CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. POLITICAL SCIENCE

1 -35

Political Science

O Meaning and Nature

O Scope of Pol itical Science

Z> Importance of Political Science

Approaches to Political Science 3 Historical Approach z> Normative Approach 3 Behaviouralism Z> Post-Behaviouralism

CHAPTER 2. STATE

36-72

-» State

Z> Meaning and Definitions

O Elements of State ■^ Origin of State

3 Historical Theory

Z> Divine Origin Theory

O Social Contract Theory ■> State and Civil Society in the Third World

CHAPTER 3. SOVEREIGNTY

73-108

■> Sovereignty

O Meaning of Sovereignty

O Characteristics Sovereignty

O Kinds of Sovereignty ■^ Theories of Sovereignty

O Monistic (Austin's) Theory

O Pluralistic Theory

■> Sovereignty in the age of Globalisation

•

CHAPTER 4. LAW AND JUSTICE 109-157

-> Law

3 Meaning and Definitions -> Schools of Law

3 Historical School

3 Philosophical School

3 Comparative School

3 Sociological School

3 Marxian School ■> Law and Governance ■> Liberty

3 Meaning and Kinds ■^ Equality

3 Meaning and Kinds

CHAPTER 5. RIGHTS AND DUTIES 158-188

-» Rights

3 Meaning and Definitions 3 Kinds of Rights

• Civil rights

• Political rights

• Social rights

• Economic rights

• Cultural rights

3 Human Rights and Safeguards ■* Duties Towards the State

3 Duties of Citizen

Question Bank 189-194

Previous Question Papers (2004 - 08) 195-199

Bibliography 200 – 204

1

POLITICAL SCIENCE

Political Science

Meaning and Nature

Scope of Political Science

Importance of Political Science

• Approaches to Political Science

Historical Approach

Normative Approach

Behaviouralism

3PostBehaviouralism

Political science is an academic discipline concerned with the study of state and government.

Political science studies the functions performed by government e.g., legislation and administration of the law.

it also studies the behaviour of voters, the operation of political parties, the influence of political organizations and other factors in the functioning of the state.

So, it is the study of the state and of the organs and institutions through which the state functions.

No individual on earth can ever claim that he does not live in a state or under a government.

All individuals must belong to one or the other state with a government which may be democratic or despotic.

The discipline of political science covers all aspects of

state and government.

Thus, political science is one of the major areas in social science dealing with all aspects of human political behaviour and also the institutions which he influences and in turn gets influenced.*

Evolution:

The political thinking in the west goes back to ancient Greece. But the discipline of political science has developed significantly in the last eighty years.

The credit of developing political science on a systematic and scientific basis should rightly go to the Greeks.

The great philosopher trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were the first exponents of political ideas.

Socrates (470 B.C. 399 B.C.) discussed political ideas in the form of dialogues which is not in written form. His disciple, Plato (427 B.C. 347 B.C.) developed a systematic political thinking which he presented in nearly three dozen written dialogues among which "The Republic" is the most important work. The other two famous works of plato are 'The Laws' and 'The Statesman'.

Aristotle (384 B.C. 322 B.C) went a step ahead and made his approach to the study of political ideas more realistic and as close as possible to the truth.

He expressed his political thinking in his monumental work, "The Politics".

For his invaluable contribution to the discipline of political science, he is aptly regarded as the "Father of Political Science".

He called political science a supreme science or a master science. The discipline of political science evolved gradually from the Greeks to Romans and through the Middle Ages.

In the modern times, Machiavelli's "Prince" added a new dimension to the study of political science.

The twentieth century approach has expanded political science from a mere study of laws and institutions to the study of analysis of non political or extraconstitutional elements such as public opinion, voting behaviour etc.

The English word 'Politics' is derived from the Latin word 'Politicus' which in turn is derived from the Greek word 'Polis'.

Polis means 'City State.

Politics, according to Greeks, is the study of city state and its administration in practical as well as its philosophical terms.

Professor Seelay remarks that for the ancient Greeks, Politics was little more than the science of municipal government.

To the Greeks, city was the state and the subject that dealt with the citystate and its problems was termed politics.

The Greek citystates emerged as a result of peculiar topography of Greece. Greece was surrounded by hills, valleys, rivers, and lakes. As a result each province was to take care of its needs and requirements on its own. Due to lack of communication each citystate was working as a state. Sparta, Athens and Stagira were the main citystates. Direct democaracy and indirect democaracy was in vogue in Sparta and Athens respectively. With the advent of time due to advances made in trasnsport and communication people realised close cultural affinity among them with similar language, customs, traditions, food, dress etc., and longed to live together. Thus the State was born out of citystates.

Though the term political science is a product of the twentieth century, earlier it was known by different names. Aristotle called it as 'polities', Gettell regarded it as the 'science of state' and Sir Fredrick Pollock used the phrase the 'science of polities'.

Because of vagueness and impreciseness of the various terms used professor W.J.M. Mackenzie suggested the use of the term "political science". Thus, the term political science is used to describe, as Garner says, the body of knowledge relating to the phenomena of state in all its aspects.

Now the term political science is commonly used by writers and thinkers all over the world.

Terminology:

One important problem which confronts the study of political science is confusion regarding terminology. As Jellinck has observed "no science stands so much in need of a precise terminology as Political Science." This confusion has existed for long. The earlier writers used the term 'polities' fro this subject. For example, Aristotle named his celebrated treatise as Politics. According to them, politics included everything that touched the life of the state. However, in modern times scholars have preferred to use the term 'political science' for this study.

Scholars have often tended to use the term 'political science' and 'politics* interchangeably. Garner has brought out the distinction between these two terms. He says that while the term politics is used to describe the activities by which public officials are chosen and political policies promoted or in a wider sense the sumtotal of the activities which have to do with actual administration of public affairs, the term 'political science' is used to describe the body of knowledge relating to the phenomena of state.

The term 'Political Science' is much more comprehensive than the term Politics. It includes both theoretical politics and practical politics. On the theoretical side, it is concerned with the nature, origin, purpose and justification of the state. On the practical side, it is concerned with the structure, functions and forms of political institutions.

Definitions:

There is no unanimity among scholars regarding the definition of political science and the scope of the subject. While scholars like Bluntschli, Garner, Gettell, Pollock hold that it is concerned with the study of the State. Seeley and Stephen Leacock hold that it is concerned with the study of the government. To fully appreciate the views of these writers, let us examine some of the definitions of Political Science.

Political Science

Paul Janet: "Political science is that part of social science

which treats of the foundations of the state and principles of government".

Bluntschli: "Political science is the science which is concerned

with state, which endeavours to understand and comprehend the state in its essential nature, various forms of manifestation, its development".

Robson: "It is with power in society that the political science is primarily concerned its nature, basis, scope and results".

Girpert: "Political science is a social science systematically dealing with state and government".

Sidgwick: "Political science deals with governed societies re

Catlin John Seelay

R.J. Gettell David E. Apter

garded as possessing government that is, societies of which the members are accustomed to obey, at least in certain matters, the direction given by some persons or,body of persons forming a part of the society".

"Political science is the study of political aspects of organised human society".

"Political science investigates the phenomenon of government as political economy deals with wealth, biology with life, algebra with numbers and geometry with space and magnitude".

"Political science is a historical investigation of

what the state has been, what the state is and what

the state should be".r'

"Taken as a whole, political science is about the relations between the rulers and ruled, and the means and the ends each employs."

NATURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Man is by nature a social.

animal who is born in society and wishes to live in society. The social nature of man is well

summarised by Aristotle.

He says: "He who is unable to live in society, or has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a God".

Man's love for company is prompted by twin factors of necessity of fulfilling his wants and his gregarious nature, to love and to be loved.

Thus, in order to satisfy his wants and requirements, which he alone cannot fulfil and the desire to be cared and appreciated makes him to seek cooperation of others.

Man is social by nature but at the same time he is selfish, egoist and quarrelsome too. In the process of living together in a society, he tries to dominate over others by controlling their actions or regulate the activity of others according to his will. This nature of man leads to conflict in the society. In order to put down such dominating behaviour of certain individuals, a regulating agency was required which can protect the weak and helpless against the strong and dominant. The rules and regulations that prescribe a certain code of behaviour in a society is called Laws. An organised society requires an agency to make laws of universal application in the absence of which the law of the jungle (survival of the fittest) would prevail. Such an agency is not merely meant to make laws but also to implement them strictly and impartially. This law enforcing authority is called Government. The functioning of the government can be effective if people settle down within a fixed geographical limit. This fixed area in which the laws of the government operate is called Territory.

The society so constituted is called a state when the social conduct of the people is regulated by law supervised over by a government having a fixed territory along with the supreme power of Sovereignty. Thus, political science is the study of State and Government in its all aspects.

SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

No subjectmatter can be without boundaries and political science is no exception. The scope refers to the area or extent of the subject. Like the definitions of political science, there is no general agreement on the scope of political science among the political scientists.

On the question of the scope of political science there are three groups of thinking.

State

Scope of Political Science I =

Government

State + Government

Frank Goodnow

H.J. James

Bluntschi

Garries

J.W. Garner

Stephen Leacock Karl Deutsche JohnSeelay Robson

Harold J. Laski Garfield Gettel I Gilchrist

The first school of scholars including Frank Goodnow, Garries, H.J. James and Bluntshli argue that the scope of political science is the study of state alone.

They are of the view that the study of state obviously include the study of government as well.

Without state life can't be sustained. As Aristotle said, to lead a good life and meet the bare needs of man, state is important.

Some writers restrict the scope of Political Science to the study of the State alone, for example, Bluntschli. All such writers exclude the study of Government from the scope of Political Science, for the State for them obviously includes the study of government. Harold Laski takes a more realistic view and emphasises that the scope of Political Science embraces the study of both the State and government, although he maintains that the State in reality means the government.

The second school of scholars consisting of John Seelay, Stephan Leacock, Karl Deutsch and Robson contend that the scope of political science includes the study of government alone.

They argue that it is the government that anchors the ship of the state and hence a state can't be imagined in the absence of a government and though the state orders and compels obedience, it is the government that enforces it. These scholars are of the view that as the government acts as an agent of the people and also as an agent of the state through which the will of the state is expressed, the scope of political science should restrict to the study of government alone.

Karl Deutsche aptly observes: "Because politics is the making of decisions by public means, it is primarily concerned with

government" According to Robson, "the purpose of political

science is to throw light on political ideas and political action in order the government of man may be improved".

Government is the helmsman of the ship of the State. There can be no State without government. The State is a people organized for law within a definite territory. This entity, the sovereign political unity of life, orders and compels obedience by punishing those who violate its commands. But no State acts by itself. There must be present in every State some men or body of men competent to issue orders on its behalf and to see that they are actually obeyed. That is the government. The modern government has emerged as an active and positive agent in the direction of affairs of all communities. In the older democracies, government is looked on as a major or even the dominant organizing power in society.

The third school of thinkers consisting of Harold J. Laski, Gettell and Gilchrist strike a meaningful balance between two extreme views and conclude that the scope of political science includes the study of both state and government.

The state and government are complimentary to each other and has no existence in isolation because the conception of a state is never complete without an organised government.

Thus, the scope of political science shall include the study of state and government in all its aspects. Therefore, a description of the state must also include the study of structure and functions of the government, its forms and institutions, the origin of the state, its evolution, development etc. The scope of political science has been aptly summarised by Gettell. He says: "What the state has been, what the state is and what the state ought to be".

A description of the state must, therefore, include the study of the structure and function of the government its forms and institutions modes of representation, interaction of political parties, interest groups, mass media of communication, relationships involving rule, authority and power and most important of all, the problems connected with the mergence of a big and active government both in the national and international fields. The state

remains the central subject of the study of political science as the whole mechanism of government revolves around the state. The need for government arises because there has been and there is need for the state.

Eminent political scientists from all over the world who assembled at Unesco House in Paris in 1948 found the term 'political science' generally acceptable and as there was no agreement on the exact scope, divided the subjectmatter of political science into four divisions in order to widen the frontiers of knowledge of the discipline and also to promote specialisation. They are:

1.Political Theory

2.Political Institutions

3.Political Dynamics and

4.International Relations

1.Political Theory:

Political theory is a major branch of political science. On the basis of the political ideas or thoughts of political thinkers, political theory formulates concepts like democracy, liberty, equality etc. A student of political science must start his lessons with political theory which explains the concepts of political science. Speculation of political philosophical and other ideologies are put together in one volume which is given the title of political theory.

2.Political Institutions:

The study of political institutions include a study of constitutions and comparative government. It deals with the nature of different political institutions, including the government, explains their merits and demerits, their structure and working and arrives at different conclusions on comparative basis. The study of public administration and local government may be included under this heading. However, the study of public administration has become an independent subject in recent times. There are many types of political institutions in a country or in a society and the institution of the state controls all of them. These institutions are useful to the

nation and have their utility in society. That is why we study these institutions alongwith the state.

3.Political Dynamics:

The study of political dynamics has become important in the twentieth century. It means the current forces at work in government and politics. It covers a wide range and includes the study of political parties, public opinion, pressure groups, lobbies etc. A scientific study of the working of these political dynamics helps to explain the political behaviour of individuals and groups. The study of political parties has become important in modern times. New conditions and experience make the people wiser and in the light of new knowledge, they can improve the machinery of the state.

4.International Relations:

The scope of political science includes a study of international relations. It covers a wide range and includes diplomacy, international politics, international law, international organizations like the United Nations etc.

On account of scientific inventions and discoveries, cooperation and contact among the different nations of the world have become easier and the whole world turns to be a family. The idea of World Government in the distant future is being advocated.

The study of political science also includes a study of international law. The states are the subjects of international law. International law is defined as a body of general principles and specific rules which are ordinarily binding upon the member states. The states are the subjects of international law which has assumed greater importance in modern times.

It should be said that it is an uphill task to limit the area of social science as was evident when wellknown political scientists assembled at Philadelphia on 28th and 29th December 1965 under the aegis of the American Academy of political science to discuss the scope, objectives and methods of political science. The distinguished participants like David Easton, Harry Eckstein, Hans J. Morgenthou, Norman D. Palmer and others found it hard to

arrive at a precise and a clearcut boundary for the discipline of political science.

(a)State as it has been

In the first instance Political Science makes a survey of the origin and growth of organised political life. It starts with consideration of the evolution of political forms from simple to complex. Since earliest times scholars have made attempts to draw inferences and draw tentative conclusions about the state, government, law and political behaviour. Thus they helped in the growth of various currents of political thought as well as the understanding of the role of groups and organizations seeking power and influence in the society. This study of the past has been of great help in understanding the present institutions, ideas and processes.

(b)State as it is

Political Science makes an empirical investigation of existing political institutions and phenomenon. It also examines the prevailing political concepts and the groups or organizations which seek power and influence the society. It also deals with the attribute, form and structure of the governments as well as their working, purpose and functions. As the present day state is intimately linked with other states it also deals with various international organizations and rules of international conduct, popularly known as international law. In recent years due to the development of behavioural approach, studies of opinion polls and election studies have also fallen in the scope of political science. These studies help in understanding the motivations of the voters.

(c)State as it should be

Finally political science tries to arrive at practical decisions about the policy to be adopted on the basis of the past experience and the current working of the political institutions. The existing developments and tendencies are studied with a view to predict the likely course of developments in the future. Effort is also made to make proposals for modification in the existing political structure and process to make them more effective.

In short, political science helps to explain the past of the State to understand its present and to direct its future. Thus political prediction has been an important aspect of political science since the earliest times and still continues to be an important aspect of its study.

Study of Power:

In recent years, the scope of political science has been considerably widened and certain other aspects have also been added to the scope of this subject. One such aspect is study of power. In recent times scholars like Laswell, Kaplan, Morgenthau have tried to study politics from the angle of power. They have asserted that since it is the element of power which distinguishes the state from other associations, this question should be included in the study of politics. Robson has observed, "It is power in society that political science is primarily concerned its nature, its basis and results ..." The study of politics is concerned with the description and analysis of the manner in which power is obtained, exercised and controlled, the purpose for which it is used, the manner in which decisions are made, the factors which influence the making of those decisions, and the context in which those decisions take place.

New Meaning of Political Science:

The scholars who view politics as the study of power argue that this change has resulted in broadening the area of inquiry and made political analysis more realistic. This has two distinct advantages over the earlier methods of study. Firstly, it includes the study of not only legal and formal institutions but also the study of extralegal and informal processes involved in the government. Secondly it pays more attention to political man as a basic unit of analysis.

In recent years scholars like Jouvenal and Catlin have further tried to widen the scope of the study of the subject by asserting that it deals primarily with the political aspects of the life of the community. They

include in political science the study of anything that relates to the political aspects of the life of the community or

deals with the political relations of man with one another. Thus we find that the state and government and the related problems fall within the purview of political science.

IS POLITICAL SCIENCE A SCIENCE OR AN ART?

The use of the term political science has become a matter of controversy and scholars are divided in their opinion on this issue. Sir. Fredrick Pollock, John Seelay, Hobbes, Bodin, Sidgwick and other scholars contend that the discipline of political science is a science. On the other hand scholars like J.S. Mill, Henry Maitland, Bucker, Charles Beard, Edmund Burke, James Bryce and others argue that political science cannot be considered as a science. They contend that the title 'political science' is both misleading and mischievous. Henry Maitland observes : "when I see a good set of examination questions headed by the words 'political science', I regret not the questions but the title".

In order to arrive at a decision as to whether political science is a science or an art, It is essential to know the characteristics of science. Science is a systematic body of knowledge with characteristics of definiteness, predictability, experimentation, generalisation and verification of data.

The laws of science such as theory of relativity, Newton's laws of motion, or the law of gravitation is definite and precise at all places and under all conditions. But the same definiteness can't be expected of any of the social sciences including political science. In political science we are concerned with the mind of man than his body. Since human mind can't be predicted owing to dynamic nature of man, nothing can be definitely predicted. Human mind is often compared with that of a monkey which does not rest at one place. Because of the ever changing nature of mind, it is difficult to predict his mind at any point of time.

For a political scientist, the whole world is a laboratory whereas a scientist works on certain known/assumptions and established formulas to arrive at predetermined concluding observations.

The political science agrees that it is neither an exact science nor it can claim to be one. The contention of the political scientists is that in dealing with the complex and unpredictable human nature,

they also adopt wellestablished scientific tools of investigation such as observation,, analysis, experimentation etc. For example, the public opinion polls and election surveys are based on certain reasonable scientific methods such as random sampling, interview method, questionnaire method, field study, etc. The main object of our study is about the unpredictable nature of man and hence the out come would surely be prone to inexactness. So, we can say that political science is not an exact science but can claim to be a 'science' as far as its approach to numerous political problems is based on tools of sound scientific technique.

IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

The study of political science is very important in an age of increasing activity of the government in all spheres of human activity and also the active role being played by individuals in affairs of the state.

From an ordinary man to a statesman, the knowledge of political science is essential.

The importance of the study of political science is well described by George Bernard Shaw. He says: "Political science is the science by which alone civilization can be saved".

The following are the advantages of the study of political science.

1. Essential for a cultured existence:

In order to lead a respectful and a dignified life, a cultured society is essential.

Basic freedoms such as freedom of thought, expression and action and fair degree of equality social, political and economic will not only help lead a free but also fearless life.

In a society governed by a law, all are treated equal in the eyes of law.

The study of political science introduces an individual to the requirements of a civilized and cultured society.

Knowledge of political science has become indispensable in modern times because now everyone is directly concerned with politics. Robert A. Dhal writes : "A citizen encounters politics in the government of a country, town, school, church, business firm, trade union, club, political party, civic association and a host of organizations." Politics is one of the unavoidable facts of human

existence. Everyone is involved in some fashion at some time in some kind of political system.

2.To understand evolution of state and government:

Though we know that political science is the study of state and government in all its aspects, in order to understand the roots of state and government such as how and why the state came into existence and why it continues to be in existence and what are the essential factors that make a state.

To know what is government, how, when and why the government came into existence, the types and forms of government, the aims and objectives of the government, the knowledge of political science is essential.

3.Realisation of rights and duties:

Rights are an integral part of the development of a personality without which no individual can be at his best. With waves of democracy sweeping all over the world, almost all states guarantee rights to its people. If a citizen is not aware of the rights he enjoys, any misuse or abuse of rights may go unnoticed. In India, for example, the right to constitutional remedies is guaranteed in the constitution to protect the people from encroachment of their rights. A violation of any of .the five fundamental rights can be redressed only if a citizen is aware of the right to constitutional remedies. As every right has a

corresponding duty, a citizen well aware of his rights will perform his duties in the same spirit as he enjoy his rights.

Every man must know his rights and study of politics makes him aware of his rights and responsibilities. In order to be a good citizen, one must know the government, its objectives and its basis. A study of politics helps in this matter. A man without an ideology is less than a man and the absence of ideology gives birth to amoral, normless and opportunist behaviour. A study of politics makes him aware of the different ideologies in society. In order to live as a fully developed man, a study of politics is a necessity.

4.An understanding of working of the government:

It is an inescapable fact that all human beings living on earth live under a government whether we like or not. Hence, it becomes

important to know how the government under which we live operates. So, by studying the various organs of governmentthe legislature (law making), executive (lawimplementation) and judiciary (lawinterpretation) and their powers and functions, we get a clear picture of the working of the government.

With the emergence of the concept of welfare state where the government takes care of its people from his birth till his death, popularly known as 'womb to tomb policy', the knowledge of working of the government has assumed added importance. In order to understand the government in action, knowledge of political science is essential.

5.Develops political consciousness:

Politically educated masses are an asset to a state. An individual well aware of rights and duties, good knowledge of electoral system, understanding of the value of vote and a sound knowledge of the working of government would enable him to use his maturity both in the choice of candidate as well as the choice of the government. If he is aware that his vote can make or break a government, it makes the government both responsive and responsible to needs of the people or else faces public anger in elections. Knowledge of political science keeps a person politically alert and active.

6.Helps to understand evolution of concepts:

"Ideas rule the world" it is said. In the discipline of political science we study various political ideas and concepts such as democracy, socialism, individualism, marxism, nazism, fascism, liberty, equality etc. An understanding of origin and development of these concepts is of great importance as it indicates the times and conditions under which the concepts emerged and their utility in changing times.

The concept of democracy, for example, has a history of 5000 years, dating back to the Greek citystates. Even today, democracy is the most popular and accepted form of government where as communism which became popular after the Russian Revolution of 1917 became unpopular within a span of 70 years and was thrown out with anger in USSR and East Europe.

7.Knowledge of the constitution:

A state without the constitution is like a man without the head. Irrespective of its size and population, constitution is a must. Constitution reflects social, political and economic aspirations of the people of a country. Hence it is absolutely essential for an individual to be aware of the ideals of constitution and also values and goals for which the constitution stands for. The constitution not only reveals its national priorities but also international outlook. Hence to understand a state better, a sound understanding of constitution is necessary which is possible by studying political science.

8.A guide to statesman:

A statesman is one who places the interests of his country ahead of personal interests. A statesman, well aware of political science, can be of great value as he can put his plans for progress and development on a firm footing based on established principles of administration and management .It helps in meaningful utilisation of meagre resources for a national cause.

The administrators and statesmen who have knowledge of political science are aware of the principles which should guide them and hence they can avoid the pitfalls. In order to understand the affairs of the world, it is desirable to know the affairs of one's own country, the working of various institutions, the nature and conduct of government and the postures and policies of political parties and various other matters. The knowledge of political science is of great value to constitutionmakers, legislators, executives and judges who need models or norms that can be applied to immediate situations.

9.A standard of reference to civil servants:

It is said that the success or failure of a government depends on the civil servants. In the era of increasing welfare activities undertaken by the state, a civil servant acts as an instrument of socioeconomic change. The progress of a country depends on the active interest shown by the civil servants towards national development. A civil servant with the knowledge of public

administration which includes concepts like leadership, planning, coordination, organisation etc., can discharge his duties efficiently as he is aware of the basic knowledge of administration.

10.Role of political parties and public opinion:

In majority of countries of the world, the role of political parties and the public opinion has assumed greater importance. The study of political science throws light on vital aspects such as the necessity and importance of political parties, types of political parties, functions and motives of political parties etc. It also highlights the importance of public opinion in successful working of democracy, the factors that are responsible for mobilising public opinion and also its agencies. With popular sovereignty emerging as the main stay of democracy, the importance of public opinion has increased manyfold.

11.Knowledge of international relations:

International relations is a specialised area of study in the discipline of political science which deals with relations between and among sovereign independent states. In an increasingly interdependent world, international relations tell us how nations interact with one another and to what end. By studying international relations we can understand that cooperation but not conflict is the essence of relations among nations.

Apart from this, studying international relations we get a first hand information of problems of war and peace such as what war is, how it begins and how to end it. (it is said, 'war begins in the minds of man'). And on the other hand, the ways and means of attaining peace is also discussed as the two devastating world wars and everincreasing threat of nuclear weapons have heightened the necessity of peace. J.F. Kennedy rightly observed thus: "Mankind shall put an end to war or else war will put an end to mankind."

12.Enrichment of Knowledge:

The knowledge of political science enriches one's mind and widens one's intellectual horizon. Those who specialize in various fields of political science conduct researches to discover hitherto unknown principles underlying political phenomena and make a

rich contribution to the realm of knowledge. If the ultimate philosophy of human life is to enrich knowledge, political science makes a major contribution to the storehouse of knowledge.

13. Toleration and Coexistence:

Political Science teaches the lesson of cooperation, adjustment and toleration. Society cannot progress without cooperation and adjustment. The absence oi toleration leads to anarchy. Politics teaches the principles of toleration and coexistence. It preaches the idea of "live and let live".

Thus, the relevance of the study of political science is unlimited particularly because of active participation of the people in large numbers in the political affairs of the state. Because of its importance Aristotle has rightly called political science a supreme science or a master science.

APPROACHES TO POLITICAL SCIENCE

An approach may be.defined as a way of looking at and then explaining a particular phenomenon. Using a particular set of concepts an approach seeks to provide a framework for explanation and prediction. The perspective may be broad enough to cover a vast area like world as a whole in the study of political science, or it may be very small, embracing just as an aspect of local, regional, national and international politics. Thus, an approach consists of a criteria employed in selecting the problems or questions to consider and in selecting the data to study and understand.

It is for this reason that approaches to the study of political science are so many. When a scholar seeks to channelise his efforts into a presentable form, the same approach leads to the utilisation of a particular method. As Van Dyke observes: "In brief, approaches consist of criteria for selecting problems and relevant data, whereas methods are procedures for getting and utilising data."

In brief, an approach is a way which helps a student to understand and explain the 'reality' oi his concern and wins the credit of formulating a particular theory that may be abstract, concrete, Utopian, realistic, normative or empirical or a combination of both.

We study political phenomena through different approaches in order to understand the true nature of political reality.

Philosophers, historians, scientific observers and analysts have contributed to enlighten us on the distinction between appearance and reality by following various methods to examine political issues.

Approaches to the study of politics may be divided into two categories: (a) Traditional (b) Modern Approaches.

They are as follows:

Traditional ApproachesModern Approaches

Philosophical ApproachSociological Approach

Historical ApproachEconomic Approach

Legal ApproachQuantitative Approach

Institutional ApproachSimulation Approach

Normative ApproachMarxian Approach

Psychological Approach

Behavioural Approach

Post Behavioural Approach

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES

HISTORICAL APPROACH

The Historical approach stands on the assumption that the concepts of political theory comes out of socioeconomic crises and the reactions they leave on the minds of the great thinkers. In the ancient past, Herodotus and Thucydides followed this method. Aristotle and Machiavelli relied substantially on historical method. Of the important political scientists of our time who subscribed to the historical approach are Sabine, Dunning, Mcllwain, Burgess and Seeley. The major characters of Historical approach could be identified as under:

1.The Historical approach uses the knowledge of history and applies it to understand political life. History signifies and manifests an everchanging process, affecting social life in its entirety.

2.To study politics as a significant human activity, we should enquire into the past. When facts about the past are sought we are really concerned of ideas, institutions and processes. This is the basic purpose of the historical approach. Knowledge regarding organized existence in the past provides the background to our understanding of politics as it has evolved. Since we are removed from actual happenings and events in the past, we need to take special care to identify the nature of facts of political life.

3.History provides the accumulated wisdom of the past successes and failures to political scientists. It cannot be denied that political life today has historical background. Freeman is of the view that "History is past Politics and Politics is present history." It is said that history leads the wise and drags the foolish. History provides relevant information, and we have to distinguish between what is of no significance today and what is likely to offer useful lessons in our search for a meaningful understanding of political life.

4.This approach should help us to identify meaningful patterns of political life. The historical approach is chronological and descriptive and seeks to explain linkages of political life with the changing social situation.

You should note that the historical approach indicates broad

trends, patterns and linkages. A total prespective, therefore, is

necessary.

/" Criticisms:

Criticisms of Historical approach are as follows:

1. Though historical understanding is essential, it does not mean that such attempts always succeed in formulation of laws of universal relevance. Also, laws formulated on experiences of the past are not necessarily applicable to situations at present or in future which are different and are likely to change. It is only partially correct that history repeats itself.

2.Political life in our own times has special characteristics, identity, features, problems and issues. The past serves as a window to the long process of evolution. Not all the information about antecedents of political life is necessarily relevant today. Political life in our own times might not, in all the cases, be understood by what had happened in the past.

3.The danger is that in our effort to understand the historical context of political life, and learn from it, we might be carried away by our own preferences and biases. We might only see what we like to and miss what is relevant. This is likely to distort our knowledge. Facts and fiction are likely to be mixed up. Under such a situation, reliability of the historical approach is weakened.

4.If we agree that laws of universal relevance could be formulated on the basis of historical experience, it would mean that political life is bound by determinate, absolute and final laws. Since political life is not static, society has also to adjust to the changing situation, Absolute laws of political life, therefore, are neither possible nor desirable.

5.In terms of scope, history is much more comprehensive than Political Science. History records a variety of aspects and phenomena. But Political Science is not necessarily dependent upon this knowledge to explain evolution of organized and ordered political life.

6.History of past political events cannot be recreated fully and objectively. Historians have made their own selective studies. A few facts were considered and others ignored. What we know as history may neither be comprehensive nor impartial. History therefore, can provide only broad patterns and trends of political life in the past.

NORMATIVE APPROACH

The normative approach is identified with preferences and values. That is, individual and social priorities, choices, goals, biases and interests comprise the norms. The emphasis is on moral and rational premises. The motivating concern is for what ought to be or what should be.

Political Science23

The normative approach is based on the view that values are inevitable and essential for understanding and evaluating political phenomena and facts.

For example, if we come across the statement that only men of wisdom should become rulers or, that every citizen ought to assess the capabilities of candidates before casting his or her vote, the normative concern is predominant. The normative approach is valueladen, that is values determine perceptions, analysis and prescription.

Major characteristics:

1.Normalists contend that since political life concerns human beings, it is not possible nor desirable to study facts, phenomena and processes without taking into account the reality that human beings havechoices, preferences and values. The morai aspect alone helps us to test whether facts about political life are right or wrong. What is to be studied, how is it to be studied, and why we study, what we do, are all issues viewed form moral perspectives.

2.The normative approach stresses the belief that relevance of political lifelies in the values that motivate and inspire it. Political analysts and author philosophers have been making value judgment all the time. The normative approach states that it is not possible to make political studies value neutral.

3.In order to make the right choices, act in the right manner, make right decisions and ensure betterment of political life, value preferences cannot be ignored. The normative approach, however,

does not ignore or minimize the significance of facets. The assertion is that the study of facts and values is necessary for a viable and clear understanding of political life.

4.Normalists contend that if political Science attained the level of reliability of science, it would be possible to build an empirical theory of political life. But, by neglecting values, Political Science would become a dry and rudderless discipline. It will miss its destination and fail to inspire the individual and the community to perform duties.

24

Basic Concepts of Political Science

Criticims :

1.Normative approach shuts its eyes to political reality and seeks

to build castles in the air. Hence this approach is unrealistic.

Politics deals with capture and retention of power. There is hardly any place for values in this game of power. Unarmed prophets who preached norms in public life met with a sad end e.g. Socrates, Christ and Gandhi.

2.Men are not gods. They are made of flesh and blood prone to

all weaknesses and mistakes. Political science must take into

consideration these hard facts in order to build up a depend

able body of knowledge. Normalists ignore this element.

MODERN APPROACHES

BEHAVIOURALISM

Distinguished from the classical or traditional political science, contemporary political science focuses research on actualities, that is, on the disclosure of facts and their interrelationships. It is based on observation and measurement. As such, it is tending to focus on certain new concepts in establishing intellectual links among its several subfields, and largely responsible for the development and use of such concepts as power, political system, political socialisation and the like.

This is the most important approach for the study of political science which was evolved by the American political scientists after the first world war. This approach emerged as a sort of protest against the conventional methods of the study of political science viz., historical, philosophical and descriptive institutional approaches. This approach was adopted to study the phenomena of government in terms of observed and observable behaviour and attached great importance to methodology. In the words of Robert Dahl, "Behavioural approach is an attempt to improve our understanding of politics by seeking to explain the empirical aspects of political life by means of methods, theories and criteria of proof that are acceptable according to the canons, conventions and assumptions of modern empirical science." Viewed in this context the behavioural approach represents the scientific outlook."

Political Science

25

Meaning:

Strictly speaking, behaviouralism in politics is mainly a contribution of the American political scientists who drew inspiration from a set of European political thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes, psychologists like Sigmund Freud and Graham Walls, and sociologists like Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. The credit of being the 'intellectual father' of this movement goes to Charles Merriam of the Chicago University who subscribed to the 'New approach'. In 1925 he said: "Some day we may take another angle of approach than the formal as other sciences do and begin to look at political behaviour as one of the essential objects of inquiry."

This trend was followed by a good number of the faculty members and students of Charles Merriam like David Easton, David B. Truman, V.O. Key, Herbert Simon and Gabriel Almond, Catlin who came to be known as the leading lights of the 'Chicago School'. Thus, the study of political science became more and more away from the subjects of history, philosophy and ethics and drew close to the disciplines of anthropology, sociology and psychology. The community of new political theorists and analysts of the United States realised that they needed new approaches, new techniques of research, and new concepts for which they had to borrow from other social sciences. In this way, adoption of interdisciplinary approach became one of the important features of behavioural' political science.

E. Kirkpatrick underlines following characteristics of the behavioural trend in political science:

1.Rejection of political institutions as the basic conceptual unit and a substitution of the individual and group behaviour,

2.An emphasis on the unity of social sciences, and an increased willingness to crossdisciplinary studies.

3.A greater attention to precision, measurement and quantitative techniques, and

4.Development of systematic political theory.

Behaviouralism tries to discover regular and uniform political behaviour which would permit to establish generalisations of

26Basic Concepts of Political Science

explanatory and predictive value. As political science is a branch of the social sciences and as all social sciences are 'behavioural sciences', the phrase 'behavioural sciences' (that includes political science) refers to those bodies of knowledge which aspire to provide verified principles of human behaviour through the use of method adopted by science.

Easton's Tenets: In one of his important papers, David Easton, outlined eight features, which he called 'intellectual foundations' of behaviouralism. These are:

1.Regularities: There are certain visible uniformities in the political behaviour of human beings that can be expressed in generalisations or theories capable of explaining and predicting social phenomena.

2.Verification: All evidence must be based on 'observations' and must be capable of being put to empirical examination.

3.Techniques : Correct techniques should be adopted for acquiring and interpreting data, the use of research tools, or methods which generate valid, reliable and comparative data.

4.Quantification : Data for research should be quantified so that the conclusion or impressions of the researcher may be verified on the basis of quantified evidence.

5.Systematisation : In order to be valid, scientific inquiry must be free from moral or ethical considerations. The approach should be valuefree so that there is no place for human subjectivity in the study of a political problem.

Research in the field of political science should be systematic. Both theory and research should form a clearly related part of a coherent and orderly body of knowledge. Research unsupported by theory may prove trivial, as theory unsupported by data becomes futile.

6.Pure Science : Both theory and its application are parts of a

scientific enterprise. The understanding and explanation of po

litical behaviour logically precedes, and it alone provides the

basis for efforts to utilise that knowledge in the solution of ur

gent practical problems of society.

Political Science

27

7. Integration : Political Science is one of the social sciences and, for this reason, it should be integrated with other social sciences, particularly economics, psychology and sociology. The study of politics should be taken away from abstract subjects

like ethics, philosophy and history.

»■

Thus, Easton affirms that this list includes all the major tenets of a behavioural credo and represents the major differences between the behavioural and traditional modes of research.

Traditional versus Behavioural Political Science: Traditional political science is normative. That is, the aspect of normativism is very heavy in the realm of traditional political science. So it is also known as valueladen political science. Due to this, political science looks very close to the disciplines of ethics and philosophy. But the behavioural trend abandons the normative side and sticks only to the empirical dimension of political science. In this way, it may be regarded both as a break from and a continuity with traditional political science.

Criticisms:

Behaviouralism may be criticised on these lines:

1.The behaviouralists take a very broad meaning of politics. To

them politics is anything like power, influence, coercion, per

suasion, rivalry, competition, contest, fight and the like. The

behaviouralists widen their area of concern to deal with aJI

organisations like parties and interest groups. It prevents the

indepth study of individual aspects.

A student of politics may be confused to know as to what the subject includes and what it does not. Christian Bay, therefore, accuses the behaviouralists of giving us much in the form of 'pseudopolities' or 'counterfeit politics.'

2.The behaviourlists sacrifice values at the cost of facts. By lay

ing all emphasis on the side of actualities or facts and thereby

leave no place for ethical comments or valuational judgements

that must invariably find place in the study of social and politi

cal issues and problems. The theories of Plato, Aristotle, St.

Augustine, St. Thomas, Rousseau, Green, and Laski have an

28

Basic Concepts of Political Science

eternal significance in view of the fact that they touch the human head and heart. In order to keep political theory refreshing, its goal oriented aspect should never be discarded or sacrificed at the altar of brute facts.

3.The biggest weakness of political behaviouralism is its obsession for converting political science into a pure science like physics and chemistry. Easton has criticised the behaviouralists for having 'mad craze for scientism.' They forget that what they treat as a 'fact' may be a fiction for others. Over emphasis on science is aptly summarised by Alfred Cobban thus: "Political science has been reduced to 'a device invented by university teachers for avoiding that dangerous subject 'politics' without achieving a science."

4.Political phenomena by their very nature cannot be subjected to a rigorous study. Human behaviour, whether individual or social, cannot be studied with objectivity that is necessary for the acquisition of scientific knowledge. Human nature is often compared to that of a hopping monkey.

5.While one may not object to ones starting with a hypothesis at the early stage of research, the very purpose of research could be defeated if an attempt were made to adhere to it very rigidly.

Critical Estimate:

Robert Dahl has rightly remarked: "The astonishing thing is that it will disappear not because it has failed but because it has succeeded and as a separate, somewhat sectarian, slightly factional outlook, it will be

the first victim of its own triumph." Thus, we find that behaviouralism constituted a sharp break with the traditional approach to political science in so far as it lays greater emphasis on empirical research. They make a value neutral study and seek to deal with which constitutes a reliable knowledge. They have made the discipline more selfconscious and selfcritical by adopting interdisciplinary approach and refining its research techniques and methodologies.

Political Science29

POST BEHAVIOURALISM

The trend of behaviouralism dominated the scene from 1950 to 1970. It has been followed by a new trend known as 'postbehaviouralism' that signifies a break from as well as a continuity with its immediate past. It has been called as 'a. new challenge' as well as a 'new revolution'. The motivating factor behind it is the emergence of an element of dissent in the community of American political theorists and analysts who have raised their voice against 'behavioural orthoxody' during social and political crises of the 1960s and 1970s. Younger teachers of political science emerged as a new group who partly rejected and partly accepted and partly revised the tenets of the behavioural political science so as to make it relevant and socially useful. As a result, as Dwight Waldo puts it, the term 'postbehaviouralism' came to designate the 'mood and programmatic intent of the new dissenters'.

Underlining the reasons for emergence of postbehaviouralism, David Easton said, "New conditions of modern world, however, force us to reconsider our image of what we want to be. Scientific progress is slow, and however more reliable our limited knowledge about politics has become in the last fifty years, socialcrises of unforeseen proportions are upon us... The search for an answer as to how we as political scientists have proved so disappointingly ineffectual in anticipating the world of 1960s has contributed significantly to the birth of the postbehavioural revolution."

The principal assumptions of postbehavioural political science are as follows:

1. Importance of value and fact:

It is unwise to stick to the case of factvalue dichotomy. Facts and values are not two distinct things out of which one may be taken and the other be discarded entirely. The dichotomy is based on a wrong understanding and it would lead to theoretical inconsistencies. As such, values should be accommodated in a study of political phenomenon.

30

Basic Concepts of Political Science

2.Social purpose:

Mad craze for scientism should be given up in view of the fact that social sciences cannot be converted into a natural science. As such, there should be emphasis on the relevance of research for social purpose and action.

3.Mix of normatism and empiricism:

Political phenomena should be studied in both normative and empirical contexts, but the study should not be taken to the level of rigorous conceptualisation. It is good that political science is taken closer to the discipline of policy science so that the researches of a political scientist should be useful for the administrators and policymakers of the country'.

FEATURES OF POSTBEHAVIOURALISM

It is obvious that post behavioural trend desires to break the exclusive hold of empiricism on the study of political phenomena. This is aptly highlighted by Dwight Waldo thus: "It informs that political science needs to become imaginative, creative (even playful) open to the world. Modern natural sciences, after all, are but a school of consciousness, one among many. It represents a monopolistic expression of the meaning of science that is knowledge in its original sense. The monopoly must be broken."

1. Emphasis on substance:

The post behaviouralist contended that the behavioural insistence upon techniques of study and research has to be revised with emphasis on substance than technique. Contemporary urgent problems need to be examined intensively. The obligation, therefore, is to be relevant and meaningful, to ensure the quality and reliability of issues and subjectmatter of concern. What we perceive, identify and investigate has to be specifically identified. Mere abstractions are of no use. Emphasis on sophistication of tools and technique of investigation would be ineffective if the substance of manifold problems and challenges of politics is ignored or minimised.

Political Science

31

2.Relevant:

Easton cautioned that in the contemporary situation, it is better to be valueladen than nonrelevantly precise. That is, if political analysts do not comprehend the situational relevance of issues and problems, they would fail to assess the social reality. The objective of precision would become meaningless.

On the other hand, if substantial identification of relevant issues is achieved, even vagueness of some sort would not adversely affect the study of issues. Vagueness could be corrected at some stage but failure to be relevant would only add to the complexity and meaninglessness of issues and bases of the substance of "political life.

3.Realistic:

The behavioural perspective was overly devoted to abstraction and analytic formulation (at the intellectual level). Crude realities of political life were not taken into consideration.

The postbehavioural approach seeks to recognise the real needs of mankind in times of crisis. The research so carried out must save the society at a time of need instead of remaining an academic exercise.

4.Valuebased:

The postbehavioural approach conceded the study of politics inseparably connected with values. Even science could not be totally valueneutral. There are limits to our knowledge. Value premises help us understand the contexts of issues and problems.

5.Social Responsibility:

Dissatisfied with the abstract and soulless perspectives, methodology and inferences of the behavioural approach, the postbehavioural alternative calls upon intellectuals of Political Science to fulfil vital tasks and social obligations. The intellectuals role could not ignore protection of human values and civilisation.

6.Actionoriented:

The postbehavioural approach seeks to transform the study and analysis of political life into an Action Science. The argument was

32

Basic Concepts of Political Science

that Action Science reflects contemporary conflicts in society over ideals, which the study and research could not ignore. Therefore, the intellectuals must accept the logic that to know is to bear responsibility

for acting. To act is to engage in reshaping society. Knowledge must be put to work in the larger social context.

7. Wider Participation:

The post behaviouralist held that once the intellectuals understand, accept and implement their transformed role and obligations, it is the task of institutions of learning (including universities) to get involved in the struggles of the day. •

Merkel explains that the postbehavioural approach does not mean a new wave of methodological innovations. There is a noticeable trend back to the vital aspect concerning valuepreferences, identified with the noramtive approach. From the traditional approaches to the postbehavioural approaches there is not only change but also continuity.

Credo of Relevance:

With a view to impart relevance to the study, the postbehavioural approach was advocated by David Easton in his Presidential address in 1969 popular as "The credo of relevance". He identified seven traits of the postbehavioural approach which are as follows:

1.The research must be relevant to the contemporary social problems and substance must come before technique.

2.As mere reliance on description and analysis of facts hampers the true understanding of facts, support be obtained from empirical political science.

3.As abstract analysis conceals the realities of politics, efforts be made to reach out to the real needs of the mankind in a time of crisis.

4.The values play an important role in the social system and must not be completely ignored.

5.Political scientists must face the social problems even if it involves deviation from objectivity.

Political Science

33

6.The political scientists as intellectuals owe a special responsibility in shaping the society and therefore, they should conduct political research with a sense of commitment and not concentrate on merely theory oriented research.

7.The significance of the post behaviouralist approach lay in the fact that it presented anew image of the discipline and pleaded for more relevant research.

It may be noted that the postbehaviouralists did not deny the achievements of the behaviouralists and were merely concerned with pulling them out of wrong direction.

In short, as David Easton summarised, the postbehavioural trend pleads for more relevant research. It pleads for an orientation to the work that will encourage political scientists, even in their professional capacity to prescribe and to act so as to improve political life according to human criteria.

Criticism of Post Behaviouralism:

The post behaviouralism has many common features of traditionalism and behaviouraisim and therefore it represents continuity with the past. In fact, it represents both a break and continuity with both traditionalism and behaviouralism" And yet, postbehaviouralism may be subjected to these lines of criticism:

1.Empiricism:

Like behaviouralists, the postbehaviouralists prefer the course of empiricism. They wish to dwell on the side of 'facts'. And if they appreciate the way of reaffirming norms and values, it js marginal. Thus, they may be described as the lesser culprits than normalists.

2.Wrong assumption:

The emphasis of the postbehaviouralists on the professional isation of the discipline has its own serious dangers. The traditionalists would never appreciate the view that political scientists should be politicians as well. Great political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Hegel and Marx were not men of active politics. They thought about social and political problems and tried to understand and explain political reality in their own ways.

34

Basic Concepts of Political Science

It may be easily understood that the involvement of the teachers of political science in the realm of active politics would prevent them from being impartial and objective students of this discipline.

3. Partial:

The postbehaviouralists are biased against a particular political school. They directly defend the system ofa liberaldemocratic order and indirectly hit at the socialist systems of the world. In this way, postbehavioural political science may be criticised for being another shrewd device of defending and preserving the status quo.

The IssueBehrl. App.PostBehrl. App.

Nature of InquirySearch for PureSearch for Applied

Knowledge andKnowledge and

Theorypractice

Purpose of'Knowledge for KnowRelevance of Know

Inquiryledge Sake,' Not Interledge to satisfy social

ested in Aciionneeds and Action for ProblemSolving

Foucs of Study• Microlevel Analysis;Macrolevel

focus on small unitsAnalysis; focus on the role of big units

• Process of DecisionContent of

Makingthe Decision

Attitude towardValueneutralInterested in the

ValuesChoice of Values

Attitude towardInterested in StatusIntereseted in

Social ChangeQuo; notSocial Change

Interested in Socialfor Solving Social

ChangeProblems

Political Science

35

Critical Estimate:

Post behavioural ism that emerged as a protest movement against behaviouralism, which over emphasised methods over facts. The importance of postbehaviouralism is aptly summarised by non less than David Easton himself thus: "The postbehaviouralism is, however, futureoriented... This new development is, then, a genuine revolution, not a reaction, not a preservation, a reform, not a counterreformation."

Chapter

2

State

3 Meaning and Definitions

Elements of State Origin of State

O Historical Theory

O Divine Origin Theory

3 Social Contract Theory -> State and Civil Society in the third world

The word State, in a literal sense, is used in many ways.

It refers to a condition or description of things or anything that is official.

The term state is too often confused with terms like government, society, association etc.

But in reality, all the above mentioned have their own meaning and hence different from state.

The term state is originally derived from the Greek word polis which means city-states.

The term was an appropriate one for the Greeks because their states were city-states having a small size of population and territory.

The term state was first used in a modem sense by Nicolo-Machiavelli, a great political thinker in his famous book "The Prince" in 1513.

Prior to him, the Greeks and Romans preferred to use the term polis and civitas respectively.

The term state was known as etat in French and stayat in Germany. By the end of the eighteenth century, the term statecame to be known as a human organisation having four essential elements.

Aristotle said that man is a social and political animal.

But in addition to that man is quarrelsome too.

His selfishness and egoism comes in conflict with the interests of the society, and the state came into existence in order to regulate the activities of man and also to satisfy his numerous wants as a member of the state.

Thus, the state came into existence to act as a controlling authority without which there will be chaos, confusion, anarchy and disorder.

The institution of state has existed through all the ages since the emergence of human life on earth.

Man is a gregarious animal and by nature and necessity, he must live a group life. The most primitive men also lived in some sort of social organisation having some customs and rules of social conduct. It gradually developed into a complex organisation. As society advanced, institutions grew and became more and more complex. It also paved way for theory of separation of power and defined these organs of Government viz, legislature, executive and juridiciary.

Definitions:

There are numerous definitions of State. A few popular definitions are given below:

Aristotle

T.E. Holland

Woodrow Wilson Robert Dahl

Gilchrist

Bluntschli Macjver

Harold J. Laski

"The State is a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and self-sufficing life by which we mean a happy and honourable life".

"The state is a numerous assemblage of human beings, generally occupying a certain territory, amongst whom the will of the or of an ascertainable class of persons is, by the strength of such a majority of class, made to prevail against any of their number who oppose it".

"The state is people organised for law within a definite territory".

: "The state is a political system made up of the residents of the territorial area and government of the area".

: "The state exists where a number of people living on a definite territory, are unified under a government which in internal matters is the organ for expressing their sovereignty, and in external matters is independent of other governments".

: "State is a politically organised people of a definite territory".

: "State is an association which acting through law as promulgated by a government endowed to this end with coercive power, maintains within a community territorially demarcated, the universal external conditions of social order".

: "State is a territorial society divided into government and subjects claiming, within its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other institutions".

J.W. Garner

: "State is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite territory, independent or nearly so of external control and possessing an organised government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience".

ELEMENTS OF STATE

The state is the central subject of our study.

It is used as a synonym for nation, society, government etc. The term State is very commonly used to express the collective action of the community, through the agency of the government. There can be no community without the people to form one, and no common life without some definite piece of territory to live. The State is a natural, a necessary, and a universal institution. It is natural because it is rooted in the reality of human nature. Man needs the State to satisfy his diverse needs and to be what he desires to be. Without the State he cannot rise to the full stature of his personality. It has existed whenever and wherever man has lived in an organised society.

The State must possess 4 elements. They are:

1. Population

2. Territory

3. Government

4. Sovereignty

1. Population:

State is a human institution and it is not possible to think of a state in the absence of people to inhabit it.

But, on the question of exact size of population of a state, there are no clear answers.

Scholars differ widely on the population of a state. Plato considers the ideal size of population to be 5040, whereas Rousseau limits the number at 10,000.

But Aristotle without fixing a definite number states that the population should be large enough to be sufficient and small enough to be well-governed (optimum population).

In modern times, it is impossible to fix a definite number on the population. Because China and India are the most populous countries in the

world with a population of 1 92,500,000 and 911,600,000 respectively where as countries like Antigua and Burmuda (population : 65,000), Kiribati (population : 76,320), Commonwealth of Dominica and Grenada (population : 1,00,000)

State with a huge population has a distinct advantage of man power both for civilian and military purposes.

But, it can prove dangerous if resources of state cannot sustain the population. For example, poverty is still a major problem in India because the population explosion has outranked the increase in food production. At the same time, if the population is too less, it hinders the efficient exploitation of resources available in the state. However, from quality point of view, what ever the number, the population should be hard-working, patriotic, educated, energetic, disciplined and healthy. Aristotle has rightly said that a good citizen makes a good state and a bad citizen a bad state.

According to Garner, the best rule is that "population must be sufficient to provide a governing body and a number of persons to be governed, and of course sufficient to support a State organisation".

It is. good that the population of a state is homogeneous, because it makes the task of national integration easy. Homegenity is determined by any factor like commonness of religion, or blood, or language, or culture. But it is not necessary. Most of the states have a population marked by diversity in respects of race, religion, language, culture etc an uninhabited portion of the earth, taken in itself, cannot form a state.

2. Territory:

Duguit says that there can be no State without a fixed territory. Just as every person belongs to a State, so does every square yard of earth. There is no State without its proper territory large or small, and no territory that is not part of some State, large or small.

As far as people are concerned, it is the connection with a particular territory that normally creates membership of a State.

The conduct of international relations is impossible without a defined territory.

All authorities on international Law are now agreed that a fixed territory must be a condition of Statehood. The occupation of a fixed territory is also essential. Land, water and airspace within the

defined territorial area comprise the territory of the State. It embraces the geographical limits of the State.

So, there can be no state without a fixed territory of its own. The nomadic people wandering from place to place cannot constitute a state. A modern state is essentially territorial in character. No limit, like population, can be placed on territory of the state. Political thinkers like Aristotle and Rousseau argued in favour of a small state but James Acton advocated for a big state. He argued that small states make the people isolated, narrow-minded and inward-looking. China, India, Russia, U.S.A., are some of the big countries in the world with a vast territory. There are countries which are smallest in the world such as Vatican City (0.17sq miles), Monaco (0.75 sq miles), Nauru (8.2 sq miles), San Marino (24 sq miles), Liechtenstein (62 sq miles), Marshall Islands (70 sq miles) and St. Kittsand Nevis (104 sq miles).

The modern trend is towards states having large territories. Experience shows that it is not possible for small states to maintain their existence and independence. They always stand in danger of being annexed by a stronger neighbour.

The view of Treitschke was that the State was power and it was a sin for the state to be small. The resources of small states were not sufficient to maintain their existence. Big territorial states have become possible on account of better means of communication and transport.

The size of the territory of a state also depends upon its climate, geographical configuration and the policy of its rulers.

Extremes of climate are not conducive to the growth of the territory of a state.

A hilly state is bound to be comparatively small while big states are possible on the plains. Sometimes, the ambitions of the rulers add to the size of a state. James Acton maintains that "the small states have a tendency to isolate and shut off their inhabitants, to narrow the horizon of their views and to dwarf in some degree the proportions of their ideas."

Rousseau was in favour of a small state. To quote him, "The more the social bond is extended, the more it is weekend". A small state was considered to be stronger than a big state. According to De Tocqueville, A Republic will always be exposed to far greater dangers than that of a small one. J.S. Mill writes, "There is a limit to the extent of a country which can be advantageously governed

or even whose government which can be conveniently superintended from a single centre.

There are vast countries so governed but they or at least their distant provinces, are in general deplorably ill-administered, and it is only when the inhabitants are almost savages that they cannot manage their affairs better separately".

The advantage of a big state is, it can accommodate vast population and also can possess abundant natural resources. Importantly, it can derive more power and influence at the international level in the comity of nations, because of its size. The disadvantage of being big is that it is very difficult so evoke patriotism and national feeling due-to vastness.

The small states, on the other hand, are relatively less secure because of their small size. Hitlers aggression on Poland can be cited as an example here. It is also a handicap that they cannot exploit natural resources in huge quantities, essential for development. However, the biggest advantage is that small states can evoke patriotism easily because of the feeling of insecurity of being attacked. However, it should be accepted that merely being big or small is not enough. A state should be abundant in natural resources like fertile soil for agriculture, evergreen forests, lakes, rivers, mountains etc. It is essential to note that the land, water and air space within a defined territorial area also falls under the territory of the state.

However, the complexity involved in fixing a definite territory is aptly summarized by Aristotle way back in 400 BC thus, "To the size of states, there is a limit as there is to other things plants, animals, implements; for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small, but they either wholly lose their nature or are spoiled. For example, a ship which is only a span long will not be a ship at all, nor a ship a quarter of a mile long...."

3. Government:

Government is an essential element of the State. People live together but cannot be recognized unless they are properly organised and accept certain rules of conduct.

The agency created to enforce such rules of conduct and to ensure obedience is called government.

Government is the focus of the common purpose of

the people occupying a definite territory and it is through this medium that common policies are determined; common affairs are regulated and common interests promoted.

The government is an agency through which the will of the state is expressed. In the absence of government, who population would be an unorganised, incoherent mass of people with no means of collective action. They would divide themselves into groups, parties and even warring associations and thus create conditions of utter chaos and even civil war. It is imperative that there should be a common authority and a consequent order wherever people live. The State cannot and does not exist without a government, no matter what form a government may assume. Thus, a government is very essential to maintain internal peace and order and offer protection to the weak and law-abiding against all kinds of threats. Besides this, the government also performs the task of meeting international obligations on behalf of the state.

The government is, thus, the representative or the agent of the will of the state which provides the basic frame work within which the three organs of the government — legislature (law making), executive (law implementation) and judiciary (law interpretation)operate.

No particular type of government can be recommended as essential. It varies from country to country. Democracy may be popular in India, the United States, Canada, England, France, Italy, West Germany or Japan. The dictatorship of the Communist parties is popular in the Soviet Union, China, East Germany. Monarchy is popular in Britain, Sweden and Denmark. Even in countries where democracy is popular, the types of government differ. There is parliamentary government in some countries and presidential in others. The conclusion is that no particular type of government can be recommended as an essential element for the existence of a modern state. The form of government may be democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, aristocracy, totalitarian or socialist but a government is essential without which there would be anarchy as Bluntschli puts it.

4. Sovereignty:

Sovereignty is an important element that distinguishes the state from other groups and associations. It is regarded as the supreme power of the state. A state is said to be sovereign if it enjoys independence of decision-making both internally and externally.

There are two kinds of sovereignty. They are:

(i) Internal sovereignty and

(ii) External sovereignty.

(i) Internal sovereignty refers to the supreme authority of the state to regulate, control and punish all groups and associations within its territory. The state can make laws on its own and implement them as well, without parallel authority.

(ii) External sovereignty is freedom or independence of the state to choose and pursue its own policy in dealing with other nations without being subjected to Outside pressure or external influence. For instance, before 7 947, India was under British rule and did not possess sovereignty. After 15 August, 1947 India became independent thus becoming a sovereign power empowered to exercise both internal and external sovereignty on its own wifl.

It is, however, a different matter that a state willingly accepts some international obligations in the form of membership of the of the United Nations. The existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law. ft is for this reason that the law of the state is binding on all and its violation is visited with suitable punishment. It is universally admitted that a sovereign state is legally competent to issue any command which is binding on all citizens and their associations. Other associations are either voluntary or based on custom or necessity. The right to use legitimate coercion in its own right is exclusive prerogative of the state. Thus, by sovereignty Leacock implies that the territory and population, in question must form no part of a wider political unit; nor must the territory contain any portion or portions which, while forming geographically a part of it, are not a part of it politically.

ORIGIN OF STATE

Political Science is, mainly, the science of state. In the study of political science the most important question, which arises, is that how and when the State originated. It is very difficult to answer this question. It is not only difficult but rather important to point out any exact date when the State might have come into existence. According to Gettell, "the exact origin of political life cannot be historically determined." Gilchrist aptly says, "where history fails, we resort to speculation."

On the basis of speculation, various political thinkers have originated different theories of the origin of the State. Plato believed that State originated because of necessity of division of labour. Aristotle said that the state originated because of instincts of man. Kari Marx called the State a means for the exploitation of the poor by the rich.

Following are the important theories regarding the origin of the State:

1. The Theory of Divine Origin

2. The Theory of Force

3. The Theory of Social Contract

4. The Patriarchial and Matriarchial Theories

5. The Historical or Evolutionary Theory Major theories are discussed here:

1. THE DIVINE ORIGIN THEORY

This is the oldest theory regarding the origin of the state. It is more familiarly known as the theory of Divine Right of Kings. According to this theory, the state did not come into existence as a result of human will. State is a divine creation. God founded the state. The ruler of state is the deputy of God or his vice-regent or viceroy on earth. He derives his authority from Him and is responsible for his actions to Him alone. Obedience to the authority of the king is a religious duty and disobedience to the dictates and orders of the king is an unpardonable sin. The theme of the theory

is that the king is above law. He is not subject to the authority of any person or persons other than Cod.

In the earliest state of political development, it was almost universally believed that the state was the creation of the God, and that the rulers ruled us the representatives of the God on the earth. As the Priest-cum-king, the ruler would be obeyed and revered by the people. 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 the ordained of God". Thus, God is the source of royal powers. The ruler is the agent of the God on the earth.

During the Middle Ages a conflict arose between the Church and the State, owing largely to the teaching of the Old Testament. Gradually, the theory of the Divine Origin of the State was transformed into the theory of the Divine Right of the Kings.

The essence of the theory is that obedience to the state is as much a political as well as a religious duty. The state is a Divine institution, arid the King is the embodiment of divinity. To go against the king is to go against the God. The theory, by charcterising the kings as "the breathing images of the God upon the earth", came to be developed as a bulwark against the competing claims of the Church Fathers, and later, against the political consciousness of the people.

History:

The Divine Origin or theocratic conception is as old as the state itself. It was universally popular among the early people. The earliest rulers combined in them both the political and religious powers and they were known as priest kings. The idea of Divine Origin of the state is practically found in every religion. In some religions, it is explicit and in others it is implicit.

The theory was supported by the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. In the words of Plutarch, "the city might more easily be founded without territory than a state without belief in God". Even the idealist philosophers of 18th Century used the theory of Divine Origin of state to justify the importance of the State. In the words of Hegel, "the State is the march of God on earth".

The chief exponents of this theory were the Jews. In the Old Testament, there are repeated references to the conception that God selects, appoints, dismisses and even slays rulers. The king is treated as owing responsibility to God alone for his acts. The following statement of St. Paul is a clear indication of the Christian belief in Divine Origin of State: "...Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation".

Filmer in his book Patriarcha (1680) argues that Adam was the first king and present kings are His heirs. In ancient Hindu mythology, similar views regarding the origin of state are found. Reference to this theory is found in Mahabharata in the following words: "When the world was in the state of anarchy,-the people approached God and requested him to provide a remedy. "Without a chief" they said, "O Lord!" we are perishing. Gives us a chief, O Lord! whom we shall worship in concert and who will protect us. God, thus appointed Manu to rule over them". The theory as such held sway in primitive age. Obedience to the state and kings was both a religious and civil duty and disobedience was sacrilege. Religion and politics then were inseparable. As a rule, the religious head was the political head as well. The Pope of Rome till the early Middle-ages, combined in him both spiritual and political authority. He was the emperor of the Christian world. So was the case with the Caliph of Islam who was considered to be not only the religious head of the Islamic world but also their emperor. The kings in ancient India ruled over the people according to laws of Dharma which implied both religion and politics. True justice was administered according to what Shastras would say. Priest used to be the judge and administrator. Religious places were the seats of authority, centres of learning, so on and so forth. Thus religion was the chief medium through which people were ruled over.

The theory was exploited by the rival parties during middle ages in the controversy between the church and the state. Some used the Divine Origin Theory to establish the supremacy of the Church over the state, where as others used it to prove the supremacy of the state over the church. The theory was made use of by James I in his struggle with Parliament. In his book entitled

"The Law of Free Monarchies" James I claimed that the king had derived his authority directly from God. He assumed that kings were wise and good, but the subjects had no right to rebel against him. A wicked king was to be regarded as a plague for peoples sins sent by God. Even as late as 1815, the king of Prussia, Austria and Russia, when forming the Holy Alliance declared that they were appointed by Cod to rule their subjects.

The ancient Hindus believed that since kingship has divine origin, the king must have a virtuous life and must exhibit godly qualities. If a king were to be bad and vicious, he should be done away with. The victory of Rama over Ravana was the victory of good over evil. The battle of Mahabahrata was fought for protection of dharma and uphold of righteousness. The theory was exploited in Europe by the kings to defend their dictatorial powers.

Causes of decline:

The theory remained popular as long as religion was considered to be the chief motivating force of human activity. It is only in the recent past that theory has been challenged to be as an incorrect explanation regarding the origin of state. With development of scientific outlook and consequent decline of religious influence, the theory lost its influence.

The causes of the decline of the theory may be discussed as follows:

1. The first great setback to the theory was given by the theory of social contract which proved that the state was, a human creation, a hand work of man and not a divine creation. The theory of social contract was the first materialistic approach as opposed to religious approach to explain the origin of state. The voice of people became the voice of God. The belief that man is the maker of his own destiny got strengthened.

2. The separation of the church and the state also led to the decline of the theory. In the modern period sphere of religion has been separated from the sphere of the state. Now religion is considered to be merely a matter of individual conscience. State and politics are matters which touch one and all.

3. The growth of democratic ideas further gave a shock to the theory which defended in its ultimate sense the absolute powers of the kings. Democracy glorifies the individual. Individual growth and happiness according to democratic ideology is the end.

4. Growth of scientific knowledge and materialistic approach

have further given a rude shock to the theory of Divine Origin of States. Blind faith and unfounded superstitions have no appeal to a modern mind. Reason and logic have taken the place of faith.

Criticisms:

Divine Origin Theory has been criticised on the following grounds:

1. State a Human Institution:

The modern political scientist regards the state as essentially a human institution, organised in its government throtigh human agency. No one now accepts the originative power of God as a criterion of the Tightness or wrongness of any given form of government. To say that God selects the ruler is against experience and common sense.

2. Dangerous consequences:

This theory is dangerous. In a theocratic state the ruler is responsible only to God. Irresponsibility to human opinion might be a grave danger in the hands of an unscrupulous man. It would lead to tyranny.

3. Unrealistic theory:

The early Church fathers held that a bad ruler is given by God to men as a punishment for their sins. It is difficult to accept this view point as realistic. This kind of an argument can hold good only in a pre-historic, pre-civil society but not in the modern world.

4. It is unscientific:

Latest researches in the field of anthropology and sociology prove that the theory of Divine Origin of state has no meaning at all. "The state came into existence", as Aristotle put it, "out of bare needs of

man and continues for the good of man". Man is a social and political animal and it was by nature and necessity that state came into existence. The theory is thus unscientific.

5. State is the result of a process of evolution:

All the political thinkers are unanimous in the view that the state came into existence as a result of evolutionary process. Various factors including religion, family force and political consciousness played their part in the process of evolution of State.

6. It is undemocratic :

The theory inevitably leads to the establishment of absolute authority which is opposed to the spirit of democracy which idolizes and glorifies the individual. The people will have to bear the ruler even when he is bad because he is an agent of god.

(. . Critical Estimate:

Although nobody believes in the divine origin of the state, the theory points out some important truths. It gave men the virtue of obedience and discipline in days of anarchy when obedience and discipline were badly needed. Secondly, the theory emphasises the moral end of the state because the state and its authority have divine sanctity about them. It points out that the kings and rulers, in addition to their legal responsibility, have a moral responsibility to promote welfare of their people.

2. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY (HISTORICAL THEORY)

The evolutionary theory contends that the state is neither the gift of God nor the deliberate work of man.

The beginnings of the state "are lost in the shadowy past, in which social institutions were unconsciously arising, and its development has followed the general laws of evolutionary growth". It emphasises two important points. First, the state is not a make but a growth. It is a result of a very long evolution covering hundreds and thousands of years.

Second, not one but many factors have played their part in state-building. Thus, state is neither a handiwork of God, nor a result of a superior physical force, nor a creation of a social contract, nor a

mere expansion of (patriarchal or matriarchal) family system and the like. As Gettell says: "Like every other social institutions, the state arose from many sources and under various conditions and it emerged almost imperceptibly."

The process of evolution is as follows:

1. Kinship:

The first and foremost factor is the fact of blood relationship that led to the creation of family as the first unity of collective life.

A family consisting of a man, a woman and their children became the first unit of organised life. The family had a head of its own and that should be taken as the first instance of an authority over the members. Different families broke out of the original families as a result of which a new unit (clan or tribe) came into being. And as father (in the patriarchal system) or mother (in the matriarchal system) became the wielder of authority, so chief of the tribe became the head of this larger unit. As Henry Maine says: "The elementary group is the family, connected by common subjection to the highest male ascendant. The aggregation of families forms the Genes or the House. The aggregation of Houses makes the Tribe. The aggregation of Tribes constitutes the Commonwealth." The authority of the pater familias passed into the authority of the chief of the tribe and thereon it passed into the authority of the king. The family became a tribe and tribes eventually became a commonwealth.

2. Religion:

Religion emerged out of the way of life of the people living in the families and tribes.

It assumed the form of social practices associated with worshipping. When the bond of kinship became weak, the bond of religion served the purpose. Even ancestor-worship became a matter of social usage.

Moreover, anyone who ould show some charismatic activities became an important person of the tribal life.

The magician who was often a clever and unscrupulous person gained the position of pre-eminence pretended possess extraordinary powers of divination and sorcery.

The fertility of the soil, the occurrence of a rainfall or a drought, the success of failure of the crops, the victory or defeat in a tribal war

and the like seemed to depend more upon his rituals and incantations than upon human efforts.

Those who had full faith in the power of religion and thereby could demonstrate some super-human feats also got authority and became the class of the priests. In this way the residence of authority was conditioned by the forces of the priests and the magicians. Gettell says that religious belief helped in subordinating anarchy and taught reverence and obedience to the primitive people.

3. Force:

The element of force has played its own part in the form of conflicts and wars. It is the element of force that placed man (father) as head of the family, the chief as the supreme authority of the tribe, and the king as the highest ruler of the biggest unit. History is full of tribal wars in which force decided the issue. The victors became the masters and the defeated had to accept the authority of their lords. The members of a group had to live and work together under a recognised leader for the purpose of defence or aggression against other groups.

The coercive force exercised by the leader eventually developed into political sovereignty and the sentiment of loyalty to the ruler was established and sanctified. Oppenheimer maintains that the cause of the genesis of all states is the contract between peasants and herdsmen, between labourers and robbers, between bottom lands and prairies. According to Gumplowicz, inter-group and intra-group conflicts are responsible for evolution of the state. It is said that "struggle and warfare are, therefore, historically, a most important element in state formation, and it is certain that the union of two groups even by force develops after a while common interest, out of which is born a sense of unity."

4. Economic Activities:

Man has always done some economic activities for the sake of living. In the most primitive stage, life was nomadic and the tribes moved from place to place in search of food and shelter. They were, as Herber Spencer says, all hunters, all fishermen, all herdsmen and the like. But when life became settled at a particular

place, division of labour came into being. If some took the work of religion in their hands, some others adopted some other functions like agriculture, trade, industry ad the like. Economic life now had a clear expression.

The institution of private property also came into being that informed the people to have some arrangement for the effective protection of their material possessions. Rousseau says that with the creation of private property system, conflicts started as a result of which peaceful condition of the state of nature was so perverted that the people thought to establish some authority by means of a contract among themselves. The economic activities of the early peoples, therefore, contributed to the origin of state in several ways. Differences in occupation and in wealth created social classes or castes, and the domination of one class by another for purposes of economic exploitation was an important factor in

the rise of government. As wealth increased and the idea of private property developed, laws were needed for the protection of property rights and the settlement of property disputes.

5. Political Consciousness:

The needs of the people for security to them and their property created a need for defence against external attack and for social, moral and intellectual development. All these things led to the emergence of political power and the conscious adaptation of political institutions to meet certain definite ends. The place where the people lived became their fatherland or motherland and they developed the spirit of patriotism.

The people in general developed the habit of rendering obedience to their rulers and, in return, the rulers took upon themselves the responsibility of giving proper protection to the life and goods of their rulers. They strengthened their claims by attaching themselves to the power of the growing state. They thus at once secured their own ends and also secured the social support which its extended authority requires. In the process, however, the state became a class-state.

It all shows that the making of the state is a result of very long process of evolution. Moreover, in this long process some important

factors have played their part. As such, the credit of the origin of state cannot be ascribed to a single factor. Thus, the fact remains that the state is a gradual and natural historic evolution. It is neither the gift of divine power nor the deliberate work of man.

Limitations of Historical Approach

1. Not totally dependable:

Attempts to draw inferences, formulate generalisations and make laws based on the historical experience of political life, should be adequately disciplined by caution. Though historical understanding is essential, it does not mean that such attempts always succeed in formulation of laws of universal relevance. Also, laws formulated on experiences of the past are not necessarily applicable to situations at present or in future which are different and are likely to change. It is only partially correct that history repeats itself.

2. Past need not be always relevant:

The past serves as a window to the long process of evolution. Not all the information about antecedents of political life is necessarily relevant today. Political life in our own times might not, in all the cases, be understood by what happened in the past.

3. Partial observation:

In our effort to understand the historical context of political life, and learn from it, we might be carried away by our own preferences and biases. We might only see what we like to and miss what is relevant.

This is likely to distort our knowledge. Facts and fiction are likely to be mixed up. Under such a situation, reliability of the historical approach is weakened.

4. Dynamic politcal life:

Since political life is not static, society has also to adjust to the changing situation. Absolute laws of political life formulated on the basis of historical experience, therefore, are neither possible nor desirable.

5. Relevance is subjective:

There were several theories in Political Science (for example, Platos theory of the Philosopher King, of Communism of family and property); which are historically irrelevant but are relevant to Politics Science. Similarly, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau stated that the state originated in a Social Contract. The theory is historically unfounded, but it is significant for understanding several aspects of Political Science.

6. Selective approach:

History of past political events cannot be recreated fully and objectively. Historians have made their own selective studies. A few facts were considered and others ignored. What we know as history may neither be comprehensive nor impartial. History, therefore, can provide only broad patterns and trends of political life in the past.

Critical Estimate:

We may conclude that the state is the gradual aerd continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind.

3. SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

The Social Contract Theory dominated the European political thought in the eighteenth century, and played a very important part in the development of the modern political theory and practice. It is one of the oldest theories. This theory came into being as a result of reaction against the theory of Divine Origin. According to this theory, the state was not created by God. On the contrary, under the compulsion of circumstances, people contracted with the rulers and as a result the State was organised. This theory offers an explanation for the origin of the state and shows the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed. It is a mechanical theory which starts with the assumption that prior to the organisation of the state man lived in "a state of nature".

It deals with two fundamental assumptions - (i) a state of nature, (ii) a contract. The contract, according to Gilchrist, again

may mean either (a) the social or political contract which marks the origin of civil society or (b) agreement between rulers and subjects. In sixteenth and seventeenth century this theory gained

popularity. The Social Contract Theory reached its culmination in the hands of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

The social contract theory can be traced as far back as the Greeks. In his Republic, it is stated that legislation and contracts between man and man originated in a compact of mutual abstinence from injustice. The idea of contract was prominent in Roman law. A kind of contract is noticeable in feudalism. In Kautilyas Arthasastra, there is a reference to the creation of the state. The people agreed to give one-sixth of grains grown by them and one-tenth of their merchandise to the King and the latter agreed to take upon, himself the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of his subjects.

The view of Thomas Aquinas was that by his oath at his coronation, a king was supposed to have made a pact with his people to promote a happy and virtuous life and if he failed to fulfil his implied pact with his people, he ceased to deserve the right to expect that the pact would be kept by the people. In the writings of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, the theory of social contract received systematic and wide treatment.

Hobbes (1588-1679):

Hobbes lived in England during the Stuart period when the controversy between the King and the Parliament took a serious turn and Parliament was struggling for its authority while the kings were fighting for the preservation of their absolute rule.

The demand of the people was to reduce absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy with the power of the purse with the Parliament. Hobbes defended the absolute monarchy through this theory of social contract.

He wrote Leviathan to justify it in 1665.

It is believed that he wrote this theory to support the absolute powers of the Stuart kings.

State of Nature:

Hobbes starts his thesis with a description of the life of people in the hypothetical state of nature.

He takes a gloomy view of human nature. According to him, human beings are selfish, quarrelsome and aggressive.

Man is not dominated by reason but is always without due consideration for others.

Such a conflict of interests made the state of nature a state of perpetual warfare. It was a continuous struggle of all against all. There was a constant fear and danger of violent death and mans life was brutish, nasty, poor, short and solitary.

There were no laws to restrain the actions of men. "Kill whom you can and take what you can was the principle: There were neither laws nor customs to regulate human affairs. Competition, diffidence and love of glory were three diseases which had eaten into the very life oi people. People were fed up with

this wretched life and wanted to come out of these miserable conditions. People decided to leave the state of nature on account of fear and for protection of life and property. According to Hobbes, man agreed to surrender all his rights except the right of self preservation.

Social contract:

It is presumed that primitive people met together and entered into an agreement by which they established an authority to which they irrevocably and unconditionally surrendered all their rights. Every man said to other, "I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man or to this assembly of men, on the condition that thou also give up thy right to him and authorise his actions in the like manner." Thus every man entered into contract with every other person and created the Sovereign, and an absolute body, receiving all the powers and rights of people, surrendered through contract without any limitations or restraints, what so ever. A state is thus created.

Analysis of Hobbes Social Contract:

1. Sovereign is not a party to the agreement:

It is a unilateral agreement and the sovereign is not a party to it. Being no party to it, the ruler is above it. However tyrannically he

may rule, he cannot be accused of violating its terms. As the sovereign is not a party to the contract so the terms of contract cannot be enforced against him.

2. Absolute authority of the Sovereign:

As the individuals surrender all their rights unconditionally to the sovereign; the sovereign is absolute. His powers are unlimited, indivisible and inalienable.

3. Irrevocable agreement:

It is a permanent agreement, the contract is irrevocable. The terms of contact are thus applicable also to the generations to come. It is not a time bound contract for the sake of convenience.

4. No right against the Sovereign:

The people surrender all their rights which they enjoyed in the state of nature except the right of self preservation. This means that the sovereign is to stand guarantee for security of life of the people. The sovereign or the Leviathan is the single ultimate supreme authority. There is no right of resistance except in case of self-defence.

5. Sovereign personifies the will of all:

The sovereign personifies the will of all or he is the singular representative of the will of all.

6. Every word of the Sovereign is law:

Whatever the sovereign commands is law. People have no rights. They must obey these laws as commands of the sovereign.

7. Absolutism is a must:

For people there is no choice except between absolute monarchy and complete anarchy. They should accept the absolute power of the king or they should decide to get back to the state of nature.

Locke (1632-1704):

Locke was an English philosopher. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 represented the triumph of the Whig Party and its principles. Lockes main mission was to defend the gains of the Glorious Revolution that is establishment of constitutional monarchy in

England. He proved, through his thesis, the theory of government by consent. Locke took up the social contract theory of Hobbes but used it to draw conclusions opposed to those of Hobbes. Locke develops his theory in his Two Treatises of Civil Government published in 1690.

State of Nature:

Like Hobbes, Locke also starts with assumption that there was a state of nature before man entered into the civil society and established state.

According to him, people in the state of nature were free and equal. The freedom was not licence. It was guided by natural laws and conditioned by natural rights. Man according to Locke, was not essentially selfish and evil. There was no anarchy in the state to nature.

Peace, reason and goodwill prevailed everywhere.

The first difficulty was that there were no clear and definite laws made by common consent to act as the standard of right and wrong.

Secondly, there was no authority to enforce these laws and settle disputes among the people. Thirdly there was no authority to punish those who would break laws. Thus according to Locke, there were both "laws" and "rights" in the state of nature but enforcement was missing.

Man was innocent and peace lovirig. Each respected the rights of others. In spite of these congenial conditions, people experienced certain inconveniences.

Social contract:

To avoid these inconveniences, people enter into civil society and establish government. While for Hobbes there was one contract by which both society and state or government were created, for Locke there were two separate contracts to create society and government. By the first contract among the individuals, civil society is created. By the second contract the society establishes government. The government or the king under this second contract was obligated to defend property, life and liberty of

the people, the rights which people enjoyed in the state of nature. He was to do so by governing according to the Laws of Nature. The government could be changed by the society through majority if it

failed to protect the natural rights that man enjoyed in the state of nature.

Analysis of Lockes Contract

1. Bilateral agreement:

Lockes contract is bilateral and the sovereign is a party to it.

It is not an unconditional contract like that of Hobbes. The sovereign can be changed if he does not rule over the people according to the law of nature. The contract is, therefore, revocable.

2. Government of consent:

The sovereign has limited powers. He is simply supposed to interpret the laws of nature and protect the rights of life, liberty and property of the people. In no case can he carry on the government arbitrarily. It is thus a government by the consent of the people. Lockean conception of the social contract inevitably points to the theory of the sovereignty of the people, While Hobbes justified absolute monarchy. Locke pleads for constitutional monarchy.

3. Distinction between State and Government:

Locke for the first time distinguishes between the state and the government. According to Locke people in the state of nature first had an agreement amongst themselves to establish a civil society or state. The society then elected its government. Thus a clear distinction between state and government is made by Locke. Locke thus identified state and government.

4. Limited role:

According to Locke, functions of the government are limited. Its main function is to protect the natural rights. Beyond that it must leave the man alone. In fact when man enters into society, he surrenders only a small part of his rights and not all as in case of Hobbes contract.

5. Rights are prior to the State:

For Locke the rights are prior to state but not prior to society. People had rights even in state of nature, though not well defined and codified.

6. Based on consent:

Lockes central idea of the government resting on the consent of the governed is valuable. This means in practice a government can continue to rule the people only if it heeds to their wishes. The moment it runs counter to the wishes of the people, it is liable to be overturned.

Rousseau (1712-1771):

Rousseau was born in the democratic Canton of Geneva but lived for the most part of his life in France. He was one of those literary giants of eighteenth century France, who may be called the spiritual father of the French Revolution. He propounded his theory in his book Social Contract published in 1762. Rousseau made a philosophical attempt to explain the origin of civil society. He tried" to combine Hobbes absolutism with Lockes idea of popular sovereignty.

State of Nature:

Rousseau also starts his thesis with the description of life of the people in the state of nature. According to him, it was the happiest period of human life. Rousseaus natural man lived a happy and care-free life. He was independent contented and self sufficients He had neither family nor property. He was a noble savage. The peace and happiness of this noble savage were destroyed by the origin of the institution of property. People began to think in terms of mine and thine, Later, people desired to have permanent families and place. Due to all these factors, the noble savage lost his natural equality and freedom and was subjected to a host of crimes and evils. In order to regulate property relations and settle other disputes, government and laws came into existence and the primitive man lost all his natural liberty. Since institutions of property, laws and government came to stay there was no going back to the state of nature. The only alternative was to adjust the existing institutions with the primitive ideas of liberty.

Social contract:

The condition referred to above was put to an end by the creation of a political community. Natural freedom was sought to

be converted into a sort of civil freedom. People entered into a contract to the following effect: "Each of us puts his own person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the General Will, and in our collective capacity we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whote." Thus civil society was created. Each one was its member. The will of the society became supreme. Rousseau calls it "General Will" i.e., a will in the formation of which every one participated.

Each individual was equal to the other. None lost anything by entering into society or Commonwealth as was in case of Hobbes or Locke. Whatever the individual lost by entering into the Commonwealth was regained by him as a member of the Commonwealth. According to Rousseau, the contract is between the people in their individual capacity on the one side and the same people in collective capacity on the other side. In other words P, Q, R, S as individuals surrender their powers unconditionally to P + Q + R + S in their collective capacity. Every individual has dual capacity, he is at once a member of the sovereign body and a subject. The will of the sovereign community is expressed in the form of the General Will. The General Will wished good of all and was thus moral and perfect. General Will is the will of the body politic and the body cannot wish to injure its member.

Analysis of Rousseaus Contract:

1. Popular Sovereignty:

Rousseau combines the idea of absolute sovereignty as given by Hobbes with the idea of popular sovereignty as developed by Locke. Rousseaus sovereign is as absolute in his powers as that of Hobbes. But the.difference lies in the fact that Rousseaus sovereignty lies in the people whereas Hobbes sovereignty is vested in a person or a body of perons, i.e., the sovereign. Rousseau thus propounds the theory of popular sovereignty.

2 Reconciliation between liberty and authority:

Rousseau reconciles individual liberty with the authority of the state. Rousseaus sovereign is the community and an individual is an indivisible part of the whole. In this way an individual remains sov-

ereign and obeys none but himself and thus remains as free as ever. By obeying the community, he obeys himself because it is his own creation and he is a member of the commanding authority.

3. Nothing against general will:

For Rouseau the General Will wills the common good, and there can be no right of the individual against it. Since rights of individual are based on his selfish interests, it conflicts with common good. Therefore, the General will, is supreme.

4. Sovereignty is indivisible and inalienable:

Rousseaus theory of social contract leads to the conclusion that sovereignty cannot be divided and transferred. The Sovereign who is a collective being can be represented only by himself. To him sovereignty is absolute, final and supreme.

5. Government is only an agency of the State:

According to Rousseau, Government is never the same thing as the sovereign. The two are distinguishable by their function. The sovereign makes laws and the Government is elected by the people for the execution of laws.

6. Basis of democracy:

Rousseaus theory of social contract serves as a basis and justification of revolutions against the arbitrary rule. His contention that men are by nature free and equal and government is appointed by the sovereign people for enforcement of laws. This finds an important place in the Declaration of Rights of Man (1789), the charter of he French Revolution.

7. Individual Liberty:

Rousseau equates individual liberty with the obedience of laws nade by the Sovereign. He emphasis the fact that an individual is a iart and parcel of the collective community expressed through Gen-ral Will. As such, by obeying the General Will which is the good AW of the Sovereign Community, he obeys none but himself and ?main as free as ever.

The Social Contract Theory dominated the European Political Thought in eighteenth century. But in nineteenth century, it was severely criticised.

1. This Theory is Unhistorical:

History does not make any such example available as can prove that the state is the outcome of any such contract. A few exponents of this theory cite the example of Mayflower Compact Providence Agreement. But this agreement does not throw a shade of light on the political and pre-political activities of primitive men.

The Mayflower Agreement By the Mayflower Compact of 11 November 1620, 101 migrants to America before landing entered into an agreement whereby they solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, convened and combined themselves together into a civil body politic for their better ordering and preservation. It did not, however, result in the formation of the state. Therefore, this theory is unhistorical and proves to be a bad history.

2. This Theory is Illogical:

This theory does not prove sound on logic. According to Locke, in the state of nature, nature gave man the right to life, right to law, right to property and right to freedom. Similarly, Rousseau, also believed that people possessed in their primitive stage, a few rights and enjoyed personal liberty to a certain extent. All these arguments are illogical because it is the state that gives rights to its people and assures their guarantee.

3. A Wrong Picture of the Progress of Mankind:

The exponents of the Social Contract Theory argue that people entered into a contract in order to protect themselves from aggression and safeguard their interests. But history presents before us a different version. It is quite clear that man advanced from a primitive stage and took to contract and not the vice-versa.

4. A Contract Cannot be Binding on the Succeeding

Generation:

In a contract there always enter two parties. A contract cannot be entered into by one party alone. Therefore, Hobbes notion of a single party contract is wrong. Despite this when those who had entered into a contract die, the contract does not remain binding on their posterity.

5. Unwritten:

From the legal point of view, a contract could not survive for so long whose terms were not clearly spelt out in writing. More than that, how it could be binding on those who were, or are, no party to it. There is no justification in the argument that a social and political contract entered into by the ancestors could

bind their successors. A partnership is dissolved with the death of its member or members and a new contract is made after that.

6. This Theory is Artificial:

This theory tells us that the state is like a machine, manufactured by man. But, the reality is that the state and the practical institutions under it are the result of evolution. Aristotle has very aptly remarked that the state is a natural institution.

7. This Theory is Far From Reality:

The exponents of Social Contract Theory did not aim to trace

the origin and development of the state. Only to serve their own

ends, they conceived this theory and, therefore, this theory is far

away from reality.

8. Philosophically Untenable:

The theory is also untenable from the philosophical point of view. How is it possible to believe that the persons who had never seen a political authority or who had not even heard of it could think about the institution and then they did it all of a sudden to convert themselves into loyal citizens? Such a conversion may be possible in the world of normal human beings.

66

Basic Concepts of Political Science

Though social contract theory is speculative and imaginative, its real value cannot be denied. It thus provided a powerful instrument for combating irresponsible rulers and a justification for resistance against tyranny. Out of it the idea of popular sovereignty came out finally in the form of excellence of the representative government. The spirit of social contractualism, as represented by Locke, is a powerful defence of the sovereignty of the people.

A Comparative Illustration of the Views of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau

Social Contract Social Contract Social Contract

Social contract is made to terminate the horrible condition of life whereby all individuals surrender their all rights in favour of one man (or assembly of men) who offers no pledge of any kind; hence Contract is unilateral, it is not binding on the sovereign - the leviathan or the masterless man. To terminate this condition, two social contracts are made. By the first or open contract, state is crea ted; individuals surre nder only three natur al rights for their protection by the state ; government of one man (king) is created by the second or taci t agreement A social contract is made by the individuals as well as corporate capacities; all surrender their all rights in favour of all, a corporate whole (body politic) is created with a will of its own desiring good of all.

Critical Estimate:

The historical theory of the origin of the origin contains the best elements of the other theories of origin of the state. It recognises the merit of the theory of Divine Origin in as much as human nature has a tendency towards political existence. It also takes into account the idea of the force theory that force in one form or another has

State

67

been responsible for the establishment of states. The Social Contract Theory suggests that consent on the part of the individual in the form of political consciousness has played an important part in the organization of the state.

STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE THIRD WORLD

Civil society is one of the hottest concepts in all of the social sciences that touch on political life. Because so many countries have established more democratic regimes in recent years, there has been renewed interest in popular engagement in political life and everything else that relates to the way that political cultures or basic values and beliefs affect the way a state is governed. More recently, there has also been growing interest in how strengthening civil society can contribute to conflict resolution.

The term Civil Society has a fairly long history. The term first originated in Europe at the end of the eighteenth century and enjoyed a remarkable career. The concept of civil society (Burgerhche Gesellschaft) was first used by Hegel (1770-1831) in his Philosophy of Right published in 1821 in which discusses civil society, law, the bureaucracy, the king, war etc. He defines civil society as "organised bodies that are intermediate between the state and the family."

In modern times, Alexis de Tocqueville laid the foundational work linking civil society to democracy in his writings in the mid 18th century American democracy, Tocqueville thought, was sustained by the

richness and diversity of a wide range of voluntary associations. Later by Marx and Engels and in the 20th century.by Antonio Gramsci.

Definitions: Jeffrey Alexander

: "Civil Society is an inclusive, umbrella-like concept referring to a plethora of institutions outside the state".

Niraja Gopal Jayal : "Civil Society covers all forms of voluntary

association and social interaction not controlled by the state".

68

Basic Concepts of Political Science

S.K. Das: "Civil Society is the organised society over

which the state rules".

George Huggins : "Civil Society is a social space, distinct from

the state and business sectors but having a sometimes tense, corelationship with that state, functioning through association".

Larry Diamond : "Civil Society represents the realm of an or-

ganized social life that is voluntary, self generating, largely self-supporting, and bound by a legal order or set of shared values".

There are different views on the nature of a civil society.

1. For some observers, it only includes political activity engaged in through nonprofit organizations such as nongovernmental organizations (NCOs). On the other end, some observers include all forms of voluntary participation, whether in the public or private sector, political or apolitical.

2. Civil society includes not just individuals who participate, but the institutions they participate called "civil society organizations" or "CSOs". Thus, civil society is strong to the degree that those CSOs are large and powerful.

3. A civil culture is one in which most people think their government is legitimate and that their institutions (if not the leaders at any particular moment) can be trusted.

4. All observers agree that civil society refers to voluntary participation by average citizens and thus does not include behavior imposed or even coerced by the state.

Civil society is an arena in which the individual legitimately gratifies his self interest, develops his individuality,-learns the value of group action, social solidarity and dependence of his welfare on others. All these educate him for citizenship and prepare him for participation in the political arena of the state.

The term refers to non-governmental organisations, cooperatives and industry and trade associations and similarly organized bodies that are intermediate between the state and the family. It refers to non-state institutions. These groups cover a large space in the

State 69

society. A civil society is a necessary basis for participation in formal political institutions. Civil society advocates freedom of thought, freedom of association and is opposed to totalitarianism.

FEATURES OF CIVIL SOCIETY

Features of the civil society are :

1. It refers to non-state institutions.

2. It covers a large space in society.

3. It refers to the organised society.

4. It covers groups which are intermediate between the state (political society) and the family (natural society).

5. It, though automonous, is subject to the authority of state.

6. It implies the existence of freedom of association, freedom of thought and other civil and economic rights.

7. It is in pursuit of common public good.

8. It opposes authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

9. It promotes citizenship by educating the individual.

10. It facilitates citizens participation in the politico-administrative affairs.

11. It formulates public opinion and sets the demands which are general in nature.

12. Its important attribute is voluntarism, not coercion.

.13. It advocates pluralism to reduce the domination of the state, 14. It serves as a moral reference in the community value system.

John Keane, the British theorist, summarises, the positive thinking about civil society thus : "The emerging consensus that civil society is a realm of freedom correctly highlights its basic value as a condition of democracy; where there is no civil society there cannot be citizens with capacities to choose their identities, entitlements and duties within a political-legal framework". Sharing the same view Larry Diamond observes : "Democracy - in particular a healthy liberal democracy requires a public that is organised for democracy; socialised to its norms and values and committed not just to its narrow interests but to larger, common, civic ends. Such a civil public is only possible with a vibrant civil society".

70

Basic Concepts of Political Science

Components of Civil Society:

The organisations and groups included under the umbrella concept of civil society are :

1. Non-government organisations

2. Community-based organisations

3. Indigeneous peoples organisations

4. Trade Unions

5. Farmers organisations

6. Cooperatives

7. Religious associations

8. Youth groups

9. Womens groups, and

10. Other similarly organised groups

Traditionally, the terms State and Civil Society were used interchangeably and treated synonymously. It continued till the 18th century. The concept of civil society has vastly succeeded in Europe and America. But, has not been able to take up in third world countries. Though efforts are on in some of the states since such as India, Brazil, Mexico etc since1970s. The underlying reason being that the Asian and African states are either dominated by monarchy or by dictatorial authoritarian regimes which does not allow people to people contacts and organisations. The totality of state prevents inventiveness, initiative and enterprise of the people. More over, the third world societies are based on race, religion, caste and kinship linkages that hinder the growth of civil society.

The civil society organisations (Voluntary or non governmental organisations) play an important role in the welfare and development administration. The various dimensions of their role are :

1. They organise and mobilise the poor for socio-economic development.

2. They disseminate information and make the people aware of various schemes, programmes, and projects initiated by the government for their betterment.

State 71

3. They facilitate the peoples participation in administrative process.

4. They make the administrative machinery more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people.

5. They impose a community system toaccountability on the functioning of administrative machinery at lower levels. Thus, they reduce the scope for corruption.

6. They help the administrative machinery in identifying the target groups.

7. They facilitate the usage of local resources for local development and thus make the communities self-reliant.

8. They create political consciousness among the people by discussing various political issues.

9. They act as the watch dog of the public interest.

10. They strengthen the principle of self-help.

However, it must be mentioned here that the strength of voluntary agencies lies in supplementing the efforts of government and not competing with it.

Milton Esman identified four agencies of development viz., political system, administrative system, mass media, and voluntary organisations. He felt that the involvement of voluntary agencies in the developmental process has three merits, that is a sense of solidarity, participation in decision-making and opportunity to interact with agencies of development including government.

According to Raj Krishna, an eminent economist and a former member of the planning commission, the voluntary agencies are superior to government agencies in many aspects : r-

a) Their workers can be more sincerely devoted to the task of reducing the sufferings of the poor than government staff.

b) They can have a better rapport with the rural poor than government staff, and

c) They can operate with greater flexibility as they are not bound by rigid bureaucratic rules and procedures.

72 Basic Concepts of Political Science

d) Their efforts are more economical than the government agencies, and

e) They can motivate more public participation in development efforts than government agencies.

Critical Estimate:

Assessing the relative merits and demerits of voluntary sector, the World Development Report (1997) observed: "... It does a lot of good work in increasing public awareness, voicing citizens concerns and delivering services. Local self-help organizations are sometimes the preferred providers of local public goods and services because of their closeness to local concerns...."

Chapter

3

■^ Sovereignty

o Meaning of Sovereignty

O Characteristics Sovereignty

0 Kinds of Sovereignty

■> Theories of Sovereignty

O Monistic (Austin's) Theory O Pluralistic Theory * Sovereignty in the age of Globalisation

Sovereignty is one of the most essential elements of state without which no state is said to be complete.

It is sovereignty that distinguishes state from other associations. It is that authority whose will is legally binding over all individuals and associations within its territorial limits. Thus, sovereignty is omni-present and omni-potent power of the state.

The term sovereignty is derived from the Latin word 'superanus' meaning 'supreme' or 'paramount'.

The exercise of the supreme power by the state is called 'sovereignty' and states are, therefore, called the 'sovereign'.

Although the term "Sovereignty" is modern yet the idea of "Sovereignty" goes back to Aristotle who spoke of the "supreme power of the state".

Throughout the Middle Ages, the Roman jurists and the civilians frequently employed the terms "Summa potestas" and "Pelantitude potestatis" to designate the supreme power of the state. The sovereignty is a product of recent origin and its emergence is connected with the rise of modern nation-state. Though Greeks (Plato and Aristotle) and Romans spoke about 'supreme power', 'fullness of the power of the state' and the 'finality of law', the conception was vague and hazy. The credit for using and defining the term sovereignty in the modem period goes to Jean Bodin (1530-1596) of France in his book, "De Republica Libri sen" (Six books on the republic) in 1576.

Definitions:

The following are the definitions of Sovereignty

Jean Bodin : "Sovereignty is the supreme power of the

state over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law".

Hugo Grotius : "Sovereignty is the supreme political power

vested in him whose acts are not subject to any other and whose will cannot be overridden".

Leon Duguit : "Sovereignty is a commanding power of the

state, it is the will of the nation organised in state; it is the right to give unconditional

J.W. Burgess

Jellinck

Blackstone

R.G. Soltau

Karaneburg

D.F. Russell

order to all individuals in the territory of the state".

"Sovereignty is the original, absolute and unlimited power over individual subjects and associations of state". "Sovereignty is that characteristic of the state in virtue of which it can not be legally bound except by its own will or limited by any other power than itself".

"Sovereignty is the supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority in which the supreme legal powers reside".

"Sovereignty is the exercise of final legal coercive power of the state".

"Sovereignty is the nature of the state to impose its own will unconditionally on other; for such is the definition of ruling and it is of the essence of the state that it should rule."

"Sovereignty is the strongest power and supreme authority within a state, which is unlimited by law or anything else, since otherwise it would be neither strongest nor supreme."

Development of Sovereignty:

Middle Ages: The Middle ages knew nothing about the doctrine and practice of concerted final authority. The political form was feudalism, based on personal dependence and allegiance with man by small groups. Feudalism was the antithesis of unified authority.

There was open conflict between the Spiritual and Temporal authorities. If anybody could claim final authority, it was the Church and not the State.

The religious wars of the sixteenth century destroyed the unity of the Church and resulted in 'modern State'. Sovereignty came to be regarded as one of the essential attributes of the State, with the

King as the head of the State. His authority was final to define and pronounce the law. The emergence of the 'modern State', thus, gave a new meaning to the term sovereignty. Sovereignty was undertaken and sustained by the monarch himself in order to establish his personal independence.

Sovereignty and the Modern State: The new reality of sovereignty of the State was given its philosophical justification by Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, each writing during the full agony of the civil and religious wars of his country. Both Bodin and Hobbes defended the need for one single unified authority, which should be accepted by all and against which no group or individual could raise the objection of any earlier rights to independence or resistance. There could be only one power within the community, which could not be limited, or divided and shared. It meant supreme power ruling over the entire body politic.

In Thomas Hobbes it reached its perfection when the sovereign power of the King was held to be natural ad inalienable. Once the people had agreed upon the fundamental law of the kingdom, and given the King and his descendants power over them, they were i deprived of any right to govern themselves, and the full natural right to rule the body politic resided in the person of the King, whose authority was absolute and indivisible.

Later, people began to realise that the King was a part of the governmental machine and, accordingly, an agent rather than master, and, as such, he possessed subordinate and delegated authority, which could be revoked at the will of the master, the people. It was a protest against absolute monarchy. It began with! John Locke, an English political philosopher, who justified the Glorious Revolution, and found its fullest expression in the French Revolution.

Rousseau made popular sovereignty, the doctrine of individual freedom, expressed through the General Will. The right of the State is unlimited, legally as a matter of fact and morally as a matter of 1 right and the individual lives in order to make his contribution to I the common life of the State. He must be prepared to enjoy and I sacrifice what the good of the common life of the State either grants II him or demands from him.

The legal theory of sovereignty advocated by John Austin, supported an omni - potent and omni - present nature of sovereignty whereas the Piuralists reject outright the concept of absolute authority of the State and placed for division of sovereignty between the State and various other associations present within its territorial limits.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOVEREIGNTY

A perusal of the various definitions of sovereignty indicates the following characteristics of sovereignty:

1. Absoluteness:

Absoluteness of sovereignty means that there is no legal power within the state or outside that state superior to it. The authority of the sovereign is not subject to any internal or external limitations.

Internally, it is supreme over all the individuals and groups within its jurisdiction. Externally, it is free to pursue any policy without any interference from any outside authority. However, the authority of the sovereign is subject to certain internal as well as external limits, but these limits are self-imposed.

For example, internally the authority of the sovereign is limited by the constitutional law. But these limitations are not legal limitations on the sovereignty and are accepted by the state due to practical considerations.

2. Permanence:

The sovereignty, like the state, is permanent.

It does not come to an end with the death of a ruler or the change of a particular system of government.

It lasts as long as the state exists: The permanent character of sovereignty is aptly summarised by Justice Sutherland of U.S.A. thus: "Rules come and go; governments end and forms of government change; but sovereignty survives. A political society cannot endure without a supreme will somewhere. Sovereignty is never held in suspense."

The sovereignty does not come to an end with the death of a particular bearer or the reorganization of the state. It immediately shifts to the new bearer in the same manner as the centre of gravity sh ifts from one part of a physical body to another when it undergoes

external change. For example, in 1971 when Pakistan was divided into West and East Pakistan, the sovereignty of Pakistan over East Pakistan shifted to East Pakistan (Bangladesh).

3. Universality:

This characteristic of sovereignty implies that all the persons and associations falling within the jurisdiction of the sovereign are subject to its authority and do not fall beyond its control. No person or association can claim exemption from its authority as a matter of legal right.

But the diplomatic envoys are exempted from the laws of the state and are governed by the laws of their own state even while they are posted in a foreign country. This concession is extended to them as a matter of international courtesy and the state reserves the right to deny them this privilege. This diplomatic courtesy is extended by all countries with diplomatic relations. This concession extended by the state does not in any way legally restrict the sovereignty authority of the state.

4. Inalienability:

Sovereignty is inalienable and no state can abandon it without harming its existence.

The sovereignty is the very essence of the personality of the state. A state may transfer a part of its territory to another state, but it does not in any way mean alienation of sovereignty. It merely

surrenders its sovereign rights over that part of the territory without destroying its sovereignty. Leiber has rightly observed thus: "Sovereignty can no more be alienated than a tree can alienate its right to sprout or a man can transfer his life and personality without self-destruction."

5. Exclusiveness:

The sovereign power is the exclusive prerogative of the state and is not shared by it with any other authority or group.

In a state there can be only one sovereign who can legally compel obedience from all persons and associations within its territorial jurisdiction.

To conceive of more than one sovereign within a state is to deny the unity of the state and admit the possibility of a sovereignty within sovereignty, which is a self-contradiction.

6. Indivisibility:

The sovereignty is indivisible and there cannot be more than one sovereign in a state. According to Calhoun, "Sovereignty is an entire thing, to divide it is to destroy it. It is the sup'reme power in a state, and we might just as well speak of half a square or half a triangle as of half a sovereignty". Garfield Gettell also says that the concept of divided sovereignty is a contradiction in terms. If sovereignty is not absolute no state exists; if sovereignty is divided, more than one state exists.

Certain scholars hold that sovereignty can be divided and take the example of American Federation in which the national government and the states are sovereign within the sphere reserved for them by the Constitution. But, this is not division of sovereignty. Tickner Curtis clarifies this point thus: "There cannot be two supreme powers in the same community, if both are to operate on the same objects. But there is nothing in the nature of political sovereignty to prevent powers from being distributed among different agents for different purposes."

7. All Comprehensiveness:

By all comprehensiveness means that the sovereign authority extends in all fields, over all associations and persons. Sovereign authority remains influenced and unaffected by associations and organisations working in the state. All individuals and associations irrespective of the status, power, prestige and influence must obey the law of the land.

8. Imperscriptibility:

By Imperscriptibility, we mean that if the sovereign does not exercise the sovereignty for a certain period of time, it does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty. Governments and wielders of power may come and go but it lasts as long as the state lasts.

ASPECTS OF SOVEREIGNTY

There are two aspects of sovereignty: internal sovereignty and external sovereignty.

Internal Sovereignty means some persons, assembly of group of persons in every independent state have the final legal authority to command and enforce obedience. This sovereignty exercises its absolute authority over all individuals or associations of the individuals with the state. Harold Laski has very aptly marked thus: "It issues orders to all men and all associations within that area; it receives orders from none of them. Its will is subject to no legal limitation of any kind. What it proposes is right by mere announcement of intention."

External Sovereignty means the State is subject to no other authority and is independent of any compulsion on the part of other States. Every independent state reserves the authority to renounce treaties and to enter into agreements. Each state is independent of other states. Every independent State is at liberty to determine its foreign policy. Thus, by external sovereignty we mean that every state is independent of other states.

In other words, External Sovereignty means national freedom. As Laski says, "The modern state is a sovereign state. It is, therefore independent in the face of other communities. It may infuse its will towards them with a substance which need not be affected by the will of any external power." Thus the State possesses both external and internal sovereignty.

KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY

There are different kinds of sovereignty. It is partly due to the confusion surrounding the concept. There is a confusion between legal theory and political practice. The legal theory of sovereignty vests ultimate legal power in some definite person or body of persons. The authority of the sovereign is supreme and possesses the power to enforce obedience to its will. But it does not answer the question of ultimate soveriegn authority. The problem of real location of political sovereignty has not yet been solved.

The following are the kinds of Sovereignty:

1. Titular Sovereignty:

The origin of titular sovereignty goes back to the seventeenth century, immediately after the emergence of the 'nation state'.

The nation states were headed by absolute monarchies and the Kings personified the sovereignty of the state.

Later, people challenged the absolute and unlimited authority of the Kings and demanded their own rights and privileges. They claimed that power was ultimately theirs and that the King exercised limited authority delegated to him on their behalf. The powers of the King were limited and defined by law. He was retained in his position as head of the state. But in all matters of administration he was compelled to seek the advice and consent of the representatives of the people. The King remained only a symbol of authority. He personified the sovereignty of the state. In terms of law, all authority belonged to him. But, actual sovereignty resided somewhere else and the monarch simply exercised personal influence in the exercise of that authority.

Titular sovereignty refers to the sovereign powers of the King or Monarch who has ceased to exercise any real authority. In theory, he posseses all the sovereign powers which were once enjoyed by him, but in actual practice there is some one or body of men who act on behalf of the sovereign and exercise supreme authority. The best example of titular sovereignty is the British King. Legally, the powers of the King or Queen are supreme. He or she is the source of all authority, the acts of the government are his acts, and the officers of the State - civil and military are appointed and dismissed at his pleasure. He is also the fountain of justice and law. But in real practice all this is not a fact.

Sovereignty of the King no longer exists. There is no action of government which is the result of his initiative. The actual power and direction of government rests with the King's duly constituted Ministers. Same can be said about the President of India.

2. Real Sovereignty:

Under the real sovereignty all power and authority is vested in the hands of the head of state who enjoys it himself. For instance, the Constitution of USA vests the executive powers in the hands of the President, who enjoys himself.

He is wholly responsible for all acts of commission and omission That's why is is said about the American president that "the buck, stops here". He is completely

responsible for all executive actions. He is repsonsible for all achievements and failures of the government.

3. Legal Sovereignty:

Legal sovereignty is the conception of sovereignty in terms of law, and it refers to that person or body of persons who, by law, have the power to issue final commands. In every State there must be some authority which is determinate and visible in the sense that it should command the respect of all and the people may appeal to it as the final authority. Such an authority is known as the legal sovereign and the authority of the legal sovereign is supreme and final over all individuals and associations.

No individual or group of individuals has the legal right to act contrary to the decisions of the sovereign power, even such decisions over-ride the prescriptions of divine law, the principles of morality, or the mandates of public opinion. The courts recognise and apply only that law which emanates from the 'Legal Sovereign' and disobedience to such a law is accompanied by punishment. The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and its will is limitless, indivisible and inalienable. Law is the will of the sovereign and there is no one to question its validity. All rights enjoyed by citizens are granted and enforced by the legal sovereign and there can be no rights against him. Legal sovereign can grant rights and can take them back or even cancel them.

The characteristics of legal sovereignty are:

1. The legal sovereign is always definite and determinate.

2. Legal sovereignty may reside either in the person of a Monarch as in an absolute Monarchy, or it may be vested in a body of persons as in a democracy: King or Queen and Parliament in Britain.

3. It is definite, organised, precise and known to law.

4. It alone has the power to declare in legal terms the 'Will' of the state.

5. Disobedience to the imperative of the legal sovereign means physical punishment.

Sovereignty

6. All rights emanate from the legal sovereign and it can take them back or even annul them.

7. The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute, illimitable and supreme. It is subject to no control within and without the state.

4. Political Sovereignty:

"Behind the legal sovereign, there is another sovereign, before whom the legal sovereign must bow". This sovereign is the Political Sovereign. For example the Queen in Parliament is the legal sovereign, but she can never go against the wishes of the electrorate which constitute the political sovereign. According to Gilchrist, "the political sovereign is the sum total oi influences in a state which lie behind the law". Similarly, Dicey says, "that body is politically sovereign, the will of which is ultimately obeyed by the citizens of the State".

However, it is not easy to locate the political sovereignty. Leacock rightly says, "The more one searches the political sovereignty, the more it seems to elude one's grasp". While some scholars identify the political sovereign with the electorate, the others equate it with the whole mass of the people, the public opinion, the general will etc. In view of the difficulty in the location of the political sovereignty some scholars have preferred to abandon the concept altogether. For example Prof. Gettell says that any attempt to find a political sovereign at the back of the legal sovereign destroys the value of the entire concept and reduces sovereignty to a mere catalogue influence."

The political sovereignty may not be determinate-and organized but it none-the-less influences the legal sovereignty. According to Gilchrist, the legal and political sovereignty are aspects of the one sovereignty of the state. They constantly react on each other. In direct democracy they coincide but in representative democracy the legal sovereignty belongs to the legislature whereas the political sovereignty belongs to the electorate. In a true representative democracy the legal

sovereign should manifest the will of the political sovereign. In the words of Gettell, "Legal and Political sovereignty should be different manifestations of the same sovereignty through different channels".

5. Popular Sovereignty:

The doctrine of popular sovereignty is the product of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

It emerged as an expression of resentment of the people against the despotic authority of the Kings and their reliance on the theory of Divine Right. Popular Sovereignty attributes ultimate sovereignty to the people. This theory, first propounded by John Locke, was later expounded by Rousseau and it became the slogan of the French Revolution. According to J.J. Rousseau, the common measure of the real will of the people embodies not only their common interest but also everybody's real and long-term interest. Man realizes his freedom by submitting his particular will to the direction of the general will.

According to Rousseau the State came into existence by explicit or tacit agreement. People said: "We want to be a State, a community." For Rousseau, the State and the people were one. Having created the State, the people ought to control it and change it as they pleased for whenever an individual decided that he belonged to a people, he already had decided that his people should be sovereign and that, being sovereign, they should run their own affairs. This is the doctrine of 'Popular sovereignty'.

Popular sovereignty refers to the Sovereignty of the electrorate. But sovereignty of the electrorate has no legal basis unless it is expressed through channels prescribed by a constitution. The voters, in a representative form of government, do not themselves exercise actual sovereign power. They elect their representatives and it is through them, as members of a legislature, that the sovereign power is expressed. It, therefore, embraces suffrage and the control of the legislature by the representatives of the people. Therefore, the State exists for the people and the mechanism of the State, that is, government, should function in accordance with the wishes of the people. No legal sovereign can brush aside the Will of the people. In fact, the tendency with every modern state is to

make legal sovereignty responsive to the popular demand as quickly as possible.

The following are the main characteristics of political sovereignty:

(i) Political sovereignty is the power of the electorate, or the mass

of the people, or the public opinion, (ii) In modern representative government it can be described as the

'power of the people'.

(iii) It is the sum total of the influence in a state which lies behind the law.

(iv) The political sovereign is vague and unorganized, It is even indeterminate, though more or less real.

6. De Facto and De Jure Sovereignty:

Sometimes a distinction is made between the De Facto (actual) sovereignty and De Jure (legal) sovereignty. A de jure sovereign is the legal sovereign whereas a de facto sovereign is a sovereign which

is actually obeyed. In the words of Lord Bryce, de facto sovereign "is the person or a body of persons who can make his or their will prevail whether with the law or against the law; he or they, is the real ruler, the person to whom obedience is actually paid". Thus, the de jure is the legal sovereignty founded on law whereas de facto is the actual sovereign. The de facto sovereign may not be a legal sovereign or he may be a usurping king, a dictator, in either case sovereignty rests upon physical power rather than legal right.

For example, Oliver Cromwell became de facto sovereign after he had dismissed the Long Parliament. Napolean became the de facto sovereign after he had overthrown the Directory. Likewise, Franco became the de facto sovereign after he had dislodged the legal sovereign in Spain. On October 28,1922, Mussolini's Black Shirts marched on Rome. At that time, Parliament remained the legal sovereign. Mussolini became the Prime Minister in the legal manner. He ruled parliament and ruled the country through parliament. Parliament remained the legal sovereign but he was the actual or de facto sovereign Hitler also did the same in Germany. He controlled the legal sovereign and became the de facto sovereign. Similarly, Stalin re-

mained the actual sovereign in U.S.S.R. for about three decades. In South Asia, Ayub Khan became the de facto sovereign after he had staged the military coup in Pakistan. When Ayub Khan was overthrown by Yahya Khan who rose to power with the help of the army and became the de facto sovereign. Same is the case of Mushraff.

De jure sovereign is one, as the name suggests, who enjoys powers which is rightfully and constitutionally vested in him. The sovereignty will be in his name and he will exercise it. For instance, in USA, the President is the de jure sovereign bacuase the constitution has vested the executive powers in him and he himslef exercises it.

THEORIES OF SOVEREIGNTY

AUSTIN'S THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY

The Juristic analysis of sovereignty has a history dating back to the Roman empire. The Roman jurists worked out a theory of imperium and found the source of law in the 'Will' of the prince. In modern times, the development of the theory of sovereignty coincided with the growth of the State in power, functions and prestige. From Bodin, through Hobbes and Bentham, this juristic idea reached its peak in John Austin as contained in his 'Lectures on Jurisprudence' published in 1832. Austin's views are largely based on the teachings of Hobbes. Austin, consequently, primarily attempted to build up an exact juristic terminology and present a clear outline of the organisation of government's legal power.

The theory of sovereignty, as enunciated by Austin, depends mainly upon his view of the nature of law. "Law", according to Austin, "is a command given by a superior to an inferior." From this definition of law, he developed his theory of sovereignty in the following words: "If a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience, from the bulk of a given society, that determinate human superior is sovereign in the society, and that society (including the superior) is a society political and independent". He further says: "Every positive law, or every law, simply and

strictly so-called, is set by a sovereign person or a sovereign body of persons to a member or members of

Sovereignty

the independent political society wherein that person or body of persons is sovereign or supreme".

Austin's doctrine of "Sovereign" may be explained as follows:

1. That such a determinate human superior must not himselfobey any other higher authority. His will is supreme over all individuals and associations and he is subject to no control, direct or indirect.

2. In every independent political community the sovereign power is exercised by some persons or body of persons and there cannot be a state without a sovereign.

3. The sovereign is a determinate person or body of persons. It cannot reside in indefinite and vague things like public opinion, general will, people etc.

4. There is, in every independent political community, some person or body of person who exercise sovereign power. Sovereign power is as essential in every political society "as the centre of gravity in a mass of matter".

5. The sovereign is a determinate person or body of persons. As Austin himself says, "He is not necessarily a single person: in the modern western world, he is very rarely so; but he must have so much of the attributes of a single person as to be determinate authority acting as the ultimate source of power." Sovereignty is concerned with a man and every State must have a determinate human superior, who can issue commands and create laws. Hence human laws, and not divine laws, are the proper subject of state activity.

6. The determinate human superior (sovereignVdoes not obey any other authority. On the other hand, it issues orders to all men and associations within its jurisdiction. If the sovereign receives orders from some other authority it ceases to be a sovereign.

7. The sovereign must get habitual obedience of the majority of the people. The obedience to the authority of the sovereign must be continuous, regular, undisturbed and uninterrupted. It is not essential that every member of the society must render obedience to the sovereign. Obedience by the bulk of the society is enough.

8. That command is the essence of law. Whatever the sovereign commands is law, and law prescribes to do certain things and not to do others. Failure to obey laws, as commanded, is visited by a penalty.

9. The sovereign power is indivisible. It is a unity and is incapable of division. Division of sovereignty means destruction of sovereignty. The sovereigty is head and shoulders above all other individuals and institutions.

In brief, Austin's analysis of sovereignty embraces the existence of the supreme power, which is determinate, absolute, illimitable, inalienable, indivisible, all-comprehensive and permanent. It is subject to no limitation or command by any other superior person.

CRITICISM OF MONISTIC THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY:

Though Austin's theory of sovereignty advocates a complete authority to the sovereign, it is criticised on several grounds. Some of the charges levelled against Monistic theory are discussed as follows:

1. Sovereignty does not reside in a single superior:

Henry Maine was very critical of the Austinian theory of sovereignty.

His view was that sovereignty did not reside in a determinate human superior. To quote him, "A despot with a disturbed brain is the sole conceivable example of such sovereignty." Referring to Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab, Sir Henry pointed out that the Maharaja "could have commanded anything; the smallest disobedience to his command would have been followed by death or mutilation". In spite of this, the Maharaja never once in all his life issued a command which Austin could call a law.

The rules which regulated the subjects were derived from their immemorial usages and these rules were administered by domestic tribunals in families or village communities. The conclusion of Henry Maine was that even the most powerful sovereign could not issue a command which was opposed to the customs, usages and religious beliefs of the people.

2. Power cannot be unlimited:

Auston says that the sovereign is possessed of unlimited powers. However, experience tells us that there is no power on earth which can wield unlimited powers.

The reason is that the state or the sovereign acts through law, which can regulate only the external actions of human beings. Laski has criticised the theory of unlimited sovereignty on many grounds. He points out that "no 67sovereign has anywhere possessed unlimited power and the attempt to exert it has always resulted in the establishment of safeguards." He rightly points out that even the British Parliament does not enjoy absolute powers in actual practice. It is helpless to regulate their internal actions.

Whatever the government might do, it cannot control the morality of the people, the beliefs of the people, their religion or the public opinion. It is clear that the state has a limit imposed on its sovereign power in so much as it cannot control the internal lives of the people. Hence, it cannot be said that the sovereign possesses unlimited powers.

3. Sovereignty is limited:

Bluntschli says that "the state as a whole is not almighty, for it is limited externally by the rights of other states and internally by its own nature and by the rights of its individual members." The sovereignty is limited both from within and without: from within because the legislature is the product of a certain social condition and determined by whatever determines society, and from without because the power of imposing law is depende/it upon the instinct of subordination which is itself limited.

4. Stunts the growth of a nation:

It cannot be denied that it is not only impossible to exercise unlimited powers, but it is also undesirable to give unlimited powers to anybody. History tells us that whenever any king or queen was given unlimited powers over the people, the people could not grow. Their lives were insecure and their property was unsafe. They could not enjoy their liberty. As a matter of fact, the whims of one man prevailed and there was no certainty about anything.

destroys those over whom that power is exercised, but also destroys ultimately the wielders of unlimited power. The reason is that as a result of the persecutions at the hands of the autocrat, grievances of the people multiply and ultimately they revolt against him and pull him down.

5. A determinate superior can't be located:

Austin says that the sovereign must be a determinate authority. We find that the attempt to discover a determinate human authority in every state which commands others but does not obey anybody, fails. In the case of the United States, one fails to find a determinate sovereign who is possessed of unlimited power. Neither the President nor the Congress nor the Governors of the States nor the Supreme Court can be said to posses sovereign power. Each of these functionaries possess limited powers.

6. Sovereignty may be diverse:

According to Austin, Sovereign in indivisible. All power must be centred in the hands of one person called the sovereign. The reason given is that if anuthority is divided, it is not possible to say that one controls the whole because each controls only a part. Hence it is contended that it is necessary that all sovereign power must reside in one hand. Such a view might have been right before the experiment of a federal state was,made, but it is a characteristic of federal State that powers must be divided between the federal government and its units. Each is supreme in its own sphere. Neither can be said to be supreme over the other. Hence, the idea of divided sovereignty has to be accepted.

7. Biased:

Austin attaches too much importance to the strictly legal nature

of sovereignty and completely ignores the other aspects of sovereignty. He particularly errs in so far as he forgets that behind the legal sovereign there is another sovereign before whom the legal sovereign has to bow. Thus, Austin is accused of neglecting the importance of the political sovereign. In fact, Austin fails to draw a distinction between the legal and political sovereignty.

PLURALISTIC THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY

The pluralist Theory of sovereignty was a reaction against the legal, monistic, absolutist Austinian theory of sovereignty and the theory of Fascist absolute state supported by idealist philosophers like Hegel and supporters of power view of politics like Nietzsche, Treitschke and Bernhardi. It was an attack against those who regarded the state as the highest and supreme power in society. It was an attack on the absolutism of the state and unlimited sovereignty. It demanded that the sovereignty of the state should be limited, divided and controlled. It was a movement of labour, economic, religious and professional associations and unions for the fulfilment of their rights against the state.

It demanded that the individuals must be saved from the absolute and unlimited power of the state. Sovereignty should not belong to the state alone but should be divided among the various associations in society. Unlike the anarchists who demanded that the state be abolished, the pluralists demanded that the state be continued to exist but its powers must be limited.

Pluralists contend that the, social life is organised and finds expression through numerous associations, which do not derive their existence or rights from the State. The state is, therefore, a federation an interlocking union of groups, assisting the discovery of self by each man with his diversified nature.

Meaning:

Pluralism is a powerful protest against the monistic theory of sovereignly which endows the state with supreme and unlimited power. Harold J. Laski, J.N. Figgis, Ernest Barker, G.D.H. Cole, A.D. Lindsay, Duguit, Maclver and others are the exponents of Pluralism. According to Pluralists, sovereignty resides not with the state but it resides with many other institutions. There exist many social, political, cultural and economic institutions in society and many of these institutions are prior to the State. For example, Family and Church are prior to the State. According to Pluralists, the State is not the only supreme institution. On the contrary, like other institution, the State is also one of the institutions of society. There the State does not reserve the authority to exercise sovereignty

according to his will. Sovereignty is not his private property. The

Pluralistic state is, therefore, "simply a state in which there exists no single source of authority".

According to pluraiists, Sovereignty is not indivisible and exclusive but it is a multiplicity in its essence and manifestation, it is divisible in two parts and should be divided. While Barker says, "We see the State less as an association of individuals in common life; we see it more as an association of individuals, already united in various groups for a further and more embracing common purpose". These associations have an inner life which is atleast as autonomous as that of the state. Thus, the pluraiists ardently advocate the autonomy and freedom of profession, political, religious, economic, social and educational associations.

Gettell has beautifully summed up the idea of pluralism in these words. The pluraiists deny that the state is a unique organisation, they hold that other associations are equally important and natural. They argue that such associations for their purpose are as sovereign as the state is for its purpose. They

emphasise the inability of the state to enforce its will in practice against the opposition of certain groups within it. They insist on the equal rights of all groups that command the allegiance of their members and that perform valuable functions in society. Hence, sovereignty is possessed by many association. It is not an indivisible unit, the state is not supreme or unlimited".

Development of the Pluralistic Theory:

The pluralistic theory originated in the writings of Otto V.Gierke. The germ of Pluralism is to be found", says R.N. Gilchrist, in the work of the German Jurist, Von Gierke (1844-1921) whose monumental work on the legal theory of corporation, gave an impetus to the idea of corporations as legal entities, with a life of their own independent of government.

Though the theory of pluralism originated in the last quarters of the nineteenth century and developed in the beginning of the twentieth century, its background can be traced in the Medieval Age. In Medieval Age, the organisation of the State in Europe was| loose and the church, vocational associations and Guilds played

their significant role in society. In sixteenth and seventeenth century, national sentiment gathered force in Europe and as a consequence national states emerged. These national states became powerful and all the powers, in these states, were centered with the ruler. In due course of time, these national states faced revolt and public movements arose and the result was the dawn of democracy.

In Democracy, the authority of the ruler was confined, the cabinet became more powerful. The state remained sovereign and supreme. With the advent of the Welfare State there came a rapid increase in the functions of the State and there remained no sphere of life with which the State did not interfere. The sovereign and the supreme state also faced revolt and reaction. This reaction against the sovereign and supreme state resulted into the dawn of pluralism.

Main Supporters of Pluralism:

Otto Von Gierke, F.W. Maitland, Figgis, G.D.H. Cole, A.D. Lindsay, Ernest Barker, Krabbe, Dugiut, Laski, Cober, Zimmern, Durkheim are some of the supporters of Pluralism. Gierke wrote, "The state should accept the common point of view that permanent associations have rights and duties as groups whether or not the state has accepted them as corporations". According to Laski, "State is only one among the various forms of associations and as compared with them, has no superior claims to the individual allegiance". He further says, "These associations are not less sovereign than the state itself. Because society is federal the authority must also be federal". Maclver has also pointed out in his famous book, 'The Modern State' that "State is one association among many associations within the community".

Factors Responsible for the Development of Pluralism:

1. The individualists laid emphasis on the reduction of the powers of the State. The Pluralists also followed suit. But the main point of difference between the individualists and pluralists is that the individualists laid emphasis on the rights and freedom of the individual, and the pluralists laid emphasis on the rights and freedom of the associations of the individuals and guilds.

2. Pluralists laid emphasis on the need of cooperation between the state and other associations for promoting the common welfare.

3. In the modern age, all the states of the world are inter-dependent on one another in one way or the other and, therefore, the need of confining the sovereignty of the state is felt these days.

4. Anarchism and Guild Socialism laid a great stress on the confinement of the sovereignty of the state and this gave impetus to Pluralism.

MAIN PRINCIPLES OF PLURALISM

1. Limited and Diffused:

The pluralistic state is simply a state in which there exists no single source of authority that is all-competent and comprehensive, namely, sovereignty, no unified system of law, no centralised organ of administration, no generalisation of political will. On the contrary, it is a multiplicity in its essence and manifestation, it is divisible into parts and should be divided. Pluralist sovereignty is limited and divided sovereignty. It is not all-comprehensive, absolute and indivisible.

The state is merely an association of society for common welfare like any other association. Society is not unity but unity in diversity. As man owes allegiance to other organisations and associations, his total allegiance is not and cannot be towards the state. Law is not the command of the sovereign as it is based on moral and natural rules, customs, traditions etc. The external sovereignty of the state is restricted by international law.

2. Sociological in Character:

The pluralists emphasized the sociological character of the state. They recognised the role of several associations in society formed by men in pursuance of their multifarious interests. Some of those associations existed even prior to the origin of the state-itself and some of them exist independent of the stat«=,.~fhey arel neither created, nor sponsored, nor maintained, nor even reguia?!*dl by the state.

Sovereignty

The state is but one of those associations, standing side by side with them and not above them. Such associations include the church and other religious organisations, trade unions, coorperative societies and chambers of commerce and voluntary associations devoted to education, cultural and scientific pursuits. All these associations have a social value of their own. They satisfy some needs and other worth while pursuits.

Pluralists hold that it is morally preferable for individuals to be associated politically with a wide range of associations in pursuance of their interests. These groups provide them with an opportunity to make use of their creative abilities and to seek self-fulfilment in various spheres of life. No outside agency, not

least the state, should interfere in their functioning unless their activities are required to be regulated in the interest of public orde'r, public safety or public morality.

3. Harmonizer and a coordinator:

The pluralists maintain that the claim of the state to superior authority cannot be taken for granted. The state enjoys a privileged position in the sense that its jurisdiction is compulsory over all individuals and associations within the state. Unlike other associations, it possesses coercive powers by which it can punish those who ignore or defy its command. However, this does not automatically establish the superior authority of the state but imposes a higher moral responsibility on the state. The state must justify the exercise of its special powers. It must fulfil its function of harmonising the interests of all associations operating in society. Some of those associations may be more organised and more vocal than others and some of them may be weak and r>ot organised. It is the duty of the state to see that the interests of all are given due weight. The state must show that it is not dominated by any special interest or vested interest while exercising its authority. It must justify the confidence reposed in it.

As an association coordinates the activities of its members, the state also coordinates the activities of the other associations in society. It resolves the conflicting claims of those associations. It harmonies and compromises those interests for the higher interests

of society. The pluralistic theory does not seek to abolish the state. It merely seeks to limit the absolute authority of the state.

4. Decentralization of Authority:

The pluralists do not extend unconditional acceptance to the sovereign authority of the state. They do not accept the state as a Leviathan (a sea-monster) as imagined by Thomas Hobbes. They repudiate monopoly of the state on the allegiance of all individuals and require that the state should justify its claims to allegiance on moral grounds. They argue that expansion of the authority of the state undermines democracy and liberty of the individual and that concentration of authority in the state erodes administrative efficiency. The complexity of the economic and political relations of the modern world cannot be dealt with by a monolithic view of the state. They, therefore, argue that the management and control of society should be shared by several associations in proportion to their contribution to the social good.

5. State is pluralist in Character:

The monistic theory of sovereignty regards society as a unified whole in which there is complete unity with no place for diversity. There is only one interest of the whole society which can be served by a single sovereign power of the state. The pluralists object to this view of society and maintain that there is diversity rather than unity in society. Even if there is unity, it is unity in diversity.

According to Maclver, in a social organisation, there are communities like country, city, village, nation and tribe. There are associations like family, church, party, class and business firms. There are institutions like inheritance, baptism, the party machine, class distinctions and the market. Laski says,

"Society as a complex whole is pluralistic". Lipson writes, "Not only is society a pluralistic union of groups but the ways in which every human being associated are also plural". Society is divided into groups, communities, associations etc. and it is not unity but unity in diversity. Every association and community has real personality of its own. Society is federal rather than unitary.

6. Liberal democratic values:

Pluralists contend that the monolithic power of the state can suppress the initiative and freedom of the individual. The democrats support pluralism for the sake of human rights. One of the objects of limiting the sovereignty of the state by dividing it among various associations is to strengthen the rights of the people and different social associations. Pluralism has liberal democratic values which favours the conversion of the absolutist state into a limited welfare state. Pluralism suspects the principles of representation and maintains that elected representatives cannot represent the total interests of man and man in society should participate in decisionmaking through various associations. The pluralists recognise the state as a servant of the people and not as a super-imposed power. The sphere of state should decrease and that of man should increase. The pluralists give importance to consultation and discussion in the decision-making and avoid and decry arbitrary decisions. They regard territorial representation as insufficient.

7. Distinction between the State and Government:

Laski discusses the distinction between the state and government to demonstrate the inadequacy of the theory of absolute and unlimited sovereignty. He points out that, in actual practice, the so-called sovereign powers of the state are claimed by the government, that is, a body of persons issuing orders and enforcing obedience. In the exercise of these powers the government can never be allowed to become absolute and irresponsible. Because, as Laski observed, government is but the agent of the state.

It exists to carry out the purpose of the state. It is not in itself the supreme coercive power; it is simply the mechanism of administration which gives effect to the purpose of that power. It is not, sovereign in the sense in which the state is sovereign; its competence is defined by such authority as the state may choose to confer upon it; and if it oversteps that authority it may, where such provision exists, be called to account.

Pointing to the dangers of conferring absolute powers on government, Laski further observes: "Every government is composed of fallible men. They may deliberately exploit the authority they

possess for their own selfish purposes. They may, with the best intentions, but quite unreasonably, mistake the private interest of a few the well-being of the whole community."

8. Moral Grounds of Allegiance:

Laski's point is that to demand unquestioning obedience to the orders of the sovereign authority without giving the individual the right to judge for himself their moral adequacy is morally wrong: it stunts the growth of his moral personality. The state can justify its existence only as a 'public service corporation'.

The State differs from every other association in that it is, in the first place, an association in which membership is compulsory. It is, in the second place, essentially territorial in nature... The State controls the level at which men are to live as men. It is, in administrative terms, a government whose activities are shaped by the common needs of its members. To satisfy those common needs, it must control other associations to the degree that secures from them the service such needs require.

In other words, the state must justify exercise of its social authority by ensuring an effective coordination of functions of other human associations in the best public interest. Its claim to the allegiance of individuals will rest on the efficient performance of its functions.

9. Supremacy of Law:

As the outset, Maclver identifies the state as one of several human associations. The state is distinguished from other associations because it gives expression to law, not because it is characterized by sovereignty.

Maclver argues that the state is characterized by the supremacy of law which exists apart from the state. Thus he observes: "It is not the office but the instrument, not sovereignty but the law and the constitution that wear the legitimate armour of might. TheJ government has power as the guardian of the constitution, as the | executor of law, not in its own right...."

Law, in this sense, cannot be regarded as an expression of the I will of the state. The state does not create law. Law exists prior to

the state; the state only grasps it and gives it a definite expression in the form of its statutes. In other words, the state only codifies law, or modifies its form; it cannot make or remake it. As Maclver points out: "The state can no more reconstitute at any time the law as a whole than a man can remake his body". Hugo Krabbe contends that the authority of law is greater than the authority of the state.

10. Basis of Authority:

As the state is one of several human associations, the basis of authority of the state cannot be different from that of other associations or corporations. Maclver asserts: "Every association of any magnitude has grades of authority and control analogous to those of the state." A business corporation has a body of shareholders who are united in the will and interest to uphold the corporation. The shareholders must choose a board of directors, but neither on the choice nor on the policy of the board are they likely to be unanimous. In the sphere of the state, the will of the people-which is nothing more than the dominant will or the majority will is analogous to the will of the shareholders and government is analogous to the board of directors. The state, accordingly, derives its authority from the will of the majority of the people, not in its own right.

A corporation is recognized by law; it entails certain rights and obligations. The state is similar to other corporations in this sense also. It is recognized by law, and has its definite rights and obligations. The value of the state is highlighted by the fact that it gives them a special status defining their privileges and responsibilities. As Maclver puts it, "The state does not create the corporation but only regulates its legal character... The association, such as a professional group exists apart from and prior to the state's act of recognition. The state cannot, for the most part, either make or unmake it... The great associations are as native to the soil of society as the state itself. The state can scarcely even decide whether it will or will not recognize them."

The Pluralistic ideology has been very well summed up by Cober. "The state is confronted not merely by unassociated

individual but also by other associations evolving independently, eliciting individual loyalties, better adopted than the state-because of their select membership, their special forms of organisation and action for serving various social needs".

Criticism of Pluralism:

The Pluralist conception of sovereignty has been subjected to criticism by the scholars. The criticisms are as follows:

1. State is superior of other associations:

In the first place it would be wrong to treat the state at par with other associations. The state is certainly superior to other associations and groups existing in a state because its membership is compulsory while the membership of other associations is voluntary. Further state is a permanent organisation while the other associations may disappear after the attainment of their objective.

Above all, the State alone possesses the coercive power and can enforce its will. The right of the state to regulate and control the activities of other associations within its limits is a further testimony of its superior position. Even some of the Pluralist thinkers assign the task of co-ordinating-the activities of various associations to the State and thereby acknowledge its superior position. It may be further observed that if the various associations were to be treated at par with the state it would inevitably lead to anarchy and confusion, which even the Pluralists do not favour.

2. Impractical:

At the outset, the Pluralist doctrine is attractive and their suggestions are appealing. But if the pluralist ideas are given practical shape it would merely lead to chaos and destruction. The Pluralists fail to appreciate the practical consequences of the division or destruction of sovereignty.

3. Illogical:

The assertion of the Pluralists that in a pluralists society the various groups and associations would work on parallel lines and there will be no overlapping of functions or conflicts seems to be quite illogical. At present when the state enjoys dominant position

in the society there are frequent conflicts amongst various groups and associations and the state finds it really difficult to resolve these conflicts.

Without the state it is difficult to imagine that the various associations will be able to work in co-operation with each other. According to Gilchrist, "Pluralism driven to its logical end would disintegrate society, replacing order and conditions of progress by chaotic mass of bodies or groups all contending for supremacy".

4. Underestimation of state:

The contention of the Pluralists that the state is neither the creator of laws nor above them, is also difficult to accept. It cannot be denied that the state plays an important role in the formulation of the laws. No doubt the customs and conventions also find their ways into the laws of the land, but they become laws only after the State accord's them necessary recognition.

5. Contradictory views:

The Pluralist thinkers are quite confused and fail to define precisely the relationship between the state and the various associations. On the one hand, the Pluralists consider the doctrine of sovereignty as useless and on the other hand they would like the state to coordinate and supervise the working of the various associations and to settle their differences. In other words they deprive the state of its sovereignty with one hand and restore the same with the other. Even a strong proponent of Pluralism like Laski admitted later that "legally no one can deny that there exists in every state some organ whose authority is unlimited."

6. Leads to anarchy:

The pluralists limit the sovereignty of the state in the interests of the rights of individuals and other associations in society. However, in order to maintain the rights of individuals and associations, the state must have sovereign power. The interests of individuals and associations will conflict and the state will be helpless if it does not posses sovereign power. A non-sovereign state will result in political anarchy.

Society cannot be harmoniously organised in a peaceful manner without the authority of the state. Garner aptly summarises the role of the state thus: "State renders important service in keeping within proper limits the classes and struggles between competing groups and performing the role of a referee or umpire and adjusting or reconciling their conflicting interests". In order to avoid the anarchy of associations and to save society from collapse and dissolution, the authority of the state has to be maintained.

7. Wrong assumptions:

The pluralists theory is based on wrong assumptions. It is wrong to assume that the various associations run along parallel lines and there is no overlapping of functions. The fact is that life cannot be divided into watertight compartments, allowing various associations to control various aspects of life.

As society is constituted, there is always a clash of interests and conflict of loyalties. The result is that if there is no final legal authority in society, the various groups or associations are bound to clash with one another and thereby create an atmosphere in which human progress becomes impossible. The interests of the producers and consumers are never identical.

Critical Estimate:

Pluralism has played an important role in upholding the importance of associations, for which they claim much autonomy. Sovereign state in practice must be subject to many limitations so that democracy may flourish but as a concept, the sovereign state must not be subject to any legal authority because in the absence of sovereignty anarchy will prevail in society. Gettell describes the contribution of the Pluralists in these words: "Their emphasis on the fact that states, in spite of legal omnipotence, should be subject in moral restraints is a desirable reaction against the idealization of the state and the doctrine that state is an end in itself, free from all moral restraint".

SOVEREIGNTY IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISATION

Sovereignty is the supreme power of the state over its territor and people. However, over the decades, sovereignty of a state undergoing metamorphic transformation. The era of Liberalisatio Privatisation and Globalisation (LPG) has brought the relevance ( sovereignty into an open debate from a water light compartmen sovereignty is evolving to a single sovereignty i.e., world governmen

GLOBALIZATION AND THE STATE

The word Globalization holds much weight in the context < present world. In the post cold war era, the situation of the worl has changed considerably. The world today is commonly referre to as a 'global village' owing to smallness brought about b improved means of communication. In this global village the mo crucial phenomenon is globalization, which means a situation th. contains aspects placed beyond national or localised interests i the inter-national platform.

Though globalization caters to a variety of fields, its mo significant repercussion has occurred in the field of economics. Th is because there has been a distinct division between economical developed and economically under-developed countries in the wor in the post-colonial era. In order to overcome this econom disparity, cumulative efforts of the entire world, specially that the developed countries is required. The trend towards the evolutic of global society is generally thought on economic terms and terms of revolution in communication technologies. As a result globalization, there is much greater economic integration.

It has to be understood that the term 'globalization' reflects more comprehensive level of interaction that had occurre suggesting something different from the word 'international', implies a diminishing importance of national border ar strengthening identities that stretch beyond those in particul country or region. In other words, globalization can be defined i "the intensification of worldwide social relations which link dista localities in such a way that local happening are shaped by ever occuring many miles away and vice-versa."

104

Basic Concepts of Political Science

CHALLENGES TO SOVEREIGNTY

Some forces and global events have posed a challenge to the concept of sovereignty. To a greater extent they have threatned the idea of sovereignty by threatning its very existence. Prominent among them are discussed as follows:

1. Imperialism and colonialism:

Imperialism has a long history. Originally imperialism meant the formation of an empire, i.e., a set of different countries which are ruled by the government or the ruler of one particular country.

In modern times, it found a new expression in the form of 'colonialism'. Imperialism means the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory whereas colonialism, which is almost always a consequence of imperialism, is the implanting of settlements on distant territory. In actual practice, however, the term 'imperialism' is used more comprehensively. It includes various expressions of 'colonialism' also.

Modern forms of imperialism are the product of expansion of trade and industry in several countries of Europe. For example, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, among others, sought to set up their colonies in a number of countries in Africa, Asia and America for the expansion of their trade and industry after their own national consolidation. They started exploiting the natural and human resources of those countries to strengthen their own economies.

When capital accumulates to such an extent that it cannot at all find profitable use in the main capitalist countries, they are forced to look abroad for profitable outlets. Lenin identified three driving forces behind the imperialist expansion: search for new spheres of investment, new markets and new sources of raw materials. Foreign trade allows capitalists to secure a higher rate of return than that available at

home. Overseas investment opens up new sources of labour and markets, and allows access to raw materials at extremely cheaper rates.

Sovereignty

105

2. Neocolonialism:

Neo-colonialism denotes the strategy of a colonial power which does not maintain its political domination in a foreign territory, but continues its economic exploitation by using it as a source of cheap labour and raw materials as well as a big market for its industrial products. The new nations or the developing countries, with their vast size and population and low level of industrial development, remain the chief source of supply of raw materials for the developed world. But the price levels for such products are largely dictated by the rich countries until they can organize themselves into a semi-cartel, like the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). For other products, such organizations simply do not exist.

In the absence of sufficient capital and technical expertise required for their industrialization, the developing countries are forced to make use of their resources in labour-intensive industries with a low margin of profit. On the other hand, developed countries make use of their resources in capital-intensive and technology-intensive industries with a high margin of profit.

Thus international trade continuously operates to the disadvantage of the developing countries. The victims of neocolonialism hardly find a way to solve their problems-of poverty, unemployment and technological backwardness or to stop their exploitation. Thus Chile, Brazil, Panama and other Latin American countries continue to be the source of cheap raw materials and cheap labour for the industries of the United States. Similarly, the countries like Taiwan, Malaysia and Philippines continue to serve as backyards for the Japanese industries. Outwardly, the developing countries may appear to be sovereign but the colonial powers subvert their sovereignty by using them as back waters. r-

3. Multinational Corporations (MNCs):

The developed countries invest their capital in the developing countries through Multinational Corporations (MNCs) which manufacture and market a variety of consumers goods within those countries and earn huge profits for the countries of their origin. This gives them an opportunity to make use of cheap labour as well as raw materials of the developing countries for their own

106 Basic Concepts of Political Science

advantage. Again, the developing countries also serve as a provider of cheap labour for the production of components in consumer goods assembled else where requisite expertise is available. Often the poorer countries lack the expertise or investment capital to benefit from the marketing of finished products, but they can produce the labour for factories owned and built by companies based in richer countries. Even the highly skilled labour of the developing countries, like doctors, engineers and other professionals, produced at a high public cost, is sometimes directly transferred to the developed world for want of adequate career opportunities in their own countries. This phenomenon is called 'brain drain'.

4. Common Global Market:

Now it is increasingly realized that the economies of major powers were linked with the world economy. For instance, it was discovered that the United States, Western Europe and Japan had become dependent on foreign sources of energy and other non-fuel mineral resources. Then, Japan had emerged as a major international economic actor whereas the United States has become the world's greatest debtor nation. Western Europe has created a single European Common Market. The third world countries were groaning under a heavy debt burden, and its large segments were still wanting in economic development. A large part of the world had been transformed into a single financial market thanks to the development of electronic banking.

Increasing importance of economic issues in world politics became evident in so many other areas also. Thus, when Iraq conquered Kuwait in 1990, many countries feared that their economies would be hard hit by Iraq's control of a large part of the world's oil reserves. Again the economies of various nations were so interlinked that an event taking place thousands of miles away will affect them.

Under the circumstances, it is natural to ask: if all nation-states have become interdependent in their economic relations, environmentally and even emotionally, how can a particular nation claim absolute sovereignty in its external relations? At what point the issues of national importance end and those of international

Sovereignty 107

importance begin? How can needy nations lay hands on those essential and rare resources which are the exclusive monopoly of the few nations? Which nations are responsible to control worldwide terrorism, drug-trafficking and environmental degradation? The concept of external sovereignty of nation-state will have to be revised suitably in order to deal with such situations.

EFFECTS OF GLOBALISATION ON SOVEREIGNTY

1. Loss of Sovereignty:

The big and mighty powers in quest of markets enter all countires in the world where they enjoy a relative advantage. The poorer countries in order to get out of their problems join hands with the big nations. But in the name of the free market economy and the 'Global Village', these powers subjugate the small and poor nations to act as the big powers wants to and convert them into 'Banana Republics' or 'Satellite Republics'. Bowing our heads before others is nothing but surrender of soveriegnty.

2. Cultural Invasion :

The concept of Global Village speaks of the world as a very small place where everything is available. In the name of globalisation, anything to everything is exported to different parts of the world. During the process, people come across new culture and naturally get attracted to it, however bad, because it is brand new to them. For example, the hippy culture, the rock culture, the pop culture, the disco culture, the discotheque culture were never known to India though people only fancied it. But today, they have become an integral part of our lifestyle at the cost of local culture and tradition. Over a period of time, people become strangers to their own culture becasue of the external influence. Without a culture of its own, a state loses its identity and credibility.

3. Enslavement of Tastes :

Every country has its distinct food and tastes. But globalisation changes everything. It makes a person to behave in a way they want rather than the way he wants to Iive. This does not happen explicitly, but in a slow and steady manner. For instance, just a decade ago, if

108 Basic Concepts of Political Science

anyone would say that water is sold at Rs. 12 per bottle, he would have been called a mad cap. But today, we pay Rs. 12 for a bottle of water! Similarly chips was our natural savoury made of potatoes. But today the transnational companies with all advertisement and publicity, sell the same chips in a different packing and we fight to buy them. The most horrible example is that of salt. Gandhi took out the Dandi March to state to the British that the Indians have complete rights over the salt produced by them. But today, foreign com-• panies sell salt to India! The enslavement will be to such an extent that natives act more foreign than the foreigners.

4. Uneven Distribution :

Though the globalisation is hailed as a boon to mankind, the benefits are largely reaped by the developed countries.Because, markets do not necessarily ensure that the benefits of increased efficiency are shared by all. In trying to opt for globalization through major policy changes, many of the poorest countries have lost direction and have become worse off (ex : Brazil and Mexico). In transforming their economies many governments have lost power. The classic example being Gorbachev's government. He tried to transform a communist economy into a capitalist economy whole sale and as a result lost control over the process and lost power.

5. Promotes Insecurity :

In the name of globalisation the MNCs or Transnational Companies (TNC) with investment running into thousands of crores enter the markets of poor and developing countries assert themselves by dictating terms to the government. This develops a sense of insecurity not only for the government but also for the people.

The UNDP 1999 Human Development Report titled, "Reforms with a Human Face" notes that "in the globalising world ... people I are confronting new threats to human security including economic, j health, cultural, personal, environmental and political insecurity".

-

Chapter

4

LAW AND JUSTICE

■^ Law

0 Meaning and Definitions

■^ Schools of Law •

0 Historical School

0 Philosophical School

3 Comparative School r'

0 Sociological School

0 Marxian School

* Law and Governance

* Liberty -

0 Meaning and Kinds

■^ Equality -

0 Meaning and Kinds

LAW

It is through the instrumentality of law and administration that the state seeks to realise its purposes.

Law is also the principle mechanism to ensure peaceful change.

It is also the means to realise justice in society.

As such, some thinkers consider law to be the essence of the state.

Maclver considers the state, both the child and the parent of law".

There is the law which governs the state and the law (i.e., the constitutional law) by means of which the state governs. It is, in fact, inconceivable for the modern industrial society to function without the help of law and the courts of law.

As Maclver observes, "without law, there is no order, and without order men are lost, not knowing where they go, not knowing that they do.

Meaning:

The word 'law' comes from the old Teutonic root 'lag' which means to lay, to place, to set, or to fix something in an even manner.

for this reason, something positive or imposed; it is something laid down or set.

Thus, the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as a rule of conduct imposed by authority.

In a deeper sense, the 'word' law originates from the Latin word 'jus' that is essentially connected with another Latin word 'jungere' implying' primarily a bond or a tie.

So, the term 'law' denotes primarily 'joining or fitting that readily glides into the sense of hiding or obliging'.

The term 'law' carries different sense.

Keeping it in view, Benn and Peters describe it as that part of it which the state should enforce, or a system of rules held to be binding or obligatory, or a system of rules aimed at realising justice, or a system of rules backed by coercive sanctions.

However, in the most widely understood sense, the term law means 'a body of rules enforced by the courts'.

Evolution:

From the very beginning thinkers have tried to discover the significance of law to the State and society.

In his Republic, Plato gave greater importance to law.

Aristotle was of the view that "uniform laws uniformly administered" was the mark of a good state and defined law as "reason unaffected by desire".

The Romans developed the idea of law to a remarkable extent. Cicero said: "For as the laws govern the magistrate, so that magistrate governs the people, and it can truly be said that the magistrate is a speaking law and the law a silent magistrate".

Justinian's 'Digest' is a landmark in the evolution of law. In developing the concept of law, the Romans evolved three closely related concepts, jus naturale (natural law), jus gentium (law common to nations) and jus civile (civil law).

In the Middle Ages the common law of the Church carried forward the tradition of the natural law and adjusted it to a Church-centred society. In the economic and social fields where feudalism held sway for a few centuries, there were different laws for different classes of people. This system continued in France up to the Revolution.

Coming to the modern period in Western political thought, Grotius (1583-1645) defined law as a "dictate of right reason". "The mother of law", he wrote, "is human nature itself". Law is to follow the dictates of reason rather than the impulses of subjective and particular desire.

John Austin, contended that, law is a command and the principal reason for obeying it is fear.

Definitions:

Woodrow Wilson : "Law is that portion of the established thought and habit which has gained distinct and formal recognition in the shape of uniform rules backed by the authority and power of government."

T.E. Holland: "Law is a general rule of external human action enforced by a sovereign political authority."

Pound : "The law constitutes body of principles recognised or enforced by public and regular tribunals in the administration of justice."

T.H.Green : "The law is a system of rights and

obligations which the State enforces."

Salmond : "The law is the body of principles

recognized and applied by the State in the administration of justice."

John Erskine : "Law is the command of a sovereign,

containing a common rule of life for his subjects, and obliging them to obedience."

Gettell : "Law is the command of an authorized public organ acting within the sphere of its legal competence."

Soltau : "A law is a rule of behaviour for the

members of a state, the disregard of which meets with a penalty, which will be enforced by the state's machinery of power."

To sum up, law has the following features:

• Law is an expression of the will of the state as expressed by the only constituted authority.

• Law is enforced by the state it is valid because state enforces it.

• Law is concerned only with the external aspect of human • actions.

• Law is universal in its application.

• The violation of law may lead to punishment; and

• The end of law is individual and general welfare.

KINDS OF LAW

Law has been very broadly classified based on the angle from which a jurist looks at it.

For example, based on the relation it seeks to adjust between people and their organised communities, it has been classified into two national and international.

On the basis of its formation and sanctity behind it, law is divided into two parts constitutional and ordinary.

Based on the nature of wrong and the kind of remedy available to it, law is classified into two parts — civil and criminal law. So the classification of law depends on the basis of the juristic view.

The kinds of law may be broadly classified as follows:

1. Natural law

2. Constitutional law

3. Ordinary law

4. Administrative law

5. International law and

6. National law

1. Natural Law:

Natural law strongly advocates individualism and contends that there should be no laws to regulate or restrict individual behaviour.

It contends that an individual's life should not be restricted by any coercive power.

It means that individuals should be left to themselves to live as they like.

Natural law reminds us of 'law of the jungle'.

In such a system, only the strong and the fittest survive by subverting weak and humble.

This kind of law could be thought of in pre-stone age, unfit to a civilized society. In present times, it cannot be even thought of.

2. Constitutional law:

The constitutional law is the highest and fundamental law of the land which defines organisation of the state, determines the functions of various departments and establishes the relationship between the governor and the governed.

According to Dicey, constitutional law includes all rules which directly or indirectly affect the distribution or exercise of power in the state which are enforced by the courts.

The constitutional law may be written, as is the case in majority of the states, or unwritten based on customs, usages and judicial decisions as exists in Great Britain.

3. Ordinary Law:

Ordinary law is subordinate to constitutional law.

Ordinary law is made and enforced by the competent authorities of the state.

It determines the relationship between and among citizens and between the state and its citizens.

A greater part of modern law is through legislation and the courts recognise this law alone and the government guarantees enforcement to their decisions.

For example, the Parliament in India and the Congress of United States has the authority to make legislations on all matters concerning the state.

4. Administrative Law:

Administrative law deals with the manner in which government through their various organs, exercise their power conferred upon them by the constitutional law of the land.

It deals with organisation and competence of public authorities and offers remedies available against officers for administrative incompetence or negligence in discharge of official duties.

To deal with the problems arising out of administration, there is Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at the Centre and also Administrative Tribunals at the state level. In Karnataka it is called Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT).

5. International Law:

International law is a body of rules and regulations which the sovereign states are expected to follow, observe and honour in their interaction with one another.

It is not a sovereign law-making body nor there is any power to enforce it. But, international law is essential for an orderly and civilized behaviour of states. Increasing threats to peace with the advent of nuclear arms has further strengthened the case for a strong international law.

6. National Law:

National law is a law formulated by the sovereign authority of the state applicable to all people and associations living within territorial limits or jurisdiction of the state. National law is also known as Municipal law. It determines the public and private relations between and among people living in a state.

SCHOOLS OF LAW

Regarding the schools of law, there are broadly five schools of law with divergent view points. They are discussed as follows:

1. HISTORICAL SCHOOL OF LAW

The prominent exponents of the Historical School are Gustav Von Hugo, Savigny, C.F. Puchta, Henry Maine, F.W. Maitland and Frederick Pollock. According to this school, law is not the deliberate creation of the state but the result of the silent forces working in society. Law exists independently of the state. Force is not the real sanction of law. In fact, the function of the state is not to create law but merely to recognize and enforce it. People obey the law not because of the fear of force but because of habit, opinion or moral consensus. In the words of Savigny, "Law is the organ of folk right. It moves and grows like every other expression of the life of the people; it is formed by custom and popular feeling, through the operation of silent forces, and not by the arbitrary will of a legislator."

The historical school thus puts emphasis on legal history rather than on legal philosophy. It refers to the past in order to find out the law that has been guiding the conduct of people through various phases of history. It maintains that legislation can be effective only when reinforced by customs. Enacted law is only a formal embodiment of historical law. No authority, howsoever powerful, can disregard custom

and social moves. If law affects customs, custom also in turn affects law and, what is more important, affects even the spirit of law-abidingness. Law is law not because it has been commanded by the sovereign but because it is willingly accepted as such by the great mass of the people. In short, the exponents of the Historical School have criticised Austin who regarded law as sovereign's commands and overlooks the historical forces and the influence of customs and usages. In the words of Woodrow Wilson, "Law is that portion of established thought and habit which has gained distinct and formal recognition in the shape of uniform rules backed by the authority and power of government."

Hallowell has summed up the main points of historical schools as follows:

• Law is relative to time and place and to particular people.

• Law is found not in reason or in conscience but in the historical process.

• The theory of natural rights should be replaced by the idea of actual historical rights of people.

• Since reform is impossible, the historical process must be allowed to work itself out without hindrance.

• The sanction of law is the social pressure behind it and not any conception of inherent injustice.

The historical school of thought has contributed elements of value to the understanding of the nature of law. It points out that legal systems are changing and need modification in order to meet new conditions. In the words of Gettell, "It furnishes the background for legal analysis and it points out that legal systems are constantly changing and need modification to meet condition." It has corrected the formal and static concept of law advanced by analytical jurists.

But the historical school errs in reducing the element of command, present in law; to mere "metaphor." It ignores factors other than customs. It also inclines towards conservatism because of its reverence for the past and its distrust of deliberate efforts at legal reform.

2. PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL OF LAW

Joseph Kohler is the modern exponent of the philosophical school. The thinkers of this school introduce the idea of justice in law and are concerned with the creation of an ideal system of law. Their interest lies in the abstract law rather than in the actual law, past or present. In the nineteenth century, they were interested in metaphysical discussions of the existing laws and bought to create a perfect law. In the twentieth century they gave chief attention to social interests and ideals, and tried to formulate theories of social justice. According to Kohler, "The juristic philosopher is as much concerned with the ideal as with the actual content of the law. Law is both the product of culture and a means of furthering it." I The state should define and give effect to the standards of right law.

Thus, the philosophical jurist treats law as an idea, and seeks to build an ideal system of law in the light of which they view ] reality. But their approach is too idealistic to be real or practicable.

It deals with abstractions and is far removed from objectivity. The concept of justice is vague.

3. COMPARATIVE SCHOOL OF LAW

Comparative law is the study of differences and similari¬ties between the law of different countries, more generally, of the different legal systems, including the common law, the civil law, the socialist law and the Islamic law. This theory is of re¬cent origin. It includes the description and analysis of foreign legal systems. In this, each one is analysed in its constitutive elements, how these differ in the different systems, and how these elements are combined into a system.

The leading exponent of this school was Paul Vinogradoff. The exponents of the Comparative School of Law advocate the examination and comparison of the legal system of the past and the present with a view to arrive at certain conclusions. This school seeks help from other social sciences for its material and gets inturn influenced during the second half of the nineteenth century by developments in Darwinian biology, in comparative philology and anthropology. Comparisons are no doubts valuable aids and they take us nearer to truth. However, no wholesale comparison can serve the desired purpose and fullfill the needs.

For example, comparative law can help international legal institutions, such as those of the United Nations System, in analyzing the laws of different countries regarding their treaty obligations. Comparative law would be applicable to private international law when developing an approach to interpreta¬tion in a conflicts analysis. Comparative lawrnay contribute to legal theory by creating categories and concepts of general ap¬plication. Comparative law may also provide insights into the problem of legal transplants, i.e. the transplanting of law and legal institutions from one system to another.

4. SOCIOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF LAW

Duguit, Krabbe, and Laski belong to the Sociological School. According to Duguit, laws are obeyed not because there is someone

to enforce them, but because they are the conditions of social living. "Social solidarity" is the key phrase and laws are relative to it. They are so vital to social living that it is in the self-interest of the individual to obey them. Laws in the fundamental sense are the rules of conduct which normal men know they must observe in order to preserve and promote the benefits derived from life in society. The sanction behind law is primarily psychological resting in each individual's awareness of the social approval or rejection of his conduct according to its conformity or non-conformity with fundamental social desires.

According to Krabbe, man obeys laws out of a sense of right. Laws are above the State and independent of them. They are rooted in man's standards of value and judgement. He says: "The rule of law.- is due to human reaction to the sense of justice and is not a matter of eternal legal authority but an internal human matter".

As against this view, it is argued that sense of right is only a thin veil for "self-interest". Even if sense of right can be given something like a precise meaning it is bound to vary from century to century, from nation to nation, from group to group, and from man to man.

5. MARXIAN SCHOOL OF LAW

According to Lenin, law and state cannot be studied apart from each other. Law draws its force, and obtains its content from the state. An analysis of the material conditions of life, the production relationships is therefore, necessary in order to understand the true nature of the law and the state. The economic structure of society constitutes the real basis upon which the juidicial and political superstructure is built. According to Marx, the state is an organization of the class of "haves" to defend itself from the class of "have-nots," it sustains the domination of one class over another. Under a class society, it protects private property as the basis of exploitation and thus the interests of those who own the means and implements of production are protected. Legal relationships are rooted in the material conditions of life, and laws merely express the interests and will of the dominant class. State statutes are the forms wherein the dominant class in a given society make all other

classes to conduct to its advantage. According to Marx, "law is an expression of society's general interests and needs, as they emerge from a given material means of production."

The Marxian approach explains how the general interests and needs of society, having a specific economic structure, find expression in law. It however, underrates the significance of law as a mechanism of peaceful change. Secondly, the Marxian view tends to underplay the possibility of the existence of considerable freedom of action as well as civil liberties within the legal framework of a class society. Thirdly, the Marxian view does not give due importance to the advantage of the rule of law in the form of protection of the citizen under provisions of the due process.

Critical Estimate:

With regard to the above schools, we can say that none of them contains the whole truth. They supplement and complement each other. Laws are not merely a fiat of the State. They are not just commands of a determinate human superior. They are dependent on the social, moral, economic, and religious outlook of the people. They are also dependent on what the community considers to be fair and just. No law will be obeyed very long if it does not accord with the people's ideas of right and wrong.

LAW AND GOVERNANCE

Governance has now become the topic of the day. Democracy is the best form of government of course, but good governance has now come to be its integral feature. Mere governance is not enough, it should be good as well. So this concept implies that the governance of a country should be neither malfunctional, nor dysfunctional, nor even functional for its own sake, it should be well-functional. Governance is not simply something that governments achieve or do by themselves. It very much depends upon the cooperation and involvement of a large number of citizens and their organisations. These requirements are considered not only essential for good governance but are also important for sustainable human development.

Elements of Governance:

1. Political accountability including acceptability of the political system by the people and regular elections to legitimise the ex-ercise of political power.

2. Freedom of association and participation by various religious, social, economic, cultural and professional groups in the pro¬cess of governance.

3. An established legal framework based on the rule of law, inde-pendence of judiciary to protect human rights, secure social justice and guard against exploitation and abuse of power.

4. Bureaucratic accountability, openness and transparency in ad-ministration.

5. Freedom of information and expression needed to the formula¬tion of public policies, decision-making, monitoring and evalu¬ation of government performance.

6. A sound administrative system leading to efficiency and effec-tiveness. This, in turn, means the value of money and cost effec-tiveness.

7. Cooperation between the government and civil society organisations.

The term governance in the modern context is explained by Rousseau thus:

"Governance is a more encompassing phenomenon than government. It embraces governmental institutions, but is also subsumes informal, non-governmental mechanisms whereby those persons and organizations within its purview move ahead, satisfy their needs, and fulfill their wants. A straightforward definition of governance is : "The capacity to get things done without the legal competence to command that they be done". The concept of governance, thus, frees administrative studies from conventional formalism. At the same time, it opens up possibilities of drawing on society's alternative collective problem-solving fora and devices. Governance, so conceived, is more a network of multiple agencies and organizations than a fixed "government" agency. Governance, in this context, stands for establishment operation and networking of social institutions. Concretely, it manifests itself in formal rules and regulations, decision making procedures, and programmatic activities that serve to define social practices.

Governance, in this context, is a way of crafting social institutions as a matter of public concern. To get things done through formally constituted governments is not, therefore, the only way available for collective problem-solving.

The governance highlights the importance of rule of law, human rights, participatory development and democratization. The governing process should provide opportunities for the people to actively participate in decision-making, and the fruits of government must be universally shared and not captured by an influential minority. People's perception about how the governing process is, serves as the barometer of legitimacy of governance. Empowerment is thus a precondition of good governance.

Good governance is an ideal which can be realised only in a truly representative democracy in view of the fact that it ensures establishment of responsible government and prevalence of the rule of law. For

example , Indian constitution establishes such a system. Not only that, laws made by the state from time to time have supplemented what is given in the bare provisions of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the Representation of the People Act of 1950, Representation of the People Act of 1951, Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1990, Freedom of information Act, 2002 etc. Besides, a number of statutory commissions havd been set up for the purpose of protecting the rights of the minorities, women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, hurnan rights etc. The aim of all such measures was to provide a clean and transparent administration.

The Information Act made some significant suggestions in the interest of the future of public life. These are:

1. A code of conduct for ministers including public servants.

2. The integrity of the members of Parliament and state legisla¬tures will be a great factor in creating a favourable social cli¬mate against corruption.

3. Political parties cannot be run and elections cannot be fought without large funds. But these funds should comeopenlyand it should be regulated by some rules.

4. Art. 311 of the constitution should be amended so as to sim¬plify the procedure for handling corruption cases relating to public servants.

5. Sec. 21 of the IPC should be amended in a way that a public servant is one who is in the service or pay of any Government central, State or Local - or of any government company.

7. An independent body (Central Vigilance Commission) should be set up to investigate the cases of corruption involving public servants of the Government of India.

Political Criminalisation:

Corruption is a curse, it may become a cause of catastrophe when mixed with criminalisation. Administration is established to book the criminals and the courts enforce the laws made by the legislature. But the entire apparatus of state is vitiated when the law-breakers enter the legislative chambers, occupy ministerial berths, and then subvert the judicial process. The cases pending in the courts are withdrawn, the prosecution is made weak, the witnesses are terrified or purchased, the evidence is destroyed, the judges are influenced, and every possible effort is made to immunise the social and economic offenders from the clutches of law and justice.

The Supreme Court created history by delivering its verdict in the Association for Democratic Reforms Case on 2 May, 2002 in which it directed the Election Commission of India to call for following information on an affidavit from every person filing nomination paper for election to the Parliament or State legislatures:

1. Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past-if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine.

2. Prior to six months of filing of nomination whether the candi¬date is accused in any pending case, of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court of law. If so, the details thereof.

3. The assets (immovable, movable, bank balance etc) of the can-didates and his/her spouse and that of the defendants.

4. The Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any overdues of any public financial institution or government dues.

5. The educational qualifications of the candidate.

LIBERTY AND EQUALITY

LIBERTY

The term 'liberty' comes from the Latin word 'liber' meaning 'free'. It has not meant the same thing for all thinkers of western political philosophy. It is owing to this diversity that the negative and positive dimensions of liberty have been differently treated, particularly by the thinkers of the English Liberal School. Liberty means the absence of constraints and not the absence of restraints and limitations. The essense of liberty is well summarised by Herbert Spencer thus: "Every man is free to do that which he wills provided he does not infringe the equal freedom of any other man".

Development of Liberty:

The concept of liberty has developed mainly in modern times and is closely associated with the philosophy of individualism. In the ancient and medieval periods, the concept of liberty in the present form was missing. Greek thinkers, Socrates and Plato, refused to accept the notion of individual liberty against society or the state. Socrates refused to run away from the prison and readily drank the hemlock because he believed that freedom lies irythe obedience to the laws of the state or society. For Greek statesman Pericles, "Freedom meant advancement and political activity for full citizenship". Liberty involved participation in the affairs of the state or society. They did not have any rights as such against the state. Individual liberty as the product of rights enjoyed in modern times, did not exist.

During the medieval period, there was no idea of liberty of the individual as such. Human liberty was a prisoner of faith in God. In those days, the ideas of salvation and freedom of soul were prominent. The Reformation emphasized the freedom of conscience.

As a result of the Renaissance, a multi-dimensional demand for liberty was made. Religious liberty was demanded against the Church and the Papacy. Economic liberty of free contract and free market was demanded against the feudal economic order. Political liberty was demanded against the monarchs. The demand for liberty was raised against the then existing religious, economic, social and moral order. The absence of restraints was regarded as a pre¬condition for individual liberty during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

J.S. Mill's Essay "On Liberty" (1859) is one of the classical defences of freedom. Mill divided the different spheres of human action into two parts : self-regarding and others-regarding actions. The individual was free with regard to self-regarding actions but was subject to the control of the government as regards others-regarding actions. To quote Mill, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign". The interference of the state in the liberty of an individual was justified only to prevent harm to others.

Definitions:

It is hard to define liberty in definite terms since it is used in a variety of senses. It conveys different ideas to different persons. With a capitalist or an industrialist, liberty lies in his freedom to earn as much profit as possible and exploit the labour of the workers to the maximum. A factory worker, on the other hand interprets liberty in his freedom from the exploitation of the factory owner. A landlord wants freedom to have as much share of produce from the landless peasant as possible but a landless peasant can see the image of liberty only when he is freed from exploitation of the landlord.

The following are the definitions of Liberty:

T.H. Green : "Liberty is the positive power or the capacity of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying".

G.D.H. Cole : "Liberty is the freedom of the individual to

express his personality without external hin¬drance".

"Liberty is the power of doing what we ought to will".

Ernest Barker

"Liberty is that the state treats each and ev¬ery moral person as a free agent, capable of developing his own capacities in his own way, and therefore, capable of enjoying and exercising the rights which are the condi¬tions of such development."

Herbert Spencer

"Every man is free to do that he wills pro¬vided he does not infringe the equal free¬dom of other man."

Harold I.Laski

"Liberty is the eager maintenance of that at-mosphere in which men have the opportu¬nity to be their best."

Garfield Gettell

"Liberty is the positive power of doing and enjoying those things which are worthy of enjoyment and work".

Massimo Salvobadori

"Liberty is free choice, each individuals own decision concerning his own course of ac¬tion; it belongs to himself, not to the exter¬nal world that surrounds him".

ASPECTS OF LIBERTY

Liberty has two aspects-negative and positive. Various writers emphasise either one or the other aspect of liberty.

Negative Liberty: ,■-

Negative liberty implies the absence of restraints and maximum freedom of action. It implies that the individual must be left alone to live his life as he desires without interference. Every law of the state is merely an encroachment upon liberty of man. Thus the state must only hinder the hindrances and limit itself to the minimum negative functions of maintaining law and order and protection of person and property. Beyond that it should not interfere in social, cultural, economic, or moral aspects of life. Liberty alone can enable a person to develop his personality. The State laws kill it.

Man must be left alone so far as he does not interfere with his neighbour. The state should guarantee only non interference by one with the other. So far as the choice of the individual is concerned, he must be his own master. The state should not impose restrictions upon him. The state should have only two functions to perform namely maintenance of internal law and order and the defence of the country against external aggression. All the rest should be left untouched for the free action on the part of the individual. In religion, social behaviour, economic life and all other aspects of man's life in society the individual should have complete freedom of action and thought.

The Individualist school of thought was the main supporter of this concept of Liberty. In fact, this school of thought wanted to allow maximum liberty to the rising industrial and commercial classes in England in the 18th Century. They wanted free enterprise and its is in their defence that this concept of liberty was put forward.

Positive Liberty:

Positive liberty means that the state creates positive conditions for a good life. The state should perform not merely negative functions creating hindrances but must organise positive services and conditions which individuals cannot create for themselves. It means the organisation of opportunities and the maintenance of those social and economic conditions without which there would be no real freedom for the common masses.

Positive liberty demands conditions which are essential to the harmonious development of the latent powers of an individual. In the words of Laski, "Liberty means the eager maintenance of that atmosphere in which men can have the opportunity to be their best selves." Laski further says, "I mean by liberty the absence of restraints upon the existence of those social conditions which in modern

civilisation are necessary guarantee of individual happiness." Thus positive liberty means the removal of hindrances from the path of good life and the creation of equal opportunities for all.

All the democratic states have more or less accepted this concept of positive liberty. The Welfare State is based on this concept.

It attempts to provide those services that are needed for a happy life. For instance, employment, free education, social services and insurance etc. In short, positive liberty advocates that the state must organise all those opportunities which man needs for the development of his personality. The state must not merely make declaration of rights but must also provide conditions for their maintenance.

Nature of Liberty:

Laski deals with the real meaning and nature of Liberty and identifies three important guarantees of this purpose. They are as follows:

(i) Liberty can never exist in the presence of special privileges. Unless one enjoys the same access to power as others, he lives in an atmosphere of eternal frustration.

(ii) There can be no liberty when rights of some depend upon the pleasures of others. The common rules must bind those who exercise power as well as those who are the subject of power.

(iii) The State action should be unbiased, though in any society, though some sections are certain to bend its authority in the -support of some special interests.

The meaning of liberty is generally taken in a wrong way as it is identified with the absence of restraints and limitations. It is taken synonymously with man's right to 'do what he likes'. Hobbes calls it 'licence' or 'condition to do what you like.' In a correct sense, liberty means man's right to do what is worth doing.

The restraints in social life decides good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, legal and illegal. In that sense, liberty means man's right to do what he wants for the sake of making the best possible development of his personality by following a course that is good, or right, or moral or lawful. The real meaning of liberty should be understood with the point in view that the liberty of an individual is relative to that of others.

KINDS OF LIBERTY

The term "liberty" has been used in a variety of ways. Montesquieu says that "there is no word that admits of more various significations, and has made more different impressions on the human mind than that of liberty." For a clear understanding of what liberty stands for, various meanings given to the term are distinguished.

NATURAL LIBERTY

Natural liberty, is generally used to identify with the unlimited right of man to do whatever he likes. Natural liberty is supposed to have been enjoyed by man independently prior to the existence of the State. With the emergence of the State absolute freedom of doing whatever one liked to do disappeared. While analysing his theory of Social Contract, Rousseau said, "What a man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to anything that tempts him, which he can obtain." But, such a condition of liberty is impossible. It is licence rather then liberty, as natural and unlimited liberty of one encroaches upon the natural rights of others. True liberty can only be realised in the State and not without it. The liberty of one is not a contravention of the liberty of another. It is, according to Herbert Spencer, freedom for every man "to do that which he wills provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

The doctrine of natural liberty, though earlier in origin, is closely connected with the idea of the law of nature. According to the Romans, Natural Law or Law of Nature was the law of reason which bound together men in social bonds under common rules of life. The Middle Ages identified this Natural Law with the Law of God and of the Church. However, natural liberty can exist only in a pre-civil society where the law of the jungle prevails. In a civilised society, each must treat all others as equal to himself. This is the true meaning of liberty. It is wrong to hold that natural rights confer the right to absolute freedom. Rights, as previously said, carry with them corresponding obligations.

CIVIL LIBERTY

Civil liberty, as opposed to natural liberty, refers to the liberty enjoyed by man in society. Freedom, to be real, involves the capacity to do or enjoy things in common with others, and no individual can permanently separate his own good from the common good.

Law and Justice

129

Truly free individual is the man who knows when to stress his need for freedom and when to realise the full advantage of social life, with all the restrictions it implies. Civil liberty is the personal liberty of individuals, either by themselves or in association with one another, to choose and pursue which they consider good, provided that all enjoy that liberty equally. It is both positive and negative in character and includes individual's right to free action and immunity from interference provided it does not interfere with the identical liberty of others. This means that all those essential rights must be clearly guaranteed and protected from arbitrary interference, both from other citizens and from government officials.

The Civil liberty of individuals is protected against encroachment on the part of other individuals or association of individuals by the laws of the State, enforced by the organs of government, specially the police and courts. If my liberty is infringed by the action of another, the laws of the Stage come to my rescue and help me in the realization of my liberty. It means an adjustment of relations of the individual through the laws of the State. The State recognises the basic rights of man, made them definite and equally enjoyable by all classes in the State, and assure to all protection against encroachments.. Gettell aptly says: "Definite law, sure enforcement and equality before the law marked the advance of civil liberty of man to man."

Protection of civil liberty against the interference of government is of comparatively recent origin. In the earlier stages of the development of the State the ruler personified its sovereignty and he exercised full control on the lives of his subjects. With the advent of democracy a definite distinction was made between the State and government and checks were placed on the manner and extent of governmental action. The principles that defined and regulated the conduct of government, set a limit to its actions against the individual, and protected the rights and privileges of the individual, constituted the fundamental law of the State.

Every democratic State must now have its fundamental law, may be written or unwritten. When the fundamental law is written and is embodied in a written document, called the constitution, it clearly prescribes how government is organised, the scope of its

0

Basic Concepts of Political Science

powers, the manner in which powers are exercised, and the general guarantees of civil liberties. The Fundamental Rights, which written constitutions usually contain, defines the sphere of civil liberties and prescribes remedies in case of their infringement. In a country, where the fundamental law is unwritten, as in Britain, the organisation of the government, the scope of its powers, the manner of their exercise and the guarantees of civil liberties are primarily the result of traditions, customs,, usages and precedents or conventions of the Constitution. Fundamental law or the constitution is, therefore, the surest guarantee of the protection of civil liberty against the interference of the government.

Civil liberty can be ensured under two conditions:

1. When the rights of private action are clearly defined in clear terms in order to cover the widest possible range of such action.

2. When the defined rights are strictly enforced by definite remedies which can be applied as speedily and effectively as possible.

The Constitution of the United States contains a Bill of Rights and it further provides that "no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without the process of law." Liberty, according to Laski,

"is never real unless the government can be called to account; and it should always be called to account when it invades right." In the United States any law or action of the national or State government can be challenged in a court of law, if it amounts to depriving a man of his civil liberty. There is no doctrine of the 'security of the State' in the United States and the legislatures cannot suspend or abrigde an individual right on the ground of the security of the State. It is for the courts to decide and determine whether there is a "clear and present danger" to the existence of the social order so as to justify curtailment of civil liberty. The Fundamental Rights in India has a special constitutional provision for their enforcement.

Civil liberty is not absolute. It is subject to limitations in order to secure or promote the greater interests of the community. The I State may protect civil liberty through its laws against interference by other individuals, or through its constitutional system against

Law and Justice 131

interference by any single organ of government. But the State always possesses the power, through its legal machinery, to limit and abridge civil liberty in public interest.

POLITICAL LIBERTY

Political liberty is the liberty of free citizens to participate in the discussion and direction of the common affairs of the State. Laski defines political liberty as the power to be active in the affairs of the State. It means that all citizens have the right to participate in the public affiars and have access to positions of authority. Laski explains political liberty thus: "I must be able to announce my opinion and to positions of authority. I must be able to announce my opinion and to concert with others in the announcement of opinion." Leacock calls political liberty "constitutional liberty", the right of the people to choose their government, which should be responsible to the general body of the people. Gilchrist takes political liberty as "practically synonymous with democracy" and gives the mass of the people not only a sphere of freedom, but also a share in authority.

The mere recognition of civil rights was not sufficient to protect them against the exercise of despotic authority. Therefore, people must also posses the power to compel the government to accept their point of view and ultimately to replace it, if it continued to act in violation of their will. The transfer of the ultimate authority of retaining or changing government into the hands of the people is political liberty.

Political liberty signifies the following:

1. The right of citizens to vote and to elect their representatives.

However, aliens, lunatics, children, and in some countries even women, are excluded from the right to vote, although the mod¬em tendency is to extend this right to all adults, men and women.

2. The right to be elected. That is to say, every citizen who pos-sesses the right to elect representatives, must also posses the right to get himself elected and serve in his own way.

The right to public office. That is to say, Every citizen who possesses the required qualifications as prescribed by the laws of the State has the right to be elected. The right to remain in office cannot, however, be held permanently or for an indefi¬nite period of time. Representatives must be elected periodi¬cally, and so do the holders of offices in the government; and

4. The right to criticism. The right of the citizens to be well-in¬formed about all public matters (right to information) and to freely discuss and criticise the policy of government. The citi¬zens should be sufficiently vigilant about public affairs, as eter¬nal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Political liberty can be realised in countries which are democratically governed. It is another name for self-government and refers to political rights possessed by the people, that is, the share of governing authority which the State confers upon its said subjects. Political liberty is also the necessary complement of civil liberty.

For political liberty to be practical, according to Laski , two conditions are essential.

1. Adequate facilities for all and each one should have equal access to education. Because, those who are consciously trained as a privileged class will be with the spirit of governing others who are trained to submit to their authority.

2. The presence of an honest and free press. The press disseminates information and knowledge. For the enjoyment of political liberty it is essential that the news supplied by the press should be honest, straightforward, and unbiased, so that both the electors and the representatives may have real facts to decide issues.

Economic Liberty:

It has been rightly said that economic liberty must precede political liberty. Liberty is meaningless when hunger, starvation, and destitution stare at a man at every step. Nor can there be any liberty, when there is a constant fear of unemployment and insufficiency. As Gandhi has aptly said, "for a hungry man food is God."

By economic freedom we mean "security and opportunity to find reasonable significance in the earning of one's daily bread." It is the freedom from want and freedom from fear. For liberty to be

Law and Justice

133

real, it is essential that every citizen should be free from the constant fear and must be safeguarded against the wants of tomorrow. Economic liberty aims at the creation of that structure of society wherein there is sufficiency for all (food-shelter-clothing)before there is abundance for the few. In such a society there is no class domination. The worker is not merely the seller of labour and recipient of orders, but a producer of services who finds in his work, scope for the improvement of his personality.

Economic liberty implies democracy in industry, which is popular in the present times as the labour participation is management. Democracy in industry means two things. In the first place, it means that workers possess certain economic rights. These rights consist in the individual's right to work, right to reasonable hours of work, and to a minimum wage, right to leisure by the regulation of hours of work, right to benefits against unemployment, sickness, accidents and old age, right to form unions and to fight for the redress of his grievances. Secondly, democracy in industry means that workers should have positive control in industry. In the absence of positive control, there is no spontaneity, initiative is frustrated and workers work mechanically. They subject themselves to the "routine" nature of work for fear of starvation. A system built upon fear cannot release the creative talent, and it is, therefore, not in tune with liberty.

NATIONAL LIBERTY

National liberty is of great importance as it provides a basis for civil, political and economic liberty. There is national liberty in a state when the people are completely free from any foreign control and have a government of their own. National liberty is possible when a state attains a full sovereign status. National liberty means freedom of nation to solve its problems according to its own will without any interference from any quarter. A nation should be free to determine its foreign policy. It has to struggle for attaining national liberty. The American colonies had to fight for their liberty and the same was done by the people of India who became independent on 15 August 1947. Till 1947, India was under the colonial domination of the British but since 15 August 1947, India has emerged sovereign and gained national liberty.

134 Basic Concepts of Political Science

The love of one's country (patriotism) even in its narrow form, evokes feelings which cannot be easily aroused by other. The ideal of national liberty has played an important part in world history. Wars of independence are still eulogised by the bulk of mankind. So long as we are governed by the concept of sovereign nation states, freedom from the control of other states is essential to the concept of national liberty.

MORAL LIBERTY

Moral liberty implies the right of an individual to act according to his own conscience. It is not possible under a totalitarian regime because the people there are required to act according to the orders oi the

government and not according to the dictates oi their inner conscience. The morality of the people under dictatorship is dictated by the dictator and not decided by the individuals themselves.

Moral liberty is contained in the idealistic interpretation of scholars like Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Green, Bradley and Bosanquet. Kant described moral liberty as the "autonomy of the rational will". In the opinion of Hegel, such liberty implies that the individual should recognise and perform his duties properly. To Bradley, moral liberty is connected with individual's self-realisation that has a meaning only in the context of common good or welfare of all. Moral liberty is not concerned with the state but with one's own self. Without moral liberty, there is no free scope for the development of the personality of an individual. Thus, moral liberty is a very important characteristic of man.

INTERNATIONAL LIBERTY

The ideal of international liberty is based on the conviction that as the world becomes free, the use of force becomes meaningless and that there is no purpose in aggression against one another. The ideal of international liberty implies renunciation of war, limitation on the production of armaments, abandonment of the use of force and pacific settlement of disputes. Adequate curbs should be put on the strength of military force so that it may not crush the liberties of the local people or the people of a different culture.

Law and JusticeThe popular meaning of the term equality is that all men are equal and all should be entitled to identity of treatment. Those who subscribe to this meaning of equality, assert that all men are born equal and nature has willed them to remain so. This natural equality of man was practically recognized in the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) issued by the National Assembly of France. It said: "Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights." A similar statement is found in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

But nature has not created all men equal. Inequality is an inescapable, natural fact and it has to be accepted by society. Nature has endowed men with different capacities and so long as they differ in their wants, needs, and capacities in satisfying them, equality in its popular sense is impractical. Equality does not even imply identity of reward for effort.

Absolute equality is, in fact, impossible ideal. Nature itself has created such vital differences between men that no power can make and keep them equal. No one with eyes in his head can or will deny the existence of these human differences. There are, however, certain elements of equality which must be secured and this needs a certain levelling process in the existing order of things. Equality means, first of all, that special privileges of all kinds should J)e abolished. All barriers of birth, wealth, sex, caste, creed and colour should be removed so that no one suffers from any kind of social or political disability. There should be, in short, no difference between man and man and "whatever rights inherent in another by virtue of his being a citizen must be inherent and tothe same extent, in me also." It means that I am

entitled to the enjoyment of all those social and political privileges to which others are entitled. My vote in the election of the representatives is as valuable and potential as that of any other.

Development of Equality:

The problem of equality and inequality has figured in political thought since the earliest times. Aristotle discovered that inequality

136

Basic Concepts of Political Science

was a cause of rebellion in many states and defined justice as treating equals equally and unequals unequally. He insisted on recognition and maintenance of the existing inequalities in society - between master and slave, between the rich and the poor, between morally superior and morally inferior.

The Stoic philosophers (Zeno, Cicero and Seneca) gave the idea of universal brotherhood and citizenship which was based on natural law and reason and corresponds to the modern idea of equality. They opposed slavery and pleaded for natural equality among men. Cicero believed in a universal law of nature binding upon all men and all nations.

During the medieval period, Christianity raised the voice for equality in the beginning but soon it got converted into equality before God. It was contended that in the eyes of God all were equal, but there were inequalities on earth. During that period, feudalism emerged in Europe and unequal rules of aristocracy developed. Under feudalism, social inequality was consolidated by law. During the medieval period, social inequalities got legal recognition and legal privileges available to the clergy and the nobility were accepted in society.

The Renaissance and the Reformation played an important part in strentghening social and political system. The emerging middle class challenged the legal, social and political privileges of the feudal order. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, the American Declaration of Independence of 1 776 and the French Revolution of 1789 helped the cause of equality. Rousseau drew an important distinction between two types of inequalities found in social life: natural inequality and conventional inequality.

French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) which was inspired by Rousseaus's revolutionary ideas: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only upon public utility." The demand for economic equality was raised by Babeuf but he was killed in 1797.

In the nineteenth century, due to the Industrial Revolution, economic disparities had increased and the demand for economic equality got louder. Karl Marx associated the question of economic equality with the abolition of private property and classless society.

Law and Justice 137

During the nineteenth century, the movement for political equality also became stronger and adult franchise became the battle-cry of the democrats.

The twentieth century has witnessed many revolutionary struggles for equality. National movements emerged against imperialism in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The theory of Whiteman's burden was denounced. Various movements of the black people against the white races developed and black people won their independence. Even now the struggles of the black people against the whites are going on in different parts of the world for achieving equality.

Definitions:

Equality has many facets and it cannot be defined or even described at one single glance at it. Like liberty, equality is a great democratic ideal which has been understood in different ways. Giovanni Sartori rightly says that equality "has so many facets and so many implications that after we have examined it from all angles, we are left with a feeling of not having really mastered it".

Ernest Barker : "The principle of equality accordingly means that whatever Conditions guaranteed to me, in the form of rights, shall also and in the some measure be guaranteed to others, and what ever rights are given to others shall also be given to me".

Harold J.Laski: "What ever rights are inherent in another by virtue of his being a citizen must inherent, and to the same extent, in me also."

' r

Equality, thus, implies equal distribution of right to the individuals by the state. In terms of legal capacity, therefore each personality is equal to every other. Equality, thus, is the beginning, not the end.

138

Basic Concepts of Political Science

ASPECTS OF EQUALITY

The idea of equality has two sides - positive and negative. They are as follows:

(i) Positive Equality:

In a positive sense, equality means the provision of adequate opportunities for all. Since men differ in their needs and capacities and also in their efforts, they need different opportunities for their individual self-development. Thus, equality of opportunity is achieved only when there is an appropriate opportunity to enter professions or to be successful in business but the opportunity to lead a good life, or to fulfill one's personality.

(ii) Negative Equality:

In a negative sense, equality means the absence of undue privi-leges. That is, there should be no artificial grounds of discrimina¬tion like those of religion, caste colour, wealth, sex, etc., GO that no talent should suffer from frustration for want of encouragement. It means that one can move forward by his ability to any public office which he is prepared to choose. It, however, does not mean that there should be no discrimination on any material ground whatso¬ever.

The concept of the equality of opportunity should, however, be understood in a particular sense. When we speak of equal opportunities for all, J. Rees says: "Natural inequalities of physical strength, beauty and so on are acceptable; social inequalities because they are a product of pure convention, seem to turn upon the assumption that conventional inequalities are alterable, while natural ones are not." In short, the idea of equality implies that all human beings should be treated equally in respect of certain fundamental traits common to all like human nature, human worth and dignity, human personality and the like.

KINDS OF EQUALITY I

There was a time when the concept of equality was interpreted in a narrow sense, but with the widening horizon of democracy, the concept of equality has assumed new dimensions. In democratic

Law and Justice

139

countries, the concept of equality is understood very broadly and equality has gained entrance in many fields. All political thinkers do not classify the kinds of equality in the same way. According to James Bryce, there are four types of equality ciz., civil equality, political equality, social equality and natural

equality. Laski refers to political equality and economic equality. Barker deals with two equalities: legal and social.

LEGAL EQUALITY

In the eighteenth century, the demand for legal equality was raised to abolish aristocratic legal privileges and feudal obligations. It meant equality before law and equal protection of law. Equality meant that equals before law should be treated equally by law. Law does not make distinction between the rich and the poor and in the eyes of law, they are equal. Equality before law does not mean equal laws for each and every one. The law has to make rational discrimination. Legal equality means equal laws for equals and unequal laws for unequals, but the basis of discrimination should be rational.

Legal equality does not merely mean equal laws. It also means equal opportunities to get justice from the courts. Legal equality is meaningless in the absence of equal opportunity to get justice. Hobhouse defines equality before law as, "equal enjoyment of certain fundamental rights and duties." Ali must have equal access to the court of law and the legal process as a whole without discrimination.

The principle of legal equality or equality before law, comprises the foundation oi legal justice in modern society. J.R. Lucas writes, "Equality before the law does not guarantee equal treatment by the law but equal access to the law, and consideration only of those factors laid down by the law as relevant. Nobody is so lowly as not to have recourse to the courts, nobody is so mighty as not to have to answer to the courts; anybody can invoke the courts aid, everybody must render them obedience; and the courts will decide disputes, after hearing arguments on both sides, fairly and impartially, without fear or favour."

140 Basic Concepts of Political Science

Legal equality implies equal subjection of all citizens to the law and equal protection of the law for all citizens, but legal equality by itself is no guarantee for perfect justice. Equality before law can secure an equal benefit of law for all citizens when all citizens can equally afford to approach to the courts of law for the restoration of their rights or any injury suffered by them.

POLITICAL EQUALITY

The demand for political equality was raised during the nineteenth century and it had a limited meaning viz., equal right to vote or adult franchise. Every individual should have the right to vote, right to contest elections, equal right to public services, and no distinction should be made on the basis of caste, colour, sex, religion and language. It meant "one man, one vote". In practice, the ideal of political equality has centred on universal suffrage and representative government. Each and every citizen, with the exception of insolvents,criminal, bankrupts, over the age of 18 years, has a right to vote. Adult franchise is an important step towards political equality. The right to vote was granted in the nineteenth century due to the political movements of the working class and their demand for the right to vote could not be resisted. In the twentieth century, women have won the right to vote through their movements.

The doctrine of political equality is derived from the general belief that man, as such, is a rational being, capable of political judgement irrespective of his physical and mental capacities, education and wealth etc. It also proceeds from the assumption that when equal political rights are extended to all, they will be able to give their best expression to the common good and prevail upon policy-makers to adjust public policy to the requirements of the common good.

Political equality refers to equal rights to all citizens to actively participate in affairs of state, an equal voice in government and equal access to all offices of authority. The corner stone of democratic governance is equality of women and men irrespective of caste or colour, all are equally entitled to vote, to contest elections

Law and Justice

141

and to hold public office subject to limitations and qualifications conditioned by law.

Earlier the women were not given the right to vote. Because, it was wrongly presumed that by virtue of their four walled existence, women are not capable of exercising judgement. But, in the 20th century all democracies have given the power of franchise to women on par with men.

SOCIAL EQUALITY

The demand for social equality arose in the nineteenth century against the aristocratic privileges, against slavery, against the capital¬ists and against social inequalities on the basis of race. In the twenti¬eth century, social equality has been demanded on the basis of sex, caste and colour.

The term 'social equality' has been adopted by socialists largely to distinguish their objective from the earlier egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution. The men of 1789 sought 'equality before the law', which for them meant eliminating aristocratic legal privileges and feudal obligations. The Jacobins, and the nineteenth century Re¬publicans sought 'political equality' or universal suffrage. But social¬ists insisted on achieving 'real' equality - social equality.

Social Equality means that every citizen must have equality of

opportunity for development of his personality, irrespective of social

status, caste, colour, sex, race, language, education and age. There

may be rational distinctions in a society with regard to occupations

and professions, but the feeling of inferiority and superiority should

not be attached with them. The social status or prestige of a man

should not be determined by his aristocratic birth. /-

The issue of social equality is associated with the equality of opportunities. It is necessary that a new social atmosphere be cre-ated in which there is equality of opportunity for all. Nobody should be deprived of entry into any public hotel, temple, church, school and playground. Likewise, access to public wells, cinema etc., must be open to all. There should be so much of equality of opportunity in society that even the poorest man can reach the highest rung of the ladder in society. If he is an able man, he should have the right to become the President or the Prime Minister or a Minister. Poverty,

142 Basic Concepts of Political Science

sex or colour should not be a bar for any able man or woman. Even if a person is not a member of the elite by birth, he may be able to enter into it on the basis of his ability.

The struggle for racial equality in countries like South Africa, the United States were the burning issues of our times. The problem was not solved just by providing constitutional and legal safeguards but also by ending the myth of racial superiority.

The slogan of equality between the sexes assumed political sig-nificance during the women's struggle for equal voting rights. In re¬cent times, women have launched movements like "Women's Lib" to fight against inequality in society which is said to be dominated by men. The biological differences between the sexes cannot justify discrimination in the sphere of voting rights, entry to the professions, educational opportunities, levels of remunerations or right to hold the highest offices in the government or industry.

ECONOMIC EQUALITY

Economic equality is the basis on which enjoyment of civil, political and social equality depends. In the face of glaring inequalities of income and wealth and inadequate distribution of resources, the concept of equality is useless. It is as good as delivering a long lecture to a starving man. The necessity of economic equality was well-emphasised by Mahatma Gandhi when he said: "For a hungry man food is the God". In the absence of economic equality, only a few rich and wealthy control the whole system. As a result, the poorer sections suffer thus negating the concept of economic equality.

Hence, economic equality states that there should not be concentration of economic power in the hands of a few and all people should have equal opportunity to fulfil their basic requirements — food, shelter and clothing. The economic benefits given by the state should reach all sections of society. Laski is of the

opinion that in the absence of economic equality political equality is artificial but not real. The same view was shared by Ambedkar.

Even after 58 years of independence, nearly 50 percent of Indian population are poor of which 28 percent of the population live

Law and Justice 143

below the poverty line (BPL). In otherwords,. even today there are many people without food, shelter, education or even the basic amentities. Apart from this, there is a wide gulf between the urban population and the rural population with the rural population being deprieved of the fruits of development.

It is widely believed all over the world that the US and the European countries do not have poverty. But the reality is, the US ranks first in economic inequality. As per the Federal Reserve figures of 2000, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population owns nearly 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The top 20 percent of the American population have 55 percent of income after tax. In Britain, 1 percent of the population owns nearly 38 percent of the nation's wealth.

NATURAL EQUALITY

About natural equality, Plato wrote, "All men are by nature equal, made of the same earth and by one workman and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God as the poor peasant as the mighty prince". Similar views were expressed by Rousseau. In spite of that, human-beings are not equal and they differ from one another in many respects. CD.H.Cole says, "They are radically unlike-iri strength and physical prowess, in mental ability and creative quality, in both capacity and willingness to serve the community and perhaps more radically of all in power of imagination".

Natural liberty is more an ideal than a reality. Because, it is indeed pious to think of an ideal situation where all men and women are equal at birth and therefore be treated equal. But pratically, birth alone can't be a factor in deciding equality. Diversity in capacity or virtue make people distinct.

JUSTICE

'Justice' is derived from the Latin word "jus" meaning "set or arrange".

The term 'Justice' escape a universally acceptable definition, because it gives different meanings in different contexts.

Very importantly, what is justice to some is perceived as injustice by others. Commenting on this duality, Harold Potter opinions thus:

"Every body thinks they know about Justice. But in reality they do not know the very meaning of it".

Fair distribution of justice assumes two factors. Primarily, a descent system of laws in which not only the people but also the government respects them. The bane of African states is that the governments themselves disregarded laws of the land. Secondly, impartial distribution of justice.

Any partiality, relaxation, discrimination, favouritism will damage public confidence in the system.

There are two different meanings of justice - a broader meaning and a narrower meaning. Broadly speaking, justice is looked at with reference to the total behaviour in a society. Here it is understood as righteousness or virtue. It is viewed from different angles - moral, social, economic and political and is used to judge good and bad rules, values and conduct of man and institutions. Here justice is not associated primarily with man, but with the social system as a whole. The broad meaning of justice does not view it merely as a legal process or as legal justice. All the sacred books (the Vedas, the Gita, the Bible and the Koran) are based on this view of justice. Another view of justice is that it is a relative concept. It differs from society to society, it goes on changing with changes of time and circumstances; with changes in values the concept of justice also undergoes a change. Aristotle and the utilitarian philosophers Bentham and Mill, emphasised this aspect of justice.

The narrow meaning of justice is associated with the legal system and the legal process in a society. Justice is seen in relation to man. Justice is viewed with reference to the law making process, legitimate laws, an independent and impartial judicial system, the equality of law and equal protection of law. It is mainly the legal aspect of justice.

Definitions:

It is impossible to give a specific meaning of justice. The main difficulty in defining justice is that it is not an independent concept. Justice is closely associated with the system of values and the behaviour of social systems. Justice is not an absolute but a relative concept. With the change of time and circumstances, values undergo change, which brings a change in the concept of justice also. Justice in this way, is related with values, legitimacy and ideals.

Plato : "Justice is virtue in action."

Aristotle : "Justice is a sense of fairness and morality",

Thracymachus : "The interests of the stronger".

Development of the Concept of Justice:

The earliest concept of justice which prevailed among the ancient tribes was based on the principle of 'tit for tat' or 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. The demands of justice were considered to have been met if a guilty person was given necessary punishment.

In the ancient Greece there were numerous criteria of justice. For some speaking of truth and payment of loans is justice. Others took justice as giving to each person what was due to him. Thrasymhchus, a

Sophist, described justice as the interest of the strongest. Pythagoras equated justice with harmony or proportion.

Plato accorded a pre-eminent position to the concept of justice in his writings. In fact, he subtitled-one of his book 'Concerning Justice'. St. Augustine, assigned a religious meaning to the concept and insisted on closer relations between man and God. He considered the interference of the state in the matters of the church as a violation of justice.

During the period between Renaissance and the French Revolution the concept of justice underwent a further change. As a result of the decline of the church and religion, greater importance was attached to humanism. Consequently practices like slavery, inequalities, etc, came to be regarded as unjust and emphasis was laid on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. David Hume and Bentham assigned a new meaning to the concept of justice and laid emphasis on the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. In the nineteenth century, Marx and Engels gave a new interpretation to the conception of justice. They interpreted justice in terms of economic system and the mode of production.

Scholars like Laski and Maclver have tried to interpret the concept of justice in terms of development of individual's personality. Justice implies the co-ordination or synthesis of relations between the various individuals and the social system.

Features:

The attributes of the justice are as follows:

1. The concept is related to dealings amongst human beings. It implies an examination as to how various human beings are being treated.

2. It implies impartiality in the treatment of various persons and requires that no discrimination should be made amongst the various members of the society on the basis of religion, caste, sex, place of birth, family, etc.

3. Justice does not essentially mean doing away with all types of discrimination. It does permit some sort of discrimination on reasonable grounds. For example, the special treatment promised to the backward classes under the Indian Constitution does, not violate the concept of justice.

4. It emphasises the importance of personal dignity and considers all those which restrict the rights and freedom of the individuals as derogatory or unjust. However, this does not preclude imposition of restrictions on the freedom of the individual in the larger interest of the society.

5. The concept of justice is intimately connected with the concept of equality. Absence of equality is considered as a violation of the principle of justice. For example, legal justice implies equality before law.

6. Justice implies the existence of a feeling of fraternity among the members of society.

7. Justice implies due consideration of the natural limitations. As Brecht has said "It is unjust to inflict punishment or moral reproach for nonfulfilment of a law or command which is impossible of fulfilment."

In short, justice tries to reconcile the individual rights with the social good.

DIMENSIONS OR KINDS OF JUSTICE

The modern concept of justice is different from the traditional concept. The traditional concept of justice lay emphasis on the just man. It was primarily concerned with the virtues which enhance the moral worth of a man. It consisted in the performance of the duties attached to his status determined by the prevalent law, social customs and the mode of thought. An example of the traditional approach to the problem of justice is given by Plato's theory of justice which prescribed the duties of different citizens and required them to develop virtues befitting those duties. The traditional view insisted on the individual conforming to a pre-conceived image of society.

The modern view of justice seeks to transform society itself for the realisation of certain values. The idea of social justice is the force behind social change. When the people find the existing social order faulty, oppressive and exploitative, they raise the demand for social justice and demand changes in the social order to achieve social justice. Social justice is the voice of the oppressed against the excesses of the social system. It is the expression of what is due to the individual from society.

1. LEGAL JUSTICE

Legal justice is related to the process of law making and the judicial system of society.

It demands that law should be reasonable and everyone should get justice according to law.

Law is not only to be reasonable but also equal for all. The object of law is the well-being of the whole community and hence law should be equal for equals. Rationality of law depends upon the social requirements of a given society and is associated with the human values of a society. A law may be reasonable in one society but unreasonable in another. That depends upon the social requirements of the two societies.

Legal justice demands that every individual should be able to have impartial justice under the existing judicial system. There should be equal protection of laws. That demands that the judicial process should be simple and not very costly. It should be within the reach of the poorest of the poor. The court should be independent and impartial so that they can decide cases without fear or favour.

The legal dimension of justice has been emphasised by the writers of the analytical school viz. John Austin and Hobbes. They assert that law is the chief instrument of justice and in its absence there can be no justice.

The key aspects of legal justice are:

1. Law includes both the customary law as well as the statutory law. It also implies the existence of just or rational laws and their faithful observance. Each individual is entitled to the protection of law and the violation of the law is punished in accordance with the law. In short, it implies 'equality before law1 as well as 'equal protection of laws'.

2. For the enforcement of the law there must be courts or other semi-judicial bodies which can decide the disputes in accordance with the existing laws. Sometimes, the courts decide the cases on the basis of equity and natural law to meet the requirements of justice. Viewed in this context, justice represents a synthesis of the principles of natural justice and natural law.

3. Justice is intimately connected with punishment. From the very beginning of the human society it has been a practice that a person who violates the laws must be punished.

4. Legal justice demands that equal rights should be made available to all the members and no discrimination should be made on the basis of caste, colour, creed, sex, place of birth, language, etc.

The above principles of legal justice are accepted by almost all the states. The dimensions of legal justice are determined by the Constitution or the legislature.

2. POLITICAL JUSTICE

The importance of political justice is aptly highlighted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Article 1 states, * All human beings are born equal and possess equal respect and rights". In brief, political justice presupposes political equality.

The term political justice is sometimes applied in a comprehensive sense in which it embraces a restructuring of the entire fabric of social, economic and political relations. Kirchheimer describes political justice as "the search for an ideal in which all members will communicate and interact with the body politic to assume its highest perfection". A specific use of the term political justice refers to the reorientation of political institutions, political process and political rights according to the current conceptions of justice.

This means the establishment of democratic institutions in the political life of the community. Those institutions represent and take care of the interests of the people. The legislatures are to be constituted on the principle of universal adult franchise. The independence of the judiciary is to be maintained. This involves the rule of law which means that the government should not be arbitrary and should act according to law. Political justice implies a full guarantee of the liberty of thought and expression, particularly the right to criticise the government and its policies. There should be complete freedom for forming associations and interest groups. The organisations should be allowed to organise peaceful protests against the wrong measures of the government and put pressure on the government.

According to the liberal view, political justice means equal right to vote and equal share in government services. In this sense, political justice is associated with political rights and equality. It also means political power which should be exercised by the representatives of the people. The ultimate source of political power is the people themselves. The demand of political justice is that political power should be based on the will of the people and public opinion should be given due regard by the rulers. Political justice is possible only in a democratic state.

The essence of political justice is political equality within the state. Political justice does not mean absolute political equality. There is no political injustice if there are rules which apply equally to all citizens and the enjoyment of certain political rights is subject to certain conditions. The minimum age for voting rights or election to the legislature, pre-requisites of any qualification for holding certain political offices, prescription of certain fundamental duties etc. are not discriminatory. It is the duty of the state to justify the differences in treatment. Whether there is political justice in a state or not can be judged from four principles: integrity, predictability, flexibility and acceptability.

In simple terms, political justice means equal participation of all in the powers of the state. Political justice is concerned with the relations of the state or government and the citizens.

3. SOCIAL JUSTICE

With the penetration of democracy into socio-economic spheres, the meaning of justice has expanded itself so as to cover all aspects of human life. A new awareness has developed. It informs that the rights of an individual should be reasonably restricted to the wider interests of his community so that the ends of social justice are properly achieved. In other words, it is widely recognised that the well-being of society depends on the reconciliation of the rights of the individual with the interests of the community. Not only this, if there is a conflict between the two, the latter should prevail over the former.

As such, social justice relates to the balance between an individual's rights, on the one hand, and social control, on the other, ensuring the fulfilment of the legitimate expectations of the individual as an enlightened member of the society. Undoubtedly, the idea of social justice requires the sacrifice of certain rights of an individual at the altar of the 'public interest'. Viewed in a wider perspective, it also constitutes an essential part of a great complex of social change for which something may have to be sacrificed for greater good.

It is evident that the concept of social justice is a very wide term that covers within its fold everything pertaining to the norm of general interest ranging from the protection of the interests of the minorities to the eradication of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment. It not merely relates to the observance of the principle of equality before law and independence of judiciary it also relates to the eradication of social evils like unemployment, ignorance, pauperism and squalor. Moreover, this also relates to

the liquidation of the vested interests that obstruct the achievement of common good and have their stake in the maintenance of the status quo to their distinct advantage. As such, in the backward

countries of the world, the idea of social justice enjoins upon the State to make concerted efforts for the improvement of the lot of the down-trodden and weaker sections of the community.

In simple terms, Social justice means availability of equal social opportunities for the development of personality to all the people in society, without any discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, sex or race. No one should be deprived, because of the differences, of those social conditions which are essential for social equality and social rights and these are dependent on economic equality and rights.

4. ECONOMIC JUSTICE

The idea of economic justice implies non-discrimination

between man and man on the basis of economic factor. In positive terms, it implies adequate payment for work without any discrimination on some artificial ground. It stands for freedom for all in the spheres of production and distribution subject to the conditions of general welfare. It also desires that the state of national economy be reshaped in a way that the benefits are made more and more available to the common man. In this way, the idea of economic justice comes to imply a socialistic pattern of society. What Nehru said about the case of economic justice in a poor and backward country like ours applies to the case of economic justice in general that it necessarily relates itself with feeding the starving and clothing the naked masses, providing them with shelter and affording them all opportunities of progress. This, figure in important matters like compulsory acquisition of private property in public interest and imposition of reasonable restriction on the growth and role of the private sector. The case of economic justice thus lays emphasis on the need for regulatory and social legislation and its proper validation by the courts when the matters of dispute are brought for adjudication.

In recent years, the economic dimension of justice has assumed great importance and has come to be regarded as the basis of other kinds of justice. !t has been asserted that there cannot be any social

or political justice without economic justice. Political freedom has no meaning for a hungry man. Therefore, economic justice means that the basic needs of all the members of the state must be met and the national economy should be so shaped that the benefits are shared by the maximum number of people.

The central idea of Economic justice is well summed up by M.C. Chagla: "Freedom is meaningless if it prevents the achievement of economic justice. To a hungry man or to a man who is denied human dignity, political freedom is an empty word. The problem of today is how to bring about economic and social justice without sacrificing the individual to the ever-increasing power of the state." There should not be wide economic disparities and the principle of equal pay for equal work should prevail. As Laski has put it "One man is not entitled to a house of twenty rooms until all people are adequately housed; and one man even in that environment is not entitled to a house of twenty rooms because his father was a great advocate or a large industrialist."

There is difference of opinion among the Liberal and Marxian thinkers regarding the concept of economic justice. While the former hold that the ends of economic justice would be met if the state could meet the basic economic needs of the people, do away the disparities in income, reduce the power of the capital and ensure equality of opportunity to all the members of the society. According to the Marxists the just economic order is possible only after the present capitalist state is replaced by the dictatorship of proletariat. They contend that in the capitalist society there cannot be any genuine justice because the capitalist state is a class state based on the principle of exploitation. They argue that economic justice can be possible only in a classless communist society in which the principle of "each according to his needs" shall prevail.

5. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

Distributive Justice, as Aristotle puts it, desires that equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally. As such, it establishes an organic relationship between the norm of justice and the principle of equality sustained by the principle of natural inequality of mankind. It implies that a person should get in proportion to what he contributes to the state. It en joins that national wealth should be distributed or redistributed in a way that the gulf between the affluent and the poor sections of the community is narrowed as far as possible.

6. CORRECTIVE JUSTICE

Where redress is made to a wrong done to an individual, it is known as corrective justice. It provides a relief to an affected person. Justice has both negative and positive aspects. Corrective justice speaks of negative aspect of justice.

Thus, justice in a society is realised by distribution of arbitrary social order. There is a distinction between justice and morality, justice is a check on the external action of man. Morality is a check on the internal aspect of man.

RAWL'S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

John Rawls (1921-2002), a contemporary American philosopher, in his celebrated work 'A Theory of Justice' (1971) has pointed out that a good society is characterized by a number of virtues. Justice is the first virtue of a good society. In other words, justice is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of a good society. Those who argue that justice should not be allowed to come in the way of social advancement and progress run the risk of causing the moral degradation of society.

The view of Rawls is also known by the name of 'Contractarian Theory of Justice' for he talks about the original position of a man in which he acts like a negotiator in order to protect and promote his material interests. It is like the case of a man living in a hypothetical state of nature who is informed by the rule of reason to enter into a social arrangement for the protection of his natural rights. The basic objective of "A Theory of Justice" is to provide a coherent theoretical foundation for a conception of distributive justice.

For Rawls, justice is the foundation of social structure. Hence all political and legislative decisions must take place within the * constraints that follow from the principles of justice. The primary area over which justice operates is, for Rawls, the distribution of goods where goods is taken broadly to include much of what one

154

Basic Concepts of Political Science

aspire to have: wealth, position, opportunity, skill, liberty, and even self-respect.

He has attacked utilitarianism because in calculating the greatest happiness of the greatest number it does not care if it leads to extreme hardship to any particular individual. For instance, one might imagine a state of affairs in which the maximum amount of happiness would be produced and its distribution to a maximum number of people achieved by the enslavement of a minority. Rawls has brilliantly argued that you cannot compensate for the sufferings of the distressed by enhancing the joys of the prosperous.

Rawl's arguement is that among the primary goods, self-respect is central and that a fundamental characteristic of human beings is their desire to express their nature in a free social union with others. He then argues that "the basis for self-esteem in a just society" is "the publicly affirmed distribution of fundamental rights and liberties". He emphasises two principles: the first principle is an absolute constraint on the formation of social institutions and practices; within the limits of that constraint, the second principle, called the "difference principle" allows for inequalities, so long as they benefit the least advantaged.

First Priority Rule (The Priority of Liberty):

The Principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty. There are two cases:

(a) a less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of lib¬erty shared by all;

(b) a less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those with the lesser liberty.

Second Priority Rule (The Priority of Justice over Efficiency and Welfare):

The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximizing the sum oi advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle. There are two cases:

Law and Justice

155

(a) an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities of those with the lesser opportunity;

(b) an excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of those bearing this hardship.

According to Rawls, justice is the first virtue of social institutions, institutions and laws however efficient or well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. In a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled. The rights secured by justice are not subject to the calculus of social interests or to political bargaining. A well-ordered society, he says, is effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. It is a society in which everyone accepts and knows that the others accept the same principles of justice, and the basic social institutions satisfy these principles. Rawls observes: "If men's inclination to self-interest makes their vigilance against one another necessary, their public sense of justice makes their secure association together possible. Among individuals with disparate aims and purposes a shared conception of justice as constituting the fundamental character of a well-ordered human association."

According to Rawls, the justice of a social scheme depends essentially on how fundamental rights and duties are assigned and on the economic opportunities and social conditions in the various sectors of society. Thus Rawls is interested in developing a conception of justice which can provide a standard by which the distributive arrangements of a given society can be assessed but which need not concern itself with the fundamental question of ownership of the means of production.

The guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. These are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest should accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. They will regulate all further agreements, specify the modes of social cooperation and determine the form of government. Justice as incorporated in these principles can be called fairness.

156 Basic Concepts of Political Science

Rawls has evolved a unique methodology for arriving at a unanimous procedure of justice. Rawls contends that individuals are symbolically placed behind a 'veil of ignorance' where they are supposed to be deliberating as rational agents. They are totally unaware of their wants, interests, skills and abilities as well as of the conditions which lead to discrimination and conflict in society. But they have an elementary knowledge of economics and psychology, and are also endowed with a 'sense of justice'.

Each individual wants to maximize his or her well-being, without being envious. They are self-interested but not egoists. They are not prepared to take a risk or resort to gambling. According to Rawls, in such a state of uncertainty the rational negotiators will choose the least dangerous path. In other words, each individual will hypothetically place himself or herself in 'the least advantaged position' while recommending the criteria of allocation of the primary goods. Hence each of them will demand greatest benefit for the least advantaged.

Principles of Distribution:

As a result of hypothetical negotiation under such conditions, three principles of justice will be accepted by all, according to Rawls, in the following order:

(1) Principle of equal liberty (i.e., equal right to most extensive liberty compatible with similar liberty of others) which postu¬lates that nobody's liberty will be sacrificed for the sake of any other benefit (liberty in this sense implies equal right to political participation, freedom of expression, religious liberty, equality before the law, etc.);

(2) Principle of fair equality of opportunity, particularly for acquir¬ing offices and positions;

(3) Difference principle which impl ies that any departure from equal distribution of the primary goods can be justified only when it could be proved to bring greatest benefit to the least advantaged.

In other words, a special reward for extraordinary ability and effort to any individual can be treated as just only if it results in the greatest benefit to the least privileged.

Law and Justice 157

CRITICISM OF BAWL'S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

1. Justification of Capitalist System:

Collectivists argue that they have discovered the ground for the justification of the existing capitalist system. He has shown that if the rich have the freedom to accumulate wealth, the poor would be automatically benefited. Even if his principle of fair equality of opportunity is strictly enforced, the existing disparities between the rich and the poor will not be substantially reduced. A slight improvement in the condition of the most disadvantaged sections will be treated as an excuse to permit vast socio-economic inequalities.

2. Hypothetical:

Marxists contend that Rawls has tried to determine the principles of justice in a hypothetical condition where people deliberate behind a 'veil of ignorance'. Any deliberations without the knowledge of prevailing social and economic conditions are meaningless. Moral systems should always be analysed in the light of class relations and the patterns of ownership of private prQperty.

3. Against the spirit of liberty:

Libertarians argue that Rawls has sacrificed liberty for the sake of equality. Why should we force the meritorious and industrious to work for the benefit of the most disadvantaged sections? Moreover, enterprising persons must take risks for their advancement in life. Rawls's negotiators are not prepared to take risk. How would they help in social progress?

4. Incomparable:

Rawls has tried to combine different value-systems in order to arrive at his theory of justice. Some tenets of these value-systems are thought to be incompatible with each other. Any attempt to combine them must yield a complex model. Rawls's theory of justice represents a convergence of libertarianism, egalitarianism and communitarianism.

5

RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Rights Meaning and Definitions Kinds of Rights

• Civil rights

• Political rights

• Social rights

• Economic rights

• Cultural rights

Human Rights and Safeguards

* Duties Towards the State •

O Duties of Citizen

RIGHTS

Rights are those essential conditions of life necessary for an integrated all round development of personality.

It regulates human conduct and places a restraint on the behaviour of the people in their relationship. Aristotle said : "The state came into existence for the bare needs of life and continues to exist for the sake of good life". Thus, in order to lead a good and honourable life in a society, rights become an integral and inseparable part of a civilized human existence.

In the absence of rights fear, and insecurity rule and the result is chaos, confusion and anarchy. The inseparability of rights from a dignified living is well summarized by Harold Laski thus: "State is known by the rights that it maintains".

The society consists of a number of people whose mutual relations are conducted by certain well established rules of human conduct. Unless People accept certain restraintsand responsibilities towards each other social life shall not be possible. The condition created by the state to ensure the security of the individual and property are generally known as rights. In other words, the sum total of the opportunities provided by the state for the development and expression of the individual's personality are known as rights. Even though the rights aim at the development and enrichment of the individual they lead to the all round development of social life. Therefore it is in the interest of the entire society to maintain rights. Laski has rightly said, "Every state is known by the rights that it maintains".

Rights can only be obtained in democratic state where liberty and equality co-exist.

The democratic mechanism for enforcing popular control through periodical elections and alternative parties ensures enjoyment of rights.

In a nutshell, rights consist in claims of individuals and groups, on and against the state, which are sought to be secured through legal and constitutional mechanism.

Definitions :

Following are the definitions of Rights

Harold J Laski : "Rights are those conditions of social life

without which no man can seek in general to be at his best."

Ernest Barker : "Rights are the external conditions necessary for the greatest possible development of the capacities of the personality".

Bosanquet : "A right is a claim recognized by society and enforced by the State".

T.H. Green : "Rights are those conditions of life which

are essential for the upliftment of man's vocation as a moral being".

Wilde : "A right is a reasonable claim to freedom

in exercise of certain activities".

In short, right is 'a privilege sanctioned by law'.

Features of Rights:

1. Rights are implicit in the conscience of man and the community. As such, a state is set between the rights that have been recognised by the community and rights that demand proper protection.

They are essential for self- realisation and the society accords its approval to them.

2. Rights are organically bound up with duties. Every right has a coresponding duty. They are like a cofn having rights on the one side and duties on the other.

Since rights prescribe the rules of behaviour, and to impose duties or obligations. Rights and duties are different names for the same normative relation. The enjoyment of rights is conditional on the performance of duties.

3. Rights have a natural and social utilitarian character. Their social utilitarian character is traceable to the fact that they are of value both to the individual and the society. The utility of right is a matter of value to each member of the state. Besides, they "are useful to the end the state seeks to serve".

4. Rights are also connected with the functions of the state. In theory, rights of the individuals and functions of the state may be separate; in practice, they are not. It is like the reverse sides of a cofn.

In fine, rights are claims based on the disinterested or selfless desires of the individuals so that they first receive their moral recognition by the society and then legal recognition by the state in view of their essential usefulness both to the individual and the community.

CLASSIFICATION OF RIGHTS

Rights can be broadly classified into moral and legal rights. The sanction of law distinguishes a moral right from a legal right.

1. Moral Rights:

Moral rights depend on man's ethical awareness and conscience.

They are those claims which are based on the moral code of the community.

For instance, a wife has a moral right to be sympathetically treated by her husband; a teacher has a moral claim to be respectfully treated by his students.

But the state, through its legal framework does not guarantee the enjoyment of these moral rights. They are sanctioned by the prevalent ethical conceptions of the society. When a moral claim backed by a powerful public opinionVeceives legal guarantee, it passes into a legal right.

2. Legal Rights:

Legal Rights are those privileges enjoyed by a citizen which the state recognises and sanctions through the instrumentality of its legal code.

In every state there is provision for constitutional remedy against any encroachment on legal rights.

Every citizen, for example, in a state has a legal right to freedom of speech and expression.

The state will take necessary steps for enforcing this right if a citizen interferes in the enjoyment of this privilege by another citizen.

Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for instance, provides for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Under this Article any person in India is able to move the Supreme Court case of interference with any of his Fundamental Rights.

LEGAL RIGHTS

Legal Rights may be divided as follows:

1. Civil Rights

2. Political Rights

3. Social Rights

4. Economic Rights

5. Cultural Rights

I. CIVIL RIGHTS

Civil rights are those rights which are compulsory, essential to lead a civilized life.

These rights are basic requisites of a civil society.

The enjoyment of these rights facilitate an all round development of an individual personality.

Every life is valuable from the point of view of the general welfare.

Therefore, to take one's life or that of another is to eliminate an individuality which has rights as well as duties. The view of St. Thomas Aquinas was that suicide is an offence to oneself, an offence to the community as well as an offence to God Himself. At the most, suicide can be excused but it can never be approved.

Some of the important civil rights enjoyed by a citizen are:

(i) Right to Life:

This is a basic right without which other rights are of no use. It is the utmost responsibility of the state to provide security to the life and property of its members.

That is, an individual should be protected both against external aggression and internal danger. Its importance is such that an attempt to end the life by self (suicide) is also a legal offence punishable under law.

T.H. Green regarded this as the most fundamental of all rights because no man can be at his best in the absence of protection and security for life. How ever, it should be noted that right to life is not absolute. During the times of war or national emergency, it may be suspended.

Included in the right to life is the right to self-defence. Such a right is recognised by the Indian Penal Code. If a person is in imminent danger of being murdered by another person, he has the

right to murder him in self-defence. The extent to which a person can go while exercising his right of self-defence depends upon the nature of the danger facing him. The right of self-defence must not be exceeded.

(ii) Right to personal liberty:

Without certain degree of freedom no individual can ever achieve anything or contribute anything valuable to the society.

A mind haunted by fear cannot account for progress.

As Gettell points out, "Mere life without the right to exercise one's faculties and to determine the general conditions of life would be valueless".

In the absence of personal liberty as Gilchrist opinion, human faculties would not rise above that of animals. Some of the personal liberties guaranteed to the members are freedom from illegal arrests, free movement and stay throughout the length and breath of the country. The right to personal liberty

like right to life, is not absolute and during periods of national emergency government has the right to limit our freedom.

Another right is the right to personal safety and freedom.

Blackstone describes this right as a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life.

A person must not be assaulted, wounded or

imprisoned except by the due process of the law.

He has a right not to receive injury from any dangerous substance or animal kept by another.

A person who is unlawfully imprisoned can move the

court to issue a writ of habeas corpus and there by get himself released.

A person who is injured by the careless act of another

can claim compensation for damages. (iii) Right to freedom of thought and expression:

The freedom of speech and expression is regarded as an indispensable part of the growth and development of human personality.

Thinkers like Locke, J.S. Mill, Laski strongly stood for freedom of thought and expression, Socrates died to protect his freedom of thought than surrendering it.

A person with a freedom of thought and expression can think as well as pen down or express his ideas or communicate or exchange his views, thoughts with fellow members, as only free and frank exchange of views and ideas help in emergence of new

thoughts and views. Any unreasonable restriction on freedom of thought and expression is against the letter and spirit of democracy and no social economic progress can be achieved without freedom of thought and expression. Importance of freedom of thought is wel I summarised by Harold Laski thus: 'To allow a man to say what he thinks is to give his personality the only ultimate channel of free expression, and his citizenship the only means of moral adequacy". However, freedom of thought and expression does not mean expressing any idea as one feels right. It should not cross the limits if decency, social order and public morality.

Every individual must have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Without such a right, it is impossible for citizens to make their best contribution to the society and state. They cannot grow unless and until they are allowed to give expression to their views either by speaking or by writing in the press. It is not possible to develop a healthy public opinion in the country unless the freedom of speech and expression are guaranteed to individuals. Free discussion leads to the detection of errors and falsehood, paves the way for the discovery of truth, and enriches personality. Freedom of expression thus ranks among the indispensable conditions of personal development and social good.

Freedom of Speech is a valuable right and the successful working of democracy is not possible without such a right. Democracy is a Government by criticism, clash of ideas and the conflict of opinions and out of these emerges the truth. The criticism of the Government creates an enlightened public opinion. It is one of the ways to get grievances of the people redressed. About the significance of freedom of expression. Milton says, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely, according to conscience above all liberties".

(iv) Right to Family:

Family is an integral part of human existence in the absence of which the very survival of the human race is at peril. The right to family includes the right to marriage, to bring up the children and inheritance. With a view to regulate the relations of the members of the family, the state enacts laws dealing with this aspect. Such as marriage, divorce, right of succession, custody of children etc.

Every individual must have the right to family life. This means that he should have the full liberty to marry wherever he pleases. Parents must have control over their childern and children can claim that they must be supported by their parents during their minority. They must also have the right of inheritance to the property of their parents. The right of privacy of life must be guaranteed. Gilchrist says, "The family state is a condition of the good life, but where as in property, the right is exercised in a thing, in the family state it is exercised over a person or persons, which implies that the individual exercising family rights must recognise that the good of others is permanently and indefensibly bound with his own good".

(v) Right to Association:

All democratic countries recognize the need and importance of associations.

Associations, according to Gierke and Maitland, are instinctive to man. It is only in an organized association that individual can articulate his views.

A person can join any association to. satisfy his diverse wants.

However, all associations work under the recognition of the state and the state reserves the right to curtail or restrict those activities of an association which are against the public interest, social order, national security and unity of the country.

(vi) Right to Education:

The right to education is granted to enable a person to develop and improve his personality. In most of the states, compulsory education is provided up to a certain level. This right has a special importance in a democracy, because educated masses are in a good position to choose their representatives as well as the government. The popular sovereignty rests in the hands of the people. An educated person can keep an eye on the developments taking place in different areas of human activity and make better use of it.

However, the right to education does not imply the right to identical intellectual training for all citizens. What it implies is that every individual must be given that minimum of education which is essential for the performance of his duties. Every citizen is entitled to demand elementary education and it is only when

this much has been guaranteed to every individual that provision can be made for higher education for others. As Laski says: "In the long run, power belongs to those who can formulate and grasp ideas. "They alone can do this who have received education.

vii) Right to Reputation:

Every individual has a right to reputation. Holland says: "A man has a right, as against the world to his good name; that is to say, he has a right that the respect, so far as if is well -founded, which others feel for him shall not be diminished. "A defamatory statement is punishable by law if it can be proved that the statement in question was made in public, that it was untrue and not of public importance.

However, statements in the course of judicial proceeding, fair reports of trials, legislative debates or public meetings, fair comments on public men and fair criticisms of literary and artistic production can be made.

II. POLITICAL RIGHTS

Political rights empower a citizen to have a share in the conduct of the administration to which he belongs.

The foundation and survival of democratic polity rests on the participation of ( citizens in political affairs of the community.

Political rights provide direct channel between source of authority and its citizens.

(a) Right to Vote:

The right to vote which is also known as 'franchise' is a basic pre-requisite of democratic governance.

This enables all the citizens, subjected to certain legal requirements, to participate in the elections in choosing the government of their choice or will.

During elections in India, for example, all citizens who have attained the age of 18 years (earlier 21 years) are eligible to vote through the adult franchise by a single non-transferable vote.

The right to vote is of fundamental significance because, it decides the kind of government we get. The aliens, bankrupts, paupers and cer- . tain type of criminals do not enjoy the right to choose a government of their choice.

It is the right of voting which enables the individuals to decide who should be given the authority to rule over them for the next few years. If they find that the persons whom they elected last time have not done their work rightly, they can remove them at the time of the next general elections. The greatest

emphasis has to be put on the right of vote. It is this right which makes the people feel that they are the ultimate sovereign in the country (popular sovereignty). They have the authority to change their rulers. That is why it is insisted that there should be a provision for elections at certain definite intervals so that the people may have the chance to decide whether they want the previous administration to continue or whether they want to change it. The introduction of the system of secret ballot enables the people to speak out their minds without any fear. Adult suffrage must be the ideal and no adult should be deprived of the right to vote on the ground of.sex or any other disqualification.

(b) Right to Contest Elections:

All the citizens of a country are given the privilege to represent the aims and aspirations of various sections of the society in different elected bodies.

Guiding the destiny of a state is an onerous responsibility and any individual who wishes to take up the responsibility can contest elections.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the right to contest elections is conditional in the sense that there are certain requirements to be fulfilled such as age, residence, education etc. And also public servants can not contest elections while in office.

(c) Right to public office:

In a democracy all citizens are equally entitled to hold the public office, it executive, judicial or legislative. All citizens have an equal opportunity to occupy public office provided they fullfill certain requirements.

Article 16 of the Indian constitution states that no person shall be discriminated in awarding public office on grounds of religion, race, caste, sect, ethinicity, sex, place of birth etc.

In the matter of holding public offices in a state the citizens are assured equal opportunity. No office is considered to be a monopoly

of any particular person or section of society and all the citizens have a right to hold the same.

In appointment to these offices generally no discrimination is made on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, etc. However in certain countries like India certain posts are reserved for the backward sections of the society to make the services fully representative. Therefore, it can be considered a violation of equality.

(d) The Right to petition:

The right to petition gives an individual an opportunity to bring his problems to the notice of the government and seek redressal to the problems.

The governments should respond to the problems of the people.

Every citizen must be given the right to send petitions either individually or collectively, to the competent authority for the redress of his or her grievances.

The authority may be the executive or the legislature. In a democratic set-up, the people are the ultimate sovereign and there is no reason why they should not have the right to bring to the notice of the authorities concerned their legitimate grievances. It is also the duty of the authorities concerned to redress their grievances.

No Government worth its name can afford to ignore the people who are ultimately going to decide their fate at the time of the next election. Examples of the right to petition is the Grand Remonstrance in the history of England and the system of Initiative which prevails in countries like Switzerland gives an opportunity to the people even to initiate legislation embodying their needs and aspirations.

(e) Right to criticism:

The right to criticism is one of the biggest boons of democracy. This right guarantees an individual to express his views on the performance of the government. The criticism may be positive or negative. Democracy is really a government by criticism where healthy and constructive criticism keeps the government active, alert and responsive to the needs of the society and keeps the government machinery well ofled and well focused. When there is no public criticism the governments take the people for granted resulting in complacency and negligence towards the problems of the public,

A Government can be rightly called a democratic Government in which every adult citizen is equally free to express his views and desires upon all subjects in whatever way he wishes and to influence the majority of his fellow citizens to decide according to those views and to influence those desires. As Laski says, "A society that is able to discuss does not need to fight and the greater the capacity to maintain interest in discussion, the less danger there is of an inability to effect the compromises that maintain social peace." John Stuart Mill also put emphasis on the importance of free and frank criticism of the policies of the Government and its day-to-day working. The right of criticism exists only in a democracy and such a thing is unheard of in a totalitarian state.

But it is essential to note that the right to criticism does not mean using foul and filthy language. The criticism should be within the limits of decency.

(f) Right to enforcement:

It is obvious that unless and until there is a machinery to enforce the rights which the citizens claim or which are given to them by the law of the country, those rights have no meaning. Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every Indian citizen the right to move the supreme Court of India for the enforcement of his fundamental rights.

Similar powers are given to the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari. By these writs and directions, the illegal orders of the administration can be set aside. Courts can also declare laws illegal and invalid if they conflict with the fundamental rights or are otherwise against the Constitution.

However, these rights are not available when a proclamation of emergency is made in the country but those rights are restored as soon as the proclamation of emergency is revoked.

III. SOCIAL RIGHTS

International human rights laws has been designed to protect the full range of human rights for the people to be free, safe, secure and healthy life. The right to live a dignified life can never be com-

plete without bare necessities of life such as work, food, housing, healthcare, education and culture are adequately are essential for everyone.

All human rights according to the Final Declaration of theWorld Conference on Human Rights in Vienna (1993) must be treated by the international community globally in a fair and equal manner on the same footing and with the same emphasis. The word 'all' refers to the whole civil and political, economic, social and cultural as well as collective rights.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond their control.

(i) Right to health:

The member states recognize the right to everyone to the enjoyment attainable standard of physical and mental health. The

steps to betaken by the State parties to achieve the full requisite that shall include those necessary for the

(a) provision for the reduction of still birth rate and infant mortality for the health of the child,

(b) improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene,

(c) prevention, treatment and control of epidemic occupational and other diseases, and

(d) creation of conditions which would assure to all medical attention.

(ii) An adequate Standard of Living:

The states parties must recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of life for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing and to the continuous living conditions. The states must take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

States should recognized the fundamental right of everyone's hunger, shall take individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including programmes, which are needed to improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making use of full scientific knowledge.

Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, distribution of world food supplies should be based purely on need. Just providing shelter is not enough but "adequate housing" should comprise of security of tenure, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location and cultural adequacy.

(iii) Right to Education:

The right of everyone to education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

(a) Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Secondary education in its different forms, including technical .and vocational and secondary education made generally available and accessible to all.

(c) Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity.

(d) Fundamental education shall be encouraged or intensified as far as possible for those people received or completed the whole period of their primary education.

(iv) Right to Self determination:

All people have the right of self-determination by virtue of that right they freely determine and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources and any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of international law. In no case people may be deprived of its own means of subsistence. The right to self determination is the comer - stone of the international legal system.

IV. ECONOMIC RIGHTS

The Right to work demands that all able-bodied citizens be provided work depending upon their vocation in order to sustain themselves and their dependents and also to give a sense of purpose and satisfaction to the human personality.

i. The right to work:

The right to work, at present is available in advanced countries only. If the state is unable to provide employment, it should provide maintenance to those persons in the form of unemployment doles. True to the saying: "An empty mind is a Devil's work shop" the youth in the absence of work before them take up wrong habits and turn anti-social elements posing a threat not only to the society but also to their families.

The importance of the right to work lies in the fact that only when a person has been given some work that he gets an opportunity to show his worth. The personality of an individual finds expression in his work.

This right implies that it is the duty of the state to provide work to all able-bodied persons. If it is unable to do so, it must provide maintenance to those persons who cannot be provided with work (unemployment doles). The right to work is intimately linked with the right to adequate wages. Generally the state tries to fix the minimum wages commensurate with the amount of labour put in. The social security benefits like old age pension, sickness relief, etc., are also linked with this right.

Every citizen has the right to reasonable hours of work. This means that no individual should be made to work for long hours. What is required is that every individual should be asked to put in that amount of work which does not exhaust him completely, and there by make him unfit to fulfil his duties as a citizen.

ii. The Right to equal wages:

The right to work is intimately linked with the right to adequate wages. This right basically emphasizes the principle of 'equal work equal pay' according to which the Wages should be paid based on

the amount of labour put in, irrespective of whether the labourer is a man or woman. No discrimination should be made on the basis of caste, sex, religion etc. The government from time to time may fix the minimum wages to be paid.

Every citizen must have the right to adequate wages. This does not mean that he has the right to equal wages. Such a proposition is impossible and impracticable. What this right means is that all those who work must be given sufficient wages to maintain themselves. No person should be allowed to starve when he has made his contribution to the best of his ability. The wages of worker must be sufficient to enable him to live reasonably well. He should not have any worry regarding the support of his children.

iii. Right to leisure:

Just like work, leisure is also an integral part of human activity. No person can work endlessly for hours without getting affected by the work. So, in order to provide relief and break the routine, some leisure is provided between working hours. The leisure reinvigo-rates a person to attend to his work. The routine nature of work makes leisure all the more essential.

A human being is not a machine. He needs rest, entertainment and relaxation to refresh himself. For example, coffee break, lunch break and tea break provided during working hours is aimed at providing leisure thereby improving the quality of work. Also, after a routine of six days from monday to Saturday, sunday is declared a holiday. The logic behind this arrangement is to ensure that all workers return to work fresh and relaxed.

iv. Right to material security:

According to Rousseau, "It was to convert possession into property and usurpation into a right that law and state were founded. The first man who enclosed a piece of land and said. This is mine', was the real founder of civil society. "

The ultimate objective of a human being is the well being of his self and of his belongings. Materialism sustains human efforts and interest to reach greater heights and hence his basic requirements such as food shelter and clothing be guaranteed to him. Material security acts as an incentive to hard work and hence the state should protect it against all attacks. For instance, the government employees are paid certain benefits such as pension, insurance cover, accident benefits etc. In order to protect them against unseen disasters. The old age pension secures the life of an employee as he is materially secure even after retirement from the service.

v. Right to contract:

Contract is the basis of modern society and every individual has the right to enter into a contract with others. And they are duty bound to enforce these contracts.

As Gettell points out, "The state protects and adjusts rights and obligations growing out of contracts".

However, the terms of the contract should not be against public morality and social order. For example, Slavery and bonded labour are a product of contract but they can not be considered as legal contracts. The state has the right to curtail right to contract in the better interests of society.

vi. Right to property:

Property is an essential requirements for human security as anything that is 'mine' gives everyman a sense of satisfaction and boosts his ego. Importantly, it acts as an incentive to hard work as more work brings in more riches and enhances sense of security. Aristotle feels that property helps in development of character and personality besides giving pleasure and satisfaction. Hobson says: "From the earliest times, the existence and sense of property, the exclusive acquisition and use of material objects that are scarce and desirable, have been important factors in the life of man".

However, right to property does not mean endless accumulation of property. Property so acquired should be legal and proportionate to known sources of income.

vii. Right to control over industry:

This is relatively a modern concept. It states that the decision concerning a firm or industry must also involve the labour.The participative management concept states that if all concerned are in-1 volved in making decisions it leads to good performance, productivity and harmonious work environment.

V. CULTURAL RIGHTS

(i) Prohibition of Discrimination:

Racial and all other forms of discrimination is prohibited under the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (Article 2, paragraph 2 and Article 3). Women often suffer substantial and disproportionate difficulties in securing human rights in social and cultural rights. Article 3 guarantees that men and women possess precisely the sustenance to the rights set forth in the covenant and that, if necessary, special measures will be emphasized to ensure that this position of equality is attained.

(ii) Cross Culture Relativism:

Cultural relativism claim that rights and rules about morality are encoded in and thus depend on the cultural context. The term 'cultural' often being used in a broad and diffused way that may go beyond indigeneous traditions and customary practices to include political and religious ideologies and institutional structures. Hence notions of right and moral rules necessarily differ throughout the world because the cultures in which they differ. In brief, relativist position states that the diverse views on right or wrong are based on diverse cultural backgrounds.

(iii) Right to culture and to benefit from scientific progress:

The parties to the present covenant recognize the right of everyone:

(a) To take part in cultural life;

(b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications;

(c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interest resulting from any scientific, artistic production of which he is the author;

(d) The state should undertake to respect the freedom, indispensable research and creative activity;

(e) The states should recognize the benefits to be derived from the development of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields

HUMAN RIGHTS

Human beings are rational beings and by being human they possess certain inalienable rights which are commonly known as human rights. Human rights are a set of universal principles which seek to ensure the equal worth of each individual life, applicable to all people at all times and in all places. Thus, human rights are not subject to whims and fancies of the government. So, human rights are universal in the sense that it transcends race, religion, sex, ethnicity, type of government etc. Also, it is not a gift of any government and can't be removed or denied by the government of the day.

The idea of human rights is gaining ground in the 20th Century but its origin is 5,000 years old. The Greek play wright Sophocles spoke of individual defence against state repression. Plato and Aristotle also spoke of universal justice and rights. Cicero and Seneca spoke in terms of the citizenship of the

world. In modern times, St. Aquinas, St. Augustine and Thomas Hobbes Strongly argued in support of human rights.

Definitions :

The following are the definitions of Human rights:

D.D. Basu : "Human rights are those minimum rights

which every individual must have against the state or other public authority by virtue of his being a member of human family irrespective of any other consideration".

World Conference : "All human rights derive from the dignity

on Human Rights and worth inherent in the human person

and that the human person is the central subject of human rights and fundamental freedoms".

Nature of human rights:

Human rights are those rights to which an individual is entitled by virtue of his status as a human being. While civil, political and socio-economic rights are dependent on an individual's status as a citizen of a particular state, his human rights are not determined

by this condition. They set the standards for the provision and expansion of civil, political and social economic rights. Again, where an individual's civil, political and social-economic rights are exhausted, he can still hope to get some relief under the umbrella of human rights. For instance, a foreigner, a refugee, a prisoner-of -war or a proclaimed offender may have been left without ordinary rights, yet human rights will not be withdrawn from him.

Human rights constitute the very source of all rights of human beings. They provide for moral foundation of any system of rights. As the idea of justice determines the principles on which law should be based, so the idea of human rights sets the standards on which all other rights should be based. Human rights, like any other rights, have to be enforced by a state or an international tribunal who should be capable of enforcing them. Anybody who claims any human rights must prove himself to be law-abiding and must submit himself to law for appropriate justice. In order to understand the true character of human rights it would be worthwhile to describe the nature of rights as such.

The importance attached to human rights at the global level can be guaged from the fact that the Centre for Human Rights is located at Geneva to co-ordinate aH human rights activities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), a post created by the UN General Assembly, is meant to promote and protect the effective enjoyment by all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In order to meet the human rights emergencies, Human Rights Hot Line was established in 1994. Further, for effective coordination the office of the UNHCHR and the centre for Human Rights was

consolidated into a single office called the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in 1997 located at Geneva with numerous country offices around the world.

First-generation human rights:

First-generation human rights deal essentially with liberty. They are fundamentally civil and political in nature and serve to protect the individual from excesses of the state. First-generation rights

include, among other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of religion. First generation rights are therefore mostly negative rights. They were first enshrined at the global level by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Second-generation human rights:

Second-generation human rights are related to equality and were established after the Russian Revolution. They are fundamentally social, economic, and cultural in nature. In social terms, they ensure different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. Secondary rights would include a right to be employed, housing, and health care. They are mostly positive rights. Second generation rights require a more interventionist State to provide than first generation rights.

Third-generation human rights:

Third-generation human rights are those rights that go beyond the mere civil and political, as expressed in many progressive documents of international law, including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and other pieces of generally aspirational soft law. Because of the principle of sovereignty and the preponderance of would-be offender nations, these rights have been hard to enact in legally binding documents.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration, the contemporary Magna Carta of Rights was one of the first major achievements of the United Nations in the field of human rights. The Declaration came into existence on 10th December, 1948. It consists of 30 Articles. The Declaration set for the international community a common standard of achievement. It recognised the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all people in all nations. The human rights mentioned in the Declaration are fundamental in the moral sense and are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. It is the duty of the States regardless of their social, political and economic systems to promote and protect human rights.

The Declaration was not intended to be legally binding and therefore it did not impose any legal obligations on the States to give effect to its provisions. In other words, from the legal pofnt of view, the Declaration was only a recommendation; it is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Preamble of the Universal Declaration incorporated recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice

and peace in the World. The preamble proclaimed it as 'a common standard of achievement for all people and for all nations, to the end that every individual and every society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance'. The General Assembly recommends to every individual and every organ of the society to do something with respect to the human rights laid down in the Declaration.

The Universal Declaration enumerated the basic postulates and principles of human rights in the most comprehensive manner. It dealt not only with civil and political rights, but with social and economic rights as. well.

Civil and Political Rights:

Articles 2 to 21 deal with those civil and political rights which have been generally recognised throughout the world. These are as follows:

1. Right to life, liberty and security of persons —> Article 3

2. Freedom from slavery —¥ Article 4

3. Prohibition against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Article 5

4. Recognition as a person before the law —> Article 6

5. Equality before the law and equal protection of

the law without any discrimination - Article 7

6. Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile—>Article 9

180 Basic Concepts of Political Science

7. Right to a fair and public hearing by an independent

and impartial tribunal —> Article 10

8. Right to Nationality -> Article 15

9. Right to own property — Article 17

10. Right to freedom of thought, conscience

and religion -> Article 18

11. Right to freedom of opinion and expression —> Article 19

11. Right to freedom of peaceful assembly

and association — Article 20

12. Right to participate in the government

of his country - Article 21

Economic and Social Rights :

Articles 22 to 27 of the Declaration deal with economic and social rights which are as follows:

1. Right to social security —> Article 22

2. Right to work and free chofce of employment —> Article 23

3. Right to rest and leisure —> Article 24

4. Right to a standard of living adequate for the

health of himself and of his family —> Article 25

5. Right to education - Article 26

6. Right to participate in cultural life -> Article 27

7. Right to good social and international order —> Article 28

The declaration laid down under Article 29 imposes certain limitations to these rights and freedoms, by providing that everyone has duties to the community in which alone the final and full development of his personality is possible. Article 29 provided that the rights shall be provided to the individuals subject to just requirements of morality, public order and general welfare. The above may mean that human rights provided in the Declaration are not absolute.

SAFEGUARDS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Apart from the constitutional provisions governing each country and also the universal declaration of Human Rights at the global level, there are other necessary conditions for safeguarding human rights against infringement and encroachment. They are as follows:

1. A written constitution:

The easiest method of protecting the rights is to embody them in a written constitution. Since they are a part of the constitution and the constitution is gofng to be enforced, the rights are also automatically enforced. So long as a constitution remains operative, rights also remain safe. The courts, while punishing those who violate the constitution incidentally safeguard the rights of the people also.

2. Fundamental Rights:

The most important rights of the citizens should be provided in the basic law of the land that they may know and exercise them, called, 'fundamental rights'. For instance, while a liberal democratic state attaches primary significance to socio-political rights like those relating to freedom of thought and expression and no arrest without sufficient cause coupled with citizen's right to move the courts for seeking their adequate protection. By including such rights in the category of fundamental rights, the state accords them constitutional protection and empowers the courts to issue prerogative writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari) for their enforcement.

3. Rule of law:

Another safeguard is the rule of law. It has two important characteristics. First, it ensures equality before law and its equal protection. As such, every citizen is under the same legal obligation regardless of differences in the matter of religion, caste, creed, wealth, race, sex and the like. Second, it ensures personal liberty so that no person can be arrested or punished without cause.

4. Separation of powers:

The view of Locke and Montesquieu was that the liberty of the people could be secured only if there was separation of powers. However, experience shows that the mere separation of the three departments of the government, viz, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is not enough for the safeguarding of rights.

5. Effective Public Opinion:

Stronger and more effective public opinion is a better safeguard for the guaranteeing of rights than any other method. If the people are awakened to the importance of rights which have either been given to them or which have been wrested from the government by them, they will not tolerate their infringement by any authority, however great it may be. The people will always be vigilant about their rights. They will not tolerate the least infringement. James Bryce has rightly said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If the people cherish their rights and are prepared to go to the length of even fighting against the authority which attempts to invade them, rights are bound to be protected.

6. Free Press:

There should be free and honest press so that people have a straightforward dissemination of news. A free press is also required to safeguard the rights of the people. Newpapers are the best means to check political despotism. People may write in the columns of leading papers about the serious lapses on the part of their rulers. They may create healthy public opinion in defence of their rights. Apart from this, the government of the day may mend its ways as they are answerable to the people in the next election.

7. Decentralisation of powers:

The state should follow the principle of decentralisation of powers. That is, the organs which exercise power must not be concentrated at a single pofnt in the body politic. Local government should be empowered to deal with local matters. Likewise, matters of regional interest should be entrusted to

regional or provincial governments. It would certainly prevent the concentration of powers detrimental to the protection to the rights of the citizens.

8. Consultative Bodies:

It Is also necessary that government organs are surrounded by consultative agencies. The departments of the government should consult the concerned organisations before coming to a decision. It would help not only in understanding a problem from the side of those gofng to be affected but also involve their due participation and there by lessen the prospects of general dis-satisfaction.

What is really important, in this direction, is that the maintenance of rights is much more a question of habit and tradition than the formality of a written enactment. As Laski has aptly pofnted out, "It is the proud spirit of the citizens, less than the letter of the law, that is their most real safeguard".

Critical Estimate:

No sovereign state can tolerate its disintegration. The words of Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet, are worth quoting, "No matter what country or continent we come from, we have common human needs and concerns. We all seek happiness and try to avofd suffering regardless of our race, religion, sex or political status. Human beings, indeed, have a right to pursue happiness and live in peace and freedom. As free human beings, we can use our unique intelligence to try to understand ourselves and our world".

DUTIES TOWARDS THE STATE

The discussion of rights shall be incomplete without a study of its relationship with the duties. Generally the rigfits and duties are described as the two sides of the same cofn and the rights of one are the duties of the other. If a person is concerned only with the enjoyment of his rights it will lead to anarchy. Similarly, if there are only duties and no rights the individual shall become a slave of the state. The Co-existence of the two is therefore vital to the existence of genuine rights.

When rights are erected on moral foundations they are essentially accompanied by duties. The relation between rights and duties is well summed up by Laski thus: "The possession of rights does not mean the possession of claims that are empty of all duties...

Our rights are not independent of society, but inherent in it... To provide for me the conditions which enable me to be my best self is to oblige me, at the same time, to seek to be my best self. To protect me against attack from others is to imply that I myself will desist from attacking others."

Rights are, therefore, correlative with duties or 'functions'. Man is entitled to rights to enable him to make his contribution to the social good. Function is implicit in right.

The concept of rights postulates that the state as well as the individual shall pursue the ideal objects of society. Accordingly, the duty of the individual is co-extensive with the duty of the state. If the state fails

in its duty, it is the duty of the individual to resist the state. As Laski says, "My duty... to the state is, above all, my duty to the ideal the actual State must seek to serve."

Moreover, as the rights of man are subservient to the common good, it is his duty to contribute to the common good in exercise of his rights. Laski therefore says: "Men must learn to subordinate their self-interest to the common welfare. The privileges of some must give way before the rights of all. Provision of rights and duties in this sense is not compatible with the division of society into privileged and underprivileged section.

DUTIES OF A CITIZEN

Rights and duties go hand in hand. Every right has a corresponding duty. The best way to secure one's right is to do ones duty. Rights flow automatically when we perform our duties. Some of the duties of a citizen may be mentioned below:

1. Good health:

Every citizen owes a duty to himself to maintain good health. It cannot be denied that without physical fitness, he cannot make his full contribution to society. A sick person is a burden to society. There is every likelihood of his ignoring all those duties which he must perform in the interest of his family, locality and the country. The importance of a sound mind in a sound body (Mens sana corpo sana) must be emphasised. If every individual is fit physically, mentally and morally, society is bound to achieve a lot.

2. Duty towards Family:

Every citizen owes certain duties to the members of his family. If he is a married man, he must look after his wife and children. He must give his children the very best education. He must aim at making them ideal citizens of whom be himself and his country can be proud. That citizen is a criminal who indulges in the luxury of having children but ignores their proper training. It is the duty of society to look down upon such a person and make him realise that he is an object of contempt and not respect.

3. Duty towards neighbours:

Every citizen owes certain duties to his neighbours. He must not hate them but love them. He must be always willing to extend his hand of cooperation to them. He must try to share their worries and joys. His relations with the neighbours can add to his happiness.

4. Progressive:

A good citizen must not be contented with his own progress, the progress of his family and that of his immediate neighbours. He must look to the welfare of the locality in which he lives. A person who cannot love the people of the state in which he was born and brought up and in which he has the privilege to live, cannot be expected to love the people of his country living in far off states.

However, love for the locality must not go to such an extent that the interests of the country as a whole are sacrificed. In the ultimate analysis, the country must come first. It must not be forgotten that if the country goes down, there is no hope for the prosperity of any individual, family, state or province,

5 Patriotic:

Every individual owes certain duties towards the state. He owes his allegiance to the state in which he lives and that allegiance must be paramount. It is true that an individual owes certain duties towards his family, religion, province and certain associations, but his duty towards the state stands above all other duties. Whenever there is a conflict of loyalties, the state must be given the first

It is the duty of every citizen to put the state first in the order of loyalties.

6. Respect for laws of the land:

It is the duty of every citizen to obey the laws of the country. Every effort should be made to inculcate the habit of law-abidingness. Every body should consider it his duty to obey the laws of the country. This does not mean that we cannot criticise any law of the country. The sovereignty of India rests with the people of India and consequently they have the right to demand a change in a particular law. They can agitate for this in a constitutional manner.

However, so long as the law remains on the statute book, it is the duty of all citizens to obey it. The officers of the government must not take pleasure in humiliating and dishonouring people when they are trying to disobey an unjust law. Every effort should be made to remove the irritants from law so that it may become convenient for the people to obey it.

7. Honest payment of tax:

All citizens must pay taxes to the state according to their capacity. A democratic government is the most expensive form of government, and there is need for a lot of money to run the machinery of the government in such a way as to add to the good of society as a whole. If the people want to have the pleasure of having a government of their own, they must also hear the duty of paying more taxes.

The administration of a country involves a certain amount of expenditure which cannot be met without raising certain taxes. Citizens in their own interest, should, therefore willingly and honestly make payment of their taxes.

8. Public spirited:

Every good citizen must be public-spirited. He must be happy and proud to help every member of his country to the best of his ability and capacity. It is only by the spirit of self -sacrifice that nations grow. One must subordinate one's interests to those of others and do all that lies in one's power to promote the wefare of

society. A country needs public spirited boys and men and women who think and dream in terms of their country and who are prepared to sacrifice their all for their country.

9. Exercise of voting right:

Every citizen owes a duty to make an honest exercise of his right to vote. He should vote only for that person who is gofng to work fer the good of society and not for his personal and selfish ends. It must be remembered that the successful working of democracy depends upon the honest exercise of the right of vote by every individual. A country is bound to be doomed where the voters are dishonest and corrupt.

If a voter accepts money at the time of voting, he is not only digging his own grave but also mortgaging the future of his country. Democracy works well only if the people are wide awake and realise that, by making an intelligent use of their vote, they can set up a system of government which can bring about the happiness and strength of the country and the people at large.

10. Help Public Officials:

A good citizen owes a duty to help the public officials in the performance of their duties. It is provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure in India that it is the duty of every individual to bring to the notice of authorities any information which be may have regarding the commission or any attempt to commit certain offences. The cooperation of the people can be sought to disperse unlawful assemblies. If the people refuse to help the police, no offender can be convicted as there will be no evidence to prove his guilt.

11. Resist injustice:

It is the duty of every citizen to resist injustice from every quarter. All the unjust acts of the state and individuals must be resisted. There cannot be a good society unless the people are prepared to resist evil. Passive public will only breed injustice.

12 Spirit of toleration:

All citizens must develop a spirit of toleration towards one another. They should love not only those who agree with them

but also those who differ from them. We must learn to tolerate the different views of others. Progress of society is possible only in an atmosphere of good will and that can be created only by a spirit of toleration among the people. More and more emphasis should be placed on the spirit of toleration. "Do unto others what you wish to be done by others" should be the motto before every citizen.

13 Hard working:

Every able-bodied citizen should work and try to add something to the social fund. Idlers are a parasite on the society. Work brings in wealth and prosperity in the country. In countries like Russia work is considered to be a legal duty. Every citizen owes a duty to his country to work hard. Under the Soviet Constitution of 1936, it is the duty of every citizen to work. It is rightly emphasized that 'he who does not work shall not eat'.

14 Duty towards Humanity:

An individual is not only a citizen of the state but also a citizen of the state but also a citizen of the entire world. The idea of world citizenship is growing more and more popular. A good citizen is required to see that there is peace and order in the world. He is supposed to contribute his mite towards the growth of international co-operation and security.

Question Bank

189

Chapter 1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

I. Answer the following questions in 60 words. (05)

1. The evolution of Political science.

2. Nature of Political science.

3. Is Political science a science or an art?

4. International relations.

II. Answer the following questions in 150 words. (10)

1. Discuss the scope of Political science.

2. Historical Approach in the study of Political science.

3. Normative Approach in the study of Political science. Ml. Answer the following questions in 400 words. (15)

1. Critically evaluate the importance of Political science.

2. Discuss Behaviouralism. -

3. Critically estimate Post- Behaviouralism.

190 Basic Concepts of Political Science

Chapter 2

STATE

I. Answer the following questions in 60 words. (05)

1. Evolution of State.

2. Internal and external sovereignty.

3. Kinship.

4. Religion.

5. State of Nature of Hobbes.

6. State of Nature of Locke.

7. State of Nature of Rousseau.

8. Features of Civil Society.

9. Components of Civil Society.

II. Answer the following questions in 150 words. (10)

1. Population.

2. Territory.

3. Government.

4. Sovereignty.

5. Examine the Divine Origin theory.

6. Social Contract of Hobbes.

7. Social Contract of Locke.

8. Social Contract of Rousseau.

III. Answer the following questions in 400 words. (15)

1. Discuss the elements of state.

2. Critically examine the Evolutionary (Historical) theory.

3. Critically examine the Social Contract theory.

4. State and Civil Society in the Third World.

Question Bank 191

Chapter 3

, . .

SOVEREIGNTY

I. Answer the following questions in 60 words. (05)

1. Evolution of Sovereignty.

2. Development of Sovereignty.

3. Aspects of Sovereignty.

4. Titular Sovereignty.

5. Characteristics of legal Sovereignty.

6. Popular Sovereignty

7. De facto and De jure Sovereignty.

8. Monistic theory of Sovereignty.

9. Pluralistic theory of Sovereignty. 10. Globalisation and the State.

II. Answer the following questions in 150 words. (10)

1. Characteristics of Sovereignty.

2. Titular and Legal Sovereignty.

3. Political and Popular Sovereignty.

4. Identify the features of Monistic theory of Sovereignty.

5. Identify the features of Pluralistic theory of Sovereignty.

6. Challenges to Sovereignty.

III. Answer the following questions in 400 words. (15)

1. Discuss the Kinds of Sovereignty.

2. Critically analyse the Monistic theory of Sovereignty.

3. Critically analyse the Pluralistic theory of Sovereignty.

4. 'Is Sovereignty relevant in the age of globalization'. Discuss.

192 Basic Concepts of Political Science

Chapter 4

, , —»

LAW AND JUSTICE

I. Answer the following questions in 60 words. (05)

1. Evolution of law.

2. Philosophical school of law.

3. Sociological school of law.

4. Elements of Governance.

5. Political criminalization.

6. Evolution of liberty.

7. Aspects of liberty.

8. National liberty.

9. Moral liberty.

10. International liberty.

11. Evolution of equality.

12. Aspects of equality.

13. Development of the concept of equality.

14. Natural equality.

15. Legal equality.

16. Meaning of Justice.

1 7. Development of the concept of justice.

18. Features of Justice.

19. Social Justice.

II. Answer the following questions in 150 words. (10)

1. Kinds of law.

2. Historical school of law.

3. Comparative school of law.

4. Marxian school of law.

5. Civil liberty.

Question Bank 193

6. Political liberty.

7. Social equality.

8. Legal dimension of justice.

9. Political dimension of justice. 10. Economic dimension of justice.

III. Answer the following questions in 400 words. (15)

1. Historical school of law and Marxian school of law.

2. Philosophical school of law and Comparative school of law.

3. Kinds of liberty.

4. Civil and Political liberty.

5. Political and Economic equality.

6. Legal and Political justice.

7. Rawl's concept of justice.

194 Basic Concepts of Political Science

/" . ■■.■:■. .... ' . ■.'".'... . - - - , . A

Chapter 5 RIGHTS AND DUTIES

I. Answer the following questions in 60 words. (05)

1. Meaning of rights.

2. Features of rights.

3. Moral rights and legal rights.

4. Cultural rights.

5. Right to personal liberty.

0. Right to education.

7. Right to vote.

8. Right to contest elections.

9. Right to criticism.

10. Right to work.

11. Right to equal wages.

12. Nature of Human rights

13. Importance of duty.

II. Answer the following questions in 150 words. (10)

1. Civil rights.

2. Social rights.

3. Political rights.

4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

5. Safeguards for Human Rights.

6. Duties towards the state.

III. Answer the following questions in 400 words. (15)

1. Civil and Political rights.

2. Economic rights.

3. Duties of a citizen.

Previous Question Papers 195

FIRST SEMESTER B.A. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2004

(Semester Scheme)

BASIC CONCEPTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Time : 3 hours Maximum Marks : 90

I. Answer any three of the following questions in 60 words each.

(3x5 = 15)

1. Subject matter of Political Science.

2. Historical Approach.

3. State and Civil Society in the Third World.

4. Equality and Liberty.

5. Rights and Duties.

II. Answer any three of the following questions in 150 words each.

(10 x 3 = 30)

6. Define Political Science. Explain its importance.

7. Discuss Rousseau's General Will.

8. What is Sovereignty ? Explain its features.

9. Define the concept of law. Briefly discuss the Schools of law.

10. What is Justice ? Discuss the concept of social justice.

III. Answer any three of the following questions in 400 words each.

0 x 15 = 45)

11. Define Behaviouralism. Explain its nature and evolution.

12. Define the concept of state. Explain its elements.

13. Evaluate John Locke's Social Contract Theory.

14. Critically examine John Austin's concept of Sovereignty.

15. What is Justice ? Explain the types.

196 Basic Concepts of Political Science

FIRST SEMESTER B.A. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005

(Semester Scheme)

BASIC CONCEPTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Time : 3 hours Maximum Marks : 90

I. Answer any three of the following questions in 60 words each.

(3x5 = 15)

1. What is Political Science ?

2. Divine Origin Theory.

3. Civil Society.

4. Popular Sovereignty.

5. Law and Equality.

II. Answer any three of the following questions in 150 words each.

(10 x 3 = 30)

6. Explain the scope of Political Science.

7. Explain the features of Behaviouralism.

8. What is State ? Explain its elements.

9. Explain Austin's Monistic Theory of Sovereignty.

10. Analyse Hobbes1 Social Contract Theory.

III. Answer any three of the following questions in 400 words each.

(3 x 15 = 45)

11. What is Sovereignty ? Explain the types.

12. Explain Locke's Social Contract Theory.

13. What is Law ? Explain its sources.

14. What is Equality ? Explain the types.

15. Define Rights. Explain the types.

Previous Question Papers 197

FIRST SEMESTER B.A. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006

(Semester Scheme)

BASIC CONCEPTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Time : 3 hours Maximum Marks : 90

I. Answer any three of the following questions in 60 words each.

(3x5 = 15)

1. Political Science.

2. Historical Approach.

3. Nature of State.

4. Duties of a Citizen.

5. Moral Rights.

II. Answer any three of the following questions in 150 words each.

(10 x 3 = 30)

6. Explain the scope of Political Science.

7. Explain the features of Behaviouralism.

8. Explain the features of Sovereignty.

9. Discuss the types of Liberty.

10. Explain John Austin's Theory of Sovereignty.

III. Answer any three of the following questions in 400 words each.

(3 x 15 = 45)

11. Explain the meaning and elements of state.

12. What is law ? Explain the sources of law.

13. What is Justice ? Explain the types.

14. Explain the Historical Theory of State.

15. Discuss the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

198 Basic Concepts of Political Science

FIRST SEMESTER B.A. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007

(Semester Scheme)

BASIC CONCEPTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Time : 3 hours Maximum Marks : 90

I. Answer any three of the following questions in 60 words each.

(3x5 = 15)

1. Meaning of Political Science.

2. Historical Approach.

3. Divine Origin Theory.

4. Features of Good Governance

5. Rawl's conception of Justice.

II. Answer any three of the following questions in 150 words each.

(10 x 3 = 30)

6. Discuss the importance of Political Science.

7. Explain John Locke's Social Contract Theory.

8. Explain the features of Sovereignty.

9. Explain the types of Equality.

10. Explain the duties of a citizen towards the state.

III. Answer any three of the following questions in 400 words each.

(3 x 15 = 45)

11. What is Behaviouralism.

12. What is state ? Discuss the elements.

13. Critically examine Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract Theory.

14. Critically explain the Austin's Theory of Sovereignty.

15. What is rights ? Explain the types of rights.

Previous Question Papers 199

FIRST SEMESTER B.A. NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008

(Semester Scheme)

BASIC CONCEPTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Time : 3 hours Maximum Marks : 90

I. Answer any three of the following questions in 60 words each.

(3x5 = 15)

1. Historical Approach

2. Divine Theory.

3. Legal Sovereignty.

4. Social Justice.

5. Civil Society.

II. Answerany three of the following questions in 150 words each.

(10 x 3 = 30)

6. Discuss the importance of Political Science.

7. Examine the Social Contract theory of John Locke.

8. Discuss the characteristics of Sovereignty.

9. Explain the features of good governance.

10. Examine various kinds of rights.

III. Answer any three of the following questions in 400 words each.

(3 x 15 = 45)

11. Define behaviouralism and explain its features.

12. What is state ? Explain its elements.

13. Explain John Austin's theory of Sovereignty.

14. What is Law ? Explain its sources.

15. Write an essay on Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

200 Basic Concepts of Political Science

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Agarwal R.C., Political Theory (New Delhi, 2003, S.Chand & Co.)

• Almond G.A. & Verba S, The Civic Culture : Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, 1963, Princeton University Press)

• Andrew Heywood, Politics, (London, 2002, Palgrave)

• Andrew Vincent, Modern Political Ideologies (Oxford, 1992, Blackwell)

• Arblaster A, The Rise and Declene of Western Liberalism (Oxford, 1984, Basil Blackwell)

• Archna Chaturvedi., Encyclopaedia of Political Science (New Delhi, 2005, Commonwealth)

• Arthur Ball& Meltward F., Pressure Politics in Industrial Societies (London, 1986, Palgrave)

• Baldev Raj Nayar, The Geopolitics of Globalization : The Conse-quences for Development (New Delhi, 2005, Oxford University Press)

• Beck U, Risk Society : Jowards New Modernity (London, 1992, Sage)

• Bell D., The End of Ideology?: On The Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the 1950s (New York, 1960, Free Press)

• Bernard Crick, Socialism (Melton Keynes, 1987, Open University Press)

• Bernstein E., Evolutionary Socialism (New York, 1962, Schoken)

• Bharathi K.S., Encyclopaedia of Gandhian Thought (New Delhi, 2005, Anmol)

• Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi's Political Philosophy (Delhi, 1989, Ajanta)

• Bottomore T., Classes in Modern'Society (London, 1991, Allenx Unwin)

• Bretheston C. & Ponton G., Global Politics : In Introduction (Ox¬ford, 1996, Blackwell)

• Chomsky N., World Order, Old and New (London, 1994, Pluto Press)

Bibliography 201

* Chomsky N. & Herman E., Manufacturing Consent (London, 1994,

Vintage)

# David Held, Political Theory Today (Stanford, 1991, Stanford Uni¬

versity Press)

* Dipali Saha., (ed), Civil Society and Modern Politics (Delhi, 2004,

Global Vision)

# Dunning W.A., H istory of Political Theories: Ancient and Medieval (New Delhi, 2002, Mohit Pubublication)

# EddyAsirvatham, Political Theory (New Delhi, 1997, S.Chand & Co.)

* George Sabine & Thomos Thorson, A History of Political Theory

(New York, 1973, Holt, Rinehart and Winston)

» Giddins A., The Global Third Way Debate (Cambridge, 2001, Pol¬ity Press)

# Gilchrist R.N., Principles of Political. Science (Bombay, 1975, Ori¬ent Longman)

# Gokhale B.K., Political Science (Mumbai, 2002, Himalaya)

• Gupta R.L., Political Theory (New Delhi, 1980, Schand and Co.)

• Hertz N., The Silent Take Over: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy (London, 2001, Heinemann)

• Hobhouse L.T., Liberalism (New York, 1964, Oxford Universty Press)

# Huntington S., Third Wave: Democratisation in the late Twentieth

Century (Norman, 1991, University of Oklahama Press)

• Jain S.N., Issues in Comparative Political Theory (Jaipur, 1989, Printwell Publishers)

• Jainendra Kumar Jha (ed), Encyclopaedia of Teaching of Civics/ Political Science (New Delhi, 2001, Anmol)

* Jayapalan Nv Comprehensive Political Theory (New Delhi, 2002,

Atlantic Pub)

# JayaPrakash Narayan, Towards Total Revolution (Bombay, 1978,

Popular Prakashan) f

• Jayaram N., (ed),On Civil Society : Issues and Perspectives (New Delhi, 2005, Sage)

• Johari J.C., Comparative Politics (New Delhi, 1988, Sterling)

• Johari J.C., Foundations of Political Science (Jalandhar, 2002, Shoban Lai & Co.)

202 Basic Concepts of Political Science

• Johari j.C, Principles of Political Science (New Delhi, 1989, Ster¬ling)

• John Elster, An Introduction to Karl Mark (Cambridge, 1986, Cam-bridge University Press)

• Kaeley S.L., Political Science (New Delhi, 2001, Sudha Publica¬tions)

• Kalyan Ray., Globalisation or Colonisation? (New Delhi,.2004, Deep and Deep)

• Kapur A.C., Principles of Political Science (New Delhi, 1993, S.Chand & Co.)

• Lenin V.I., Imperialism : The Highest Stage of Capitalism (Moscow, 1916, Progress)

• Locke J., Two Treatises of Government, (New York, 1690, New American Library)

• Louis Fishcer , The Like of Mahathma Gandhi (London, 1951, Jonathan Cape)

• Mahajan V.D., (Political Theory (New Delhi, 1997, S.Chand & Co.)

• Mallikarjuna Rao, Rajeshwar Mittapalli & K. Damodar Rao,

Postcolonial Theory and Literature (New Delhi, 2003, Atlantic)

• Marx K., Thesis on Feuerbach (London, 1845, Lawrence & Wishart)

• Marx K. & Engels F., The Communist Manifesto (Harmondsworth, 1967, Penguin)

» Meny Y. & Wright V., Centre-Periphery Relations in Western Eu¬rope (London, 1985, Croom Helm)

• Mills C.W., The Power Elite (New York, 1956, Oxford University Press)

• Morgenthou H., Politics Among Nations : The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York, 1948, Knopf)

• Mosca G., The Ruling Class (New York, 1939, McGraw-Hilt)

• Paul W. Kahn., Putting Liberalism in Its Place (Princeton, 2004, Princeton University Press)

• Pratyush Chandra & Anuradha Ghosh and Ravi Kumar, The Poli¬tics of Imperialism and Counterstrategies (New Delhi, 2004, Aakar Books)

• Pruthi R.K, The Political Theory (New Delhi, 2005, Sarup)

• Pruthi R.K, (ed), Nature and Scope of Political Science (New Delhi, 2005, Discovery)

Bibliography 203

• Rajesh Tandon and Ranjita Mohanty.,(ed), Civil Society and Gov-ernance (New Delhi, 2002, Samskriti)

• Rajesh Tandon and Ranjita Mohanty.,(ed), Does Civil Society Mat¬ter? Governance in Contemporary India (New Delhi, 2003, Sage)

• Robert Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago, 1956, Chicago University Press)

• Seliger P., Politics and Ideology (London, 1976, Allen & Unwin)

• Singh NX, (ed), Of the Social Contract or Principles of Political Right/Jean Jacques Rousseau. (New Delhi, 2006, Global Vision)

• Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty, (Princeton, 1999, Princeton Uni-versity Press)

• Stephen K White & J Donald Moon, What is Political Theory? (New York. 2004, SAGE Publications)

• Sunil Sondhi, Global States: An Introduction to International Rela¬tions (New Delhi, 2002, Sanjay Prakashan)

• Thomas Vettickal, Gandhian Sarvodaya : Realizing a Realistic Uto-pia (New Delhi, 2002, Gyan Publishing House)

• Urmila Sharma & S.K. Sharma, Principles and Theory of Political Science (Delhi, 2002, Atlantic)

• Vinay Kumar Marhotra, Alexander Sergounin, Theories and Ap-proaches to International Relations (New Delhi, 1998, Anmol)

» Wilson G., Interest Groups (Oxford, 1990, Blackwell)

• Wright A., Socialisms : Theories and Practices (Oxford, 1987, Ox¬

ford University Press)

Juornals :

• Contemporary Political Theory

• Economic and Political Weekly ( EPW)

• European Journal of Political Theory

• Gandhian Thought

• Indian Journal of Politics

• Indian Journal of Political Science

• Indian Political Science Review

• Journal of Peace Studies

» Mainstream

• Political Studies

204

Basic Concepts of Political Science

• Seminar

• World Affairs

• World Focus Magazines :

• The Frontline

• The India Today

• The Outlook

• Tehalka

News Papers :

• The Hindu

• The Hindustan Times

• The New Indian Express

• The Statesman

• The Times of India