TyroCity: Political Theory and Thoughts Notes

Introduction to John Stuart Mill

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

About John Stuart Mill

Born in England.
Studied different great man’s life.
Inspired by utilitarian theory of Jeremy Bentham
Many article at times but main is ‘On Liberty’ in 1959. He has dealt about democracy, woman’s freedom, need of bicameral legislature and maximum exercise of liberty by the reasonable people.
‘On Liberty’ is a worldwide and famous book.

Relation between Political science and Sociology

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

Sociology is parent science of all social sciences so sociology is the fundamental social science. Political science is subdivision of sociology—former originated after the origin of organized society and sociology originated even in the era of unorganized society—even in pre-social life.

Political science has widened its scope to a good understanding of both the nature of society and the behavior of the individual which is merely a subject of sociology.

According to Prof. Giddings, “to teach the theory of the state to men who had not learned the first principles of sociology is like teaching astronomy or thermodynamics to men who have not learnt the Newtonian laws of motion.”

Revolution and social upheavals occur in society which affect political system, but to solve such social problems, government actions are to be regulated.

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.

Bureaucracy

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

Kautilya had organized a huge and intricate network of bureaucracy to manage the Mauryan empire. This also reflected the centralized character of the state. Bureaucracy had thirty divisions each headed by Adhyakshas (Chiefs). Reporting relationships were clearly specified. Kautilya had visualized the necessity of state provision of public goods which strengthened trade and commerce. The bureaucracy was involved in the provision of three of such goods – the ‘quality control machinery’, the system of currency, and the system of ‘weights and measures’. Quality control was a revolutionary concept for that era. This suggests that Mauryan empire had an active trading sector and the buyers (domestic and exports) were discerning. As a mark of quality, merchandise had to be marked with the Abhigyan Mudra (state stamp) in sindura (vermillion). Counterfeiting was strictly punished . Bureaucrats received a fixed pay and were also eligible for state subsidized housing. This is an example of Kautilya’s deep understanding of statecraft as even in later centuries (in other empires), officials were expected to compensate themselves by retaining a part of revenue extracted from the people (a kind of ad-valorem compensation). The ad-valorem arrangement provided an incentive for the official to squeeze the tax payer as much as possible (a short term on the part of the bureaucrat) as the bureaucratic tenure was not hereditary. Kautilya, given his experience as a Chief Minister, probably realized the peril of such an (ad valorem) arrangement and created a fixed pay compensation structure for the bureaucracy.36 Huge bureaucracy invariably result in a principal-agent problem. Kautilya sought to tackle this issue through three means – elaborately monitored standard operating procedures (SOPs), spies/intelligence organization, and decentralization of authority. SOPs minimized the room for subjective interpretation of the rules by the bureaucrats. The superiors carefully monitored the performance of the officials under their control.37 However this system of close monitoring must have resulted in enormous transaction costs. It was therefore supplemented by the intelligence organization which kept a watch on the corrupt practices of the officials. The exploits of the spies in catching corrupt officials were given wide publicity and this made the officials careful in their dealings with the citizens. Another measure to keep a check on the bureaucracy was decentralized-polycentric political arrangements which resulted in empowering of the local guilds. Thus the bureaucrats had to reckon with an effective local power center who were aware of the royal edicts and prevented the bureaucrat from substituting his/her objective function for the royal edict. It is interesting that Kautilya did not take recourse to ideology to discipline the bureaucracy. Probably he realized that if a bureaucrat is violating the SOPs he/she is already going against his dharma.

Development Process of Franchise

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

The primitive tribal theory-in the city states right to vote was an attribute of membership of the state. The feudal theory gives the right of vote to the owners of the land only.

The ethical theory gave the right of vote to all for the development of individual personality. Compulsory voting system: There is danger of being purchased and possibility of fear psychosis in the people. Two school of thought have been prominent in the development of franchise.

Universal franchise

During the 18th century, when the doctrine of natural rights equality of men and popular sovereignty were favorite themes of every political thinker, the demand was for universal franchise.
It was held that sovereignty ultimately resided in the people and it was the right of every citizen to vote and participate in the determination of the policy of government.
Right to vote only could provide equality of men and political equality.
Universal suffrage means universal adult suffrage.
In this system also it does not allow right of voting to minors, to persons of unsound mind or to aliens and criminals in confinements idiots and lunatics are also excluded.
To grant suffrage to some meant the exclusion of others from representation. Unrepresented interest were likely to be neglected by the government.

Limited Suffrage

The second school was led by Bluntschli, Lecky, J.S. Mill, Sir Henry Maine. They held the view that franchise was not an inherent rights of a citizen. It was a right conferred and limited by the state and it should not be granted to all. All citizens of the state should not possess the right to vote. This school of thought was against the idea of universal suffrage.

According to Bluntschli, “To vest the power of choosing those, who are to rule the state in the hands of incapable and unworthy classes would mean state suicide.

In the extension of suffrage to the masses, Lecky saw the danger government by the ignorant masses and therefore advocated restricted franchise based on education and property. His question is whether the world should be governed by its ignorance or by its intelligence?

J.S. Mill was an ardent supporter of proper education and property qualifications of citizens for the exercise of right to vote. He emphasized that those virtues can make man (human being) a reasonable.

Political right if limited by property qualifications is no right at all. It is tantamount (equal) to disfranchise and disqualifying a vast majority of the people.

As well, women were not given the right of vote till very recently, in US from 1920, in UK 1918, still it was limited and in 1928 full voting right was given. If women are not given the opportunity to express their consent, it is a negation of democracy. Both male and female are the people of the state. The old prejudices slowly have been disappeared and womanhood at par (equal) with man in the political life and social life.

Earlier opposition to adult suffrage including woman suffrage now has been replaced by the theme that right to vote is as a sign of political maturity, positive democracy, right to equality and liberty, etc. Universal adult franchise has now been the indispensable modern phenomenon of/for democracy.

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

Machiavelli’s Statecraft

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

The state should be a nation state.
State is the highest form of social organization to promote and protect human welfare.
The prince (king) should be most powerful to rule the fool people.
Men are born bad. There is no inherent virtue and goodness in them.
They are ungrateful, fickle (unable to decide), deceitful and coward driven by the motives of fear, lust for power, vanity and self interest.
Men are more prone to evil than to good.
The method of the government must therefore be one, i.e., force to bring such people into the track, to control them, to fulfill their desire of protection of life and property.
Force breeds fear and fear is more disciplinary than love.
It is through force and repression that the innate evil tendencies, selfishness and aggressiveness in men can be kept under check and control.
The king should always be respected and fearful before the people.
One should be confident that force used by the prince (king) is for the benefit of the people.
According to Cook, ‘Prince of Machiavelli is meant ruler to be dictator for public good not for his own pleasure and profit’.
The king must take advice from all but decision should be of his own.
The security of life and property of the people should be managed properly.
Neither in power not in possession, there is any limit to human desire.
Desire for both power and possession are in perpetual strife and competition which could lead to anarchy, so they would be silent by the imposition of force only in the cost of security of life and property.
An individual would more readily forgive the murder of his father than the confiscation of his patrimony.
Fear of punishment should be wide spread.
There are no words of religion and morality in the dictionary of politics.
State was neither moral nor immoral but non-moral.
So every means is justified if it is calculated t lead to the desired ends. State power is primary, religion and church is secondary having separate jurisdiction.
The prince cold use any means—fraud, forgery, trickery, breach of faith but should be powerful and forceful.
Prince should not use mercenary soldiers in his nation but should prepare own strong national army.
National army should always be loyal to king.
The prince should always be ready for war.
The prince should manage the balance of power in international affairs and maintain diplomatic relations, as far as possible, with many countries.
The government should be established in accordance with the development of society.
In educated, developed and public spirited society, the republican government (‘Discourses on Levy’) is the best form of government.
But anyway, the government should always be forceful, powerful and strong.
To Machiavelli, “Power is the end (goal) of the state.”

Origin of State

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

Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.

Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the rules of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman.

But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, – As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be attained about each one of them.

In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest.

Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is right when he says, First house and wife and an ox for the plough, for the ox is the poor man’s slave. The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men’s everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas companions of the cupboard, and by Epimenides the Cretan, companions of the manger.

But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled with the same milk. And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood.

As Homer says:
“Each one gives law to his children and to his wives.” For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times. Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but their ways of life to be like their own.

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the Tribe less, lawless, heartless one, whom Homer denounces – the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.

Cicero’s Concept of Law of Nature

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

To Cicero, there are two kinds of laws in the state. They are:

Law of nature
The legal enactments of law of the state

Attributes of Law of Nature

Natural law is a single law governing the whole universe.
It is indivisible and ancient.
It is right reason, eternal, immutable (no changeable) and it is the source of state itself.
It is self-imposed and spread among all itself.
Natural law is the law of moral as well as the law of God.
Natural law is not changeable.
There is consistency in natural law, no gap, no deadlock remains forever.
Equal treatment before the eyes of God and common justice, i.e., natural law.
His concept of law of nature is based on the doctrine of the natural equality of man.
Men are not equal in learning, wealth and physical vigor but equal in the possession of reason in their nature as human beings.
Inequality is man mad and not natural.

Three ideas stand out in the political theory of Cicero

1.The authority of the state proceeds from the people.
2.It should be exercised in accordance with law.
3.The exercise of the state authority is justified only on moral grounds.

Cicero gives emphasis on world unity, universal law, moral law and law of God which remained as a dominant factor over the whole medieval period.

Merits of Democracy

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

The participation of the individual members in the government facilitates to enlist their sympathy and co – operation to the success of the government.
It is an effective form to educate the public about political, economic and social affairs.
it is helpful to promote patriotism among the people and prevents occurrence of violent revolutions.
It helps to make progress and development and enables changes to take place in a peaceful manner.
It ensures to the people freedom of speech, conscience, assembly and action.
It guarantees liberty and equality, which are necessary for human development.

Kinds of Sovereignty

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

Sovereignty can be classified into different kinds. This classification is based on the location of sovereignty.

Titular Sovereignty: By titular sovereignty we mean sovereignty by the title only. It refers to the sovereign powers of the king or monarch who has ceased to exercise any real authority. In theory he may still posses all the powers but in practice some other person or body of persons enjoys sovereign power. Titular sovereign is only a symbol of authority, a legacy of past. Britain presents a good example of titular sovereign. The king is the titular head and he does not enjoy any real powers. Actual powers are enjoyed by council of ministers and parliament. In India president is a titular sovereign and the cabinet is a real sovereign.

De Facto and De Jure Sovereignty: De facto sovereignty indicates to a sovereign who without legal support or constitutional support enjoys sovereign power. De jure sovereign is recognized by law or the constitution, but not in position to practice its power. In case of revolutions, that is a successful overthrow of Theory of Sovereignty, by the existing regime in a state tree may be de facto and de jure sovereigns. For example when Mussolini came to power in Italy in 1922, de facto sovereignty passed into his hands although Victor Emmanual was the de jure sovereign. The military dictatorship of the present world, established after a coup d’etate also represents de facto sovereignty until it evolves suitable means to legitimize its authority. Usually de facto and de jure sovereign stay together for a very short period and the de facto sovereign tries to become De Jure sovereign. The de facto and de jure sovereigns should ultimately coincide; otherwise there is danger of conflict between them. New laws are made in order to give him definite status to the de facto sovereign to give it legal support.

Legal and Political Sovereignty: Distinction is some times drawn between legal and political sovereignty. The sovereign is supposed to be absolute and omnipotent. It functions according to its own will. Law is simply the will of sovereign. There is none to question its validity. Legal sovereign grants rights to its citizens and there can be no rights against him. It means rights of citizens depend on the will of legal sovereign and any time he can take away. Legal sovereign has characteristic as detailed below.

The legal sovereignty is always definite and determinate. Legal sovereignty may reside either in one person or in a body of persons. It is definitely organized, precise and known to law.

Rights of citizen are gift of legal sovereign; The will of state is expressed by the legal sovereign only; Legal sovereignty is absolute. It cannot be question. But behind the legal sovereignty there is another power, which is unknown to law. It is political sovereignty. In practice absolute and unlimited authority of the legal sovereignty does not exist anywhere. Even a dictator cannot act independently and exclusively. The will of legal sovereignty is actually sharpened by many influences, which are unknown to law. All these influences are the real power behind the legal sovereign; and this is called political sovereignty. As Professor Gilchrist says- “The political sovereign is the sum total of the influences in the state which lie behind the law.” Law does not know the political sovereignty. In modern representative democracies the political sovereignty is very often identified with either the whole mass of he people or with electorate or with public opinion. The legal sovereign cannot act against the will of political sovereign. Dicey says that “body is politically sovereign which the lawyers recognize there is another sovereign to whom the legal sovereign bow- that body is political sovereignty; that which is ultimately obeyed by the citizens of the state.” A lot of confusion arises when we attempt the exact definition of political sovereignty. It is a vague and indeterminate and cannot be located with exactness. It is suggested by some writers that there is no justification for making a distinction between legal and political sovereignty, as that involves the division of sovereignty, which is not possible.

Popular Sovereignty: When the sovereignty resides in the people of he state it is called as popular sovereignty. This theory was expounded by Rousseau, when later became the slogan of French Revolution. The doctrine of popular sovereignty regards people as the supreme authority. It is people who decide right or wrong. People are not bound by any natural or divine law. Government exists only as a tool for the good of the people. It should be held directly responsible to the people. It can exercise authority only on the basis of the law of land. Will of the people should not be ignored popular sovereignty is the basis of modern democratic system.

Political science and ethics (based on conduct and morality)

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

Political science is the science of political order and ethics is the science of moral order—one is incomplete without other. Plato considers politics as subdivision of ethics, the state to him should train men in a life of virtue.

According to Aristotle, political questions should be solved by man’s highest moral judgment based on ethics.

Politics divorced from ethics rests on a foundation of shifting sand, it leads to commercialization and vulgarization of values and virtues.

According to Ivor Brown, “ethical theory is incomplete without political theory because man is an associated creature and cannot live in isolation.

Political theory is idle without ethical theory because its study and result depends fundamentally on the scheme of moral values, our conception of right and wrong.

Mahatma Gandhi’s version of spiritualization of politics, his application of moral principles are truth, love and non-violence and achievement of God.