TyroCity: Political Theory and Thoughts Notes

Plato’s Concept of Justice

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The Greek word for justice is ‘Diakusune’ which has a wider implication than the English word justice and comes very near to the English word morality.
It represents to do the right thing.
Amateurish meddlesomeness (indicating sophists), factious (unnatural or artificial) spirit and political selfishness which characterized the contemporary Athens.
This led Plato to formulate the concept of justice based on self-less devotion to the State on the lines of functional specialization.
The division of society into three classes and the confinement of each class to its own specialized function was calculated as Plato to remove the causes of political struggle and to lead to real unity and harmony in the state.
Plato reviews a number of traditional and other theories of justice representing successive stages in the growth of nations about morality and justice.

1. Conventional Idea or Traditional Theory of Justice

For old Cephalus, justice and morality meant being true in word and deed, paying ones debts in time and to be honest towards God.
His Son Polemarchus slightly modified this definition by saying that justice consists in giving each person his due (needs) and what is proper to him.
According to Polemarchus, Justice is doing goods to friends and evil to enemies.
For old Cephalus, justice and morality meant being true in word and deed, paying ones debts in time and to be honest towards God.
His Son Polemarchus slightly modified this definition by saying that justice consists in giving each person his due (needs) and what is proper to him.
According to Polemarchus, Justice is doing goods to friends and evil to enemies.
Virtue makes a man good. Plato analyzed virtue in the constituent elements of wisdom, courage and common desires.
Justice is ‘architectonic in relation to other’s excellence and is necessary for their perfection.
Justice is thus not purely a personal virtue but has a social side too.
It is a bond of societies and states, holding men together in healthy social relationships by making them good and perfect for social order.

2. Radical Theory of Justice

Thrasymachus, a sophist, gave the radical theory of justice.
He represented the new and critical views about the nature of justice and morality.
He did not believe in traditional view of justice.
According to him, “In all states, there is same principle of justice which is the interest f the government.
The government must be supposed to have power.
The only reasonable conclusion is that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger’.
From Tharsymachus’ points of view, it can be concluded that:
- Justice means just for one man i.e. the ruler must be just for all;
- Justice is the decision of the stronger;
- Those who breaks laws should be severely punished.
Thus justice is obeying powerful authority according to Thrasymachus.
To this view of Thrasymacus, Plato replies that justice is always better than injustice and a decision of powerful ruler cannot be categorized as justice.
So justice is not the interest of the stronger.
The governors are just the shepherds to protect their sheep and exist for the good of the governed.
Justice produces social harmony by developing socially expedient behavior.
Stronger one could be dictator without reason, i.e., injustice.

3. Pragmatist Theory of Justice (Executive Theory/Pragmatic Theory)

Glaucon and Adiemantus, as pragmatist say that
- The state is born of a compact based on mutual fear and not on universal moral principles.
- The state is a conventional and not natural organization so morality is only a second best thing.
- Justice should be created for man’s comforts, a product of convention and custom.
- Justice is an artificial thing, it is external and is executed.
- So justice is a necessity of weaker not the interest of the stronger as radicals say.
But Plato here also denies that justice is conventional and therefore something external.
According to him, justice depends upon neither conventional nor external force, it is the right condition of human soul and is something internal, depending on human virtue.
It exists both in the state-hence his portrayal of the ideal state and in the individual too.
Having reviewed and dismissed other theories of justice, Plato sets himself through person of Socrates, the task of discovering in his famous book ‘The Republic’.
Justice is the harmonious balancing and operation of life among the three classes in the state.
Plato’s justice means “the will to concentrate on ones own sphere of duty and not to interfere sphere of others.
To Plato, justice is an indispensable quality of moral life in the community.
Plato’s polity is a moral organism and his theory of justice is a theory of ethical code.
Man should get offices according to their ability and to their devotion to their duties to the state.
Ability included moral and intellectual thrust.

The whole conception of justice of Plato is based on the following elements:

Recognition of 3 elements in an individual and the division of society into three classes.
Those three classes representing three elements of reason, spirit and appetite. These three elements are guide to action and bond of union in the state.
Well-regulated scheme of education and training to individuals for their true vocation in life.
Organization of the state on the basis of functional specialization. One man one work creates concentration which strengthens individual efficiency and enriches the life of community.
Freedom of philosopher rulers from labor and private worries and entanglements by as system of communism of property and wives.
The rule of unselfish intellect, it banishes ignorance from politics and leads to political unselfishness.
Emancipation of women enabling them to take their proper place in public life due to the communism of wives.
Plato’s justice is a conception of service and devotion to the state of the individual and not his rights and powers.
An individual exists for and in the sate and has not meaning apart from the state. ‘Man versus the state is incompatible with Plato’s concept of justice.
Plato’s concept of justice conceives of universal and not particular or legalistic justice. It rises above the ‘keen narrow, little and particular legal mind’ which limits the moral life of man to mere conformity to the law of the state.
It refers to the whole duty of ma not merely his legal duties.
Plato’s justice lies in the sphere of morality rather than of law. His concept of justice was of Greek (Metaphysical) rather than Roman (Legal).
To Plato, the essence of social ethics and of justice lies in the concept of “my stations and my duties.”

Comments

In the modern context, Plato’s concept of justice sounds very novel for what it omits and what it includes. It is, in no sense, a juristic or legal definition of justice. Self-control and devotion in the interest of the state is the base of Plato’s justice which lacks the individuals’ rights and the maintenance of these rights through law courts. Justice for him is a social virtue, theory of manners, goodness and moral principles having no sanctions behind them. So it envisages a dull uniformity and harmony in social life.

Professor Popper, Prof. Joad and Crossman comment his concept of justice

Plato’s version of ‘one man, one work’ militates against the full development of human personality and deprives the community of a full and rich variety of life.
Plato’s justice is static and passive.
It is too subjective and does not issue in an objective law for the guidance of people.
Plato’s theory is totalitarian, it leads to the complete subordination of individual to the state.
No equal treatment of the citizens before the law.
No mention about impartiality of the courts of justice, etc.
Plato’s emphasis on justice in all his books is itself a contribution.
Plato too realized his excessive idealism later on and in “The Politicus” and “The Laws,” he gave all citizens a share in political powers in the name of justice.
It is true that Plato’s concept of justice postulates an individual who does not stand isolated but is an active and integral part of a social order.

Rajdharma

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Manu has mentioned physical, spiritual and political basis of the state.

The political basis of the state comprises the executive, legislative and judicial organs. Executive consists of the King or swami or Raja, his council of ministers and his permanent civil services. The king is the head of the state. He should be endowed with various qualities, duties and dharma which he called in Rajdharma as follows:

The Lord created the King for the protection of all, taking eternal particles of Indra (King of deities), of Wind (Vayu), of Yama, of Sun, of Fire (Agni) of Water (Varun), of the Moon and of the Lord of wealth Kuber, thus Manu accepts the divine origin of Kingship. The king is a great deity in human form.
The King is subject to Dharma and should form ideal council of Ministers for consultations in all matters. The king should select his advisors, ministers, legislators and administrators from amongst the Vanaprastha.
The King should worship daily the aged Brahmin who knows the Vedas and pure. The king should have both qualities from Kshyatria and Brahmin, former is man of action having energetic temperament and later is preacher of Vedas having qualities of meditation, wisdom, self-discipline, purity, control of senses, service of fellowman and always modest.
King constantly should learn modesty from Brahmin for a king who is modest never perishes.
The King should shun various vices springing from love of pleasure and proceeding from wrath which all end in misery such as hunting, gambling, sleeping by day, excess with women, drunkenness, violence, treachery, envy and greedy, etc.
To preserve law and order in his kingdom and to punish offenders and to promote public welfare, the king should always be careful. Manu writes, “punishment alone governs all created beings, it alone protects them, watches over them while they sleep, so punishment is as to be identical with law.
Manu lays down a daily routine of the King. They are: Meditation, worship (of Brahmin and God), listening public complains, consultation with ambassadors, spies, army chief, inspection in all fields and administrative works and rest with a music.
Manu has regarded Dharma as rule of law which no earthly Monarch can ignore. The Monarch is responsible to the people, monarch derives its authority from the people. People owe loyalty to the ruler only when the latter discharges its duty of protecting them properly.
The capital should be well fortified by the construction of strong forts of different kinds.
Taxes should be collected from rich people only.
Well prepared for war at any time in case of external attack, no dependence upon others in war.
Establishment of diplomatic relationship with other nations properly.

Thus the king holds his high office so that he may protect the people, help everyone in his own self knowledge and in the discharge of his own Rajdharma and duties.

Taxation

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Kautilya visualized a ‘dharmic social contract’ between the King and the citizens. Taxes were levied for maintenance of the social order and for the state run welfare apparatus. In case of aggression by an outside agency, the janapads (districts) could ask for tax remission as the King had failed in his duty to protect the citizens . Kautilya realized the critical role of the tax system for ensuring the economic wellbeing of the society. The hallmark of his tax system was ‘certainty’ – of time, of rate and of the mode of payment . Stability in the tax regime was an important factor in ensuring active trade and commerce in the Mauryan empire. This in turn strengthened the revenue base of the state and enabled it to maintain a huge standing army and the welfare apparatus.

State was overzealous in collection of taxes and tapped virtually every source. Citizens paid a toll-tax. Farmers (household as the unit of assessment) had to pay one sixth of the produce as the land tax. There was a land census at periodic intervals and land records were scrupulously maintained. This data base enabled the assessment of the taxable capacity of the household. Traders had to pay one tenth the value of the merchandize as tax. There was an entry tax to enter the fort, tax on use of roads and waterways, and for getting a passport. Even the hermits living in the forest had to part with one sixth of the grain gleaned by them as they too needed the protection of the King. Service industry was also taxed – actors, dancers, soothsayers, prostitutes, and auctioneers were subjected to taxation. Pilgrims had to pay a Yatra Vetna (pilgrimage tax). Citizens had to pay a tax (Pranaya Kriya) for the acts of benevolence.

The Scope of State Functions

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Minimal Functions

1.Providing pure public goods

2.Defense, Law and order

3.Property rights

4.Macroeconomic management

5.Public health

6.Improving equity

7.Protecting the poor

Intermediate Functions

Addressing externalities
Education, environment
Regulating Monopoly
Overcoming imperfect education
Insurance, financial regulation
Social Insurance

Activist Functions

Industrial policy
Wealth redistribution

Delegation

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Delegation, refers to:

“The transfer of managerial responsibility for specified functions to other public organizations outside normal central government control, whether provincial or local government or parastatal agencies” (Ferguson and Chandrasekharan).
“One form of administrative decentralization which transfers responsibilities and authority to semi-autonomous entities that respond to the central government but are not totally controlled by it. Public forestry corporations and in some cases implementation units of some forestry projects–often donor supported–are examples of this form of decentralization” Besides deconcentration, devolution and delegation, there is another form called privatisation. Ferguson and Chandrasekharan include privatisation as a particular form of devolution to private ownership that has become prominent in recent times (Ferguson and Chandrasekharan). However Ribot in his paper says that privatization is not a form of decentralization. Besides the definitions above, there are some other terms related to decentralization defined by the authors. They are:
“Democratic: substantively refers to the accountability of leaders to the people” (Ribot)
“Accountability, defined as counter-power—that is, any power that balances or puts a check on the power of other power holders (Agrawal and Ribot 1999). Accountability is constituted by the set of mechanisms and sanctions that can be used to assure policy outcomes are as consistent with local needs, aspirations and the best public interest as policymakers can make them” (Ribot).

Theories on Origin of State

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Theories of Origin of State are as below:

Theory of Divine Origin
Force Theory
Social Contract Theory
Evolutionary Theory/Historical Theory

Theory of Divine Origin
This is the oldest theory concerned in the origin of state. According to this theory, state is established and governed by God himself by agent or vicegerent or vicar of God. The chief exponent of this theory in early times were the Jews and supporters were the early church father.

This theory was used especially in medieval period to establish the supremacy of the church over the state. The divine origin theory took the form of the theory of the divine right of the king. James I, the first stuart King who said that “Kings are he breathing images of God upon the earth,” and Sir Robert Filmer good examples. Bousset in France elaborated this theory supporting the despotism of Luis XIV, who proudly declared, “I am the state having full authority directly given by God.”

People have no right to rebel against the King, if so it is against the God himself.

Some of the basic tenets of this theory are:

1.Monarchy is divinely ordained.
2.Hereditary right is indefeasible that means cannot be taken away.
3.Kings are accountable to God alone
4.Resistance to a lawful king is sin.

According to this doctrine, king began to become despot and tyrant. With the growing political consciousness and rise of democratic ideas, this theory was rejected as unsound in theory and dangerous in practice. It got death blow at the hands of Grotius, Hobbes and Locke. Some moral values can be extracted from this theory.

Force Theory

According to this theory, state is the result of the superior physical force and subjugation of the weaker section by the stronger. Physical strength was able to overcome fellow men and to exercise authority over them. Some superior tribes and clans also did so. Then state came into being through physical coercion and compulsion, according to this theory.

As per this theory, war begets the state and Oppenheim, Jenks and many other supports this view. This theory only emphasizes force and accepts that state is the product of coercion and force only. But force must have been an important factor in the evolution of state but to think it as an only one factor is a mistake. Several other factors, such as, voluntary amalgamation as by force and conquest, as a result of conciliation and agreement, by one another’s cooperation and other peaceful agencies and efforts, etc.

Force is an important element for both internal and external security of the state but it is not only the cause for the origination of the state. Might only cannot go ahead permanently. It should follow its path with a positive weapon of right. Force is a physical power while right is a mental power, both should go together in the origination of the state, of course there was strong arms but only with the support of other elements according t MacIver. In the words of MacIver, “Force along never holds a group together.” So force is one of the component for the state origination but not whole sole cause.

Social Contract Theory

According to this theory, state is the result of a deliberate and voluntary contract of primitive man emerging from a state of nature. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau are the main supporters of this theory. State of nature was even pre-social. According to Hobbes, it was solitary, nasty and brutish. State came into being by the social contract with the surrender of power to absolute monarchy.

According to Locke, “State of nature was pre-political and everything was regulated by natural law, but to execute that law state was originated from the social contract and people chose the constitutional government and limited monarchy.

According to Rousseau, “State of nature was peaceful, carefree life, happiness, but after the advent of economic need, social strife began and society became pre-social.

The state was originated through social contract with the agreement to govern the state under “general will” on the basis of popular sovereignty.

Thus contract was both social contract and governmental or political contract. The objectives of the contract were to secure the life and property of the people. Contract was with one another and with all.

All contractualists justify the conceptions that governmental authority if it is to be legitimate must rest ultimately on the consent of the government.

This theory emphasizes upon the fact that state is man-made by the contract especially to provide protection to the people, it is an artificial creation not natural. And government authority is restrained upon by man’s natural freedom.

This theory has been criticized on three bases:

1. Historical: It seems only historical fiction not historical truth. There is no trace in any history about such contract.

2. Legal: Contract has no legal binding force. State of nature cannot create legal bindingness of contract.

3. Philosophical: Voluntary relations of individual and state seems unreasonable.

Membership in the state could not be voluntary, if so state becomes like a company. Man is a part of nature and the state is the highest expression of nature.

State is a natural growth and not a manufacture. According to T.H. Green, “the real flaw in this theory of social contract is that it implies the possibilities of rights and obligation independently of society, the basis of rights is social recognition not agreement.”

Some truths could be drawn from this theory is that contract is based on consent of the governed, sovereignty has no right to act arbitrarily which is the basis for modern democracy, the importance of the individual and political authority lies in people.

Evolutionary Theory/Historical Theory

According to this theory, the state is a historical growth and result of a gradual evolution. It is a continuous development, cannot be referred to any single moment of time, circumstance and any event, etc.

According to Burgess, “It is a gradual realization of the universal principles of human nature. There is no single case, place and any trace of deliberate creation of men in the origination of the state, but political consciousness has played its role from early period to modernity in the origination of state.”

State was originated on the basis of various causes and varying condition. They are:

Kinship
Religion
Political Consciousness

Kinship:
Kinship is fact knit together different clans and tribes and gives them unity and cohesion since the early period.

Kin-relationship is one of the factor to develop common consciousness, common interest, and common purpose which ultimately helped to establish intensive social relationship. According to MacIver, “Kinship creates society and society at length creates the states.” In the process of development of kinship patriarchal and matriarchal both societies were experienced and such societies contributed in the origin of the state theory through their authority, military and political and religious privileges and powers, legality and sense of morality, tendency to leadership and subordination and custom which translated into law later.

MacIver says that “custom is at work turning example into precedents and precedents into institutions.

Patriarchal society was followed by feudalism in later period, the idea of this society remained for long period and even after the development of complete society.

Religion
Religion played an important role in creation of social consciousness and social solidarity in the emergence of state.

Sense of common worship and cult of deceased ancestral worship and other kinds of religious ceremony of different tribes developed as sense of social unity and cohesion in the process of origin of the state.

Kinship and religion were so closely intertwined that the patriarch who later became the tribal chief was also the high priest, the guardian of religion, interpreter of customs and often the magic man and even medical man.

He was naturally looked upon with reverence in the society.
He ruled over vast mass with the powerful weapon that is religion.

Political Consciousness

Men in a vast mass of society felt need of the state for the protection of themselves. After their wandering habits and hunting nature, men entered into the pastoral and agricultural life and faced several changes as increase in population, vast religious groups, tribal development, contacts with neighboring people, a sense of harmony, accumulation of wealth in individual and group capacity and advance of economic life, etc.

With those development some sort of organization were formed and they ensured internal order and protection of life and property of the people … it is thus beginning of the origin of the state.

Gradually organizations received mass support and came into intensive form and became an authoritative body to maintain social relationship and defense of private property and private life.

Different forms of authoritative body appeared in different times under the leadership of tribal chief, nobles, religious chief, leaders and kings etc. Thus, such authority helped ultimately to form the state institutions.

State emerged with the emergence of law and government, in the process of kinship, religion and political consciousness and state developed as nation state in the process of political evolution.

Methods of Elections

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

There are two methods of electing representatives. They are:

Direct Methods of Election
Indirect Methods of Election

Direct Methods of Election

It is very simple process. Voters directly participate in election and elect their representatives of legislature, especially of the people’s chamber (House of Commons in UK and Parliament in India, House of Representatives in USA and Nepal).

Direct election makes people conscious of their rights and duties.

A direct contact between the electors and their representatives stimulates interest in public affairs, develop the sense of public spirit and sharpens the political intelligence and political vigilance of the people, though this method sometimes has been opposed by some political thinkers mentioning that all voters are not the best judges, inactive and uneducated voters could be used through political propaganda and cheap election campaign process, etc.

Indirect Methods of Election

When voters do not directly participate in the election of their representatives, only an intermediary body which alone will make the final choice, he method of election is called indirect. This intermediary body of electors is usually known as an electoral college. This method involves double elections.

General mass of voters first elect a small group of electors and then these electors elect the final representatives. This system limits the power of the general voters, but the selected electors’ superior intelligence and political knowledge could choose best one without any party propaganda.

But the indirect method of election in the modern period has neither gained much favor nor has educative value rather is undemocratic and politically inexpedient.

Characteristics of Sovereignty

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Sovereignty has the following characteristics:

1. Permanence: Governments may come and go, but the state remains for ever. As the state is permanent, so is its sovereignty. So long as the State lasts, sovereignty also lasts. The State and sovereignty cannot be separated from each other. Sovereignty continues or remains uninterrupted by changes in government in a State. When there is change of government or ruler, sovereignty shifts to the new government or ruler. But sovereignty as an attribute of the State continues. It is in this sense that sovereignty is claimed to be permanent.

2. Exclusiveness: Another characteristic of sovereignty is exclusiveness. It means that the State alone possesses supreme power and is legally competent to compel the obedience of its citizens. In other words, there cannot be more than one sovereign in a state claiming the legal obedience of the people. Acceptance of more than one supreme and ultimate power would affect the essential unity of the State.

3. All-Comprehensivenes: The all-comprehensive and universal character of sovereignty denotes that within a State, the authority of the sovereign must extend to all persons, associations and groups existing within the territory of the State. Hence, the commands of the sovereign are binding on all persons and groups. No one can be exempted or free from the all-embracing authority of the State. However, foreign diplomats and ambassadors enjoy immunity from the control of the State in which they reside. They are subject to the laws of their own states. But these extra-territorial privileges enjoyed by the diplomatic community under the provisions of international law is not a real limitation on the State’s sovereign power; for it is, after all, a matter of international courtesy and the sovereign may at any time withdraw the privileges granted to those who enjoy them.

4. Inalienability: Sovereignty is also inalienable. It cannot be transferred or parted with, without destroying sovereignty itself. In other words, no sovereign can claim to be sovereign after transferring its supreme powers to another person. However, the abdication of a monarch or sovereign or a change of government does not mean the alienation of sovereignty – in this case, sovereignty only shifts to a new bearer. When a state cedes a portion of its territory, it loses its sovereignty over the area ceded. For example, when the United States and its allies occupied Iraq , sovereignty shifted to them, but later sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqis soon after the elections.

5. Indivisibility: Sovereignty cannot be divided. The reason is that if sovereignty is divided, more than one state would exist. Sovereignty is an entire thing- to divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a state and we cannot think of two or more states sharing sovereignty. In a Federal state, there is no division of sovereignty as sovereignty rests with the Federal government. The division, distribution, delegation or sharing of powers between the Central government and the state governments do not affect the idea of undivided sovereignty. However, this characteristic has its own limitations. There are federations where sovereignty gets divided between the centre and the states. Different parties might be ruling at the same time in the states and the centre with different and some times opposite wills. As Lowell observes, “There can exist within the same territory two sovereigns issuing commands to same subjects touching different matters”. According to pluralists, sovereignty is divided between the state and other associations. According to them the state is not at all absolute and cannot represent the will of the community in all aspects of life.

6. Absoluteness: Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited. This means that neither within the state nor outside it is there any power which is superior to the sovereign. Within the state, the sovereign can make any law it pleases. It can even change the constitution itself. No other authority within the state has this power. Externally, the state is not subject to the control or domination of another state. In other words, there is no authority outside the state to which a sovereign is obedient or dependent. The state can enter into any treaty or have relations with any other state it wishes.

However this characteristic of sovereignty has been criticized from various view-points.

Customs, religion and principles of morality are a limitation upon state. No sovereign dare challenge these. Neither he can create nor destroy them.
In modern states, constitutions are written. They determine the powers and duties of state. Citizens are given fundamental rights, which become a limitation on the state and its sovereignty.
No state or sovereign possess powers without duties. This theory speaks of powers of the sovereign but not of his duties. State has a purpose, whatever it be and to the extent of that purpose, the state and its sovereignty is limited.
Externally, a state is equal to other states. This equality of states is a limitation on one another. International law imposes duties on states which they must perform. If they violate it, they are guilty of its breach.
Even the physical capacity of a state is its limitation. It is pointed out that legally too sovereignty is not absolute. State cannot make a law irrespective of its content and acceptability of it by the people. Laws are made not because the sovereign has power

Evolution of Political Science

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The History of Political Science

A curve of scientific progress in the study of politics begin in Greek political science, make modest gains in the Roman centuries, not much progress in the Middle Ages, rise a bit in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, some substantial gains in the 19th century and solid growth in the 20th century acquiring professional characteristics.

It properly begins with Plato (428-348 B.C.E.) {The Republic, The Statesman and The Laws} and refined by his disciple Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) {Politics}

Historical Development of Political Science

A dynamic science concerned with human beings as political animal and power-centered state.

Aristotle termed it ‘Master Science’ and held a philosophical and pragmatic view. ‘Good’ politics

Derived from combination of three Greek words – polis (city-state), polity (government or state or political org.) and politia (constitution).

For Gettel – ‘science of state’; for Seeley – ‘science of government’; Lindsay Rogers – ‘science of the art of government’; Paul Genet- ‘science of state and government’; Willoughby – ‘science of state, government and law’; Frederick Pollock – ‘science of politics’

Since 1948 UNESCO has designated the science as PS but after WWII in G. Britain preferred to call Politics.

The discipline came into separate existence from mid 20th century can be divided into two.

One following traditional norms and values identified with Classical Political Science and the other applying novel perspectives is Modern or New Political Science.

Perquisites of Democracy

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Elections on their own do not make a country democratic
Control over government decisions about policy constitutionally vested in elected representatives.
Elected representatives chosen in frequent and fair elections.
Elected representatives exercise their constitutional powers.
All adults have the right to vote in elections.
All adults have the right to run for public office.
Citizens have the right to express themselves on political matters, defined broadly, without the risk of state punishment.
Citizens have the right to seek out alternative sources of information, such as the news media, and such sources are protected by law.
Citizens have the right to form independent associations and organizations, including independent political parties and interest groups.
Government is autonomous and able to act independently from outside constraints (such as those imposed by alliances and blocs).
Citizens concerns are adequately responded and heard by the government.

Nature of the welfare state

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Welfare is not a charity but its right. The citizen of the state should accept it as the right and he/she has to ask for it. Welfare shouldn’t be accepted as facilities obtained by the hope from the state.
It should maintain the welfare environment. Until and unless people can’t accept the concept of welfare state, it should be performing various welfare activities.
It should eradicate the pauper mentality of the people. It should encourage the characteristic of self help and self motive among the people every time.

Modern or New Political Science

Political Theory Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Development after WWI and esp. in 1920s and 1930s. New explanation and perspectives.

Active after est. APSA and American Political Scientists at Chicago, Michigan, Princeton, Yale, etc. Then Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie Foundations etc

Departure from traditional PS, change in definition, scientific and pragmatic approach, fact laden, research oriented, logical, predictable.

Study of power not only state and government.

Laswell – Renaissance or recovery of Classical PS

Empirical approach adopted as used in Aristotle era.

State of power, its origin, development, activities, effect and interactions – Laswell, Kaplan etc

Refined, autonomous and neutral from political subject matter. Value-neutral. Study of process between the state and society – Powell, Bentley etc

1950-60 behaviouralism applied – Charles Merriam, David Easton, Powell, Almond, Laswell, Dahl, etc

8 principles of intellectual movement

intellectual uniformity,
verification of facts,
scientific method,
quantification,
value-free perspectives,
chronological development of knowledge,
use of natural sciences and interdisciplinary

Three aspects:

Political Activity – study, appraisal and explanation of actions, interactions and reactions of political activities, political sociology – state-society relations
Political Process – political analysis of state-society actors, Easton’s political method, system analysis and structural functionalism
Political Power – emphasis on power – 3 dimensions – political, economic & ideological – attributes of national power

Since 1960s another revolution in PS – post-behaviouralism.

APSA President David Easton declared new development in PS in 1969.

Forgo novice behaviouralism and added new relevancy to meet the contemporary situation e.g. human ideals, coordination of result and quality, respect to traditional norms and values, third world realities, peace, feminism, etc

New PS emphasized on scientism and factography and sidelined eternal norms and values; no recognition to law and ethics; critics declared it as unpolitical and untheoretical. Renaissance of traditional political ideals and values.