capability approach stresses that the distributional equality should concern
itself with equalizing people’s capabilities, instead of emphasizing on resources.
This is distinguishes it from the equality of resources approach, which focuses
exclusively on means (that is resources) of well being and exclude the ultimate
end (functioning). In contrast to the resource approach, Sen purposes the notion
of well being in terms of function.
➢ The theoretical basis on which the capability approach is preferred over equality
of resources is the idea that a proper analysis of inequality needs to go hand in
hand with human diversity. According to Amartya Sen, people are deeply diverse
in the internal characteristics (such as age, gender, particular talents, etc) as well
as external circumstances such as social background, ownership of assets etc.
➢ Thus, Sen’s capability approach stresses that social policies must be tuned with
facts of human diversity to equalize people’s capabilities.
➢ Whereas a resource egalitarian may insist that resources such as books and
educational services may tackle illiteracy, the capability approach would stress
on internal capability to read and write. It is in this context, capability approach
to address the problem of inequality is a preferred approach.
7. Critically examine Rawl’s Egalitarian conception of Justice. Write a note on the
Communitarian critique of the Rawlsian notion of Justice.

Answer:

According to Tom Campbell, Justice is the central and commanding concept of current
mainstream normative political philosophy. Rawl’s book, “Theory of Justice” has started what
has been rightly called as golden age in theorizing about justice. According to B N Roy, Rawl’s book has
renewed not only scholarly interest, but also popular interest in the conception of justice.

Rawls propounded the liberal egalitarian theory of social justice and presents a very strong idea of
justice based on the tenets of procedural theory. Inspired by Kant’s moral idea of freedom and equality,
Rawl’s gave centrality to the moral principle of freedom and equality of every person (liberal egalitarian
principle).

According to Rawls, the purpose principles of social justice are to ensure that the distribution of benefits
and burdens of society is just or fair to all. He argues that the distribution of social primary goods such as
liberties, powers, opportunities, rights, etc. is just and fair, if that distribution is made in accordance
with the following principles.

• Each person to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with similar liberty
to others.
• Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both :
➢ To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and
➢ Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality and
opportunity.

According to Rawls, these principles are arranged in their lexical priority, which means that the first
principle must be fully satisfied before the next principle is applied. Thus, Rawls assign greater
importance to equal basic liberties than to other primary social goods. While Rawls is opposed to any
unequal distribution of basic liberties, he assumed that inequalities in other social goods are inevitable.
Accordingly, his second principle of justice is to keep inequalities within the bounds of justice as fairness.

Despite occupying a central position within contemporary political philosophy, Rawlsian liberal
egalitarian concept of justice does not remains unchallenged.

According to C B Macpherson, Rawl’s theory of justice is an elegant defense of liberal democratic


welfare state. He argues that Rawls does not and universal account of justice but an account that
rationalizes liberal beliefs and values. Rawl’s theory is culture specific and appropriate only for liberal
democratic societies.

Libertarian scholar Robert Nozick, in his book, “Anarchy State and Utopia”, argues that Rawlsian
conception of justice is an end state theory, which calls for social reconstruction in the name of some
end stage goals.
Marxist scholars criticizes Rawlsian liberal egalitarian conception, which presupposes that the
distributions are just or fair within capitalist system. It fails to address inherent exploitative inequalities
between capitalists and the workers.

Communalism critique of Rawlsian theory of Justice: The main focus of the communitarian critique of
Rawls is based on the idea that people in the original position choose a set of principles of justice.

Michael Sandal in his book, “liberalism and Limits of Justice” argues that Rawl’s theory rests on a
flawed understanding of self or individual. According to him, a stripped down individual, abstracted from
his social, economic and cultural contexts, will be unable to make choices, as proposed by Rawls. Sandel
argues that this wrong conception alters his understanding between individual and community by giving
importance to individual.

Since Rawlsian “Veil of Ignorance” keeps individual out of real social context, communitarians doubt the
relevance of their choices in an actual social context. According to Sandel, Rawls is only concerned with
rights and freedom of choice provided to an individual, overlooking its impact on society as a whole.

Michael Walzer in his work, “Spheres of Justice” held that no system of justice can be evaluated as
inherently just or unjust. Evaluation is possible only on the basis of the social meanings attached to it.
He argues that notion of just is not a consequences of individual rationality, but can be understood only
within a social or communal framework. It is so because individuals are determined by their
communitarian contexts and the choices they make are determined by the notion of what is socially
good.

Unlike particularistic conception of justice by Rawls, Walzer gave a pluralistic notion by dealing with
different spheres where question of justice arises.

8. “Rawls has sought to achieve the goal of Substantive Justice through the methodology of
procedural Justice.” Elucidate and comment.

Answer:

The distinction between procedural and substantive justice form the core of the modern
debate on the nature of justice. Procedural justice emphasizes that it is a necessary to
determine a just procedure for the allocation of social goods. It is based on the idea that formal
equality of individual as human beings and, thus, repudiates all forms of differences between
them. On the other hand, substantive justice is based on the idea of justness of the content or
outcome of laws or social policies. It demands that the opportunities for self development
should be progressively extended to the disadvantaged sections of societies. In concrete terms,
rights based justice is seen as procedural justice, whereas needs abased justice as substantive
justice.
John Rawls, in his book, “Theory of Justice” presents a very strong defense of idea of justice
based on the basic tenets of procedural theory that is justice requires following of just rules. He
places men behind the “veil of ignorance” in the hypothetical original position, where
individuals are deprived of the basic knowledge of their social context, abilities, skills, etc, but
they will have what Rawls calls a “sense of Justice”.

However, given the uncertainty about the actual position in the society, the contractors would
choose those principles which would maximize the position of worst off, assuming that when
the “veil of ignorance” is removed, they themselves would turned out to be the worst off.

However, Rawls theory in order to respond to the critics of procedural justice, Rawls suggests
that under controlled conditions rational human beings would choose principles consistent with
the basic idea of substantive justice or distributive justice.

According to Rawls, under the condition of original position, people will agree to accept two
principles of justice in the lexical order. Firstly, Equality principle where each person is to have
an equal right to liberty compatible with a similar liberty to others. Secondly, principle of fair
equality of opportunity and difference principle ensures that any departure from the principle
of equality brings maximum benefits to the least advantaged. In other words, inequalities
should be arranged that they benefit the worst off section of the society.

It is in this context it has been argued that Rawls has sought to accommodate the requirements
of substantive or social justice in his well drawn scheme of procedural scheme. It is his attempt
to synthesis these different conceptions of justice that marked the inauguration of a golden age
in theorizing about justice.

Вам также может понравиться