Chapter 1

Nature, Scope and Significance of Political Science

Definition and Meaning of Political Science

The terms 'politics' and 'political science' have been derived from the Greek word 'polis' which means 'City-
State'. For the Greeks 'politics' meant the science of the City-State which was the highest organization of the
community through which men strove for moral perfection. Politics today means ‘applied’ or ‘practical’
politics dealing with day-to-day public affairs and the actual problems of government. Those who take part
in the actual conduct and management of the State, government, political parties etc. are known as
politicians. On the other hand political science refers to the theoretical aspects of the study of politics

Using the term politics in the broadest sense, Sir Frederick Pollock divides it into theoretical politics and
practical or applied politics.
Under the first he includes:
(a)the theory of the State, (b) the theory of government, (c) the theory of legislation, and (d) the theory
of State as an artificial person.
Under the second head are included:
(a) the State (actual forms of government), (b) the government(the working of government,
administration etc),laws and legislation, and (c) the State personified(diplomacy, peace, war, and
international relations). Thus everything that relates to the basic problems of the State including the
principles of political organization and administration falls within the domain of 'theoretical' politics, while
that which is concerned with actual working of the government and other political institutions comes under
'practical' or ‘applied’ politics. The majority of writers, however, prefer the term ‘political science’ to
‘theoretical politics’ and the simple term ‘politics’ to ‘applied’ or ‘practical’ politics. The term political
science in its current usage is, however, more comprehensive than the term politics. It includes both
theoretical and applied politics. It includes both the theory or State and the actual conduct of affairs of State

o In the words of the French scholar Paul Janet, "Political Science is that part of social science which
treats the foundation of the State and the principles of government".
o Gilchrist defined it as "a study of State and Government".
o According to Gettell, political science is "a historical investigation of what the State has been, an
analytical study of what the State is and a politico-ethical discussion of what the State should be".
o Laski observes that"the study of politics concerns itself with the life of man in relation to organized
States." In short, political science begins and ends with the State".

The traditional definitions of political science have kept it confined to state, government and formal political
institutions. The State as the most universal and powerful association of human beings and the government
are obviously at the very centre of political science.
The traditional view of politics (institutional-legal approach) was challenged by scholars like
Arthur F.Bentley, Graham Wallas, Walter Lippmann and Charles E.Merrium in the twentieth century who
put stress on the psychological and sociological variables of politics. Later scholars like Harold Lasswell,
Kaplan, V.O. Key Jr., David Truman, David Easton, Herbert Simon and Gabriel Almond gave a new
orientation to Political Science by putting focus on political behaviour as central object of political enquiry.
Some of the definitions of the modern scholars highlight this new orientation of political science as an
academic discipline .
o Lasswell and Kaplan regard political science as 'policy science' and defined it ''as an empirical
discipline, the study of the shaping and sharingof power."
o Hillman writes that "politics is the science of who gets what,when and why."
o David Easton observes that "Political Science is concerned with the authoritative allocation of
values for a society".

1
Political Science as a major social science deals with the relationship among men in organized societies and
the relationship between man and the State. Despite recent developments in the discipline, the central
problem of political science is how best to strike a balance between the authority of the State and the
liberty of the individual.

Nature of Politics
Political Science is, of course, the study of politics in both its theoretical and practical aspects. But the
meaning of politics has never been static. The nature of politics may briefly be discussed from three broad
points of view, namely, the liberal, the Marxian and the modern.

Liberal view of Politics

o Liberal view of politics is a product of Renaissance and Reformationin Europe.

o It has dominated Western political thinking from the 17thcentury to the present.
o Liberal views on politics are founded on liberal views of man and society.
o Individual is the centre of the study of politics and society is an aggregation of free, competing
individuals. Politics is required to resolve conflicts among competing individuals and maintenance of
order, cooperation and harmony.
o Modern liberals put stress upon the role of politics to serve the common good of the community and to
secure to all justice and welfare.
o Politics again is a process to bring about peaceful and orderly change in society.
o The aim of politics is to establish unity and stability in the face of the diversities and conflicts which
characterise societies.

Marxian view of Politics

o Marx added a new dimension to political and social thought which radically altered the nature and
content of politics in the 20thcentury.
o It forced individualistic (classical) liberalism to modify itself in the direction of positive welfarism.
o Marxism put stress upon the innate goodness and sociality of man.
o It does not find any basic conflict in man's self interest and social interest. Modes of production or
economic factors are the most important in determining the political, legal, social, moral, and cultural
condition of societies.
o The State comes into being when society is characterised by class conflict.
o Politics cannot bring to an end the class struggle which reflects the economic disparities in society.
o The ultimate goal for exploited and oppressed human beings is to achieve a classless society which can
be brought about by revolutionary struggle.
o The Marxian view, as opposed to the liberal view, looks at politics as an instrument of class conflict and
not as a conflict-resolving activity or welfare activity.
o For the Marxists politics is a reflection of class struggle and is used by those who own the means of
production and distribution to safeguard their interests and to perpetuate their overall hegemony in
society.

Modern View

An analysis of the views of modern political scientists brings out three outstanding elements of politics,
namely, power, conflict and consensus.

(i) Politics as Power and Influence:

o Machiavelli, Max Weber, Bertrand Russel, Harold Lasswell, Kaplan, Catlin and Hans Morganthau
interpret politics in terms of power.
o Morganthau says that "politics is struggle for power" – a game played to attain and maintain power.
2
o Lasswell and Kaplanwrite: "The concept of power is perhaps the most fundamental in the whole of
political science; the political process is shaping, distribution and exercise of power".
o Robert A. Dahl observes: "Politics arises, whenever there are people living together in associations,
whenever they are involved inconflicts and whenever they are subject to some kind of power,
rulership,or authority".
o Guild and Palmer plead that the subject of politics should be power instead of the State.

(ii) Politics as Conflict and Controversy:

o Another element in a definition of politics is controversy. J.D.B. Miller holds that diversity is a
permanent condition of man's social life. Social diversities lead to conflicts which need settlement.
o "Politics is a natural reflex of the divergences between the members of a society."
o Quincy Wright says, "Politics exists only when ends or means are controversial."
o Karl Marxviewed conflict as the central interest in the study of politics. His theory has only two
mutually exclusive social types: a society of conflict and a society of harmony .

(iii) Politics as Cooperation and Consensus:

o Human interests not onlyclash but also coincide. Sometimes fundamentals are agreed on and only
specifics are the subject of argument but there are times when even basics become the area of clash.
o Austin Ranney holds that political systems encompass not only the competing demands but also
aggregative and integrative forces as well.
o Robert A. Dahl and others highlight the consensual basis of politics.
o There is consensus among groups and individuals because the interests of each are acknowledged and
accommodated.
o The integrative function of the polity promotes the much desired consensus in society.

Scope of Political Science

It is a very comprehensive and expanding social science. Political scientists are seldom agreed about its
scope. An attempt was made by the International Political Science Association in Paris in 1948 to delineate
the scopeof political science. It demarcated the scope into four zones, viz., PoliticalTheory, Political
Institution (Constitution, National Government, Regional and Local Government, and Comparative Political
Institution),Political Dynamics (Parties, Groups and Public Opinion), and International Relations.

Political Science: A Science or an Art?

There is a great deal of controversy among scholars whether political science is a Science or an Art.
Aristotle, the father of political science,called 'politics’ the 'master' or 'supreme' science. Other modern
writers likeHobbes, Vico, Hume, Frederick Pollock, John Seeley, Lord Bryce,Sidgwick and Bluntschli
consider it as a science. On the other hand, scholarslike Mosca, Buckle, Comte and Maitland question its
claim as a science since it has failed to act up to the standard of science.
Art is a systematic knowledge to the solution of problems of human life. Physical science like physics,
chemistry etc., follow the scientific method while studying physical phenomena. For example, law of
gravity. It is true that political science cannot be an exact science, since its laws and conclusions cannot be
expressed in precise terms and it cannot predict political events accurately. Besides social and political
relationships are constantly changing and what may be true of them today may not be true in the future.
Hence political science can be called both a science and an art.

Significance and Utility of Studying Political Science

o The study of political science has assumed greater popularity and significance in modem times. Man is a
political animal and in his actions is directly or indirectly involved in politics. Politics is a universal
activity.
o Study of political Science imparts knowledge to the individuals with regard to the State, Government

3
 and host of other political institutions.
o Knowledge of the state is of great significance to modem man.Politically enlightened people are capable
of playing a useful part in social and political affairs.
o Its study makes them politically conscious which is an essential condition for the successful working of
democracy.
o Study of political science makes a man alert about his place in society by making him aware of his rights
and responsibilities.
o Political Science equips acitizen to understand the complexities of modem government and make his
own contribution to the proper working of the political system.
o The understanding of politics and participation in revolutionary politics go a long way in bringing about
the much needed change in society.
o Study of political science tells us about different ideologies and helps us to formulate our own ideas.
o One of the main objects of the study of political science is to make a proper adjustment between the
individual and the State.
o Political Science determines the boundary of freedom and the limits of political control. Again it teaches
the lessons of cooperation, toleration and peaceful co-existence

Chapter 3
APPROACHES TO AND METHODS OF STUDYING POLITICAL SCIENCE

A number of approaches and methods have been suggested and used by thinkers and scholars of political
science for the scientific investigation of political phenomena. In using the term "approach" we mean a
particular orientation or point of view in looking at and interpreting the world of politics.
On the criterion of time dimension, approaches to the study of political science, can be broadly classified
into traditional and modern.
Philosophical, historical and legal-institutional modes of analysis are often called traditional while value-
free, empirical and behavioural modes of enquiry come under modern approaches. Besides these two broad
approaches the Marxist approach to politics displays a distinctive character in terms of methodology and
categories.

Traditional Approaches

o 'Traditional approaches' to the study of political science is an amalgam of views on and orientations to
politics in philosophical, ethical and institutional terms.
o Leslie Lipson holds that traditional political science .raised and debated "great issues". Broad political
issues and themes like the purpose, end and legitimate domain of the state, the grounds of political
obligation, the criteria of citizenship, the relation between freedom and authority.
o Traditional approach is characterized by a normative overtone and an ethical evaluation. Political
problems and issues are linked to ethics.
o It is closely connected with the philosophical approach which, takes in all aspects of man's political
activities. It is comprehensive in scope and imaginative in spirit.
o An important element of traditional approach has been its stress on the structural, institutional and
legalistic aspects of politics.
o The government of the state, various organized institutions that make up the government, constitution,
laws etc. have been the primary objects of political studies.
o It has long been cited as inadequate and unrealistic because it ignores the realities of political process
and political behaviour by concentrating on legalistic and constitutional factors.
o It cant have a scientific .
o It does not make much effort to focus on theory and research.
4
Modern Approaches

o Partly as a reaction to the deficiencies of the traditional approaches and partly in search of a more
'scientific' knowledge about politics, political scientists have come out with a variety of new approaches
in the twentieth century.
o The Behavioural approach to political science has been the most important one in this direction.
o The post-second world war witnessed the advent of behavioural revolution in political science. The
harbingers of this revolution were a group of political scientists mainly Americans who shared a strong
sense of dissatisfaction with the achievements of traditional political science through historical,
philosophical and the descriptive -institutional approaches .

Behavioural approach

o The behavioural approach emphasizes the application of scientific methods and techniques to the study
of politics: its structure, processes and behaviour.
o It seeks to focus on the behaviour of individuals and groups rather than their formally prescribed roles
and activities.
o The study of political behaviour is concerned with the acts, attitudes, preferences and expectations of
man in political contexts.
o They study the behaviour of individuals whose interactions constitute group actions. In short, the
behavioural approach attempts to study political phenomena in terms of the observed and observable
behaviour of men.
o Behaviouralists emphasize the study of the "functional" aspects of politics.
o Behaviouralists put special emphasis on scientific outlook and objectivity. By scientific and objective
outlook the behaviouralists mean the rigour, the systematic study and the regularities in their research.
o They attach supreme importance to the tools and techniques and to that extent neglect the substance or
contents of political enquiry.

The main features of behavioural approach in political science have been summarized by E. M. Kirkpatrick
thus:

(1) identifies the behaviour of individuals in political situations as the basic unit of analysis,
(2) identifies 'social sciences' as 'behavioural sciences' and emphasizes the unity of political science with the
social sciences
(3) Utilization and development of more precise techniques of observing, classifying and measuring data
(4) defines the construction of systematic, empirical theory as the goal of political science".

David Easton 7 points out the following:

(1) Regularities: There are discoverable uniformities in political behaviour which can be expressed in
generalisations or theories with explanatory and predictive value.
(2) Verification: The validity of generalizations or theories must be empirically tested and verified.
(3) Techniques: Appropriate tools and techniques must be made use of in the collection and analysis of data.
(4) Quantification: It stands for precision in the recording of data and the rigorous measurement and
quantification of the statements of findings.
(5) Values: Ethical evaluation and empirical explanation involve two different kinds of propositions that, for
the sake of clarity, should be kept analytically distinct. Objective scientific enquiry must be value-free or
value-neutral.
(6) Systematization: Research ought to be systematic. Effort is made to build systematic theories on the
basis of logically interrelated body of concepts and propositions.
(7) Pure Science: Theoretical understanding of politics and application of theory to solving urgent practical
problems of society must be closely linked.
(8) Integration: Behaviouralists stress the integration of political science with other social sciences .
5
Systems Analysis

o One major consequence of the behavioural revolution in political science has been the application of
new approaches to the study of politics borrowed from other disciplines. One such contemporary
approach is known as the systems analysis which has captured the interest of political scientists as a
possible tool for large scale or macro-cosmic analysis of political phenomena.
o Systems analysis was first developed by biologists, physical theorists and engineers. In the social
sciences it was developed first in anthropology from where it was adopted in sociology, psychology and
political science.
o In the sphere of political studies, David Easton and Gabriel Almond in the field of national politics and
Morton Kaplan in the field of international politics have applied the systems approach. David Easton's
systems analysis is known as input -output analysis while his theory has been adapted to structural-
functional, framework by Gabriel Almond.
o The notion of 'system' is the key term in systems analysis. A system has been defined as a "set of
elements standing in interaction". A system is a whole consisting of elements or parts which have some
characteristic relationship with one another and which interact with one another.
o There are three broad features of a system. First, a system is a set of interactions taking place within
itself. Secondly, these inter-related activities have a boundary set upon them. Boundary is the point
where one system ends and another begins. And the third property of a system is that it operates within
an environment.
o Systems analysis identifies the domain of politics as an independent system. It looks at politics as a set
of interactions which takes place within: an environment.
o David Easton's systems analysis is found in his works: The Political System, an inquiry into the State of
political science, followed by a framework for Political Analysis and a Systems Analysis of Political
Life. He makes an attempt to formulate a general theory of politics. Easton is especially concerned with
how a political system continues to exist and what causes it to change.
o Politics as Easton defines, deals with the "authoritative allocation of values for society".

o Easton devises his systems analysis to explain the "life processes of the political system" – in other
words, "how political systems generally persist". He makes use of a number of concepts like sub-system,
boundary, input, output, conversion process, and feedback.
o A political system refers to patterned interactions among political elements. 'Sub-system' is a part of a
bigger system. A system functions within a particular setting, known as 'environment'. 'Boundary', is the
analytical line which separates the political system from its environment.
o A political system functions as a result of 'inputs' received from the environment, and the inputs are in
the form of demands made on the system and supports in their favour. The processing of inputs by the
political system is known as conversion process.
o This process results in outputs in the form of rules to be enforced and policies to be implemented by the
authorities. There is also a process of reaction to these decisions which Easton terms 'feedback'.

Easton views the political system as basically an input-output mechanism -" just a means whereby
certain kinds of inputs are converted into outputs". The inputs are in the form of demands and supports,
each having four types of activities.

Demands are of the following four types: (a) demands for allocation of goods and services such as wage
and hour laws, educational opportunities, housing and medical facilities; (b) demands for regulation of
behaviour such as control over markets, provisions for public safety, rules relating to marriage, health
and sanitation; (c) demands for participation in the political system such as right to vote, to seek election,
etc. and (d) demands for communication and information.
Support is of the following four types: (a) material support such as payment of taxes; (b) obedience to
law, rules and regulations; (c) participatory support such as voting, political discussion and other forms
of political activity; and (d) attention paid to government communication and giving respect to public
authority

6
 The outputs of the political system fall into four categories: (a) extractions such as taxes or personal
services, (b) regulations of behaviour, (c) allocations or distribution of goods and services, opportunities,
honours and the like, and (d) symbolic outputs such as policy statements and affirmation of values.

o Easton's concern for system persistence raised the problem of coping with 'stress' which are of two types:
(a) demand stress and (b) support stress. The first type of stress arises when the system is subjected to
'demand-input overload'. Support stress refers to loss of support or at least a decline in support given to
the system by its members.
o It is called 'black box model' because what happens within the political system nobody can see.

o Eastonian political system can be represented in the following diagrarn:

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
David Easton (1965)

Feedback Loops
Economic
Social Environment
Environment F
I
INPUTS OUTPUTS
L POLITICAL
Demands Policy Decisions
T SYSTEM
Supports Laws & Rules
E
R
Cultural Physical
Environment Environment
Feedback Loops

Merits:
i. Easton's systems analysis provides general framework for the scientific study of political systems.
ii. Easton goes beyond the equilibrium approach which is static. The idea of system persistence implies a
dynamic analysis.
iii. Systems analysis is not only useful for applied research but also for normative purposes.
iv. It helps us to provide solutions to systemic stress and crises and to save it from collapse.

Shortcomings:
i. Easton's analysis has been assailed as too abstract and far removed from empirical reality.
ii. Conceptual framework with high empirical relevance has not been materialised.
iii. It does not give correct measurement technique to analyse politics.
iv. It has as its central focus system maintenance and not system change.
v. Easton does not explain the 'conversion functions' in his model.
vi. One cannot say what occurs within the 'Black-box'. It gives a frame but no idea about the inside working
of the system.

7
Structural-Functional Approach

o Structural-functional approach, which owes its elaboration in politics primarily to Gabriel Almond can
be traced back to the works of the anthropologists Radcliff-Brown and Malinowski.
o David Easton's systems analysis has been adapted to a structural-functional framework by Almond
"Functionalism depends ultimately on the Parsonian view that a system seeks to achieve particular goals
and that all behaviour and phenomena are related to this end. This has led to the development of
structural-functionalism: which argues that all social behaviour and phenomena fulfil (or fail to fulfil)
particular functions for the system."
o According to Davies and Lewis basic assumptions of this analysis are that all systems, have structures
which can be identified and that the parts or elements of these structures perform functions within the
system .

o Functionalists have given lists of various lengths of functional imperatives which every system must
meet. According to Parsons the system must (i) adapt itself to an environment – adaptation, (ii) achieve
collective goals – goal attainment; (iii) maintain control of tensions in the system –pattern
maintenance or tension management, and (iv) integrate the diverse actions of members of society –
integration.
o Almond's primary interest lay in studying how political systems change from the traditional to the
modern and involving a scheme of classification of different types of political systems.
o He defines a political system as "that system of interactions to be found in ill independent societies
which perform the function of integration and adaptation by means of the employment or threat of
employment ".
o Political systems are characterised by comprehensiveness inter dependence and existence of boundaries.
Comprehensiveness includes all the interactions – inputs as well as outputs. Interdependence implies that
parts or subsets of the system have validity only in terms of the working of the entire system. Almond
defines boundary as "points where one system ends and another system begins".

He divides political-functional to four input and three output functions.

(A) INPUT FUNCTIONS (POLITICAL)

1. Political Socialization and Recruitment: It is the process of inducting people into the political culture of
the system. This is broadly the function of citizenship training and recruitment into specialized political
roles.
2. Interest Articulation: It is concerned with the formulation and expression of interest claims and
demands for political action. This is generally performed by 'associational interest groups' or formal
organizations which specialise in communicating members' desires.
3. Interest Aggregation: It is combining demands into courses of proposed action. This is done primarily
by political parties.
4. Political Communication: It is the communication of various activities within the political and from the
political: to other subsystems different forms of mass media like radio, newspapers perform this job.

(B) OUTPUT FUNCTIONS (G'OYERNMENTAL)

1. Rule making-authoritative rule formulation.

2. Rule application -application and enforcement of laws.
3. Rule adjudication -applying rules to individual cases:

Methods of Political Science

A method is a way of investigation for arriving at a particular result. It has been well said "what the
microscope is to biology, or the telescope to astronomy, a scientific method is to the social sciences". A
number of methods have been suggested by scholars for the scientific investigation of political phenomena.
Scholars like Auguste Comte, J. S. Mill, G. C. Lewis, Alexander Bain, Bluntschli and James Bryce have
made valuable contributions in the field of methodology of political science.
8
1. The Deductive Method
o This method is philosophical, speculative and apriori.
o We proceed from general propositions to less general or particular proposition. It starts with certain non-
verifiable apriori assumptions which are accepted as universal truths.
o This method involves abstract and analytical reasoning.
o Political phenomena are studied by taking some major assumptions and deducing conclusions from such
assumptions.
o Here the conclusion makes explicit what is implied by the general premise or assumption. Plato, Thomas

Merits:
i. Deductive method makes use of logical power reasoning.
ii. The conclusion derived becomes more consistent and accurate.
iii. Deductive method is a good substitute for experimentation which is difficult in dealing with social
and political facts.
iv. This method is less time consuming and less expensive.
v. The scholar is not required to get lost in the world of facts and experiments.

Demerits:
i. Deductive method is criticised as imaginary and fictitious.
ii. The first premises or general assumptions are taken for granted without testing their material truth.
iii. If the assumptions are wrong, the conclusions become necessarily erroneous.
iv. The method is unsuitable for behavioural sciences like political science.
v. It pays less attention to the complexities of human nature and society. It has less touch with reality.

2. The Inductive Method

o In inductive method we proceed from particular facts to a general conclusion or from a less general
proposition to more general proposition. It involves the process of going from particulars to the general.
o Induction is defined as "the legitimate derivation of universal laws from individual cases".
o Repeated observation of a particular phenomenon or observation of similar facts enables the scholar to
arrive at inductive generalisation.
o Inductive method involves scientific observation, collection and classification of facts or data which
provide the basis for general theories.
o Study of facts should be free from bias so that realistic conclusions can be arrived at.

Merits:
i. Inductive method is scientific and empirical as it establishes general truth or conclusion by
observation of particular, concrete facts.
ii. It takes into account all the complexities which abound in social phenomena. It takes into account all
the factors and variables causing such complexities.
iii. This method is dynamic in as much as it enables the researcher to take into account all the changing
factors and to modify his previous conclusions.
iv. This method has provided the matrix for the behavioural approach to political analysis.

Demerits:
i. Inductive method involves a lot of time and money in observing and ordering facts for the purpose of
theory building.
ii. Collection of facts with all their diversity is an uphill task.
iii. The generalisations derived by this method may not possess universal .
iv. Any exception to the facts collected would adversely affect the general conclusion reached.
v. This method results in frequent changeability of generalisations.
vi. Another limitation of the method flows from the unpredictability of human beings and the
complexity of social phenomena.

9
Chapter 4
THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

Broadly speaking the theories of the origin of the state fall into two categories: speculative (imaginative) and
empirical. While theories like divine origin and social contract are speculative, those of like kinship theories
and evolutionary theories are based on empirical and verifiable findings.

The Theory of Divine Origin

o The theory of divine origin is the oldest concerning the primary origin of the state. It looks upon the state
as a divine institution. The state is created by God and ruled by him either directly or indirectly through
some ruler who is regarded as the agent or representative of God on earth.
o The Jews were the earliest advocates of this theory. In the Hindu epic Mahabharata, it has been said that
when people were tired of anarchy and lawlessness, they prayed to God for respite and he appointed
specific rulers for the purpose. In the Bible it is stated: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God".
o Thus God is the source of all powers and the rulers are considered his agents.
o During the middle ages a fierce controversy developed between the state and Church for supremacy on
the basis of this theory.
o Gradually the theory of divine origin of the state was transformed into the theory of the divine rights of
kings.
o In England, James I, the first Stuart King and Sir Robert Filmer were the leading exponents of this latter
doctrine. In his work, The Law of Free Monarchies, James I wrote: "Kings are justly called gods, for
they exercise a manner of resemblance of divine power upon earth".
o The main features of the theory of divine rights of Kingship are the following:
1. Monarchy is divinely ordained. Kings derive their authority directly from God.
2. Hereditary right is indefeasible. Succession to the throne is governed by the law of primogeniture.
3. Kings are accountable to God alone for all their acts.
4. Resistance to a lawful King is sin. To go against the King is to go against God. Disobedience is
sacrilegious.

Criticism
1. In modern times it has been rejected as "unsound in theory and dangerous in practice". It is based on
certain assumptions which cannot be verified. There is no empirical proof of any divine delegation of
authority to the rulers.
2. The theory is dangerous in practice as it leads to royal despotism. It leaves the people at the mercy of
despots.
3. It is illogical as it is used to justify the rule even of a bad king. Kings as the agents of God are supposed
to be virtuous. The theory should not be advanced in support of bad and autocratic rulers.
4. It is highly undemocratic. It rules out the role of popular control in political affairs. People remain
perpetually in a state of servitude. It stifles the political consciousness and participation of people.
5. The theory is lopsided as it admits the possibility of only the monarchical form of government.

Value of the Theory

Notwithstanding these criticisms the theory of divine origin served some useful purposes.

1. At a time when societies were suffering from anarchy and disorder, it taught men the values of obedience
and discipline and brought them together under a common authority. It has been a powerful factor in
preserving order and did a lot to strengthen the respect of people for person, property, and government.
2. It emphasizes the unifying role played by religion in the development of the state.
3. It invests the state with a high moral status. It introduces an element of morality into politics.
4. It highlights the moral responsibility of the rulers to the ruled as they are accountable to God for the
manner in which they exercise their power.
10
5. Decline of the Theory
Some of the principal causes which brought about the decline of the theory are as follows:

1. The rise of the social contract theory with its emphasis upon the state as a human institution and the idea
of popular consent gave a death blow to the divine origin theory.
2. The growth of democratic ideas directly opposed autocratic and absolutist basis of political authority
enjoined upon by the divine origin theory.
3. The secular approach of modern man, a product of Renaissance, seeks to separate religious and political
issues.

The Social Contract Theory

The most important speculative theory relating to the origin of the state is the social contract theory. It was
the most popular and influential theory relating to the origin of the state and the nature of political authority
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Statement of the Theory

o The exponents of the theory hold that the state is the result of a deliberate and voluntary agreement
(contract) entered into by ancient men who originally had no governmental organization.
o They divide history into two periods: the period before the state was formed, called "the state of nature"
and the period after the state was instituted.
o Contract or voluntary agreement, which is instrumental in the formation of the state, divides these two
periods of history.
o In the state of nature, men were subject to no law or governmental regulation. Men were subject only to
such regulations as nature was supposed to prescribe (natural law). They enjoyed some rights known as
natural rights.
o The state of nature was either too unbearable or too inconvenient for primitive men to put up with it or
too idyllic to last long.
o Hence men decided to abandon the state of nature and set up a political society through contract or
covenant. As a result of the contract, each man lost his natural liberty partly or wholly, and agreed to
obey the laws prescribed by the government.
o There is difference of view among the exponents of the theory relating to the conditions of the state of
nature, the character of the laws of nature, nature of the contract, the features of the political society and
other details. But they agree on its fundamental idea, namely, that the state is a human creation, the result
of a voluntary agreement among primitive people.

History of the Theory

o The idea of contract is very old and goes back to the writings of Plato and Sophists of ancient Greece
and Kautilya's "Arthasastra".
o While sophists described the state to be product of contract among men, Plato and Aristotle dealt with
the theory only to reject it.
o Two forms of the theory, viz., the governmental contract and the social contract, are found in such
discussions. The first postulates a tacit agreement between the government and the people; and the
second, the institution of a political society (State) by mess of a contact among individuals.

Views of its Modern Exponents

Thomas Hobbes:
o Hobbes, who wrote his book "Leviathan" against the backdrop of the English Civil War (1642-51)
presented a very gloomy picture of the state of nature.
o It was a condition of perpetual war and conflicts among men who were essentially selfish and power
craving. It was both pre-social and pre-political.
o "Kill whom you can, take what you can" was the order of the day. Life was totally insecure and Hobbes
described it as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
o Men made a contract among themselves to come out of this horrible state of nature and formed a civil
11
 society or the state.
o It was contract of each with all and all with each whereby men gave up their natural rights except the
right to self-preservation to a "common power' who was called the sovereign. His command was law.
o Hobbes was basically an individualist philosopher who justified absolute power of the government in the
interest of peace and security which are the basic needs of human beings.

J. J. Rousseau:
o Rousseau's views on ‘Social Contract’ inspired the French Revolution of 1789 and also provided the
basis of the theory of popular sovereignty. Man, according to Rousseau, is essentially good and
sympathetic.
o Man was a "noble savage" and led a happy and simple life. With the growth of population and the idea
of private property men became selfish, greedy and aggressive.
o Conflicts and tensions in the later stages of the state of nature forced men to enter into a contract
whereby they surrendered all their natural rights to the community or the "General Will".
o The people as a collective body became sovereign and each member was an inseparable part of the
general will which was the voice of all for the good of all.
o Law is an expression of the general will and can be made only in an assembly of the whole people.
Government remains an agent of the community and exercises only executive power delegated to it by
the community.
o Freedom of the individual consists in acting in accordance with general will.

Criticism of the Theory

The theory of social contract has been characterized as bad history, bad law and bad philosophy. In other
words, it has been attacked from three different angles – the historical, the legal, and the philosophical or
rational.

Historical
o Historically, the theory is untenable. It has no basis in fact. The idea of a contract is too advanced for
primitive man. Formation of a state through common consent presupposes a high degree of political
consciousness which primitive people hardly possessed.
o There have been instances of governmental or political contracts whereby rights and duties of the rulers
and the people have been defined. Such contracts have been made by people already living in the civil
state. The idea of social contract whereby the state originated for the first time is a fiction.
o The theory assumes that primitive man enjoyed ample freedom to enter into contracts with his fellow
men. Sir Henry Maine's historical researches have disproved this. Primitive society was governed by
communal laws and the individual was not free to change his status through contract. Individual's
position was determined in society. Maine shows that the movement of societies has been from one of
status to one of contract. Contract is not the beginning but end of society.

Legal
o A contract, in order to be valid, must be backed and enforced by adequate sanctions. But there is no such
sanction behind the contract among primitive men for the formation of a political society. There was no
common authority in the state of nature to enforce it
o If the original contract has no legal meaning and validity, all subsequent contracts based upon it are
equally invalid, and the rights and obligations derived from it have no legal foundation.
o It is illogical to suppose that the original contract made by one generation of people should bind
succeeding generations who have had no say in the matter at all. As a matter of fact each generation must
be free to shape its own future.
o A contract presupposes at least two parties who must be bound by its terms and conditions. But the
contract in Hobbes's writing does not bind the sovereign who is not a party but a product of it. Such a
notion of contract is one-sided and illegal.

12
 Philosophical
o The relation between the individual and the state is not a voluntary one. Individuals are born into the
state. State is the result of slow, gradual growth. Various factors like Kinship, religion, force, economic
activities and political consciousness have gone into its making and evolution.
o The theory reduces the relationship between the individual and the state to some sort of partnership. The
obligations of the individuals to the state are not contractual at all. Individuals are not free to enter it or
withdraw his membership at will ".
o The entire concept of the state of nature and laws of nature is fallacious. It is wrong to assume that
whatever preceded the formation of the state is "natural" and whatever has followed it is artificial. "Man
is a part of nature and the state is the highest expression of his nature. The state is a growth and not a
manufacture";
o The idea that men enjoyed natural rights in the state of nature is false. Rights and obligations are possible
only in the state and not prior to its existence.
o According to Bluntschli, the social contract theory is in the highest degree dangerous, since it makes the
state and its institutions the product of individual caprice. If the state is the creation of men they could
overthrow it when they so desire. It undermines reverence for the state and has paved the way for great
revolutions and unrests.

Value of the theory

In spite of the above inadequacies and weakness of the social contract theory, we cannot overlook its
elements of truth. It has been rejected as an explanation of the historical origin of the state. But as an
explanation of the right relations between the state and individuals or the ground of political obligation, it is
more satisfactory than theories of divine origin and force.
o It emphasizes the role of human will in the formation and continuance of political institutions. It laid
down the fundamental truth that obedience to political authority rested on. In working out this truth, the
theory laid down the foundation of democracy. Locke's idea of "consent" and Rousseau's concept of
"general will" served as the basis for modern democracy.
o The theory emphasizes the importance of the individual and the human purposes for which the state
exists and the government exercises its authority. Political institutions are not sacrosanct; they exist for
human welfare. Human beings can modify such institutions to serve their needs and purposes.
o The theory was primarily responsible for discrediting the theory of divine origin .
o The contribution of the modern contractualists to the theory of sovereignty has been tremendous. Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau were the champions of legal, political and popular sovereignty respectively. Again
Locke's theory of separation of powers, as a safeguard of political liberty was later developed by
Montesquieu.
o The theory emphasized the value of rights. Men form political societies for the protection of certain
fundamental rights like rights to life, liberty and property. People possess the inherent right of resistance
against unlawful and despotic authority.
Decline of the Theory
o The growth of historical and empirical methods of enquiry administered a severe blow to the social
contract theory primarily based on speculation and deductive methods of reasoning.
o Darwin's theory of biological evolution influenced different disciplines and led to the evolutionary
theory of the origin of political institutions.
o State was considered as the result of slow, gradual growth, rather than a manufacture based on social
contract.
Kinship
o Kinship or blood relationship was the first and strongest bond in early society. Kinship bound family
members together and they subjected themselves to the authority of the head of the family, either a
matriarch or a patriarch.
o In course of time blood relationship went beyond the boundaries of the original family. Families
developed into clan and clans into tribes and when a tribal chief conquered and subjugated other tribes
and established his sway over a sizeable territory, the state emerged.
o The contribution of kinship to the development of the concepts of authority and obedience cannot be
minimized as it imparted a feeling of unity and social cohesion which is essential to political life .

13
 Chapter 5
THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF THE STATE

The Marxian Theory

o The Marxian theory of the origin, nature and functions of the state is quite different from the liberal
theories discussed earlier. If liberalism is a socio-economic and political philosophy of the capitalist
class, then Marxism is a socio-economic and political philosophy of the working class.
o In the 19th Century Marxism emerged as a scientific revolutionary philosophy which aimed at a perfect
social order free from injustice and exploitation.
o Marxian view of the origin and nature of the state is based on his economic interpretation of history,
otherwise known as historical materialism.
o State came into existence with the division of society into classes at a certain phase of historical
development. In the struggle of classes, the state emerged as the instrument of the economically
dominant class, and continues for the benefit of that class.
o Thus the Marxian view is diametrically opposite to classical Greek view which looks upon the state as a
natural and necessary institution continuing in existence for the sake of good life for its members.
o At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of
society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to cleavage".
o The need for the state arose when increasing division of labour led to the division of society into classes.
In course of time these groups/classes acquired property rights.
o The idea of private property introduced tensions and cleavages among various classes. State was needed
to maintain peace and order and hold in check class conflict. But increasingly the State became a class
institution, an instrument of class rule and class exploitation.

The nature of the Marxian theory:

o State and politics form a part of the superstructure that rises upon the foundation (sub-structure)
consisting of the productive forces.
o The mode of production and relations of production at every historical epoch determine the law,
ideology, politics and form of government. The material conditions of life determine the relation of
rulers and ruled.
o State is merely an instrument of the dominant economic class and is used to safeguard its interests
against the no possessing class.
o Throughout history the state has maintained its class character. As a 'class' instrument the state does not
belong to the whole society. Political power is merely the organized power of the economically
dominant class to exploit the rest. This is true of all forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy as well
as democracy.
o The basis of the state is force. The dominant economic class, in spite of its being a minority class,
becomes the most powerful political class by virtue of its control over the state.
o Marx and Engels characterized the capitalist state in The Communist Manifesto as "the executive
committee of the bourgeoisie".
o The nature of the state being what it is, its primary purpose is the protection of private property and its
function is the oppression of the dispossessed by the possessing class.
o With the development of a new economic system based on social ownership of the means of production,
class conflicts will disappear, society will become classless and then state will also wither away.
o A classless and stateless society cannot be achieved without a socialist revolution which will overthrow
the capitalist state-and establish in its place a working class state, or dictatorship of the proletariat.
o This proletarian state is a transitional stage between the bourgeois(middle class) state and the classless
and stateless communist society.
o When the political function of abolishing classes is achieved, the working class state will be left only
14
 with the economic functions. The proletarian state will gradually 'wither away' as the people will become
accustomed to observing the rules of socialist life.

o Chang points out two important differences between the bourgeois state and the proletarian state.
1. The bourgeois state is an instrument for the suppression of the majority by the minority, while the
proletarian state is an instrument for the suppression of the minority by the majority.
2. While the bourgeois state must be destroyed by revolution, the proletarian state would wither away.
It will be to abolish private property, crush the resistance of the bourgeois and establish socialism.

o Stalin describes the functions of this state as follows:

(1) To crush the exploiters, defend the country, to strengthen ties with proletarians in other lands;
(2) To enlist masses for socialist reconstruction;
(3) To organise socialism, abolish classes, and found a society without classes and without a state.

Criticism
o The Marxian theory exaggerates the role of the economic factors in the formation of the state to the
exclusion of non-economic factors and forces.
o No doubt, exploitation by the possessing class was an important motive in state formation, but the truth
is that it did not work alone.
o By explaining the nature of the state as a class instrument, it exaggerates the role of force and coercion.
Societies are held together not by force alone but also by the idea of common good.
o A centralised, hierarchical and disciplined party has mastered all powers and ruling over the workers.
o There is excessive bureaucratization in such societies where a privileged class of bureaucrats and
technocrats control administration and the economy respectively.
o The Marxist prophecy of a classless, stateless society has not come true as yet. It seems as if the socialist
states like Russia and China, instead of preparing for their abolition, are consolidating their power and
have become absolutist states.

CHAPTER 7
SPHERE OF STATE ACTION

Classical Liberalism:
o Liberalism as a political doctrine or ideology is in the process of change or evolution. The society, its
material or environmental atmosphere, the attitude of people etc., all are changing and liberalism, for the
sake of its own survival, is trying hard to accommodate itself with these changes and the process of
adjustment is continuous. We have already noted that liberalism originated out of the breakdown of
feudalism.
o The vacuum created by the collapse of feudalism was immediately filled up by the rise of capitalism and
in the capitalist era of economy there arose liberalism. This, liberalism, we call, classical liberalism. The
classical liberalism is not a separate form of liberalism or quite different from the basic nature and
elements of liberalism —we call it a stage of liberalism.

Elements of Classical Liberalism:

o The assumption that the state is a necessary evil, that all restraint as such is wrong, has hot been borne
out by experience. History bears testimony to the progress of civilization largely promoted by wisely

15
 directed state action. The state is a positive good. Its functions have not been simply “negatively
regulative" but protective, encouraging and fostering the common welfare. So long as men live an
associated life they will have collective wants which can be satisfied only through state organization.

o Classical liberalism viewed the state with a different outlook. Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was a noted
advocate of classical liberalism and he believed that the “state is a necessary evil”. He admitted that
the importance of the state is undeniable but this does not mitigate its evil nature. He argued that the
state would be allowed to perform minimum functions and beyond this the state would have nothing to
do. Paine and many others have specified the functions of the state which include the maintenance of law
and order and to hinder the hindrances which stand on the way of the development of individuality

o The classical liberalism emphatically stresses the extreme form of individuals’ interests or individualism.
It treats each individual as a separate unit which seeks to maximize his interests laboriously. Political
scientists have called it a type of egoistical individualism. Atomist individualism believes that
individuals are rational and reasonable and these two qualities lead them to take decisions which are
sufficient to protect their interests perfectly.

o It also says about the self-reliance of individuals. They need not be dependent on state for the realization
of interests. Classical liberalism further says that individuals are self-interest seeking units no doubt but
since they are rational and reasonable they do not intentionally inflict injury or harm on others.

o Classical liberalism fiercely argued for independent activities in economic field which is called
economic liberalism or laisez-faire. It says that it would never be the policy of government to impose
restrictions upon the economic activities of individuals. They will have absolute freedom to frame
economic policies and to adopt them.

o The defence of a policy of laissez faire in economy breaks down on close analysis. Free competition has
led to monopolies, trusts and combinations which have spelt a grave peril to justice and harmony in
society. Uncontrolled and unplanned production has led to frequent fluctuations in employment and
income, wastage and exploitation of the workers. Free competition can lead to the best social advantage
only where there is approximate equality of bargaining power. The evils of free competition have
necessitated planning on a large scale. Government has come out in a big way to regulate economic
action in the interest of social welfare.

o Negative freedom was another hallmark of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism advocated that for
the all-round development of the qualities of individuals it would be prudent to leave them alone. State
would not impose unnecessary restrictions on the activities of them. Negative liberty means absence of
restrictions. External constraints would curb the freedom of individuals.

o Some others have added one or two to this short list. The fact is that according to the classical liberalism
that state is best governed which is least governed. The central idea of classical liberalism about state is
it is minimal state and it respectfully remembers Locke’s famous phrase (and nowadays it is frequently
used) state is night watchman.

o In classical liberalism civil society has a very crucial place. It is a society comprising free and
independent individuals who pursue their own varied interests and in such society voluntary
organisations are formed with individual’s initiative. Both individuals and organisations pursue their
policies and discharge responsibilities keeping themselves free from state interference.
16
o The basis of individualism that man is fundamentally selfish is unsound. Man is a mixture of both
egoistic and altruistic (doing good to others) impulses. Individualism is based on only one aspect of
human nature and grossly exaggerates it.

Functions of the State according to Positive Liberalism

o In the long run, negative liberalism represented by the doctrine of laissez-faire proved disastrous to the
community. By the middle of the last century, classical liberalism had lost its appeal.
o After the Industrial Revolution, liberal thinking with regard to the functions of the state underwent a
change. Negative liberalism was replaced by positive liberalism. Extreme exploitation of the working
class by the capitalists invited many reactions in socio-political thinking -idealistic, humanist, utopian
socialist, Marxian and positive liberal.
o Of these the Marxian challenge was the most formidable and came in the form of a challenge to the total
order of capitalism.
o Positive liberalism emerged as a reaction to these views and liberals were not afraid of the increasing
power of the state because by then state power was in the hands of the capitalist class.
o They regarded the state as a positive good-an agency for the general welfare and as a guardian of the
common interests of society.
o The theory of positive liberalism is variously called as the 'theory of welfare state' ,'theory of industrial
state', revisionist or reformist liberalism.
o It pleads for increased state functions for promoting social welfare, for bringing about harmony and
equilibrium in society and for satisfying the socio-economic demands of the general masses.

The views of some notable positive liberals are as follows

J.S. Mill:
Mill was a transitional thinker 'who began as an individualist but switched over to positive liberalism. In his
"Representative Government" he assigned socio-economic and cultural functions to the state. In his writings
the negative character of the state largely disappears.
State has to perform necessary functions which were supported by negative liberalism and optional functions
which included welfare functions. The measures suggested by him include compulsory education, limiting
the right of inheritance, factory legislation in case of children, control of monopolies, limiting working hours
and attaching less sanctity to landed property.

T.H. Green:
He was a notable English idealist whose main theme was the harmony in the individual's self-interest and
social interest. He looks upon the state as an agency for the social upliftment of man. The primary function
of the state is to remove the hindrances in the way of development of human personality. He writes: "The
function of government is to maintain conditions of life in which morality shall be possible, and morality
consists in disinterested performance of self-imposed duty". Again, "the state is an institution for the
promotion of common good". Poor education, poverty, ignorance and bad working conditions are obstacles
to the moral and intellectual development of human personality. The state must remove these hindrances by
positive welfare activities.

H.J. Laski:
Laski is a critical positive liberal of the 20th century . The state, Laski writes, "is an organisation for
enabling the mass of men to realise social good on the largest possible scale and its function in society is "to
satisfy common needs, to protect the interests of men as citizens". The state coordinates the interests of
various associations and institutions in society. It must reduce the gap between the rich and the poor through
its economic functions. It must perform social welfare functions like education, health and housing. It must
safeguard the interest of the working class and maintain conditions for the enjoyment of liberty and equality
by all men.
17
 MacIver:
A liberal pluralist sociologist, viewed the state as one among various associations which "commands only
because it serves, owns only because it owes…... "State has both negative and positive functions. State
should not seek to control opinion, morality and religion, customs, fashion and culture. State's positive
functions include three broad categories – order, protection, conservation and development. The state cannot
perform all the functions efficiently and only general functions should be performed by it leaving the rest to
various other associations.

o Many other modern writers supported the positive liberal views about the functions of the state. They
include J .M. Keynes, Roosevelt, Galbraith and Macpherson who expressed their views after 1926.
o The Great Depression dealt a severe blow to capitalist economies and an era of State-monopoly
capitalism emerged in Europe and the U.S.A.
o The State entered into trade, commerce and industry in a big way. State-monopoly capitalism is
developing fast in all liberal democratic states and bureaucratisation is on the increase.
o John Galbraith has justified planned economy and a mixed economy in View of the changed
circumstances of the 20th century.
o Macpherson, a critical liberal, advocates positive welfare functions of the state to fulfil the
developmental goals of society.

The Concept of Welfare State

Origin and Development of the Welfare State Ideal

o The welfare state like the socialist state is the product of industrial capitalism.
o The evils of industrialisation were of two kinds. The evils inside the factories included long hours of
work, unhealthy surroundings, accidents, low wages, exploitation of women and children workers.
o Urbanization spread along with industrialization and created evils outside the factories such as
overcrowding, slums, inadequate supply of pure water, absence of drainage, accumulation of garbage on
the streets and environmental pollution. The state undertook legislative measures to remove such evils.
o These efforts of the state marked the evolution of the idea of welfare state in the West.

o The Welfare state ideal took strong root in England. In England, trade Unions, ably supported by the
socialists played an important part in developing the ideal.
o The Beveridge Report on Social Insurance issued in 1942 in England is one of the great social
documents of our time. It prescribed the provision of "national minimum" to every individual. It
demonstrated that human welfare could be realised within a democratic framework. It envisaged a
scheme of social security as a part of the general programme of social policy. It is one part only of an
attack upon five giant evils such as want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.
o The National Health Service received its final stage during Attlee's Prime Ministership. Under his
stewardship a series of measures were passed resulting in the nationalisation of railways, coalmines and
steel, of the Bank of England and of transport.
o The administration of President F. D. Roosevelt in the U.S.A. which introduced the "New Deal"
Programmes to combat the great 'depression' in the early thirties accepted the responsibility of the
federal government to promote welfare of the American people. His progressive, humanitarian measures
contributed greatly to the evolution of the concept of welfare state.
o The USA launched for the first time under the Social Security Act of 1936 an ambitious plan for
providing old age pension, health disability and unemployment insurance with the cooperation of federal
and state governments, and of the employers and employees.

o Among the continental countries, Sweden, Norway and Denmark have extensive welfare schemes
supported by high taxation. The socialist states like USSR, China, East Germany, Yugoslavia are also
welfare states; but there welfare is planned and executed from above.
18
o USSR has been the first modern country to have a planned economy. It has prided itself on vigorous
interest in public welfare enterprises of one kind or another.
o India is committed to the realization of the welfare state. The Directive Principles of State Policy under
the Indian constitution enjoin upon the union and state governments to direct their efforts to achieve this
objective.

Meaning and Nature of the Welfare State

o Notwithstanding the performance of multifarious functions by modern governments, there is no agreed

definition of the concept of welfare state.
o A community where state power is deliberately used to modify the normal play of economic forces so as
to obtain a more equal distribution of equal income for every citizen, a basic minimum irrespective of
the market value of his work and his property. -Abraham
o A state that provides for its citizens a wide range of social services-T.W. Kent
o Welfare state as a compromise between Communism on the one side and unbridled individualism on the
other. The welfare state sets a pattern for any humane and progressive society. It guarantees a minimum
standard of subsistence without removing incentives to provide enterprise and brings about a limited re-
distribution of income by means of graduated high taxation.—Hobman
o The welfare state is a society in which an assured minimum standard of living and opportunity become
the possession of every citizen.—G.D.H. Cole

o A welfare state is a state in which organised power is deliberately used (through politics and
administration) in an effort to modify the play of market forces in at least three directions-
1. first, by guaranteeing individuals and families a minimum income irrespective of the market value of
their work or their property;
2. second, by narrowing the extent of insecurity by enabling individuals and families to meet certain
'social contingencies' (for example, sickness, old age and unemployment) which lead otherwise to
individual and family crises; and
3. third by ensuring that all citizens without distinction of status or class are offered the best standards
available in relation to a certain agreed range of social services".

o Almost every state in our times, whether developed or developing, whether socialist or capitalist, wishes
to pursue the welfare state ideal.
o Arnold J. Toynbee, the most renowned historian of our time argues that three centuries form now the
twentieth century will be remembered not for its wars, horrors and crimes, but for the fact that it is the
first era in history in which people dared to think it practicable to make benefits of civilization available
for the whole human race.

India as a Welfare State

o One of the salient features of the Indian constitution is the effort to establish a welfare state. The
Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy make it amply clear that our goal is a welfare and
socialist state. The Preamble promises to secure to the Indian people Justice – social, economic and
political.
o The Directive principles are non-justiciable; nonetheless they are regarded as fundamental in the
governance of the country.
o Article 38 of the constitution reads: "The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by
securing and protecting as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and
political shall pervade all institutions of the national life". It provides a broad framework for the
establishment of the welfare state ideal. Removal of poverty and provision of a minimum standard of
living is one of the objectives of the welfare state.
19
o While Article 39 (a) spells that citizen, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of
livelihood, Article 43 enjoins that the state shall endeavour to secure to all workers work, a living wage
and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of living.
o Provision of employment opportunities which is yet another objective of the welfare state is emphasized
by Article 41 which directs the state for securing the right to work. Provision against insecurity is also
incorporated in this Article which directs the state to make effective provision for securing right to
education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.
o Protection and special care of the weaker sections of the community is provided in Article 46 which
directs the state to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker
sections of the people, and in particular, of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, and to protect
them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
o India is making a determined attempt to fulfil this ideal by economic planning. Successive Five Year
plans and progressive legislation have undertaken numerous social security and welfare measures which
have benefitted the common man.
o However, a number of hindrances like low level of motivation for work, lack of self discipline, tax
evasion, lop-sided land reforms, increase of population, low degree of personal integrity have stood in
the way for the realization of a full-fledged welfare state.

Chapter 8
Sovereignty

Meaning:
The term “Sovereignty” has been derived from the Latin word “Superanus” which means supreme or paramount.
Although the term “Sovereignty” is modern yet the idea of “Sovereignty” goes back to Aristotle who spoke of the
“supreme power of the state”.
The terms “Sovereign” and “Sovereignty” were first used by the French jurists in the fifteenth century and later they
found their way into English, Italian and German political literature. The use of the term “Sovereignty” in Political
Science dates back to the publication of Bodin’s “The Republic” in 1576.

Traditional Meaning and Definitions of Sovereignty

o The term 'sovereignty' is derived from the latin word 'superanus' which means supreme. It means the
absolute and ultimate power of the state in its territorial domain.
o "The supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by law." – Jean Bodin
o "The supreme political power vested in him whose acts are not subject to any other and whose will
cannot be overridden." – Grotius
o "That characteristic of the state in virtue of which it cannot be legally bound except by its own will, or
limited by any other power than itself.” – Jellinek
o “The commanding power of the state; it is the will of the nation organized in the state; it is the right to
give unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of the state." – Duguit
o "The original, absolute, unlimited power over the individual subjects and over all associations of
subjects." – Burgess

Characteristics of Sovereignty

1. Absoluteness - The sovereign power is absolute and unlimited. There is no higher authority which can
bind it. Internally it has absolute power over all individuals and groups within the state. Internal limitations
20
like constitutional law and conventions are only self imposed. Externally also the state is independent of any
compulsion or interference by other states.

2. Universality or all-comprehensiveness - The sovereign power is supreme over all individuals,

associations and institutions within the state. No one is exempt from its all-embracing authority. Of course,
the immunity enjoyed by foreign diplomatic personnel is granted by the state as a matter of international
courtesy and can be withdrawn at will.

3. Inalienability - It means that sovereignty cannot be transferred or given up. Alienation of this essential
attribute of the state amounts to the death of a state. Sovereignty is the very essence of the state's personality.
Rousseau who upheld this point of view opined that power of the state could be transferred, but not its
general will or sovereignty.

4. Permanence - Sovereignty is as permanent as the state itself. It is an inseparable element of the state. A
change in the government of the state does not entail a break in the continuity of the state or in the exercise
of its sovereign power. Sovereign power shifts to the new persons who control the governmental apparatus.”

5. Indivisibility - The indivisibility of sovereignty is a logical inference from its absoluteness. If sovereignty
is divided the state as a single political unit is destroyed. The supreme power of the state can be shared
among different organs but sovereignty remains the attribute of the state as a whole. Calhoun forcibly
argues: "Sovereignty is an entire thing: to divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a state, and we
might just as well speak of half a square or half a triangle as of half a sovereignty".

6. Exclusiveness - It means that the state alone possesses supreme power and its legal competence to
command obedience is unchallengeable. To believe the existence of more than one sovereign is to deny the
very unity and integrity of the state.

7. Imprescriptibility - Sovereign power of the state is not lost by disuse. It is the basic quality of the state
which remains with it so long as the state continues to exist. It does not cease to exist by non-exercise of the
power.'

Types of Sovereignty
I. Legal Sovereignty: It is the conception of sovereignty in terms of law. It is the supreme law making
power in any society which is not bound by any law but enjoys habitual obedience from the people.
Violation of the commands of the legal sovereign is visited with punishment. Courts recognise only the laws
made by a legal sovereign. Law is nothing but the command of the legal sovereign. It is the source of all
legal rights. Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has the legal power to issue final
commands. It is the authority of the state to whose directions the law of the State attributes final legal force.
In every independent and ordered state there are some laws which must be obeyed by the people and there
must be a power to issue and enforce these laws. The power which has the legal authority to issue and
enforce these laws’ is legal sovereignty.

2. Political Sovereignty: Political sovereignty rests in that class of people under whose influence the mass
of the people is or the people are. Political sovereignty rests in the electorate, in the public opinion and in all
other influences in the state which mould and shape the public opinion.
Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign which the lawyer recognises, there is another sovereign to whom
the legal sovereign must bow. Such sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow is called political
sovereign. In every Ordered state the legal sovereign has to pay due attention to the political sovereign.
According to Professor Gilchrist, “The political sovereign means the sum-total of influences in a State which
lie behind the law. In modern representative government we might define it roughly as the power of the
people”.

The relation between legal and political sovereignty is very close, both being two facets of state sovereignty.
21
Legal sovereign is a law-making authority in legal terms, whereas political sovereignty is behind the legal
sovereign In a healthy political system legal sovereign gives due respect and consideration to political
sovereign which acts as a bulwark against misuse of power. In case of conflict between the two, the legal
sovereign will override temporarily but in the long run the political sovereign (the will of the people) will
assert itself by means of a revolution, if necessary. The legal sovereign should reflect and carry out the will
of the people in the interest of good government. The concept of legal sovereign is clear whereas the concept
of political sovereign is vague. Legal sovereign is elected by the political sovereign whereas political
sovereign is the electorate or the people

3. Popular Sovereignty: It means that people have supreme power and ultimate authority rests with them.
Popular sovereignty roughly means the power of the masses as contrasted with the Power of the individual
ruler of the class. It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having only one vote and the control of
the legislature by the representatives of the people. In popular sovereignty public is regarded as supreme. In
the ancient times many writers on Political Science used popular sovereignty as a weapon to refute
absolutism of the monarchs.

According to Dr. Garner, “Sovereignty of the people, therefore, can mean nothing more than the power of
the majority of the electorate, in a country where a system of approximate universal suffrage prevails, acting
through legally established channels to express their will and make it prevail”.

4. National Sovereignty: It means that sovereignty resides essentially in the nation, conceived as a
collective body of all the people enjoying independence from external control. It is an affirmation of the
principle that sovereignty is a power of the nation personified and a denial of principle of individual
sovereignty. The concept is an abstraction since national sovereignty can be exercised by or manifested
through individuals and institutions.

5. Titular Sovereignty: The term is used with reference to a monarch who at one time was actual sovereign,
but has ceased to be such. As the constitutional or ceremonial head of the state he is called a titular
sovereign. The monarch of England is officially referred to as the "sovereign" although his powers are only
nominal. In practice the vast array of powers are exercised by a different body of men, namely, the cabinet
which acts on behalf of the titular sovereign.

6. De Jure Sovereignty: It has its foundation in law, not in physical power alone. It is the sovereignty which
according to legal right is entitled to the obedience of the people. The de jure sovereign is competent to issue
the highest command of the state. As a matter of fact it may not be the actual sovereign, for it may be
expelled or overthrown but it is lawfully entitled to issue commands and exact obedience.

7. De facto Sovereignty: It is the actual sovereign which exercises control over the people and enjoys their
real obedience to its commands. It is the "sovereignty which is actually able to make its will prevail, though
it may be without legal basis". As Bryce observes, "the person or body of persons who can make his or their
will prevail whether with the law or against the law: he, or they, is the de facto ruler, the person to whom
obedience is actually paid". De facto sovereignty rests on force, physical or spiritual. This sovereign may be
an usurping King, a dictator, a priest, a prophet or even a charismatic leader.

History is full of examples of de facto sovereignty. Oliver Cromwell became de facto sovereign in England
in 1649 after he dismissed the long Parliament. Communists in China under Mao Tse Tung assumed de facto
control in 1949 by dislodging the de jure sovereign Chiang Kai-Shek. Many military dictators have assumed
de facto control in third world countries after overthrowing the duly elected de jure sovereigns through
coups. Thus political-upheavals or civil wars; in a country usually results in the displacement of the de jure
sovereign by the de facto sovereign.
22
A de facto sovereign in the long run attains legitimacy and becomes a de jure sovereign. It is accorded
international recognition by foreign states in course of time. Garner observes: "On account of the manifest
advantages which flow from the exercise of power resting on strict legal right rather than upon mere
physical force, the new sovereign sometimes has his de facto claim converted into a legal right by election
or ratification".

The analytical school of jurists object to the distinction between de jure and de facto sovereignty in as much
as sovereignty is essentially a legal concept and a de facto sovereignty, not based on law, cannot be called
sovereign as such. A de jure sovereign is the legal sovereign whereas a de factor sovereign is a sovereign
which is actually obeyed. But the distinction becomes relevant only in cases of revolution, civil war, coups
etc., in a state because during such crises two competing authorities stake their claims to sovereignty. '

Monistic Theory of Sovereignty

o The monistic theory of sovereignty which goes back to Hobbes and Bentham found elaborate treatment
in the writings of the analytical school of jurists of which John Austin was the most prominent
representative. His notable treatise on "The Province of Jurisprudence Determined" (1832) contains a
brilliant and precise exposition of the monistic or legal theory of sovereignty.

o "We must ceaselessly remember", says Laski, “that the monistic theory of the state was born in an age
of crisis and that each period of its re-verification has synchronized with some momentous event which
has signalized a change in the distribution of political power".
o The monistic political thinkers, who evolved the doctrine of state sovereignty, did so in order to
reinforce the authority of the state in a period of crisis. Originally the sovereign state emerged to
vindicate the supremacy of the political authority against ecclesiastical claims.
o Subsequently, it extended its supremacy to every department of human activity, religious or otherwise.
In the hands of Hobbes, the theory of sovereignty became an instrument of monarchical despotism.
o Laws are defined simply as the command of a superior to an inferior. To quote Austin: "Law is the
aggregate of rules set by men as politically superior, or sovereign, to men as politically subject".
o The primary reason for the bulk of a given society rendering obedience to the sovereign is his power of
punishment for non-compliance with his commands.

o Austin's legal view of sovereignty carries with it a certain scientific precision and finality which is
highly impressive. His analytical view of sovereignty and law has some implications:

1. First, as Laski says, the state for Austin is a legal order in which there is a determinate authority
acting as the ultimate source of' power. Hence, neither the people, which is indeterminate, nor the
general will, which is impersonal and abstract, can be designated as sovereign.
2. Secondly, its authority is absolute and incapable of limitation. The sovereign receives habitual
obedience from the people but not in the habit of obedience to a like superior.
3. Thirdly, whatever the sovereign commands is law, and without him there can be no law. Law is a
command of the state obliging the subject to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts, failure to obey
being visited by punishment.
4. Fourthly, sovereignty is indivisible. To divide sovereignty between two or more persons or bodies of
persons is to limit it, while sovereign power s by definition incapable of limitation.

Criticism

o All of these propositions have been severely assailed by critics. The first proposition was attacked by
English scholar Sir Henry Maine in his "Early History of Institutions", in which he illustrates that ill
many of the Empires of the East there is nothing to correspond with the 'determinate superior' of Austin.
o He urges that Austin's conception is inapplicable to underdeveloped communities where custom is a
23
 powerful force.
o Again the location of sovereignty in the state is a very difficult question. There is a diversity of opinion
among reputed thinkers on this question.
o Gettell notes that according to these thinkers sovereignty is located respectively in: "(1) the people of the
state; (2) the organization which has a legal right to make or amend the constitution of the state; (3) the
sum total of the legal law making bodies in the government of the state".
o The two possible meanings that can be given to the term "people" in defining popular sovereignty are (a)
"the total unorganizing indeterminate mass", and (b) the electorate.
o People, as understood in the first sense, cannot obviously be the sovereign. As regards the second,
people must act only through legal channels if they are to be regarded as sovereign in any sense, at all.

o In the United States, on account of its rigid constitution and federal character, it is not easy to locate
sovereignty. Neither the President, nor the legislatures of federal or State, enjoy absolute legal powers.
Judicial review limits their constitutional powers.
o Sovereignty therefore, is not vested in them but rests in that body which has the power to amend the
constitution. Truly does Laski consider the discovery of sovereignty in a federal state as practically an
"impossible adventure."

Gettell and others locate sovereignty in "the sum total of all lawmaking bodies in the government", including
(1) Legislature-National or local,
(2) Courts -in so far as they create law,
(3) Executive officials – in so far as they create law, by ordinances, proclamations etc.,
(4) Conventions – when acting legally as law-making bodies, and
(5) Electorate - when exercising power of referendum or of plebiscite.

o The second proposition of Austin that the authority of the sovereign is absolute and unlimited has been
contested on several grounds.
o It conflicts with the basic ideas of democracy, Austin talks in terms of a hierarchical order characterized
by superior-subordinate relationship while democracy is a society of equals. Austin's idea is inconsistent
with a democratic polity based on popular sovereignty.
o As Laski observes: "In practice legally unlimited power turns out to be power exercised under
conditions fairly well-known to each generation." Henry Maine has referred to social customs and
traditions as important limiting factors on the power of the sovereign.
o Sovereignty is also limited by the power of the electorate and of public opinion. The sovereign is
compelled by the logic of political realities to respect the articulate needs and desires of the electorate.
o Besides, as Gilchrist observes, there are "limits of human endurance": When the sovereign ignores these
limits, it enters the dangerous zone of popular rebellion. Indeed, revolutions, in the expressive phrase of
Laski, are foot notes to the problem of sovereignty.

o 'The Pluralists argue that the state is but one association among several and, therefore, it cannot be
invested with the unique sovereign power of the community. They urge that associations grow naturally,
that they have a will of their own and that the life lived in the group is an important part in the life of the
individual. They contend that the voluntary associations should not be dictated to by the state.
o Again state sovereignty is limited internally by constitutional law and externally by international law.
The theory of sovereignty developed in a self-sufficient age cannot be maintained in a world where the
interdependence of states is so marked.
o Austin's third proposition is that the, sovereign in the sense of a "determinate human superior" is the
supreme law-maker. Whatever he commands is law.
o This view has been criticised by the historical jurists on the ground that it ignores the great body of
customary law which has grown up through usage and interpretation and which never had its source in
the will of a determinate superior.
o The sociological school of law denies the Austinian view that law is the command of the sovereign. The
obligations involved in law arise not from the fact that they are decreed by any sovereign; they rise from

24
 the conditions of social life.
o Duguit holds that social solidarity constitutes the foundation of law. Krabbe holds that law springs from
men's sense of right, while Laski finds the individual's conscience to be "the only true source of law".
o The last proposition of Austin is that sovereignty is indivisible. In every state there is a division of
function though not of will and without such- division no government can be run effectively. It is argued
that sovereignty is shared between the legislative, executive and judicial branches and between the
national and state governments in a federation. The distinction between legal and political sovereignty
also has at times been interpreted as the divisibility of sovereignty.

On account of these limitations and deficiencies it is impossible to make the monistic theory of sovereignty
valid for political philosophy. It grossly neglects the socio-political forces in every community which
profoundly influence the operation of its legal instrument. The chief merit, however, of the theory is that, as
a conception of the legal nature of sovereignty, it is clear and logical.

Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty

o Political pluralism as an articulate protest against the monistic theory of state sovereignty is the logical
consequence of a pragmatic analysis of the dynamics of power.
o Pluralists argue that concentration of power at a single central source results in a dictatorial social order.
o In its positive aspect pluralism recognizes the existence of variety of associations and groups in society
which are as natural and necessary as the state and which must enjoy independence and autonomy from
the control of the state. Unlike the anarchists who want to abolish the state, the pluralists retain it but
restrict its area of operation.
o The pluralistic theory of state is opposed to the monistic theory.
o In his work "Political Pluralism", Hsiao defines the monistic--state as "one which possesses, or which
should possess, a single source of authority that is theoretically comprehensive and unlimited in its
exercise".
o By contrast the pluralist state is defined by him as "one in which there exists no single authority that is
all competent and comprehensive, no unified system of law, no centralised organ of administration, no
generation of political will".
o Pluralists view modern society as a web of associations. These associations which emerge naturally to
fulfil the diverse needs and aspirations of the members of a society must have functional freedom and
the state which is but one among numerous associations must not claim monopoly over sovereignty.

Factors Responsible for the Rise of Pluralism

o The rigid legal view of sovereignty known as monism is often regarded by pluralists as the principal
(actor responsible for the rise of pluralism.
o The pluralists discredit the idea that the state habitually exercises any sort of authority which can be
properly designated as sovereign. They consider the legal view of sovereignty as a dangerous and futile
doctrine.
o The sociological and historical schools of law object to the approach of the analytical school of law
which is closely connected with the legal approach to sovereignty.
o Yet another factor put forward by some writers for the development of pluralism is the rise and rapid
spread of federalism. They argue that sovereignty in the Austinian sense is difficult, if not impossible to
locate in a federal state and as such pluralism is the only logical solution.
o It has also been argued that the urgent need for an effective international law and international morality
provides sufficient reason for limiting state sovereignty and modifying it in the direction of pluralism.

Pluralistic Thinkers and their Ideas

o Pluralism received wide support in England, North America and some European countries. It may be
25
 said to have its dim beginnings in the guild system of 14th and 15th centuries.
o Writers like J. Paul-Bancour and Emile Durkheim have given special attention to the position of
professional and economic groupings in society. Durkheim suggests that the professional groups must be
re-established both as bases for political representation and as sources of economic regulation.
o Among the English writers, Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, G. D. H. Cole, A. D. Lindsay, E. Barker,
and H. J. Laski are prominent advocates of Pluralism. The Webbs envisage a "Social Parliament" and a
"Political Parliament", the former to represent individuals as members in a 'social democracy' and the
latter to represent them as citizens in a 'political democracy'.
o According to A. D. Lindsay the state is' merely "an organization of organizations" and can have control
over other associations only if, and so far as, the citizens are prepared to concede it such power.
o Earnest Barker while rejecting the doctrine of the "real personality" of groups upholds that the groups
are prior to the state and have their own functions independent of the state. He characterizes the state as a
'group of groups' or a 'community of communities' .
o Laski's earlier works reflect a strong Pluralistic bias. His Pluralism was fundamentally a revolt against
the Philosophy of Hegel and the jurisprudence of Austin. The state, as conceived by Laski is a power
system. The monistic state is both administratively incomplete and ethically inadequate. His conception
of social organization implied a federalist concept of society in the economic as well as political spheres.
He visualizes "a society in which authority is not hierarchical but coordinate."
o William James, Miss M. P. Follet and R.M, MacIver are the prominent pluralists in North America.
William James provided pluralism with philosophical basis of pragmatism. He looks upon pragmatism
as offering a middle course between absolute monism and absolute pluralism.
o Among the continental pluralists Gierke, Duguit and Krabbe are prominent. Duguit said Laws are the
conditions of social solidarity or the interdependence of men. Law is not a command; it emanates from
many sources, and this plurality.
o Krabbe of Holland takes almost similar position and says that law is independent of, and superior to, the
state.

Criticism

o Pluralistic theory of sovereignty contains a large element of truth, but it grossly exaggerates it. Critics
argue that pluralism suffers from logical contradiction. While in theory they plead for the reduction of
state activities, in practice they assign to the state much power for implementing their schemes.
o Paul Bancour regards the state as the sole representative of general interests and of national solidarity.
Durkheim like-wise ascribed to the state the function of laying down the general principles of economic
control.
o Other pluralists looked upon the state as a "society of societies and a "group of groups" and assigned to it
a distinctive function and a superior authority as an agency of coordination and adjustment.
o Even Laski recoiled from his earlier pluralistic position and supported state socialism in the interest of
better economic management and promotion of common welfare.
o The dividing line between pluralism and anarchism is very thin. Rejection of the monistic theory of
sovereignty leads to logical position of the anarchists and syndicalists. If the state is an association like
other associations it ceases to be a state and the way is wide open for anarchy and disorder.
o The numerous groups and associations do not run along parallel lines, nor do they operate in water-tight
compartments. There is overlapping of functions, the clash of interests and the conflict of loyalties in
society. The supreme power of the state is needed for "the special function of adjusting and adjudicating
such clashes as well as of caring for certain common interest".
o If the state is merely one association among many, have more or less similar power and status. It is
difficult to see how it can satisfactorily fulfil its unique function of adjustment and adjudication.
o In the great society of today the state is the only organization which is in possession of an elaborate
mechanism and vast personnel to deal with the universal needs of human beings.
o F. W. Coker points out that the "defects of the pluralists "analysis lie in part in their failure to make clear
which of the specific functions assigned to the state by the monist they would deny to it, and in part in
their underlying assumption that, if only an individual or group be released from state control, then we
shall have a condition in which spontaneous action, self-expression, and initiative Will enjoy free play."
26
o E. Zimmern has warned us that "those who talk of state absolutism are ignoring the simple truth that
there is no tyranny like the tyranny of the near neighbours. The smaller the group the tighter the
stranglehold over your life and activities.
o Laski having modified his earlier pluralist position at a later stage criticizes pluralism on the ground that
"it did not sufficiently realize the nature of the state as an expression of class relations". He believes that
the sovereign power of the state cannot be dispensed with unless collective control of the means of
production ushers in a classless society. The ultimate objective of pluralists must be the classless society.
o Pluralists fail to go clear over to their goal of a non-sovereign state.
o The objections of pluralists to Austinian concept of law tends to confuse the substance with the form of
law.

CHAPTER 9
DEMOCRACY
> Democracy is that form of government which is “of the people, by the people and for the people”.
> A political system is characterised by
■ adult franchise
■ periodic elections
■ at least two political parties
■ independent judiciary
■ representative and responsible government
■ strong public opinion
■ free press, and
■ a constitution which incorporates some fundamental rights

Broader Meaning of Democracy

> An ideal – An end in itself rather than a means to an end
> Democracy is unstable as a political system as long as it remains a political system and nothing more
> It should not only be a form of government, but a type of society and a manner of life which is in
harmony with that type.

Definitions of Democracy
> “Democracy is a form of government in which everyone has a share” – Seeley
> “A democratic system is one that makes government responsive and accountable and its
effectiveness depends first and foremost on the efficiency and skill of its leadership” – Sartori
> “A democratic political system is one in which public policies are made, on a majority basis, by
representatives subject to effective popular control at periodic elections which are conducted on the
principle of political equality and under conditions of political freedom” – Mayo

Participatory democracy

Officially, participatory democracy is direct democracy, in the sense that all citizens are actively involved in
all important decisions. The definition commonly refers to movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement
or the Women’s Suffrage Movement, that gather a group of people who democratically make decisions
about the direction of the group. Participatory Democracy is a process of collective decision making that
combines elements from both Direct and Representative Democracy: Citizens have the power to decide on
policy and politicians assume the role of policy implementation

THEORIES OF DEMOCRACY: LIBERAL AND MARXIST

1) Liberal theory of democracy

27
 a) Classical liberal theory of democracy
b) Elite theory of democracy
c) Pluralistic Theory of democracy
2) Marxist theory of democracy

Liberal Theory of Democracy

o Liberals claim that the state is to promote the interests of the individual; the individual is the end and the
state is the means. According to them, the freedom of the individual should not be unduly restrained by
the state. The essence of democracy for them lies in maximising the freedom of the individual.
o The better off an individual is, the more free he is. So to say, the interests of individuals are identical
with their freedoms. Locke who said that the state had to ensure the safety of the life, liberty and
property of the individual is generally regarded as the most influential and respected liberal philosopher.
o The liberal theory of democracy has passed through three phases and in each phase it has got a different
name. As a result, we have got the classical liberal theory of democracy, the elitist theory of democracy,
and the pluralist theory of democracy.

Classical Liberalism
o The main proponents of the classical liberal theory of democracy are John Locke, Montesquieu,
Rousseau, Bentham and J. S. Mill. Locke said that the individual had the right to resist the state and
revolt against it if the latter failed to discharge its basic duty of safeguarding the life, liberty and property
of the former.
o He emphasized that the government, based on the consent of the individual, was limited in its authority.
Montesquieu who propounded the theory of separation of powers provided sufficient safeguards against
the growth of dictatorship.
o They held that the government whose main objective was to provide "greatest good of the greatest
number" should encourage increased political participation on the part of individuals.
o Mill, the "reluctant democrat", focussed on the moral aspect of democracy. He believed that political
participation would help the individual in fashioning his all-round development. Hence Mill has been
described by Macpherson as the propounder of the "developmental theory of democracy".

Salient Features

1) Man is at the centre of democracy. Democracy aims at defending and promoting the interests of man.
The government is the instrument for this. The state is not a sanctified entity. It is neither endowed with any
supernatural quality nor invested with any supreme power unrelated to the realisation of its basic aim of
serving the individuals belonging to it.

2) The government is constitutional, limited and responsible. It is based upon the consent of the people
expressed through periodic elections which are based upon the principle of universal adult suffrage. The
man is assumed to be rational; he makes rational choices while casting his vote. The executive is
accountable to the legislature and the members of the latter, sooner or later, are responsible to the people
who regularly elect them at regular intervals. Public opinion is thus highly respected in democracies.

3) Democracy is the art of reaching compromise and consensus. It encourages debates, discussions,
arguments and negotiations which help in narrowing down the difference between adversaries and enable
them to reach some compromise. Discussions and debates are potentially conflict reducers.

4) Democracy respects fundamental rights; in particular, the freedom of expression is very highly valued.
Any state which tries to dwarf its men would soon realise that it cannot accomplish any big things with such
dwarfed men, said J.S. Mill,

28
5) Democracy is not only a form of government; it is also a way of life. It aims at the building of the
totality of the life of the individual. Democracy which seeks to promote the; all-round development of the
individual helps in fostering his moral personality.

Criticisms
1) The classical theory of democracy assumes that the man is rational. He is capable of determining his
vital interests and the best strategy for promoting them. But the experience suggests that individuals are
often swayed by other considerations which hardly serve their interests best. They tend to be guided in their
political behaviour by parochial factors like casteism, ethnicism, communalism and localism.

2) Democracy is said to be reflecting the will of the people. A democratic government, in theory, is based
upon the consent of the people. It claims legitimacy because it is formed by the people through their free
choice. Elections are often won by money, muscle-power and parochialism. Even in developed countries the
democratic process is not free of these shortcomings and flaws. Thus it is criticised that the democratic
legitimacy derived from "consent" and "free choice" is more of a myth than of a reality.

3) Democracy is meant to serve the interests of all. But it is not so easy a game as can be played by all of
them. Both the process and organisation of democracy are quite complex and complicated. Democracy
involves many laws and principles, and operates at several levels. An ordinary man would find it difficult to
grasp all these things properly and successfully.

4) "Common good" which is a key concept in the liberal theory of democracy is not easy either to define or
to determine. Is it the summation of the good of all individual members of a society? Is it identical with the
interest of the majority? Common good appears to be as nebulous and vague as common will, another
important concept of the liberal theory of democracy.

5) A democratic government, it is claimed, is legitimate because it is governed by public opinion. But what
is "public opinion"? Whose opinion is it? Is it the voice of the elected members of legislatures national as
well as provincial? Does it mean the voice of the mass media? What about the vast majority of people who
have little chance of expressing their views articulately and effectively? Do the mass media - both
governmental and others which are supposed to be free -mirror the views of these poor, illiterate and
unorganised masses? In India, the vast expansion of television to different parts of the country in last few
years seems to have provided to the government an effective instrument for creating a public opinion in its
favour. "

6) The classical liberal theory of democracy overlooks its economic dimension. Democracy offers "equal
opportunity" to all people to participate in the political process. But the offer of equal opportunity to rich and
poor will give differential advantages to them. In other words, the rich would pocket most of these
advantages while the poor would be helplessly watching the rich men's game. The so-called free election is
really meant for those who have the monopoly over resources like money, education, leisure. The poor who
mostly lack in these resources are no wonder, at the receiving end. They are used as pawns in the chess
board of democratic politics.

Elite Theory
o The elite theory states that the society is always ruled by a minority who are "superior" to others.
The earlier elite theorists like Mosca and Pareto said that the elites were superior to others in quality.
o On the other hand, the later elite theorists like C. W. Mills and Floyd Hunter stated that the so-called
superiority of elites was derived from their family and social backgrounds and the hierarchical
organization of the society.
o The classical liberal theory truly reflected the needs of the new middle class of the 18th and 19th
centuries during which it emerged. The new middle class was then fighting against the decaying
29
 monarchical and feudal orders.
o By the 20th century the problems and priorities of the bourgeoisie had greatly changed. Having strongly
entrenched itself in power by banishing the feudal lords from it, it wanted to monopolise it by preventing
other elements of the society from competing with it for power.
o The elite theory, like its predecessor - the classical liberal theory - was developed to serve the interests of
the dominant class, the bourgeoisie. It was designed to rationalise the existing political order prevailing
in the early part of the 20th century -- the domination of power-structures by elites.

o Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), and Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), two Italian sociologists were the first to
systematically develop the elite theory. Pareto provided a broad as well as a narrow definition of elite.
o His broad definition of elite is: "By elite is meant a small number of individuals, who in each sphere of
activity, have succeeded and arrived at a higher echelon in the professional hierarchy." For example,
there are military elites, political elites, business elites and academic elites.
o In the narrow sense, by elite, he means only the "governing elite which is that small number of
individuals who have succeeded and who exercise ruling functions politically and socially."
o Following Machiavelli, another Italian theorist of eminence, he says that the elites possess "lion" and/or
"fox" qualities. "Lion" qualities include strength and courage while "fox" qualities comprise intelligence,
shrewdness and cunning.

o Pareto observes that elites tend to decay. When one group of ruling elites, due to indulgence in power
and luxury, neglect its primary duty or fails to cope with the changing times and situations, it is likely to
be replaced by another group of elites.
o "Lion elites" may be replaced by "fox elites" and vice versa. Lion elites possess strength and bravery, but
they lack in intelligence and manipulative skill. Fox elites are cunning and shrewd, but they lack in
strength and courage. If both "lions" and "foxes" are not properly represented in the elite structure, there
is danger to it and it is vulnerable to decadence and replacement.
o Mosca says that in all societies it is the organised minority which rules over the unorganised majority.
To quote him, "In all societies’ two classes of people appear - a class that rules and a class that is ruled.
o The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys
the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and
controlled by the first.

o Another early elite theorist is Robert Michels (1876-1936)who has formulated the principle of "iron law
of oligarchy". Michels says that democracy is inconceivable without organization.
o He argues that individuals, for effectively expressing their views and promoting their interests, need to
join together and form organizations. But for coordination and dealing with things of complex nature,
organizations need persons of specialised knowledge: In other words, as organizations grow in size and
complexity, there arises the increased need of bureaucracy. As a result, the bigger the organization, the
more dependent the rank and file members became upon their leaders.

o C. Wright Mills, an eminent sociologist, has pointed out that the United States of America is ruled by a
monolithic elite structure called "Power elite". Power elite consist of military elites, business elites and
political elites. They occupy all "Command posts" of the society.
o According to Dahl, C. W. Mills\ by his study of power elite, has shown that elites have the, "potential for
control", but the potential for control is not equivalent to actual control. Dahl claims to have found out
that New Haven contained several elites whose interests often collided and who seldom worked unitedly.

o Some of the recent elite theorists have sought to explain the elite rule by arguing that though democracy
is a government for the people, it is seldom a government by the people.
o In view of this development, it would not be a great loss, it is argued, if the common man does not have
a voice in the day-to-day functioning of a democratic government. It is enough if he has some control
over the ruling elites by holding them ultimately accountable through periodic elections.
o In a democracy, the voter is required only to elect the leaders, not to decide policies. It is the leaders who
will decide issues and policies. Democracy is there so long as the leaders have fears that they can be

30
 removed from power in the next election if they do not serve the people.
o Thus, it is argued, the control by elite is not the negation of democracy. The elite domination of a
democratic system has been characterised as ''democratic elitism

Elements of Elite Theory

o All need not be equally active in democracy. It is enough that some are more active and involved in the
political process than others. In other words, democracy, for its success, requires the gradation of the
political involvement of citizens.
o Elites should be drawn from all sections of the people as much as possible.
o Elites should not neglect the common people to whom they are accountable at regular intervals.
o The elite structure should be open, and the deserving people from below should be encouraged and
enabled to enter it. Otherwise, it will gradually lose its vitality, and decay.
o In democracy, there should not be too much stress on "ideology". It is better that the ideological
polarisation among political elites/parties is reduced to the minimum. The "end of ideology” is a recent
feature of democracies. The one ideology to which all of them should be committed is the maintenance
and stability of the system. None of them should see radical change in it.
o The government is a mechanism of mediating between the competing elites and establishing
compromise and consensus among them. It should aim at minimising conflict among them.

Classical Liberalism Vs Elite Theory

Some significant differences between classical liberal theory if democracy and the elite theory are stated
below:

1. Classical liberalism is people-oriented. It has great faith in the capacity of the people to properly play their
role in the social and political processes. It views the man as a rational actor capable enough of making right
political choice. Elitists, on the other hand, are leader-oriented. They have a great deal of confidence in the
ability of elites to deliver goods – to help maintain the system.

2. The classical liberal theory of democracy treats “common good" and "public opinion" as vital elements of
democracy. But the elite theorists do not accord much importance to these objectives. According to them it
is difficult to define common good, and worse still, public opinion can be invented and manipulated.

3. The elite theorists value democracy as an agency of making compromise and consensus by mediating
among conflicting elites, and as an agency of system-maintaining. However, classical liberalists regarded
democracy as an agency of building moral men. They believed that democracy helped in effecting the all-
round development of the man. McPherson has rightly observed: "The traditional theory of Mill - gave
democracy a moral dimension: it saw democracy as development, as a matter of the improvement of
mankind. The Schumpeter-Dahl axis, on the contrary, treats democracy as a mechanism, the essential
function of which is to maintain equilibrium.

MARXIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

o Marxists, in principle, do not oppose democracy. On the other hand, they claim that their "democracy" is
genuine whereas the bourgeois democracy is ‘fake’ and a ‘sham’.
o A democratic state must have a duly elected legislature periodically accountable to the people, an
executive responsible to the legislature, and an impartial judiciary.
o Western scholars as statesmen argue in their opinion, democracy is characterised by decentralisation,
dispersion and separation of power. Marxists do not accept this institutional view of democracy.
o For them, the most important feature of democracy is the majority rule. They argue that in Communist
31
 states the government really serves the interests of the majority whereas the bourgeois governments
defend and promote the interests of only a few -the ruling elites.
o Marxists do not regard democracy as a political system. They view it as a system of values and a form of
society. In the latter sense democracy does not have a final point of achievement. It is' a continuously
growing process. Thus democracy goes on struggling to go beyond itself, in the process retaining its
essence and improvising it further.

o As a political system, democracy is a class organism. It is meant to serve the interests of a particular
class. Lenin distinguishes working class democracy from bourgeois democracy.
o When socialism - the transitional phase - matures into communism, democracy as a political system will
cease to exist, but democracy as a system of values will flourish.
o A communist society is a democratic society because it nourishes democratic values like socio-economic
equality and the absence of exploitation of one class by another.
o The purpose of struggle is to go beyond democracy and beyond the democratic state, to build a society
without state power".
o According to Marxists, in bourgeois democracy, the state is controlled by the economic elites-the finance
capital. The members of this class, by occupying key posts in different branches of the power structure,
use the government to promote the interests of their class.
o Some other Marxists take a slightly different view. They do not think that the organs of the government
are manned by the members of rich class. They believe that the latter, by preferring to stay outside the
government, dominate policy-making process from behind the scene.

o Marxists reject the legitimacy of elections in bourgeois democracies. They argue that political parties in
bourgeois states hardly differ from one another in respect of ideology. As a result, the poor people of
capitalist countries have little choice. Whichever party they vote for would help the rich against them.

o Marxists further argue that in bourgeois democracies justice is very expensive. It is only the rich who
can get judgements in their favour. They gave the money to buy justice.
o By money power and political influence they can close the eyes of the court to their crimes and other
misdeeds. The poor, even if innocent, would be punished by courts.

o In spite of these flaws, bourgeois democracy is not totally bad. It has some limited benefits for the
exploited people. The working class parties, making use of the conditions under bourgeois democracy,
strengthen themselves, organise and mobilise the workers ad increase their political consciousness.
o Thus, bourgeois democracy can be used to weaken it and ultimately replace it by working class
democracy by staging a socialist revolution. This shows that bourgeois democracy is partly progressive
in the sense that it prepares the ground for its own overthrow.

o The Marxists claim that the dictatorship of proletariat is a much better democracy than bourgeois
democracy. The dictatorship of proletariat, a transitional phase, is established to help the poor majority
against the rich minority.
o Though it is a better democracy, it is not free of class character. It is a democracy for the exploited that
form the majority of the population and a dictatorship for the rich who are in minority.
o The main function of the dictatorship of proletariat is to contain and exterminate the counter-
revolutionary forces that will be fighting back with all strength at their disposal to regain their previous
dominant position. The state will continue to exist so long as class contradictions have been completely
eliminated.

Criticism
The Marxist theory of democracy bas been criticised on the following grounds.

Negation of Democracy:
o The Liberals criticise that the socialist democracy is not democracy at all; it is the opposite of
32
 democracy. They argue that democracy is a government of the whole people of the society.
o Democracy is not a government of one group to be used by it against another. But the socialist
democracy, which represents the interests of one class only - though it is the majority group fails to
satisfy the main criterion of democracy mentioned above.
o In socialist democracy the party bureaucracy becomes growingly powerful and the common man
becomes increasingly alienated from the system.
o We should say that a system was just as undemocratic if it denied people votes because they were
rich, as if it denied them votes because they were poor.

Bloody and Heartless:

o Some minor differences among them notwithstanding, Marxists, in general, agree that the socialist
revolutions as well as the socialist democracy are predominantly violent in nature. Lenin advocates
the "bloody" overthrow of the bourgeois government.
o Excessive emphasis upon violence makes the working men democracy unacceptable to many. Many
cultures in the world either hate violence or give very low place to it. No wonder, because of its open
support to violence, the Marxist democracy is not welcome in these cultures.

Parliamentary Socialism:
o Many people believe that socialism, a good goal, can be achieved through parliamentary peace. One
need not resort to violence and revolution for this. Important reforms with the objective of helping
the mass can be pushed through legislations.
o The people can make use of elections, pressure groups and other democratic instruments at their
disposal to influence -if necessary, force the government to adopt "welfare" measures.
o This is particularly the strong feeling of the Communist parties of Western Europe who have evolved
"Euro-Communism" to represent their point of view. Some democratic countries of the third world
are also of this opinion.

Not a Pure Democracy:

o Some revisionists like Bernstein and Kautsky have criticised socialist democracy on the ground that
is not a "pure democracy." Kautsky charged that the dictatorship of proletariat, established in Russia
after the 1917 revolution, did not grant liberties to citizens.
o While Bernstein criticised the socialist democracy of Russia for unnecessarily indulging in violence,
Rosa Luxemburg, a German Marxist, attacked it for its failure to grant freedoms to the press and
people. In her opinion, the dictatorship of proletariat of Russia has become the dictatorship of some
politicians.

Conclusion
o The Marxist democracies practised in Russia, China and other Communist countries, are showing little
respect for political freedoms of individuals. The political choices, movements and expressions of the
latter are severely constrained and limited.
o Political power is monopolised by a small minority ruling from above. The system is characterised by
intense centralisation and bureaucratisation. Political democracy is conspicuous by its absence.
o However, it seems that in proletarian democracy there is much more of social and economic equality
than in liberal democracies. In the former, the gap between rich and poor is not quite wide. It is apparent
that in Marxist democracies, the individual initiative, a valuable factor of economic development, is
largely absent.
o Of late, the leaders of these systems seem to have realised this deficiency and are trying to slowly rectify
it. The encouragement given to the private sector and the high incidence of student activism in China in
the post-Mao period are important developments effected in China's "People's democracy".
o These developments in Russia and China suggest that the model of Marxist democracy is likely to adopt
and encourage some innovations which are not in conformity with orthodox Marxism. The countries
concerned are aware of this.

33
JUSTIC
It is difficult to give a precise meaning of the term ‘Justice’. Political thinkers and jurists had given different
meanings and definitions. The reason for this is that the contents and implications of justice differ from
country to country and also form time to time.
What was justice in the past is not justice in the present day. Therefore it is difficult to define justice. In the
ordinary sense justice means to give an aggrieved party what is due to it and punish an individual or a group
of individuals or an agency whenever and offence is committed.
This is done on the basis of the of land and in accordance with the basic principles of justice.

Arstotle’s theory of justice :

There are three kinds of justice according to Aristotle. They are,
1. Retributive justice : This giving punishment to an individual for the crime committed by him.
2. Compensatory justice : This is a principle which suggests to give compensation to a victim of a crime.
3. Redistributive justice : According to this principle benefits and burdens are redistributed. Aristotle’s
ideas in morals and justice are found in his book entitled “Nichomachean Ethics”. There are thinkers like
Adam Smith and John Rawls who had dealt with justice.

Rawls’s theory of justice

o Rawls described his theory of justice called “Justice as Fairness” in his book A Theory of Justice. Rawls
agrees with Nozick that justice is quite separate from morality and he too rejects utilitarian forms of
justice.
o He first suggests a new way to learn about principles of justice—the original position. The original
position asks us to imagine that a group of people will get to decide the principles of justice.
o These people don’t know who they are (what he calls a ‘veil of ignorance’), they are self-interested, and
they know everything science has to offer. He argues that in a veil of ignorance they couldn’t be as
biased towards their profession, race, gender, age, or social status because they wouldn’t know which
categories they belong to (104-105).
o As far as self-interest is concerned, Rawls argues that they will want principles of justice that will “fairly
distribute” certain goods that everyone will value—what Rawls calls “primary social goods” (105).
Rawls argues that the people in the original position will discuss which principles of justice are best
before voting on them, and the best principles worth having will reach a “reflective equilibrium”—the
most intuitive principles will be favored and incompatible less intuitive principles will have to be
rejected in order to maintain coherence.
o He argues that two intuitive principles of justice in particular will reach reflective equilibrium:
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to
positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they
are to be the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged members of society (107).
o Rawls says that the first principle has priority over the second, “at least for societies that have attained a
moderate level of affluence” (ibid.). The liberties Rawls has in mind are negative rights, like the freedom
of thought. The distribution of social goods can include education, food, and housing; which could be
considered to be positive rights.
o The second principle’s second restriction—that social and economic inequalities must benefit the worst
off group—is known as the “difference principle” and seems to imply that total communism is
automatically just if such a system has no economic or social inequalities because it’s only inequalities

34
 that require a rationale. Capitalism will only be justified if it benefits the least advantaged group—the
poor, orphans, and so on.
o The assumption is that inequality can allow hard work to be rewarded to the point that people decide to
be more productive and share their wealth with the poor. People won’t be allowed to be
wealthier unless the wealth is shared with the poor.

Applying Raws’s theory of justice

o Rawls agrees with Nozick that we have negative rights and no positive rights, but he argues that social
and economic inequalities are unjust unless they meet certain requirements.
o In particular, there must be equal opportunity (public education) and greater inequality must benefit
those who have the least social and economic goods (the worst off group).
o Rawls disagrees with utilitarians that economic inequality is justified if it maximizes happiness—by
providing rewards to being productive members of society—if such inequality doesn’t help those who
are the worst off.
o Rawls thinks that redistribution of wealth and taxes are justified if it is the best way for the “worst off” to
benefit from social and economic inequalities.

How will Rawls’s theory of justice apply to the six above contexts?

1. A corporation sells TV sets that don’t work and scams people out of their money because people
assume that the TV sets work when they buy them. Is this unjust? I expect that Rawls will agree with
Mill and Nozick here. As I stated before, a person’s property rights entail that property is transferred
given an agreement and no one agreed to buy a broken TV set.
2. Samantha was born in a poor family and she could never afford an education. She couldn’t afford
food and couldn’t find a job, so she starves to death. Meanwhile there is an abundance of food and
wealth that is almost exclusively owned by the wealthiest members of society. Was any right being
violated? Rawls would likely say, “Yes” because the economic inequalities don’t seem to help the
“worst off.” (Perhaps Rawls assumes that people won’t starve to death if we have economic
equality.)
3. The government taxes all profits 10% to help poor families buy the necessities of life. Anyone who
doesn’t pay their taxes can be punished. Was any right being violated? Rawls would say, “Yes,”
because taxation is a violation of our property rights—but he might still think this form of taxation is
just if it’s the best way to redistribute wealth and make sure the “worst off” benefit from economic
inequalities.
4. The government subsidizes the big bank industry by using tax money to give the big banks billions
of dollars to help the big bank industry avoid bankruptcy. Was any right being violated? Yes,
property rights are being violated in this case, but is it also unjust? If this form of redistribution will
help the “worst off,” then it is just. However, it seems likely that Rawls would agree that saving an
incredibly powerful company from going bankrupt would somehow benefit those who are the “worst
off.”
5. A corporation hires hit men to kill the competition. Was any right being violated? Rawls will agree
with utilitarians and Nozick here and will answer, “Yes,” because we have a right not to be harmed
and people were killed.
6. The people who personally made the decision to hire hit men to kill the competition are thrown in
prison after being found guilty in a court of law. Are any rights being violated? Rawls can argue,
“Yes,” the rights not to be harmed are being violated here. However, there can be conflicting ethical

35
 considerations in this context. Rawls can agree with Nozick that the criminals in question should be
in prison assuming it’s necessary to protect the rights of others.

Objections

1. Basic liberties aren’t good enough – The first principle of justice equates freedom with some list of
negative rights, but we can argue that freedom is and ought to be more than that. The idea of having a finite
list of rights implies that we can restrict freedom and oppress people willy nilly as long as the specific
freedom in question isn’t on some official list. Why not make freedom innocent until proven guilty? We
shouldn’t be restricting any freedom until we have an overriding reason to do so.

2. Aren’t these people too risk averse? – It’s not entirely clear how Rawls knows what principles people
will agree to in the original position nor is it entirely clear that the original position is going to help us
discover the best principles of justice. In particular, some people argue that they wouldn’t agree the
difference principle because so few people will be part of the least advantaged group. Why not take a risk by
screwing over the poor to help everyone else as long as there’s a very low chance of being poor?

3. The difference principle unjustly restrains freedom and power – Someone could argue that many of
us want as much freedom and power as possible and the difference principle will deny the ability of the
wealthy and powerful to attain more wealth or power, even when it doesn’t hurt anyone. What if the rich
could attain a great deal more power and wealth without hurting anyone? It seems oppressive to stop them
from doing so.

4. The difference principle can lead to poverty – First, it’s possible that communism might lead to mass
poverty. Everyone can all be equally poor, but that doesn’t seem to imply that it’s a just economic system.
Second, it’s logically possible that every economic system that leads to prosperity requires that the least off
group to do very poorly. The difference principle would force us to reject prosperity and live in poverty just
because economic differences might inevitably require that the worst off group do poorly compared to
everyone else.

5. International responsibilities – Rawls’s Justice as Fairness doesn’t guarantee that a civilization will treat
other civilizations with respect nor does it require civilizations to help other civilizations living in poverty
and with many people who are starving to death. Utilitarians could argue that justice doesn’t stop within our
borders, but it expands to everyone in the world and Rawls’s Justice as Fairness ignores this fact.

Amartya sen’s Concept

o Sen argues that the excessive emphasis on liberty in Rawl’s theory of justice is problematic in itself.
o Sen argues that hunger, starvation, medical neglect and other such issues should be given more
importance than personal liberty as an important aspect of justice. Second, in the difference principle,
Rawls judges the opportunities that people have through the means they possess.
o It means those who have access to primary goods can easily access the opportunities. Sen problematizes
this straight connection between available means and opportunities. He gives an example of disabled
person.
o A differently abled (disabled) person can do far less with the same level of primary goods and income
than the able-bodied human being. A single woman needs more support and care in talking care of her
family than any male person to take care of his family.
o Thus Sen strongly argues that an access to only primary goods and will not enhance the capabilities of
people so that they can get access to the available opportunities.
36
EQUALITY
Equality means, that whatever conditions are guaranteed to us, in the form of rights, shall also in the same
measure be guaranteed to others, and that whatever rights are given to others shall also be given to us.
Equality like liberty is an important theme of democracy.
Liberty and equality were understood to be one. Both the terms were considered to be of great importance
since 19th century. Broadly speaking, equality implies a coherence of ideas that cover spheres ranging from
man’s search for the development of his personality in the society in which the strong and the weak live
together, and both have the right of being heard.

KINDS OF EQUALITY :
There are different kinds of equality. They are,
Natural Equality :
Natural equality rests on the principle that nature has created every one as equal. On the contrary, in reality
we can seldom find such equality, as the world is prone with more inequalities than equality. People differ
greatly in their intelligence, height, colour, physical strength and mental makeup. Natural equality is meant
as the provision of equal treatment and equal opportunities to all human beings, irrespective of natural
differences.

Civil Equality :
It implies equality of all before law. Irrespective of their status and position, all people should be treated
equal and no discrimination should be made on the basis of caste, creed, sex, place of birth etc. Equal rights
should be available to all the people and no body should be denied enjoyment of any right.

Political Equality :
Political equality is best guaranteed in a democracy.All citizens should have the right to participate in all
affairs of the state without any discrimination on grounds of sex, race, religion, creed etc. Everything should
be open to all people. It means the enjoyment of political rights such as right to vote, right to contest in the
election, right to hold public offices etc. It enables people’s political participation and the principle of
universal adult franchise is a manifestation of political equality.

Social Equality :
Social equality implies that no one should be regarded as high or low on the basis of his caste, colour, race
or religion and no one person should be given special privileges on any of these consideration. It stands for
equality of status and absence of social barriers. It implies the abolition of social distinctions and strives for
the establishment of class less society. In reality, there is no social equality as the Indian society is divided
into different castes.

Economic Equality :
It means that there should be equal opportunity to all citizens in matters of availability of consumer goods,
wealth and property. Similarly every one should have the same facility for jobs, work and in industry. There
should be equal wages for equal work.

International Equality :
It means the principle of equality shall be extended to all people in all thecountries. The same is true of
nations and states. There cannot be different treatment between states and between peoples
37
RONALD DWORKIN: THEORY OF EQUALITY
The important concept for our politics now, is the concept of equality. Political philosophers have written
about equality from both the left and the right. From the Liberal position and and the Conservative position
as if it was perfectly clear what equality means. Equality means everybody has the same something as
everybody else. Everybody has the same bank account wealth, or everyone has the same happiness, or
everyone achieves the same success in life. These are all theories that you will find in the philosophical
literature. And, generally, as soon as someone offers a theory of that kind, equality means that everybody
has the same amount of money, it will follow that equality is not a very compelling ideal.

So Dworkin want to start rather differently. I want to start with a general account of political obligation of
what a state, in particular, owes to its citizens and see what conception of equality follows from
understanding politics at that deep a level.

Coercive government, and that means all government of anything larger than the Carnegie Council.
Coercive government needs a justification that explains why it isn’t a terminal insult to human dignity to
force somebody to do what he thinks wrong as, of course, government must do.

Dworkin argue that government lacks title, lacks moral title to coerce, unless it respects the dignity of its
subjects. And Dworkin argue for a theory of dignity that comes to this:There is a basic condition of political
legitimacy. No government is legitimate unless it meets that condition: the government must treat each and
every person over whom it claims dominion with an equal concern, and an equal respect.

An equal concern means, Dworkin argue, that social policy must take the fate of each individual to be
equally important with the fate of any other. So when deciding on a political policy, it can’t discount the
effect on some citizens. Obviously, it can’t do that because of their race. But it can’t do that because of their
economic class, either.

Equal respect is a rather different requirement. Equal respect means that government must respect the
dignity of each individual by allowing each individual to determine for himself or herself what would count
as a good life. What counts as a successful life. That doesn’t mean that we should be skeptical about that
fundamental ethical question. It means that our idea of the good life includes, as a cardinal condition, that a
good life means facing this question for yourself, and arriving with conviction to living a life according to
that conviction.

If Dworkin is right, a theory of equality, say, economic equality, must, once again, solve simultaneous
equations. It must reach an economic distribution which, at once, treats everyone’s fate with equal concern,
and respects people’s responsibility to make their own decisions. That cannot be done by achieving flat
equality. It can’t be done by running the community as a Monopoly game in which all the money gets taken
in and redistributed at the end of each year. It can’t do that because that would be to make individual
decisions about education, investment, leisure, completely pointless.

On the other hand, government can’t just say, we’ll have a market, and wherever the market ends, we will
consider equal treatment. Because people who are disabled, or people who do not have the talent to make
what the market demands will suffer. And they’ll suffer in ways that have nothing to do with the choices
they made and nothing to do with their own responsibility. How do we solve this simultaneous equation?
How do we treat people both with equal concern and respect equally to their responsibility to make
decisions for themselves?

38
LIBERTY
Meaning of Liberty :
o Liberty is derived from a Latin word “ Liber”, which means free or independent. The concept of liberty
occupies a very important place in civics. It has made powerful appeal to every man in every age. It is
the source of many wars and revolutions. In the name of liberty war, battles, revolutions and struggles
have taken place in the history of mankind.
o Liberty means the unrestricted freedom of the individual to do anything he likes to do. But this sort of
unrestricted liberty is not possible in society. Liberty is not a license to do anything one pleases, as this
would end up in anarchy, the very extreme of liberty. Restrictions are necessary in the interest of general
welfare. They are imposed in the form of laws. Law is the condition of liberty.
o While laws are restrictions to liberty, it is imperative that, the so imposed laws are not unjust as
excessive and stringent restrictions hamper the intellectual and moral growth of the individual. Liberty
has two aspects.

DEFINITIONS OF LIBERTY :
“Liberty means the power of doing what we ought to do” – Montesquieu.
“Liberty means the absence of restraints” – Prof Seely.

Berlin’s Theory of Liberty:

Introduction:
Isaiah Berlin’s (1909-1997) theory of liberty is a highly acclaimed and widely criticised theory. His Four
Essays on Liberty (1969) contains the following essays, Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century, Historical
Inevitability, Two Concepts of Liberty and J. S. Mill and the Ends of Life. We are here concerned chiefly
with the third essay—Two Concepts of Liberty. Berlin was born in Latvia and received partial education in
St. Petersberg.

He went to Britain at the beginning of the 1920s and the rest of his education and service were in Britain.
Berlin was a strong believer of liberal pluralism. In his Two Concepts of Liberty Berlin has carefully and
pedantically analysed various aspects of liberty. Of the two types of liberty—positive and negative—his
preference for the latter is quite clear. He believed in the existence of innumerable values and ideas and the
conflict among them. In such a situation the positive liberty is likely to do more harm and may lead to
totalitarian situation. His penchant for liberal pluralism encouraged him to lend support for negative liberty.

In the opening para of the Two Concepts of Liberty he has said that there is disagreement in every sphere of
human society—political problems arise from and thrive on this disagreement. He further observes that
people may arrive at agreement on the ends of society or functions of government but, at the same time, they
will disagree on the means to achieve the ends.

Positive versus Negative Liberty:

In his analysis of positive and negative liberties Berlin wants to raise the following questions:
(a) Whether the difference he has drawn between positive and negative liberty is specious or too sharp,
(b) Whether the term liberty can be extended widely. But while doing so care shall be taken about the
retention of significance. In other words, the extension of the meaning of liberty cannot curb the significance
of the concept,

39
(c) Why political liberty is considered important. Berlin claims that he has slightly amended his earlier
version of the concept of negative and positive liberty. This, however, does not change the core idea of
liberty.

Berlin has discussed some of the definitions given by leading political scientists of his time. He, in the
following way, defines liberty, “The freedom of which I speak is opportunity for action, rather than action
itself. If, although I enjoy the right to walk through open doors, I prefer not to do so, but to sit still and
vegetate. I am not thereby rendered less free. “Freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself, the
possibility of action, not necessarily that dynamic realisation of it”. Berlin refers to a very interesting aspect
of liberty.
Normally we say that freedom means when man satisfies his wants. But if he cannot satisfy his wants he
must learn the way as to how and in what way he can meet his wants. And, by adopting this method, he can
contribute to his happiness. In this case the individuals will have to devise ways of meeting demands.

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)

On Liberty is one of Mill’s most famous works and remains the one most read today. In this book, Mill
expounds his concept of individual freedom within the context of his ideas on history and the state. On
Liberty depends on the idea that society progresses from lower to higher stages and that this progress
culminates in the emergence of a system of representative democracy. It is within the context of this form of
government that Mill envisions the growth and development of liberty.

Chapter I defines civil liberty as the limit that must be set on society’s power over each individual. Mill
undertakes a historical review of the concept of liberty, beginning with ancient Greece and Rome and
proceeding to England. In the past, liberty meant primarily protection from tyranny. Over time, the meaning
of liberty changed along with the role of rulers, who came to be seen as servants of the people rather than
masters. This evolution brought about a new problem: the tyranny of the majority, in which a democratic
majority forces its will on the minority. This state of affairs can exercise a tyrannical power even outside the
political realm, when forces such as public opinion stifle individuality and rebellion. Here, society itself
becomes the tyrant by seeking to inflict its will and values on others. Next, Mill observes that liberty can be
divided into three types, each of which must be recognized and respected by any free society. First, there is
the liberty of thought and opinion. The second type is the liberty of tastes and pursuits, or the freedom to
plan our own lives. Third, there is the liberty to join other like-minded individuals for a common purpose
that does not hurt anyone. Each of these freedoms negates society’s propensity to compel compliance.

Chapter II examines the question of whether one or more persons should be able to curtail another person’s
freedom to express a divergent point of view. Mill argues that any such activity is illegitimate, no matter
how beyond the pale that individual’s viewpoint may be. We must not silence any opinion, because such
censorship is simply morally wrong. Mill points out that a viewpoint’s popularity does not necessarily make
it correct—this fact is why we must allow freedom of opinion. Dissent is vital because it helps to preserve
truth, since truth can easily become hidden in sources of prejudice and dead dogma. Mill defines dissent as
the freedom of the individual to hold and articulate unpopular views.

Chapter III discusses whether people who hold unpopular views should be allowed to act on them without
being made social outcasts or facing a legal penalty. Actions cannot be as free as ideas or viewpoints, and
the law must limit all actions whose implementation would harm others or be an outright nuisance. He states

40
that human beings are fallible, and therefore they need to experiment with different ways of living.
However, individual liberty must always be expressed in order to achieve social and personal progress.

Chapter IV examines whether there are instances when society can legitimately limit individual liberty. Mill
rejects the concept of the social contract, in which people agree to be a part of society and recognize that
society can offer certain forms of protection while asking for certain forms of obligations. However, he does
suggest that because society offers protection, people are obliged to behave in a certain way, and each
member of society must defend and protect society and all its members from harm. In brief, society must be
given power to curtail behavior that harms others, but no more.

Chapter V summarizes and elucidates Mill’s twofold argument. First, individuals are not accountable to
society for behavior and actions that affect only them. Second, a person is answerable for any type of
behavior or action that harms others, and in such cases it is the responsibility of society to punish and curtail
such behavior and action. However, Mill does note that there are some types of actions that certainly harm
others but bring a larger benefit to society, as when one person succeeds in business more than his rival. In
the rest of the chapter, Mill examines particular examples of his doctrine.

Berlin and Mill:

In the course of his detailed analysis of negative notion of liberty Berlin refers to another famous thinker—J.
S. Mill. Mill is also a protagonist of liberty and this is termed by many as negative liberty. Mill in his On
Liberty had forcefully argued for unobstructed liberty. He said, “The only freedom which deserves the name
is that of pursuing our own good in our own way”.

It may be stated here that this is the gist of Mill’s theory of liberty. Though Mill did not categorically
mention the removal of limitation he, in his mind, had that idea. To him freedom was equivalent to
pursuance of one’s own good and any obstruction could be regarded as inimical to liberty.

Why did Mill give so much importance to liberty? If we cursorily go through his On Liberty, we shall find
that without adequate liberty civilization could not progress. That is why he gave maximum importance to
liberty. Mill believed that the progress of human civilization was far more important than throttling the voice
of some persons in the name of expanding freedom.

Berlin discovers few discrepancies in Mill’s analysis of liberty. One is that according to Mill all coercion is
bad. But when coercion is applied to combat greater evil this should also be bad—Mill does not say.
Another inconsistency, according to Berlin is, men should strive to find out the truth and that truth is to be
found only in freedom. Though these two are liberal assumptions “they are not identical”. Berlin
nevertheless, agrees with Mill’s views of liberty because it is modern.

41