Pol Science Notes

Political Science (Paper 1)

Western Political Thoughts
1. Aristotle
2. Plato
3. Machiavelli
4. Montesquieu
5. Thomas Hobbes
6. John Locke
7. Rousseau
8. Jeremy Bentham
9. John Stuart Mill
10. Karl Marx
Muslim Political Thoughts
1. Al-Farabi
2. Al-Mawardi
3. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi
4. Al-Ghazali
5. Ibn-e-Khaldoon
6. Allama Muhammad Iqbal
Page 1 of 108
Western Political Thought---Aristotle

Aristotle
“Aristotle was the unimpeachable authority on every science and art known to his day.” (Maxey)
Aristotle was born in 384 BC. His father was Physician. He studied in Plato’s Academy for about
17 years. He was attached to Plato’s Academy for two reasons:
1. It was the cradle of education in Greece for advanced studies.
2. He was so much influenced by Plato’ teaching.
He served as tutor of Alexander the Great in 343 BC and kept his school in the Lyceum for 12
years. After the death of Alexander the Great, the Athenians revolted and prosecuted the accused
persons of whom Aristotle was one of the many. He was charged for impiety but he fled to avoid
punishment.
During the middle Ages, he was simply considered “the Philosopher”. The recovery of his
manuscripts in the thirteenth century marks a turning point in the history of philosophy.
According to Dunning, “the capital significance of Aristotle in the history of political theories
lies in the fact that he gave to politics the character of an independent science.”
He is founder of science of logic. His monumental treatise “Politics” is the most valuable works
on Political Science. The “Politics” is a chief work on the science and art of Government giving
full justification for existing of the institution like the state, slavery and family is calculated to
suggest the remedies for the ill of the body-politic of the city-state. Though it is generally said
that “Politics” is an unfinished treatise and often obscure but the half understood words of
Aristotle have become laws of thoughts to other ages.
Zeller says, “Politics of Aristotle is the richest treasure that has come down to us from antiquity,
it is the greatest contribution to the field of political science that we possess.”
Aristotle as Father of Political Science

The title of fatherhood of Political Science bestowed upon Aristotle is not without justification.
He was brought up in the order of medicine as his father was a physician of the king of
Macedonia. Since his childhood he got every opportunity and encouragement to develop a
scientific bent of mind. Instead of turning towards literature like his great master Plato, he built
the terminology of science and philosophy.
In the words of Renan, “Socrates gave philosophy to mankind and Aristotle gave science to it.”
Page 2 of 108
Aristotle gives us definite and clear-cut dogmas, instead of groping in illusions and imaginations.
He does not believe in abstract notions of justice and virtue, but has a concrete approach. He
discarded utopian philosophy of Plato and advocated logical and scientific theories based upon
realism. Aristotle supported the principle of unity through diversity. He was of the view that
reality lay in the concrete manifestation of things. He separated ethics from politics.
We can say that Aristotle laid the foundation of a real political science by his keen and practical
political approach and systematic treatment of the subject. He may be called the “Scientist of
Politics” because of his empirical study. He collected his data with care and minuteness, clarifies
and defines it and draws logical conclusions which deserve nothing but admiration and praise.
Aristotle’s Views on Origin of State

“Man is a political animal, destined by nature for state life.”
“State exists for the sake of good life and not for the sake of life only.” (Aristotle)
Aristotle was of the view that the origin of the state is present in the inherent desire of man to
satisfy his economic needs and racial instincts. The family is formed by male and female on the
one hand and master and slave on the other hand. Then they work for achievement of their
desires. They live together and form a such family in household which has its moral and social
unity and value.
Aristotle said, “Family is the association established by nature for the supply of man’s everyday
wants. But when several families are united and the association aims at something more than the
supply of daily need, then come into existence the village. When several villages are united in a
single community, perfect and large enough to be quite self-sufficing, the state comes into
existence, originating in the bare needs of life and continuing in existence for the sake of good
life.”
Three elements are essential to build the state on perfect lines i.e., fellowship, practical
organization and justice. A man without state is either a beast or a God. According to Aristotle,
“he who by nature and not be mere accident is without a state is either above humanity or below
it, he is tribe-less, lawless and heartless one.”
The family is natural and inborn instinct, similarly the state is also natural for individuals. Baker
said, “The state is the natural home of the fully grown and natural man. It is an institution for the
moral perfection of man to which his whole nature moves.”
Aristotle was of the view that state is a “Political Koimonia”, an association which represents a
functional unity of varied and reciprocal parts made by the pursuit of a common aim in which
Page 3 of 108
their nature, their habits and their training lead them all to join. Maclwain said, “The state is a
kind of Koimonia which is a supreme over all others, and embraces them all.” State is an
association of human being and the highest form of association existing for the sake of perfect
and healthier life.
Functions of the State

1. The state is not merely an association of associations but it is a highest natural association for
pursuits of spiritual class of common life of virtue.
2. The state is based on the element of justice
3. It also aims at the highest good of the community for its proper realization of demands and
needs in it.
4. The state functions to ensure a perfect and self-sufficing life of all its components members.
5. The state also ensures to fulfill all the natural needs of its members and to provide
opportunities to the individuals for the attainment of moral, intellectual and physical excellence.
6. According to Aristotle, “Man is essentially good and the function of the state is to develop his
good faculties into a habit of good actions.”
Rule of Law
Aristotle believed in natural laws but not the natural rights. The absence of law is the negation of
good laws and this meant lack of constitutional laws. Law was superior to the Government
because it checked the latter's irregularities. Rule by law was better than personal rule because
law had as impersonal quality which the rules lacked.
Sabine paid tribute to Aristotle in these words, “the supremacy of law is accepted by Aristotle as
a mark of a good state and not merely as an unfortunate necessity.”
Justice means that every citizen in the state should abide by the dictates of law and fulfill its
moral obligation towards community members. According to Aristotle there should be two kind
of justice:
1. Distributive Justice
It is mainly concerned with voluntary commercial transaction like sale, hire, furnishing of
security, acquisition of property etc.
2. Corrective Justice
It deals with proper allocation to each person according to his capacity and worth.
Page 4 of 108
Aristotle emphasis that reward and honors should not be offered to the virtuous few but to others
as who collectively contribute in the welfare of the state and should be proportionately rewarded.
Theory of Revolution
Decay and disturbance in political life brought crucial changes in the Governments of the city-
state in Greece, made Aristotle to contemplate deeply and to stress the causes of the Revolution
and its remedies. Aristotle’s theory is divided into two parts:
1. First part is a practical manual of conduct advising democrats, aristocrats, monarchs and
oligarchs and even tyrants as how to keep themselves in power.
2. Second part is a treatise on the philosophical basis of the good and stable governments.
What is Revolution?
To Aristotle, if any change occurs in the existing system or constitution of the state, it means
revolution. For example, if in the state the constitution has changed from monarchy to
democracy, it is a revolution. Aristotle was of the view that if the constitution remains the same,
but the ruling party has been transferred from one man to another, it is also a revolution.
General Causes of Revolution:

1. The main feature of revolution is to be the craving of men for equality. Equality has two
characters-absolute and proportional. The proletariat is passionate to secure absolute equality for
the availability of the same rights that are possessed by few. The few struggle for proportional
equality for perpetual upgrading superiority in power and privilege.
2. Strong desire for justice becomes another feature of revolution. Aristotle was of the view that
men turn to revolution when they think they have not got their dues.
Particular Causes of Revolution:

1. Desire for gain and profit.
2. Universal desire for honor and prestige
3. The possession of sovereign power by an individual or group so as to create fear and

apprehension in the minds of the subject
4. Undue priority and prominence of individuals caused great stir in the heart of the subdued
people
5. Disproportionate increase of power and wealth in any part of the state
Page 5 of 108
6. Elections intrigues and moral degradation kept up in the selection of some people
7. Carelessness shown in granting public offices to disloyal citizens and undue favoritism
shown to the individuals
8. Too much power concentrated in one man or class of men for political gains
9. Dissimilarity of different elements in the state
10. The rivalries of people of different races in the state
11. Dynastic quarrels and conflicts
12. Free immigration of outside races with different notions of justice and law
Revolutions in Particular kind of State:

1. Democracy
In democracies, revolutions are led by the dogmatic policies of demagogues in attacking the rich.
2. Tyranny or Oligarchy
In oligarchies, revolutions take place due to two reasons:
A) Oppressive or Totalitarian rule
B) Rivalry among the ruling dictators
3. Aristocracy
In aristocracies, revolution held to the policy of narrowing down the circle of the Government.
Aristocracy tends to become oliogarchy, through the undue encroachment of the richer classes
polity to become democracy, through the undue aspiration of the poorer class. According to
Dunning “Stability can be maintained only by proportionate equality and by giving to each his
own.” Aristotle was of the view that democracy is more secure and stable than oligarchy.
Remedies for Revolution:

1. Abundant political power should not be concentrated in the hands of one man or one class of
men.
2. The various classes in the state without any discrimination of color and creed should be treated
alike and with proper consideration
3. Honors and rewards should be distributed as fairly as possible only to deserving ones because
inequalities of offices and honors drive men to revolt.
Page 6 of 108
4. Political offices should be within reach of every individual who is able of performing his
functions best.
5. The Government should be so vigilantly organized that the political office-holders cannot
make money out of their offices. Bribes and other kinds of illegal gratification should be made
quite impossible to accept.
6. A Government would gain popularity and political stability if it so arranges things that the
internal details of the administration, particularly the administration of public finances is open to
public scrutiny.
7. Proper education should be imparted to the citizens in the spirit of constitution.
8. Political stability and internal solidarity can be gained by maintaining proportionate equality.
9. The habit of obedience and submission to law should be instilled. Lawlessness and anarchy
should not be allowed to creep in even in small and trifling matter.
10. In oligarchy and aristocracy, the inferior class must be well treated and the principles of
democratic equality must be followed among the privileged classes. In democracy, the poor and
the rich should be encouraged to take part in the state administration which does not affect the
sovereign power.
Aristotle also suggested various methods in making oligarchies and tyrannies-stable which are to
be followed by a tyrant.
a) A tyrant must employ spies particularly females to trace out disloyal persons to gallows
the concerned.
b) He should follow an aggressive policy abroad
c) He should always warn people about constant fear of invasion from outside
d) He should keep the people busy and never allow them to remain in vertigo and lethargy.
e) He must extend enthusiasm in religion
f) He should punish the guilty so that crimes must be ended for the peaceful order in the
state.
g) He should increase the material well-being of the citizens.
h) He should perish the intellectual life of the citizens to perish revolutionary tendencies.
i) He should adorn his city and must work for its glory
Page 7 of 108
j) He must have respect for the good.
Aristotle put the security of the state above everything else. He even permitted interference in the
privacy of individual’s life when necessary in the interests of the state. According to Aristotle “A
revolution constitutes more a political than a legal change. It had the effect of reversing ethical,
social and economic standard."
__________________
Page 8 of 108
Western Political Thought---Plato

Plato
Introduction
Plato was born in Athens in 427 BC when the civilization of ancient Greece was at the zenith of
glory and eminence. He belonged to royal blood of aristocracy, from his mother’s side he was
related to Solan, the law giver. He made efforts to discover the eternal principles of human
conduct i-e justice, temperance and courage which alone imbibed the happiness to the individual
and stability to the states. In 399 BC, the turning point came in the life of Plato, the defeat of
Athens by Sparta made him to despise democracy.
He wandered abroad for twelve years in Persia, Egypt, Africa, Italy and Sicily in the hours of
disillusionment, absorbing wisdom from every source and tasting every creedal dogma. Then he
returned to Athens and opened an academy. He wrote about 36 treaties all in the form of
dialogues. His academy became the best school in Athens.
Work of Plato
“The Republic” is the most important and authentic work of Plato. It was about political
philosophy, ethics, education and metaphysics.
Other works of Plato include: “The Politicus”, “The Apology”, “The Meno”, “The Protagoras”,
“The Gorgias”, and “The Critias”.
The Republic and Plato

“The true romance of the Republic is the romance of free intelligence, unbound by custom,
untrained indeed by human stupidity and self will, able to direct the forces, even of customs and
stupidity themselves along the road to a national life.” (Prof. Sabine)
The Republic is an excellent product of Plato’s maturity. It is a major contribution to political

philosophy, education, economics, moral aspects of life and metaphysics.
Plato’s Republic known as “Respublica” in Latin is translated from Greek word “Politeia or
Polity” which means a political constitution in general. It is an achievement of comprehension,
perfection and universality of thought. It presents a picture not of any existing state in Greek but
of an ideal state in which weakness of the existing states were to be avoided.
Rousseau said, “The Republic is not a mere work upon politics but the finest treatise on
education that ever was written.”
Page 9 of 108
Main feature of the Republic is the virtue of knowledge. Plato was of the view that different
classes and individuals had different capacities for the attainment of virtues. The labor class
showed the least capacity. Philosophers were the best entitled to rule the state because of their
superiority in virtue. Plato considered justice to be the supreme virtue and his ideal state be dwelt
with it. We can say that the Republic is his master piece. Plato’s Republic is the crowning
achievement of art, science and philosophy.
According to Baker, “The mainspring of the Republic is Plato’s aversion to contemporary

Capitalism and his great desire to substitute a new scheme of Socialism.”
Criticism
The Republic contains a good deal of criticism on contemporary institutions, opinions and
practices. The Republic represents a strong protest against the teachings of Sophists and the
existing social and political corruption.
Plato stresses that state should not be an assembly of corrupt and selfish individuals but be a
communion of souls united for the pursuit of justice and truth and also for the welfare of the
people.
Plato’s Ideal State

“Until philosophers are kings or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and the power
of philosophy and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, cities will never rest from their
evils.” (Plato)
The Republic of Plato is interpreted as Utopia to end all Utopias, not because it is a romance, but
because he constructed an ideal state in it. He compares the construction of an ideal state with an
act of an artist who sketches an ideal picture without concerning himself with the fact whether
individual characteristic features of imaginative picture are to be found anywhere or not? In the
same way, Plato never thought of the possibility of the institutions of his ideal state, being
capable of ever becoming a reality. He never thought of the impracticability of this idea
concerning his ideal state.
Plato built his state on the analogy of an individual organism. He believed that the virtues of an
individual and of the state were identical. He was of the view that an individual presented almost
the same features and qualities on a smaller scale as society on a bigger scale.
Features of an Ideal State

1. Rule of Philosophy
Plato was of the view that in an ideal state the philosopher-ruler should be prominent. He should
Page 10 of 108
has a broaden vision of unity of knowledge. Philosopher-kings are immune from the provisions
of law and public opinion.
2. No unqualified absolutism
Though, neither, there is any restraint of law nor of public opinion over philosopher-rulers but
that is not an unqualified absolutism. It is not all despotism, because rule of philosophy is not
free from the basic articles of the constitution.
3. Control over the education system
Philosopher ruler should control the education system in an ideal state.
4. Justice in ideal state
Justice is the main feature of Plato’s Republic and it is also present in his ideal state. Justice is
the bond which binds every member of society together. It forms a harmonious union of
individuals.
5. Censorship of art and literature
In ideal state, there should be a complete censorship of art and literature. It is necessary so that
nothing immoral things might falls into the hands of the young individuals.
6. System of Communism
Plato was of the view that guardian class should live under the system of communism of property
and family. The rulers and soldiers do not possess any property of their own.
7. Equality among men and women
According to Plato, equal opportunities should be given to both men and women for their
economic, social, intellectual and political uplift. We can say that Plato was the first feminist of
his time.
8. Principle of Functional Specialization
Plato was of the view that due to multiple wants, an individual could not fulfill all his desires by
himself alone due to lack of capacity. Thus co-operation among individuals should be necessary
to satisfy their mutual desires. Some people are specialized in performing some certain tasks.
Criticism
1. Plato built his ideal state on the analogy of individual and this identification leads to
confusion. He failed to distinguish ethics from politics. His ideal state is based not merely on
analogy but almost identification between the individual and the state, which is quite wrong.
Page 11 of 108
2. Plato fails to condemn the institution of slavery and regard it as fundamental evil.
3. Plato’s system of communism of women and temporary marriage is detestable and unethical.
4. Plato is a moralist rather than a political idealist. His assumption that the state should control
the entire lives of its citizens is false and contrary to human liberty.
5. By the system of functional specialization, Plato tends to dwarf the personality of the
individual. There is no possibility of any full development of human personality in his ideal
state.
6. Plato completely ignores the lower class in his ideal state which forms the great bulk of
population. Such negligence may divide the society into two hostile groups.
__________________
Page 12 of 108
Comparison between Plato and Aristotle

Aristotle, the favorite and most brilliant pupil of Plato, is more conscious of his differences than
of the points of agreement with him. The differences which these giants of philosophy were not
the outcome of any grudge or ill-will, but reflected their own way of solving the existing
problems of their state.
Similarities
1. Both upheld slavery and justified its continuation in true spirit of Greek ideals. Each regarded
slaves as an indispensable part of the community for the manual performance and overall
development progress of the state.
2. Both despised foreigners and regarded races other than Greeks fit for subjection and bondage
and as mentally inferior to the Greeks.
3.Both condemned democracy and wanted to replace it with some sort of constitutional or ideal
polity while Plato echoed in condemning democracy, as “What could have been more ridiculous
than this mob-led, passion-ridden democracy, this government by a debating society, a
mobocracy.” On the other hand Aristotle was of the view that “the people are not capable of self-
government.”
4. Both wanted to impose limitations on citizenship. Both taught that all manual labor should be
done by slaves or non-citizens.
5. Both opposed the views of Sophists that the state came into birth for the sake of life and
continues for the sake of good life. It is this conviction which makes Aristotle a true Platonist.
6. Aristotle’s “Political” is no less a manual for statesman than the “Republic” of Plato.
Differences
1. While Plato draws conclusion through the use of allusion and analogy, Aristotle strikes at the
very point with definite and clear-cut dogmas and doctrine.
2. While Plato believes in the abstract notions of justice, virtue and idea. Aristotle judges the
speculative fundamentals on the basis of exact comparison and deduces a thought presentable
and acceptable even in modern civilization.
3. Where Plato is visionary, imaginative and utopian, Aristotle is logical, realist and scientific in
his approach of propounding theories.
4. If Plato believes in the doctrine that the reality of a material thing lies in its idea not in its
form. Aristotle believes that reality in the concrete manifestation of a thing, and not in its
Page 13 of 108
supposed inherent idea.
5. Plato believed in the phenomenon of unity through uniformity. On the other hand
Aristotle was of the view that unity could be achieved through diversity in universe and men.
6. Plato inseparably mixed ethics and politics. He subordinated political theories to ethical
considerations. In Aristotle it was quite the reverse. Ethics and politics were not only separated,
but the former was made to sub serve the later.
7. Plato was the propounder of new philosophy; Aristotle was a systemiser of already
existing knowledge, and made freshly streamlining and fascinating by his powerful influential
and charming style for practical adoption for state functions.
“Plato seeks a superman who will create a state as good as ought to be. Aristotle seeks a super
science will create a state as good as can be. Thus, all who believe in new worlds for old are
disciples of Plato, all who believe in old worlds made new by the toilsome use of science are
disciples of Aristotle.” (Maxey)
__________________
Page 14 of 108
Western Political Thought---Machiavelli
Machiavelli
“Machiavelli had been represented as an utter cynic, an impassioned patriot, an ardent

nationalist, a political Jesuit, a convinced democrat and an unscrupulous seeker after the favor of
depots.” (Sabine)
“In Machiavelli we find the frankest and the most brutal analysis of the selfishness, audacity,
cunning, deception, treachery, malevolence, cynicism, hatred and lust that were necessary for a
prince.” (H. Thomas)
Machiavelli, the hated beloved prophet of secularism, had one of the enigmas of modern history,
whom Allama Iqbal has characterized as the “Sharp Agent of Devil” was born in Florence in
1469. Little is known about his early education. However he was known as a well-read fellow in
Italian and Latin classics. The Florence was ruled by the Medici family in 1494, the Medicis
were expelled from the city and Florence became a republic. In the same year, Machiavelli first
joined public life as a chancery clerk. In 1498, Machiavelli became second chancellor and
secretary of the Council of Ten, a body which had responsibility for war and interior affairs. He
held that post for fourteen years.
He was strong, vigorous and intelligent man. On many occasions, his services were required as
diplomatic observer in royal courts abroad. He was very much impressed by Cesare Borgia in
Romagna. Cesare Borgia became the model for “The Prince”, Machiavelli’s best known work. In
1506, Machiavelli persuaded the counsel to adopt his plan for formation of a citizen army. But he
failed in his plans because Medicis re-established their control over Florence. The Medici exiled
him and forbid his presence in Florence. Soon afterward Machiavelli having been wrongly
accused of implication in the Boscoli conspiracy against the Medici was imprisoned and tortured.
He eventually freed and permitted to return to his family.
Machiavelli, as a true Florentine was naturally shocked to see the political upheaval and social
decay in his beloved country and he determined to save her from all intrigues, disorders and
petty wars. He denounced all the church doctrines and held the Popes responsible for the plight
state of affairs. He tirelessly struggled for the attainment of glory and magnificence of Rome by
consolidating all scattered forces. He enunciated the philosophy of art of Governments for
effective discipline and stability in the state. He advocated strongly for using the harsher
methods and oppressive means for the stability of the state. He firmly believed that “fear is the
domineering weapon for a Prince for complete obedience and is mightier than love.”
Moral Indifference of Machiavelli

Page 15 of 108
The reasons of Machiavelli’s moral indifferences are following:
1. Machiavelli does not believe in any ethical dogmas or in any divine law because of intentional
segregation of politics from religion.
2. In Machiavelli’s philosophy, moral judgments are wholly subordinate to the existence of

political and temporal existence and welfare.
3. Machiavelli calculated that the institution of Papacy brought decline and destruction to the
glory of Rome. He wanted to practice pagan virtues of cunningness, duplicity and knavery for
achieving successful goals.
4. He did not at all deny the excellence of moral virtues, but he refused to accept them essential
to the political stability. He pleads that the religion must be skillfully exploited as a useful
weapon for achieving the annexing designs by the sovereign.
5. Machiavelli stands courageously for the preservation of his state. He says that there must be
no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, glorious or shameful; on the
contrary, everything must be disregarded.
6. He imparts priority to the state and puts it above morality and religion, because it is the highest
form of social organization and the most essential of all institutions for the protection and
promotion of human welfare.
7. Machiavelli’s advocacy of unreligious and his indifference to morality have become so much
disrupted that even his name has become a by-word for fraud, force and dishonesty. He wrote
primarily for the exaltation of the state.
In modern world, some of the States Heads acted as “Prince of Machiavelli” by freezing all
channels of human progress and liberty and also by reducing the citizens to that of animals and
slaves. The Prince and the Discourses are still modern theories and are being practiced in many
secular countries of modern age.
Machiavelli and State Diplomacy
Machiavelli wrote his most important work “Prince” and dedicated it to de Medici, the prince of
Florence. “Prince” of Machiavelli is neither an academic treatise nor a book on political science.
It is a memorandum on the art of Government and of State diplomacy. It gives an awe-inspiring
technique for successful ruler-ship and as such is a guide to the rulers and kings of his time and
of succeeding times, about the best means of maintaining their power.
The whole argument of Prince is based upon the premise directly derived from Aristotelian
philosophy that the state is the highest form of human association and that consideration for the
state welfare must be given priority and preference than the well-being of the individuals. These
Page 16 of 108
premises led to the conclusion that it was Caesar and not God to be worshipped. Here
Machiavelli personified Caesar with a state and almost identifies the state with the ruler. Caesar
must make himself worthy of this worship by a cruel, ruthless and successful seizure of power. A
prince must possess the qualities of wisdom, egoism, selfishness and brutalities for the
attainment of his motives. A prince must consider his friend and neighbors his ardent foes and
does not repose any confidence in them. Machiavelli was of the views that:
“Virtue brings ruin, while vice brings security and prosperity.”
“Cruelty is better than mercy.”
“A wise ruler ought not to keep faith when such observance may be turned against him.”
The main point of Machiavelli’s state diplomacy is following:
1. Impart priority to your own interests. The strong must impose intimidatory laws upon the
weak to arrest their rebelliousness.
2. Honor to nobody but to yourself. He who aspires to acquire mastery can afford to have no
rivals.
3. Do evil but pretend to do well. Machiavelli was of the view that to be good is harmful but to
pose to be good is useful diabolic attitude. Let mercy be on your tongue and evil in your heart.
4. The Prince should have no regard for the rights of others, especially foreigners. He should
impose heavy tax upon them to the point of robbing them.
5. A Prince should not be prodigal with the money of his own people, but he should be very
liberal and generous with the money plundered from other countries through aggression and
other mean resources.
6. A Prince must discard all the canons of leniency and decency.
7. A Prince, in order to crush his competitors, must turn into a murderer and a looter.
8. The Prince must kill his enemies and if necessary, his friends. He must remain vigilant and
alert from his relations so that he may not be deposed, exiled and murdered.
9. Use force and duplicity rather than benign ness in dealing with other people. It is better to be
creator of horrors than to be maintainer of love and affection. When you over-power your
enemy, root out the entire roots of his family, otherwise some of his relatives will become
vindictive to take revenge for the wrong you have inflicted.
10. Concentrate all your efforts on war. In the Machiavellian state, all regular channels of human
activities are barred and all roads lead to war.
Page 17 of 108
__________________
Page 18 of 108
Western Political Thought---Montesquieu

Montesquieu
“Of all French political philosophers in the eighteenth century (other than Rousseau) the most
important was Montesquieu. Of them all he had perhaps the clearest conception of the
complexities of a social philosophy, and yet he too was guilty of extreme over simplification.”
(Sabine)
Montesquieu was born in 1689 at Chateau de la Bordeaux in a noble aristocratic family. His
father was an eminent French lawyer. At the age of twenty seven he became president of
Parliament of Bordeaux, the most important of parliaments in France except that of Paris. For a
long period of twelve years he continued as chief magistrate at Bordeaux, but he was not
satisfied with the job because he was an extensive reader of literature and history and had deep
sympathetic ties with the intellectual movements of his days. At last he left presidency and
moved to Paris. In 1728 he visited Austria, Hungary, Venice, Rome, Switzerland, Holland and
lastly England where he remained for above two years. During his tour, he came across the
leading politicians and political thinkers in England and he was deeply impressed by the English
conception of liberty and by the English system of Government.
After his return he settled at La Brede and kept himself busy with the task of writing of political
philosophy. At that time France although under absolute control of King Louis XIV, yet was
more fertile for growth of political theory but Frenchmen were not satisfied with the political
situation, as were their fellows across the channel.
Important works of Montesquieu are:
1. The Persian Letter: He published these letters in 1721. it embodied a brilliant satire on the
existing political, religious and social institutions in France.
2. Reflections and the causes of the Greatness and Decline of the Romans. This book was
published in 1734.
3. The Spirit of Law published in 1748. This book won a great fame and immortality for
Montesquieu because it came out after fourteen year unremitting labor and he made it a
masterpiece for all ages.
Montesquieu’s doctrine of Separation of Powers

Page 19 of 108
Montesquieu expounds his theory of separation of powers to set forth the governmental
organization in order to safeguard the political liberty. He believed that the separation of powers
among the different organs of the government is the best safeguard against tyranny. He pleads
that each power must be exercised by a separate organ and a system of checks and balances
should thus be established for solidarity and harmony of the state.
The theory of separation of powers among Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of
government was best realized in the British Constitution. He came to realize that for maintaining
liberty, the separation of powers was absolutely essential. Montesquieu did not rely upon
observation. Locke and Harrington had taught him what to expect and for the rest he adopted the
myth which was current among the English themselves. Bolingbroke said, “It is by this mixture
of monarchial, aristocratically and democratically power blended together in one system and by
these three estates balancing one another, that our free constitution of Government has been
preserved so long inviolate.”
According to Montesquieu there are three kinds of power:
1. By virtue of the legislative power, the prince or magistrate exerts temporary or permanent
laws and amends or abrogates those laws, which are contrary to the will of the subject.
2. By virtue of the executive powers, he makes peace or war, sends or receives Ambassadors,
establish the public security and provide protection against invasions.
3. By virtue of the judiciary powers, he is vested with the powers to punish criminals and also to
safeguard the life and property of the individuals.
When the executive and legislative are united in the same person, there can be no liberty because
apprehensions may arise. If the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and the
executive then again there will be no liberty. When it is combined with the legislative, the
existence and liberty of people would be exposed to arbitrary rule. When it is combined with
executive organ, then there will be violence and oppression in the capacity of a mortal God.
It is quite obvious from all above cited discussion, that the separation of powers among the three
organs of governments fully ensures liberty and freedom, by imposing healthy checks on the
despotism of the government bureaucrats. Montesquieu was of the view that liberty is an
indispensable fundamental for human progress and glory. Everyone is born to enjoy it without
any distinction of color, creed and religion.
Criticism:
1. Montesquieu’s study of English constitution is not very correct until this day; there is no full
Page 20 of 108
separation of powers between different governmental agencies. There the House of Lords is a
legislative as well as a judicial body. The Lord Chancellor partakes of all the three functions of
government.
2. If all the branches are made separate and independent of each other, each branch will endeavor
to safeguard its interests and possibly may jeopardize other’s interest.
3. Perfect separate power in the functions of the government is impossible.
4. Mill was of the view “the separation of powers will result in a clash between the three
different organs of the government because each one will take interest only in its own powers.”
In spite of all inconsistencies in the theory of separation of powers, it too wielded a considerable
influence in Pakistan, France and America. Montesquieu is placed in the first rank of those
distinguished thinkers who in the eighteenth century, held high standard of idealism in all that
pertains to liberty.
Montesquieu’s views on Forms of Government

The classification of government of Montesquieu is base partly on the number of those who hold
political power and partly on the manner in which that power is exercised. He gives more
importance to the principle on which government is based than to its nature. He assigned a
particular basic principle to every form of government. The principle of democracy was virtue,
of an aristocracy virtue-cum-moderation, of monarchy honor while that of despotism was fear.
He enunciated the dangers attending each form of government if it lost its basic principle.
Montesquieu forms the government into three types:
1) Republic:
Montesquieu was of the view “A republican government is that in which the body or only a part
of the people, is possessed of the supreme power.” To him, when in a republic, the body of the
people is possessed of the supreme power it is called democracy. Sovereignty rests with the
people in democracy. In Republics, there can be no exercise of sovereignty but by the votes of
the people and these votes express their own will.
2) Monarchies:
Montesquieu remarks that monarchial government is that in which a single person governs the
state by fixed and established laws. He was of the view that the most intermediate power is that
of nobility. This in some measure seems to be essential to a monarchy, whose fundamental
maxim is no nobility no monarch, but there may be despotic process.
3) Despotism:
Page 21 of 108
A despotic government is that in which a single person directs all functions of the government
with his own capricious will, without any law and without fixed rules. His own words become
laws of the land and complete subordination to these laws a expedient.
Each of the form is associated with its peculiar principle:
a) Democracy is based upon political virtue
b) Aristocracy is based upon moderation
c) Monarchy is based upon honor
d) Despotism is based upon fear and oppression
Relation between Forms of Government and religion & Size of State:

Montesquieu was of the view that certain religions had a definite affinity for certain types of
governments. Islam goes well with Democratic Republican form of government, wherein
fundamentals of religion i-e., equality, fraternity and freedom are deeply inculcated and practiced
for the security of mankind and glory of the state. Roman Catholicism is closely affiliated with
monarchial form of government with arbitrary rule and Protestantism even in this modern age is
deeply attached with despotism and cruel expansionism.
Republican form of government is possible only in a state of small size; monarchy suited the
moderate-sized state while a big country or an empire must have despotic government. Real
democracy is possible only ion small city-state. France of Montesquieu’s time was too large for a
republic form of government, Monarchy would suit her best. Montesquieu declared monarchy, a
worst form of government and he unlike Machiavelli discarded the doctrine of aggrandizement
and expansion.
Criticism:
1. It is quite wrong to assume, as Montesquieu does, that democracy and aristocracy are sub-
types of republican form.
2. It is a quite unfair to place despotic government at par with monarchial and republican forms.
Despotic state is not at all state because it is established by the absence of established law, and
hence it is a lawless state, which should not be included in the plan at all.
3.Montesquieu’s scheme creates distinction between the republican and monarchic form based
upon the number of persons who possess the supreme power, the distinction between the
monarchic and despotic types depends upon the way in which the power of governments are to
Page 22 of 108
be exercised.
Montesquieu as the Aristotle of 18th Century

1. Montesquieu follows the inductive and historical methods of Aristotle and like him, takes keen
interest in the practical political activities.
2. Like Aristotle, Montesquieu too pays his attention on the influence of physical environment on
the life of man and social institutions.
3. Montesquieu steps into the shoes of Aristotle, when he recognizes basic types of government
i-e, republican, monarchial and despotic.
4. Montesquieu closely follows Aristotle when he says that the fundamental types of political
constitutions are fixed once and for all but they are different to some extent under the impact of
the local conditions.
5.Montesquieu’s observation that the law of a society gives to its unique and particular character,
has its parallel in Aristotle’s statement that the constitution of a state determines the very life and
character of its people, if there occurs a change in the constitution, the state itself becomes
altogether a different state.
__________________
Page 23 of 108
Western Political Thought---Thomas Hobbes
“Hobbes was in fact the first of the great modern philosophers who attempted to bring political
theory into intimate relations with a thoroughly modern system of thought, and he stroke to make
this system broad enough to account on scientific principles, for all the facts of nature, including
human behavior both in its individual and social aspects.” (Sabine)
Thomas Hobbes was born near Malmesbury in 1588. He was the victim of broken home. His
father, the Vicar of Westport, deserted his wife and children when Hobbes was still a boy.
Hobbes received his early education in Wiltshire, a place in Malmesbury. At the age of fifteen
years, he joined Oxford. He got the degree of graduation at the age of nineteen. His soul
remained insatiate with the University education and found it worthless.
On leaving Oxford, he became tutor to the heir of William Cavendish who later on became Earl
of Devonshire. His contact with royal family brought him into contact with most important
personalities of the period. He left England during the horrors of civil war and was forced to take
refuge in France, where he joined the supporters of royal absolutism. He lived for about twenty
years in France whose autocratic Government appealed him considerably.
It was this period in which he wrote his master piece of work “The Leviathan”, published in
1651. He attacked the ancient institution of Papacy and also won disfavor from royalists. It was
an important work of Hobbes which brought him immortal fame in the history of Western
political thought.
Hobbes built up a systematic philosophy of state, taking his stand neither on tradition nor on
theology but on his study of human nature. It was the crucial period when upholders of
constitutional rule were fiercely fighting for the annihilation of the supporters of Divine Right of
Kings. Hobbes saw the miserable condition of his beloved country and ardently advocated for
the maintenance of authority and order, and he constructed a system of strong and responsible
sovereign Government on the basis of the then very popular doctrine of social contract. Hobbes
was, thus, as much a creature of his times as Machiavelli was. However he found a link between
Renaissance and the Restoration.
Hobbes’s Conception of State of Nature

Hobbes was of the view, “The only basis of human action is a perpetual and restless desire of
power after power that ends only in death. By nature man is selfish and egoistical. Every one is
striving for the gratification of his appetites and these appetites are different from individual to
individual because of physical constitution, education and experience."
Page 24 of 108
Hobbes’s man lived originally in state of nature without the benefits of Government. All human
actions were regulated by two things:
1. The instinct of self-preservation
2. Individual egoism
According to Hobbes, the state of nature was “a state of war of all against all in which the chief
virtue of mankind were force and fraud.” There was no Government of civil laws to maintain
peace and order, but a Government of fear, danger and coercion.
Hobbes said, “During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they
are in that condition which is called war, and such a war, as is of every man against every man.
In such condition there is no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and
consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation, no use of commodities that may be imported
by seas, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society,
and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.”
Logical Conclusions:
1. Hobbes was of the view that there was no distinction between right and wrong in the state of
nature. Only force, deceitfulness and intimidation were the order of the day. The only slogan
echoed “Kill when you can, usurp what you can.”
2. There can be no private property in the state of nature for possession of a thing depends upon
the power of upholding it.
According to Hobbes, man undoubtedly wanted peace and tranquility; but his fear of others, his
anxiety to retain what is already had and his never ending desire for self aggrandizement on the
basis of ‘mine and mine’ led him to perennial conflict and anarchy in the state. Man is the state
of nature becomes the slave and tool of impulses and passions. Later on man realized that peace
had definitely more utility than constant was and fear of violent death brought man’s passions
into line with his reasons.
Man could live in harmony and peace with one another either through fear of punishment or
desire for profit. And this purpose could only be achieved by establishing a strong and stable
Government capable of inspiring awe and fear by using harsh and arbitrary methods who disobey
its laws and of giving attractive rewards to those who do conform.
Page 25 of 108
Hobbes and Theory of Sovereignty

Hobbes’s sovereign was presented as a Mortal God vested with absolute and unchallenged power
to rule over his subjects arbitrarily. He was the smasher of the regular channels of democracy, a
way of life. Hobbes’s sovereign suffocated all the social and cultural communication between the
people bringing about a reign of oppression and harshness.
Hobbes said, “By this authority, given him every particularly man in the wealth, he has the use of
so much power and strength conferred upon him, that the terror thereof, he is enable to form the
wills of them all to peace at home and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him
consists the essence of the Commonwealth which is one person, of which acts a multitude, by
mutual covenants one with another have made themselves, every one the author, to the end he
may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall thinker expedient, for their peace and
common defense.”
Features of Sovereignty
1. The sovereign is absolute and all powerful. His powers to frame laws of the land are not
restricted by any human agency.
2. He is the singular law-making authority.
3. No condition, explicit or implicit, can be imposed on the sovereign, for his power is unlimited.
4. Subjects have no authority to call any explanation from the sovereign for his misdeeds. They
have no right to threaten, to punish him, to banish or depose him.
5. The sovereign is the fountain of justice and honor.
6. The sovereign has full power to declare war against any country or nation whenever he likes.
7. Sovereignty is indivisible; inalienable and unpunishable.
8. The sovereign formulates laws regarding property and taxation etc, and he has full rights to
allow or disallow freedom of speech to his subject.
9. The sovereign has to protect his people from internal disruption and external aggression for
the preservation of peace and glory of the state.
10. If the sovereign ignores the pact, he can do so, because he is no party to the contract.
Page 26 of 108
Types of Sovereignty
According to Hobbes the difference of commonwealths consist in the difference of the sovereign
or the person representative of all and every one of the multitude and it is manifest, there can be
put three kinds of commonwealth:
1. If the representative is one man, the commonwealth will be known as Monarchy.
2. If the representative is composed of an assembly, the state will be called a democracy.
3. When the representative is an assembly, but only a part of it, then it is called aristocracy.
Hobbes ardently favors monarchical form of Government. There must be an important monarch
to serve the end for which the state is established. But a monarch without absolute power will
utterly be failed for the attainment of his ideals. That is why; Hobbes is ranked as one of the
great champions of absolute sovereignty.
Hobbes gives a perfect and most satisfactory theory of sovereignty which is all powerful
authority within the state. It is absolute, unlimited, non-transferable and irrevocable. Hobbes
excelled Machiavelli’s Prince, an evil genius in exalting political authority. Machiavelli had
made politics independent of religion but Hobbes set politics above religion and ethics. The
powers vested in sovereignty must be absolute, unlimited and all powerful.
Criticism
The political theory of Thomas Hobbes has been bitterly criticized on different grounds ever
since this day.
1. The whole conception of social contract and an organized society resulting from it is
unhistorical. There are no examples in history when Hobbes’s men gathered together and signed
a contract for the formation of a civil society.
2. Hobbes portrays a dismal picture of the state of nature, which is far from satisfactory. He
paints a darker side and completely ignores a brighter side of human nature. His picture reflects
the evils of his man. He declares man selfish, solitary and brutish. But human nature has two
essential aspects, good and bad. He always speaks of the badness of human nature.
3. Hobbes was of the view that the state of nature is a state of war, the war of all against all, in
which the cardinal virtues are force and fraud. How could such a man go against his own nature
and suddenly enter a “state not of war, but of peace, not of force and fraud but of right and
Page 27 of 108
justice.”
4. Hobbes says that there were no laws in the state of nature. This is baseless.
5. Hobbes’s sovereign appears to be the representative of the people, who follows public opinion
and looks after public welfare. This is the only one aspect in which Hobbes has recognized the
limitations of his Leviathan.
6. Hobbes did not foresee the distinction between the Government and the state. While the
Government of a state might be replaced with another because of its corruption or inefficiency,
the state as a reality remains intact and does not sink into lawless condition.
7. Hobbes appears to be a mixture of anarchy and absolutism. The only remedy to control of
good behavior of men was the coercive power of the sovereign.
8. The Hobbesian system condemns the state for purely negative functions. It is sole function in
the preservation of life and maintenance of order.
9. The civil society created by Hobbes is not much of a society. It is like a flock of cattle driven
by the omnipotent Leviathan who sums up in himself the life of all and who is a universal
regulator of thoughts and actions of all.
Hobbes was a materialist and rationalist to the core of his heart. His political philosophy
indicated the absolute sovereignty of whatever Government happened to be in power. He bade
people render unto Caesar and unto God whatever Caesar commanded. His state absorbed the
will of all its members in matters secular and spiritual and it was wrong to will or act against it.
__________________
Page 28 of 108
Western Political Thought---John Locke

John Locke
“Successful revolutions are stimulating to those who believe in them. Locke is the most fortunate
of all philosophers for, he completed his work in theoretical philosophy just at the moment when
the Government of his country fell into the hands of men who shared his political opinions. His
political doctrine is embedded in the American Constitution.” (Bertrand Russel)
John Locke was born at Wrington in north Somersetshire in 1632. His father was an attorney and
land-owner of modest means. He got his early education at home and later on he was admitted to
Westminster School. In 1652, he was sent to Oxford for higher education. At that time he was
only twenty-two and entered Christ Church College (Oxford). His university career was not very
shining because the narrow discipline of the place dulled his enthusiasm for formal studies. In
1660, he got the degree of Master of Arts. After taking the M.A. degree, Locke was appointed as
a tutor in Greek.
Locke did not like teaching profession and he started medicine. He was greatly influenced by
Descartes and became physician. Later on he became the confidential Secretary of Lord
Shaftsbury, the founder of the Whig Dynasty. He went over to the Parliamentary side and was
later on made a field marshal in the rebel forces. When Charles II became king, he was made
Earl of Shaftsbury in 1672.
In 1682, Shaftsbury was charged with the crime of conspiracy. He was arrested and tried for
treason. He was, however, acquitted but was compelled to leave England. Locke also facing his
persecution fled with him to Holland and remained there until the bloodless Revolution. After
the glorious revolution of 1688, he came under the liberalizing influences that were beginning to
be felt in England and he devoted his entire intellectual faculties towards literary work and to
numerous controversies arising out of his works.
Sabine attributes John Locke in these words, “his sincerity, his profound moral convictions, his
genuine belief in liberty in human rights, and in the dignity of human nature united with his
moderation and good sense, made him the ideal spokesman of the middle-class revolution.”
Locke’s father, a renowned attorney of his time exerted a considerable influence in making him
zealous advocate of liberty, equality and democracy. Locke completely discarded the Hobbes’s
conception of man who depicted as utterly selfish, irrational, solitary and brutish. He portrayed
his men in the state of nature fully possessed a sense of sociability bringing all men in
togetherness of mutual benefit and for the progress of civil society. He advocated for the
elimination of the coerciveness and intimidation over the subject for peaceful progress of the
Page 29 of 108
state.
Bases of his Philosophy

Sensationalism:
Locke was of the view that all knowledge and beliefs come through our senses and experiences.
There is nothing in mind except what was first in the sense.
Utilitarianism:
He is one of the great pleader of utilitarianism. His conception is quite apparent from his
contention that “happiness and misery are the two great springs of human action.” He was of the
view that morality is pleasure and pleasure is only conformity to universal law.
Optimistic Conception of Human Nature:
Locke believes in the inherent goodness of human beings. He says that man is a rational, sensible
and social creature. He feels love, sympathy and tenderness towards his fellow-beings and is
capable of being actuated by altruistic motives. He wants to live in peace and harmony with
others.
Rejection of Absolute Monarchy based on Divinity and Heredity:
Locke refuted emphatically the hereditary principle in kingship advocated most fervently by
Filmer in his Patriarcha and upheld by the Anglican Church. Filmer contended that political
power is derived from the authority of father over his children and that regal authority is
subjection of children to parents, and since the actual monarchs are the heirs of Adam, therefore
they can demand from the citizens unflinching loyalty. Locke points out the injustice of
primogeniture (the principle by which property descends to the eldest son) which is unavoidable
if inheritance is to be the basis of monarchy. Further, Adam can have only one heir, but no one
knows who he is. And if the true heir could be discovered, would all existing monarchs put their
crowns at his feet. Moreover, in case of this discovery all kings except, at most one, would be
usurpers and would have no right to demand the obedience of their de facto subjects.
Locke’s View on Natural Rights of Man

Locke appears to be a true democrat when he says that the establishment of a commonwealth
stands for the complete security of natural rights of men. Natural rights of citizens are:
1. Right to life
2. Right to property
3. Right to liberty
Page 30 of 108
“Most distinctive contribution of Locke to political theory is the doctrine of natural rights.”
(Dunning)
Locke was of the view that the right of property is a most important because all other natural
rights are analogous to the right of private property. He further maintained that the right to
private property existed in the state of nature under the operation of natural law. Locke thought
of natural rights as things which man brings with him from birth. Society exists to protect them;
they can be regulated only to the extent that is necessary to give them effective protection.
“The life, liberty and estate of one person can be limited only to make effective the equality valid
claims of another person to the same rights.” (Sabine)
According to Locke, “God, who has given the world to men in common, has also given reason to
make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience. The earth and all that is therein, is
given to men for support and comfort of their being and all the fruits it naturally produces and
beasts it feeds, belongs to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of
nature, and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of
them, as they are thus in their natural state. Whatsoever he removes out of the state that nature
has provided and left it in, he ahs mixed his labor with and joined to it something that is his own
and thereby makes it his own property.”
Locke’s Conception of Popular Sovereignty

Locke is regarded as the champion of people’s rights and a harbinger of their sacred and
fundamental liberties. His social contract did not create the irresponsible, cruel and absolutist
“Leviathan” of Hobbes, but reserved the sovereign rights to the final judge of all actions, the
community. The ultimate supreme power is not vested in the scepter of king; but it remains in the
hands of the people.
Locke did not advance the idea of legal, absolute and indivisible sovereignty. The very idea of it
was discarded by him because Machiavellian and Hobbesian conception of sovereignty brings
about a reign of terror for the people who would loudly whisper for freedom and equality. He
initiated the conception of popular sovereignty, which has been firmly accepted, a best way of
rule by the succeeding thinkers and the whole world own him too much, because real and
practical democracy was strongly enunciated.
Locke stood for a Government which should be subject to a number of limitations. It cannot rule
with coercion and intimidation and tax them without their will. A government which violated its
limitations is not worthy of obedience. The state is created for certain conveniences and it must
justify itself by creating those conveniences.
Page 31 of 108
The basic rights of the individual life, liberty and property are to be protected rather than
restricted by the state. The king has neither the divine authority nor any moral justification to
over load the subject. All men are equal in the eye of Almighty God and their basic rights must
not be violated under the civil laws of the state.
Locke’s Government created by the unanimous consent of the majority should have freedom of
speech, of election and of religious worship and in order that it may be prevented from becoming
too autocratic and arbitrary. This democratic government should be run by a system of checks
and balances. In other words, the government should be divided into three main organs i-e,
legislature, executive and judiciary. And of these three, the legislature should be supreme, as is
evidently available in the modern constitutions.
__________________
Page 32 of 108
Western Political Thought---Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau
“Rousseau was the father of the romantic movement, the imitator of system of thought which
infer non-human fact from human emotions and the inventor of the political philosophy of
pseudo-democratic dictatorship as opposed to traditional absolute monarchs. Hitler was the
outcome of Rousseau.” (Bertrand Russel)
Rousseau was born on June 28, 1772 at Geneva of parents of French Protestant ancestry, in a
middle class family. His father, Isaac, was a skilled watchmaker, but abandoned this profession
to become a dancing master. Rousseau left school at the age of 12, learnt various crafts but
adopted none. He also worked as an apprentice under a cruel engraver. He filled with a wonder
lust that was never to be satisfied. Restless, impulsive, unstable he embraced the career of a
vagabond as others might enter upon a profession and thereafter for twenty years he led the life
of a vagabond wandering in different places. In 1742, he gravely mediated to lead a regulated
life, went to Paris and tried his luck at different schemes, the opera, the theatre but his efforts
ended in fiasco. Then he opened a small hotel.
The year of 1749 was a turning point in his life, chance brought Rousseau fame and immortality.
The Academy of Dijon announced a prize for the best essay on the subject “Has the progress of
sciences and arts contributed to corrupt and purify morals”. He thought a strong plea that
progresses of sciences and arts had tended to degrade human morality. Rousseau depicted in the
essay, an early state of society in which all men lived under conditions of simplicity and
innocence, and traced the purging evils of society emanated from the artificialities introduced by
civilization. He won the prize. Hearn Shaw remarked, “it created a great sensation in the artificial
society of the Age of Reason. It was the first ramble of the Revolution.”
The publication of his book “Social Contract” aroused the indignation of the French
Government, which ordered his arrest. He escaped to Geneva, where the Democratic Council
burned his book and threatened his life. He took refuge in Germany, where an angry mob almost
strangulated him. He fled to England where only one man, Hume, took him into his affection. By
this time, however, Rousseau’s suffering had greatly perturbed his brain and he was tormented
by a prosecution mania. He suspected that Hume was plotting to poison him. He thought that
“Everyone hurts me because of my love for mankind.” Finally his fear of being murdered drove
him to commit suicide.
Hearn Shaw said, “Rousseau led a life of fugitive for sixteen years and he drove through a period
of deepening gloom, failing health, broken spirit, haunting terrors, paralyzing illusions and
accumulating despair.”
Page 33 of 108
Rousseau’s State of Nature

“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Many a one believes himself the master of
others, and yet he is greater slave than they. How has this change come about? I do not know.
What can render it legitimate? I believe that I can settle this question.” (Rousseau)
Man is born free only in the sense that freedom is his inborn right; it is the necessary condition
for the development of the various potentialities of human nature. We can say that he is born for
freedom that he ought to be free. The second part of the first sentence that he is everywhere in
chains imply that customs and conventions of society and state regulations imposer upon him
certain artificial and unnecessary restraints which arrest the development of his personality.
Rousseau, a philosopher of the heart rather than of the head, presented his State of Nature to be
an earthly paradise though he himself confessed that the conception of the State of Nature was
quite hypothetical. As Rousseau says, “A state which exists no longer, perhaps never existed,
probably never will exist and of which none the less it is necessary to have just idea in order to
judge well our present state.” He always maintained that the natural state was also better than the
social state. For, in it, the natural man, or the noble savage, lived a solitary, happy and carefree
life of the brute was independent, contented and self-sufficing.
In short, Rousseau’s man was a non-social being unknown to good or evil or the coming death.
Thus the noble savage was in the state of paradise, everyone being equal to the other. Man’s life
in the state of nature was regulated not by reason but by the feelings of self-preservation and
hatred towards incalculable massacre and incredible violence. According to Rousseau, “primitive
man was near animal than man; he lived an isolated and solitary life having no ties and
obligations. He was guided by two sentiments self-interest and pity, and having no oral
obligation with other men he could not be good or bad, virtuous or vicious. He led a solitary life
completely devoid of language and wandered about the primeval forests begetting his offspring
by the way, hunting for his food, and concerned only with the satisfaction of physical needs. In a
word, the natural man was neither happy nor unhappy.”
But with the appearance of fixed homes, family and property, the knell of human equality was
sounded. But even this primitive society was tolerable. The least subjects to revolutions, the best
for man. Only when the serpent entered into the society in the form of private property, was the
life of man changed from prosperity to adversity.
Rousseau was of the view “the first man having enclosed a piece of land he thought himself of
saying this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him the real founder of social
inequality and injustice.” The institution of private property created a sense of jealousy and
struggle, converted usurpation into an acknowledged right and led to the promotion of society.
Page 34 of 108
He became subject to violence, bloodshed, crimes against property and person and all the evils of
society and civilization including slavery. Thus the life of man became pitiable, miserable and
intolerable. As Rousseau says, “the problem is to find a form of association which will defend
and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate and in which
each while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone and remain as free as before.”
Rousseau’s General Will

“The development of the theory of the general will in the Social Contract was involved in
paradoxes, partly because of cloudiness of Rousseau’s ideas but partly; it seems, because he had
a rhetorician’s liking for paradox. Manifestly, in view of his criticism of the natural man, he
ought to have avoided the notion of contract altogether as both meaningless and misleading.”
(Sabine)
The will of each individual merged into a General Will, which is the cardinal pillar in the
Rousseau’s philosophy, has aroused keen controversy and has been subjected to severe criticism.
It has been remarked by Bertrand Russell that the doctrines enshrined in his Social Contract,
“though they pay lip service to democracy, tend to the justification of the totalitarian state.”
Dr. McDoughall defines General Will as “The General Will is conceived as coming to be when
every individual in a group or society has a conception or idea of the group as a whole and
identifies his good with the good of that whole.”
Rousseau explains that by the free act of those who enter into an agreement, all their powers and
rights vested in the community and their respective wills are superseded by the General Will. He
was of the view that man possesses two kinds of wills:
1. Actual Will:
It is related to the will of the individuals. It is irrational will of man. This Will makes self-
confined and self centered.
2. Real Will:
It is rational will of the individual. It always aims at general welfare of the society. It leads to
eternal decision imparting self-satisfaction to the individual. It is based upon reason and
rationality.
Rousseau’s whole arguments depended upon the fact that a community of citizens is unique with
its members, they neither make it nor have rights against it.
Rousseau said, “The social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. The
Page 35 of 108
problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common
force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all,
may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before. Each of us puts his person and all his
power in common under the supreme direction of the General Will, and in our corporate
capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”
Rousseau clearly distinguishes the General Will from will of the majority and the minority. The
General Will may or may not coincide with any of these Wills; it may sometimes be coincident
with the Will of an individual.
Characteristics of the General Will:

1. Unity:
It is not self-contradictory. It is indivisible, because if it were divided it would not remain

General Will but would become Sectional Will.
2. Unlimited:
It is unlimited. Rousseau assigns absolute powers to his sovereign by following the Hobbes’s
line of action.
3. Inalienable:
The General Will and sovereignty are inalienable and undetectable.
4. Un-representable:
The General Will cannot be represented. That is why Rousseau laid the foundation of direct
democracy. The General Will can conveniently be realized in a small city state where the
population can assemble and pass laws for their interest. It does not admit of representative
democracy.
W. T. Jones appreciated Rousseau’s theory in these words, “The notion of the General Will is
not only the most central concept of Rousseau’s theory, it is also the most original, the most
interesting, and historically the most important contribution which he made to political theory.”
Criticism:
1. Rousseau’s theory of General Will is incomplete and vague.
2. It is in actual practice difficult to distinguish the General Will from the Will of all. The
General Will is not the unanimous Will of the whole people because that might be the Will of all.
Page 36 of 108
General Will has its own merits and demerits.
3. Rousseau’s belief that an individual has his actual and real Wills at the same time is quite
wrong. An individual’s Will is a corporate thing, one complete whole, incapable of any division.
4. He was of the view that the General Will neglects the force of moral law which dictates
to anyone as to what is just and unjust.
5. There arises a sort of conflict between the common interest and the interest of the
individual. The General Will assigns a very high place to the state and the individual will have to
sacrifices his interest over the interest of the state.
6. Rousseau’s concept of General Will is rather abstract and narrow. In actual practice, it is
nothing if it does not mean the Will of the majority.
7. It pre-supposes common interests, which is difficult to define or determine. These

interests grow out of organic relations between members of a community and are hardly possible
in the multinational states of today with their conflicting ideals and interests.
8. This theory is not applicable to the bigger state in population and territory, and does not
admit of representative government.
9. It is rarely and for a short time that general will is actually realized. Self-consciousness
can exist only at periods of great crisis in the life of a nation, when the whole society is in
danger.
10. Where we are determined to decide what are the visible manifestation of this Will,
Rousseau leaves us in the realm of darkness. He stresses that General Will always tends to the
public advantage and that is infallible. But it does not follow that the deliberations of the people
are equally correct.
__________________
Page 37 of 108
Western Political Thought---Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham
“Bentham was the first among modern philosophers to place women upon a political equality
with men. In Plato’s Republic this equality was to be fully recognized. But after Plato it was
completely forgotten for over two thousand years.” (H. Thomas)
Introduction:
Jeremy Bentham was the intellectual leader and the real founder of English utilitarianism; whose
deep interest in public affairs covered the period from the American Revolution to the Reform
Bill of 1832. He was born in a rich lawyer’s family in 1748 in London. From the very childhood,
Bentham was scholarly and pedantic. He learnt Latin when he was only three years old. He also
learnt Greek and French and later on he devoted to the study of Jurisprudence and legal
philosophy. He received the degree of graduation at the age of fifteen from Queen’s College
Oxford. He had an instinctive interest in science and a distinctive talent for introspective
psychology. From his youth he showed a passionate devotion to social welfare, identifying
himself in imagination and determining to apply to the social sciences the methods that were
being worked out in the natural science.
In 1763 Bentham entered Lincoln’s Inn to begin the study which was to be his life-long pursuit.
In 1772 after having studied law, he entered the bar for practice. As he grew older, his interests
widened and his opinions became more subversive. His supreme mission was to reconstruct the
entire legal system on healthier lines.
At the time of his death, he was at the zenith of fame and glory because of his unparalleled
contribution in the subject of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. After his death, Doyle says,
“He was venerated by a group of disciples, as a Patriarch, a spiritual Leader, almost a God with
James Mill as his St. Paul.”
Jeremy Bentham was a prolific writer and he collected works comprised of twenty-two volumes.
His writings cover a wide range of interest including ethics, theology, psychology, logic,
economics, penology etc. he wrote following most important books:
1. Fragments of Government
2. A Defence of Usury
3. Discourse on Civil and Penal Legislation

Page 38 of 108
4. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
5. A Treatise on Judicial Evidence
6. A Theory of Punishments and Rewards
7. Essay on Political Tactics
Page 39 of 108
Importance of Bentham in
History of Political Thought
Bentham holds a distinctive place in the history of political thought. He was more a legal
reformer and jurist rather than a political philosopher. He had nothing original in his political
doctrine and also he did not create new ideas. Bentham was the first to establish the utilitarian
school of thought. Maxey said, “Here was a doctrine to rock the foundations of all accredited
political theory. With ruthless logic he brushed aside the ancient varieties of both radical and
conservative thought; had erased all distinction in principle between free and despotic politics:
had put it down that divine, feudal right, historical right, natural right and constitutional right
equally and like were rubbish and nonsense. There was no right to rule and no right to be free,
there was only the fact of power and the circumstances which made that power a fact.”
Influence of Utilitarianism:
Utilitarianism, a British gift to political philosophy, represented a British reaction against the
value generalities about mutual rights and social contract and the mystic idealism of the German
political thinkers. It brought political theory back from the abstractions of the Age of Reform to
the level of concrete realities. The utilitarian philosophers particularly Bentham and Austin
rendered valuable service to political thought. They were the thinkers who viewed society not
from the ivory tower of isolation but from close participation. They were not idealistic, they were
not utopian, they were not visionary and their philosophy was not transcendental. They built a
new theory of government according to which government was based not on contract but on the
habit of obedience of utility.
Achievements of Bentham:
Bentham was a true practical reformer and a great smasher of political evils in his age. He took
keen interest in the political life of his country. Bentham and his followers are mainly
responsible for the parliamentary reforms in England during the nineteenth century like the
Municipal Reform Act of 1835. The following reforms are also due to Bentham’s suggestion:
1. Reform of law and legal procedure
2. University education became universal
3. Establishment of trade union
Page 40 of 108
His theory of law established the point of view of analytic jurisprudence, which was almost the
only system of the subject generally known to English and American lawyers throughout the
nineteenth century.
Bentham contributed, sometimes on the request, sometimes as volunteer to the revision of the
legal codes of many countries. In 1811 he made a formal proposal to President Madison to draw
up a scientific code of law for the USA. Later he made a similar offer to the Czar of Russia and
to the Governor of Pennsylvania, and in 1822 he appealed to “all nations professing opinions.”
His confidence in his ability to create a system of laws guaranteed to promote the greatest good
of greatest number was unbounded.
Bentham’s writings became popular in many countries. His doctrines were very popular in
Spain, Russia, and Iberian Peninsula and in several parts of South America. His ideas were used
by the leaders of the national movements that defeated the Holy Alliance and created new
nations on the ruins of the Spanish and Turkish Empires. Such was the tremendous influence
which Bentham exercised in the History of Political Thought.
Bentham’s Views on Rights and Duties

Bentham discarded natural rights to the individuals. But he did not kill the concept of natural
rights. Bentham totally denied the existence of natural law, holding that law is the expression of
the sovereign will in the shape of a command. This sovereign was absolute and omnipotent
against which individuals possessed no natural rights nor did they have any legal right to show
resistance against it.
Bentham was a passionate champion for the existence of freedom and equality but he would not
base them natural law. He supported for the existence of an authority for the purpose to enforce
rights by imposing penalties in case of violation. Neither law of nature or natural rights could
impose limitations on the unlimited absolute powers of sovereign authority. The only
conceivable imposition to the authority could possibly be made by effective resistance by the
determined subjects.
It is queer to note that, though Bentham denied natural rights, yet he could not disregard the right
of private property. He advocated it for its preservation on the basis of general utility. The
happiness of the individual depended upon security, subsistence, abundance and equality.
Security includes liberty, safety and property of the individual. Thus the legal reformer
recognizes the right of property. He prefers security to liberty.
Kinds of Rights:
Page 41 of 108
1. Legal Rights:
A vivid and intelligible expression means a faculty of action sanctioned by the will of a supreme
law-maker in a political society.
2. Moral Rights:
It means vivid and intelligible expression than the other. Its sanction is the opinion or feeling of a
group of persons who cannot be precisely identified, but who nevertheless are able to make their
collective or over age will unmistakably manifest.
3. Natural Rights:
It is a term commonly used without any definite meaning or any form of usefulness. Nature is a
vague and indefinite entity. It may indeed be used as synonymous with God. In any other sense it
denotes something that cannot be thought as endowed with will, and is incapable of making law.
“Natural Rights” is a phrase that can contribute only confusion in a national system of political
science.
Kinds of Duties:
According to Bentham, duties of following kinds:
1. Political Duty:
It is determined by the penalty which a definitely known person i.e., a political superior will
inflict for the violation of certain rights.
2. Religious Duty:
It is determined by the punishment to be inflicted by a definitely known being i-e the Creator.
3. Moral Duty:
It depends upon circumstances hardly certain and definite enough to be called punishment, yet
such as to create an unpleasant state of mind in the person concerned, by putting in disagreeable
relations with that infinite body of individuals known as the community in general.
Bentham denied natural rights and natural law, yet he carried both these things in his political
philosophy. Sabine said, “The liberal elements in Bentham’s Philosophy resided largely in its
tacit premises. When he observed that one man is worth just the same as another man or that in
calculating the greatest happiness, each person is ‘to count for one and no one more than one,’ he
was obviously borrowing the principle of equality from natural law.”
Page 42 of 108
Bentham’s Views on Sovereignty and Government
Bentham empowered the sovereign with unlimited powers to legislate all and everything. The
supreme government authority, though not infinite must unavoidably, be allowed to infinite
unless limited by express convention. The only possible restraint on the sovereign authority is his
own anticipation of popular resistance, based upon popular interests. Bentham firmly believed in
the written constitutions as guarantees of rational governments, but he was against any bill of
rights, limitations upon the powers to amend the constitution and all other devices for restraining
the supreme authority and regarded them unsound in theory and worthless in practice. He said
that rights emanated from the supreme authority of the state, i-e, the sovereign. The sovereign
was not bound to respect any individual rights. A government was liberal and despotic according
to the arrangement of distribution and application of supreme power.
Rights of Resistance:
Bentham thought that a subject had no legal right to show resistance or revolt against sovereign.
Their legal duty is unconditioned obedience to the sovereign. But a subject has a moral right and
a moral duty to resist his sovereign if the utility of resistance were greater than the evil of
resistance. The exercise of his unlimited powers by the sovereign would depend on
considerations of utility.
Government:
Bentham believed that in the long run a representative democracy was a more suitable form of
government than any other to secure the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The main
thing is that the government should be an agency of good, i-e, of happiness and not of evil. The
extension, duration and intensity of government power should be properly restricted and de-
limited with a view to secure the maximum of happiness and pleasures.
Bentham seems reluctant to agree with Blackstone’s characterization of the British constitution
as perfect, and suggested some amendments to it. He was for the promulgation of universal
manhood suffrage, annual parliaments and voting by ballot. He disliked oth the monarchy and
the House of Lords in Britain. A republican government was best because it ensured efficiency,
economy and supremacy of the people and brought about the greatest good of the greatest
number on the basis of the identity of interests between the ruler and the ruled. Democratic
constitution is presented by him.
Theory of Punishment:
Page 43 of 108
Bentham held that punishment should be preventive and corrective rather than coercive and
retaliatory. It should be calculated to prevent the spread of evil and to secure the extension of
good. Punishment must not be inflicted where it was ineffective, groundless, needless or
unprofitable. It should be obviously justifiable and proportionate to the offence committed but it
must be sufficient to secure its ends. It ought to be able to prevent the offender from repeating
the offence. It should be individualized, qualitatively and quantitatively, to suit the individual
offender. The basic principles of punishment are:
1. Equable
2. Exemplary
3. Frugal of Pain
4. Remissible
5. Compensatory
6. Reformatory
7. Popular
8. Certain and not severe
According to Bentham, the only valid test of the adequacy of a punishment was its ability to
secure public welfare. He believed that the English criminal law was inhuman. He was in favor
of the reform of the criminal and the prisons and suggested the building of his moral Panopticon,
a wheel-shaped building for the housing and proper observation of the criminals. He had a great
faith in education as he wanted to bring about adult franchise, a responsible executive, universal
education and a representative parliament.
__________________
Page 44 of 108
Western Political Thought---John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill
“If the caliber of writers is to be judged by their effect on policy, Mill must rank high. As
logician, economist and political philosopher he was regarded as a prophet in his own age.”
(John Bowle)
Introduction:
John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in London. He was the eldest son of his father James
Mill who was the disciple of Bentham. J. S. Mill started the learning of Greek language at the
age of three and then Latin at the age of eight. As a young boy of twelve, he had studied the
philosophy of some of the great philosophers, such as Plato, Herodotus, Homer, Aristotle and
Thucydides. He also learned French language and acquired a great fluency.
Mill was trained by his father and by John Austin. He was greatly influenced by Bentham’s
utilitarian philosophy and his programmes for reformation. But with the passage pf time, many
of the evils against which the early utilitarian had been working hard, had ceased to exist and
Benthamism began yielding before other philosophic systems. The biological speculations of
Darwin and Spencer and the sociological researches of Auguste Comte stirred the passionate
seekers of learning and knowledge with the initiation of new currents of thought and Mill was
also influenced by them. He modified Bentham from ethical, sociological, psychological,
economic and political points of views.
The year of 1856 was a year of tribulations and chaos on account of Indian freedom fighters and
formidable aggressions of foreign masters. History of India was written with Indian blood and in
this crucial period of life and death, Mill served the East India Company as an Examiner of
Indian Correspondence. In 1858 he retired. Then he became the radical member of the
Parliament and remained almost in the limbo of oblivion. Mill died on 8th May, 1873 at
Avignon.
He wrote following books:
1. A system of Logic
2. Some unsettled questions in Political Economy
3. Essay on Liberty
Page 45 of 108
4. Consideration on Re-tentative Government
5. Utilitarianism
6. Thoughts on Parliamentary reforms
7. Subjection of Women
8. Principles of Political Economy
9. On the improvement of Administration of India during the last 30 Years (1858)
Importance of J. S. Mill in the History of Political Thought

J. S. Mill sought after vivid ideas with the ardency of a mystic, the patience and arduous industry
of a man of science. He encountered opponents with magnanimity and generosity. In praise of
his immortal ideas which will ever echo in the corridors of time, it has been said, “No calculus
can integrate the innumerable pulses of knowledge and of thought that he had made to vibrate in
the minds of generation.”
Mill was the great prophet of sane Individualism or Liberalism. He insisted upon the importance
of human progress in its richest variety. He was one of the stoutest champions of individual
liberty. When we turn the pages of antiquity, Plato distinctively appears to be the first feminist,
passionately advocating the cause of women to take part in the functions of the government. J. S.
Mill too was a great feminist and he practically pleaded their causes in the parliament. He firmly
believed for equality of women for the benefit and uplift of the state. Mill’s impact of Feminism
obviously appeared in the early 20th century when the Feminist Movement fought for women
freedom for participating in the functions of the state.
Mill was one of the foremost individualists of all times. He ranked with Rousseau, Jefferson and
Milton as an ardent crusader of individual liberty. He humanized utilitarian philosophy. He was a
staunch enemy of despotism and monocracy and a great supporter of democracy. He combined
political liberalism with economic socialism and approval of a common ownership in the raw
materials of the globe and an equal participation of all in the benefits of the combined labor.
Mill’s political philosophy contains following important facts:
1. His theory of liberty was his most important contribution to the history of political
philosophy.
2. He favored democracy as the best form of government as a result of adult franchise.
3. He supported universal suffrage granting the right of voting to women also, with a system
Page 46 of 108
of proportional system.
4. He opposed the secret ballot because it led to favoritism and corruption and vigorously
proposed for open ballot system.
5. He recommended a second chamber. He believed that the final legislative authority

should rest with the House of Commons, but at the same time he assigned the task of drafting
bills, before they come to the parliament for consideration to the House of Lords.
6. Mill’s method was analytic. He believed that study of history combined with a
knowledge of human nature and a careful analysis of political phenomenon would result in a
gauging of tendencies of great value to legislators and statesmen.
7. Bentham thought of quantitative pleasures. Mill believed in qualitative pleasures. He

drew a distinction between several kinds of pleasures, considering some as higher while others as
lower.
Prof. Sabine said, “Mill’s ethics was important for liberalism because in effect it abandoned
egoism, assumed that social welfare is a matter of concern to all men of goodwill, and regarded
freedom, integrity, self-respect and personal distinction as intrinsic goods apart from their
contribution to happiness.”
Mill’s Views on Individual Liberty

J. S. Mill is universally regarded as a passionate advocate of liberty. He vigorously whispered for
imparting great importance to individual liberty and emphasized that governmental interference
in individual activity should e reduced to the minimum. In the middle of the 19th century, due to
the utilitarian reforms, the scope of administrative activities increased. Parliament became the
supreme and unchallenged law-making authority, who enacted such laws which vividly
obstructed individual liberty. With the imposition of increasing state regulations, human
activities were suffocated and he firmly believed that liberty was a prime factor for the
development of the society. At that time, policy of Laissez fair was being abandoned in favor of
greater regulations by the state. The people became politically conscious and demanded
universal suffrage.
When Mill wrote, utilitarian liberalism was generally accepted in England. The democratic
efforts made by the earlier utilitarian had been largely successful and political power had been
extended to a considerable proportion of the population. A large number of old evils and
inequalities had been removed. In this process some of the dangers of democracy became visible,
and the tendency toward state centralization led political theory to the scope of state activities
and to the liberty of the individual. The leader in the intellectual life of the period was J. S. Mill.
Mill’s essay on liberty which equals in eminence to Milton’s Aeropagitica was a strong advocacy
Page 47 of 108
for the freedom of thought and expression with Miltonian favor against legislative interference as
well as against the pressure of the public opinion. He recognized the necessity to the mental
well-being of mankind of freedom of opinion and freedom of expression of opinion. The
limitations of the power of government over individuals lose none of its importance when the
holders of power are regularly accountable to the community. In political speculations the
tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils against which society requires
to be on its guard.
Mill apprehended that the growth of democracy and the increasing legislative powers of the state
tended to reduce individuals to a common type and to swamp them in the tyranny of
collectivism. He believed that social progress could not be achieved if each and every individual
is imparted with fuller opportunity for free development of his personality. Mill favored freedom
of thought, speech and action. He believed in toleration of opinions and unhampered freedom of
discussion. He had confidence that truth would definitely survive in the struggle of ideas.
Freedom of the Individual:

Originality in conduct and thought and individuality are essentially basic features efforting
towards social welfare. When individuality is quelled by the law of a monarch or an aristocrat,
the evil of it may be counteracted by the custom of the masses, but when the masses make the
law of repression, custom unites with legislation to confirm the evil. Individual development
enriches the world by a variety of characters. But he imposes two limitations on this liberty:
1. The individual was not at liberty to do any harm to his fellow beings.
2. He must share labors and sacrifices to secure the society or individuals against harm.
Mill pleads for certain freedoms for the individual without which he cannot develop his
personality properly. These are:
a. Freedom of conscience
b. Liberty of thought and of its expression in speech and writing
c. Liberty of pursuits and tastes
d. Liberty of association
e. Liberty to adopt his own profession in life
f. Liberty of religion and morals
Mill laid great stress on liberty of thought and expression. Mill’s theory of liberty of the
individual is based upon three essential elements:
Page 48 of 108
1. A strong plea for the importance of impulse and desire in the individual and letting the
individual follow his own impulses in actions which concern him alone.
2. Insistence on the view that spontaneity and individuality are essential elements in
individual and social welfare.
3. Revolt against the tyranny of custom, tradition or public opinion which might hinder the
expression and development of individuality.
Important points of Mill’s Individual Liberty:

1. Mill advocated that individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He must be left free
in all actions that concern himself alone. And society has no right to impose any restraint over
the individual because restraints as such in an evil and retards the progress of the individuals.
2. Mill assumed that the activities of every individual are either self-regarding or other-
regarding. In the sphere of self-regarding activities may be included matters which affect the
agent only, having no concern with others e.g. gambling, drinking etc.
3. Mill believed in the individualistic or atomistic conception of society. He says that

individual is not responsible to society for his actions in so far as they concern the interest of
himself and do no affect others.
4. Mill vigorously advocated for absolute and unfettered freedom of thought and expression.
5. The freedom of action and association was to be limited by the condition that none
should jeopardize other’s rights and freedom.
Criticism:
Mill was bitterly criticized because of his certain inconsistencies on the doctrine of liberty at the
hands of Earnest Barker who said, “Mill was the prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract
individual.”
Mill’s theory was criticized on the following ground:
1. Mill assumed that the individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He should be left
free to act as he wished and society cannot impose any limitation on his freedom. The soundness
of this statement may be doubted. The sovereignty of individual over himself is not a self-evident
proposition. As Mill himself admits, “there can be circumstances under which it may become
legitimate for others to intervene in a purely personal matter, e.g, when one is about to commit
suicide, surely no one will call it an attack upon one’s liberty.”
2. The bifurcation of human actions into two-self regarding and other regarding as made by
Page 49 of 108
Mill is quite impracticable. No individual is an island in himself. There is very little that one can
do which does not affect other person. It is but natural and each action of individual will
definitely affect the others. Therefore it is difficult to set apart a sphere of conduct which should
be regarded exclusively the affair of the individual concerned.
__________________
Page 50 of 108
Western Political Thought---Karl Marx

Karl Marx
“With Marx, socialism became international or cosmopolitan n scope in contrast to the

association or national industrialism of his predecessors.” (R. G. Gettell)
Introduction:
Karl Marx born in a prosperous family became a victim of misfortunes, a prey of perpetual
crushing poverty and a painfully sensitive to see the incredible sufferings of humanity because of
economic inequality, social disparity, incalculable violence and mal-treatment towards laborers
at the hands of feudal lords and industrialists. He was born at Treves in Prussia on 5th May,
1818. His aristocratic Jewish parents embraced Christianity when Karl Marx was only a child. At
the age of 17, he became a law student at Bonn University. In 1826, he left for the University of
Berlin. In 1843, he married Jenny, a member of petty nobility who remained a faithful
counterpart throughout his life.
In 1841, Karl Marx got his degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Jena on the tropic
of “The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of Democratus and Epicurus.” He mixed
with the revolutionaries and his radical thinking made him suspicious which created obstacle in
the security of employment as a university teacher. Then he entered into the field of journalism.
Karl Marx studied Hegel very thoroughly and noted basic fallacies in his idealistic philosophy.
In early 1845, Karl Marx left Paris for Brussels. But before he left France, he got an ever-lasting
friendship with Friedrich Engel which brought many changes in his life. Marx-Engel
collaboration was one of the history’s most unique prominent and enduring collaboration.
Friedrich Engel became the friend, disciple and passionate seeker of knowledge and a warm
partner. In the summer of 1845, Friedrich took Karl Marx to England and there he was
introduced to the founders of the “German Workers Educational Union” that had recently started
in London. After remaining for sometime in London, he again came back to Brussels. Marx had
to flee from one country to another on account of his conspiratorial activities. Then he steeled
down in London till his death.
“England has often been called the mother of Exiles”, but for Karl Marx, it became the dwelling
place of miseries and misfortunes. He experienced great distress and poverty along with his big
family. In spite of lot of misfortunes and hardships, Karl Marx made endeavors relentlessly to
unchain the working classes from the bondage of capitalism. Karl Marx worked round the clock
in the British Museum for developing the economic theories of capital. Karl Marx wrote many
pamphlets defending himself and severely criticizing his opponents. He died as a wounded soul
Page 51 of 108
on March 14, 1883. He led a life of full of pangs and despondency and faced the hardships of
worldly agency with determination, courage and perseverance. In a speech over his grave in
High ate Cemetery, Friedrich Engel declared that “his name and works will live on through the
centuries.”
Karl Marx was a great writer and will ever live on the pages of existence. He wrote the following
master works:
1. Communist Manifesto immortalized Karl Marx. He wrote this with the assistance and
help of his faithful friend Friedrich Engel. This is considered the Bible of the Communism all
over the world.
2. Das Kapital is considered as the foundation stone of communism.
3. Poverty of Philosophy
4. A Contribution to the critique of Political Economy
5. The Holy Family
6. Revolution and Counter Revolution
Political Philosophy of Karl Marx

Karl Marx is rightly called the Father of Modern Communism. The theory of communism owes
its birth to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. According to the theory of communism, the only
practical thing was to acquire mastery over the governing laws of society. Apart from this, Karl
Marx and Engel wanted to know the causes of economic changes in human society. They also
wanted to explore what further changes are required. They concluded that the changes in human
society were not the least accidental like changes in external nature. They worked out a scientific
theory of society based on the actual experience of men. Karl Marx applied this theory to the
society in which he lived mainly Capitalist Britain. He was of the opinion that it was quite
impossible to separate his economic theories from historical and social theories. Marx attacked
the existing capitalist institutions. He did not believe in the essential goodness of man. He
conceived of a man more as an economic as a political animal.
Karl Marx borrowed from Hegel the apparatus of Dialectics but substituted matter of Hegelian
idea. He built his concept of dialectic materialism by interpreting Hegel’s World Spirit as an
economic force. Karl Marx held the view that the meaning of history lay in the interpretation of
material world. Karl Marx is correctly divisible into three portions:
1. A purely philosophical section on dialectics
2. Pure economics
Page 52 of 108
3. Historical materialism
Hegel’s influence over Karl Marx:

Karl Marx remains incomplete without the study of Hegel. It is true that Karl Marx rejected the
substance of Hegel’s political philosophy and it is a stark reality in history that Karl Marx
adopted the dialectical method developed by Hegel, as the basis for his historical materialism.
Hegel was of the view that history gained its meaning from the interaction of ideas. There was a
perennial struggle of ideas for dominance over one another. Out of this struggle of ideas, new
ideas emerged and these new ideas corresponded more closely to the ultimate perfection of God
himself.
Every idea according to Hegel, is incomplete with inherent contradiction. The incompleteness or
inherent contradictions is every idea led naturally to its opposite, which may be called anti-thesis.
From the struggle between the two, i.e. ‘thesis’ and ‘anti-thesis’ there emerged the truth
embraced by both which may be called “synthesis”. This ‘synthesis’ becomes a new thesis and
again there came an ‘anti-thesis’ and again emerged a ‘synthesis, and the process repeated itself
in an unending chain. Karl Marx opined that history unfolded according to a dialectical plan.
Here he fully agrees with Hegel. But he was of the view that ideas were not the controlling
factors. Ideas do not control the reality. These are the outcome of material conditions.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel developed communism as an ardent opposing force to capitalism.
Appalling degradation of man in society and crushing poetry were the real basis for the
communist protest. The degradation was accompanied by uncontrolled industrialization in the
middle of the nineteenth century. The whole Europe was engulfed in moral turpitude,
degeneration and oppression which fully justified the advent of communist’s bitterness and scorn
against the capitalistic structure of society. This caused great frustration among the masses and
consequently they became inquisitive to bring about social justice.
Karl Marx was a social scientist. As a social scientist, he made efforts to look at this injustice
quite impersonally. But these consequences according to Karl Marx were essentially involved for
the accumulation of capital. Karl Marx viewed that in each and every society industry, “the
wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal to
about half of this value or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during his
working day is taken outright by his employer.”
“The truce and the false together in Karl Marx constitute one of the most tremendously
compelling forces that modern history has seen. For the power of his message and for his
influence upon the future movement of the communism, Karl Marx can be sure of his place
amongst great masters of political thought.” (Wayper)
Proletarian Dictatorship
Page 53 of 108
The Proletariat class comprises of the workers, laborers or wage-earners would naturally be in
the vast majority in every society. Karl Marx was of the view that it is then quite natural that the
dictatorship of the proletariat would be a democracy of the majority. The “Communist
Manifesto” also says “The first step in the working class revolution is the raising of the
proletariat to the position of the ruling class, the victory of democracy. The proletarian
movement is the conscious movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense
majority.” Karl Marx believed in the inevitability of this class struggle and the ultimate victory
of the proletariat after a successful bloody revolution, he did not like to leave this development to
the forces of economic evolution. He wanted that this revolution should be precipitated through
organization and energetic sophisticated action on the part of workers. All the confronted titanic
forces should be crushed by the laborers.
The Marxian ideal was to bring about proletarian dictatorship through violent means and not
through peaceful evolution, resulting in the political and economic domination by the
proletarians. The proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie class in the state is directed
towards the achievement of two ends:
1. Firstly, this proletarian revolution has to destroy the capitalist structure of society. In
destroying the capitalist stat it is very essential for the proletarian revolution to destroy all the
social, political, legal and other such institutions of the capitalist state.
2. Secondly, the proletarian revolution has to replace all the social, political, legal and other
institutions with new institutions. These new institutions should be such as it suits the needs of
the proletarian class.
Karl Marx said, “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary
transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition
period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of proletariat.” Lenin
was the true follower of Karl Marx. He was of the view that Communism is to be achieved in
two stages. The first stage of Communism follows immediately after the seizure of power by the
proletarian. In this stage of communism, society would not be a free society. This stage of
communism contains the blend of vestiges of old and bourgeoisie order. In the old capitalist
state, the capitalist employer and exploiter used to suppress the minority and in the new stage of
Communism or in the proletariat dictatorship it would be proletariat class which would suppress
the minority or the capitalist. The Communist state differs from the capitalist state in two ways:
a) In it the majority i.e. the workers will expropriate the majority.
b) The revolutionary proletariat will abolish all classes and then disappear as a class.
The proletarian dictatorship in the transitional period is not a fluctuating period of “Super
Page 54 of 108
Revolutionary” deeds and decrease. On the contrary, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be
regarded as an entire historical epoch full of external conflicts and civil wars. In the dictatorship
of proletariat there is a constant organizational work along with economic progress. In the
dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat will be given full opportunity to educate itself.
Lenin said, “Under the dictatorship of the proletariat we will have to re-educate million of
peasants and petty proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office workers and bourgeoisie
intellectuals to subordinate all these to proletarian state and to proletarian leadership, to
overcome their bourgeoisie habits and traditions, to re-educate in a protracted struggle under the
controlling auspices of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarians themselves, for they
will not be able themselves of own petty bourgeoisie prejudices at the first stroke as if by magic,
or at the behest of the Virgin Mary, or by a slogan, resolution or decree it can be done only in the
course of a long and difficult mass struggle against the mass of petty bourgeoisie influence.”
The Communist holds that the proletarian dictatorship means the despotic rule of the Communist
minority. It will be a victory of democracy and not a despotism of a minority. The proletariat
class in power will not maintain the affairs of the state with repression and violence. Laski was
of the view that the dictatorship of the proletariat means, not the anti-thesis of democracy, but the
anti-thesis of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It will be exercised through elected bodies and
subject to public opinion. Lenin also remarks in this regard, “Revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat is power won and maintained by the violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie
power that is unrestrained by any law.”
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end, but a means to an end the creation of society in
which the basic principle of life and social organization would be, “from each according to his
capacity, to each according to his needs.” The dictatorship of the proletariat is transitory in
nature. After the establishment of the society, dictatorship of the proletariat will not remain. The
state will wither away. All functions of the state will administer themselves and administration
will be a matter of technical and scientific knowledge instead of exercise of political will and
authority. There will be an ideal society of the free and the equal without any internal disruption
and mutual dissension.
Karl Marx and Capitalism
Karl Marx devoted a great part of his life to the study of capitalism I order to describe the
capitalist method of production of his own age and for all ages to come. By studying capitalism,
Karl Marx wanted to know the guiding principle of its change. Karl Marx studied the capitalism
with missionary spirit to make a scientific forecast on its development. The salient feature of the
feudal production was production for local consumption. In the age of feudalism, persons used to
produce for themselves and for their feudal lords. In those days, production was meant for
Page 55 of 108
consumption. Gradually feudal units of production began to break up. Profit became the only aim
of production in the modern world. Production for profit required two things, capitalists’ means
of production, and the laborers whose only chance of getting a livelihood was to sell his labor.
In this new system of production, there was a complete change. Now the laborers produced
things not for their personal use. On the contrary the production was meant for the capitalist to
sell for money. In this new system of production, things were produced not for consumption but
for sale in the market. Laborer received his wages for his capitalist employer for his work and the
capitalist employer received profit. Karl Marx is of the view that profit arises in the course of
production. Sale of products does not produce profit.
According to Karl Marx, the exchange value of product depends upon the Labor Time spent in
its production. A product has a great exchange value if more human labor has been put into its
production. Labor time spent in producing labor power means the time spent in producing the
food, shelter, clothes and other such things which are essential for the laborer maintenance.
Nowadays a laborer is able to produce in a day more than is necessary to his survival but he is
paid by his employer a wage commensurate with a subsistence level of existence. The difference
is called surplus value. In the modern capitalist society this surplus value is appreciated by the
capitalist employer.
Karl Marx is of the view that capitalists are permanent profit makers because they appropriate
surplus value. It is very true that there is always a difference between the exchange value of a
product produced by laborer and the value of labor power. In simple terms this difference may be
called surplus value. Karl Marx opined that under capitalist structure of production in each and
every factory and industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value
they produce, but only equal about half this value or even less. The rest of the value produced by
the worker during his working days is taken outright by his employer.”
In the capitalist system of production, the capitalist always become greedy and ambitious to
increase the amount of surplus value which means more profit for him. Lust for profit is the
prime factor in the capitalist system of production. The capitalist make more profit only by
exploiting the laborer. According to Karl Marx exploitation of the laborer is another salient
feature of capitalism. This exploitation results in class struggle. Class struggle is perennial and
perpetual in the capitalism. The worker is fighting for the existence of his life and he wanted to
avoid intimidation and ultimately class struggle starts. The laborer demands higher wages and
shorter hours of work for improving his position. On the other hand, the capitalist wants to make
more profits and hence there is a constant clash and struggle between the capitalist and the
laborer, which can never come to an end so long as the capitalist system of production lasts.
Karl Marx is of the view that property in any form is not capital, unless it is used to produce
surplus value. The early accumulation of capital was very largely open robbery. But there was
another way also through which capital came into existence. According to Karl Marx the
Page 56 of 108
primitive accumulation is the real origin of capital. He ridicules the legend of men, moderate in
food and drink who served from their meager living. Karl Marx said, “This primitive
accumulation plays in political economy about the same part as original sin played in theology.
Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell upon the human race. In times long gone by there
were town sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent and above all frugal elite: the other lazy
rascals, spending their substance, and more in riotous living. Thus it came to pass that the former
sort accumulated wealth and the latter sort had a t last nothing to sell except their own skin. And
from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labor, has up to
now nothing to sell but itself and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they
have long ceased to work.”
With the victory of the proletariat, the class struggle puts an end to this process by ending
capitalist system of production. Apart from class-struggle, there are other obstructions to the
smooth development of capitalism. In other words we may say that these obstacles as a matter of
fact are inherent in the capitalism. The most important among these obstacles, is the economic
crisis. This crisis creates a great obstacle to the smooth course of capitalist development.
Whenever economic crisis occur, it checks the expansion of capital. Economic crisis do not
check the expansion of capital, but often led to the destruction of the capital accumulated in past
years. Karl Marx said, “In these crisis there broke out an epidemic that, is all earlier epochs,
would have become an absolutely the epidemic of over-production.”
__________________
Page 57 of 108
Theory of State
“The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the
bourgeoisie as a whole.” (Karl Marx)
State is thought of as parliament or some representative institution. Karl Marx concluded that the
development of the state had nothing to do with any form of representative institutions. But he
was of the view that state is a machine through which the ruling class imposes its will on the
majority. According to Karl Marx, state is not meant for the promotion of the welfare of its
people nor bestows any right of political obligation and obedience but its coercion and that a
class coercion. The state acts as an agency of class coercion in the hands of dominant economic
class rather than an association of citizens is the pursuits of a common purpose.
According to the Communist theory, the state is nothing but a tool of the dominant class in
society. Economic is the domineering factor which becomes the base of all structures of the
society. According to Aristotle the state came into birth for the sake of life and state continues to
exist for the sake of good life. According to classical view, state is an institution meant for the
proper development of the personality of its each and every citizen. Laski said, “State strives to
hold a just balance between the different elements in society. It strives by its policy to effect such
an adjustment of the relationship between citizens and will enable each of them to realize, if he
so desires, the fullest implications of human personality.”
Karl Marx vividly differs from the classical views regarding state. He says the state has never
and can never aim at the common good of the community as a whole. According to Communist
Manifesto, the state is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx said, “State is
nothing more than the form of organization which the bourgeoisie necessarily adopt both for
internal and external purpose for the mutual guarantee of their property and interest.”
According to Karl Marx, there was no state in primitive society and as soon as human society
was formed it bifurcated into two classes. It became very essential for the privileged class to
have an armed force for the purpose to maintain the privileges of the privileged class and
secondly to protect the interests of the privileged class. Friedrich Engel said, “This public force
exists in every state, it consists not merely of armed men, but of material appendages, prisons
and repressive institutions of all kind.” Naturally, the ruling class having the apparatus of force
and absolute rod of authority will always coerce upon the other classes of society. Fear and
intimidation of the ruling class constrained the people to subdue for complete obedience and
hence the Marxian state aims at crushing the independent will of its subjects. Communists hold
the views from the record of history that the state exists only to help the capitalist in exploiting
and suppressing the laborers.
Page 58 of 108
Karl Marx viewed state as a product of class antagonism. Lenin said, “Where, when and to what
extent, the state arises depends directly on which where and to what extent, the class antagonism
of a given society cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely the existence of the state
proves that class antagonisms are irreconcilable.” Karl Marx was of the view that the state will
be able to wither away completely when society has realized the value, “From each according to
his ability: to each according to his needs.” Then there would be no problem of production and
its distribution. There would be no question of mine and thine. Every one will work voluntarily
according to his ability and capacity and will get share according to his needs and requirements.
Classless Society:
Karl Marx was of the opinion that class struggle is perpetual and constant between man and man
and consequently man always fought for his own existence. It ends only if the final and ultimate
victory of the labor is achieved. This is a known factor that in the capitalist structure of society,
but not over the means of production and its direction was vested in the hands of the capitalist.
Proletariats in that society are neglected people always living at the sweet mercy of capitalist.
When violent bloody revolution in the name of communism bring about complete and ultimate
victory to the proletarian revolutionaries, and the complete annihilation of the aristocratic and
capitalist class in the society ushers a new epoch of social equality and economic parity. With the
advent of proletarianism, a new system of legal, economic, political and production world
emerges out. In this new system, all the functions of the government and the means as well as
technique of production were to be controlled by the society.
Friedrich Engel said, “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely
transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians it creates the power which under
penalty of its own destruction is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more
and more the transformation of the vast means of production already socialized into state
property. It shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political
power and turns the means of production into state property.” All the class distinction in society
would disappear, and with the disappearance of the class distinctions in society, the class
struggle would also come to an end. The proletariat would use their power to eliminate private
ownership of means of production. As soon as private ownership of means of production is
eliminated, all class distinction would automatically vanish and society would become a stateless
and classless society.
Criticism:
1. Karl Marx’s theory of state stands against the classical theory of state. According to
classical view, the main reason for the existence of the state is the promotion of the good of the
community. On the contrary, Karl Marx’s state is a machine by which one class exploits and
suppresses the other.
Page 59 of 108
2. Karl Marx’s views do no explain the exact nature of the state. It gives a wrong
conception. He says that the ruling class is the representative of an economic class and the ruling
class is always interested in pursuing its own interests. This is incorrect view of Karl Marx. The
example of medieval kings and emperors stand against the theory of Karl Marx as they were not
the representative of an economic class and consciously pursuing the interests of their own class.
On the contrary, the ancient and medieval kings were the representatives of the whole society.
3. Karl Marx’s theory of stat is quite applicable to the first half of the nineteenth century,
but for twentieth century it is quite inapplicable. In the first half of the nineteenth century,
Laissez-faire policy was predominant but today its forces are no longer reliable. Now we live in
an era of democratic socialist planning. Nowadays state is meant for the promotion of the
common good. Thus it can be said that Karl Marx’s theory of state is not at all applicable to the
states of modern times.
4. The conception of Karl Marx that victory of proletariats over the capitalists would result
in the disappearance of class distinction is absolutely incorrect and untrue for glaring reasons that
he had created class distinction i.e. bourgeoisie and proletariat, two great hostile camps and two
prominent classes constantly indulging in class struggle and warfare which culminated into
oppression and chaos.
__________________
Page 60 of 108
Muslim Political Thought---Al-Farabi
Al-Farabi
Introduction:
Abu Nasr Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Tarkhan al-Farabi was born at Wasij, a village near
Farab, a district of Transoxania. He was one of the greatest philosophers that the Muslim world
had ever produced. He mainly studied in Baghdad and after gaining considerable proficiency in
the Arabic language, he became an ardent pupil of the Christian savant Abu Bishr Matta bin
Younus, quite prominent as translator of a number of works by Aristotle and other Greek
versatile writers.
Being a first Turkish philosopher, he left behind lasting and profound influence upon the life of
succeeding Muslim Philosophers. Being a great expositor of Aristotle’s logic, he was aptly called
al-mu’alim al thani (the second teacher). According to Ibn-e-Khaldoon, no Muslim thinker ever
reached the same position as al-Farabi in Philosophical knowledge. Al-Farabi is the first Muslim
philosopher to have left political writings, either in the form of commentaries or in treaties of his
own based upon Plato.
Al-Farabi’s works was preserved from ravages of time contain five on politics as under:
1. A Summary of Plato’s Laws
2. Siyasatu’l-Madaniyah
3. Ara’u ahli’l-Madinatu’l-Fadilah
4. Jawami’u’s-Siyasat
5. Ijtima’atu’l-Madaniyah
Contribution of Al-Farabi to
Islamic Political Thought
“In pure philosophy, Farabi became as famous as any philosopher of Islam, and it is said
that a savant of caliber of Avicenna found himself entirely incapable of understanding the
true bearing of Aristotle’s Metaphysics until one day he casually purchased one of Farabi’s
works and by its help he was able to grasp their purport.” (Sherwani)
Al-Farabi was a renowned philosopher of his age and deeply reverenced in all ages. Al-Farabi’s
insatiated enthusiasm led him to study Philosophy, Logic, Politics, Mathematics and Physics. He
left his indelible impact upon the succeeding generations through his works, which are still read,
learnt and discussed with great passion and literal zest. His sincerity, profound moral convictions
and his genuine belief in liberty and in the dignity of human being united with his moderation
and humanitarianism made him the ideal spokesman of his age, which was full of rivalries,
corrosions and false vanities.
Sherwani was of the view, “A man with such learning had no place in the ninth-century
Baghdad and as we have pointed out, we find him regularly attached to Saif-ud-Dowlah’s
court. In 946 Saif took Damascus and Al-Farabi became permanent resident of that
Page 61 of 108
delightful place, spending his time in the gardens of the erstwhile Umayyad capital
discussing philosophical questions with his friends and writing down his opinions and
compositions sometimes in a regular form, sometimes in an irregular form, sometimes, on
merely loose leaves.” Al-Farabi renunciated from the worldly matters and he never pursued the
pleasures and luxuries like other middle class Abbasids. He led exemplary simple life with full
contentment with what he got to eat and to wear.
It can be very well asserted that al-Farabi was in the truest sense “the parent of all subsequent
Arabic Philosophers”. The great Christian scholars namely Albert the Great and St. Thomas
Aquines acknowledged their indebtedness to al-Farabi in the development of their own political
theories. Al-Farabi laid down several rules for teachers honestly striving to train the young
students in philosophy. No scholar should start the study of philosophy until he gets very well
acquainted with natural sciences. Human nature rises only gradually from the sensuous to the
abstract, from the imperfect to the perfect. Mathematics in particular is very important in training
the mind of a young philosopher, it helps him pass from the sensuous to the intelligible and
further it informs his mind with exact demonstrations. Similarly, the study of logic as an
instrument to distinguish the true from the false should precede the study of philosophy proper.
Al-Farabi voluminously wrote mainly on pure philosophy and there is no doubt that he had to
draw on neo-Platonic ideas current in the Arab world of those days in his commentaries on
Aristotle, Porphyry and Ptolemy. Sherwani says that we might accept the proposition that he
was inspired by Plato, in this setting up of the Ideal City, but as there is a mass of new
material in his political writings not found in Plato and taken from local sources, it is a
matter of importance that such material should be analyzed and Farabi be given his
rightful place on the scene of political philosophy. Al-Farabi died at the ripe age of nearly
eighty years in 950. His name and works are everlasting and echoed in the corridors of time.
Page 62 of 108
Al-Farabi’s Ideal Head of State
Every Islamic state is ruled by the ruler, or as later European Political scientists would call him
the Sovereign. Plato after developing the matter of the government of his ideal city in his
Republic had made the omnipotent and omniscient philosopher sovereign who should have no
other interest but that of the affairs of state. Al-Farabi starts from the nature of the workers of
leadership and impresses his readers that what is wanted for the office is the power of making
proper deductions.
According to Al-Farabi, his Rais should be such superior man, who, by his very nature and
upbringing, does not submit before any power or instructions of others. He must have the
potentialities to convey his sense to others for complete submission. Rosenthal was of the view,
“He is the Imam, the first ruler over the ideal city-state, over the ideal nation and over the whole
inhabited earth. The philosopher-prophet, in the opinion of Al-Farabi, is alone qualified to help
man, a citizen to reach his true human destiny, where his moral and intellectual perfection permit
him to perceive God, under the guidance of the divinely revealed Shariat. Those ruled by the first
ruler are the excellent, best and happy citizens.”
Al-Farabi contemplatively points out the virtuous qualities of his ideal Head of State, who should
be competent to control the actions of all in the State and must be in possession of latest intellect
as well as the gained intellect. All such refined and high qualities including his political and
literal caliber make him an Ideal Sovereign for the overall interest of the society and the nation.
He enumerated tweleve attributes of an ideal Sovereign:
1. He must possess persuasion and imagination to attain perfection as well as a philosopher

skilled in the speculative science.
2. He must be physically sound with meticulous understanding.
3. He must have visualization of all that is said.
4. He must have a retentive and sharp memory.
5. He should discuss the matters with least possible arguments and must have authority to get the
work done.
6. He must have power to convey to others exactly according to his wish and he has profound
Page 63 of 108
love of learning and knowledge.
7. He must have perfect capacity for a comprehensive knowledge and prescription of the
theoretical and practical sciences and art, as well as for the virtues leading to good deeds.
8. He must shun off playfulness and control over anger and passions.
9. Al-Farabi’s ideal Rais must have love of truth, persuasion of justice and hatred of hypocrisy,
knavery and duplicity.
10. He must vie for utmost happiness to his subjects and he should do away with all forces of
tyranny and oppressions.
11. He must have power to distribute justice without any effort, fearless in doing things as he
thinks best to be done.
12. He must serve the people of his state from all internal and external dangers. He must be in
possession of considerable wealth, so that he should not prone to greed and lust.
Al-Farabi fully realizes that these fine qualities cannot be found in one single human being, so he
says that one without just five or six of these qualities would make a fairly good leader. If
however, even five or six of them are not found in a person, he would have one who has been
brought up under a leader with these qualities, and would thus seen to prefer some kind of
hereditary leadership, with the important condition that the heir should follow the footsteps of his
worthy predecessor. In case even such a person is not available, it is preferable to have a council
of two or even five members possessing an aggregate of these qualities provided at least one of
them is a Hakim, i-e one who is able to know the wants of the people and visualize the needs of
the state as a whole. This Hakim is to Farabi a desideratum of every kind of government, and if
such a one is not procurable then the State is bound to be shattered to atoms.
Page 64 of 108
Kinds of State
Al-Farabi describes the varieties of the states other than the Ideal States and the remarkable
contribution of this philosopher are very much alive and given serious considerations even today.
Al-Farabi divides states into following categories:
1. State of Necessity (Daruriya):

Its inhabitants aim, at the necessities of the life, like food, drink, clothing, a place to live and
carnal gratification and they generally help each other in securing these necessities of life.
2. Vile State (Nadhala):

Its citizens strive for wealth and riches for their own sake. The account in the Siyasa includes a
description of its ruler. Ibn-e-Rushd also succinctly touches upon this state.
3. Base and Despicable State:

Its inhabitants concentrate on the pleasures of the senses, games and other pastimes. This state is
the one in which men help one another to enjoy sensual pleasure such as games, jokes and
pleasantries and this is the enjoyment of the pleasures of eating and merry-making. This state is
the happy and fortunate state with the people of ignorance, for this state only aims at attaining
pleasure after obtaining first the necessities of life and then abundant wealth to spend.
4. Timocracy (Madina Karama):

It contains a variety of honours. Since the Arabic source of Al-farabi is lost in the wealth of
legend, we are unable to determine whether this lengthy and diffuse description goes back to it or
represents Al-Farabi’s own amplification. The latter seems to be more correct. The citizens of
these honor-loving states assist each other in gaining glory, fame and honor. The honors fall into
two groups. The first is a personal relationship between one who is worthy to be honored
because of some virtue in him, and the others who accord him honor and respect because they
recognize him as their superior. The second kind of honor is accorded to men because of their
wealth, or because of they have been victorious, exercise authority or enjoy other distinctions.
This state in the opinion of Al-Farabi is the best of all the states.
5. Tyranny (Taghallub):
It receives from the aim of its citizens; they co-operate to give victory over others, but refuse to
be vanquished by them. Al-Farabi sets out to distinguish between despotic states and define
tyranny or despotism according to aim, mastery over others and over their possessions for
power’s sake, within or externally, by force and conquest or by persuasion and achieving
Page 65 of 108
enslavement. His despotic rule is a mixed one and thus often resembles timocracy or plutocracy.
Ibn-e-Rushd avoids this by following Plato’s description of tyranny and the tyrannical man, and
the transition from democracy to tyranny and of the democratic to the tyrannical man but done to
their common source both Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Rushd similarly define tyranny as absolute
power.
Rosenthal was of the view, “Tyranny has even more variations for Al-Farabi than
timocracy; as many as the tyrant has desires, for this despotism expresses itself in imposing
his will on his subjects and making them work for his personal ends. Al-Farabi knows of
two kinds of tyranny within which these variations occur, internal and external tyranny.
The first consists in the absolute mastery of the tyrant and his helpers over the citizens of
the state, and the second is the enslavement of another state or people.”
6. Democracy (Madina Jama’iya):

It is marked by the freedom of its inhabitants to do as they wish. They are all equal and no body
has master over another. Their governors only govern with the explicit consent of the governed.
Democracy contains good and bad features and it is therefore not impossible that at some time
the most excellent men grow up there, so that philosophers, orators and poets come into being. It
is thus possible to choose from its elements of the ideal state.
Apart from the afore-mentioned classification of the states, which seems to be idealistic, Al-
Farabi has a definite place for the trait of political character over other nations. He initiates
reasons for this mastery and says that it is sought by a people owing to its desire for protection,
ease ort luxury and all that leads to the satisfactions of these necessities. In this powerful state,
they might be able to get all the desire. There is nothing against human nature for the strong to
over power the weak, so nations which try to get other nations under their control consider it
quite proper to do so, and it is justice both to control the weak and for the weak to be so
controlled, and the subdued nation should do it for the good of its masters.
There is no doubt that all the lapse of centuries and the international ideology which is the
current coin in politics, the psychology of the nations today is much the same as described by the
Master centuries ago. Al-Farabi said, “But the more chivalrous among them are such that
even when they have to shed human blood they do so only face to face, not while their
opponent is asleep or showing his back, nor do they take away his property except after
giving him proper warning of their intentions. Such a community does not rest till it thinks
it has become supreme forever, nor does it give any other nation an opportunity of over
powering it, always regarding all other peoples their opponents and enemies and keeping
itself on Guard.”
Colonies:
Al-Farabi is comprehensively clear about the principles of colonization. He opines that the
inhabitants of a State must scatter hither and thither in different parts of a State because they
have been overpowered by an enemy or by an epidemic or through economic necessity. There
are only alternatives to the colonists, either to migrate I such a way as to form one single
Page 66 of 108
commonwealth or divide themselves in different political societies. It may come to compass that
a large body of these people are of opinion that it is not necessary to change the laws which they
have brought from their mother country; they would then simply codify existing laws and begin
to live under them. It will thus be clear to understand that A-Farabi not only contemplates
colonization but also self-Government of a republican kind which is closer to the modern
conceptions.
__________________
Page 67 of 108
Muslim Political Thought---Al-Mawardi
Al-Mawardi
Introduction:
Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Habib-al-Mawardi is the first writer on political theory in
the history of Islam. Except Ibn-e-Khaldoon, all the jurists, thrologists and political philosophers
who have followed him, down to our own days, have hardly made any improvement upon his
thoughts. He was born in 974 AD and died in 1058 AD. Al-Mawardi was regarded as one of the
versatile and most learned jurists of his age, and his opinions laid emphasis in the world of law
and jurisprudence. He belonged to the orthodox Shafi’te school of jurisprudence and still we find
traces of the pure rationalism. Like other Muslims he received the traditional education, and he
wrote on many topics besides law, like, a Commentary on the Quran, a treatise on prophecy and
several works on Ethics. As far his legal writings, it is noteworthy that “Government and
administration, at all levels, were his principal concerns.”
Al-Mawardi started his career as a professor of law and jurisprudence at Basra and Baghdad, and
later on he was appointed as Qazi-ul-Quzat of Baghdad by a-Qaim, Abbasid Caliph and he was
also conferred an honorific title of Aqdal-Quat or the Supreme Justice. But he declined to accept
this offer of appointment because he said there were far abler people who deserved the title much
more than himself. It is related that he did not publish any of his works in his lifetime. When a
friend asked why he kept his books back he replied that it was because he felt that his motives in
writing them were not as pure as he should have wished and that he did not know whether Allah
the Almighty had accepted these literary offerings or not.
Al-Mawardi has left a great and valuable treasure of knowledge and philosophy. His books are
the following:
1. Al-Ahkam at-Sultaniyah (Ordinances of Government)

2. Nasihat-ul-Muluk (Advice to Kings)
3. Qawanin-ul-Wazarat (Laws of the Ministry)
4. Tahsilun Nazar fi Tahsil-uz-Zafar (Control of Sight for facilitating Victory)
Contribution of Al-Mawardi
to Islamic Political Thought
Al-Mawardi was the founder of the science of politics in the Islamic World. He was not very
original in what he did. His greatness lies in the fact that he received political opinions and
traditions of the past and transformed them into a logical system. For four hundred years the
Muslims were engaged in conquest and empire building, but they could not evolve any concrete
Page 68 of 108
pattern of government or administration. Al-Mawardi’s achievement is that he gave definition to

what was unshapely and undefined. Moreover, he assembled his ideas in writing; therefore his
book Al-Ahkam at-Sultaniyah became a standard work of reference on political and
administrative practices.
In spite of the untenable position in which al-Mawardi had to work, one cannot fail to admire his
effort to work out a political system essentially based on the fundamental thought and early
political practice of Islam. Al-Mawardi’s remarkable contribution is that he has given a detailed
account of the administrative machinery of Government. He portrayed not only what exists but
also what ought to exist. This idealistic touch made his work popular with every regime and
every generation that came after him.
Al-Mawardi’s work and his theory of Caliphate saved the Muslim people for a long to come
from the extravagant and illogical claims of the Shiahs, the Khawarij, the Mutazilah and other
extremist sects in Islam. His immediate aim of emancipating the Sunni Caliphate of the Abbasids
from the Buwayhid tyranny was so providently realized in his own lifetime, that it must be
counted as one of his remarkable achievements. Al-Mawardi knew that the Abbasids could not
fully retrieve the lost ground and could not regain the glory of their early ancestors. To
compensate this irretrievable position he instituted the theory of absolute governorship which
provided a handy instrument of self-protection to the Abbasid Caliphs against the attempt of
possible adventurers who aspired to overthrow the Caliphate. His most valuable contribution to
political theory was that he based his account on historical practice and facts and liked other
Jurists and the scholars; he did not indulge in empty speculation.
Criticism:
But with all the good points that can be said about Al-Mawardi, he had one short-coming, he was
not a political thinker, and hence could not evolve a philosophic conception of the state. He does
not discuss the scope, jurisdiction, responsibilities and obligations of the state, gives no
conception of sovereignty and seems to be completely ignorant of the idea of the constitution.
Lack of a constitutional theory has not only very much reduced the value of Al-Mawardi’s work
but has its deadening effect on the later development of Islamic political thought.
Al-Mawardi seems to have no conception of democracy. His theory of election dealing only with
the appointment of the Caliph is wholly undemocratic. Moreover, he is very particular about the
rights and prerogatives of the Caliph but pays little attention to the rights and obligations of the
people. Lack of the idea of fundamental rights of men has been one of the principal sores in
Muslim polity for ages, and has been mainly responsible for almost complete absence of the
growth of democratic life in Muslim lands.
Page 69 of 108
Al-Mawardi’s Theory of State
Caliphate:
The institution of Caliphate represents the mission of Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H) the Prophet
and the main duties of the Caliph are the safeguard of religion from all destructive propaganda
and innovations and the proper organization of general polity. The Holy Quran aims at creating
an ideal society in which good predominantly prevails over evil and in which the laws of God are
generally practiced and obeyed. Further, it promises the inheritance or possession and
governance of the earth to those only who follow in the footsteps of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) and
practice piety and do justice.
When the Muslims built a world empire and actual needs arose, they tackled all these issues and
tried to reach definite conclusions on all of them in the light of Quran and the Sunnah. The
Quran is silent on all these pertinent issues, because their meaning is ever changing with the
historical evolution. Besides, the Quran does not aim at creating a state but a society. Syed
Qutab was of the view, “Whatever the form and shape of the state, if the Quranic society is
realized in it, it may bear the designation of the Islamic State.” The Quran says, “Obey God
and obey the Prophet (P.B.U.H) and the Uli-al-Amr from amongst you.” It also commands
the Prophet (P.B.U.H) to take the counsel of the Muslims in matters of state.
The Muslim jurists are of the opinion that the institution of the Caliphate is not necessitated by a
clear injunction in the Quran but by the consensus of opinion, it is obvious that the matter is left
to the discretion and judgment of the Muslim community. The Quran is very clear and definite
about all fundamental problems for instance, about the articles of faith, the forms of religious
worship, laws of matrimony and inheritance, distribution of booty of war, prohibition of interest,
rights and obligations of husband and wife etc., but omits all details about the form and
constitution of the Caliphate; and this is deliberate, because the wisdom of God knows better that
the social and political constitutions of men are ever changing and evolving with the march of
time.
The second fundamental source of political speculation was the Sunnah. And because the jurists
failed to get sufficient material in the Quran to construct a detailed political theory, they spent
greater pains in exploring the Sunnah and the archives of early Islamic History to realize their
purpose. And not only traditions of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) but also of the companions and
successors were complied.
The forty years of the Pious Caliphate rightly represented the true spirit of Islamic polity.
Although the structure of the Caliphate was brutally shaken during the regime of Hazrat Usman
(R.A) and finally cracked during the reign of Hazrat Ali (R.A), its basic principle remained
permanent and operative. These principles are as follows:
1. The aim of Islamic State is to create a society as conceived in the Quran and Sunnah.
Page 70 of 108
2. The State shall enforce the Shariah as the fundamental laws of the state.
3. The sovereignty rests in the people. The people can set up any form of the government
conforming to the above two principles and with the exigencies of time and environment.
4. Whatever the form of the government may be, it must be upon the principle of popular
representation, because based sovereignty belongs to the people.
Muslims in early Islam were not beguiled by sophisticated notions of Caliphs as presented
by later theologians and jurists. To them it was crystal clear the source of all temporal
authority were the people and the people alone. The ideas of absolution of the Caliph and
of divine right were entirely foreign to them. There was no written constitution as the
modern constitutions. The Quran and Sunnah did not specifically demand the necessity of
a state. And at any rate the conception of the state was never clear. It was on account of
this that the Umayyad and Hashimite race for supremacy of power started immediately
after the device of the Prophet (P.B.U.H). After the fall of the Pious Caliphate, the idea of
democratic caliphate passed into monarchical system without any ideological conflict. (Ibn-
e-Khaldoon)
The Umayyad made strenuous efforts and effected a practical compromise between monarchy
and the original caliphate. They however, took pains to preserve the original pattern of
succession b y nomination and limited election within the House of Umayyad. This Umayyad
innovation received general approval and became an established principle of Islamic polity for
alter times.
Wazarat:
Al-Mawardi says, “the appointment of a Wazir does not mean that the Imam or Caliph
should give up all connections with the administration of the state, but the real significance
of his appointment consists of the fact that in the province of politics it is better to have a
coadjutor rather than one sole person at the helm of affairs.” And when the Prophet Moses
(A.S) could make his brother Haroon (A.S) his Wazir in order that his hands should be
strengthened, then surely in the administration of the state it is allowable for the Imam to have a
Wazir beside him. Al-Mawardi says that Wazarat is of two kinds:
1. The Wazarat of Delegation:

The Wazir of Delegation is the person in whom the Imam has the fullest confidence and to
whom the powers of administration of the realm are delegated. The difference between the Wazir
and the Imam himself is that the Wazir of Delegation is not empowered to appoint anyone as his
successor and the Imam, the highest authority; can dismiss the officers appointed by him.
2. The Wazarat of Execution:

The Wazir of Execution is similar to the Secretary to the Government in modern times. Al-
Page 71 of 108
Mawardi says that the main function of the Wazir is to get the decrees of the Imam executed and
he should be the main official channel of information for him. Mawardi opines that, seven
qualities are required for a person aspiring to this office and these are honesty, confidence,
absence of greed, good relationship with the people, intelligence and the wisdom of grasping the
truth of things, absence of luxury and amorousness, and lastly, diplomacy and experience. Al-
Mawardi said, “It is not necessary that the holder of the office should be a follower of Islam
and a non-Muslim dhimmi can also be appointed a Wazir of Execution."
For the efficient functioning of the administration, the government should be divided into various
departments dealing with the business of government such as revenue, army and other high
offices of State. The State administration as a whole was called Diwan. Al-Mawardi
enumerated four chief offices of Government are under:
1. The Army Board

2. The Board of Provincial Boundaries
3. The Treasury
4. The Board of Appointment and Dismissal of Officers
Views of Central Government:

Al-Mawardi being an orthodox Shafi’ite, gave an account of legal rationalism in his writings.
Very rationally he makes full endeavors to demonstrate the necessity of the Imamate and he
proves it not only by referring the Islamic law but lays down a general proposition that it is in the
nature of man or rather those among men who are superior to others in intellect that they should
hand over their affairs to one who can keep them from being tyrannized over by others and
should have the power of adjudging between them in case of mutual quarrels.
Al-Mawardi relies solely upon the Quran without reference to any other source of law. Thus
when he tries to demonstrate that the Imam should not indulge in luxurious living and he reminds
the readers of the order which God gave to the Prophet David (A.S) when He appointed him His
Caliph: “O David, We have appointed thee Our Caliph on earth; so judge aright between
man and man, and follow not desires that might lead thee away from the path of thy Lord.”
He at the time of discussing different categories of taxes, argues entirely on the basis of the
Quran, and quotes a verse to prove that the Zakat should be distributed “among the poor and
the needy, and those who collect them and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to
free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of God and for the wayfarer” (Quran
ix, 60).
Along with the verses of the Quran he argues from the order of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) as related
in the Traditions when he wishes to prove that the Caliph has the right to appoint his own
successor, he argues from the battle of Mutah and says, “The Prophet (P.B.U.H) appointed his
manumitted slave, Hazrat Zaid bin Harithah, to take his place at the head of the Muslim
army and at the same time ordered that is case of his death he should be replaced by
Hazrat Jafar bin Ali Talib, after him Hazrat Abdullah bin Rawahah and in case he is also
Page 72 of 108
killed, the mantle of command should fall on the shoulders of whomever the soldiers might
choose.” Mawardi was of the view that “it was possible for the Prophet (P.B.U.H) to make
these nominations; it should be possible in case of khilafat as well.”
As regards the office of Qazi, he quotes the instructions given by the Caliph Hazrat Umar to
Hazrat Abu Musa al Ash’ari when he appointed him to this office. Sometimes al-Mawardi uses
the documents of the Umayyad and the Abbasid periods his premises, for instance, he quotes the
accession address of Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz to demonstrate the exalted ideals of the office
of the Caliph. Whenever he wants to stress the importance of the Wazarat, he quotes a
proclamation of Mamun where he declares that he wishes to appoint one of his ministers
who should be virtuous, sophisticated and conservative in his habits, experienced and
matured in his profession and willing to undertake the most difficult missions, should be
reliable and trustworthy, whose silence should signify his great indulgence and whose
conversation should demonstrate his great knowledge. He should be able to understand the
innermost thoughts of others by the mere gesture of the eyes, and even a second’s
conversation should suffice for him to get at the root of the matter, who should have the
posture of the rich, the foresight of the learned, the humility of the savant and the
acuteness of the jurist, who should be grateful for any good that might be done to him and
should bear his troubles with patience.
__________________
Page 73 of 108
Theory of Rebellion
Introduction:
Even in the ancient and medieval tribal and monarchical systems it was recognized that if the
monarch ruled with tyranny and inequity, the people had a right to overthrow him and choose a
new leader in his place. The act of rebellion in such an eventuality was not regarded as a crime
but as a vindication of the fundamental rights of people.
After the ascendancy of Islam, it brought about a complete revolution in human thought and
knowledge. Islam combined politics with religion in a remarkable way that it was susceptible to
reason and most conducive to human relations. It defined the proper dignity and status of men in
this universe, his relations and obligations to God, and His privileges as the Lord of creation. It
taught for the first time the ideas of universal brotherhood and complete equality of men. It
demolished the artificial barriers of color and creed and brought the poor and the rich at one
platform. The great republic of Madina was built on the highest and purest ideals of democracy.
The only sad thing about this was that it was too short-lived and that it could not get time for
proper growth and consolidation. The consequences of the premature demise of the Republic of
Madina were dire and far-reaching. The fast developing ideals of Islamic democracy were
blasted and superseded by the imperialistic systems of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids
and others. A struggle began between the State and Society. The society tried to reflect the
principles of Islamic life and polity, while the state tried to emulate the traditions and ways of
Byzantine and Sassanid empires. For one hundred years of Umayyad rule the struggle between
these two forces continued. But when Abbasids came into power, it signaled the victory of the
State polity over religious ideology. The emperor or Caliph became the spiritual and temporal
head of the state, his wishes and whims became law, and he was responsible to none. The people
living under his cruel subjugation had no right of resistance or revolt.
The Muslim jurists, political thinkers, statesmen and diplomats invented a political theory which
affected a superficial and sophisticated compromise between the two forces. The compromise
was given religious sanctity and justification, so that it became permanent and unchallengeable.
Al-Mawardi’s Views:
Al-Mawardi is greatly influenced by the political ideas of his age. He discards the divine right of
rule, for despite his anxiety for the restoration of sovereign power of Abbasid Caliphs, he
nowhere supports their claim, or the claim of jurists to unchallenged obedience to the Head of
the State.
1. Al-Mawardi quotes the following tradition from Abu Hurairah: the Prophet (P.B.U.H) said,
“After me there will be appointed rulers over you, and both the good as well as bad deeds
will go by them; but you must obey the orders from them that is based upon righteousness;
for if they rule with fairness the good of it will occur to them and to you both, if they rule
Page 74 of 108
with inequity you will get the benefit of it and they, the evil consequences thereof.”
2. Al-Mawardi clearly advocates revolt when the Imam either falls prey to sensual passions or
becomes sceptic of the basic tenets of Islam. But it is ambiguous as to how a tyrant or heretical
Imam can be deposed. No method has been proposed by means of which the will of the people
may be ascertained, or the Imam may be expelled his office. There is no precedent in Islamic
history when an Imam was deposed from office by legal and proper means. And since the Imam
is the executive Head of the State, and not responsible to any Majlis or Tribunal, it is obvious
that he cannot sit to impeach himself or allow others to punish him.
One thing is quite clear from the writings of Al-Mawardi, that he is opposed to the claim of
undisputed obedience to the Caliph. He does not elaborate a detailed theory of rebellion, nor
discusses the fundamental rights of man. He is very careful in choosing only those traditions
which suit his purpose. He could have easily established from the tradition of the Prophet
(P.B.U.H) as well as from the practice of the Pious Caliphs, that Islam has given an open charter
of rights to humanity, and that it has unambiguously defined limits of State’s powers and
freedom of the individual.
He could have noted that the famous verse of the Quran, “Obey God, and obey the Prophet
(P.B.U.H), and obey the ruler who is from amongst you,” (Al-Quran, 4: 58) does not give
license of despotism to rulers, for the same verse continues, “if you quarrel on any issue, bring
it to the judgment of God and the Prophet (P.B.U.H), provided you believe in God and in
the day of Judgment.” Obedience to the head of the State is bound by the condition that he
obeys the injunctions of God, that is, rules with truth and justice. In another verse the Quran
says, “Their affairs are decided by mutual counsel amongst themselves" (Al-Quran, 42: 38)
and not by the arbitrary will of a ruler.
Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A) reported that the Prophet (P.B.U.H) said, “Indeed if the people see evil
and do not rise to ward it off, it is just probable that the vengeance of God may overtake
them all.” Abu Said narrated that the Prophet (P.B.U.H) said, “Some of the most loved and
nearest persons to me on the Day of Judgment shall be the Just Imam, and the most hated
and damnable person to me on the Day of Judgment shall be the Tyrant Imam.”
When Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A) was elected Caliph, he said in his policy speech: “Obey me as
long as I obey God, but when I disobey Him you are no longer bound to obey me.” He
continued the speech and said, “And I am just like one of you so when you find me on the
right path, follow me, but if you see me diverting, set me right.”
In the early phases of Islamic history, there were a general and strong feelings among the
Muslims that there existed a solemn covenant between the State and people, that the State was
conducted by the elected representatives of the people, and that it existed only to protect and
promote their interests. So when the rulers broke this covenant, and violated the principle of
representation and threw overboard the interest of the people, the people thought it as their
inherent right to repeal such rulers and grab political power from them. It was the clear
infringement of this covenant that eventually led to the assassinations of Hazrat Usman (R.A)
Page 75 of 108
and Hazrat Ali (R.A) and also to the sudden collapse of the powerful Umayyads. The Abbasid
Caliphs fetched the reign of the Islamic empire, killed these ideas altogether and the concept of
the covenant was completely forgotten.
Conclusion:
Al-Mawardi did not elaborate a theory of rebellion and if he wanted to propound a theory, he
could have found abundant sanction for it in early thought and practice. It may be noted here that
the idea of rebellion has always been most abhorrent to Muslim rulers throughout history,
because after the regime of the Pious Caliphs, many a ruler denied the right of the people to
participate in the affairs of the State. But there is no denying the fact that the people resented the
autocratic trends in the statecraft and stood for their basic rights.
__________________
Page 76 of 108
Muslim Political Thought---Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi
Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi
Introduction:
Khawaja Abu Ali Hasan bin Ali bin Ishaq widely known in history of Islamic political thought as
Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi. He was born in 1017 AD. Nizam-ul-Mulk was not his real name. it was a
title of honor conferred upon him by his Saljuqi ruler, Alp Arslan, after his appointment as
minister. His father, Abu al-Hasan Ali belonged to a family of landowners of Radhkan, a small
town in the suburn of Tus, where Nizam-ul-Mulk was born.
His elementary education started with the study of Traditions and Jurisprudence and his father
wanted him to take up the legal profession, so consequently he was put under the scholarly
guidance of Al-Samad Funduraji, who was a profound scholar of Law of his age. Tusi traveled to
Bukhara and Merv, and also to a number of towns in Transoxiana in search and employment.
After 1049 he went to Ghaznah, where he sought service with Ghaznawids, thus having an
opportunity to acquaint himself with their state administration. When Sultan Abdul Rashid was
killed in 1052 and with his demise, the political situation ion the country became aggravated and
in the hours of turmoil and confusion, he fled to Balkh and entered the service of Ali bin
Shadhan who was the governor of that province. Then he went to Merv and there Chaghari Beg
appointed him the mushir (counselor) of the katib (secretary) of his son, Alp Arslan. It was Alp
Arslan who conquered all the territories of Western Asia till then ruled by the Eastern Roman
Emperor Constantine, imprisoning Emperor Diogenes himself and forcing him to pay tribute to
the Islamic state.
Later on the advice of Ali bin Shadhan that Alp Arslan after his accession to the throne in 1062,
Nizam-ul-Mulk was appointed as a joint Minister with Amin-ul-Mulk Kunduri. But Kunduri was
soon put to death. Then Tusi became the full-fledged Prime Minister of the whole empire with
the succession of Malik Shah to his father’s throne in 1072, which he owed entirely to Nizam-ul-
Mulk’s efforts. From the capital of Saljuqs, his influence spread to the capital of the Abbasid
Caliph, who is said to have honored him with the titles of Radi-ulAmir al Muminin. Sherwani
was of the view that during his term of offices he was showered with all kinds of honorific
titles and dignities both by his master, Alp Arslan and Malik Shah, and by the titular
Caliph of Baghdad, Al-Qaim, and as if these titles would not suffice to connote the qualities
of the man, the great divine of the period, Imam-ul- Haramain Sheikh Abdul Malik-I
Jawaini added a number of other distinctions to his honorific titles.
In his last days he came into collision with the Ismailyah movement of Hasan bin Sabah, in
whose activities he saw danger to the Saljuq Empire. Nizam-ul-Mulk was cruelly assassinated by
one of Fidais (the Assassins) in 1091 AD.
Nizam-ul-Mulk’s Persian works are the chief inspiring sources for the study of his political
ideas:
Page 77 of 108
1. Siyasat Namah or Siyar-ul-Mulk (The book on State polity and administration)
2. Dastur-al-Wuzara (The conduct of Ministers). It is more generally known as the Wasaya-i-

Khawaja Nizam-ul-Mulk (The precepts of Khawaja Nizam-ul-Mulk)
3. Nizam-ul-Mulk is said to have written a book entitled as Safar Namah (The book of
Travels) which is now extinct.
Contribution of Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi

An age of Political Turmoil:

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi lived in a dark age of political warfare and constant conflict among the
political demagogues to grab power which has witnessed the lower degradation of the Caliphate,
following its transformation during a period of three centuries from a democracy into autocracy
and then from autocracy into a mere puppetry in the hands of powerful aristocrats and wazirs.
This also saw the decline of the Ghaznawids Empire and the Bhwaihid kingdom and the
emergence of the Suljuqs after their victory over the Ghaznawids in 1040 when their nomadic
and wandering life changed into the cultured race who ruled over vast gigantic empire. It was an
age of radical change and fusion of social and political ideas and institutions, specifically in the
Muslim world in which Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi lived and worked relentlessly.
Contribution of Nizam-ul-Mulk:
This is an admitted fact that Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi wielded a profound influence on the
succeeding generations by making valuable contributions to the history of political thought. He
was an irrepressible advocate of natural rights of individuals and he ardently championed their
cause to give liberty and freedom but with restrictions to show respect and regard to the rulers.
He did away with the stagnant politics and despotic conspiracies of palaces and became
responsible for heralding a new era of political consciousness.
It is sufficient to know the ideas contained in the Siyasat Namah came from the prominent Prime
Minister of the Saljuqis and are the ones accepted by his master Jalal-ud-Din Malik Shah as the
constitutional code of his extensive empire. In his immortal political works, Siyasat Namah, he
discussed at length all evils and ills of politics of his age and he aptly suggested remedies in
order to avoid all kinds of destructive tendencies among the states. His foreign policy was a great
success, and he maintained cordial relations among his neighboring states.
His work was a valuable constitution of his country, and his contributions not only became
advantageous in his era but also greatly influenced the later period. the book was compiled
nearly a thousand years ago, when the House of Abbasids was tottering, the power was
declining, and the days of the Eastern Empire of Constantinople were nearing their end, and
Page 78 of 108
India got a miserable shock and set-back due to perennial internal dissentions and conflicts, the
ailment of the caste system and the threats of a permanent conquests by outsiders. Sherwani
pays tribute to Tusi in these words, “It is to the great credit of Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi that in
the dark and uncertain epoch, he sat down to write a book which was as useful to a seeker
of political truth in our own times as it was to his contemporaries. He freely takes his cue
from the non-Arabic and non-Muslim sources. In fact he amrks an epoch in the history of
Eastern learning and arts, for he was an expert in the arts and sciences of his day, a
faithfully counselor of his patron and his eminent son, a friend of the great Persian
astronomer-poet, Umar Khayyam, founder of the Nizamiyah University and its branches,
and a martyr at the hands of a murderer, in a word he rose to such eminence that the
whole continent of Asia may well take a prides in his personality and his work.”
Page 79 of 108
Theory of Kingship
Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi served many kings and he profoundly studied the monarchical system of
government developing under the aristocratic rule of prince, as against the constitutional
structure of the Caliphate which was delicately interwoven since the ascendancy of Islam. His
political theory represents a phase of the development of the Muslim polity which was
characterized by kingship. The first thing distinguishable about his exposition of the institution
of kingship is that he is careful to make no reference to the Caliph as the head of the Muslim
political community, and to remark nothing about the constitutional relations of the Saljuq enter
with the Abbasid Caliphs. He very often uses the title of Sultan for the Saljuq king. And as for
the term Amir Mustauli (Governor by usurpation) it does not occur at all throughout his writings,
both being the terms of the constitutional law employed by the jurists to denote the legal
superiority of the Caliph over the prince. He generally calls his ruler as Padshah, a Persian term
used for the king.
Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi had to surmount all difficulties in regard to the coordination of Islamic
principles in which he had an implicit belief with the Perso-Turkish thought and practice in
politics in rogue, and it is unnecessary to indulge in controversy about the powers of the two
offices. It is curious that the reason for the establishment of the kingly office as remarked by him
should be identical with the set-up of the Imamat as given by Mawardi, and it seems
contradiction in terms that while trying to justify the hereditary king he should be using
arguments already advanced in favor of an elected President. His theory is that the king enjoys
the right to rule over his subjects by virtue of divine appointment.
“In every age God the Almighty selects some one from among men and gives over to him
the charge of the well-being of the world and the comfort and tranquility of the human
race after duly furnishing him with the art of government. He also makes him responsible
for the peace and security of the land and endows him with all the necessary prestige in
order that God’s creatures may live in peace and plenty and that justice and security may
be the order of the day.” (Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi)
Functions of the King:
According to Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi the essential functions which the king has to fulfill in human
society are the following:
1. It is the duty of a king to remain in constant consultation with the wisest, the most experienced
and the most competent of his people and to repose confidence in such of his subjects as deserve
it and delegate to them a part of his duties according to their merit and worth.
2. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi was of the view that the ultimate object to which the king must canalize
his energy and initiative for maintaining peace and order in the state, so that the people may live
Page 80 of 108
with comfort under the shadow of his justice.
3. According to Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi, a king must issue an instrument of instructions to all his
subordinate officers and governors of the states enjoining them to treat the people well and
extract only the dues allowed by the law of the land.
4. Nizam-ul-Mulk’s prince must work for the collective good of his people, so that an era of
prosperity and progress may usher. The sovereign must remember that God the Almighty is
pleased with a king only when he treats his people with kindness and justice.
5. Tusi lays great emphasis on obedience as the most essential duty of the people towards the
ruler, since he brings to them peace and prosperity after they have been deprived of it as a
punishment for their obedience to God.
6. Tusi said that the people must blindly obey every order and instruction of the prince without
questioning the validity of his authority. It is valid because it is de facto.
7. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi believed that “the king is endowed by God with wisdom and
knowledge so that he can treat each of his subjects according to his worth and can give
each a position according to his value. His wisdom is just like a lamp that gives off
abundant light. People can find their way in its light and can come out of darkness.”
Tusi treats Prince as divinely appointed ruler, vested with unlimited powers; he does not regard
him by any means as a law-giver. A human authority with absolute legislative powers has never
existed in a true Muslim polity, because legislation in the proper sense of the term has never been
recognized as a human function in the Muslim legal theory. According to this theory there
already exists a divine law (Shariat) which is theoretically as binding on the ruler himself,
however autocratic he may be in practice, as on his subjects. Tusi was of the view, “It is
obligatory for the king to seek knowledge of religious matters and to comply with and
make arrangements to carry out the commands of God and the traditions of the Prophet
(P.B.U.H) and to pay due respect to religious scholars.”
Religion and politics are inseparably joined together, and are complementary to each other.
Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi said, “The state and religion are like two brothers.” The principles of
conduct which he lays down for the king under the influence of this religious trend are in striking
contrast with those prescribed by Machiavelli for his “Prince”. Unlike the Machiavellian Prince
who is advised to handle religion merely as a useful instrument for achieving political ends, and
who is taught to appear rather than become religious. But Nizam-ul-Mulk’ Prince is taught to
believe sincerely in religious truths, and to exercise political power as an essential means of
attaining them. He emphasizes the importance of religious character of the king’s authority and it
tones down the autocratic attitude of his monarch. The moral obligations he sets on the absolute
authority of the king prevent it from growing into an oppressive despotism. The first and
foremost obligation of the king towards his subjects is to do justice. He firmly believes it to be a
religious duty, for it has been ordained by Almighty God. Justice, as a principle of good
government, occupies a predominant place in his concept of kingship, and time and again, he
Page 81 of 108
lays emphasis on its importance for state and society. “A state can continue to exist
notwithstanding impiety, but it cannot exist with tyranny.” (Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi)
Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi is greatly impressed by the Persian standards of justice that he believes that
“Sassanian kings, especially Nushirwan the Just, have surpassed all other monarchs in
justice, generosity and courage.” He was of the view that “The king should strive to seek the
favor of God, which can be attained through the kindness with which they treat the people
and through justice which they administer to them. When the people pray for the welfare
of the king, his state grows stable and prospers everyday.”
__________________
Page 82 of 108
Muslim Political Thought---Al-Ghazali
Al-Ghazali
Introduction:
Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad, surnamed al-Imam-ul-
Jalilm, Hujjat-ul-Islam and Zainuddin, was born at Ghazzalah near Tus in 1058. He is one of the
greatest and distinguished original philosophers not only in the history of Muslim philosophy but
also in the history of human thought. He was educated at Tus proper in the early years of his
career and later on he shifted to Jurjan, and then finally migrated to Nishapur to imbibe wisdom
and philosophy by sitting at the feet of perhaps the most versatile genius of his time, Abul-Maali
Muhammad al-Juwaini Imam-ul-Haramain, who was invited back from Hijaz to preside over one
of the great colleges founded by Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi. He was accepted first as the pupil and the
assistant by the Imam. Al-Ghazali won great fame and prominence because his philosophical
doctrines and consequently as a great sage of the age, he was called to the court of Nizam-ul-
Mulk Tusi while still in his twenties. He was the intellectual adviser and chief canonist till 1091
when he was formally appointed to the great foundation of Baghdad.
Al-Ghazali was aptly considered a mujaddid and reckoned at par with the four Imams. There
have been many philosophers and scholars in Islam and other religions, but the distinct caliber of
one of great philosophers ushered a unique era of knowledge of his age. He left behind indelible
impressions because of his immortal works and philosophical-cum-political doctrines which
have still influence upon this modern age. In 1095, he had discontinued his work of teaching in
Baghdad. His mind continually in a state of doubt, probably found no satisfaction in dogmatic
predictions. Sherwani said, “Baghdad did not see very much of Ghazali and it seems that deep
thought, coupled with murder of his patron Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi and the death of Malik Shah in
1092, all these things had a tremendous effect on his psychology.”
For about ten years, in the period of utter disillusionment, Al-Ghazali extensively traveled here
and there to imbibe wisdom and intellect from every source, dividing his time between pious
exercises and literary work. Al-Ghazali remained in fretful years because of state politics which
took a serious turn. He died in Tus on 19th of December, 1111. His closing years were chiefly
devoted to pious contemplation and the study of the Traditions, which as a youth he could never
remember. A beautifully complete and rounded life in which the end comes back to the
beginning.
Principle political works of Al-Ghazali are as follows:
1. Munqidh Min ad-Dalal (Deliverance from Waywardness)

2. Ihya-ul-Ulam (Renaissance of Sciences)
3. Tibr-ul-Masbuk (Molten Gold)
4. Sirr-ul-Alamain (The Mystery of the Two Worlds)
5. Fatihat-ul-Ulum (Introduction to Sciences)
6. Kimiya-i-Sa’adat (Alchemy of Goodness)
7. Iqtisad Fil-I’tiqad (Moderation in Belief)
8. Kitab-ul-Wajiz (a hand book of Fiqah, canon law)
Page 83 of 108
Contribution of Al-Ghazali
Al-Ghazali is undoubtedly an outstanding and remarkable political scholar in Islam. His

philosophy is an expression of his own personality. He abandoned the attempt to understand this
world. But the religious problem he comprehended much more profoundly than did the
philosophers of his time. Dr. T. T. Debeer said, “These were intellectuals in their methods,
like their Greek predecessors, and consequently regarded the doctrines of Religion as
merely the products of the conception of fancy or even caprice of the law givers. According
to them Religion was either blind obedience, or a kind of knowledge which contained truth
of an inferior order. On the other hand, Al-Ghazali represents Religion as the experience of
his inner being; it is for him more than Law and more than Doctrine, it is the Soul’s
experience.”
Al-Ghazali’s philosophical analysis, logical positivism and religious empiricism have profoundly
influenced every age of philosophy and religion and even today, modern student of the political
history seeks inspiration in solving all philosophical and political inquiries. His liberalism and
intellectualism completely dominated Western Philosophy and even Western thinkers preserved
main elements of his great philosophy in their works. Europe, about the end of the eleventh and
beginning of the twelfth century of the Christian era, was in the abyss of degradation and
political degeneration. This period is dubbed by one of the greatest of modern political scientists
as “essentially unpolitical”.
In the contemporary age of Al-Ghazali, Europe was engulfed in perpetual controversy between
Pope and the Emperor. This controversy led to political cleavage and intransigents and wreckers
mutilated all traits of progress and prosperity. There was nothing but blood, destruction and
wars, which snapped all resources and economy. Poverty and wrangling had become regular
features of the day. At that time, East was at the pinnacle of glory and progress.
It is certainly difficult to agree with unfounded and sweeping statement of Hitti that Al-Ghazali
constructed such a scholastic shell for Islam that all its future progress became arrested within it.
If the progress of the West consisted as it is said in breaking a similar shell within context of his
own religion then quite a few hammer strokes therein were wrought by the hands of the Muslim
thinkers of which the uppermost hand was the hand of Al-Ghazali. This anybody might see for
himself by making a close study of Al-Ghazali’s influence on the West.
Al-Ghazali as a great savant was decidedly superior to some of those who had gone before him.
For while he had become conversant with the working of the political system when he was
attending the court of his patron, Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi, Prime Minister of Suljuqi Kings, Al-
Ghazali, while living in such surroundings had made a close study of the problems of politics. It
was his efforts to leave off his luxurious life and write most of his works from a mental point of
vantage in Syria or Arabia or else in the seclusion of his paternal hearth and home. Al-Ghazali is
definitely superior to Al-Mawardi in being analytical as well as comparative in his arguments.
Page 84 of 108
Sherwani was of the view that “A student of the history of political theories is aware of the
great gap which seems to exist between the decline of Roman thought about the beginning
of Christian era till about the thirteenth century, when thought seems dull, constitutions
unscientific and people lethargic and pleasure-loving. Knowledge would be the richer and
chains of thought more continuous if that artificial blank were to be filled by such giants of
wisdom as Mawardi, Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi and Al-Ghazali. Even in oriental thought, Al-
Ghazali’s place is certain. His greatness lies partly in having successfully refilled the
desired outlined by brilliant Islamic colors, although they were not destined to last very
long, giving place once again, and finally to barbaric hues.”
Page 85 of 108
“Amir” of Al-Ghazali
Al-Ghazali, a political philosopher, renowned in East and West because of his versatile genius,
harnessed his thoughts into a proper channel for an efficient and systematic government in order
to bring about progress and peace in the state. He appears to be particular about the duties and
functions of the sovereign, so that administration of the state must not become unwieldy and
dogmatic. He enumerates the necessary qualities of an ideal ruler, and reverently expresses that
he should have intellect, knowledge, perception, right proportion of things, chivalry, loves for his
subjects, diplomatic bend, foresight, strong will-power and must be well informed of the news of
the day and the past history of the kings. He must learn the lesson from the past kings. He should
n ot repeat the errors and failures of his predecessors. Amir must also vigilantly watch that his
judges, secretaries, viceroys and other officers did their work well, it is chiefly in these qualities
which go to make a ruler the shadow of God on earth.
Al-Ghazali relates how a learned man once told the great Caliph, Harun-ar-Rashid, to beware
that he was sitting where Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) once sat and be truthful, where Hazrat Umar
(R.A.) once sat and differentiate between right and wrong, where Hazrat Usman (R.A.) once sat
and be modest and bountiful, where Hazrat Ali (R.A.) once sat and be knowing and just. He puts
forward the case of the Apostle of Islam, who himself fed his cattle, tied his camel, swept his
house, milked his goat, mended his shoes, patches his clothes, took meals with his servants,
ground his own corn in time of need and did his own marketing.
Daily Routines and Duties of “Amir”
Al-Ghazali says that the daily routines of an Amir should be following:
1. The Amir, after morning prayers, should go out riding in order to have investigation in person
about wrongs done to his subject.
2. He should then sit in court and permit all and sundry to have a direct access so that he might
have first-hand information about any complaints.
3. The ruler should make a point of taking advice from simple men of knowledge, intelligence
and experience.
4. The ruler must extend interviews to foreign ambassadors and envoys. He should be well-
versed in diplomacy and politics.
5. Al-Ghazali strictly warns the Amir against too much indulgence in drink, chess or hunting and
says that the best mode of simple life be practiced.
6. The Amir and good kings should used to divide their time in four parts, setting apart one for
prayers, another for state affairs, justice and counsel of the learned about the affairs of the state,
the third for food and rest, and the last for recreation and hunting.
7. He is very particular that the Amir should not pay head to the advice offered by his women
Page 86 of 108
favorites, and quotes the instance of Umar who actually divorced his favorite wife when he was
elated to his exalted office for fear of being influenced by her in state affairs.
8. Al-Ghazali warns that the ruler must not show them any favoritism, but instead must appoint
nepotism or people on merits.
Rosenthal said, “Al-Ghazali proceeds to enumerate the virtues by which the Imam must be
distinguished in order to lead men entrusted to his care to the goal which the Sharia has set
for men. Although we meet with the qualifications stipulated by Al-Mawardi they are
partly modified to meet the general political situation and the particular case of Al-
Mustazhir. Ability to wage jihad is conditioned by the possession of power and courage. It
has always been considered one of the foremost duties of the Caliph. But Al-Ghazali faced
with a young Caliph and a powerful Seljuq master, explains away its absence in Al-
Mustazhir by pointing to the Shawka, the force and power of the Seljuqs which guarantees
the najda required of the Caliph. He wants to think of them not as independent rulers but
as the loyal servants of the Caliph.”
Simplicity of the “Amir”:
Al-Ghazali persistently lays stress that the ruler should be simple in his habits. He says that the
Amir should have a limited source of income which does not provide him possible opportunity to
indulge in luxury and debauchery. He says that Amir must spend his life according to the income
at his disposal, and should not abundantly and lavishly spend so that the economy of the country
may not be disturbed. Al-Ghazali quotes the Apostle that God would be kind and compassionate
to rulers who are themselves meek and kind to their people. He regards Caliph Umar bin Abdul
Aziz as a model of justice, equality and simplicity, who once wanted his monthly salary in
advance to buy the Eid clothes for his daughters but desisted from drawing it from the state
treasury because he was reminded by Finance Minister that there was no certainty of his living
for the month for which he wished to draw his pay.
Oppression and tyranny was normally the salient feature of king’s life and the ruler had to
become totalitarian in order to create effective subjugation over the people. Complete arrest from
freedom and political subjugation were the normal orders of the day. But the sages of ages
became the source of instrumental change of destinies. They played a vital role in liberating the
people from enslavement and cruel yoke. Beyond any praise such was the greatness of Al-
Ghazali in those fretful days that in spite of the great honor bestowed upon him, he replied that
he did not want anything from any of God’s creatures.
“In spite of those lofty ideals, Al-Ghazali seems to have rightly realized that time had
changed since the early days of Islam, and besides honest work there was something else, a
certain amount of prestige which is wanted to exert a psychological influence on the people
and keep law and order in the hand, and he would desist from doing anything which might
result in the disintegration of the state through the lack of these factors.” (Sherwani)
__________________
Page 87 of 108
Muslim Political Thought---Ibn-e-Khaldoon
Ibn-e-Khaldoon
Introduction:
Abu Zaid Abd-al-Rahman Ibn-e-Khaldoon, the North African Muslim of the 14th century, was
undoubtedly the first to introduce a most scientific method in the political study of the history of
human civilization. He is distinguished for considering history as a science worthy of study and
not merely a narration of facts. Ibn-e-Khaldoon belonged to an Andalusian family which had
migrated from Seville to Tunis on the expulsion of Moors on the conquest of Spain by Ferdinand
III of Castile. It was one of these humble families that Ibn-e-Khaldoon was born in 1332, and he
raised to be a man of remarkable knowledge as well as of profound historical and political
acumen, perhaps the first scientific historian of world and one who has left an indelible mark on
the sciences of historiography and sociology.
During fourteenth century, Tunis was the cradle of learning and knowledge. Young Ibn-e-
Khaldoon took full advantage of the scholastic opportunities which were abundantly available
there. He learnt the Quran by heart, studied the Traditions and Maliki Jurisprudence, as well as
Arabic Grammar and Rhetoric from eminent scholars and by dint of his sharp diligence and
intellect, he was taken in service at the age of twenty by the ruler of Tunis, Abu Ishaq II. The
restless spirit that was in him made him roam about from one capital to another, now secretary of
state of Fez, then crossing the straits of Gibraltar as a fief holder of Muhammad bin Yousaf,
Sultan of Granada, later as the head of a political mission to Pedro the Cruel, king of Castile who
was staying at his ancestral town of Seville. Then he moved on to the court of the Prince of
Bejaya near Constantine. In 1374, he again went to Granada but it was not long before he was
expelled back to Africa.
After returning Africa he was tired and weary of perennial wanderings and he took refuge in
African Desert and compiled his world-famed Prolegomena giving finishing touches to it about
the middle of 1377, after which he returned to his native town of Tunis a quarter of a century
after he had left it. In 1382 he went to Cairo where he lived the rest of his life. At Egypt, he
occupied a distinct position and high status as a Chief Justice a number of times and during the
intervals, he used to deliver lectures. He died as judge in Cairo on March 17, 1406. He was
reverently buried in Sufi Cemetery outside Cairo’s Nasr Gate. He was a versatile genius, a great
philosopher and a man of strong convictions of his age, who wielded an abysmal influence on
the posterity.
Ibn-e-Khaldoon made great contributions in the field of knowledge and learning and his works
are still widely read by every student of political philosophy. He gave us the following works:
1. Kitab-al-Ibrar…..It is a universal history written in seven volumes, the introduction to this

work entitled Muqaddamah, extensive enough to take the whole of the first volume. It was
about the author’s views with regard to the nature and method of history.
2. al-Taarif
3. Histroy of the Berbers
Page 88 of 108
Contribution of Ibn-e-Khaldoon
Ibn-e-Khaldoon wielded a deep influence on his succeeding political philosophers due to his
systematic study of political theory in a dark age, when political discussion meant nothing more
than a rough and ready formulation of the functions of the ruler. Almost all the eminent western
philosophers like Machiavelli, Boding, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Hegel and Marx were
profoundly influenced by his political theory composed in his immortal work “Muqaddamah”
which extensively deals with a great variety of subjects. Ibn-e-Khaldoon was greatly reverenced
as a sage of the age and his contemporaries envied him for his steadfastness and political acumen
for combating political abuses and ills that prevailed in all ages of thoughts and philosophies. He
left behind a treasure of knowledge which will work as a store-house for the posterities.
Ibn-e-Khaldoon discussed various Islamic political institutions in the light of the history of the
early Islamic state. He made political enquiries into the various historical events of the early
period of Islam with impartiality and analytical mind of jurist. He upholds the practicability of
Islamic laws in the state and considers the Sharia state as definitely superior to the Power state.
He contemplates little of the Siyast Madaniya for he considers the philosophers ideal state as the
visionary product of utopian thought, having no relation with historical facts. The ideal for him is
the Islamic state as it existed under the first four Caliphs. But his empiricism is manifest in his
analysis of the Muslim empires of his own day. In his political thinking, it is Islam that emerges
as the sole objective for all human endeavors.
Mohsin Mahdi says, “The biographical, stylistic and doctrinal evidence introduced in this
study establish this point beyond any reasonable doubt. It has been shown that he
articulately though cautiously, defended the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle against Neo-
Platonism, atomism and logical nominalism; and that his study of Prophecy, the religious
law and the character of the Islamic community prove that he was a true disciple of the
Islamic Platonic tradition of political philosophy.”
Ibn-e-Khaldoon seems to be the only great thinker who not only saw the problems of the relation
of the history and the science of society to traditional political philosophy but also made full
endeavors to develop a science of society with the framework of political philosophy as based on
its principles. According to Ibn-e-Khaldoon, traditional philosophy demands the study of man
and society as they really are, and supplies the frame work of directing such a study and utilizing
its results. Rosenthal was of the view that importance of Ibn-e-Khaldoon was not recognized in
his own time, and until the seventeenth century did Muslims writers take any notice of him,
while Europeans scholars discovered him only in the last century. Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s importance
consists in a number of novel insights of permanent value and significance:
1. In his distinction between rural and urban life and the necessity of the latter for the emergence
of civilization and a state in the strict sense of the term.
2. In his postulating the Asabiya as the principal driving force of political action.
3. In his projection of Islam into a universal human civilization, thus standing on the social and
Page 89 of 108
in the climate of Islam and looking out towards humanity at large.

4. In his realization of the casual interdependence of the several factors of social life in the power
state; economic, military, cultural and religious.
5. In the concept of the parallel existence of the state founded by a prophetic law-giver, as
distinct from the state built on power in response to the human need for political association and
the desire of strong personalities for domination.
6. Arising from the last point, in his definition and analysis of the Islamic country, as a
composite structure whose law is a mixture of Shariah and political law.
7. In his basic recognition of the vital part which religion should play in the life of the state,
especially if it transforms the Asabiya into a durable, cohesive and spiritual motive power.
Page 90 of 108
Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s Historical Approach

to the Political Science
With the ascendancy of Islam, historical literature got its birth and religious, moral and practical
aspects of history were greatly stressed for the expansion of Islamic influence over the whole
world. Muslims, by the inspiring source of history, are directed to contemplate the vicissitudes of
earthly life, the rise and fall of the kingdoms and the Judgment of God upon the nations are
revealed in their fortunes and misfortunes. As to the method they demand and command veracity
and exactitude in transmitting historical information derived, whenever possible, from primary
sources or eye-witnesses. With the expansion of Islam during the seventh-eighth centuries and
the production of a vast and varied historical literature, the seeds of historical thought contained
in the Holy Quran and the sayings of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H).
History as a profession started in Islam with the search for and the collection and transmission of
individual reports about specific events. These reports were first transmitted orally and when
written records were gradually introduced, these were accepted at first merely as aids to memory.
The historians took pains to learn about, and ascertain the competence of the authorities who
transmitted these reports and used the science of biography (Ilm al-rijal) and of authority
criticism (al-jarh wal-tadil) as their main tools. Tabri, a famous Muslim historian, was of the
view that history is not a rational discipline and that human reason does not play significant role
in it.
Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s Views on History:

Ibn-e-Khaldoon had seen considerable political ordeals and vicissitudes, and he fully knew that a
number of states quite distinct in culture, dialect, historical environments and administration
were destroyed under the wheels of time and fully realized the factors responsible for the rise and
fall of Islamic states. The methods of argument that he adapts to a large extent, is analytical but
he does not fail to supplement it with historical data. Ibn-e-Khaldoon also considered history as a
science. The aim of history for him is not merely to narrate the stories of kings, queens and
dynasties or prepare the chronicles of war and pacts among states but to describe the facts of vise
and fall of human civilization. It is essentially the record of human society, its growth and decay,
under different geographical, economic, political, religious and other cultural conditions.
Laws of Sociology:
Ibn-e-Khaldoon was undoubtedly a sociologically minded historian. He was conscious of the
originality of his work and claimed himself to be discoverer for the first time of the laws of
national progress and decay. The sociological laws operate with regard to masses only and would
not be significantly determined with reference to single individuals, for the individual’s own
attitudes and beliefs are considerably conditioned by the social environment in which they are
placed.
Historical Approach to the Science of Politics:

His political theory developed as part of his description of human civilization. Ibn-e-Khaldoon
held that all political institutions are closely associated to the socio-economic conditions of a
Page 91 of 108
time and that they are quite at in with the environments of a particular age, both mental and
physical. That is why he makes political enquiries pertaining to religious, social, economic and
physical circumstances. Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s science was new, independent and was not dealt with
by any previous thinker with such originality, extension and profoundness. He was the first
Muslim philosopher cum-historian who contributed to the study of political institutions, forms of
Government and the other public institutions and their development in Muslim States.
Physical Environments:
Ibn-e-Khaldoon is predecessor of Montesquieu, realizing the influence of physical environments
and climatic conditions on the habits and characters of people. He devotes a major portion of his
work on the enquiry of the influence of food and climate upon human things. He explains that
the people of fertile zones are stupid in mind and coarse in body, and that the influence of
abundance upon the body is apparent in matters of religion and divine worship. He signifies the
influence of physical environments on political institutions which reflect the character of people
as molded by geographical environments. He said, “Bedouins are more courageous than other
and the decline sets in life of a dynasty when people indulge in luxury and ease-loving life due to
abundance of food and also development in arts and crafts.”
Natural Society:
Herbert Spencer regarded moral improvement merely as an existence of the biological concept of
adaptation, and social well-being in terms of the law of the survival of the fittest. Ibn-e-Khaldoon
preceded him in propounding a theory of organic state. He said, “Dynasties have a natural life
span like individuals. They have life of their own which normally does not exceed a period
of 120 years for each dynasty in its capacity as a ruling nation.” Ibn-e-Khaldoon had already
stressed on moral improvement in terms of biological concept of adaptation in the course of his
discussion on problems concerning the transformation of nomadic life together with its variations
in the various aspects of social behavior.
Professor Schmidt says, “Ibn-e-Khaldoon is a philosopher as much as Auguste Comte,

Thomas Buckle or Herbert Spencer. His philosophy of history is not a theodicy as Hegel’s.
Thus he is placed as philosopher, historian of civilization, a scholar of sociology and
political economy. It is worthwhile to discover the glimpses of Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s views in
the works of every western philosopher.”
__________________
Page 92 of 108
Stages in the Development of Society and the State
During the period of establishment, solidarity based upon familiarities and religion continues to
be essential for the preservation of the state. This is the period during which the ruler forces the
ruled to build the institution necessary for a civilized culture. There are new activities to be
carried out and new political relations to be created. When aided by religion, solidarity becomes
more effective in establishing the state, since the subjects will then obey the ruler and his
directives more willingly convinced that in doing so they are praying to God. The stages in the
development of the society and the state are following:
Stage 1. During the first stage, solidarity is still largely based on a community of sentiments, and
the ruler owes his position to his noble ancestry and the respect of his fellow tribesmen. His role
is dependent on their number, power and assistance. He is still their chief rather than their master
and king. He has to accommodate their sentiments and desires and to share his power with them.
The same is true of religion. The ruler who is establishing a state with the aid of a religious
passage cannot act as a master and a king, since religion means the obedience of all to God and
the religious Law.
Stage 2. The second stage in the development of the period of consolidating the ruler’s power is
to create absolute kingship. Natural solidarity and religion are checked so far as they mean the
sharing of power, and are used at the discretion of the absolute ruler. Solidarity is replaced by a
paid army, and an organized administrative bureaucracy, that carry out his wishes. Natural
solidarity becomes increasingly superfluous. The people generally acquire the habit obeying their
new ruler. The impersonal organization of the army and bureaucracy take care of the protection
of the state and the development of the various institutions of a civilized culture.
Stage 3. As the ruler’s lust and aggrandizement for attaining absolute power is satisfied with the
full concentration of authority in his hands, he begins to use his authority for the satisfaction of
his other desire in other words; he starts to collect the fruits of authority. Thus a third stage of
luxury and leisure follows. The ruler concentrates on the organization of the finances of the state
and goes on increasing his income. He spends lavishly on public works and one beautifying the
cities in imitation of famous civilized states. He enriches his followers who start living a
luxurious life. Economic progress and prosperity usher a new era of development, which satisfy
the increasing desires of the ruler. The crafts, the fine arts and the sciences are greatly patronized
to be flourishing for the satisfaction of the new ruling class. The state has finally reached the
stage where it is able to satisfy man’s craving fro luxuries and his pride in possessing them. This
is a period of rest and self-indulgence in which men enjoy the comforts and pleasures of the
world.
The first three stages are powerful, independent and creative, they are able to consolidate their
authority and satisfy the subjects becoming the slaves of these desires.
Page 93 of 108
Stage 4. Having reached its zenith, the next stage is a period of contentment in which the ruler
and the ruled are satisfied and complacent. They imitate their predecessors in enjoying the
pleasures of life, how their predecessors struggled to achieve them. They think that their
luxurious life and the various advantages of civilization have always been existed and will
continue to exist for ever. Luxury, comfort and the gratification of their desires become a habit
with them. The length of this period depends upon the power and extent of the achievements of
the founder of the state.
Stage 5. During fifth stage, the state is already starting to decline and disintegrate. The fifth and
last stage of waste and prodigality is setting in. the state has reached old age and is deemed to be
slow or nearing death. The very process of establishing it had destroyed the vital forces of
solidarity and religion that were responsible for its existence. The ruler had destroyed the
communal pride and loyalty of their kinsmen, who humiliated and impoverished have lost the
drive to conquer. Their successes, having known only the life of luxury and surrounded by a
prodigal entourage, continue to spend more and more on their pleasure. They increase taxes and
these in turn discover economic activity and lead to a decline in the income of the state which
makes it impossible for the ruler to support his new followers.
Rosenthal was of the view “The fifth phase is one of extravagance and waste. In this phase
the ruler destroys what his ancestors have brought together, for the sake of lust and
pleasure. For he is generous towards his intimates and liberal at his banquets in order to
win the scum of the people, to whom he entrusts great tasks which they are unable to
undertake. In this way, he spoils (his chances) with the noble and distinguished among his
people and with the followers of his predecessors, so that they are filled with hatred against
him and agree among themselves to desert him. Moreover, he loses point of his troops
because he spends their pay on his pleasure and prevents them from getting to know him
personally. In this phase, the natural ageing of the dynasty (that is the decay) sets in and a
chronic disease gets hold of it without remedy or release until it collapses.”
Further, the habits of comforts and luxury generate physical weakness and moral vices. The elite
and the aristocrats forget the courageous manners of primitive life. They are powerless before an
outside invasion by a strong civilized state or by united primitive people. Excessive taxes and
fear of invasion weakens the hopes of ruled. Despondency becomes so common and it reigns the
day and consequently it freezes all economic activities. The entire population physically weakens
and living in large crowded cities become subject to disease and plague. With the decrease of
economic activity and the depopulation of cities, the state begins to disintegrate; starting form
the outlying regions, princes, generals and the discontented kinsmen of the ruler become
independent.
In the capital of the state, the mercenary troops and civil bureaucracy begin intriguing to wrest
the actual power from the ruler, leaving him but the insignia and the name. Finally an external
invasion puts an end to the life of the state, or it may continue to decline until it withers away
like a wick dying out in the lamp of which oil is gone or goes under the subjugation of foreign
power.
__________________
Page 94 of 108
Ibn-e-Khaldoon as a Father of Political Economy
Ibn-e-Khaldoon has rightly been claimed as the forerunner of a great many Western scholars
such as Machiavelli, Boding, Gibbon, Montesquieu, and many other notable thinkers. There is
hardly any other thinker with whom he might not be compared. Long before Adam Smith, Ibn-e-
Khaldoon foresaw the interconnection of political and economic institutions. The Muslim genius
made an enquiry into the various aspects of economic activities and recorded their political
significance in respect of their good and bad effects on the state. Stefan Colosio said, “The
great Muslim historian was able to discover in the Middle Ages the principles of social
justice and political economy before Considerant, Marx and Baconine. He was an original
economist who understood the principles of political economy and applied it skillfully and
intelligently, long before it was known to Western research. He thus talks about state’s
work in economic field, and its bad effects about political forces and social classes, the
methods and kinds of property, the social task of labor, and its division into free and paid
labor, and about law of supply and demand.”
Role of capital and labor in Economy:

Ibn-e-Khaldoon depicts a vivid picture of the role of capital and labor in an economy. He devotes
special chapters to the question of Government finances and other business affairs. His theory of
labor, in which he defines profit and sustenance and the role of labor in the fixation of the values
of the commodities, exerted a marked influence on the writings of classical economists. Ibn-e-
Khaldoon defines the term sustenance and profit as, “The part of the income that is obtained
by a person through his own effort and strength is called profit. When a particular person
enjoys its fruits by spending it upon his interest and need, it is called sustenance. Thus it is
the part of the profit that is utilized. If the profit results from something other than a craft,
the value of the resulting profit and acquired (capital) must also include the value of the
labor by which it was obtained; without labor it would not have been acquired. A portion
of the value whether large or small, comes from the labor.”
Ibn-e-Khaldoon praises Islamic economic system which prescribes Zakat, Kharaj and Jizya. To
establish the superiority of Islamic economic system, he quotes the saying of Holy Prophet
(P.B.U.H.): “The only thing you possess of your property is what you ate, and have thus
destroyed; or what you gave as charity, and have thus spent.” Ibn-e-Khaldoon severely
condemns the engagement of rulers in the commercial activity because it creates hurdles in the
development of a free competition in economic field, which is most essential for the circulation
of wealth in the society as a whole. If the rulers indulge in trade activities, they would be I an
advantageous position in the selling and purchasing of the commodities, by virtue of their
political control on the commercial activities. Thus injustice would be brought about in the
society which is disastrous for the dynasty.
Taxation Policy:
Among the economic problems his discussion first elaborately starts with taxation. As a practical
politician he had full knowledge of the ways and means to collect the Government revenues. He
was of the view that taxation must be equitable and just. When justice and equity are lacking in
Page 95 of 108
taxation policy of a Government, it is inviting its own ruin. He said, “In the beginning of dynasty
taxation yields large revenue from assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields small
revenue from large assessments.”
A balanced budget is essential for sound economy and is the key to stability of the political
order. Ibn-e-Khaldoon said, “In the beginning of the state, taxes are light in the distribution
but considerable in their total and vice versa. The reason is that the state, which follows the
ways of religion, only demands the obligation imposed by the Shariah, namely Zakat,
Kharaj and Jizya, which are light in their distribution and these are the limits beyond
which one must not go.”
A rural economy based on agriculture, with a simple standard of living and light taxes, provides
an incentive to work hard, with prosperity as the prize. But as soon as autocrats assume power
and urban life, with a much higher standard of living, makes greater demands, heavier taxes are
levied upon farmers, craftsmen and merchants. Production and profits decline, since the
incentive has been taken away from all those engaged in the economic life of the state.
Salaries and Allowances:

The deductions in services and allowances decrease expenditures of those affected which
ultimately affects the incomes of so many others from whom they used to buy things. This
involves a decrease in a business activity and monetary transactions and thus leads to
diminishing tax revenues of the state. He disapproves such procedures by a state. Ibn-e-
Khaldoon extensively deals with the injustice to the people and is of the view that it brings about
the ruin of civilization, because attacks on people’s property remove the incentive to acquire or
gain property.
The great injustice which he mentions is buying the people’s property at cheaper rates and
selling it at higher rates. It is most destructive to civilization. This involves taking the capital of
the people and this making them unable to do the cultural enterprise. When capital is decreased,
profits are diminished, people’s incentive slackens and thereby the business dwindles. Ultimately
this proves to be a death blow to the state.
Standard of Living:
The prosperity and business activity in different cities differ in accordance with the difference in
the size of their population. As labor is the fundamental source of profit or income, larger the
labor, the higher the profit. The extra labor works for luxuries and luxury goods and crafts etc.
Production thrives income and expenditure of the inhabitants multiply and more and more
population pours into the city. All the strata of the society in the large city is affected. As profit is
the value realized from labor, larger the labor the more will be the value realized from it, which
leads to prosperity. In less populated cities or remote towns, villages and hamlets, people are
equally poor because their labor does not pay for their necessities and does not yield them a
surplus which they can accumulate as profit. Even beggars and poor differ in large and small
cities.
Income and expenditure balance each other in every city. If both are large, the inhabitants are
Page 96 of 108
prosperous and the city grows. Ibn-e-Khaldoon concludes that the favorable conditions and much
prosperity in civilization are the result of its large size. As is the case in cities, so it is with the
countries. He gave the examples of the populated countries such as Egypt, Syria, India, and
China as being more prosperous as compared to the less populated regions which were less
prosperous.
It should be noted that Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s thesis is that higher population brings much labor and
much value is realized from it, which causes profit and prosperity. Apparently it may sound
strange today, that more populated countries are poor and less populated ones are advanced. But
as far as cities in a given country are concerned, his construction is as valid as it was in his time.
Technological changes were not occurring in his time, he does not explicitly elucidate the role of
productivity of labor.
Ibn-e-Khaldoon was of the view that the wages of the teachers and religious officials are lower,
because demand for their services is not high. His remarkable exposition of labor, value, profit,
population and their correlation with prosperity and civilization has stood the test of time. He
gives the definition of profit as the value realized from human labor. He said, “With the
decrease of population sustenance of a country disappears, springs stop flowing because
they require labor, they flow only if dug out and water drawn. He compares this process
with the udders of cattle.”
Livelihood:
His derivation of livelihood is interesting, he said, “It should be known that livelihood means
the desire for sustenance and the efforts to obtain it. Livelihood is information from Ashe
life. The idea is that Ashe life obtained only through the things (that go into making a
living) and that they are considered with some exaggeration, the place of life.”
Among productive activities he included medical services, education and musical etc. whereas
Adam Smith excluded services from his definition of real national product. But Ibn-e-Khaldoon
excludes activities such as based on fraud, exploitation or ignorance i-e, astrology, alchemy,
search for buried treasure and the various public servants who receive their shares from public
receipts vitiated by injustice, oppression and fiscal pressure. While dealing with comparative
wages, he has very intelligently analyzed the reasons for the low wages of dealing with religious
matters, teachers, mufti, prayer leaders, preacher, muezzin etc. as profit is value realized from
labor, the value of labor profits differs according to the needs or particular kind of labor. He said,
“Now the common people have no compelling need for the things that the religious officials
have to offer.” So their share is in accordance with the general need and demand of the
population for them. It is meager as compared with others. Besides he deals with various other
and economic problems such as high and low prices, crafts, agriculture, prices of food stuff and
hoarding etc. in all these matters, Ibn-e-Khaldoon showed the depth of great thinker and political
economist.
__________________
Page 97 of 108
Muslim Political Thought---Allama Iqbal
Allama Iqbal
Introduction:
Allama Muhammad Iqbal is a figure of legendary greatness amongst the scholars and poets of
the modern age and his political thought has won a great deal of attention and respect amongst
discerning students of political philosophy. He was born at Sialkot, a renowned city of Pakistan.
He received his early education in Scotch Mission College, Sialkot and after his elementary
schooling; he came to Lahore for higher education. He did M.A. in Philosophy from Government
College Lahore in 1899 and served the Government College, as a lecturer in the subject of
Philosophy for about five years. He later left for England in 1905 for higher studies. He obtained
PhD degree from Munich University by writing a thesis, The Development of Metaphysics in
Persia. He again went to London and did Bar-at-Law from Lincoln’s Inn. He returned to India in
1908 and was appointed as Professor of Philosophy in the Government College Lahore. Along
with professorship he enrolled himself as a practicing barrister at the Lahore High Court. He
resigned after a year and half from professorship and continued his legal practice.
He entered into practical politics and joined his efforts with freedom-champions to liberate the
Indian Muslims from the clutches of the Hindus and subjugation of the English. He was elected
as Member of the Punjab Legislative Council, and later elected unanimously of the President of
All-India Muslim League. He vigorously advocated the two nation theory and demanded a
separate homeland for Indian Muslims, where their religion and culture could flourish without
any fear of chauvinism. He actuated the Muslims of India from political slumber to champion
their cause for separate country within India, and this very vision became crystal reality in his
pronouncement in the annual session of the League in 1930. Dr. Allama Iqbal’s declaration for
Pakistan echoed throughout the world and it became the instrumental in re-awakening and the
enlightenment of Muslims to combat all forces for the achievement of a separate homeland i-e.
Pakistan.
Dr. Iqbal has given an ever-inspiring treasure of knowledge and philosophy through his works,
which have immortalized him on the pages of existence. He is widely respected because of his
philosophy and poetry which enlivened the nation, living in a state of vertigo to win their liberty
from the usurpers. As poet he is considered to be the poet of Prophets for all ages. His works
have been translated into many foreign languages so that the students must properly be benefited
in their future researches by his thoughts and philosophies.
His works are detailed as under:
1. Development of Metaphysics in Persia (Thesis for PhD)

2. Asrar-e-Khudi (Secrets of Self)
3. Ramooz-e-Bay-Khudi (Mysteries of Selflessness)
4. Payam-e-Mashriq (Message of the East)
5. Bang-e-Dara
Page 98 of 108
6. Zaboor-e-Ajam
7. Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (collection of lectures)
8. Javed Namah
9. Bal-e-Jibraeel
10. Pas Che Bayad Kard Ay Aqwam-e-Sharq
11. Zarb–e-Kaleem
12. Armughan-e-Hijaz
13. Ilmul-Iqtisad (Economics)
Iqbal as a Muslim Political Thinker
Allama Iqbal a great supporter of freedom and pioneer of Muslim movement in the sub-continent
recklessly strived for the achievement of his noble ideals. Indian Muslims were tied in the chains
of enslavement and subjection and he strived for the whole nation with his virulent speeches and
thought-provoking declarations for making unanimous efforts for liberty and emancipation. His
dynamism is proverbial, his mysticism is extraordinary and his simplicity is an example for his
followers. He gave new inspiration to the Muslims who were politically unconscious and
ignorant. He kindled fire in them to fight for their basic rights. He is loudly applauded
everywhere due to his greater contributions leading to the ultimate establishment of Pakistan.
Allama Iqbal was a sensitive sage of his age and he saw the prevailing political ills in India, and
inculcated ideals for the complete liquidation of the dominators, so that Islamic culture and
heritage be protected from all penetrating evils. The Hindu and the English were the two
domineering forces in the sub-continent and all fundamental privileges for Muslims were
completely denied. In order to liberate the Muslims from cruel subjugation, our thinker took deep
interest in the political situation and problems as no sensitive and intelligent young Indian could
fail to do, but “it was only when he realized that most of the political leaders of the Muslims
were lacking political acumen and foresight that he started taking active interest in
politics.” (S.A.Vahid)
Allama Iqbal was a member of the Committee of Muslim League formed in London in 1903 by
the Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali. On his return from England, Iqbal took keen interest in the objective
working of the Muslim League but did not participate actively in politics from 1910-1923. In
1924, Allama Iqbal joined the National Liberal League of Lahore but not finding it very effective
resigned from it later on. In 1926, he was elected as a member to the Punjab Legislative
Assembly.
Secretary of Muslim League:

In 1928, Iqbal became secretary of that branch of the Muslim League which functioned under the
President-ship of Sir Muhammad Shafi. Along with other members of League, he appeared
before the Simon Commission which was appointed by the British Government to report on the
introduction of further political reforms in the sub-continent. While participating eagerly in
Page 99 of 108
Punjab politics, Iqbal was also interested in all-India politics. In 1929 he attended the Muslim
Conference held in Delhi under the Chairmanship of Sir Agha Khan, and made some important
contribution to the deliberations of the conference. In 1930, he was unanimously elected to
preside over the Annual Session of the Muslim League held in Allahbad. In his historic
presidential address, Iqbal said, “I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier
Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within
the British Empire or without the British Empire, the foundation of a consolidated North-
West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of
North-West India.”
Round Table Conference:

In 1931, Allama Iqbal attended the Second round Table Conference in London and served as the
representative of the Minorities Committee. He returned to Lahore on 30th December 1931 most
disappointed at the attitude of Mr. Gandhi and other Hindu leaders at the conference and
convinced more than ever, that the only solution of the political troubles of the sub-continent was
a division of the country.
In 1932, Iqbal was invited to attend the Third Round Table Conference. While the Conference
was in progress, Iqbal grew so dissatisfied with its proceedings that he resigned and returned to
India. In 1936, at the inspirations of Mr. Jinnah, Iqbal undertook the work for the Punjab
Parliamentary Board, which was to conduct elections. Muslim politics was in turmoil and chaos
as at that time Mr. Jinnah was facing a very hard time. But in the midst of all this darkness there
shone a flickering light in Lahore and this was Iqbal who stood steadfast by Jinnah in those
trying days and helped him to charter the course of Indo-Muslim politics.
When Allama Iqbal died as a broken heart without seeing the fulfillment of his ideals, Mr.
Jinnah sent this message to his son, “To me he was friend, guide and philosopher and during
the darkest moments through which the Muslim League had to go he stood like a rock and
never flinched one single moment.”
On March 24, 1940, when the Pakistan Resolution was passed by the Muslim League at Lahore,
Mr. Jinnah said, “Iqbal is no more amongst us, but had he been alive he would have been
happy to know that we did exactly what he wanted us to do.”
Iqbal’s Contributions:
No one today denies that Iqbal placed a very vital part in the founding of Pakistan. Iqbal was
perhaps not a politician in the strict sense in which Mr. Jinnah or Mr. Nehru were, but he could
see further than almost any other of his contemporaries could. It was the part of Allama Iqbal’s
greatness that he not only formulated conception of an Islamic State in India and outlined its
physical boundaries but laid down the characteristics which a state must have. Rushbrook
Williams said, “If it were to provide that interplay between the individual and the society in
which the individual lives, which Iqbal knew to be essential for the highest development of
both.”
Allama Iqbal’s contributions to Islam and Muslims are unparalleled in their characteristics and
his followers interwove the practicability on the basis of his ideals. All Muslims of the world are
Page 100 of 108
indebted to our great thinker and pay gratitude for his relentless fight for a separate homeland,
which changed the political attitudes of other sovereigns. His selfless services and devotion in
the field of poetry, philosophy and metaphysics are unprecedented, which ushered a new era of
literature and knowledge. His message through his statements, speeches and work will ever
vibrate against evil, slavery and subjugation.
Page 101 of 108

Iqbal’s Concept of an Islamic State
Allama Iqbal’s greatness as a versatile poet and his originality and profoundity as a renowned
thinker can never be denied in any age of human thought and philosophy. His greatness in these
fields can attract no controversy. The eternal presence of the Poet of the East in Pakistan is felt
with deep reverence and respect more than a visionary poet or merely an academic philosopher.
He is the creator of the very conception of the state of Pakistan. The birth of Pakistan, as an
independent Islamic state, on the map of globe, had many causes but name so potent as the one
that has reference to the vision which Iqbal had about the political future of the Indian Muslims.
Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan, the former President of Pakistan, said, “It is common
fallacy to believe that the concept of Pakistan was formed in a poet’s dream. The poet, Dr.
Muhammad Iqbal, was no idle dreamer. Nor can countries like Pakistan, 364737 square
miles; population 80,000,000 spring from the nebulous realm of poetry alone. Iqbal was in
fact a philosopher of traditional as well as modern thought who had made a careful study
of human affairs, both of East and West, and focused the light of his inquiry on the causes
of economic and cultural subjugation to which the Muslims of India had been
systematically subjected since their first abortive struggle for independence in 1857. It was
in his presidential address at the annual session of All-India Muslim League in 1930 that he
spelt out the broad outlines of a plan under which the Muslims of India were led to aspire
to an independent state in which they would be free to follow their own way of life.”
Allama Iqbal in the name of Ijtehad, strongly defended his idea of the creation of Muslim Empire
within the sub-continent of India, which was very akin to its approximation to the Western
conception of the term “state”, purely as an interim and transitional phase of the growth of
universal brotherhood of man. Khawaja Abdur Rahim was of the view that Universal
brotherhood is an ideal good for human evolution which Islam came to establish, and the
symbol of which phenomenon every year is held aloft by Islam for the rest of the world to
see on the day of pilgrimage at Mecca, when millions of Muslims coming from distant parts
of the world congregate, in the presence of One God, and stand shoulder to shoulder in
spite of the local loyalties they may owe to the lands whence they come.
Allama Iqbal said, “For the present every Muslim nation must sink into her own deeper
self, temporarily focus her vision on herself alone, until all are strong and powerful to form
a living family of republics. A true and living unity, according to the nationalist thinkers, is
not so easy as to be achieved by a merely symbolical over lordship. It is truly manifested in
a multiplicity of free independent units whose racial rivalries are adjusted and harmonized
by the unifying bond of a common spiritual aspiration. It seems to me that God is slowly
bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a
League of Nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for facility
of reference only and not for restricting the social horizon of its members.”
The state of Pakistan exists to fulfill higher Muslim aspirations in the modern world history; to
Page 102 of 108

begin with, it must be made to serve as a stepping stone to the final phase of Muslim history, as a
sort of a platform from where we are to appeal to the rest of the humanity to listen to the Divine
Oracle which says that all humanity is one and the various communities into which it is divided
is merely for the purpose of identification and the division has no other deeper meaning. The
philosophy of colorless cosmopolitan must not be accepted. For the uplift of universal
brotherhood of mankind, Pakistan should not emphasis the growth of the distinctive and cultural
features. It is rather to stress that the historical evolution of our national life in all its uniqueness
is an important condition precedent for the full realization of the ideal of brotherhood of man.
We have to love Pakistan and develop the distinctive features of Pakistan’s culture.
Allama Iqbal was of opinion that the rehabilitation of Muslim history could take place provided
in Pakistan, future homeland of Indian Muslims; historical task will be approached, for
development of national culture with an eye on ultimate goal of universal history. In Islam the
idea of territorial frontiers has no ultimate juridical significance, because fundamentally the earth
belongs to the God and is the inheritance of the righteous ones. The discords and the conflicts
which are presently infesting the world peace and are threatening to mount up to a point where
another global war may breakout with consequences too terrible to contemplate, are ultimately
traceable to the rigid adherence to the concept of absolute national sovereignty.
No nation is prepared to surrender any part of its sovereignty in favor of the creation of super
national authority; that is so simply because the state in our own day has become an idol which is
to be worshipped to the utter neglect of our reverence for that element of transcendence which
gives to the human history, a universal background. Much of the chaos and disorder that one
notices is the social, economic and political. Life in Pakistan ultimately reflects the crisis of a
character which has taken place in our interior consciousness. It is here that an attempt that
healing has to be initiated. Ethics but not Economics lay down the primary force for the
redemption of man. All strength, even material strength is ultimately possible and durable only
upon a moral basis.
__________________
Page 103 of 108

Iqbal’s Conception of Khudi (Ego)
The conception of Khudi has been the most important contribution of Iqbal to the realm of
political thought. It was not due to the fact that he was the first to treat the subject before him
such eminent minds as Nietzsche, Fichte, Bergso and William James had dealt with the subject
from the various angles of vision. Iqbal’s originality lay in the fact that the whole concept of
Khudi underwent a radical change and assumed a realistic interpretation under his masterly pen.
To Iqbal, Khudi or ego does not signify pride or arrogance, but the spirit of self affirmation of
one’s potentialities and their proper utilization. Every object of the universe exhibits this spirit in
some way or other. Even the Creator of this universe could not help expressing His ego and
created this world in order to be known. One Hadith alludes to this fact in these words:
“I was a hidden treasure. I wished that I may be recognized, therefore I created the whole
creature.”
Thus man being the highest creature, should have spirit of “I-am-ness” in its perfection, and
should assimilate and absorb in himself the attributes of God and thus become His vicegerent
(naib) on earth. This implies that a limited authority has been given to every man to fashion his
life according to ego. Ego must then consist in creating desires and wishes and trying to realize
them, by the authority vested in every man.
Iqbal said,
‫خویشتن را چوں خودی بیدار کرد‬

‫آشکارا عالم پندار کرد‬
‫صد جہاں پوشیدہ اندر ذات او‬
‫غیر او پیداست از اثبات او‬
‫در جہاں تخم خصومت کاشت است‬
‫خویشتن را غیر خود پنداشت است‬
When the Self awakened itself, it revealed the world of concepts.
A hundred worlds are hidden in its being; its not-self comes to being from its self-
affirmation.
It has sown the seeds of hostility in the world by imagining itself to be other than itself.
Allama Iqbal believed that the philosophy of self-denial was developed by the weaker nations in
their days of decline and degradation. The criticism of Nietzsche against Christianity was based
on the fact that the Christians having a defeatist mentality believed that paradise was to be given
to the weak and the humble few and not to the wealthy and the strong.
Page 104 of 108

Iqbal and Nietzsche:

Despite the high price he bestowed upon Nietzsche and acceptance of his influence, the fact
remains that Iqbal was never completely a follower of Nietzsche. Iqbal profited from many great
thinkers and renowned Sufis, but in keeping with his own philosophy of Khudi he never
completely became an imitator of any. The influence of Western thought apparent in Asrar-i-
Khudi contains not only the philosophy of Nietzsche but also ideas of the German philosopher,
Fichte, and of the French Jews, Bergson.
Allama Iqbal has delineated in his famous poem, Asrar-i-Khudi that there are three stages in the
development of Khudi. The first stage is called Obedience, the second Self-Control and the third
is called Divine Vicegerency. In the first stage the self is likened which is taken directly from
Nietzsche, while the other tow are taken from Islamic philosophy and literature. Allama Iqbal
states in his famous lecture entitled, “The Human Ego” that there is in the history of modern
thought one positive view of immortality. This view deserves some consideration, not only
because Nietzsche has maintained i.e. with prophetical fervor but also because it reveals a real
tendency in the modern mind.
Allama Iqbal said, “The Quranic view of the testing of man is partly ethical, partly
biological. I say partly biological because the Quran makes in this connection certain
statements of a biological nature which we cannot understand without a deeper insight into
the nature of life. It mentions, for instance, the fact of Barzakh, a state perhaps of some
kind of suspense between Death and Resurrection. Resurrection appears to have been
differently conceived. The Quran does not base its possibility, like Christianity, on the
evidence of the actual resurrection of an historic person. It seems to take and argue
resurrection as a universal phenomenon of life, in some sense true even of birds or
animals.”
According to Quranic view:
1. That the ego has a beginning in time, and did not pre-exist its emergence in the spatio-
temporal order.
2. There is no possibility of return to this earth. This is clear from the following verses: “When
death overtook one of them, he said, Lord! Send me back again, that I may do the good
that I have left undone. By no means, these are the very words which he shall speak. But
behind them is a barrier (Barzakh), until the day when they shall be raised again. "(23,
101)
3. That infinite is not a misfortune: “Verily there is none in the Heavens and in the Earth but
shall approach the God of Mercy as a servant. He has taken note of them and remembered
them with exact numbering: and each of them shall come to Him on the day of resurrection
as a single individual.”
This is a very important point and must be properly understood to have a clear insight into the
Islamic theory of salvation. It is with the irreplaceable singleness of his individuality that finite
ego will approach the infinite ego to see for himself the consequences of his past actions and to
Page 105 of 108
judge the possibility of his future.
Helpers of Ego:
Allama Iqbal maintains that stability, permanence and integrity are the essence of ego. A dew-
drop vanishes with the sunlight; a drop of tear disappears after a while, because they took
stability, while a drop which remains in a sea shell becomes a pearl. Similarly, an individual
should subjugate and exploit to his benefit, the things external to him and save himself from
being subjugated. It is true that as against God man is helpless, but as against other creatures, or
natural objects, man is quite powerful, to harness them to his best advantage and benefit.
Mr. Justice Anwar-ul-Haq said, “According to Iqbal, life is a forward, assimilative process
and in essence is the continuous creation of desires and ideas. The human ego has a definite
mission on earth in the two main diversions. In the first place, it has to struggle with its
environment and to conquer it. By this conquest it attains freedom and approaches God,
Who is the freest entity. In the second place, the ego has to maintain a constant state of
tension and thereby attain immortality. By attaining freedom and immortality the go
conquers space on the one hand and time on the other. The ego has to help in the upward
march of humanity by leading to the birth of a higher type of man, namely, the superman
or the perfect man, who is the ideal to which all life aspires.”
According to Iqbal the following factors and forces fortify the human ego or personality:
1. Love:
Iqbal explained the word Love in a letter to Prof. Nicholson, “It means the desire to assimilate, to
absorb. Its highest form is the creation of values and ideals and the endeavors to realize them.
Love individualizes the lover as well as the beloved. The effort to realize the most unique
individuality individualizes the seeker and implies individuality of the sought, for nothing else
would satisfy the nature of the seeker.”
2. Faqr:
By Faqr, Iqbal means an attitude of mind which enables a man to endlessly strive spurning
delights and rewards, except the attainment of worthy ends. In other words, it depicts selflessness
and abnegation and ascendancy over one’s natural environment and a sense of complete
detachment from worldly affairs and rewards. Once an individual is able to achieve this attitude
of mind, there is no limit to what he might attain in the way of development of personality and
spiritual strength. Allied with Faqr is the element of courage, both physical and moral.
3. Courage:
Both physical and moral courage means overcoming and combating all obstacles and hurdles
with no failure of nerve, no submission to forces of evil or to desire to give in except to
conviction. Iqbal calls upon the younger generation to live dangerously and courageously. He
said,
‫آئین جواں مرداں حق گوئی و بے باکی‬

‫اللة کے شیروں کو آتی نھیں روباھی‬
Page 106 of 108
The code for men of courage is spontaneous truth and fearlessness; Brave people knew
nothing about cunningness.
4. Tolerance:
For other people’s views and manners represents the strength of the high order and its cultivation
is greatly beneficial to human society. It also sustains and strengthens the human ego.
5. Kasb-e-Halal:
In a world where selfishness and aggrandizement are playing vital part in human life, insistence
on kasb-e-halal is of the utmost significance. Iqbal insists that the individuals should constantly
exert him to acquire things which he wants to enjoy. He even goes to the extent of deprecating
inheritance of worldly good as he feels that it hurts the ego. Even in the field of ideas, Iqbal
advices avoidance of borrowing. Succinctly, lawful and rightful acquisition, anything not
obtained by foul means like cheating, fraud or theft, acquiring things or ideas through one’s
personal efforts and struggles.
6. Creative and original activity:

Iqbal is opposed to mimicry and copying others slavishly. Blind imitation is of no avail and must
be discouraged.
As against these positive factors there are certain negative forces which are constantly at work to
weaken the ego and stultify the human personality. These are:
1. Fear:
Fear of persons and objects (except God) in all its different phases such as worry, anxiety, anger,
jealousy and timidity is a positive danger for ego. It robs man of efficiency and happiness.
2. Beggary:
Not used in the limited sense but all that is achieved without personal effort and it is in every
form inimical to ego development. All economic and social parasites which flourish on society
under various high-sounding names are beggars.
3. Slavery:
It completely arrests the freedom of man, which retards the development of one’s ego.
Enslavement and mental torture of man, who’s self prompts him for freedom. Every kind of
slavery, whether physical or mental, distorts character and lowers man to the level of a beast and
weakens the human ego. It stifles the growth of ego which needs freedom for its normal
development.
4. Nasab-Parasti:
Races, nations, tribes, communities, castes and families take pride in their superior racial
characters come to destroy the peace and tranquility of the world.
Iqbal is strongly opposed to all these weaknesses in human character. In fact these weaknesses
Page 107 of 108
develop due to the failure of the individual to practice or inculcate in him the positive elements
for the development of character and personality.
Mr. Justice Anwar-ul-Haq says, “These basic elements in Iqbal’s concept of Khudi were
explained to the younger generation of this country in which hope lies for the future. In fact
humanity at large could benefit immensely by the adoption of these ideals. While man has
made enormous strides in the development of scientific techniques and is on the verge of
conquering space and outer space. I am not sure whether he has made progress in
conquering the basic elements in his own nature. It is imperative for us, who are fortunate
to have the stage of Iqbal’s philosophy, to understand this philosophy and to try to act
upon it in our daily lives. Who knows that the salvation of the world may yet lie with those
who imbibe the teachings of Iqbal and of the Quran which is the source of Iqbal’s
inspiration?”
__________________
Page 108 of 108

Pol Science Notes

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pol Science Notes

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Political Science (Paper 1)

Political Science (Paper 1)

9. John Stuart Mill

10. Karl Marx

Muslim Political Thoughts

6. Allama Muhammad Iqbal

Western Political Thought---Aristotle

1. It was the cradle of education in Greece for advanced studies.

2. He was so much influenced by Plato’ teaching.

Aristotle as Father of Political Science

Aristotle’s Views on Origin of State

Functions of the State

2. The state is based on the element of justice

General Causes of Revolution:

Particular Causes of Revolution:

2. Universal desire for honor and prestige

3. The possession of sovereign power by an individual or group so as to create fear and

5. Disproportionate increase of power and wealth in any part of the state

9. Dissimilarity of different elements in the state

10. The rivalries of people of different races in the state

11. Dynastic quarrels and conflicts

Revolutions in Particular kind of State:

In oligarchies, revolutions take place due to two reasons:

A) Oppressive or Totalitarian rule

B) Rivalry among the ruling dictators

Remedies for Revolution:

7. Proper education should be imparted to the citizens in the spirit of constitution.

b) He should follow an aggressive policy abroad

e) He must extend enthusiasm in religion

g) He should increase the material well-being of the citizens.

j) He must have respect for the good.

Western Political Thought---Plato

The Republic and Plato

The Republic is an excellent product of Plato’s maturity. It is a major contribution to political

According to Baker, “The mainspring of the Republic is Plato’s aversion to contemporary

Plato’s Ideal State

Features of an Ideal State

3. Control over the education system

Philosopher ruler should control the education system in an ideal state.

4. Justice in ideal state

5. Censorship of art and literature

7. Equality among men and women

8. Principle of Functional Specialization

Comparison between Plato and Aristotle

supposed inherent idea.

Western Political Thought---Machiavelli

“Machiavelli had been represented as an utter cynic, an impassioned patriot, an ardent

Moral Indifference of Machiavelli

The reasons of Machiavelli’s moral indifferences are following:

2. In Machiavelli’s philosophy, moral judgments are wholly subordinate to the existence of

Machiavelli and State Diplomacy

“Virtue brings ruin, while vice brings security and prosperity.”

“Cruelty is better than mercy.”

The main point of Machiavelli’s state diplomacy is following:

6. A Prince must discard all the canons of leniency and decency.

Western Political Thought---Montesquieu

Important works of Montesquieu are:

Montesquieu’s doctrine of Separation of Powers

According to Montesquieu there are three kinds of power:

3. Perfect separate power in the functions of the government is impossible.

Montesquieu’s views on Forms of Government

Montesquieu forms the government into three types:

Each of the form is associated with its peculiar principle: